|
Dr. Manish Madan Associate Professor Rukmini Devi Institute of Advanced Studies MadhubanChowk, Rohini, Delhi Contact No. +91-9899602492 E-mail: dr.manish@rdias.ac.in, manishmadan_2203@yahoo.co.in |
Dr. Nidhi Gupta Professor & HOD – BBA Rukmini Devi Institute of Advanced Studies MadhubanChowk,Rohini, Delhi Contact No. +91-9971055100, +91 – 9582588073 E-mail: dr.nidhi@rdias.ac.in. |
Purpose: Everyone from managers, retention agents to HR need to get a handle on employee loyalty and satisfaction – how engaged is the workforce to the organization and are workers really contented with the way of things for gauging their choice to stay with the company. Measurement of employee satisfaction and their commitment towards their organizationare the main aspects of Human Resource Management. Companies have to make sure that employee satisfaction is high among the workers, which is a precondition for increasing productivity, responsiveness, quality and overall customer service. The litmus test can be conducted to study absenteeism, turnover and average length of service. If turnover is on the rise, loyalty levels are low and vice versa. Comparing them to industry averages gives good idea of attrition probabilities. Staff attendance, compliance with policies and confidence in leadership are other indirect indicators of adherence while excessive theft and disruption spell obvious lack of commitment.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Descriptive research has been applied, describes data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied. The researchers have used primary data through self-constructed structured Questionnaire and as far as the secondary data is concerned that was obtained from web sites, journals etc.Structured questionnaire was constructed to interview the employees of various Educational Institutions on 23 different parameters on Likert’s five point scale, which was later reduced to 5 factors by using the statistical technique of factor analysis.
Findings: It is found that the employees working in the Educational Institutions are satisfied in terms of Authority and work culture, Relationship with Peers, Salary and Career Advancement, Involvement and Training and Rotation of job.
Research Limitations/Implications: The study focuses on general problems faced by employees in the Educational institution. There might be certain more variables as one employee is satisfied on particular aspect but another may not on the same aspect.
Key Words: Employee Satisfaction, Satisfaction of Employees, Educational Institutions.
The relationship between how satisfied a people is with their job and their actual job performance is open to discussion and debate. It's hard to correlate those two aspects primarily because when people are asked if they get job satisfaction from working at ABC Company, a certain percentage will say yes just because they think if they say no, there could be a negative consequence. For instance, if you tell your boss you are not satisfied with your job, what if his reply is 'Then I guess you better leave'? Thus, while we understand there is a correlation between satisfaction and performance, it's hard to definitively nail it down without some sort of survey error being present. “Happy employees are productive employees.” “Happy employees are not productive employees.” These are the obvious statements we hear frequently but these are conflicting statements too made by HR professionals and managers in organizations. Now a days this becomes the hot topics for debate among practitioners are employee attitudes and job satisfaction even at a time when employees are increasingly important for organizational success and competitiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide greater understanding of the research on this topic and give recommendations related to the major practitioner knowledge gaps. As indicated indirectly in a study of HR professionals (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002), as well as based on our experience, the major knowledge gaps in this area are: (1) the causes of employee attitudes, (2) the results of positive or negative job satisfaction, and (3) how to measure and influence employee attitudes. According to a 2011 survey of U.S. households by the Conference Board, job dissatisfaction is widespread among workers of all ages across all income brackets. The study found that only 47% of those surveyed say they are satisfied with their jobs, down from 61.1 percent in 1987, the first year in which the survey was conducted. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently measured by organizations. Rating scale is the most common way of measurementwhere employees report their reactions to their jobs. Questions relate to salary, work responsibilities, variety of tasks, promotional opportunities the work itself and co-workers. Some questioners ask yes or no questions while others ask to rate satisfaction on 1 – 5 scale where 1 represents “not all satisfied” and 5 represents “extremely satisfied”.
Various components are considered crucial to an employee's job satisfaction. These include pay, promotion, benefits, supervisor personality, co-workers and safety on the job. These job characteristics affect how an employee feels on the job. There are other, more subtle influences on employee job satisfaction; including personality types and rudiments of workplace culture. According to Arnold et al (1998) the concept of job satisfaction has gained importance for two important reasons. Firstly, job satisfaction can be an indicator for someone’s general mental well-being. If a person is unhappy at work, it doesn’t seem likely that this person will be happy in general.Secondly, and more importantly for this project, the general assumption is that happiness at work improves work motivation and, in consequence, job performance. Job satisfaction has been an important focal point for organizational and industrial psychology. In defining job satisfaction the reference is often made to Locke’s (1976) description of job satisfaction as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Jex, 2002). The appraisal involves several elements related to the job such as salary, working conditions, colleagues and boss, career prospects and, of course, the intrinsic aspects of the job itself (Arnold et al, 1998).
In 1997, the US Department of Education conducted a large scale survey on American teachers. The study showed that a large proportion of American teachers were not contented with their workload, lacked resources to perform their routine tasks, lacked support receiving from school administrators and were not happy with the auditing procedures used to evaluate their work. The report identified “more administrative support and leadership, good student behavior, a positive school atmosphere, and teacher autonomy” as the working conditions that were associated with higher teacher satisfaction (US Department of Education, 1997). Other factors such as sector of education (state or independent schools), teachers’ background characteristics or school demographics or ambience were not influential towards increasing levels of job satisfaction. The study also found that those teachers who received parental support reported higher levels of job satisfaction than teachers who did not. The study also revealed that there was no correlation between teacher satisfaction and benefits such as salary, holidays and working hours. Research conducted by Lumsden(1998) showed that teachers spent most of their time in the classroom and therefore had few opportunities to share their successes with colleagues. Hence they preferred to rely more often on the students’ level of response.
Education sector is seen as more to be a pure & divine service. As workforce and expertise providers, employees are actively involved in the production or creation of a value within a company and are one of the primary resources needed in every creation process. Every company should consider their employees as valuable assets. This asset needs to be developing starts from the recruitment process until their development which is a considerable cost for any organization. Moreover, by looking at the condition of industry competition that is increasingly intense these days, every company needs workforce support and reliable employees those can assist them to reach their objectives.
Satisfaction is a relevant measure because many studies have demonstrated that other factors being equal, satisfied individuals are likely to be willing to exert more effort than unsatisfied individuals (Bryant, 2006; Özgüngör, 2010). The same holds true for satisfied faculty members and students as well in education institutes.
As employee turnover continues to be a serious business predicament, the concept of job satisfaction assumes significance not only for contemporary business scenario but also for educational sectors that are facingacute shortage of qualified and competitive teaching work force. Faculty job satisfaction levels seem to have direct bearing on the institutional as well as the student development and an understanding of job satisfaction, retention and employee turnover aspects of the faculties would help policy makers understand a very important organ of the society, responsible for future of the nation and generation.
Some studies also threw the light on the fact that teacher job satisfaction is clearly related to levels of intrinsic motivators such as the intellectual challenge of teaching and career growth. On the other hand, it is perceived that faculty’s job dissatisfaction has also been linked to work overload, poor pay and the depiction of faculties by the media. On a similar line of thought, Watt and Richardson (2007) argue that career development aspirations are important factors in jobsatisfaction. Therefore if the teaching environment does not facilitate the satisfaction needs of teachers, then teachers are unhappy and unproductive.
Singh and Rawat (2010) and Shann (2001) identified other factors that contribute to increased teacher discontentment: problems arising from changes in organizational routines, overwork – especially paperwork, students’ evaluations, schools’ grading procedures, behavior problems, low pay, student indiscipline, few possibilities for career progression and the overall decline of society’s esteem towards education and training. Furthermore, Arnett and Polkinghorne (2010) identified some other factors as contributing to teacher’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction: nature of recent education reforms, inclusion of students with special needs, support and recognition from school or college administrator, faculty’s pay, physical environment or the ambience of the school, daily workload of teaching itself, class size, student discipline and behavior, lack of resources for delivering the quality education and lack of opportunities for career progression.
The need has been arisen to identify the issues associated with faculty job satisfaction and retention and lay concrete solutions for the same. In an attempt to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education to 21% by the end of the 12th five-year plan period from the current 13.5%, MHRD has formulated an action plan to achieve this target. Raising the GER would be the cause of an additional enrollment of over 26 million in higher education and almost one million school teachers by 2020. For faculty attraction and retention, the ministry is mulling Human Resource Planning and Management (HRPM) centers at the university level to assess faculty requirement and design their overall academicdevelopment by research and faculty development programmes such as seminars, training, workshops, incentives and award schemes.
From the Metlife Survey of American Teachers conducted by Harris Interactive, The following facts came into light:-
1. Teacher job satisfaction has dropped 15 points since 2009, from 59% who were very satisfied to 44% who are very satisfied, the lowest level in over 20 years.
2. The percentage of teachers who say they are very or fairly likely to leave the particular occupation has increased by 12 points since 2009, from 17% to 29%.
3. The percentage of teachers who do not feel their job is secure has grown since 2006 from eight percent to thirty four percent.
4. Majorities of parents and teachers say that public school teachers are treated as professionals by the community (71% of parents, 77% of teachers), that public school teachers’ health insurance benefits are satisfactory for the work they do (63% of parents, 67% of teachers), and that public school teachers’ retirement benefits are reasonableas per their work profile (60% of parents, 61% of teachers).
5. Slightly more than half (53%) of parents and two-thirds (65%) of teachers say that public school teachers’ salaries are not fair for the work they do.
6. Teachers with lower job satisfaction are less likely than others to feel that their job is secure (56% vs. 75%) or that they are treated as a professional by the community (68% vs. 89%).
7. Teachers with lower job satisfaction are more likely to be in schools that have had layoffs of teachers (49% vs.37%) or other school staff (66% vs. 49%), or the reduction or elimination of arts or music programs (28% vs.17%), after-school programs (34% vs. 23%), or health or social services (31% vs. 23%).
Keith Davis , “Job satisfaction is defined as “Favorableness or favorableness with which the employees view their work and results when there is a fit between job characteristic and wants of the employees”.
Stephen P. Robbins: Job satisfaction as the “Difference between the amount of rewards the workers receive and the amount they believe they should receive”. Further he says, “Job satisfaction is an individual general attitude towards his or her job”.
C.B.Mamoria explains: “Job satisfaction is the collection of tasks and responsibilities regularly assigned to one person while a job is a group of positions, which involves essentially the same duties, responsibility, skill and knowledge”.
In Locke words , “Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience”.
Robert L. Kahn reveals, “Job satisfaction does seem to reduce absence, turnover and perhaps accident rates”.
Robert A. Baron : Job satisfaction is the positive or negative attitude held by individuals toward their job Further he says, “Job satisfaction is defined as individual cognitive, affective and evaluative reaction towards their job”.
According to Heskett et al (1994), more satisfied employees, stimulate a chain of positive actions which end in an improved companyperformance. In another research it is said that employee satisfaction influenced employee productivity, absenteeism and retention, (Derek R. Allen and Merris Wilburn, 2002). The success of any company is directly link to the satisfaction of the employees who embody that company, that retaining talented people is critical to the success of any organization (Freeman, 2005). Studies show that businesses that excel in employee satisfaction issues reduced turnover by 50% from the norms, increased customer satisfaction to an average of 95 % & lower labor cost by 12%. (Carpitella, 2003). The more satisfied an employee is, the less turnover and absenteeism occurs (Maloney and McFillen, 1986).Judge, et. al, (1993), on the other hand, mentions that employee satisfaction is positively correlated with motivation, job involvement, organizational behavior, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, mental health, and job performance, and negatively related to absenteeism, turnover, and perceived stress and identify it as the degree to which a person feels satisfied by his/her job. In contrast, Rousseau (1978) identified three components of employee satisfaction: they are attributes of the organization, job task factors, and personal characteristics.India is having one of the largest Higher Education (HE) systems in the world. In Indian HE system the degree structure contains three principle levels of qualifications; the undergraduate level, post-graduate level and doctoral/pre-doctoral level; also included several diploma courses at undergraduate and post graduate level. Management institutes a part of higher education system, determine the career paths of the youth and in turn the future of the country. Students, parents, teachers, staff and society in general are the stakeholders of these institutes. This is evident that faculty members, the core eighty percent human resource of any management institute, have the potential and power to transform the future generation of our country.
| YEAR | AUTHOR | FINDINGS |
| 1992 | Roznowski and Hulin | The most important information to have regarding an employee in an organization is a validated measure of his/her level of job satisfaction. |
| 1997 | Nancy C. Morse | “Satisfaction refers to the level of fulfillment of one’s needs, wants and desire. Satisfaction depends basically upon what an individual wants from the world, and what he gets.” Employee satisfaction is a measure of how happy workers are with their job and working environment. |
| 1997 | Hunter &Tietyen | Employees are more loyal and productive when they are satisfied. |
| 1997 | Spector | Job satisfaction as all the feelings that a given individual has about his/her job and its various aspects. Employee satisfaction is a comprehensive term that comprises job satisfaction of employees and their satisfaction overall with companies‟ policies, company environment etc. |
| 2002 | Dinham and Scott | Has shown that teachers derive satisfaction by matters intrinsic to the role of teaching such as student successes, counseling students, positive relationships with parents and students, and personal growth. External factors such as salaries, holidays and working hours did not rank high in teacher satisfaction levels. |
| 2006 | Miller | There is no limit for the employees to reach the full satisfaction and it may vary from employee to employee. Sometimes they need to change their behaviors in order to execute their duties more effectively to gain greater job satisfaction. |
| 2006 | Zembylas&Papanastasiou | Job satisfaction as a social construct does not have a precise definition despite having drawn the attention of a number of researchers. Teacher job satisfaction may be defined as the teacher’s “affective relation to his or her teaching role and is a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from teaching and what one perceives it is offering to a teacher”. |
| 2007 | Bhatti&Qureshi | It is sure that there may be many factors affecting the organizational effectiveness and one of them is the employee satisfaction. Effective organizations should have a culture that encourages the employee satisfaction |
| 2007 | Kaliski | Job satisfaction is a worker’s sense of achievement and success on the job. It is generally perceived to be directly linked to productivity as well as to personal well-being. Job satisfaction implies doing a job one enjoys, doing it well and being rewarded for one‟s efforts. Job satisfaction further implies enthusiasm and happiness with one‟s work. Job satisfactionis the key ingredient that leads to recognition, income, promotion, and the achievement of other goals that lead to a feeling of fulfillment. |
| 2008 | Moyes, Shao & Newsome | Employee satisfaction may be described as how pleased an employee is with his or her position of employment. |
| 2010 | Singh and Rawat | Identified other factors that contribute to increased teacher discontentment: problems arising from changes in administrative routines, overwork – especially paperwork, students’ evaluations, schools’ grading procedures, behavior problems, low pay, student indiscipline, few possibilities for career progression and the overall decline of society’s esteem towards teaching. |
| 2011 | BrikendAziri | Studied Job Satisfaction and found that Job satisfaction is under the influence of a series of factors such as: The nature of work, Salary, Advancement opportunities, Management, Work groups and Work conditions. It is one of the major challenges for today‟s organization. Job satisfaction represents a combination of positive or negative feelings that workers have towards their work. Meanwhile, when a worker employed in a business organization, brings with it the needs, desires and experiences which determinates expectations that he has dismissed. |
Table 1: Contribution of Researchers
1. To study the satisfaction level of employees of educational Institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.
2. To study the satisfaction level of employees of educational institutions between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.
3. To study the satisfaction level regarding training opportunities with respect to different age groups.
4. To study the overall satisfaction of employees in the educational Institutions.
HN1: There is no difference in satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.
HA1: There is difference in satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.
HN2: There is no difference of satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.
HA2: There is difference of satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.
HN3: There is no difference in the satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group.
HA3: There is difference in the satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group.
HN4: Employees are not satisfied in the educational Institutions.
HA4: Employees are satisfied in the educational Institutions.
Research Design
A research design is a systematic plan to study a scientific problem.Descriptive research has been applied, which is also known as statistical research, describes data and characteristics about the population or phenomenon being studied.
Sources of Data
To cater the need of the research, the researchers have used primary data through self-constructed structured Questionnaire and as far as the secondary data is concerned that was obtained from web sites, journals etc.
Data Collection Tool
Structured questionnaire was constructed to interview the employees of various Educational Institutions on 23 different parameters like: Salary, Job rotation, Work environment, welfare measures in the educational institutions etc. measured on Likert’s five point scale, which was later reduced to 5 factors by using the statistical technique of factor analysis.
Sampling Technique
Under the probabilistic sampling techniques, systematic sampling was done.
Sample Size
Sample sizes of 150 employees from various departments of educational Institutions were taken for the study.
Statistical Tools Used
IBM SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), for data analysis and as far as for hypothesis testing the statistical tools used are Chi square test for factor, Kruskal Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test etc and for the reduction of factors the factor analysis is done using Rotated component matrix and for the reliability the cronbach’s alpha was calculated and sample adequacy was tested on KMO and Bartlett’s Test.
Factor Analysis
Data reduction technique was used to find out the major factors that contribute towards the employee satisfaction.
KMO and Barlett’s Test
| Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. | 0.902 | |
| Bartlett's Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 1624.885 |
| Df | 253 | |
| Sig. | 0.000 |
Table 2: KMO and Barlett’s test of Sphericity
From table 2, it is found that the value for Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was more than 0.6, and it is 0.902 also Bartlett's Test of Sphericity has sig value less than 0.05 at 5 % level of significance. So factor analysis was conducted successfully for data reduction.
Rotated Component Matrix
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Duties with authority | 0.745 | ||||
| Respect given by superiors | 0.648 | ||||
| Number of working hours in Educational Institution. | 0.632 | ||||
| Fair Treatment by the superiors and management of Institution. | 0.541 | ||||
| Support from superiors and management of Institution. | 0.528 | ||||
| Freedom to take Decisions. | |||||
| Work Recognition | |||||
| Environment of working in Team | 0.761 | ||||
| Treatment of Mistakes | 0.682 | ||||
| Freedom of suggestions | 0.657 | ||||
| Comfortable discussion on personal issues. | 0.631 | ||||
| Proper guidance from superiors and management of Institution. | 0.612 | ||||
| Clarity of Role | |||||
| Satisfied with salary and rewards. | 0.862 | ||||
| Opportunities for career development | 0.731 | ||||
| Opportunities for further study | 0.629 | ||||
| Appreciation of Creativity and Innovations. | |||||
| Satisfied with Welfare Facilities. | |||||
| Involvement in Decision Making | 0.638 | ||||
| Training and Development activities. | 0.549 | ||||
| Full Utilization of Potential | 0.521 | ||||
| Proper Division of Work | |||||
| Turnover of Job | 0.831 |
Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix
From the table 3, the 23 variables are condensed to five factors viz.
Factor 1: This factor explains the first component and is designated as “Authority and Work Culture”.
Factor 2: This factor explains the second component and is designated as “Relationship with Peers”.
Factor 3: This factor explains the third component and is designated as “Salary and Career Advancement”.
Factor 4: This factor explains the fourth component and is designated as “Involvement and Training”.
Factor 5: This factor explains the Fifth component and is designated as “Turnover of Job”.
From the above table 3, it is found that there are certain variables which are of some importance in the employee satisfaction but does not contribute in the satisfaction of employees in the education sector. These variables are Freedom to take Decisions, Work recognition, clarity of role, Appreciation of Creativity and Innovations, satisfied with welfare facilities and proper division of work.
Total Variance Explained
| Components | Rotation sums of squared Loadings | ||
| Total | Percentage of Variance | Cumulative Percentage | |
| 1 | 3.562 | 15.741 | 15.741 |
| 2 | 3.401 | 15.103 | 30.844 |
| 3 | 2.841 | 12.459 | 43.303 |
| 4 | 2.457 | 10.671 | 53.974 |
| 5 | 1.430 | 6.932 | 60.906 |
Table 4: Total Variance Explained
Thus all the factors i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are capable of explaining 60.906 of the total variance.
In order to check the normality of variables, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied and it was observed that significant value of all the variables is less than 0.05 i.e. at 5% level of significance. So the data is found to be normal. As the data is normal so for hypothesis testing non- parametric tests were applied.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Measurement of satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.
HN1: There is no difference in satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.
HA1: There is difference in satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.
Test Statistics
| Test Statistics | Salary and Career Advancement |
| Chi – Square | 18.42 |
| Df | 3 |
| Asymp. Sig. | 0.000 |
| a. Kruskal-Wallis Test | |
| b. Grouping Variable: Experience | |
Table 5: Test Statistics of satisfaction of employees regarding salary with respect to experience
Kruskal – Wallis test is applied to measure the satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience. From the table 5, it is found that the Asymp. Sig. value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 i.e. 5% level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted that is there is difference in satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.
Measurement of satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.
HN2: There is no difference of satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.
HA2: There is difference of satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.
Test Statistics
| Turnover of Job | |
| Mann-Whitney U | 347.9 |
| Wilcoxon W | 384.7 |
| Z – value | -1.832 |
| Asymp. Sig. (two tailed) | 0.173 |
| Grouping Variable: Gender | |
Table 6: Test Statistics of satisfaction of employees between the gender regarding turnover of job
Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W testsare applied to measure the satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.From the table 6, it is found that the Asymp. Sig. value is 0.173 which is more than 0.05 i.e. 5% level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis is accepted and the alternative hypothesis is rejected that is there isno difference of satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job..
Measurement of satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group.
HN3: There is no difference in the satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group.
HA3: There is difference in the satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group.
Test Statistics
| Involvement and Training | |
| Chi-Square | 7.931 |
| Df | 4 |
| Asymp. Sig. | 0.074 |
| a. Kruskal-Wallis Test | |
| b. Grouping Variable: Age | |
Table 7: Test Statistics of satisfaction of employees in training opportunities
Kruskal – Wallis test is applied to measure the satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group. From the table 7, it is found that the Asymp. Sig. value is 0.074 which is more than 0.05 i.e. 5% level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis is accepted and the alternative hypothesis is rejected that is there is no difference in the satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group.
Measurement of Satisfaction level of employees in the Educational Institutions.
HN4: Employees are not satisfied in the educational Institutions.
HA4: Employees are satisfied in the educational Institutions.
Organizational Culture
Test Statistics for Factor 1: Organizational Culture
| Test Statistics | Duties with authority | Respect given by superiors | Number of working hours in Educational Institution. | Fair Treatment by the superiors and management of Institution. | Support from superiors and management of Institution. |
| Chi-Square | 112.842 | 186.229 | 122.820 | 139.294 | 152.072 |
| Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Asymp. Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 8: Test Statistics forOrganizational Culture
It is found that for all the variables under factor 1 had a significance value less than 0.05 at 5% level of significance, thus we fail to accept the null hypothesis. Thus we could say that employees are satisfied within the organization.
Interpersonal Behavior
Test Statistics for Factor 2: Interpersonal Behavior
| Test Statistics | Environment of working in Team | Treatment of Mistakes | Freedom of suggestions | Comfortable discussion on personal issues. | Proper guidance from superiors and management of Institution. |
| Chi-Square | 139.652 | 158.401 | 191.842 | 120.762 | 171.832 |
| Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Asymp. Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 9: Test Statistics for Interpersonal Behavior
It is found that for all the variables under factor 2 had a significance value less than 0.05 at 5% level of significance, thus we fail to accept the null hypothesis. Thus we could say that employees are satisfied within the organization.
Employee Compensation, Benefits & Welfare Schemes
Test Statistics for Factor 3: Employee Compensation, Benefits& Welfare Schemes
| Test Statistics | Satisfied with salary and rewards. | Opportunities for career development | Opportunities for further study |
| Chi-Square | 119.742 | 109.621 | 78.023 |
| Df | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Asymp. Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 10: Test Statistics for Employee Compensation, Benefits & Welfare Schemes
It is found that for all the variables under factor 3 had a significance value less than 0.05 at 5% level of significance, thus we fail to accept the null hypothesis. Thus we could say that employees are satisfied within the organization.
Employee Empowerment, Training,& Development
Test Statistics for Factor 4: Employee Empowerment, Training,& Development
| Test Statistics | Involvement in Decision Making | Training and Development activities. | Full Utilization of Potential |
| Chi-Square | 56.921 | 68.928 | 119.632 |
| Df | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Asymp. Sig. | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 11: Test Statistics for Employee Empowerment, Training, & Development
It is found that for all the variables under factor 4 had a significance value less than 0.05 at 5% level of significance, thus we fail to accept the null hypothesis. Thus we could say that employees are satisfied within the organization.
of Job
Test Statistics for Factor 5: Turnover of Job
| Test Statistics | Rotation of Job |
| Chi-Square | 98.037 |
| Df | 4 |
| Asymp. Sig. | 0.000 |
Table 12: Test Statistics for Turnover of Job
It is found that for all the variables under factor 5 had a significance value less than 0.05 at 5% level of significance, thus we fail to accept the null hypothesis. Thus we could say that employees are satisfied within the organization.
It is being found that the employees working in the Educational Institutions are satisfied in terms of Authority and work culture, Relationship with Peers, Salary and Career Advancement, Involvement and Training and Rotation of job.There is difference in satisfaction of employees of educational institutions regarding salary with respect to experience.There is no difference of satisfaction between the gender groups regarding turnover of job.There is no difference in the satisfaction level of employees in training opportunities with respect to age group.
