The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education

Abstract

Purpose-Most studies on higher education focus on students as customers, and evaluate student levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with their programs, while generally neglecting teacher work satisfaction. Thus, this study evaluates how employee dissatisfaction with various investment items determines the improvement priority. Design/methodology/approach-This study used the academic literature to establish a satisfaction model for higher education employees. The model is divided into six dimensions: organisation vision, respect, result feedback and motivation, management system, pay and benefits, and work environment. Using a questionnaire based on the model, 248 teachers were surveyed to investigate and analyze their importance-satisfaction level. The importance-satisfaction model (I-S model) was then applied to place each quality attribute into the IS model, and thus determine the improvement strategy. Findings-The analytical results showed that higher education employees focus on high salaries and fair promotion systems. Investigations of the job satisfaction of college teachers in Europe and America have produced similar results. Originality/value-The employee satisfaction model for the higher education sector not only considers satisfaction levels but also degrees of importance in deciding the improvement strategy.

Measuring the (dis) satisfaction of the employees in the Macedonian companies

“…The employees that are not motivated for work have a very low business success. The unmotivated employees are not interested in the quality of the products and services; they do not identify with the organization's values, are not connected to the organization or their problems, the development or the success and are often ready to leave that organization (Balbaster Benavent et al, 2005, Chen &Yang, 2006Kondo, 1995;Francis & Young, 2012;Parker, 2003;Sethi, 2000).…”

Academic Staff Perceptions of Service Quality Improvement in Ethiopian Public Higher Education Institutions

“…These dimensions are represented in the model below: Parasuraman, et al,1985:48 Despite its popularity, the SERVQUAL model has been criticised (for example, Cronin & Taylor, 1992;Teas, 1993a;Joseph & Joseph, 1997;O'Neill & Palmer, 2004;Chen et al, 2006). Because of such criticism of the SERVQUAL model, this research makes use of the modified SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al, 1991).…”

“…Brysland and Curry (2001) and Jongbloed et al (2008) also note that knowledge of what satisfies stakeholders and a consideration of their role in society are important steps in quality improvement initiatives for HEIs in the delivery of service quality and the assessment of their relationships with different stakeholders. Chen, Yang, Shiau and Wang (2006) note that employee satisfaction in their current working environment leads to a greater willingness and efficiency in performing organisational activities. They continue by declaring that the degree of teacher satisfaction has an influence on the performance of the institutions.…”

“…It was also developed in response to a lack of conclusive measuring tools designed for gauging service quality. The SERVQUAL model reveals the gap between customer perceptions and expectations of service quality, in order to determine the perceived service quality and to target these identified gaps for improvement (Parasuraman et al, 1988;Faganel, 2010;Chen et al, 2007;Nadiri, Kandampully & Hussain, 2009;Brysland & Curry, 2001;Chen et al, 2006;Quinn et al, 2009;Wright & O'Neill, 2002).…”

Impact of Prevailing HRM Practices on Job Satisfaction: A Comparative Study of Public and Private Higher Educational Institutions in India

“…It was observed in the results those assistant registrars are satisfied with the HRM practices and have a positive influence on job satisfaction. Chen et al, (2006) measured the job satisfaction of the 248 teachers in private university in China on the satisfaction determinants, namely organisation vision, respect, result feedback and motivation, management system, pay and benefits, and work environment. The analytical results showed that higher education employees focus on high salaries and fair promotion systems.…”