Based on Table 4, the independent variable which is the reward structures has fair correlation with the dependent variable (i.e. job satisfaction). This is because the correlation (R) for this research is 0.637 whereas the coefficient of determination (R²) is 0.406 for the examined regression model. From the analysis, this reveals that the regression line could have a significant account for 40.6% of the variation of job satisfaction. In contrast, it shows that there is 59.4% of the variation of job satisfaction could not be presented by the equation. Therefore, there is a possibility that other additional variables which are important in explaining factors affecting job satisfaction
8
which are not covered in this study. Hence, the results show that 40.6% of the variance in the job satisfaction has been significantly fair as explained by the two independent variables.
Based on Table 5, it shows that F value of 22.593 is significant at the 0.000 level. This is because the p-value is 0.00 is less than 0.005 (p˂0.005). Overall, the regression model with independent variable of the reward structures was suitable in explaining the variation of job satisfaction. In addition, Table 6 shows t the reward structure has a significant relationship with job satisfaction. This is because the p-value of reward structures variable is 0.005. The Coefficients with the p-values less than alpha are statistically significant. Thus, the coefficients having a p-value of 0.05 or less would be statistically significant. The results show that reward structures was a significant determinant of job satisfaction.
The results showed a significant relationship between reward structures with job satisfaction with significant value of 0.005 levels. Therefore, the hypothesis previously stated is accepted and it is concluded that there is a positive relationship between reward structures with job satisfaction. This is also supported by a descriptive analysis on reward structures indicating 60% of the academic staffs were satisfied and very satisfied with reward structures in UniKL (Refer Table 3). Hence, it can be concluded that the respondents are mostly satisfied with the reward structures scheme. According to Beer and Walton (1990), satisfaction with the reward is related to what the employees expect and what they received regarding their job. Thus, this result advocated that the respondents‟ expectations in terms of rewards have been met.
Based on previous literature reviews, most researchers expected these results affect positively on the overall job satisfaction. According to Luthans (2005), as in Maslow‟s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, the most basic need of job satisfaction that required to be fulfilled is salary and pay. This finding is also supported by a study conducted by Oshagbemi (2000) among the UK academicians as the study found out a significant relationship between salary, rank of employees and their levels of job satisfaction. In Malaysia, Solucis and Syed Shah (2006) found that there is
Table 5: ANOVA
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 9.739 3 3.246 22.593 .000b
Residual 14.225 99 .144
Total 23.964 102
a.Dependent Variable: Job satisfaction b. Predictors: (Constant), Reward structures Table 6: Coefficients
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1.380 .232 5.960 .000 reward .249 .087 .279 2.854 .005
9
indeed a significant association between pay, promotion and benefits to job satisfaction among academic staff in private universities.
4. CONCLUSION
The impact of reward structure on job satisfaction showed that the academic staff at UniKL mostly satisfied with their jobs. This is in line with the primary objective of this study in which to examine the levels of job satisfaction among the academic staff at this university. The findings of this study revealed that the academic staff in UniKL were satisfied with their job and the reward structure legalized. In addition, the hypothesis is accepted based on the findings from the linear regression demonstrating that there is a positive relationship between reward structures on job satisfactions.
There is several limitations worth to identify in this study. The questionnaire designed for the present study is to determine how satisfied the academic staff in terms of the reward structure and job satisfaction. However, it does not identify an in depth information on job satisfaction as this kind of information is limited for the present research purposes only. Therefore, it is recommended that a qualitative study which can be combined with the statistical analysis to provide a triangulation approach to be conducted. Due to limited sample and data collected through the primary survey, the data need
The questionnaire used for this study emphasizes on job satisfaction among the academic staff at UniKL only and it should not be generalized to other institutions. However, the instrument used for this study can be adapted and utilized in other relevant sectors in Malaysia dealing with job satisfaction. For future reference, it is recommended that this study to be expanded in larger context of tertiary levels. This study can be replicated to other institutes or universities within Malaysia especially in Klang Valley where there are high number of higher learning institutions established. As job satisfaction plays such an important role in contributing to the productivity levels of employees in the companies, it may be feasible to extend this study to other industries in Malaysia. The present study offers interesting insight in assessing the limited number of researches in the body of knowledge on job satisfaction among the academic staff in UniKL.
5. References
Arnold, H.J. and Feldman, D.C. (1986). Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. A. Solucis and Syed Shah Alam.(2005) .Job satisfaction among academic staff in Private
Universities in Malaysia . Journal of Social Science.72-75
Bedeian, A.G., Ferris, G.R. and Kacmar, K.M. (1992). Age, Tenure, and Job Satisfaction: A Tale of Two Perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 33-48.
Burke, R. J. (1999). Workholism among women managers: Work and life satisfactions and psychological well-being. Equal Opportunities International, 18(7), 25-35.
Bohloko, G. M. (1999). Job Satisfaction Among Academic Staff At Colleges of Education in the Free State. Master of Education thesis, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein Bryman, A. (1995). Research Methods and Organization Studies. London: Routledge
Clegg, C.W. (1983). Psychology of Employee Lateness, Absenteeism, and Turnover: A
Methodological Critique and an Empirical Study”. Journal of Applied Psychology. February: 88- 101 as cited in Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational Behaviour, p. 216. 10th ed. Boston:
10
Fauziah N., Kamaruzaman J. (2009). Level of job satisfaction among Malaysia academic staff. Asian Social Science, 122-126
Gay, L.R. and Diehl, P.L. (1992). Research Methods for Business and Management. New York: Macmillan
Gray, K.C. (2005). Job Satisfaction. [online]. Illinois: College of DuPage. Available from
http://www.cod.edu/grayke/210Ch8.html
Green, J.( 2000). Job Satisfaction of Community College Chairpersons. [online]. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Virginia. Available from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12072000-130914/.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and Interpersonal Moderators of Theft Reactions to Underpayment Inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, February: 81-103 as cited in Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. and Buelens, M. (1999). Organizational Behaviour, p.214. London: McGraw-Hill
Harrison, G. L. (1995). Satisfaction, tension and interpersonal relations: A cross-cultural
comparison of managers in Singapore and Australia. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10, 13-19.
Kamaruzaman J., Zaliha H., Ju S.Y, Salleh D. (2009). The life satisfaction of academic and non- academic in a Malaysia Higher Education Institution. International Education Studies, 144-150 Kinicki, A.J. Schriesheim, C.A. McKee, F.M. and Carson, K.P. (1997). The Construct Validity of the
Job Descriptive Index (JDI): Review, Critique, and Analysis as cited in Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. and Buelens, M. (1999). Organizational Behaviour, p. 199. London: McGraw-Hill
Koch, J. and Steers, R. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public employees. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 12, 119-128.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNall
Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational Behaviour. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Newstrom, J.W. and Davis, K. (1993). Organizational Behaviour – Human Behaviour at Work. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Oshagbemi. (1999). Academic and their managers. A comparative study in job satisfaction, 108- 120.
Robbins, S.P. (2001). Organizational Behaviour. 9th ed. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally as cited in Arnold, H.J. and Feldman, D.C. (1986). Organizational Behavior, p.99. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Spector, P. E. (1982). Behaviour in organisations as a function of employee‟s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin,91, 482-497.
Testa, M. R. (2001). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and effort in the service environment. The journal of Psychology, 135, 256-266.
Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1991). Personnel Management: A New Approach. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
11
University of Minnesota. (MSQ) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. [online]. Available from http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/vpr/msqinf.html
Vecchio, R.P. (2000). Organizational Behaviour. 4th ed. Orlondo: Harcourt.
Welsh, H. P. and La Van, H. (1981). Interrelationships between organizational commitment and job characteristics, job satisfaction, professional behavior, and organizational climate. Human Relations Journal, 34, 1079-1089.