Técnicas e instrumentos para recolectar la información

Every organisation has three types of general resources which are physical, financial and human. The most critical one is, no doubt, the human resources of an organisation because they have the capability to accelerate the process of organisational development or to demolish the organisational progress (Rasheed, Aslam & Sarwa, 2010). Olusola (2001:569) is of a similar view and adds that the most powerful resources for the achievement of organisational goals is the human resources; however, their effectiveness depends on the way in which they perform their job duties. Accordingly, work behaviour is the formal behaviour that employees exhibit or do in an employment (Olusola, 2001:570); thus it is manifest when an employee does something that is related to their work (Mawoli & Babandako, 2011:2).

Work behaviour also represents both extent and the way in which employees perform the job tasks according to the prescribed job description. Thus it is an important factor for individual work effectiveness and the organisation’s success or failure (Saeed, Mussawar, Lodhi, Iqbal, Nayab & Yaseen, 2013; Saetang, Sulumnad, Thampitak & Sungkaew, 2010). As is the case in other social institutions, the quality of the educational process and its products are unquestionably influenced by the lecturer’s work behaviour because they are expected to lead to a very high job performance (Ololube, 2006). The work behaviour of academic staff as teachers and researchers determines much of the student satisfaction, has an impact on student learning and, thus, leads to the contribution of HEIs to the society (Machado-Taylor, Soares, Ferreira & Gouveia, 2011:35).

Due to the centrality of the roles that it plays in HEIs, the work behaviour of academic staff as teachers and researchers has been found to determine much of the student satisfaction and to have an impact on student learning and the contribution of HEIs to the society (Mammen, 2006). In fact, “the entire edifice of education is shaky if the performance of teachers is weak and ineffective (Hanif, 2010:2). For this reason, effective work behaviour of teachers is a must for educational improvement (Hanif, 2010). Efficiency also suffers with demotivated and dissatisfied personnel (Rasheed, et al., 2010; Olusola, 2001) because academic staff motivation is a significant contributor in delivering knowledge and grooming students to become global citizens and masters of their specialised fields. Moreover, academic staff motivation is important because motivated lecturers are likely to work for educational reforms and to perform highly (Rasheed et al., 2010). Their performance is therefore crucial for the university (Beyth-Marom, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, Bar-Haim & Godder, 2006).

In HE settings, Steyn (2002:84) argues that the work behaviour of academic staff can be improved when attention is paid to the kind of work environment that enhances the staff sense of professionalism, motivation and morale. Therefore, by identifying the factors that enhance the motivation and morale of academic staff, management of HEIs can implement and execute effective strategies to ensure that

academics perform their duties in an effective, enthusiastic and motivated manner. However, management needs to recognise that different motivators are appropriate for different staff members and good management consists of recognising and working with individual differences. Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that the study of the relationship between job satisfaction and work behaviour has a controversial history and much research is still pending on this issue (Mawoli & Babandako, 2011; Saari & Judge, 2004).

The first subsidiary question of this study is: How do reflexive interpretations of cultural expectations tied to membership in disciplinary communities influence the negotiation of academic identities and work behaviour of academic staff? Thus, the study explores the relationship between academic identity and work behaviour. I It is, therefore crucial to note that the way employees do their work is not a single unified construct but it is a multidimensional construct consisting of more than one kind of behaviour (Mawoli & Babandako, 2011:3). Ahmed, Hussain, Ahmed, Ahmed and ud Din (2012:337) explain this further:

Aptitude, attitude, subject mastery, teaching methodology, personal characteristics, the classroom environment, general mental ability, personality, relations with students, preparation and planning, effectiveness in presenting subject matters, relations with other staff, self-improvement, relations with parents and community, poise, intellect, teaching techniques, interaction with students and teaching competence demonstrated [also affect the work behaviour of academic staff].

It has also been argued that work behaviour is multidimensional; it is influenced by (1) individual attributes, abilities and skills, (2) organisational variables, and (3) the individuals’ particular attitudes, perceptions and motivation to perform (Olson & Borman, 1989, cited in Bell, 2008). Wiley (1997) concurs and states that in most instances, employee performance is determined by three things, ability, the work environment and motivation. According to French (2005:79) there are three components of work behavior, individual attributes, organisational support and work effort. Firstly, ‘individual attributes’ relate to ability (to accomplish tasks) and job competence (knowledge, thought processes and/or attitudes) which are likely to lead to meeting set performance standards (Pinder, 2008:20).

Secondly, ‘organisational support’ influences work behaviour since inadequacies and situational constraints such as poor time planning, inadequate budgets, problems with work technology, unclear instruction, unfair levels of expected performance and inflexibility of procedures (French et al., 2005) can render even those who are motivated to perform well unable to do so. Lastly, work behaviour may be thought of in terms of task and contextual performance which relate to the effectiveness with which employees perform activities that contribute to the organisation’s technical and social contexts

(Jankingthong & Rurkkhum, 2012:115). In terms of situational causes Rafferty and Griffin (2009) state that people’s work behaviour is assumed to depend on their current circumstances, situation or the environment that they are in. The most typical categorisation of facets was proposed by Smith et al. (1969, cited in Rafferty & Griffin, 2009) who identified five facets, namely, pay, promotion, co-workers, supervision and the work itself. Recently research on lecturer’s work behaviour has been linked to academic workloads as well as the balance between research and teaching (Houston, Meyer & Paewai, 2006). For example, in a mail survey to examine the impact of participation in decision-making on lecturer work behaviour in HEIs in Yogyakarta Province in Indonesia, Sukirno and Siengthai (2011) found that participative decision-making and academic rank had a significant effect on lecturer work behaviour. This means that involving lecturers in educational decision-making would be useful to improve not only lecturer performance but also organisational performance.

In a study undertaken at fifty selected colleges at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan to measure and summarise the factors that influenced the lecturers’ performance, Ahmed et al. (2012) also found that subject mastery was ranked highest by lecturers while teaching methodology and personal characteristics were ranked intermediary and attitude towards students was rated lowest in the factors that affected lecturer work behaviour. Further, Warsi, Fatima and Sahibzada (2009) found that job and agency characteristics, attitudes toward merit pay, organisational trust and commitment, importance of monetary rewards, linkage between pay and performance and fairness of pay system affect the work behaviour of employees.

In a survey investigating occupational stress for academics in South African HEIs, Barkhuizen and Rothmann (2008) also found that academics experienced stress relating to pay and benefits, overload and work-life balance. In Nigeria Akinfolarin and Ehinola (2014) conducted a study among a randomly selected sample of fifty lecturers and ten heads of departments to investigate motivation and effective performance of academic staff in Adekunle Ajasin University. The findings were that encouragement for creativity and innovation, appreciation on genuine effort, award with impressive titles and acknowledgement of achievements enhanced the performance of university lecturers. Their study also revealed that provision of adequate chances for professional growth and instructional facilities improved a lecturer’s performance.

Similar research (that investigated the experiences and how twenty professionals-turned-academics in Australia defined, resisted and took up the multiple and changing roles associated with academic work revealed that the majority of participants experienced nostalgia for universities of the past which they imagined to be places of intellectual elitism, curiosity-driven research and scholarship. They not only identified strongly with being practitioners within their professional fields but were also committed to

field-oriented, practical education and resisted taking up researcher identities, understanding 'real' research in narrowly defined terms (Santoro and Snead, 2013).