Page 1 of 15
Contributing Factors of Job Satisfaction of AIU
Mrs. Pattraporn Paengpanga
(Director of Human Resource Department)
Mr. Samorn Namkote
(Instructor of Business Administration Faculty)
Abstract
The objective of this research is to study the factors contributing to job satisfaction and to know
the level of Asia-Pacific International University employee job satisfaction. The research
questions: a) What are the factors contribute to job satisfaction of AIU employees? b) What are
their levels of job satisfaction? c) Is there any significant relationship between job satisfaction
and kinds of work, unit/department, gender, age, length of employment status, education level
and marital status work etc.? The significant of the study: The institution can use the result to
understand the problem and to know which to be improved. Instrument: Self-developed
questionnaire. Items of questionnaire were taken from focus group discussion, in-depth
interview, and literature review. The Validity and reliability of the questionnaire has been tested
to 60 respondents. Sample of this research consist of 146 respondents from the permanent
employees of Asia-Pacific International University, both international and Thai employees. Data
was analyzed by making use of Factor Analysis statistical techniques with varimax rotation
method and chi-square test. The finding of this study show that five factors contribute to
employee job satisfaction of Asia-Pacific International University are being respected, work
environment, supporting work, development program and compensation. These five factors
explain 40.52% of the variance in the employee job satisfaction. This loading is quite small since
there are more factors still unknown. The most satisfies is being respected (11.05%), follow by
work environment (8.46%), supported work (7.03%), Development program (8.56%) and
Compensation (5.40%). A signification relationship was found between the contributing factors
and education levels.
Keywords: being respected, work environment, supported work, Development program,
Compensation
Page 2 of 15
Introduction
The high absenteeism and turnover of employees has become a main problem of
organizations. Several studies have proposed that problems are related to employee job
satisfaction. Employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more likely to stay with their
employers. Employee Job Satisfaction (EJS) is under the influence of factors such as: the nature
of work, compensation, advancement opportunities, management, work groups and work
conditions. The organization’s success depends on employees’ willingness. EJS is on the top of
the important targets for an establishment which is in the process of total quality, because
maintaining total quality is based on the sincere commitment to work by corporate employees
and being satisfied with their jobs. Quality reflects the workers’ positive attitudes built up
towards their jobs. Workers maintain an attitude towards their jobs as a result of diverse features
of their job. An attitude can be also negative towards work if they are not satisfied. Attitudes are
composed of three main elements. These are emotion, thought and behaviors.
An employee job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job.
There are a variety of factors that can influence a person’s level of job satisfaction. Some of
these factors include the level of pay and benefits, the perceived fairness of the promotion system
within an organization, the quality of the working conditions, leadership and social relationships,
the job itself. Employee job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently
measured by organizations. A well-managed business organization normally considers the
employees as the primary source of productivity gains. The organization considers employees
rather than capital as the core foundation of the business and contributors to firm development.
To ensure the achievement of firm goals, the organization creates an atmosphere of commitment
and cooperation for its employees.
Employee job satisfaction represents one of the most complex areas facing today’s
managers. Understanding employee job satisfaction can help an organization make important
moves in productivity. Many studies have demonstrated an unusually large impact job
satisfaction has on the motivation of workers, productivity, and hence also on performance of
business organizations.
Page 3 of 15
The idea of employee job satisfaction originated from the book “Job Satisfaction” by
Hoppock (1935). It refers to an individual’s emotional orientation toward his or her work. It
indicates the psychological or physical satisfaction of an employee with the work environment or
the work itself. Vroom (1964) believed that job satisfaction is the overall feeling of an employee
about his or her work rather than about what the work actually is. Smith et al. (1969) argued that
job satisfaction is the perception and emotional response of a person to their work. Locke (1976)
suggested that job satisfaction refers to the pleasant or positive emotional response that an
individual perceives from his or her work or work experience. In additional, Price (2001)
indicated that job satisfaction is an employee’s emotional attitude toward his or her job. As a
result, job satisfaction is the degree of an individual’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
internal or external aspects of his or her job. Five facts of job satisfaction conceptualized by
Smith et al. (1969) have generally covered its content. These are as follows:
1- satisfaction with supervisors, 2- satisfaction with coworkers, 3- satisfaction with pay, 4satisfaction with promotions, and 5- satisfaction with the work itself.
Several factors influence employees’ job satisfaction and the factors are dynamic. Job
dissatisfaction can contribute to multiple organizational problems and has been associated with
increased levels of turnover and absenteeism, which ultimately cost the organization in terms of
low performance and decreased productivity (www.shrm.org, 2009). Parvin (2011) proposed
employee job satisfaction can improve service quality and increase employee satisfaction,
policymakers and managers have turned their attention to provide different kinds of facilities to
their employees in order to satisfy their employees. According to Dogan (2009),
management/democratic style of supervisor, level of role clearness, health facilities, autonomy,
participation in decision-making, job involvement, training and educational facilities, and
relationship with coworkers are the main determinants of job satisfaction. In particular,
management style of supervisor has the greatest effect on job satisfaction. The biggest milestone
of work satisfaction is attitudes that are emotional stations coming out of bio-psycho-social
actions. These attitudes change into behavior in work field and give important clues to find out
and increase work power and the workers who have positive attitudes against their job are much
more successful (Modark, Dima, & Pachura, 2011).
Page 4 of 15
The high absenteeism and turnover job of employees has become main problem of
organizations. Organizations’’ success depends on employees’ job satisfy. To maintain the total
quality of organization needs corporate employees to work and employees have to satisfy with
their jobs. The positive attitude of employees has built up toward their job. Workers maintain an
attitude towards their jobs as a result of diverse features of their job. An attitude can be also
negative towards work if they are not satisfies. A well-managed business organization normally
considers the employees as the primary source of productivity gains. The organization considers
employees rather than capital as the core foundation of the business and contributors to firm
development. To ensure the achievement of the firm goals, the organization creates an
atmosphere of commitment and cooperation for its employees. Understanding employee job
satisfaction can help an organization make important moves in productivity. The large impact on
the job satisfaction is motivating of workers, while the level of motivation has an impact on
productivity and hence also on performance of business organizations.
It seems employee job satisfaction at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) at both
campuses has not been done before. A few years back AIU lost many employees by turnover and
had high absenteeism. In order to solve these problems the Human Resource Director of AIU
wanted to find the cause of problems. The best way to understand the issues is conducting an
employee job satisfaction from the survey. The data helps to identify areas of growth need and
drives the short and long term decision making of the leadership at AIU. By doing so AIU moves
towards a higher quality assurance.
Research Methodology
Survey research design was used in this study. Data were taken using self-developed
questionnaire. Items in the questionnaire were taken from in-depth interview of Asia-Pacific
International University (AIU) employees. The number of employees that were interviewed was
based on the saturation of the information. Forty five items were constructed from in-depth
interview and literature reviews. These items were tested to 60 respondents for their construct
validity and reliability. The questionnaire reliability testing was .92 after 3 items were removed
that 42 valid items. The valid questionnaire was given to 146 respondents.
Page 5 of 15
Respondents were selected from all AIU employees monthly from both campuses at Muak Lek
and Bangkok, Thailand. One hundred forty-six respondents participated in this study. However
based on the respondent consistency coefficient, one respondent is considered as erroneousness
that was not consistent in answering the questionnaire. This respondent was removed from the
data. The remaining 145 respondents were used in analysis.
In answering the first research step was exploratory factor analysis with principal factor
extraction is used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test of sampling adequacy is used with .05 level of
significant. In answering the second research step was chi-square statistic is used with .05 level
of significant.
Results
What factors influence employee job satisfaction? Which factors account for the most variance?
Principle factor extraction with varimax rotation was performed through XLStat on 45 items of
self-developed questionnaire for a sample of 146 respondents. Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin’s (KMO)
overall measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) is .926 which is acceptable after 3 items were
removed. KMO overall MSA grater than .60 is considered acceptable (Tabachnic & Fidel, 2013).
Five factors were extracted. As indicated by Cronbach’s alpha, five factors were internally
consistent and well defined by the variables, the lowest Cronbach’s alpha for factor from
Variables was .73 as shown in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha of .77 and above indicate that the
variables in the factor are internally consistent or measuring the same thing (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2012). The five factors contribute to employee job satisfaction are (1) being Respected
(2) work environment (3) supported work (4) development program (5) compensation.
Table1. Cronbach’s Alpha Measure of Internal Consistency
Cronbach's alpha
Factor 1
0.82
Factor 2
0.80
Factor 3
0.77
Page 6 of 15
Factor 4
0.81
Factor 5
0.73
These five factors (being respected, work environment, Supported work, Development program
and Compensation) explain 40.52% of the variance in the employee job satisfaction. This
loading is quite small since there are more factors still unknown. Being respected accounts for
11.05% of the variance, work environment accounts for 8.46% of the variance, supported work
accounts for 7.03% of the variance, Development program accounts for 8.56% of the variance
and Compensation accounts for 5.40% of variance. Loadings of variables on factors are shown
in Table2. Variables are ordered and grouped by size of loading to facilitate interpretation.
Since substantial loading is above .45 (Tabachnic & Fidel, 2013), loading lower than .45 was
removed. Variable “people need me”, “proper benefit”, “opportunity help people”, “poor
condition”, “peaceful work”, “never decision make”, “strong leadership”, “children problem”,
“consumes family time”, and “bias policy” were removed. It is well respected (r= .736) and
colleagues listen to me (r= .708) that have the highest loading on the first factor that is being
respected. Bored staying (r= .798) and work boring(r= .785) have the dominant position in the
second factor which is environment work. Supervisor is helpful (r= .824) and work place is
safe(r= .629) have the highest loading on work supporting. Development programs insufficient
(r= .724) and clear promotion system (r= .611) have the highest loading on development
program. Financial problem (r= .594) and insufficient earning(r= .579) have the highest loading
on compensation.
Table 2. Loading of variables and factors after Varimax
rotation:
F#1
F#2
F#3
F#4
F#5
Well respected
0.736
0.067
0.313
0.122
0.093
Colleagues listen me
0.708
0.077
0.359
0.066
0.171
Page 7 of 15
People nice
0.675
0.164
0.140
0.225
0.109
Job freedom
0.588
0.336
-0.072
0.161
-0.057
Good teamwork
0.544
0.185
0.337
0.215
0.081
Colleague friendly
0.543
0.235
0.347
-0.032
0.132
Work excited
0.527
0.048
-0.153
0.144
0.165
People Helpful
0.519
0.295
0.555
0.188
-0.184
Spiritual people
0.492
-0.244
-0.045
0.351
0.210
Do what like
0.470
0.293
-0.206
0.301
0.054
People need me *
0.446
0.168
-0.051
0.066
0.157
Proper benefit *
0.340
0.143
0.005
0.325
0.332
Opportunity help people *
0.287
0.212
0.060
0.023
0.105
Bored staying
0.091
0.798
0.142
0.124
0.119
Work boring
0.280
0.785
0.129
0.200
0.092
Hate work
0.065
0.683
0.107
0.147
0.095
Find other employment
0.205
0.533
0.117
0.390
0.282
Hate culture
0.062
0.515
-0.068
0.164
0.194
Decline spirituality
-0.064
0.496
0.416
0.060
0.346
Poor condition *
0.306
0.389
0.304
0.368
-0.022
Supervisor helpful
0.169
0.063
0.824
0.070
0.159
Work place safe
0.357
0.222
0.629
0.020
0.069
Head appreciate
0.096
0.032
0.550
0.146
0.103
Page 8 of 15
Head hates me
0.046
0.154
0.521
0.140
0.388
Peaceful work*
0.387
0.259
0.404
0.285
0.011
insufficient
0.044
0.128
0.102
0.724
0.129
Clear promotion system
0.115
0.158
0.059
0.611
0.166
Advancement program
0.269
0.178
-0.061
0.591
0.021
Regular training
0.052
0.150
0.148
0.577
0.166
Professional people
0.410
0.138
0.181
0.573
0.086
Institution managed
0.324
0.315
0.052
0.559
0.048
Clear job description
0.113
0.393
0.145
0.543
-0.104
Poor facility
0.405
0.102
0.205
0.458
0.261
Never decision make*
0.185
0.100
0.359
0.418
0.416
Financial problem
0.219
0.176
0.224
0.186
0.594
Insufficient earning
0.005
0.162
0.252
0.276
0.579
Hate weather
0.164
0.249
0.024
0.001
0.520
Ignored feel
0.433
0.290
0.211
0.430
0.484
Strong leadership*
0.278
0.289
0.107
0.344
0.412
Children problem *
0.223
0.384
0.115
-0.128
0.399
Consumes family time *
0.003
0.202
-0.064
-0.067
0.381
Bias policy *
0.219
0.048
0.229
0.187
0.332
Development programs
Page 9 of 15
As shown in Table 3, to be respected from people around of employees may be described in
terms of friendly colleagues, will respected by people around, colleagues willing to listen, the
place where I can do what I like to do, people are nice, freedom to do my job, having a good
teamwork, and people need me. work environment of employees may be described in terms of
hating the work doing, hating the AIU cultural, finding other employment, work boring, here to
make employees spirituality decline, and bored with staying here. The work supporting
employees may be described in terms of people around are helpful, work place is safe, supervisor
is helpful, supervisor appreciates the way that employees’ work, and immediate head hates
employee. The development program for employees may be described in terms like the way of
institution was managed, people are professional, having advancement programs for employees,
clear promotion system, work environment has poor facilities, clear job description, development
programs insufficient, and having regular training. The compensation of employees may be
described in terms of insufficient earning, having financial problem, and feeling to be ignored
from employer.
Page 10 of 15
Table 3 : Factors Contribute to the Employee Job Satisfaction
Factor 1:
Factor 2:
Factor 3:
Factor 4:
Factor 5:
Being Respected
Work Environment
Supported Work
Development Program
Compensation

Colleague

Hate work

People helpful

Institution managed

Friendly

Well respected
Insufficient
earning

Hate culture

Work place safe

Professional people

Financial
problem

Colleagues listen

me

Do what I like to
Find other

employment

Work boring
People nice

Advancement programs
helpful

do

Supervisor
Supervisor
Decline

Hates me

Clear promotion system

Poor facility

Clear job description

Development programs
spirituality

Job freedom

Good teamwork

Bored staying
Be Ignored
from employer
appreciates


Page 11 of 15
insufficient

People need me

Regular training
Page 12 of 15
Do the respondents’ contributing factors relate to their characteristics? When respondents are
grouped into which contributing factor they belong, further analysis was done to see whether
contributing factors of respondents relate to their (a) gender group, (b) age group, (c) length of
employment, (d) employment status, (e) education level, and (f) marital status. A chi-square test
of independence was calculated comparing the frequency of contributing factors in each category
of gender group, age group, length of employment, employment status, education level, and
marital status. No significant relationship was found between contributing factors and gender
(x2(8) = 15.15, p = .05). Respondents’ contributing factors appear to be independent with gender.
No significant relationship was found between the contributing factors and age groups (x2(16) =
25.39, p = .06). Respondents’ contributing factors appear to be independent with age groups. No
significant relationship was found between the contributing factors and length of employment
(x2(16) = 23.10, p = .111). Respondents’ contributing factors appear to be independent with
length of employment. No significant relationship was found between the contributing factors
and employment status (x2(4) = 5.07, p = .28). Respondents’ contributing factors appear to be
independent with employment status. No significant relationship was found between the
contributing factors and marital status (x2(12) = 18.57, p = .09). Respondents’ contributing
factors appear to be independent with marital status. A significant relationship was found
between the contributing factors and education levels (x2(12) = 21.47, p = .04). High school
graduate the most satisfying is being respected (72%) then followed by work environment and
supported work are equally rate (14%), while unsatisfied on development program and
compensation factor (0%). The college graduate level the highest satisfying is development
program (30%), while being respected and compensation are equally rate (20%), then work
environment and supported work are equally rate too (15%). Respondents with master degree the
highest satisfying is compensation (27%), and then followed by being respected (20%), and
equally rate are work environment and development program (18%). The least satisfying of this
level is supported work (17%). Those with doctoral degree the most satisfying is being respected
(44%), then followed by development program (28%), while the supported work and
compensation are equally rate (11%), and the least satisfying of this level is work environment
(6%).
Page 13 of 15
Figure 1: Relationship between Education Levels and Job Satisfaction Factors
College Level
High School Level
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
14
14
0
0
Percentage %
Percentage %
30
72
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
15
Master Level
10
0
44
18
17
18
Percentage %
Percentage %
20
20
Doctoral Level
27
30
20
15
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
28
6
11
11
Page 14 of 15
Discussion
Five factors were identified as the factors that contributing to job satisfaction. Those factors are
being respected, work environment, supported word, development program and compensation.
This finding consistent with the study of Smith et al. (1969) that he had stated five factors of job
satisfaction are satisfaction with supervisor, coworkers, paying, promotions, and work itself.
Also Dogan (2009) was determined some factors to make job satisfaction are training and
educational facilities and relationship with coworkers. Moreover, Hill (n.d.) argued that an
employee's overall satisfaction with the job is the result of a combination of factors and financial
compensation is only one of them. Job satisfaction is not considering with paying only but it
needs to be combined with other factors in order to make employees satisfy on their jobs.
Education level relates to job satisfaction, the high school graduate and doctoral degree are
mostly satisfied to being respected factor but the high school graduate has no satisfied to
development program and compensation factor. Contrary, with those college and master degree
are mostly satisfied to development program and compensation factor by respectively. At the
doctoral degree level the least satisfy of them is work environment.
Page 15 of 15
Bibliography
Coban, B. (2010). Evaluation of the job satisfaction levels of Turish provincial football
referees. Social Behaviors and Personality, 38(9), 1153-1166.
DOGAN, H. (2009). Comparative study for employee job satisfaction in aydin
municipality and nazilli municipality. Ege Akademik Bakis / Ege Academic
Review, 9 (2), 423 – 433).
Employee job satisfaction (2009). Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved
from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/documents/090282_emp_job_sat_survey_final.pdf
Frazier, D. P. (2009). Job satisfaction of international educators. Retrieved from
http://www.bookpump.com/dps/pdf-b/9427230b.pdf
Hill, B. (2013). What are the factors affecting job satisfaction?. Retrieved from
http://www.smallbusiness.chron.com/factors-affecting-job-satisfaction20114.html
Huang, C. C., You, C. S., & Tsai, M. T. (2012). Multidimensional analysis of ethical
climate, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Nursing Ethics, 19 (4), 513-529.
Job satisfaction (2011). Management Research and Practice, 3 (4), 77-86.
Man, M., Modark, V., Dima, I. C., & Pachura, P. (2011). Theoretical approach to the job
satisfaction. Publish Journal of Management Studies, 4, 7-15.
Parvin, M. M. (2011). Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of pharmaceutical
sector. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1 (9), 113123
Saari, L. M. & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human
Resource Management, 43 (4), 395 – 407.
Tietjen, M. A. & Myers, R. M. (1998). Motivation and job satisfaction. Management
Decision, 36 (4), 226-231.