CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study For the last few decades job satisfaction has been one of the most popular interests among scientists, researchers and practitioners. According to Spector job satisfaction is the most frequently studied variable in organization research. Job satisfaction was proved too be an important construct in emotional and psychological employees’ well being. It is a significant element related to good organizational functioning as well. Although, the phenomenon of job satisfaction has been broadly researched, still there are several problematic areas. First of all, the concept of job satisfaction has been described in various ways by a number of researchers. Lawler states that “overall job satisfaction is determined by the difference between all those things a person feels he should received from his job and all those things he actually does receive”. Locke defines job satisfaction as “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values. Spector describes job satisfaction as “the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs”. Apart of those few definitions indicated above, there are many others that aim to explain the concept of the satisfaction. The lack of consensus which appears in defining the concept may lead to misunderstanding among researchers and research participants and may influence the construct validity of its measurement. The second problem which appears in the research field of job satisfaction is a great number of various instruments that measure the phenomenon. Some of the examples are: the Job Descriptive Index (JDI); the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ); the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Job satisfaction instruments are designed in a diverse manner and may be chosen to be used depending on different purposes of the research. Some surveys aim to assess global job satisfaction without reference to any specific facest. Some others refer to the facet approach (JDI) or may examine both: global job satisfaction as well as its dimension. The variety of the instrument provides researchers’ with several options to choose the one that best fits characteristics of the sample and needs of the research on one hand. On the other hand, it makes research results incomparable and, if chosen careless, the instrument may not reflect what researchers are seeking for. The third problematic area may be supported by Spector’s statement. He argues that sometimes instruments and their scales do not stand for the sample we want to research. He says that many times job satisfaction instruments are general, that is, they are developed based on typical organizations, such as white collar, business organizations, those instruments may not be always applicable for the specific samples there are also some instruments developed based on specific organizational sector.

Teachers’ were often considered as a specific sample of employees, who have different operating conditions and experience higher levels of work related stress in comparison with typical organizations’ employees (Klassen et’ al 2010), unlike typical organizations’ employees business teachers have many various responsibilities. They are expected to educate students. ensure their safety and healthy atmosphere, communicate and collaborate with parents, other teachers, specialists and administrators, develop their own skills and knowledge, administer documents, organize school trips and complete a number of other tasks provided by the government and school administration (Cumber and Nixon 2009).

Many times business teachers meet problematic students of various ages or difficult and imperative parents. Those interactions require communication, problem solving, and conflict managing skills. Challenges in business teachers’ work that require emotional and intellectual resources may sometimes lead to burnout, depression or other physical and psychological health related issues. It is obvious that business teachers differ from typical employees in various ways. Therefore, instruments that usually measure such job satisfaction dimension as appreciation, communication, co-workers, fringe benefits, job conditions, nature of work, organization itself, organisations’ policies and procedures, pay, personal growth, promotion oppurtunities, recognition, security, supervision, may not always match with teachers’ job satisfaction aspects. (Spector, 1997).

Some researchers agree upon supervision, work itself, promotion and recognition being important dimensions of teachers, satisfaction with work (Rosser 2005; Sharma & Jyoti 2009; Tillman and Tilliman 2008). However, there are also some other aspects that significantly contribute to teachers’ satisfaction and should not be excluded In terms of understanding teachers’ job satisfaction phenomenon.

Relationships with students are largely contributing to business teachers’ job satisfaction other researchers highlight such dimensions of job satisfaction as: students, characteristics and behavior, classroom control, availability of the resources, relations with students’ colleagues and administrators (Rosser, 2008). Despite the arguments of various researchers, business teachers’ job satisfaction is still evaluated using general instruments o instruments developed based on other specific samples (Blood et’ al 2002).

Previous finding in the research field of job satisfaction uncovered several problematic areas. First of all, there is a lack of consensus with description of the job satisfaction phenomenon. This may influence construct validity and create this understandings among researchers as well as research participants.

Secondly, the number of various job satisfaction instruments used in studies creates chaos and makes research findings incomparable. Thirdly, specific samples, such as business teachers are often assessed using instruments that may not always reflect properties of a specific sample researcher generated the main purpose for this study. Although there is a hypothesis that general job satisfaction instruments or instruments which were primarily developed for specific organizational sector do not always reflect other specific sample’s characteristics, there were no studies conducted to explain this issue until now.

The teacher is a worker whose job satisfaction study is inevitable due to his enormous role in Nation building so as to make him comfortable and stay in the job. The study of business teachers’ job satisfaction in teaching and learning has become imperative to Administrators, Academics, School head to be productive or perform effectively.

The Principal concern of this study is to scrutinize the amicability between teacher’s job satisfaction and performance in Ogun State secondary schools. Ogun State has taken education as a matter of priority measures researchers and teaching service board have identified among other problems bedeviling education and teachers in the state, includes, flunctuation in cross net pay of staff salaries, teachers were not promptly promoted, salaries were not adjusted even after acquiring additional qualification, inability of government to pay agreed 25% Federal Government increment, teachers conditions of service was going from bad to worse, teachers’ salaries were not paid on time for reason only known to government (Ghana, Bukar and Kadai, 2011).

The study revealed that that there has been a high turnover of teachers in most secondary school in Ogun State that resulted into poor performance of students in recent year examination not be satisfied with their jobs thus, affecting their performance. Besides, studies on Assessment of teacher’s job satisfaction of Business Education found overall correlation.

In another research conducted by Okwute (2004); job satisfaction among business education teachers in selected local governments in Borno State, he wanted to find out how workers’ job satisfaction affects their performance. Hence, the researcher set up the following research objectives as find out the extent to which teachers were satisfied with their jobs, the extent to which their job performance were related. The researcher randomly selected twelve (12) local government areas in the state found that teachers derive high level of job satisfaction of the teachers could be predicated from information concerning only the first two most important needs of that individual.

Teachers’ job satisfaction rested on motivation factors. The motivating factors include the aspects of tasks/job itself that can provide intrinsic motivation. Meanwhile, hygiene factors are external factor that relate to working environment. Insufficient hygiene factors will lead to no job satisfaction.

The teachers’ job satisfaction is also a matter of concern. Teachers these days see their income as not sufficient to meet their needs. Hence, they engage in some other money yielding activities to supplement their earnings. Ogunsanya (2001). This brings divided loyalty and consequently frustration. Teachers seek for ways by which they can be motivated, ways by which they can be made to feel part of the system. The researcher is interested in assessing teachers’ job satisfaction viz-a-viz factors such as pay, the job itself, salaries and wages, working environment and work conditions.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Researchers were of the opinion that the present levels of business education teachers job satisfaction are quite low and worrisome requiring urgent intervention. A number of factors that have been identified to relate to both dependent variable and independent variables are without conclusion. These concerns have called to questions the job satisfaction of teachers. The secondary level of education in Nigeria is beset with myriad of problems including salaries and wages, the job itself, working environment, working conditions and promotion. It has been argued that unless the teaching satisfaction is showed-up, these problems will persist. In recent times, Nigerian has found lack of independent variables as a major problem initiating against performance. Much attention has however not been focused on the assessment of job satisfaction of business education teachers. This study intends to assess the job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State, Nigeria.

1.3 Hypothesis

For the purpose of this study, the following hypothesis were formulated to guide this study

Ho1: There is no combined significant relationship among the job itself, pay, wages and salaries, working environment, working condition and promotion to teachers’ job satisfaction in Ogun State public secondary schools.

Ho2: There is no significant relative contribution of the job itself to teachers’ job satisfaction in Ogun State public secondary schools.

Ho3: There is no significant relative contribution of wages ans salaries to teachers’ job satisfaction in Ogun State public secondary schools.

Ho4: There is no significant relative contribution of working environment to teachers’ job satisfaction in Ogun State public secondary schools.

Ho5: there I no significant relative contribution of working conditions to teachers’ jib satisfaction in Ogun State Public Secondary Schools.

Ho6: There is no significant relative contribution of promotion to teachers’ job satisfaction in Ogun State public secondary schools.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions were raised to guide the study.

1. What is the level of job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State?

2. Will promotion contribute to the job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State?

3. Will working conditions contribute to the job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State?

4. Will working environment contribute to the job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State?

5. Will work itself has any effect on the job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State?

6. Will wages and salaries has any effect on the job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State?

7. Will promotion, working conditions, working environments, the work itself and wages and salaries have any contribution to teachers’ job satisfaction in Ogun State.

1.5 Objectives of the Study.

The Objective of this study is to investigate the relationship among work itself, wages and salaries, working environment, working conditions and promotion, and job satisfaction of teachers in Ogun State Public Secondary Schools.

1.6 Sigificance of the Study.

The study will be Important for teachers who are main agents of social change, through education, undergo so many strains and stresses during the discharge of their duties.

The administrators of schools may acquaint themselves, by knowing how to run organization effectively and successfully.

This study would help the planners, policy makers and community leaders who develop the education system and provide the physical, financial and human resources for running the system.

Overall, this study would help all concerned persons who manage the education system and directly or indirectly are involved in educational organizations.

The study will be useful to guidance and counselors in career preparation process for the findings will enable them to recognise the importance of factors that will enhance job satisfaction of individuals.

The study will serve as an eye opener to the employers of labour on facilities that should be put in place to enhance the satisfaction of teachers.

The study will be beneficiary to the policy makers in making logical decisions in order to make teachers satisfied.

It will serve as a data base for further researcher since this research will be published in both local and international journals.

Scope of the Study

The study seek to assess job satisfaction of business education teachers in Ogun State.

1.7 Operational Definition of Terms.

Job Satisfaction: It is the degree to which numbers o a social system have positive affective orientation towards membership in the system. Satisfaction as used in this study refers to the degree of contention a teacher has where he/she is working.

Work Itself: Refers to the nature of the work performed by teachers. Work that is personally interesting to employees.

Working Conditions: Refers to whether one working conditions are either extremely good or poor.

Working Environment: Refers to friendly environment or hostile environment. What determines the attitude and behaviour of teachers towards their work.

Promotion: Refers to the amount of financial compensation that an individual receives as well as the extent which such compensation is perceived to be equitable.

Secondary Schools: Refers to an institution of learning for children after primary education and before tertiary stage.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

This section of the study presents previous works carried out by scholars, which have relevance to the variables of this study. For proper understanding, the reviews of related and relevant literature will be carried out under two broad headings, theoretical review and empirical studies.

2.1 JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT AMONG TEACHERS.

Job satisfaction is one of the most researched areas of organizational behaviour and education. It is perceived as an attitudinal variable measuring the degree to which employees like their jobs and the various aspects of their jobs (Spector; 1996, Stamps, 1997). This is an important area of research because job satisfaction is correlated to enhanced job performance, positive work values, high levels of employee motivation, and lower rates of absenteeism, turnover and burnout (Begley & Czajika, 1993: Chiu, 2000; Tharenou, 1993). Job satisfaction, according to McCormick and Ilgen (1985), is an association of attitudes held by an organization’s members. The way each employee responds towards their work is an indication of the commitment towards their employers. Many employees are of the opinion that downsizing; rightsizing and re-engineering give employers an opportunity to dispose of those workers who are liability to the organization. Similar to professionals in other occupations, job satisfaction in education has been related to a number of factors. Researchers have linked job satisfaction to teacher attrition (Bobbitt, Leich, Whitener & Lynch, 1994; Russ. Chiang, Rylance & Bongers, 2001); demographic variables including age, education and gender (Castillo. Conklin & Cano, 1999; Eichinger, 2000; Ganser & Wham, 1998: Peterson & Custer, 1994); practice related variables such as salaries, credentialing, opportunities for promotion, supervision, recognition, student behavior, working condition and sense of autonomy (Evans, 1998 (b); Prelip, 2001). Wisniewski and Gargiulo (1997) maintain that high attrition rates amongst teachers can be attributed to job dissatisfaction. They concluded that a lack of recognition, few opportunities for promotion, excessive paperwork, and loss of autonomy, low pay and stressful interpersonal interaction all contributed to teacher’s decisions to leaves schools. Satisfaction within teaching is associated with teacher effectiveness, which ultimately affects student achievement (Ashton & Webb. 1986; Carnegie Forum. 1986). Darling Hammond (1995) states that rigid, bureaucratically administered school have not succeeded in implementing change in education reform, while school using collective or collaborative problem solving strategies based on an underlying sense of commitment have succeeded. Senge (1990) found that without commitment, substantive change becomes problematic. Hence, job satisfaction appears to be one aspect of commitment.

2. JOB SATISFACTION According to Kovack (1996), job satisfaction is a component of organisatrional commitment. Spector (1996) state that job satisfation “can be considered as a global feeling about the job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects or facets of job.” Research (Strumpfer, Danana, Gouws & Viviers, 1998), indicates an encouraging but complex correlation between positive or negative dispositions and the various components of job satisfaction. When satisfaction is measured at broader level, research has shown that organizations with more satisfied workers are more effective than those with less satisfied workers (Robbins, 1998).

Buitendach and Witte (2005), proffer the view that job satisfaction relates to an individual’s perceptions and evaluations of a job and this perception is in turn influenced by their circumstances, including needs, values and expectation. Individuals therefore evaluate their jobs on the basis of factors which they regard as being important to them (Sernpane, Rieger & Roodt, 2002). According to Neuman, Reichel and Saad (1988), Job satisfaction among teachers can be expressed as their willingness and preparedness to stay in the teacher’s profession irrespective of the discomfort and the desire to leave teaching for a better job. Mwamwenda’s (1995) research indicates that nearly 50% of rural teachers are dissatisfied with their working conditions. The latter research revealed that teacher in these areas indicated that they would not choose teaching again as a career if given a second chance. Blood, Ridenour, Thomas, Quails and Hammer (2002) found in their research on speech language pathologists working in public schools, that the longer they remained in their jobs, the more likely they were to report higher levels of job satisfaction. Similarly, Rice and Schneider (1994), state that teachers reported that the level of participation in decision making and autonomy are contributory factors in their levels of satisfaction. Anderman, Beizer and Smith (1991) posit the view that a school culture that emphasizes accomplishment, recognition, and affiliation is related to teacher satisfaction and commitment and that principals’ action create distinct working environments within schools that are highly predictive of teacher satisfaction and commitment. According to Shan (1998), teacher job satisfaction is a predictor of teacher retention, a determinant of teacher commitment, and in turn a contributor to school effectiveness. Kim and Loadman (1994) list seven predictors of job satisfaction, namely: interaction with students, interaction with colleagues, professional challenges, and professional autonomy, working conditions salary and opportunity for advancement. However, there are also other factors that need to be considered, for example, class sizes, workload of teachers, changes in the school curriculum and labor policies which teachers have, little or no control over.

2.2.1 DEFINITION OF JOB SATISFACTION

(Locke cited in Sempane et al, 2002,) defines job satisfaction as ‘a pleasurable or a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experience.’ Job satisfaction can be viewed as an employee’s observation of how well their work presents those things which are important to them. Simply put, ‘job satisfaction is an attitude people have about their job’s (Chelladurai, 1999, Balzer, 1997), define job satisfaction as… the feeling a worker has about his or her job or job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current expectation, or available alternatives. Beers (1964 in Visser. Breed & Van Breda, 1997) defines job satisfaction as…”the attitude of workers toward the company, their jobs, their fellow workers and other psychological objects in the work environment.” Isen and Baron (1991) surmise: “As an attitude, job satisfaction involves several basic components: specific beliefs about ones job, behavior tendencies (intentions) with respect to it, and feeling about it.” Elaborating on this, Camp (1994) defines job satisfaction with reference to the needs and values and satisfied in the workplace. In conjunction with this, Robbins (1998) surmises that job satisfaction is based on “the difference between the amount of rewards workers receive and the amount they believe they should receive.” Because job satisfaction may be an indicator of whether individuals will be affectively connected to an institution; will merely comply with directives; or will quit. (Ma & Macmillan, 1999), principals ought to have some understanding of the factors that influence teacher’ satisfaction with their work lives and the impact this satisfaction has on teachers’ involvement in their schools, especially when changes are implemented. Farruga (1986) demonstrated that teachers experience job satisfaction as a result of teaching a group of pupils or standard they feel comfortable with; appreciation expressed by parents, authority and pupils; passing on knowledge and values to other; teaching their favourite subjects; working with colleagues and exercising autonomy.

Participation in decision making and exercising autonomy have been reported to contribute to job satisfaction among Australian teachers (Rice & Schneider, 1994), while in Japan, Ninomiya and Okato (1990 cited in Mwamwenda, 1995) indicate that job satisfaction among teachers was associated with freedom to do their work as they saw fit, a sufficient supply of learning material and equipment, a good salary, a reasonable class size as well as the support and cooperation of colleagues. Wisnewski and Gargiolu (1997) demonstrated that teachers’ job satisfaction was associated with freedom to do what they wanted, encouragement received from those in authority, participation in decision and policy making, adequate supply of teaching and learning resources, good salary, cooperation from pupils, parents and teachers, and participation in school management. Vander and Smith (2001) reported that there was tendency worldwide towards job dissatisfaction in education. Their research indicates that educators display dissatisfaction with the introduction of a new education policy, new post structures and unfair appointments. In a study of black female teachers (Vander & du Toit, 1994), job satisfaction was observed to be a function of pupils behaviour, job security, relationship with colleagues and pupils, and teaching as a task. However, other research (Kirsten, 2000) and Van Wyk (2000) indicates that as an occupational, group teachers report relatively high levels of satisfaction.

Kirsten (2000) and Van Wyk’s (2000) research indicates that both male and female educators, school principals, black and white, experience greater job satisfaction than was previously believed.

2.3 JOB SATISFACTION THEORY

In other to understand job satisfaction, it is important to understand what motivates people at work. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weik (1970 cited in Smucker & Kent, 2004) categorized job satisfaction theories into either content theories or process theories. Content theories based on various factors which influence job satisfaction. Process theories, in contrast, take into account the process by which variables such as expectations, needs and values, and comparisons interact with the job to produce job satisfaction. In terms of content theorists, there is an emphasis on the type of goals and incentives that people endeavor to achieve in other to be satisfied and succeed on the job. Scientific management believed at first that money was the only incentives; later other incentives also became prevalent for example; working condition, security and a more democratic style of supervision. Maslow, Hertzberg, Alderfer and McClelland focused on the needs of employees with respect to job satisfaction and performance (Luthans 1998; Robbins, Odendall & Roodt, 2003; smith and Cronje, 1992).

2.3.1. MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS THEORY

Maslow believed that people who come out of an environment which does not meet their basic needs, tends to experienced psychological complaints later in life. Based on the application of this theory to organizational settings, it can be argued that people who do not meet their needs at work will not function efficiently. Maslow’s theory is based on two assumptions; that is: people always want more and people arranged their needs in other of importance (Smith and Cronje. 1992). Maslow (1970) and Schultz, Bagraim, Potgieta, Viedge and Werner (2003) summarized these needs as:

(a) Psychological needs: This basic need known as the biological needs such as the needs of water, food, rest, exercise and sex. Once these needs are met, they no longer influence behaviour. An example of this would be trade union ensuring that their members’ basic needs are met because they negotiate for better wages for their members (Smith and Cronje, 1992).

(b) Safety needs: once the first need is satisfied then the security needs assume prudence. These include the need for job security, insurance and medical aid and the need to feel protected against physical and emotional harm (Smith & Cronje, 1992)

(c) Social needs: This third level of needs is activated once the second level of needs has been adequately met. People have a need for love, friendship acceptance and understanding from other people. Employees have a tendency to join groups that fulfill their social needs. Managers can play an important part by encouraging people to interact with one another and make sure that the social needs of subordinates are met (Smith & Cronje, 1992).

(d) Ego & esteem needs: the fourth level of needs is the need for self-respect, recognition by others, confidence and achievement. Supervisors can play an active role in satisfying the needs of their employees by recognizing and rewarding high achievers for good performance (Smith & Cronje, 1992).

(e) Self-actualization needs: this is the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and leads to the full development of a person’s potential. It is a need where individuals reach full potential and what they want to become, to utilize all talents well and to be creative (Glueck, 1974). Practicing managers have given Maslow’s need theory wide recognition, which they ascribe to the theory’s intuitive logic and ease of understanding. However, Robbins et al. (2003), argue that research does not validate the theory, since Maslow does not provide any empirical substantial and a number of studies that were seeking validation for the theories have similarly not found support for it.

2.3.2 HERZBERG’S TWO FACTOR THEORY

In terms of Hertzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, factors that make employees feel good about their work are different from factors that make them feel bad about their work. According to Hertzberg (cited in Schulz et al, 2003) employees who are satisfied at work attribute their satisfaction to internal factors, while dissatisfied employees ascribe their behaviour to external factors. Factors that play a role in contributing to the satisfaction of employees are called motivation, while hygiene factors contribute to job dissatisfaction. These two factors are called the intrinsic (internal) and extrinsic (external) factors. Hertzberg’s two factor theory (Schultz et al, 2003). It can be argued that if the hygiene factors are removed, that it is unlikely workers will be satisfied. Both the hygiene factors and motivation play an important role in the performance of the individual. Criticism against Hertzberg’s theory is that the relationship between motivation and dissatisfaction is too simplistic as well as the relationship between sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Smith et al. 1992). Satisfaction, no dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction, no satisfaction

2.3.3 ALDERFER’S ERG THEORY

Alderfer erg Maslow’s theory to align work with more empirical research, (Robbins et al, 2003). Alderfer’s theory is referred to as ERG theory and is based on the following three needs: existence, relatedness and growth. Existence: is involved with providing individuals with their basic existence requirements and it subsumes the individual’s physiological and safety needs. Relatedness: is the desire to keep good interpersonal relationship, which Maslow labeled social and esteem needs. Growth needs are an intrinsic desire for personal development based on the self-actualization needs of Maslow. The ERG theory pivots around the axial point that more than one need is in operation at the same time. When the aspiration to satisfy a higher need is subdued, the desire to satisfy a lower level need increases. Alderfer (1972) mentions two forms of movement which will become important to a person. The first one is referred to as satisfaction-progression. The second movement is the frustration-regression, which provides additional insight about motivation and human behaviour. According to Alderfer (1972), when a person needs are frustrated at higher level, it leads to movement down the hierarchy.

2.3.4 MCCLELLAND’S THEORY OF NEEDS

McClelland’s needs theory focuses on the need for achievement, power and affliction. Luthans (1998), said that it can be briefly described as follows:

*Need for achievement: it is a drive to excel to meet standards and try to be successful. *Need for power: to let others behave in such a way that they do not behave otherwise and *Need for affiliation: to have a friendly disposition and good interpersonal relationships (Luthans, 1998). Notwithstanding, the various theories relating to job satisfaction, are several dimensions addressed by Luthans (1998). Luthans (1998) who indicates that there are several dimensions that influence job satisfaction, inter alia the work itself, supervision, promotion and the workgroup, each of which is briefly addressed.

4. DIMENSION OF JOB SATISFACTION The idea of a job satisfaction is very complicated (McCormick & Ilgen, 1985). Locke (1976, cited in Sempane et al., 2002) presented a summary of job dimension that have been established to contribute significantly to employees job satisfaction. The particular dimensions represent characteristics associated with job satisfaction. The dimension are work itself, pay, promotions, recognition, working conditions, benefits, supervision and co-workers. This is postulated to influence employees opinion of how interesting the work is, how routine, how well they are doing and in general, how much they enjoy doing it. (McCormick & Ilgen 1985, p.309).

2.4.1 THE WORK ITSELF

The nature of the work performed by employees has a significant impact on their level of job satisfaction (Landy, 1989; Larwood, 1984; Luthans, 1992; Moorhead & Griffen 1992). Luthans (1992), employees derive satisfaction from work that is interesting and challenging and a job that provides them with status. Landy (1989), advocates that work that is personally interesting to employees is likely to contribute to job satisfaction. Similarly, research suggests that task variety may facilitate job satisfaction (Eby, Freeman, Rush & Lance, 1999). This is based on the view that skill variety has strong effects on job satisfaction, implying that the greater the variety of skills that employees are able to utilize in their jobs, the higher their level of satisfaction (Ting, 1997). Sharma and Bhaskar (1991) postulate that the single most important influence on a person’s job satisfaction experience comes from the nature of the work assigned to him/her by the organization. They purport that if the job entails adequate variety challenge, discretion and scope for using one’s own abilities and skills, the employee doing the job is likely to experience job satisfaction. Khaleque and Choudhary (1984) found in their study of Indian managers, that the nature of work was the most important factor in determining job satisfaction for top managers and job security as the most important factor in job satisfaction for managers at the bottom. Similarly, Liden, Wayne and Sparrowe’s (2000) research involving employees and their supervisors found that desirable job characteristics increased work satisfaction. Using a sample of medical technologists, Blau (1999) concluded that increased task responsibilities are related to overall job satisfaction. Similarly, Culpin and Wright (2002) found in their study of job satisfaction amongst expatriate women managers that they enjoyed the expansion of their job responsibilities. These women’s job satisfaction increased as they saw the significant impact of their job on their employees. Reskin and Padavic (1994), claim that workers value authority in its own right and having authority increases workers “job satisfaction”. Aarnodt, (1999) posits the view that job satisfaction is influenced by opportunities for challenge and growth as well as by the opportunity to accept responsibility. Mentally challenging work that the individual can successfully accomplish is satisfying and that employees prefer jobs that provide them with opportunities to use their skills and abilities that offer a variety of tasks, freedom and feedback regarding performance, is valued by most employees (Larwood, 1984: Luthans, 1992: Robbins 1998, Tziner & Latharn 1989). According to Robbins (1998), he argues that under conditions of moderate challenge, most employees will experience pleasure and satisfaction.

2.4.2 PAY:

Pay refers to the amount of financial compensation that an individual receives as well as the extent to which such compensation is perceived to be equitable. Remuneration and earnings are a cognitive complex and multidimensional factor in job satisfaction. According to Luthans (1998), salaries not only assist people to attain their basic needs but are also instrumental in satisfying the higher level needs of people. Previous research (Voydanoff, 1980), has shown that monetary compensation is one of the most significant variables in explaining job satisfaction. In their study of public sector managers, Taylor and West fair and reasonable compensation, which objective of any compensation system. Included in the category of compensation are such items as medical aid schemes, pension schemes, bonuses, paid leave and traveling allowances. Lambert, Hogan, Boston and Lubbock (2001) found financial rewards to have a significant impact on job satisfaction. Such findings are largely consistent with the idea that most employees are socialized in a society where money, benefits and security are generally sought after and often used to gauge the importance or the worth of a person. Thus, the greater the financial reward, the less worry employees have concerning their financial state, thereby enhancing their impression of their worth to the organization. Groot and Maassen, Van den Brink (1999; 2000) provide contradictory evidence for the relationship between pay and job satisfaction. In their earlier research they did not find evidence for a relationship between compensation and job satisfaction, however, their subsequent research revealed the opposite. However, Harnermesh (2001) found that changes in compensation (increases or decreases) have concomitant impact on job satisfaction levels of employees. Several other authors maintain that the key in linking pay to satisfaction is not the absolute amount that is paid, but rather, the perception of fairness (Aarnodt, 1999; Landy, 1989; Robbins, 1998). According to Robbins et al. (2003), employees seek pay systems that are perceived as just, unambiguous and in line with their expectations. When pay is perceived as equitable, is commensurate with job demands, individual skill level and community pay standards, satisfaction is likely to be the result. Gunter and Furnman (1996) found employee perceptions concerning the equity with which the organization rewards its employees to be better predictors of job satisfaction than is the case with gender, age or actual salary, similarly, Miceli, Jung, Near and Greenberger (1991 cited in Hendrix, Robbins, Miller & Summers, 1998), validated a casual pathway leading from fairness of the pay system to improved job satisfaction. Sousa-Poza (2000) research indicates that perceived income, that is, whether the respondent considered his income high or not, was found to have the third largest effect on the job satisfaction of male employees.

2.4.3 SUPERVISION

Research indicates that the equality of the supervisor-surbordinate relationship will have a significant, positive influence on the employee’s overall level of job satisfaction (Aamodt, 1999; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Luthans, 1992; Moorhead & Griffen, 1992; Robbins, 1998). Research appears to be equivocal since most research indicates that individuals are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction if supervisors provide them with support and co-operation in completing their tasks (Ting, 1997). These researchers generally hold that dissatisfaction with management supervision is a significant predictor of job dissatisfaction. The above findings are corroborated by Staudt’s (1997) research based on social workers in which it was found that respondents, who reported satisfaction with supervision, were also more likely to be satisfied with their jobs in general.

Chiffons (1991) maintains that supervisors who allow their employees to participate in decisions that affect their own jobs will, in doing so, stimulate higher levels of employer’s satisfaction. Researchers (Knool, 1987; Pfeiffer & Dunlap, 1982; Rettig, 2000), have written extensively about the importance of supervision in schools. Their research indicates that supervisory activities foster motivation, inspiration and trust and thus help to improve teaching performance. Research indicates that principals play a vital role in the care for personal welfare and emotion support of teachers. Isherwood (1973), found that principals that demonstrated excellent human relations skills heighten teacher’s loyalty and improved teacher satisfaction, whilst the lack in participatory management, lack of sensitivity to school and teacher-related problems and lack of support was reliably associated with teacher stress and burnout (Jackson, Schwab & Schuler, 1996). Morris (2004), postulates that teacher job satisfaction is affected by the work environment and strong principal leadership. Corrobating this, Nelson (1980) found that leadership styles of school administrators are related to job satisfaction. He maintains that the quality of teacher-administrator relationship generates higher teacher job satisfaction and greater teacher participation in decision making contributes to job satisfaction (Mohrman, Cooke & Mohrman, 1978), conversely, lack of dissatisfaction (Holdaway, 1978). Abbey and Esposito (1985), report that teachers who perceive greater social support from their principal’s report less stress than those who do not receive any social support. Setting up shared decision-making processes rather than feel subordinate to their principals and covered into participating in school and teacher responsibilities.

2.4.4 PROMOTION

An employee’s opportunities for promotion are likely to exert an influence on job satisfaction (Land 1989; Larwood, 1984; Moorhead & Griffen, 1992; Vecchio, 1988). Robbins (1998) maintains that promotions provide opportunities for personal growth, increased responsibility and increased social status (Robbins, 1998). Drafke and Kossen, 2002), postulate that many people experience satisfaction when they believe that their future prospects are good. This may translate into opportunities for advancement and growth in their current workplace or enhance the chance of finding alternative employment. They maintain that if people feel they have limited opportunities for career advancement, their job satisfaction may decrease. According to McCormick and Ilgen (1985), employee’s satisfaction with promotional opportunities will depend on a number of factors, including the probability that employees will be promoted, as well as the basis and the fairness of such promotion is contingent oil personal and career aspirations. Moreover, not all employees wish to be promoted. The reason therefore is related to the fact that promotion entails greater responsibility and tasks of a more complex nature, for which the individuals may consider themselves unprepared. If employees perceive the promotion policy as unfair, but do not desire to be promoted, they may still be satisfied. Nonetheless, opportunities for promotion appear to have a significant positive correlation with job satisfaction (Tolbert & Moen, 1998).

In a study by Jayaratne and Chess 1984, cited in Staudt, 1997, the opportunity for [promotion was found to be the best and only common predictor of job satisfaction in child welfare, community mental health and family services agencies. Luthans (1992) further maintains that promotions may take a variety of different forms and are generally accomplished by different rewards. Promotional opportunities therefore have differential effects on job satisfaction, and it is essential that this be taken into account in cases where promotion policies are designed to enhance employee satisfaction.

2.4.5 WORK GROUP

There is empirical evidence that co-worker relations are an antedent of job satisfaction (Morrison, 2004). Research (Mowday & Sutton, 1993), suggests that job satisfaction is related to employees opportunities for interaction with others on the job. An individual’s level of job satisfaction might be a function of personal characteristics and the characteristics of the group to which he or she belongs. The social context of work is likely to have a significant impact on a worker’s attitude and behaviour (Marks, 1994). Relationships with both co-workers and supervisors are important. Some studies have shown that the better the relationship, the greater the level of job satisfaction (Wharton & Baron, 1991). According to Hodson (1997). Such social relations constitute an important part of the “social climate” within the workplace and provide a setting within which employees can experience meaning and identity. Luthans (1998) postulates that work groups characterized by co-operation and amongst their members tend to influence the level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. When cohesion is evident within a work group it usually leads to effectiveness within a group and the job becoming more enjoyable. However, if the opposite situation exists and colleagues are difficult to work with, this may have a negative impact on job satisfaction.

Markiewicz et al (2000) found that the quality of close friendship was associated with both career success and job satisfaction of employees. Riordan and Griffen (1995) examined the impact of friendship on workplace outcomes; their results indicate that friendship opportunities were associated with increases in job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment and with significant decreases in intention to turnover. Luthans (1992), however, contends that satisfactory co-workers relations are not essential to job satisfaction but that in the [presence of extremely strained relationships, job satisfaction is more than likely to suffer. Nevertheless, the growing body of literature on the subject seems to indicate that co-workers relations are taking on an ever-increasing role, not just in the realms of productivity but also in determining the experience of work and its meaning (Hodson, 1997). Hillebrand (1989) found that the greatest need of educators centered on interpersonal needs. He maintains that healthy relationships with colleagues and school principals increase educational concerns and goal attainment. These findings strengthen the argument that organizations should engage in the integration of employees so as to create group cohesion among employees and departments within the organization (Lambert et al, 2001).

2.4.6 WORKING CONDITIONS

Working conditions is another factor that has a moderate impact on the employee’s job satisfaction (Luthans, 1992; Moorhead, & Griffins, 1992). According to Luthans (1998), if people work in a clean, friendly environment they will find it easier to come to work. If the opposite should happen, they will find it difficult to come to work. Voster (1992), maintains that working conditions are likely to have a significant impact on job satisfaction when, for example, the working conditions are either extremely good or extremely poor. Moreover, employee complaints regarding working conditions are frequently related to manifestations of underlying problems (Luthans, 1992; Visser, 1990; Voster, 1992). Teachers workload, changes in the educational system and lack of discipline amongst some of the learners may be some of the reasons why teachers want to exit the profession. The working environment of teachers also determines the attitude and behaviour of teachers towards their work.

Bishay (1996) indicates that research has shown that improvement in teacher motivation has a positive effect on both teachers and learners. Moreover, within the teaching profession, for example, there are different working conditions based on the past allocation of resources to schools. In disadvantages schools working conditions are often not conducive to teaching and learning (Mwamwenda, 1995; Ngidi & Sibaya, 2002; Steyn & Van Wyk, 1999).

5. PERSONAL DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION Job Satisfaction and Age: Research appears to be equivocal and has consistently found age to exert an influence on job satisfaction (Chambers, 1999; Cramer, 1993; Robbins, 2001; Staw, 1995; Tolbert & Moen, 1998). Research suggests that older employees tend to experience higher levels of job satisfaction (Belcastro & Koeske, 1996; Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Cramer, 1993; Jones-Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Larwood, 1984; Loscocco, 1990; Saal & Knight, 1988). This difference may be attributes to better adjustment at work, better conditions and greater rewards at work (Birdi, WEarr & Oswald, 1995). Blood et al. (2002) espouse the view that older respondents were more likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction than younger respondents. These results are consistent with the numerous studies with related school personnel, health care and business workers, which indicate that older workers are more satisfied than younger workers with their jobs (bakker & Schaufeli, 2000; Begley & Czajka, 1993; Brush, Moch & Pooyan, 1987; Hodson, 1996; Lowther, Gill & Coppard, 1985; schabracq. Winnubst & Cooper, 1998; Spector, 1996. all cited in Blood et al., 2002). Similarly, Siu. Spector. Cooper and Donald (2001) also found that age was positively related to job satisfaction and mental well-being in sample of managers.

Blood et al. (2002) argue that job satisfaction increases with age and work experience. Older workers are more comfortable and tolerant of authority and may learn to lower expectations for their jobs (Spector, 1996). Brush et al. (1987 in Blood et al., 2002) postulate that older workers may have jobs that use their skills better, work under better job conditions, benefit from advancements and promotions, and appreciate fringe benefits more than younger, less experienced workers. Based on a review of literature on age, Rhodes (1983) concluded that overall job satisfaction is related to age. Older workers appear to evince greater satisfaction with their employment than younger workers; however, this relationship is not clear. While many suggest a linear relationship (Weaver, 1980; Mottaz. 1987), other studies (Kacmar, Carison & Brymer 1989; Staw, 1995) report a U shaped relationship. Clark (1996), ascribes this to the fact that younger employees may feel satisfied because they have little experience about the labour market against which to judge their own work. Alternatively, older employees may have reduced aspirations as they realize that they face limited alternative choices as the get older.

Job Satisfaction and Gender: The literature with respect to the relationship between gender and job satisfaction is inconsistent. Some studies report that women have higher job satisfaction, whereas other studies find that men are more satisfied, yet other studies find no significant difference between the gender (Mortimer, Finch & Maruyama, 1988). Souza-Poza (2003) found that women’s satisfaction has declined substantially in the past decade, whereas men’s job satisfaction has remained, fairly constant. According to Coward, Hogan, Duncan, Home, Hiker and Felsen (1995 cited in Jinnett & Alexander, 1999), female employees demonstrate higher levels of job satisfaction than their male counterparts across most work settings. A number of studies involving several different populations support this argument (Lambert et al., 2001; Loscocco, 1990; Ma & Macmillan, 1999). However, research (Al-Mashaan, 2003) indicates that male employees in comparison to female employees report higher levels of job satisfaction. This, he attributes to the better chances for employment’ men are argues to have, and opportunities to advance in their jobs at a more rapid pace than females. Similarly, Zawacki, Shahan and Carey (1995) reported that male nurses tend to be somewhat more satisfied with their supervisors than female nurses and male nurses rated the characteristics of their work as more meaningful than female nurses. Miller and Wheeler (1992 cited in Lim, Teo & Thayer, 1998) maintain that women are inclined to be less satisfied in their job because they tend to hold position at lower levels in the organizational hierarchy where pay and promotion prospects are less attractive. Numerous studies across a variety of occupational settings have, however, found no significant gender differences in job satisfaction, despite the fact that women on average have inferior jobs in terms of pay, status, level of authority, and opportunities for promotion (hull, 1999 Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Rout, 1999). Various theories have emerged to account for what has often been referred to as the paradox of the contented working woman (Tolbert & Moe n, 1998). One of the most popular explanations is that men and women attach value to different aspects of the job. In addition to placing greater emphasis on co-worker relations, women are also more inclined to assign priority to work that provides them with a sense of accomplishment (Tolbert & Moe n, 1998). Furthermore, women may compare themselves only with other women or with women who stay at home rather than with all other employees (Hull, 1999).

Job satisfaction and occupational level: Butler and Ehrlich (1991) examined the proposition that the organizational position held by a job incumbent influences the attitudes, job satisfaction and performance levels of employees. They found that position largely determined the job demands and characteristics of the work environment experienced by workers. Rousseau (1978, p.533) concludes “job satisfaction appears to link responses to positional characteristics”. In other word, the effect of organizational position on an employee’s attitudes and behaviour appears entirely attributable to the characteristics of the job he or she performs. Gazioglu and Taazel (2002) found that managers, professional and clerical employees are more satisfied with the influence of their job, although this was as less apparent in clerical grade staff with the sense of achievement and with the respect they got from their supervisors, as compared to sales employees. However, they were less satisfied with the amount of their pay as compared to the sales employees. Clark (1996) also found that those at the higher end of the occupational scale reported higher satisfaction with various aspects of their work, but were less satisfied with their pay. Burke (1996) found that men and women at more senior levels in an organization reported higher levels of job satisfaction in relation to administrative, clerical and secretarial staff. Several other researchers have also found support for a positive association between job level and satisfaction. Results from a study by Robie, Ryan, Schmieder, Para and Smoith (1998) revealed a consistent and significant positive relationship between these two variables. Robie et al. (1998) maintain that the positive correlation between rank and job satisfaction may be attributed to the fact that higher-level jobs tend to be more complex and have better working conditions, pay, promotion prospects, supervision, autonomy, and responsibility. Vorster (1992) presents a similar argument. The evidence from the literature seems to suggest, therefore, that job level is a reliable predictor of job satisfaction with employees at higher ranks being generally more satisfied with their jobs than employees at lower levels.

Job satisfaction and tenure: Tenure refers to the length of time for which the individual has worked for the organization (Lim et al., 1998). Research (Jinnet & Alexander, 1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Staw, 1995; Vecchio, 1998) indicates that employees with longer tenure have a greater propensity to be satisfied with their jobs than employees with shorter tenure. Moreover, a study by Chambers (1999) established that employees with longer tenure were more satisfied with their work and as well as their level of pay. From this it might be concluded that satisfaction increases with time and that those benefits that increase in time, such as security and experience, are likely to have an important influence on employee satisfaction. On the other hand, Lambert et al. (2001), argue that an inverse relationship exists between tenure and job satisfaction. The reason the literature is both inconsistent and inconclusive in this regard may be because the relationship between these variables depends on the specific organization and how tenure is viewed. In some organizations, senior employees are highly respected, while high tenure is viewed as a liability in other organizations Lambert et al., (2001).

Job satisfaction and educational level: Research is unequivocal with respect to the relationship between job satisfaction and educational level (Camp, 1994); Kuntz, Bora & loftus, 1990; Loscocco, 1990; Ying 1997; Vorster, 1992). Some proponents (Larwood, 1984; Saal & Knight 1998) maintain that the relationship between education and job satisfaction is positive in nature. For example, Quinn and Mandilovitch (1975) and Glenn and Weaver (1982) reveal a positive relationship between job satisfaction and education. However, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) found an inverse relationship between job satisfaction and education. Vorster (1992) states that the higher an individual’s qualifications, the higher that individual’s job level and, consequently, so too the employee’s degree of satisfaction. Similarly, Hall (1994) and Clark and Oswald (1996) found a negative relationship between educational levels and Job satisfaction. Gazioglu and Tansel (2002) observed that those with degrees and postgraduate holders had lower levels of job satisfaction compared to individuals with lower levels of education. Clark and Oswald (1996) argued that due to expectation differentials between different levels of education, the relationship between education and job satisfaction is unclear. Conversely, Lambert et al. (2001) found education to have no significant effect on job satisfaction. Research (Ying, 1997) indicates that education has no effect on the satisfaction of federal government employees. Similarly, Rogers (1991) did not support for a link between the satisfaction and educational level of correctional service employees. Recent studies suggest, however, that educational level is positively related to job satisfaction, subject to a successful match being made between the individual’s work and qualifications (Battu, Belfield, & Sloane, 1999; Jones Johnson & Johnson, 2000). This implies, therefore, that better educated employees are only likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction when the duties performed by them are in line with their level of education.

2.6 ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Organizational commitment has emerged as an important construct in organizational research owing to its relationship with work-related constructs such as absenteeism, turnover, job satisfaction, job-involvement and leader-subordinate relation (Arnolds & Boshoff. 2004; Bagraim, 2003; Buck & Watson, 2002; Eby, et al., 1999; Farrell & Starnm, 1988; Lance, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Michaels & Spector, 1982; Tett & Meyer, 1993; Wasti, 2003). According to Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982), people who are committed are more likely to stay in an organization and work towards the organization’s goals. Steer (1975) indicates that organizational commitment is a useful tool to measure organizational effectiveness. According to Morrow (1993 in Meyer and Allen, 1997, p.12), “organizational commitment is a multidimensional construct that has the potential to predict outcomes such as performance, turnover, absenteeism, tenure and organizational goals”.

2.6.1 DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Constructed as an individual’s identification and involvement with a particular organization, organizational commitment is represented by “(a) a strong belief in an acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; (b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (c) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization” (Hart & Willower, 2001). Buchanan (cited in Reyes, 2001), defines commitment as “a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization, to one’s role in relation to goals and values of an organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth”. Organizational commitment can be defined as the strength of an individual’s identification with, and involvement in the organization (Levy, 2003). Organizational commitment is distinguished from job satisfaction in that organizational commitment is “an affective response to the whole organization, while job satisfaction is an affective response to specific aspects of the job” (Williams & Hazer, 1986, in Morrison, 2004, p. 116). Researchers have also viewed commitment as involving an exchange of behaviour in return for valued rewards. According to Scarpello and Ledvinka (1987), for example, organizational commitment is the outcome of a matching process between the individual’s job-related and vocational needs on the one hand and organization’s ability to satisfy these needs on the other.

2.6.2 TYPES OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

Bussing (2002) identifies three sources of commitment; the instrumental, affective and normative source. Affective commitment emphasizes attachment to the organization individuals put all their energy into their work, which is not expected of them. According to Bussing (2002), instrumental commitment focuses on the idea of exchange and continuance. Normative commitment focuses o an employee’s feelings of obligation to stay with an organization. Bagraim (2003) states that although various multidimensional models of organization commitment exist, the three models, which are proposed by Allen and Meyer (1997) are widely accepted in organizational research. Penly and Gould (1988 cited in Bussing, 2002) espouse the view that commitment may be perceived in terms of three facets: moral calculative and alienative commitment. Moral and alienative commitments represent affective commitment, while calculative commitment can be associated with instrumental commitment. However, Bragg (2002) identifies four types of employee commitment: (1) The first type is the “want to” commitment. According to Bragg (2002) these workers are devoted and loyal to the employer. They are prepared to go the extra mile for the employer and take on extra responsibilities. These employees come to work with a positive state of mind and are prepared to go the extra mile for the company. (2) The “have to” commitment is the second type. They are workers who are trapped workers (Bragg, 2002). These types of employees remain with the company for many reasons. One of the reasons is that they cannot find employment elsewhere. According to Bragg, (2002) these employees have bad attitudes, poor habits and disobey instructions from management and supervisors. 3. The “ought to” commitment is the third type. These workers are the ones who feel obligated to stay with an organization. They have a value system that says it is not the right time to leave the work (Bragg, 2002) 4. The fourth type is the disconnected or uncommitted group of employees. They have no reason to stay with the company and at every opportunity are on the lookout for new employment. They are basically halfway on their way out. Bragg (2002) stated that 20-30% of today’s workforce is in this situation. These workers have no intention to stay or they have loyalty to the company.

2.6.2.1 AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT

Affective organizational commitment is conceptualized as “an individual’s attitude toward the organization, consisting of a strong belief in, and acceptance of, an organization’s goals. “Wlingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization” (Mowday et al., 1982 cited in Eby et al., 1999, p. 464). Meyer and Allen (1984, p. 375) define affective commitment as the employee’s “positive feeling of identification with, attachment, and involvement in the work organization.” Bagraim (2003, p. 13 ) maintains that affective commitment develops if employees are able to meet their expectations and fulfil their needs within the organization. Affective commitment result in employees staying within the organization because that want to, and according to Romzek (1990), these employees will generally act in the organization’s best interest and are likely to leave the company. Eisenberger, Huntingon, Hutchinson and sowa (1986) conclude that individual will expend different depending degrees to effort and maintain differing affective responses to an organization depending upon perceived commitment of an organization to an employee within the organization. Therefore, employees will exhibit organizational commitment in exchange for organizational support and rewards.

2.6.2.2 CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT

Buitedach and de Witte (2005) posit the view that continuance commitment can be conceptualized as the propensity for employees to feel committed to their organization based on their perceptions of the associated costs of leaving the organization.

Meyer and Allen (1998) maintain that continuance commitment can be used to refer to anything of value that an individual may have “in vested (for example time, effort, money) that would be lost to be deemed worthless at some perceived cost to the individual if he or she were to leave the organization. Such investments might include contribution to non-vested pension plans, development of organization specific skills or status, use of organizational benefits such as reduced mortgage rates and so on. The perceived cost of leaving may be exacerbated by a perceive d lack of alternatives to replace nor make up for the foregone investments”

3. NORMATIVE COMMITMENT
Normative commitment can be conceptualized as the belief that employees have a responsibility to their organization” (Bagraim, 2003). Wiener (19982) defines commitment as the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizational goals.” According to Bagraim (2003), employees experience normative commitment due to their internal belief it is their duty to do so. Sparrow and Cooper (2003) suggest that normative commitment encompasses an employee’s felt obligation and responsibility towards an organization and is based on feelings of loyalty and obligation.

2.7. ORGANIZAIONAL COMMITMENT IN TEACHING

Fruth, Bresdon and Kaston (1982) analyzed commitment to teaching and found that intrinsic motivation was the most powerful link to teaching performance. Kaufman (1984) also reviewed teachers commitment to the profession and concluded that teachers characterized as motivation seekers were more committed to the teaching profession than were non-motivation seekers. Snyder and Spreitzer (1984) analyzed the, identity and commitment to the teaching role. They found that the alaments of commitment included intrinsic and extrinsic satisfactions, as well as self-identity, invested in the teaching role.

8. THE ANTECEDENTS OF ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT A number of personal determinants have been associated with organizational commitment.

2.8.1 PERSONAL DETERMINANTS

There have been a number of studies have investigated the personal correlates of organizational commitment. Characteristics such as age, tenure, educational level, to level and gender have been found to influence organizational commitment.

2.8.1.1 ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT AND AGE

As employee age their level of commitment towards their employing organization increases. Research (Dunham, Grube & Castaneda, 1994) indicates a significant relationship between organizational commitment and age. Similarly, researchers (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Cramer, 1993; Lok & Crawford, 1999; Loscocco, 1990; Luthans, 1992; Mowday et al; 1982; Sekaran; 2000) support the findings that the relationship between organizational commitment and age, is significant. Some theories postulate that, as individual’s age, alternative employment opportunities become limited, thereby making their current jobs more attractive (Kacmar et al 1999; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al; 1982). Other proponent hypothesis that older individuals may be more committed to their organizations because they have a stronger investment and a greater history with the organization than do younger employees (Harrison & Hubbard, 1998; Kacmar et al; 1999).

Therefore, younger employees are generally likely to be mobile and to have lower psychological investment in the organization. The older employees become, the less willing they are to sacrifice the benefits and the idiosyncratic credits that are associated with seniority in the organization (Hellman, 1997)

2.8.2 ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT AND TENURE

Tenure or the length of service of employees contributes towards increasing the employee’s level of commitment towards the organization. Research corroborates the view that a positive relationship exists between organizational commitment and tenure (Allen & Mowday, 1990; Dunham, et al; Gerhart, 1990; Larkey & Morrill, 1995; Malan, 2002; Meyer & Allen 1997; Mowday et al, 1982).

Research overwhelming indicates that tenure has a positive influence on organizational commitment (Loscocco, 1992; Luthans, Baack & Taylor 1987; Mowday et al, 1982). One possible reason for the positive relationship between the tenure and commitment may be sought in the reduction of employment opportunities and the increase in the personal investments that the individual has in the organization. This is likely to lead to an increase in the individual’s psychological attachment to the organization (Harrison & Hubbard, 1998; Lim et al, 1998; Luthans, 1992; Mowday et al, 1982). Sekaran 1992, maintains that tenure is associated with some status and prestige and that this induces greater commitment and loyalty to the employing organization.

However, researchers such as Luthans, McCaul and Dod1985 cited in Voster, 1992, failed to find support for the relationship between tenure and organizational commitment and tenure. This is further substantial by Cramer, 1993 who contends that longer tenure is not associated with greater commitment when age, rather than age at joining the organization, is controlled. Nevertheless, it is possible that tenure carries an element of status and prestige and this indicates greater commitment and loyalty to the employing organization.

2.8.1.3 ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION

Research generally indicates an average relationship between organizational commitment and an individual’s level of education, however, the results are not unequivocal (Luthans et al, 1987; Mowday et al. 1982; Voster 1992). A number of researchers maintain that the higher an employees level of education, the lower that individuals level of organizational commitment ( Luthans et al, 1987; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982). The negative relationship may result from the fact that highly qualified employees have higher expectations that the organization may be unable to fulfill. Chusmir 1982 cited in Voster, 1992, qualifications and levels of education may be a predictor of commitment, particularly for women. However, the level of education does not seem to be consistently related to an employee’s level of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Higher levels of education are postulated to enhance the possibility that employees can find alternative employment which may reduce their levels of commitment. McClurg’s, 1999, research found that highly educated employees had lower levels of organizational commitment. This is supported by other research findings (Luthans et al, 1987; Mowday et al, 1982; Voster, 1982).

More educated individuals may also become committed to their profession. As a result, it would become difficult for an organization to complete successivefully for the psychological involvement of these employees (Mowday and Zaga, 1990, more highly qualified individuals have a greater number of alternative work opportunities. However, Billingsley and Cross, 1992 failed to find support for a relationship between education and commitment.

2.8.1.4 ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT AND GENDER

As is the case with education, the influence of gender on organizational commitment remains unclear. The general contention appears to be that woman as a group tends to be more committed to their employing organization than their male counterparts (Cramer, 1993; Harrison & Hubbard, 1998; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 19982), Loscocco (1990), found that women were more likely to report that they are proud to work for their organization, that their values and the company’s values are similar, and that they would accept almost any job offered to them in order to remain with current employer. Several explanations have been offered to account for the greater commitment of female employees. Mowday et al. maintain that women generally have to overcome more barriers to attain their positions within the organization translates into higher commitment of female employees. Harrison and Hubbard (1998) similarly argue that women display greater commitment because they encounter fewer options for a relationship between gender and organization commitment (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Ngo & Tsang, 1998; Wahn, 1998). It may, thus be concluded that a growing body of evidence appears to support either no gender difference in organizational commitment or the greater commitment of women (Wahn, 1998).

It can be said that the happier the person is in the work setting, the more satisfied he/she will be with the job satisfaction as an overall feeling about one’s career or in terms of specific facets of the job or career, and it can be related to specific outcomes such as productivity and job performance. Job satisfaction is achieved when the employees are satisfied with certain factors related to their job such as the style of management, the work culture and the teamwork empowerment. However, these three factors do not necessarily provide complete job satisfaction. A research by Oshagbemi (2000) found that Lecturers are satisfied with their job when they are satisfied with teaching and research, as well as when they have been carried out regarding job satisfaction. One of the famous theories, which had been introduced by Frederick Herzberg, is known as the Two Factor Theory (Motivator Hygiene Theory). It concentrates on satisfaction and motivation at work setting. The motivating factors include the aspects of tasks job itself that can provide intrinsic motivation. Meanwhile, hygiene factors are external factors that relate to working environment. Insufficient hygiene factors will lead the dissatisfaction, but the hygiene factor per say will not lead to motivation research is undertaken in order to determine the level of job satisfaction among Kelantan Lecturers and to understand the factors affecting it. Lecturers play a very important role in nation building as they are directly involved in shaping the leaders of tomorrow. Thus, it is also important to ensure that the Lecturers are satisfied with their job. Satisfied Lecturers will lead to good job performance, which include delivering quality teachings, research and writings. It also believed that satisfied Lectures would be more commitment to their job and able to withstand any challenges. Literature Review Job Satisfaction and the variables affecting it job satisfaction is an important area to organizations. Many employers or superiors would not hesitate to know whether or not their employees or subordinates are satisfied with their jobs. Generally, there are four factors that influence the degree of job satisfaction, namely personality, values, work situation and social influence. A research by Karim (2008) reported six variables that significantly correlate with job satisfaction-affective commitment, job autonomy, job performance, feedback, role conflict, role clarity and organizational tenure. The research also found that out of these six variables, only two have predictive relationship with job satisfaction-affection commitment and organizational tenure. Jaafar et el (2006) conducted a research based on the Herzberg factor theory and found that both hygiene and motivator factors highly affect job satisfaction. The most important hygiene factors that contribute to job satisfaction are organization performance and interpersonal relationship. Meanwhile, responsibility and opportunity for promotions ranked as the important motivator factors that affect job satisfaction. It is the responsibility of the employers or superiors to provide support to their subordinate. This is important to ensure productive work place is maintained and developed, which will in turn satisfy the employees. Element of motivation include approval, praise, recognition, trust, respect, high expectation, loyalty, financial incentives, job enrichment and good communication. Sirin (2009) concluded that job satisfaction is also related to motivation. Employers need to create and maintain a conducive and enjoyable working environment to motivate the employees. There are three basic items for creating that environment, namely fairness, job security and involvement. When the employees are motivated, they will perform in the jobs and this lead to job satisfaction. Job Satisfaction among Educators, Lecturing is one profession that require high commitment; the workload is heavy, the role is broad and the Lecturers are directly responsible in educating and shaping the students. Without commitment, some may even withdraw from the profession. Other who do not withdraw, but no longer feel commitment to their job would probably shirk in their daily duties. These definitely lead to other adverse effects, especially to the students. Chimanikar et al (2007) found that most of the academic staffs in tertiary institutions in Zimbabwe are not satisfied with their job. This was due to high volume of workload, and inadequate salaries, allowances and loans to facilitate purchase of house and cars. On a similar note, Akpofure, et el. (2006) who conducted a research on job satisfaction among educators found that in general, educators were not satisfied with their workload but highly that there was a significant negative rank with job satisfaction. Santhapparaj and Alam, promotion, Fringe benefit, working condition, job satisfaction among the academic staffs promote, working condition and support to job satisfaction. Narimawati (2007) studied the commitment and turnover intentions towards higher education institutions. The result showed that job commitment and turnover intention simultaneously and partial commitment and the variables affecting commitment is a mult-dimensional construct that comprises three normative. An employee may be committed to his job due to his affection toward the job, or because the cost of leaving the job, he feels socially responsible toward his job. A study done and work commitment among academic in UTM proved a moderate relationship between job stress and work commitment. They also found that the factors that mostly influence the level of commitment are role ambiguity and role Work Commitment among educators in ten secondary schools in the district Sabah, (1998) reported that workload, work autonomy, style of management in school, and social relationship among teachers had a significant effect on work commitment. Kadyschuk (1997) conducted a study on teachers’ commitment based on three dimensions; namely organizational commitment, professional commitment and union commitment. Independent variables such as job task characteristics (variety, autonomy feedback and friendship), manifest personal needs (achievement, affiliation, autonomy and friendship), leadership (administrator responsiveness and principal leadership), role stress (role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload), participation in decision making. Cohesion and intent to stay in teaching. The findings confirmed that all those dimensions are affected by years of teaching. The findings confirmed that all those dimensions are affected by years of teaching experience, job task characteristics and leadership factors. On the importance of educators’ commitment, Huberman (1993) pointed out that one of the most critical-factors for future success in education is teachers’ commitment. This is not surprising as they are the ones who are directly involved with the education process. They are in fact responsible in transforming a person from someone who knows nothing to someone with good attitudes. The relationship between job satisfaction and work commitment Nasurdin and Rameyah (2003) noted that there are few studies that investigated job satisfaction with work commitment. It is believed while dissatisfied workers will intend to quit. Basically, if the job dimensions meet their needs, the employees will give full commitment, they found no reason for quitting from the organization as they can get what they want. Commitment is interrelated to satisfaction. Becker et el. (1995) in Tella et al. (2007) defined organization commitment in three dimensions; (1) a strong desire to be a member of a particular organization, (2) a willingness to exert high levels of efforts on behalf of the organization and (3) a defined belief and acceptability of the values and goals of the organization. Tella et al. (2007) later found that there was a relationship between motivation, job satisfaction and commitment. Besides that, commitment and the years of experience have been found to have no significant relationship with each other. Fletcher (2007) investigated the relationship between the levels of emotional quotient, job satisfaction and work commitment. The study was done among guidance and counseling teachers in secondary schools in Kuching, Sarawak. The study found that there was a significant relationship between the level of emotional quotient, job satisfaction and commitment.

CHAPTER THREE

Research Design

A descriptive survey research design type will be employed in this research. This is because the dependent variable (job satisfaction) has the already occur, what will be done is to find whether the independent variables (the job itself, salaries and wages, working condition, work environment, promotion) will have any effect on the dependent variable.

Population

The population shall involved all the 24 business educators’ teachers in public secondary schools in Ogun State.

Sample and Sampling Techniques

Both satisfied and sample random sampling methods will be used to select the local government, schools and teachers for this study.

Two educational zones out of four will be selected. These are Abeokuta and Yewa educational zones.

For local governments sampled, five out of twenty local government areas of Ogun State representing 25% will be sampled for this study. These are Odeda, Abeokuta North, Abeokuta South, Yewa North and Yewa South.

For schools sampled: 80 public secondary schools will be sampled. Hence, 16 public secondary schools will be sampled from each of the local government areas of Ogun State. With respect to teachers’ sample, three teachers teaching (business studies, commerce and accounting) in each school will participate in the study. Five teachers (Lecturers) in each of the Colleges of Education and Polythecnic Institutions will be sampled (Federal Colleges of Education, Abeokuta. Tai Solarin College of Education) and Polythecnic Institutions (Moshood Abiola Polythecnic) totaling 15 teachers. The totaled sampled for the study are 255 respondents.

Research Instrument

Teachers Job satisfaction questionnaire (TJSQ) will be adopted for this study. This questionnaire was designed by Adeniyi (2000), it has four sections (A,B, C and D).

Section A has 15 items, Section B has 9 items, Section C has 8 items and Section D has 8 items. All together it has 40 items.

The respondents are instructed to please indicate Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Items with Strongly Agree scored 4points, Agree 3points, Disagree 2points and Strongly Disagree has 1point.

This instrument was adopted at 0.90 correlation coefficient was re-tested and the result yielded a coefficient was retested and the result yielded a coefficient of 0.79 at 0.05 level of significance.

Realiability of the instrument: The relaibilty coefficient of this instrument was established thorough a test-retest method used to test the realibilty of the instrument. A pilot testing was used where 3 school were selected out of the sampled schools. The instrument was administered on them after 2 weeks the instrument was also re-administered on them to show the reliability of the instrument.