Importance of Employee (Internal Customer) Satisfaction in Higher Education

1. Importance of Employee (Internal Customer)
Satisfaction in Higher Education

2. 2
Importance of Employee (Internal Customer)
Satisfaction in Higher Education
Submitted by
Nazish Sohail
MS MKT - 040
Institute of Business & Management
University of Engineering and Technology
Lahore

3. 3
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 4
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................ 6
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .................................................................................. 7
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................ 8
QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................... 10
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 10
2.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .................................................................. 10
2.2 IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION ........................................ 15
2.3 DETERMINANTS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION ................................... 16
2.3.1 The influence of interpersonal relationship on job satisfaction .................. 17
2.3.2 The influence of daily workload on job satisfaction................................... 18
2.3.3 Pay and job satisfaction ................................................................................ 19
2.3.4 Supervision and job satisfaction ................................................................ 20
2.3. 5 Promotional opportunities and job satisfaction.......................................... 20
2.3.6 Co-workers and job satisfaction................................................................. 21
2.3.7 Job security and job satisfaction ................................................................. 21
2.4 Satisfaction of Academic Staff in Higher Education Institutions ...................... 22
2.5 Satisfaction of Administrative Staff in Higher Education Institutions .............. 23
2.6 Difference between level of satisfaction among Academic and Administrative
Staff 26
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 29
Definitions of Important terms.......................................................................................... 31
References ......................................................................................................................... 33

4. 4
Abstract
One of the most prominent reasons for the success of the successful reasons is
happy employees or employee satisfaction. Employees who shows contentedness and
satisfaction with their job and work they do they tend to stay long in the organizations.
Despite this fact, there also exists number of companies or more specifically the senior
management that neglects this important factor of organizational growth. In order to
avoid the hassle of rehiring and retraining and trying to retain the employees in the
company due to the poor image that is created in the mindset of the customers due to
these internal customers, then increasing employee (internal customer) satisfaction is
desirable.
This study was undertaken to develop understanding about the role of employee
satisfaction in the higher education institutions of Pakistan. Moreover, the differences
among the dimensions between the academic and administrative employees currently
working in higher education institutions of Pakistan were explored.
The findings of the study suggested that there was relatively low level of
satisfaction among the academic staff compared to the administrative staff. Academic
staff had low level of satisfaction for relationship with the colleagues and coworkers,
exists high competition with colleagues as compared to the administrative staff. Whereas
the pay satisfaction was lower for both the groups. The difference between academic and
administrative level staff in higher education institutions was not very significant. This
means that the administrative and academic staff was highly interlinked to each other.

5. 5
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Today, if we look at the most successful organizations and analyze their success
factors, number of reasons will come to our knowledge. One of the most prominent
reasons for the success of the successful reasons is happy employees or employee
satisfaction. Employees who shows contentedness and satisfaction with their job and
work they do they tend to stay long in the organizations. This leads to the lower turnover
rate in the organization which is a positive sign as a whole. This lower employee turnover
rate is due to the loyalty of employees, internal customers, increasing their interest in
their jobs and matching the requirements of the organization to attain the set objectives.
Various management strategies, as shown by the studies, can be employed to
increase the level of job satisfaction of the employees in order to improve the
productivity of the employees and the efficiency of the organization overall (Fyfe, 2014).
Today numbers of modern organizations are serious toward increasing the employee
loyalty and commitment and therefore are using these management strategies and are
successfully looking after their employees which not only increase the employee loyalty
but also give fantastic gains.
Despite these facts, there also exists number of companies or more specifically
the senior management that neglects this important factor of organizational growth. This

6. 6
neglected behavior results them (senior management) in huge costs related to rehiring, re
training of employees and developing their skills set to perform specific tasks and other
opportunity costs due to the prevailing culture of such an organization where employees
join and leave frequently due to employee job un-satisfaction.
In order to avoid all this hassle of rehiring and retraining and trying to retain the
employees in the company due to the poor image that is created in the mindset of the
customers due to these internal customers, then increasing employee (internal customer)
satisfaction is desirable. There are number of ways of doing this and different approaches
can be experimented until the best suited fit is identified.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
Since the employee satisfaction plays very crucial role in the growth of the
company, it is, therefore, important for all the organizations to understand this and exploit
this factor to benefit both their employees and themselves. Many large organizations like
Google Inc. are engaged in effective employee development programmes that are
boosting the employee motivation level and their morale as well. These programs
increase the employee commitment towards the organization by increasing their level of
satisfaction at work.
Happy employees or satisfied employees are the assets of an organization. The
more satisfied they get, the better their performance gets (improves) and overall process
leads to the increased satisfaction of the external customers. This clearly indicates that the

7. 7
internal customers’ satisfaction is somehow related to the satisfaction a company aims to
provide to their external customers by satisfying their needs and wants. This navigates to
the fact that the employee satisfaction is very important for any organization.
This research will be undertaken to develop understanding about the role of
employee satisfaction in the higher education institutions of Pakistan. Moreover, this
research will be beneficial in exploring the differences among the dimensions between
the academic and administrative employees currently working in higher education
institutions of Pakistan.
This study will be important in this regard that it will not only identify the
determinants and differentiate among the satisfaction dimensions of different people in
higher education institutions but will also present the platform to the higher education
institutions to understand the needs and wants of the internal customers (their employees)
whether working in academics or in administration and what makes them happy.
Moreover, this research will help to improve these institutions processes, functions,
policies etc. to get maximum benefit out of the improved employee performance through
increased level of job satisfaction, loyalty and commitment.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The study will be conducted to explore the differences in satisfaction dimension
among the employees of higher education institutions and the role of employee
satisfaction for their performance in higher education institutions will be identified. Thus

8. 8
the study will be titled as “The study of Dimensions of Employee (internal customer)
satisfaction and its role in their performance in Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s) in
Pakistan”.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The study will be based on the following objectives:
1. To explore the differences in satisfaction dimensions between the academic and
administrative employees in higher education institutions (HEI) in a developing
country, Pakistan.
2. To identify the role of employee satisfaction for their performance in higher
education.
QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY
The study will seek to answer the following questions:
1. What are the dimensions of employee satisfaction at academic level in HEI?
2. What are the dimensions of employee satisfaction at administrative level in HEI?
3. What differences exists between the satisfaction dimensions of academic and
administrative level employees in HEI?
4. How employee satisfaction can affect the performance of academic level
employees of HEI?
5. How employee satisfaction can affect the performance of administrative level
employees of HEI?

9. 9
6. What is the relation between the academic and administrative level employee
satisfaction in HEI?

10. 10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Today the new paradigms are set by various management approaches where the
organizations seek continuous research and development by placing emphasis on the
human factor in the front end. This human factor is very important because the
organizations are made up of people and people meet people to introduce, offer, sell the
products or services their organizations make and intend to foster a long term
relationship. Since these organizations can grow and foster based on these human
resources and on their views, behaviors, attitudes and perceptions, there is a rapid
increase in the number of studies related to employee satisfaction are being undertaken
by the researchers to understand these factors (Kusku, 2003).
There is no single or universal definition of employee job satisfaction but exist
number of definitions of this concept in the literature that share common theme. Different
authors have different views about defining this concept. One of the most well known
researchers in this field, Locke (1976) defines the concept of job satisfaction as “a
pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job
experiences”. His definition is widely used in the organizations. Locke tried to
differentiate the similar concepts like job involvement and morale of employees with this
concept of employee satisfaction. He clarified his views by stating satisfaction as a base

11. 11
line of measure of past or present experiences at job. The satisfaction of employee is
evaluated on the basis of individual assessments instead of appraisal of the group of
people.
Nguni, Sleegers, and Denessen (2006) defined the concept as a result of job
positive job experiences of an individual and the facilitating force of job values. Luthans
(1994) defines the concept as an attitude building concept for an individual towards his or
her job and the prevailing conditions at workplace. This concept was further refined by
Spector (1997) as a constituent of an attitudinal variable that measures the behaviors
about how one feels at his or her job as well as the other related factors.
The nature of job and the level of pressure faced by the employees have drastic
impact on the level of employee satisfaction. Koslowsky and Krausz (2002) explained
that the responsibilities at workplace may be very demanding for the employees to handle
or it may be over whelming for the employees. This pressure may lead the employee to
seek another position that not only benefit him financially but also improve the working
conditions and the job description may be better suited for his or her capabilities thus
increasing the initial rate of employee turnover in the organizations.
The employee satisfaction has number of components. Perception of an individual
that comes from the experience is one of its key components (Staples 1998). The
perception is a multi facet component that can be applied to both the internal and external
customers, employees and customers of the organization. The researchers have listed

12. 12
number of models based on the employee satisfaction. Joseph et al. (2005) explained that
these models of satisfaction find the perceived level of expectations of individuals are
based on their expectations of quality of a service. If the quality meet the set standards of
individual, then these people will be considered satisfied. On the contrary, if the service
offered is below the predicted or desired level of expectations then the individual might
have low level or satisfaction or no satisfaction at all. Another important component of
employee satisfaction is what is desired is obtained in addition to the perceived
expectations (Staples 1998).
There are number of factors that affect the employee job satisfaction. These
factors can be categorized as internal, external and personal factors. Telman and Unsal
(2004) explained the internal factors and their components that are related to the job
description and its nature. Whereas the external factors involves the physical conditions,
environment of the organization, job conditions, promotion, relationship with the
superiors and co workers, structure of the organization, organizational culture, job
security etc. The personal factors includes the factors related to the employees directly
including the demographic factors like age, gender, education level etc. personality traits
of the employee, knowledge and skills etc.
Due to its relevance with the physical and mental well being of the people, this
concept is widely studied in the management literature. It can be an important indicator
about the feelings of the employees about their job set up and it could be a very good
predictor of the behaviors related to the work based on the employee turnover rate,

13. 13
absenteeism and the organizational citizenship. Understanding these factors are crucial to
enhance the happiness of the employees as it is involved in the employee satisfaction
(Spector, 1997; Okpara, Squillace & Erondu, 2005).
Platsidou & Diamantopoulou (2009) noted that most of the researches in the field
of employee satisfaction are done in the perspective of organizational setting and for
industrial businesses. Recently, there is a change in perspective and various researchers
have shifted their focus from businesses and industries towards the studies related to
satisfaction of employees in the higher education perspective (Vuong & Duong, 2013).
Several studies have been undertaken to examine the level of job satisfaction among the
employees of higher education institutions of different developing countries but there still
exists gap in the literature which is required to be filled (Ssesanga & Garrett, 2005;
Eyupoglu & Saner, 2009).
There are mainly two broad categories of employees working in the higher
education institutions. These categories are academic staff that is mainly responsible for
the teaching and research activities of the institutions and the other is administrative staff
that is generally the support providers for the academic staff in their research and
teaching activities. The job description and the duties performed by these two categories
are different; therefore the expectations from their jobs and the institution are extremely
different. The evaluation of job requirements and the description of work for both the
categories need to be done on different grounds or base lines otherwise the results would
not be rational (Kusku, 2003).

14. 14
The satisfaction of employees working in the academic sector of higher education
institutions is greatly affected by the number of variables that exists at institutional level.
These variables include the type of leadership being followed at the institution, the
relationship between the student and the institution, the climate and the culture of the
institution etc. (Grunwald & Peterson, 2003; Hagedorn, 2000; Zhou & Volkwein, 2004).
Academic staff or the lecturers have their own set of priorities based on their
profession, occupation or personal interests in relation to their organizations or
universities. These interests may include their freedom to choose the method of
delivering lecture, make decisions about the curriculum and the research agenda. Chen,
Yang, Shiau and Wang (2006) stated that the satisfaction the educators of different
educational institutions gain from the work they do and the environment they offer their
services leads to the high education standards and the quality of research. Smith (2007)
supported this finding and highlighted that the teaching is one of the most satisfying
professions of the people who pursue creativity. The cornerstone of a successful
education system is the high quality lecturer and the high quality lecturers are often those
who have high job satisfaction.
There is very limited number of studies conducted in the field of higher education
institutions to measure the level of employee satisfaction. Most of these studies are based
on the determinants of the employee satisfaction only. Whereas there is dire need to go
beyond the determinants towards the examination of differences and what role employee
satisfaction plays in the achievement of goals in the higher education system in the
developing countries mainly in Pakistan. Hence this study will be exploring the

15. 15
differences in satisfaction dimensions between the academic and administrative
employees in higher education institutions (HEI) in a developing country, Pakistan.
Moreover this study will contribute to identify the role of employee satisfaction for their
performance in higher education. The findings of this study will contribute to fill the
existing gap in the literature of developing countries especially with reference to
Pakistan.
2.2 IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
The employee satisfaction concept has been a very hot topic for the researchers
and in practice people for over nearly five decades (Greasley, et. al., 2005) and this
concept plays critical role in the performance of organizations. The importance of this
concept has been stressed by number of management gurus and the research scholars in
their researches and experiences. Also in influencing the performance of the organization
is as much important as the satisfaction provided to the end customers (Chen, et. al.,
2006).
It is a multi dimensional and inter disciplinary concept that has attracted the
attention of the scholars and practitioners from vast disciplines including human resource
management, psychology, organizational behavior and so forth. Lund (2003) indicated
that there are large number of studies present in the literature that analyzes the concept of
employee satisfaction from different perspectives and its relation with the other variables
within the organization. There exist so many dimensions to this concept that there is no
single universal definition that can expose all of those at one time (Bernal, et. al, 2005).

16. 16
On the other hand, Judge, et. al, (1993), mentioned that there exist positive
correlation between the employee satisfaction and the motivation, involvement in job, the
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, job performance, etc and there is
negative relationship between the employee satisfaction and turnover rate, stress at work,
absenteeism etc. which is identified as the degree to which one is satisfied with their job.
The characteristics of employee satisfaction include the organizations characteristics,
tasks at job and personal characteristics. The organizational characteristics and the job
tasks can be termed as the work based factors in job satisfaction whereas the personal
characteristics can be non work based factors of employee job satisfaction (Zaim & Zaim,
2008).
The literature on Human Resource Management (HRM) also indicates the crucial
importance of the concept of employee satisfaction. Edgar and Geare (2005) indicated
that there exists relationship between the Human Resource Management practices that are
considered as appropriate with the positive attitudes of the employees, including
employee satisfaction productivity and loyalty etc. which is analyzed widely. Silvestro
(2002) suggested that the employees may be treated as a valuable asset to the
organizations for the improvement of employee commitment and loyalty that yields
higher performance and quality.
2.3 DETERMINANTS OF EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
There are number of determinants that can have direct or indirect impact on the
level of satisfaction of employees as suggested by the literature. The researchers Ooi et
al., (2005) examined the impact of Total Quality Management (TQM) practices on the

17. 17
job satisfaction of employees in the different industries of Malaysia. Their findings
indicted number of determinants that affect the employee satisfaction level at job
including the trust for their workplace, teamwork, the culture prevailing at organization
an and the focus towards the customers etc were positively related with the employees’
job satisfaction. Another research indicated that work load, task variety, work place
environment, the working conditions, timing, salary, relationship with the supervisors and
colleagues etc have impact on the employee satisfaction. The finding of this study
confirmed the positive correlation among these variables and the employee job
satisfaction (Roelen, Koopmans & Groothoff, 2008).
2.3.1 The influence of interpersonal relationship on job satisfaction
Mustapha (2013) explained that the employee satisfaction is a part of their social
contact with the others. It allows them time to socialize reasonably e.g., during breaks,
lunch, between customers etc. this helps them to develop the sense of relationship with
their colleagues and fosters teamwork. This is advisable as it eliminates the rude and
inappropriate behavior, offensive comments from the colleagues if there is a good
interpersonal relationship between the employees. Wan, Sulaiman and Omar (2012)
explained the importance of good relationship between the supervisors and the
subordinates. The effect of such relationship is significant for internal, external and
general satisfaction of employees and it could be the strongest variable for external job
satisfaction.

18. 18
Moreover the relationship with the subordinates or peers affects the satisfaction of
employees and the rate of turnover among them (Saidon, 1998). This was supported by
the researchers, Zainudin Awang & Junaidah Hanim Ahmad (2010) and Danish &
Usman (2010). They asserted that there exists positive correlation between the
relationship at work place and employee job satisfaction. The environment which fosters
cooperation and respect among the employees indeed increases the job satisfaction.
2.3.2 The influence of daily workload on job satisfaction
In a limited time frame, when a large pile of work is given to the employees, it
often results in the stressful employees (Mustapha, 2013). Various researchers have
identified that the workload given to the employees can have drastic impact on the quality
of performance and the employee satisfaction. The over load of the duties and
responsibilities have negative impact on the level of employee satisfaction in their
organizations.
Not only their performance is affected but also their commitment towards their
jobs and organizations is affected. It confirms negative significant relationship between
the employee job satisfaction and the overload given to them (Altaf & Awan, 2011;
Porter & Umbach, 2000; Zainudin Awang & Junaidah Hanim Ahmad, 2010).
The research has indicated that the employees seek amount of variety and
innovation at their work place which improves their performance as well as their level of
job satisfaction (Houston, Meyer & Paewai, 2006).

19. 19
The study conducted by Luthans (2005) suggested number of determinants of
employee job satisfactions. The main among them are pay, work, promotion, supervision
and fellow workers respectively.
2.3.3 Pay and job satisfaction
The pay or remuneration given to the employee is a basic factor in the employee
satisfaction for every type of employee whether in public or private sector and in small,
medium and large organization. However, there still exists gap in the literature about
whether the pay plays any significant role in the employee satisfaction (Khalid, Irshad &
Mehmood, 2011). Pay, offered to the employees, alone can trigger the satisfaction of
employees or the other way around but there is a lack of empirical evidence in the
literature to indicate it (Bassett, 1994). Whereas there exists significant relationship
between the level of satisfaction of employees and the pay, ranks assigned to them as per
the study conducted by Oshagbemi (2000). Also the study conducted at Massachusetts
higher education institutions suggested that the salary package and professional
development of the employees are among the most important factors related to the
employee satisfaction (Grace & Khalsa, 2003).
There exist mixed views about the role of pay with the satisfaction of employees.
The survey conducted in 1998 by Young and his fellow researchers found no significant
relationship between pay and satisfaction. Similarly the satisfaction of employees is
weakly associated with the pay and other benefits (Brainard, 2005).

20. 20
2.3.4 Supervision and job satisfaction
There exists positive relationship between the satisfied employee and the
supervisors. The supervision has very significant role in the job satisfaction in terms of
providing emotional support to the employees and the guidance in technical matters
(Peterson et al., 2003; Robbins et al., 2003).
The supervisors also contribute to the morale building of the employees and their
behavior has strong impact on the job satisfaction. Moreover, the supervisors having
democratic style may have satisfied employees than the people with autocratic style.
They also bring forth the human side of the work and contribute to the level of employee
job satisfaction (Khalid, Irshad & Mehmood, 2011).
2.3. 5 Promotional opportunities and job satisfaction
Many researchers are of the view that the promotional opportunities are strong
determinant of the employee job satisfaction (Peterson et al., 2003). This opinion was
supported by the research that suggested that there exists positive and significant
relationship between the satisfaction and promotion opportunities of the employees.
Moreover, when there are limited opportunities of growth or promotion available for the
employees, they like to switch from their jobs (Ellickson & Logsdon, 2002; David &
Wesson, 2001).

21. 21
2.3.6 Co-workers and job satisfaction
Kreitner and Kinicki (2001) suggested that friendly and collaborating colleagues
can increase the level of employee job satisfaction. According to Madison (2000), the
employees who do not get appropriate support and collaboration from their co workers
they are more likely to be the unhappy or dissatisfied employees in the organization.
Positive relationship of employees with their colleagues not only enhances their
satisfaction level but also yields significant effects and correlation on their level of
satisfaction (Berta, 2005; Khalid, Irshad & Mehmood, 2011).
2.3.7 Job security and job satisfaction
Study indicated that the people working in public sector feel more job security
than their counterparts in private sector organizations (Khalid & Irshad, 2010). Various
researchers indicated that the increased job security can lead to the greater commitment
of employees towards their organizations (Morris et al., 1993; Iverson, 1996).
The study also revealed that the job security has significant impact on the
attitudes of employees which also results on their organizational commitment and
performance. Moreover job insecurity can have adverse affects on the employee
commitment and the level of job satisfaction of employees (Khalid, Irshad & Mehmood,
2011).

22. 22
2.4 Satisfaction of Academic Staff in Higher Education Institutions
The job satisfaction of academic staff in the higher education institutions, like all
the others, is affected by the intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors as well as the
supervision quality, their relationship with the co-workers and their degree of success and
failure at work (Daft, 2005). Many studies suggested that internal or intrinsic satisfaction
is more prominent in case of teachers as a predictor of their job satisfaction. This intrinsic
satisfaction comes usually from their activities as teachers, while the extrinsic factors
include salary, support from their supervisors and co-workers, workplace safety etc.
(Dvorak & Philips, 2001).
Without sufficient support from the supervision and co-workers, the academic
staff gets less motivated for performing their best in the class room and when they,
lecturers, are not satisfied from their working conditions, they are more prone to leave
their institutions or in worse conditions they tend to leave their profession. The study
reported that the teachers who were less satisfied were planning to leave their profession
and had negative attitude towards teaching (Smith, 2007).
There are number of factors associated to the measure of employee satisfaction in
the academics of higher education institutions. The researchers in China and Uganda
measured the level of academic staff satisfaction in private and public sector universities
by using number of determinants including vision of the organization, respect given to
them, leadership style, motivation, pay benefits, working conditions, teaching style,
governance, promotion opportunities, the relationship with supervisors and coworkers

23. 23
etc. (Chen et al., 2006; Sseganga & Garrett, 2005). There exists positive and significant
relationship between the pay benefits, the relationship among the coworkers of academic
staff and there was positive and insignificant relation between the academic satisfaction
and the working conditions of their institutions (Gill & Ahmad, 2009).
Various researchers indicated that the time pressure and working hours also has
significant impact on the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the employees. Their
study findings suggested that the academic staff or faculty were very dissatisfied with the
workload with the increased number of working hours (Jacobs & Winslow, 2004). This
finding was supported by number of researchers who found the work overload has
negative significant impact on the level of employee satisfaction in academics (Altaf &
Awan, 2011; Awang & Ahmad, 2010)
Another research suggested that the level of satisfaction of faculty members
varies with their job description, ranks, service length, and gender. Moreover, the overall
job satisfaction is influenced by the tenure, rank and faculty behavior towards the
teaching, research, recognition, administrative support and compensation (Jacobs &
Winslow, 2004; Aguirre, 2000; Bower, 2002; Fraser & Hodge, 2000; Hagedorn, 1996;
Rosser, 2004, 2005).
2.5 Satisfaction of Administrative Staff in Higher Education Institutions
Employees play critical role in the success of higher education sector. Their
satisfaction is very important for the universities to reach their quality standards and

24. 24
accountability. Academic staff and administrative staff are their assets that bring and
maintain the intellectual capital of these institutions. They also maintain the level of
quality system which satisfies the stakeholders (Kusku, 2003; Johnson & Golomskiis,
1999).
Juwaheer and Nunkoo (2010) suggested that now numbers of higher education
institutions are trying to demonstrate their commitment with their staff publically through
staff training and development. The strength of these institutions lies in the strength of
their academic and support staff. Keeping this in mind, it is important for the
management to maintain effective and efficient staff in their institutions and also give
proper training, guidance to them in order to maintain the quality standards.
Leveson (2004) in Juwaheer and Nunkoo (2010) asserted that it is important to
understand the capabilities of the staff and assigning them tasks that are of interest to
them is advisable otherwise they lose interest in the things they are not capable to do.
Giving work appreciation also improves the level of satisfaction among the employees.
Moreover, the task of management is to matching the tasks of their job with their
capabilities for successful implementation of quality standards.
Since the academic and administrative staff is vital for the success of the higher
education institutions, great emphasis is required on their development to match the
organizational objectives. There exists increased level of competition among the
administrative and academic staff in these institutions due to the increasing expectations

25. 25
of the universities on their resources that is their staff (Juwaheer and Nunkoo, 2010;
Johnsrud, 2002).
Despite this fact very few institutions are taking initiatives to ascertain the
employee development which increases the job stress and dissatisfaction among these
employees (Johnsrud, 2002). Juwaheer and Nunkoo (2010) asserted the importance of
employee development in their study and stated that the understanding of such scenario
by the university administrators is very important as they play very important role in the
process of recruitment, employee retention, training, quality teaching, student learning
and overall performance of these higher education institutions.
Many higher education institutions are now employing the different management
approaches, due to the increased external pressures on maintaining the quality standards
which can only be attained through quality teaching and administrative staff, to improve
the organizational governance system and their structure. Their adaptation to the latest
methods is visible by their primary practicing of management tools like performance
management system (PMS). For example, Barnabè & Riccaboni (2007) related the
dynamic use of PMS for their academic staff, research units and management. These
changes in management styles has forced these institutions to find the best way to
manage their resources; academics and staff (Parker, 2011). This increased emphasis on
the satisfaction of employees in higher education institutions is motivated by the
operational nature of work and the budgetary requirements in these institutions which are
dominated by the expenses on academic development. it is then expected that the job

26. 26
satisfaction will influence the employee commitment and the organizational performance
(Toker 2011).
2.6 Difference between level of satisfaction among Academic and Administrative
Staff
The research about the academic staff and administrative staff can be summarized
as follows:
There exists very rich literature about the satisfaction level of academic staff in
higher education sector. Various researchers have developed a notion of relationship
among the factors like environment, pay, safety, etc with the employee satisfaction.
These factors also be used in accounting for the reasons behind the employee attrition at
work or there possible stay in their workplaces. The research undertaken in the
universities of USA found that the employees were more satisfied with their
environmental factors and were dissatisfied with the compensation given to them.
Moreover the academic staff showed dissatisfaction with their performance evaluation
criteria (Kusku, 2003; Manger & Eikeland, 1990).
Another research found out the number of factors about the employee satisfaction
in the higher education system which also included the role of administration in the
academic staff’s level of satisfaction (Hagedorn, 1994).

27. 27
The research on the level of satisfaction among the administrative staff is not as
rich as the research on the employees in academics. Most of the researchers have focused
their studies on the entry and mid level adminstrative staff and on the senior level
administrators as well. These senior administrators usually includes the deans, academic
officers, presidents etc. who have duel role in academics and administration of their
institutions. Therefore, most of the findings of such researchers are parallel to the
satsifaction level found in the academic staff (Johnsrud, 2002; Wolkwein & Parmley,
2000; Johnsrud et al., 2000).
The research conducted by Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) analyzed the quality of
working life among the administrative staff based on their attitudes. The study found nine
important factors that constitutes the components of their satisfaction. The factors
included career support, diversity, gender based issues, intervention, discriminatiion,
recognition, working conditions, relationships within and between the departments and
external relationships. Their perception related to these factors shape the attitudes and
morale of these mid level and senior level administrators. Upon examination of the
factors related to the resign of these managers / administrators, factors like perception of
work life and morale were identified (Johnsrud et al., 2000). These findings were parallel
to the findings of researchers about the intention of academic level staff to resign from
their jobs. In both the cases, the quality of work life had direct impact on their morale and
their level of morale had impact on their decisions to leave the jobs.

28. 28
The study conducted by Kusku (2003) about the level of satisfaction among the
academic and administrative staff in the state level universities found some differences
between the satisfaction levels of academic and administrative staff. The research
findings suggested that there was no clear difference between the satisfaction levels of
both of these types of employees. Another research also suggested that there exist no
significant difference between these employees’ satisfaction level. However, the findings
suggested there was relatively low level of satisfaction among the academic staff
compared to the administrative staff. This can be interpreted as that they, faculty
members, had higher expectations from their jobs than administrative staff (Kusku, 2003;
Johnsrud et al., 2000).
Number of researches also suggested that the relationship level with the
colleagues and coworkers of academic staff is relatively low for academic staff as
compared to the administrative staff. On the contrary the level of competition among the
colleagues is higher for academic staff than of administrative level people. This
suggested that the academic staff was not satisfied with their colleagues with respect to
the collaboration and the interest in academic activities and the competition they pose to
them. There is also significant difference between the work group satisfaction levels
among both the groups. The administrative staff showed more satisfaction from the level
of work done by their faculty. The pay satisfaction was lower for both the groups and the
satisfaction level of academic staff for professional level was higher as compared to the
administrative staff. The study also suggested there is no significant difference between

29. 29
both the groups related to institutional level satisfaction (Johnsrud et al., 2000; Kusku,
2003; Wolkwein & Parmley, 2000; Johnsrud, 2002).
Conclusion
This study contributes to the level of employee (internal customer) satisfaction in
the higher education institutions of Pakistan and it carries several implications. First, the
importance of employee satisfaction was discussed and secondly, number of aspects or
determinants of employee satisfaction were identified and discussed. Several
determinants of employee satisfaction with respect to higher education were identified
including pay and benefits, workplace environment, relationship with supervisors and
coworkers, promotion opportunities and work load etc.
Furthermore, the satisfaction of employees in higher education institutions with
respect to academic level staff and administrative staff were discusses. In the end, the
visible differences, with the help of previous literature on the subject, were identified and
briefly discussed. The quality of work life had direct impact on the morale and level of
morale had impact on their decisions to leave the jobs in both academic and
administrative staff. The findings suggested there was relatively low level of satisfaction
among the academic staff compared to the administrative staff. This can be interpreted as
that they, faculty members, had higher expectations from their jobs than administrative
staff. Academic staff had low level of satisfaction for relationship with the colleagues

30. 30
and coworkers, exists high competition with colleagues as compared to the administrative
staff. Whereas the pay satisfaction was lower for both the groups.
There is significant difference between the work group satisfaction levels among
both the groups and no significant difference exist between both the groups related to
institutional level satisfaction. The review of the literature specified that the difference
between academic and administrative level staff in higher education institutions was not
very significant. This means that the administrative and academic staff was highly
interlinked to each other.

31. 31
Definitions of Important terms
Internal Customer
Internal client client is connected directly to the organization and usually (but not
necessarily) within the organization. Clients are usually internal stakeholders, employees
or shareholders, but it also includes creditors and external supervision.
Job Satisfaction
Pleasant or positive emotional state by evaluating the work or work experiences at work
Organizational Citizenship
It promotes individual behavior, consumer goods, which is not directly or indirectly
recognized by the formal reward system, and is the sum of the effective functioning of
the organization.
Turnover Rate
It is the rate at which the employees of the organization leave their employers.
Organizational Commitment
It relates to the psychological association of an employee with their organization
Total Quality Management
It refers to the permanent effort throughout the organization to install and climate in
which the organization continually improves its ability to provide quality products and
services to customers.
Performance Management System (PMS)
Performance management system is a tool used by companies in developing and training
their employees. It is a predetermined set of guidelines for individuals employed by a

32. 32
company. The system is used to describe the current position to the employee and lay out
the expectations of company management for the employee.
Culture
The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded
collectively.

33. 33
References
Aguirre, A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace:
Recruitment, retention, and academic culture (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report,
No. 27—6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Altaf, A., and Awan, M. (2011). Moderating Affect of Workplace Spirituality on the
Relationship of Job Overload and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1),
93-99. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0891-0
Altaf, A., and Awan, M. (2011). Moderating Affect of Workplace Spirituality on the
Relationship of Job Overload and Job Satisfaction. Journal Of Business Ethics, 104(1),
93-99. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0891-0
Barnabe, F., & Riccaboni, A. (2007). Which Role for Performance Measurement Systems
in Higher Education? Focus on Quality Assurance in Italy. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 33(3-4), 302–319. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.07.006
Bassett, G. (1994). The case against job satisfaction. Business Horizons, 37 (3), p 67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(94)90007-8
Bernal, J.G., Castel A.G., Navarro, M.M., and Torres P.R., (2005). Job satisfaction:
empirical evidence of gender differences, Women in Management Review, vol. 20, No. 4,
pp. 279-288.
Bower, B.L. (2002). Campus life for faculty of color: Still strangers after all these years?
In C.L. Outcalt (Ed.), New directions for community colleges, no. 118: Community
college faculty: Characteristics, practices, and challenges (pp. 79-88). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Brainard, J. (2005). Postdoctoral researcher's value structured training over pay, survey
says. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(32), p. 21.
Chen, S.H., Yang, C.C., Shiau, J.Y., and Wang, H.H. (2006), “the development of an
employee satisfaction model for higher education”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 5,
pp. 484-500.
Chen, S.H., Yang, C.C., Shiau, J.Y., and Wang, H.H. (2006). The development of an
employee satisfaction model for higher education. TQM Mag, 18 (5), 484-500.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780610685467
Chen, SH., Yang, CC., Shiau, JY., & Wang, HH. (2006). The development of an
employee satisfaction model for higher education. TQM Mag, 18 (5), 484-500.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780610685467
Daft, L.R. (2005). The Leadership Experience. (3rd ed.). South-Western: Thomson.

34. 34
Danish, R.Q, and Usman, A. (2010). Impact of Reward and Recognition on Job
Satisfaction and Motivation: An Empirical Study from Pakistan. International Journal of
Business and Management, 5(2), 159-167.
David, B., & Wesson, T. (2001). A comparative analysis among public versus private
sector professionals. The Innovation Journal, 19 (15), 28-45.
Dvorak, J., & Philips, K.D. (2001). Job satisfaction of high school journalism educators,
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication.
Edgar, F. and Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitude: different measures
–different results. Personel Review, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 534-549.
Ellickson, M.C., & Longsdon, K. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal
government employees. Public Personnel Management, 31(3), 343-358.
Eyupoglu, S.Z., & Saner, T. (2009). The relationship between job satisfaction and
academic rank: a study of academicians in Northern Cyprus. Paper presented at the
World Conference on Educational Sciences, North Cyprus, February 4-7.
Fraser, J., & Hodge, M. (2000). Job satisfaction in higher education: Examining gender in
professional settings. Sociological Inquiry, 70(2), 172-187.
Fyfe, R. (2014). There are some great business benefits if you increase employee job
satisfaction retrieved from http://www.shiftplanning.com/articles/there-are-some-great-business-
benefits-if-you-increase-employee-job-satisfaction.html [accessed on
07.05.2014]
Gill, S.S. and Ahmad, K., (2009). JOB SATISFACTION AMONG PAKISTANI
TEACHERS, EFFECT OF WORKING CONDITION, PAY-BENEFITS, AND
nd
RELATIONSHIP WITH COWORKERS. Proceedings 2
CBRC, Lahore, Pakistan
November 14, 2009
Grace, D.H., & Khalsa, S.A. (2003). Re-recruiting faculty and staff: The antidote to
today’s high attrition. Independent school, 62(3), 20-27.
Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Soetanto, R., and King, N. (2005).
Employee perceptions of empowerment, Employee Relations, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 354-
368.
Grunwald, H., & Peterson, M.W. (2003). Factors that promote faculty involvement in and
satisfaction with institutional and classroom student assessment. Research in Higher
Education, 44, 173–204.

35. 35
Hagedorn, L. S., (1994). Retirement proximity’s role in the prediction of satisfaction in
academe. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 711-28.
Hagedorn, L.S. (1996). Wage equity and female faculty satisfaction: The role of wage
differentials in a job satisfaction causal model. Research in Higher Education, 37(5),
569-598.
Hagedorn, L.S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Components, theories,
and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 105, 5–20.
Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., and Paewai, S. (2006). Academic Staff Workloads and Job
Satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal Of Higher Education Policy &
Management, 28(1), 17-30. doi:10.1080/13600800500283734
Jacobs, J.A., & Winslow, S.E. (2004). Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family
demands. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596,
104-129.
Johnsrud, L.K. (2002), Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative work life:
implications for college and university campuses, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43
No.3, pp.379-95.
Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J., (1999). College and university midlevel administrators:
explaining and improving their morale. Review of Higher Education. Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp.121-41.
Johnsrud, L.K., Heck, R.H., and Rosser, V.J., (2000). Morale Matters: Midlevel
administrators and their intent to leave. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 71 No. 1, pp.
34-59.
Joseph, M., Yakhou, M., Stone, G., (2005). .An educational institution.s quest for service
quality: customers. perspective.. Quality Assurance in Education 13, 66-82.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J., and Locke, E.A., (2005). Core self evaluations and job
and life satisfaction: the role of self concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 2, pp.257-268.
Juwaheer, T. D., and Nunkoo, R., (2010). Assessing Employee Satisfaction in Higher
Education: the case of Academics of the University of Mauritius. International Research
Symposium in Service Management. ISSN 1694-0938
Khalid, S., Irshad, M. Z., & Mehmood, B., (2011). Job Satisfaction among Academic
Staff: A Comparative Analysis between Public and Private Sector Universities of Punjab,
Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management .Vol. 7, No. 1; January
2012

36. 36
Koslowsky, M. & Krausz, M. (2002). Voluntary employee withdrawal and inattendance.
New York: Plenum Publishers.
Kusku, F., (2003). Employee satisfaction in higher education: the case of academic and
administrative staff in turkey. Career development International. 8/7 [2003], 347-356
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Lund, D.B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18, No 3, pp. 219-236.
Luthans, F. (1994). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hills International Edition.
Manger, T. and Eikeland, O., (1990). Factors predicting staffs intention to leave in the
university. Higher Education. Vol. 19, pp.281-91.
Mustapha, N., (2013). Measuring Job Satisfaction from the Perspective of Interpersonal
Relationship and Faculty Workload among Academic Staff at Public Universities in
Kelantan, Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 15
[Special Issue – November 2013]
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional
leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.
Okpara, J. O., Squillace, M, and Erondu, E. A., (2005). Gender differences and job
satisfaction: a study of university teachers in the United States. Women Manage. Rev.
20(3): 177-190.
Ooi, K. B. et al. (2005). Does TQM influence employees’ job satisfaction? An empirical
case analysis. Retrieved from
http://business.yru.ac.th/files/project/journal%20management/w12.pdf [on 09.05.2014]
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Correlates of pay satisfaction in higher education. The
International Journal of Education Management, 14(1), 31-39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540010310387
Parker, L. (2011). University corporatisation : Driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 22(4), 434–450. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2010.11.002

37. 37
Peterson, D.K., Puia, G.M., & Suess, F.R. (2003). An exploration of job satisfaction and
commitment among workers in Mexico. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 10 (2), 73-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190301000208
Platsidou, M., & Diamantopoulou, G. (2009). Job satisfaction of Greek university
professors: Is it affected by demographic factors, academic rank and problem of higher
education? In G.K. Zarifis (Eds.) Educating the Adult Educators: Quality Provision and
Assessment in Europe, Conference Proceedings (pp. 535-545). ESREA-ReNAdET.
Thessaloniki: Grafima Publications.
Porter, S.R., and Umbach, P., (2000). Analyzing Faculty Workload Data Using
Multilevel Modeling, Paper presented at the AIR 200 Annual Forum, Maryland. Glazer,
G., & Henry, M., 1994. In J. F. Wergin (Ed.), Analyzing Faculty Workload (39-56). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Robbins, S.P., Odendaal, A., & Roodt, G. (2003). Organizational behavior (9th ed.).
Cape Town: Prentice-Hall International.
Roelen, C., Koopmans, P., and Groothoff, J. (2008). Which work factors determine job
satisfaction? Work, 30(4), 433-439.
Rosser, V.J. (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their
worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285-309.
Rosser, V.J. (2005). Measuring the change in faculty perceptions over time: An
examination of their work life and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 81-
107.
Saidon, I. M. (1998). A comparative study of job Satisfaction and turnover Intention of
lecturers in Accountancy and engineering Faculties. Retrieved from
http://eprints.uitm.edu.my/2733/1/INTAN_MARZITA_SAIDON_98_24.pdf [on
12.05.2014]
Silvestro, R. (2002). Dispelling the modern myth: Employee satisfaction and loyalty
drive service profitability, Vol. 22, No1, pp. 30-49.
Smith, W.T. (2007). Job Satisfaction in the United States, Embargoed for Release
NORC/University of Chicago. [Online] Available: http://www-news.
uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070417.jobs.pdf
Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38. 38
Sseganga, K., & Garrett, RM. (2005). Job satisfaction of university academics:
Perspectives from Uganda. Higher Education, 50, 33-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6346-0
Staples, D. S., Higgins, C. A., (1998). .A study of the impact of factor importance
weightings on job satisfaction measures. Journal of Business and Psychology 13, 211-
232.
Telman, N., & Unsal, P. ( 2004). Calisan Memnuniyeti. Epsilon Publishing, Istanbul.
Vuong, X, K., and Duong, M, Q., (2013). A Comparison of Job Satisfaction Level
between Male and Female Faculty at the Vietnam National University of Ho Chi Minh
City. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS) Volume 1—Issue 3,
November 2013
Wan, H., Sulaiman, M., and Omar, A. (2012). Procedural justice in promotion decisions
of managerial staff in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(1), 99-121.
doi:10.1080/13602380903424167
Wolkwein, J.F and Parmley, k., (2000). Comparing administration satisfaction in public
and private universities. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 41 No.1, pp. 95-116.
Young, B.S., Worchel, S., & Woehr, W.D.J. (1998). Organizational commitment among
public service employees. Personnel Journal, 27(3), 339-348.
Zaim, H., & Zaim, S. (2008). Measuring Employee Satisfaction in Small and Medium
Sized Enterprises. In Conference on Management and Enterprise, Fatih University,
Turkey.
Zainuddin Awang and Junaidah Hanim Ahmad (2010). Modeling Job Satisfaction and
Work Commitment Among Lecturers. A Case of UiTM Kelantan, Journal of Statistical
Modeling and Analytics, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 45–59.
Zainuddin Awang and Junaidah Hanim Ahmad (2010). Modeling Job Satisfaction and
Work Commitment Among Lecturers. A Case of UiTM Kelantan, Journal of Statistical
Modeling and Analytics, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 45–59.
Zhou, Y. & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure
intentions: A comparison of tenured versus non-tentured faculty at research universities
using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education, 45, 139–176.