The current page is not translated to the selected language.
A leading Lithuanian university conducted a survey among its staff in 2010 to discover what causes job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and to explore attitudes among various groups of employees. Its findings suggest they are motivated most by favourable public attitutes towards their profession, good relationships with colleagues and managers, and the nature of their work. Dissatisfaction was caused by heavy workloads, group work and inadequate conflict management.
The survey, carried out by researchers at Vytautas Magnus University in Kaunas (VDU) in 2010, aimed to identify factors that determine job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and explored attitudes to work among different groups of employees at the university.
The main survey method was a representative questionnaire, which was sent to all staff members. Statistical data processing software was used to analyse 107 completed questionnaires. The survey was conducted in January and February 2010.
The distribution of respondents was as follows:
The standardised questionnaires used the job satisfaction scale of the Occupational Stress Indicator ( OSI). Taking into account the objectives of the survey and organisational specifics of the university, 16 out of 22 items in the original job satisfaction scale were used to measure satisfaction with personal achievements, work-provided added value, personal growth and satisfaction with the job itself. A linear five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (fully agree) to 5 (fully disagree) was used to rate employees’ answers.
The results of the analysis reveal that university staff members are most motivated by public attitudes towards their profession, by the relationships they have with their fellow workers and managers and by the nature of the work they do. Job security and the amount of responsibility are also important motivational factors (see Table 1).
The survey also suggests that the most demotivating factors include heavy workloads, group work, insufficient scope for personal growth and limited career opportunities, and inadequate conflict management.
| Factors | % |
|---|---|
| Public opinion | 95.0 |
| Relationship with immediate boss | 86.9 |
| Relationships with fellow workers | 83.3 |
| The work done | 78.2 |
| Job security | 55.9 |
| The amount of responsibility given | 55.4 |
| Communication | 53.0 |
| Personal achievements | 51.5 |
| The level of control at work | 51.0 |
| Internal policies and administration of the University | 49.0 |
| Recognition for work | 48.5 |
| Participation in decision-making processes | 44.6 |
| Conflict management | 39.0 |
| Personal growth/career | 38.6 |
| Work in groups | 38.6 |
| Workloads | 20.8 |
Note: from OSI scale, based on Herzberg motivational theory factors
In order to identify differences in job satisfaction or dissatisfaction among various groups of university staff, the median values of the factors have been assessed on the basis of the occupations of respondents. Low median values demonstrate high job satisfaction and high median values show problematic areas.
The survey revealed quite homogeneous views about motivational factors in all three groups of employees. All three were most motivated by public opinion about their profession and their relationships with managers, while heavy workloads and improper conflict management were the least motivating factors (see Table 2). Large workloads were more frequently mentioned by academic staff and improper conflict management was more frequently reported by academic and non-academic staff of the faculties and centres of the university.
| Factors | Academic staff | Non-academic staff members of faculties and centres | Staff members of services and units |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public opinion | 1.31 | 1.47 | 1.54 |
| Relationship with immediate boss | 1.58 | 1.65 | 1.57 |
| Relationships with fellow workers | 1.90 | 1.80 | 2.05 |
| The nature of the work | 1.59 | 2.05 | 1.90 |
| Job security | 2.44 | 2.35 | 2.28 |
| The amount of responsibility given | 2.36 | 2.30 | 2.57 |
| Communication | 2.31 | 2.70 | 2.34 |
| Personal achievements | 2.30 | 2.90 | 2.64 |
| The level of control at work | 2.49 | 2.90 | 2.33 |
| Internal policies and administration of the university | 2.67 | 3.15 | 2.07 |
| Recognition for work | 2.77 | 2.65 | 2.60 |
| Participation in decision-making processes | 2.59 | 2.70 | 2.69 |
| Conflict management | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.69 |
| Personal growth/career | 2.74 | 3.10 | 2.79 |
| Work in groups | 2.72 | 3.00 | 2.69 |
| Workloads | 3.54 | 3.00 | 3.40 |
Note: figures represent the median values of totalled respondents’ ratings
The greatest differences among the groups were observed in their ratings of the university’s internal policies and administration, and personal growth. Changes at the university were most supported by staff members of the services and units and least favoured by the non-academic staff members of the faculties and centres. In addition, this second group of staff were most likely to feel that they had poor career opportunities at the university compared to the other two groups of employees.
The survey findings suggest that of all three groups of employees, academic staff members are most likely to view their work as meeting their expectations and ambitions and to be satisfied with their personal achievements. By contrast, non-academic staff members of the faculties and centres of the university expressed the least satisfaction with personal achievements.
Bakanauskienė, I., Bendaravičienė, R. and Krikštolaitis, R. (2010), ‘Job satisfaction among university staff groups’, Management theory and studies for rural business and infrastructure development, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2010, Research papers. ISSN 1822-6760, pp. 12–25
Rasa Zabarauskaite, Institute of Labour and Social Research