Job satisfaction among academic employees in institutions of higher learning

  • Released On
    Friday, 27 October 2017
  • Author(s)
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(3-1).2017.03
  • Article Info
    Volume 15 2017, Issue #3, pp. 193-200
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    1 articles
  • 449 Views
  • 145 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

The factors affecting job satisfaction of academic employees, with specific reference to the National University of Lesotho (NUL) were analysed. Understanding the factors that affect academic performance is pivotal for satisfactory levels of performance by higher education institutions. Satisfactory working conditions at universities like NUL can provide the impetus to attract well qualified academics. Six areas pertaining to working conditions, relationship with colleagues, access to resources, job security, recognition and advancement were focused on analyzing job satisfaction among academic employees at the National University of Lesotho. A concurrent approach of both quantitative and qualitative techniques was used. The target population of 156 respondents completed a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS, version 22.0, while thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data. The findings of the study highlighted salaries as a factor influencing job satisfaction. Further, insufficient financial resources to support teaching, learning and research at the NUL impacted job satisfaction. Over and above dissatisfaction with benefits, allowances, lack of equipment, as well as poor institutional management, there was collegiality with heads of departments, working as a team. The findings are valuable to university administrators and academics to consider for improving job satisfaction among employees.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Summary of questionnaire
    • Table 2. Interview questions
    • Table 3. Findings of the study