Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teaching Personnel at Udm

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION Teachers play a vital role in building a nation. They are arguably one of the most important groups of professionals for our nation’s future. It is disturbing to find out that many of today’s unsung heroes like teachers are dissatisfied with their jobs. Ask anyone in the street how to motivate teachers and they will blatantly answer to increase their salaries. Ask what factors might have created dissatisfaction among teachers and probably they will enumerate factors like behavior of students, class size, curriculum, and the government policies in education.According to Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory, the factors causing satisfaction are different from those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is nodissatisfaction. While at first gl ance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like a play on words, Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs portrayed.First, there are physiological needs that can be fulfilled by money, for example, to purchase food and shelter. Second, there is the psychological need to achieve and grow, and this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one to grow. Many factors have been examined in an attempt to find which one promotes motivation. In the study conducted by Poling (1990), he pointed out that Pay incentives have been found to be unsuccessful in increasing motivation.In a similar study, Castillo and Cano (1999), concluded that teachers motivation is based on their freedom to try new ideas, achievements and intrinsic work elements. Whereas, schemes such as merit pay were predicted to be counterproductive. They explained that true job satisfaction is derived from the gratification of higher order needs than lower order needs. Educators’ decision t o leave and remain in the teaching profession is associated with his level of motivation and job satisfaction.The elusive nature of job satisfaction construct advanced the measurement and theoretical development to job satisfaction (Castillo, 199). Job satisfaction is an intangible notion that has been increasingly challenged and refined since the Herzberg, Mauser and Snyderman study in 1959. Although, the foundation of job satisfaction and job motivation was introduced by Maslow in his hierarchy of needs. Maslow (1954) asserts that human motives emerge sequentially to satisfy the following needs: physiological, safety, social, self-esteem and self-actualization.Individual need satisfaction is influenced by both the importance attached to the various needs and the degree to which each individual fulfil each needs. A teaching profession is the one of the most important profession at all. Teachers devote a lot of their energy, time and interest to educate new generations. Like any oth er professions, teaching has some specific particularity and pitfalls. In this study, I looked into the motivating and hygiene factors that affect the performance of the faculty of Universidad de Manila.There is a need to conduct this study because Faculty members are the frontrunners of the nation’s future generations. It is quite disturbing to know that there are certain factors that affect the job performance of the faculty members based on the evaluation conducted by the Faculty and Employees Performance Evaluation Office of Universidad De Manila The topic was chosen to determine the factors, both motivating and hygiene that pleases and displeases the faculty members of Universidad De Manila. And identify those factors that affect in the job performance of the faculty members.The purpose of this study is to properly identify the motivating and hygiene factors in relation to the job performance of the faculty members, which will be beneficial for the organization in enrich ing and improving whatever is necessary for the organization’s growth. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study will determine the motivating and hygiene factors in relation to job performance of the faculty members of Universidad De Manila (UDM). Specifically, the study will answer the following questions; 1. What is the profile of the faculty members of the Universidad De Manila in terms of: 1. Age 1. 2 Gender 1. 3 Marital Status 1. 4 Academic Rank 1. 5 Length of Service at UDM 2. What is the motivating and hygiene factors that UDM faculty members have in terms of : A. Job Motivator Factors 1. Achievements 2. Growth 3. Recognition 4. Responsibility 5. Work Itself B. Job Hygiene Factors 1. Interpersonal Relations 2. Policy and Administration 3. Salary 4. Supervision 5. Working Conditions 3. What is the job performance rating of the UDM teaching personnel? 4. Is there a significant relationship between UDM teaching personnel demographic profile and overall job performance? 5.Is th ere a significant relationship between UDM teaching personnel’s’ motivating and hygiene factors in relation to job performance? 6. Is there a significant difference between UDM teaching personnel’s’ motivating and hygiene factors in relation to job performance? HYPOTHESIS The following null hypothesis was formulated and tested at 0. 05 levels of significance: 1. There is no significant relationship between UDM teaching personnel demographic profile and overall job performance? 2. There is no significant relationship between UDM teaching personnel’s’ motivating and hygiene factors in relation to job performance? . There is a significant difference between UDM teaching personnel’s’ motivating and hygiene factors in relation to job performance? THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Theories of job satisfaction included discrepancy theory(Locke, 1969), equity theory (Mowday, 1992) and the motivator-hygiene theory (Herzberg, Mauser and Snyderman , 1959). The discrepancy theory was the result of the difference between an actual outcome a person receive and some other expected outcome level which may cause job satisfaction/ dissatisfaction. (Lawler, 1973).Inputs and outputs were the basis of the equity theory. Employees evaluated their inputs/outputs by comparing them with that of other individuals. Equity existed if the ratio of the inputs and outputs was similar to the inputs and outputs of other workers. Conversely, there is inequity if the ratio of the inputs and outputs was unequal to the inputs and outputs of other individual. Equity were associated with job satisfaction while inequity with job dissatisfaction (Mowday, 1992). This study is anchored on the two-factor theory of Herzberg.Herzberg, Mauser and Snyderman (1959) pointed out that job satisfaction is not a unidimensional concept but that is composed of two independent factors: 1. Motivational factors itself can lead to job satisfaction; 2. Maintenance factors (hyg iene factors) must be sufficiently present in order for motivational factors to come into play and when not sufficiently present can block motivation and can lead to job dissatisfaction. Model of Herzberg’s Two – Factor Theory Job Motivator Factors Achievements Growth Recognition Responsibility Work Itself Satisfaction No SatisfactionJob Hygiene Factors Interpersonal Relations Policy and Administration Salary Supervision Working Conditions No Dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction The premise of the motivator-hygiene theory was that jobs had specific factors which were related to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The five factors that facilitate job satisfaction were achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement. The factors identified as determinants of job dissatisfaction were policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions.Herzberg reasoned that because the factors causing satisfaction are differen t from those causing dissatisfaction, the two feelings cannot simply be treated as opposites of one another. The opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction. While at first glance this distinction between the two opposites may sound like a play on words, Herzberg argued that there are two distinct human needs portrayed. First, there are physiological needs that can be fulfilled by money, for example, to purchase food and shelter.Second, there is the psychological need to achieve and grow, and this need is fulfilled by activities that cause one to grow. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual framework of the study was based on Herzberg two factor theory, also known as the Motivator-Hygiene Theory which focuses on the factors that affect the job performance of faculty members of Universidad De Manila. The hygiene factors are related to the environment external to the job. The environment in cludes interpersonal relations with others, policy and administrations, salary, supervision and working conditions.Many persons who feel dissatisfied draw their dissatisfaction to conditions surrounding their jobs rather than work itself. The other category is the motivating factors, which are found to be effective in motivating people in superior performance. These factors include achievements, growth, recognition, responsibility and work itself. All of these should be working together, to complement and supplement one another. The basic requirement should be provided to the workers as well as the challenge to perform to the maximum capacity and stimulate them to grow to the peak of their performance.This research determined what people or faculty member in particular actually want and what factors made them perform better or lesser on their respective field of teaching. PARADIGM OF THE STUDY CRITERION VARIABLE Job Performance VARIATE Achievements Growth Recognition Responsibility Work Itself Interpersonal Relations Policy and Administration Salary Supervision Working Conditions OTHER FACTORS Age Sex Civil Status Academic Rank Status of Employment Number of Years employed in CCM Figure I â€Å"The motivating and hygiene factors in relation to job performance of Universidad De Manila faculty† SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYThe findings of the study will be beneficial to the following: Government Officials. This study would enable government officials to look into the plight of the faculty members and how they could plan programs and guidelines to improve the life and working conditions of the faculty members of Universidad De Manila. Administrators. The result of this study will be beneficial to the Administrators of Universidad De Manila because it could help them in analysing and identifying the factors that affect the job performance of the faculty members of Universidad De Manila that could possibly guide them in their pursuit of academic excellence.Facul ty Members. The outcome of this study is for the improvement of the quality of life of every faculty member of Universidad De Manila. This will enable them to realize their true value and worth as an educator and envoy of knowledge. Students. The outcome of this study will help the students, since they will be the principal recipient of the enhanced job performance of the faculty members. It will aid them in understanding and appreciating their teachers. Future Researchers. The result of this study could serve as a source of secondary information to future researchers.It may provide them a clearer view of the factors that affect the job performance of faculty members. SCOPE AND LIMITATION This study is limited to the motivating and hygiene factors that affect the job performance of Universidad De Manila. The focus of the study is limited to the motivating and hygiene factors that may possibly influence or affect the job performance of the faculty members of Universidad De Manila. Th e target respondents are one hundred faculty members (100), 100 survey questionnaires were given but only 60 was retrieved for the reason that some faculty members are not available at the time of data gathering.This studycovered the direct association of the variate motivating and hygiene factors with the criterion variable job performance. The direct association of the other factors such as age, sex, civil status, academic rank and length of years employed in Universidad De Manila with the variate and criterion variable were sought. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms are operationally defined for clearer and better understanding of the study: Age – this refers to entitled period of life or existence as a person.Civil Status – the indicators of this concept are 1) single 2) married Academic Rank – the level of position of faculty members. Motivating Factors – these are the factors that intrinsic in nature and are essential for employees fulfilment. These include achievements, growth, recognition, responsibility, and work Itself. Hygiene Factors – these are the factors that are extrinsic in nature and can be a great deal for achieving organizational objective. These include interpersonal relations, policy and administration, salary, supervision, and working conditions.Job Performance – refers to the quantity and quality of tasks performed by faculty members of Universidad De Manila. Job Satisfaction – set of favourable and unfavourable feelings with which employuees view their work. Behavior Of Students – attitude or manner of students that affects the performance of the teachers. Class Size – number of students per class. Curriculum – list of subjects that serve as guide to students as they pursue their respective degrees. Government Policies In Education – guidelines set by the CHED, DEPED and other governing body of academic Institutions.Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AN D RELATED LITERATURE This chapter presents a summary and critical analysis of literature conducted by both local and foreign researchers, which were considered related and applicable to the present study. The researcher establishes related studies both local and foreign studies that were conducted in relation to the job motivation and job satisfaction in relation to job performance of the teaching personnel in the Philippines and in other countries as well. FOREIGN STUDIESAs cited by Dutka, 2002, in her study, The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction And The Organizational Climate For Women Higher Education Administrators At Five Institutions wherein sheexamined women higher education administrators' job satisfaction levels and the relationship between their job satisfaction and perceptions and of satisfaction with the organizational climate. The literature suggests women higher education administrators' may be dissatisfied but few studies explore the influence of the organizationa l climate on job satisfaction.The findings reported here revealed women higher education administrators' dissatisfaction with the organizational climate overall, and underscore the importance of the climate for career development. Equally important are the findings about advancement opportunities. Both factors affect women higher education administrators' job satisfaction, which may influence attrition as well as individual and organizational effectiveness.This study is related to the present study because it elucidates the relationship between the job satisfaction and the organizational climate for women Higher Education administrators, which will be of value to administrators in planning and evaluating the factors that affects job motivation and job satisfaction of teaching personnel, which may somehow affect the individual and organizational effectiveness, which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study. MichalinosZembylas, Elena Papanastasiou) Recent na tional and international studies on job satisfaction and motivation among teachers in Cyprus carried out in a number of countries have drawn attention to the degree of job satisfaction among teachers. In general, it has been found that context seems to be the most powerful predictor of overall satisfaction. However, given that most of the international studies on teacher satisfaction have been conducted in developed countries, one realizes the need in the available literature for similar research in developing countries as well.This paper examines job satisfaction and motivation among teachers in Cyprus – a small developing country in the Eastern Mediterranean. An adapted version of the questionnaire developed by the â€Å"Teacher 2000 Project† was translated into Greek and used for the purposes of this study that had a sample of 461 K-12 teachers and administrators. The findings showed that, unlike other countries in which this questionnaire was used, Cypriot teachers chose this career because of the salary, the hours, and the holidays associated with this profession. The study analyzes how these motives influence the level of satisfaction held by the Cypriot teachers.Teacher morale, job satisfaction, and motivation According to Linda Evans Model of the interraction of the motivation process with the processes of individuals’ attainment of job satisfaction and high morale. This study is related to the present study because it shows how a company used performance appraisal as a tool for evaluating individual job performance. It also illustrates the interraction of the motivation process with the processes of individuals’ attainment of job satisfaction and high morale, which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study.Cetin (2006) refer to job satisfaction as the actual satisfaction of the individual with intrinsic and extrinsic reinforces. Job satisfaction is therefore seen as the achieved correspondence soug ht by the individual in relation to intrinsic and extrinsic environmental factors leading to a work contentment. Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) state that there are five dimensions that represent the most important characteristics of a job about which people have affective responses.The description of these are the work itself, pay, promotion opportunities, opportunities and co-workers This study is related to the present study because it explains the factors, both extrinsic and intrinsic that are sought by individual in order to attain work contentment, which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study. (Kessuwan* and Muenjohn†  2010) The results suggested that the employees had a moderate level of job satisfaction with the whole job situations (overall job satisfaction).With a closer look, it indicated that the highest satisfaction occurred in the areas of the work itself, supervision, and coworkers. The employees were highly satisfied with the work i tself because they found that their job was interesting, challenging, and enjoyable and had enough authority and freedom to perform their job. Supervision also made employees were highly satisfied because of the high competency in doing job of supervisor and the good encouragement, opportunity to express opinions, support, fairness, and interest in the feelings of subordinates provided by supervisor.The employees were also highly satisfied with coworkers because their coworkers were highly competent in doing their job. They received good cooperation and supports form their coworkers and there were no bickering and fighting at work. However, the employees were moderately satisfied with other worked-related variables, including pay, fringe benefits, opportunity for advancement, contingent rewards, and communication. Asking from the employees perspectives, it appeared that the employees rated pay as the most important factor influencing their job satisfaction followed by fringe benefit s and coworkers.However, the employees at the managerial and non-managerial levels perceived different degrees of importance. The non-managerial employees perceived pay, fringe benefits and coworker as the most three important would be because these motivational factors could fulfill their basic needs according to the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Moorhead and Griffin, 1998). On the other hand, the employees at the managerial level rated coworkers, opportunity for advancement, and work itself as the most important factor influencing their job satisfaction.This might be because a good work group or effective team could easily helped them achieved the best results. Similarly, the work itself allowed them to apply their abilities and skills and embody a diversity of tasks, freedom, and performance feedback. Regarding the relationships between the personal variables of the employees and their job satisfaction, it appeared that there were very little relationships between these two variables. The current research was conducted within one multinational company and therefore would not represent employee’s attitude for the whole industry.Also, theories in motivation and job satisfaction proposed a number of factors affecting employee job satisfaction but only eight work-related factors were identified in this study. Finally, quantitative research was employed to assess employees attitude toward their job in the current study. A number of researchers suggested qualitative research should be considered to get an in-depth attitude from respondents. This study is related to the present study because it discusses about the theories in motivation and job satisfaction and how it affects each other, which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study.LOCAL STUDIES A study on the human factors of the employees in the Greater Manila Area was conducted by Donato. She found out that age, employment status, educational attainment, income, marital status, and working experiences affected the job performance of employees. Better employment, attainment of a higher academic degree, greater income, successful marital relations, and growth professional experience tend to increase one’s satisfaction in life. She also found out that the employees were more satisfied than the government employees in spite of the difference of the privileges in favour of the private employees.This study is related to the present study because it showed how age, employment status, educational attainment, income, marital status and working experiences affect the job performance of employees. It also shows that government employees were more satisfied than the private employees in spite of the difference in the privileges, which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study. According to Manabat studied the sources of job satisfaction of supervision in selected industrial firms in Metro Manila, as theorized by Herzberg.The f indings of this study showed that achievement, advancement, recognition, and responsibility were three manifested major sources of satisfaction of middle managers and interpersonal relations with superiors. Failure to gain recognition, company policy, and administration were the major sources of dissatisfactions. This study is related to the present study because it elaborates that achievement, advancement, recognition and responsibility were the major sources of satisfaction,which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study.Quitlong, in her study, found out that the demographic characteristics such as civil status, job status, eligibility, position, educational attainment, income, and length of service; problems; attitudes; and morale did not show significant relationship with their job satisfaction. This study is related to the present study because it identifies the factors that has no significant relationship in the job satisfaction and job performance su ch as civil status, job status, et. al. , which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study.Villanueva, in his study of job commitment and satisfaction of technology and home economics teachers in selected secondary schools in the division of city schools, manila, found out that teachers are committed on their job and they are performing what is expected of them to the best of their ability. They also believed that they maximize the utilization of school resources, maximize the use of time and submit reports promptly. They claim to have adopted different measures to improve their teaching competencies and see to it that their class met the minimum, if not the maximum standard of instruction.They complied with the requests of their superiors and were willing to accept additional responsibilities when requested to do so. This study is related to the present study because it classifies the perceptual assessment of teachers in relation to their job satisfaction a nd commitment, which gave the researcher insights in the conceptualization of this study. RELATED LITERATURE According to Kant and Rozenweig, highly motivated individualsgenerally make better workers, achievers and implementors. Their performance greatly depends upon the satisfaction of their needs, wants and climate.This is related to the present study insofar as motivating factors are concerned. It explains that highly motivated individual generally makes a better workers, achievers and implementors, And that performance greatly depends upon the satisfaction of the needs wants and climate which the present study had sought in this present study. Jean Piaget’s theory of environmentalism which she related to effectivity. She said that â€Å"to be an educator implies a fundamental belief of environmentalism. The educator must be an environmentalist.It is through the environment that the most fundamental educational process-learning takes place within the child but is influenc ed by some of the values, attitudes and beliefs of educators in the particular organization. Educators must try to influence the learning process by providing the appropriate climate needs. † This theory of Piaget is somewhat related to the present study because in this theory of environmentalism, teachers is the subject implied, and the present study discusses about the motivating and hygiene factors in relation to job performance of Universidad De Manila Faculty Members.Both used teachers or educators as their subject. Quinn, Robert in his â€Å"Quality of Employment Survey† stated that the quality of work environment determines to a large extent of satisfaction of the people. It would be high when certain specific dimension of satisfaction exist, such as financial reward, comfort, challenge, resource adequacy and harmonious relations with co-workers. This is related to the present study because it discussed about the quality of work environment is the determinant of the extent of work satisfaction of the people.Ramoso in his study on motivational factors affecting performance to teachers in Carmen, Nasipit and Buenavista Districts of the Division of Agusan de Norte. She found out that the most favored motivational factors related to the quality of teachers’ performance were principal’s trust, production emphasis and morale. She said that when teachers felt their school administrators have trust and confidence in them, they were motivated to exert effort thus providing improving the quality of their performance.This is related to the present study because the motivational factors affecting teachers were discussed as well as the quality of teacher’s performance. Ramoso specified the factors affecting the performance of teachers in Carmen, Nasipit and Buenavista Districts of Agusan Del Norte. Joseph Reitz stated that as workers grow older, they tend to be slightly more satisfied with their jobs. This is due to a number of reas ons such as lower expectations and better adjustment to their work situation because of their experience with it.Younger workers tend to be less satisfied because of higher expectations and less adjustment. This is somewhat related to the present study because it deals with the workers satisfaction. The reasons of their satisfaction were also specified. Deci mentioned that people hold positive attitude toward their organization and they experience a high level of job satisfaction when the organization provides them with rewards which they desire. He further assumed that satisfied workers will perform better than unsatisfied workers. He further suggested that satisfying workers is an effective means of motivating them.This is related to the present study because it talk over that people hold a positive attitude toward their organization and they experience a high level of job satisfaction when the organization provides them with rewards which they desire. It was also assumed that sat isfied workers will perform better than the unsatisfied one. Gil stated that the poorer the attitude a teacher has towards his profession, the more unsatisfactory will be his teaching performance. This is related to the present study insofar as attitude has a relationship to one’s performance at work.However, this study has a different setting and it involves elementary school teachers, while the present study has its focus on college professors. In a research that was undertaken by Tsai Min Yen, a teacher. She found out the relationship between job performance and personality traits of faculty members of Nan Tai College of Commerce and Technology. She found out that faculty members performed satisfactorily with various activities related to school work such as administration, organization, consultative and guidance.She further concluded that the satisfaction a faculty member feels in his job is substantially influenced by his personality traits. This is related to the presen t study because it talks about the relationship between job performance and personality traits of faculty members which this present study has also been discussing. This research had concluded that the job satisfaction a faculty feels in his job is substantially influenced by his personality traits. Myers pointed out that motivation tends to be related to the kind of supervisor relationship experienced.He suggests that if a school superintendent develops good interpersonal relationship, the principal in the school system will tend to be more highly motivated. The interpersonal relationships which promote high motivation in a school organization are those which are work-oriented and which free individuals to become self-actualized in their work. This is related in the present study because it pointed out that motivation tends to be related to the kind of supervisor relationship experienced. Myers also suggested that if a school superintendent develops good nterpersonal relationship, the principal in the school system will tend to be more highly motivated. Penley and Hawkins showed that a supervisors receptiveness or willingness to listen to subordinates ideas, problems and concerns will improve the motivation of subordinates. Though such receptiveness, supervisors develop knowledge of areas in which they need to provide additional training or explanation in order to build expectancy that the workers can perform tasks. When employees have a sense of mastery and reward in their jobs, they perform better.This is related to the present study because it showed that a supervisor s receptiveness or willingness to listen to subordinates ideas, problems and concerns will improve the motivation of subordinates. Chapter III METHODOLOGY This chapter discusses the research design used in the study, samples and sampling techniques, instrumentation, data gathering procedures, and statistical treatment of data gathered by the researcher. RESEARCH DESIGN Any scientific process begins with description of an event or events from which theories may be developed to explain phenomenon.In this study, the researcher will use the descriptive research design since this involves observation and description of the behavior of the teaching personnel at Universidad De Manila. Under this design, a descriptive – correlational method will be employed in anylizing the data that will be collected through survey questionnaire. According to Calderon (1993:62), descriptive research is a purposive method of gathering, analysing, classifying, and tabulating data about prevailing conditions or situation.Similarly, Aquino (1992:3) describes descriptive method of research as a process of systematically describing a situation or area of interest factually and accurately. It gives a clear statement of what is existing at the present understanding. Correlation studies are based on quantitative measures on two or more variables. Since the study is correlational in nature, the s tatistical relationship between the level of motivation and the level job satisfaction will be looked into and it give an indication of how one variable may predict the other.However,  the correlation of the variables does not imply causation; that is, simply because two events are in some way correlated (related) does not mean that one necessarily causes the other. SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES In determining the sample of the study, the researcher will be using a non-probability sampling technique specifically the purposive sampling. Purposive Sampling, according to Blay(2005:12) is a process of choosing the respondents based on the criteria set by the researcher. With this type, the sample is â€Å"hand-picked† for the research.Using purposive sampling allows the researcher to home in on people or events, which have good grounds in what they believe, will be critical for the research. In this study, respondents will be selected in terms of their status in the University . The researcher’s respondents of this study will be the teaching personnel of the Universidad De Manila. The distribution of the respondents will be as follows Category| Male| Female| Total| Permanent| 17| 13| 30| Temporary| 3| 2| 5| Part –time| 15| 10| 25| TOTAL| 35| 25| 60| INSTRUMENTATIONThe research instrument that the researcher will be using in this study will be divided into two parts: the profile of the respondents survey and the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction questionnaire. The variables that would be measured in the profile of the respondents consists of age, gender, civil status, civil status, number of years employed at UDM and status or academic rank. In determining the level of motivation and level of job satisfaction of the respondents the researcher will use a questionnaire adapted from the study of Jesse F. Seegmiller entitled â€Å"job Satisfaction of Faculty and Staff at the College of Eastern Utah†.The questionnaire consists of the Fac ulty Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction scale (Seegmiller,1977) which assessed the dimensions of the Herzberg motivator – hygiene theory. This section consisted of a 51-item five points Likert scale with responses varying from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) which is categorized into three parts – the motivator factors, hygiene factors and the overall job satisfaction. DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES The researcher will ask the permission of the Vice President for Academic Affairs for the conduct of the study.After securing permit, the questionnaires will be distributed to the selected faculty members and the data obtained will be treated statistically using the percentage, mean, standard deviation and the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. The frequency distribution and the percentage will be used to describe the demographic profile of the respondents while the mean and the standard deviation will be used for the overall job satisfaction and the level of job satisfa ction in terms of the job motivator factors and job hygiene factors.In order to establish the significant relationship between the variables of the study, Pearson correlation coefficient will be computed. Also, the researcher will determine if the relationships among the factors are significant and the t test will be computed at 0. 05 levels with a degree of freedom of n1+n2 – 2. STATISTICAL TREATMENT The following are the statistical tools the researcher will be using in the study: 1. The Frequency Counts and Percentages In answering question number 1 of the statement of the problem, the researcher will make use of the frequency count and simple percentage to describe the respondents’ profile. 2.The Weighted Mean. Since the adapted questionnaire is a Likert Scale form, it is deemed proper to describe variables such as level of job satisfaction and level of motivation in terms of a single value that would described the whole set of data and that value is the weighted m ean. The weighted points for each item will be obtained by multiplying the scale value of the responses and the total number of respondents indicating it. The total weighted points is the sum of all the points for each scale value. Weighted mean of each item will be computed by dividing the total weighted point by the total number of responses as shown in the formula: W.M = S V x TWPN Where: SV = Scale Value TWP = Total Weighted Points N = Total Number of respondents 3. In order to find out the relationships of the level of motivation to the level of job satisfaction, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, r, will be utilized by the researcher. A correlation is a number between -1 and +1 that measures the degree of association between two variables (level of motivation and level of job satisfaction). A positive value for the correlation implies a positive association A negative value for the correlation implies a negative or inverse association.Below is the interpretation of the corre lation coefficient that the researcher will use, -1. 0 to -0. 7 strong negative association. -0. 7 to -0. 3 weak negative association. -0. 3 to +0. 3 little or no association. +0. 3 to +0. 7 weak positive association. +0. 7 to +1. 0 strong positive association. The correlation coefficient will be computed using the formula The variables X and Y will refer to the level of motivation and level of job satisfaction, with mean XBAR and YBAR respectively and standard deviations SX  and SY  respectively. To tell whether or not the relationship is significant, the value of r will be tested at 0. 5 level of significance. The formula for computing the appropriate  t value  to test significance of a correlation coefficient employs the t distribution: t=rn-21-r2 Legend: 4. 21 – 5. 00 Highly satisfied 3. 41 – 4. 20 Slightly to moderately satisfied 2. 61 – 3. 40 Not sure of the opinion 1. 81 – 2. 60 Slightly to moderately dissatisfied 1. 00 – 1. 80 Highl y dissatisfied Chapter IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS and INTERPRETATION OF DATA 1. What is the Profile of the Respondents Table 1. 1 The Distribution of Age of the Respondents Age| Frequency| Percent| | | | 1 – 30 years old| 19| 31. 7| 31 – 40 years old| 22| 36. 7| 41 – 50 years old| 11| 18. 3| 51 years old and above| 8| 13. 3| Total| 60| 100| Table 1. 1 shows the distribution of the respondents according to age. Faculty members aged 31-40 years old have the highest percentage of 36. 7%, which is 22 out of 60 respondents, followed by the faculty members aged 21-30 years old having 31. 7%,which is 19 out of 60 respondents, then the faculty members aged 41-50 years old with 18. 3%,which is 11 out of 60 respondents and lastly, faculty members aged 51 and above with 13. %, which is 8 out of 60 respondents. Table 1. 2 The Distribution of Respondents According to Gender Gender| Frequency| Percent| Male| 35| 58. 33| Female| 25| 41. 67| Total| 60| 100. 00| Table 1. 2 illust rates the distribution of the respondents according to gender. Most of the respondents are males, 35 out of 60 respondents, which is 58. 33%, while female faculty members are 25 out of 60 respondents, which is 41. 67%. Table 1. 3 The Distribution of Respondents According to Marital Status Marital Status| Frequency| Percent| Single| 24| 40| Married| 36| 60| Total| 60| 100| Table 1. shows the distribution of the respondents according to marital status. Majority of the respondents are married having a 60% rating, which is 36 out of 60 respondents, and the remaining 24 out of 60 respondents, which is 40% are single. Table 1. 4 The Distribution of the Respondents as to Status Status| Frequency| Percent| full time| 35| 58| part time| 25| 42| Total| 60| 100| Table 1. 4 illustrates the distribution of respondents according to status of employment. 35 out of 60, which is 58% of the respondents are full time, while 42%, which is 25 out of 60 were part time faculty members. Table 1. 5The Distr ibution of Respondents as to the Length of Service at Universidad De Manila | Frequency| Percent| 1 – 5 years| 28| 47| 6 – 10 years| 17| 28| 11 – above| 15| 25| Total| 60| 100| Table 1. 5 shows the distribution of respondents according to the length of service. The respondents who have been in the university for 1-5 years had the highest percentage of 47%,which is 28 out of 60 respondents, followed by the respondents who have been in the university for 6-10 years with 17 out of 60 respondents, which is 28%, and the faculty members who have been in the university for 11 years and above with 25%, which is 15 out of 60 respondents. . What is the level of job satisfaction UDM faculty members have in terms of Table 2. 1 Job Motivator Factors of the Respondents as to Achievement Achievement| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. The actual achievement of work-related goals. | 4. 08| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. The immediate result of your work. | 4. 23| Very Satisf ied| 3. Personal goals attainment| 4. 32| Very Satisfied| 4. The extent to which you are able to objectively evaluate your accomplishment. | 4. 18| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 5. Students follow the practices being taught. | 3. 0| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Over-all Weighted Mean| 4. 14| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Table 2. 1 shows the job motivator factors of the respondents according to achievement with an over-all weighted mean of 4. 14 which is interpreted as slightly to moderately satisfied. Personal goal attainment ranks first among the job motivator factors on achievement with a mean of 4. 32, while item 2 on immediate result of your work with a mean of 4. 23 comes next. The item number 4, extent to which you are able to objectively evaluate your accomplishment is the third with a mean of 4. 8, followed by the item number 1, actual achievement of work-related goals with a mean of 4. 08 and lastly, the item number 5, the students follow the practices being t aught with a mean of 3. 90. Table 2. 2 Job Motivator Factors of the Respondents as to Growth Growth| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. Opportunities for increased responsibility in education. | 4. 02| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. Participation in in-service education. | 3. 98| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 3. Opportunities to grow professionally through formal education. | 4. 10| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 4.Opportunities to attend professional conferences, workshops, etc. | 3. 53| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 5. Opportunities provided for growth in education compared with growth in other fields. | 3. 68| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 86| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Table 2. 2 shows the job motivator factors of the respondents according to growth with an over-all weighted mean of 3. 86. All the factors fall under the slightly to moderately satisfied, where item number 3, opportunities to grow professionally through formal ed ucation falls on the first rank with 4. 2 mean. The item number 1, opportunities for increased responsibility in education comes second with a weighted mean of 4. 02. Participation in in-service education, which is under item number 2 is the third among the job motivator factor with a mean of 3. 98. Item number 5 or the opportunities provided for growth in education compared with growth in other fields falls fourth among the factors with a mean of 3. 68. Item number 4 or the opportunities to attend professional conferences, workshops, etc is the last among the job motivator factors with a mean of 3. 53. Table 2. 3Job Motivator Factors of the Respondents as to Recognition Recognition| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. Recognition of your accomplishment by co-workers| 3. 77| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. Recognition of your accomplishment by superior| 3. 85| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 3. Your recognition compared to that your co-workers| 3. 65| Slightly to Moderately Satis fied| 4. The recognition you get from administration for your ideas. | 3. 57| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 5. Publicity given to your work and activities. | 3. 35| Not sure of opinion| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 4| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Table 2. 3 shows the job motivator factors of the respondents according to recognition with an over-all weighted mean of 3. 64. One out of five factors were given a rating of not sure of opinion. This is the item number 5, publicity given to your work and activities which had a mean of 3. 35. The remaining four items got a slightly to moderately satisfied rating. First of which is the item number 2, recognition of your accomplishments by superior with a mean of 3. 85. Second is the item number 1, recognition of your accomplishments by co-workers with a mean of 3. 7. Third is the item number 3 which is your recognition compared to that of your co-workers with a mean of 3. 65. Fourth is the item number 4, the recognition you get from a dministration for your ideas with a mean of 3. 57. Table 2. 4 Job Motivator Factors of the Respondents as to Responsibility Responsibility| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. The authority you have to get the job done. | 4. 13| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. Committee responsibilities| 4. 00| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 3. The total amount off responsibilities you have on a job. | 4. 0| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 4. Your responsibilities compared with those of your co-workers. | 3. 73| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 5. Responsibilities outside your major areas of interest. | 3. 82| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 94| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Table 2. 4 illustrates the job motivator factors of the respondents according to responsibility. All the factors on this category have been rated slightly to moderately satisfied. Item number 1 or the authority you have to get the job done is on the first with a mean of 4. 3. Item number 2 and 3 follows with a mean of 4. 00, while the responsibilities outside your major areas of interest is on the third with a mean of 3. 73. item number 5 or the responsibilities outside your major areas of interest is the last among the job motivator factors as to responsibility. Table 2. 5 Job Motivator Factors of the Respondents as to Work Itself Work Itself| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. Work and association with college-age students| 4. 13| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. The interesting and challenging aspects of teaching. | 4. 57| Very Satisfied| 3.The general type of work you do. | 4. 32| Very Satisfied| 4. Your level of enthusiasm about teaching. | 4. 55| Very Satisfied| 5. Your work load and work schedule. | 4. 03| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Over-all Weighted Mean| 4. 32| Very Satisfied| Table 2. 5 shows the job motivator factors of the respondents as to work itself wherein, the interesting and challenging aspects of teaching comes first among the said factors with a mean of 4. 57. The level of enthusiasm about teaching is second with a mean of 4. 55 followed by the general type of work you do with a mean of 4. 2. The work and association with college-age students with a mean of 4. 13 is the fourth, while your work load and work schedule is the last factor with 4. 03 mean. The first three factors had a verbal interpretation of very satisfied, while the other two factors are slightly to moderately satisfied. Table 2. 6 Job Hygiene Factors of the Respondents as to Interpersonal Relations Interpersonal Relations| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. Friendliness of your co-workers| 4. 37| Very Satisfied| 2. Cooperation from faculty in your department| 4. 23| Very Satisfied| 3.Cooperation from faculty outside your department| 3. 98| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 4. Professional relationship on the job| 4. 32| Very Satisfied| 5. Overall institutional relations including faculty, students and staff| 4. 07| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Over- all Weighted Mean| 4. 19| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Table 2. 6 illustrates the job hygiene factors of the respondents as to interpersonal relations. The friendliness of your co-workers, professional relationship on the job and cooperation from faculty in your department had a very satisfactory verbal interpretation with a mean of 4. 7, 4. 32 and 4. 23, respectively. While the overall institutional relations including faculty, students and staff, and overall institutional relations including faculty, students and staff fall under the slightly to moderately satisfied with a mean of 4. 07 and 3. 98 respectively. Table 2. 7 Job Hygiene Factors of the Respondents as to Policy and Administration Policy and Administration| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. Your involvement in making decisions| 3. 75| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. The extent to which you are informed about matters affecting you. | 3. 3| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 3. The procedure used to select faculty f or promotion to positions| 3. 23| Not sure of the opinion| 4. The extent to which administrative policies and procedures are made available to the faculty. | 3. 35| Not sure of the opinion| 5. The extent to which administrative policies and procedures are actually followed. | 3. 25| Not sure of the opinion| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 46| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Table 2. 7 presents the job hygiene factors of the respondents as to the policy and administration with an overall mean of 3. 6 which is interpreted as slightly to moderately satisfied. Three out of six factors had a mean that falls under the not sure of the opinion while the other three are slightly to moderately satisfied. Table 2. 8 Job Hygiene Factors of the Respondents as to Salary Salary| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. The method used to determine your salary| 3. 15| Not sure of the opinion| 2. The range of salaries paid to instructors at CCM| 3. 08| Not sure of the opinion| 3. Your salary compared to that of people with similar training in other institutions. | 3. 22| Not sure of the opinion| 4.The amount of your salary. | 3. 15| Not sure of the opinion| 5. The earning potential of the faculty compared to that of the administration. | 3. 20| Not sure of the opinion| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 16| Not sure of the opinion| Table 2. 8 presents the job hygiene factors of the respondents as to salary with an overall mean of 3. 16 which is interpreted as not sure of the opinion. The respondents are not of their opinion when it comes to job hygiene factors as to salary. Table 2. 9 Job Hygiene Factors of the Respondents as to Supervision Supervision| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| . The level of understanding that your superiors and you have of each other. | 3. 98| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. Competence of your superior to give leadership. | 3. 98| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 3. The sensitivity of your superior to your needs| 3. 83| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 4. The willing ness of your superior to delegate authority. | 3. 95| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 5. The fairness of your superior. | 4. 00| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 95| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Table 2. presents the job hygiene factors of the respondents as to supervision with an overall mean of 3. 95 which is interpreted as slightly to moderately satisfied. All the factors that falls under this category of job hygiene had a slightly to moderately satisfied interpretation. Table 2. 10 Job Hygiene Factors of the Respondents as to Working Condition Working Condition| Mean| Verbal Interpretation| 1. Your work schedule compared to that of people with similar training in other professions. | 3. 63| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2. Your office facilities. | 3. 03| Not sure of the opinion| 3.The adequacy of instructional equipments. | 2. 92| Not sure of the opinion| 4. The number of course preparations required. | 3. 57| Slightly to Moderately Satisf ied| 5. Your work schedule compared to that of your co-workers. | 3. 73| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 38| Not sure of the opinion| Table 2. 10 presents the job hygiene factors as to working condition with an overall mean of 3. 38 which is interpreted as not sure of the opinion. The office facilities as well as the adequacy of instructional equipment fall on the lowest mean of 3. 3 and 2. 92 respectively, while the work schedule compared to that of people with similar training in other profession, the number of course preparations required and the work schedule compared to that of your co-workers got a slightly to moderately satisfied interpretation. Table 2. 11 The Level of Job Satisfaction of the Respondents in terms of Job Motivator Factors JOB MOTIVATOR FACTOR| MEAN| VERBAL INTERPRETATION| RANK| Achievement| 4. 14| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2| Growth| 3. 86| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 4| Recognition| 3. 4| Slightly to Moderately Sati sfied| 5| Responsibility| 3. 94| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 3| Work Itself| 4. 32| Very Satisfied| 1| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 98| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| | Table 2. 11 shows the level of job satisfaction of the respondents in terms of job motivator factors. The overall mean is 3. 98 which is interpreted as slightly to moderately satisfied. Among the factors, only the work itself got a very satisfied interpretation with a mean of 4. 32. The remaining factors got a slightly to moderately satisfied interpretation. Table 2. 12The Level of Job Satisfaction of the Respondents in terms of Job Hygiene Factors JOB HYGIENE FACTOR| MEAN| VERBAL INTERPRETATION| RANK| Interpersonal Relations| 4. 19| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 1| Policy| 3. 46| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 3| Salary| 3. 16| Not sure of the opinion| 5| Supervision| 3. 95| Slightly to Moderately Satisfied| 2| Working Conditions| 3. 38| Not sure of the opinion| 4| Over-all Weighted Mean| 3. 63| Slight ly to Moderately Satisfied| | Table 2. 12 represents the level of job satisfaction of the respondents in terms of job hygiene factors with an overall mean of 3. 3. salary got the lowest mean of 3. 16 which is interpreted as not sure of the opinion. Aside from salary, the working condition, being second to the lowest got a mean of 3. 38 which fall under the interpretation of not sure of the opinion. The other remaining factors got a mean interpretation of slightly to moderately satisfied . 3. What is the job performance rating of the UDM teaching personnel? Table 3. 1 The Job Performance of the UDM teaching Personnel FACULTY| MEAN| INTERPRETATION| Full Time| 4. 46| Very Satisfactory| Part Time| 4. 51| Very Satisfactory| Overall – Mean| 4. 481| Very Satisfactory|Table 3. 1 presents the job performance of the fulltime and part time UDM teaching personnel with an overall mean of 4. 481 which is interpreted as very satisfactory. The job performance rating was taken from the Perfor mance Evaluation Rating given by the Dean and Students. Both the full-time and the part-time got the rating of very satisfactory. 4. Is there a significant relationship between UDM teaching personnel demographic profile and overall job performance? Table 4. 1 Significant Relationship of the Profile of the Respondents and their Job Performance Profile| x2 (p – value)| Significant Level ( 0. 5)| Decision| Age of the Respondents| 0. 488| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Gender| 0. 382| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Marital Status| 0. 393| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Status of Employment| 0. 343| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Length of Service at UDM| 0. 213| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Table 4. 1 presents the hypothesis test on the relationships of the profile of the respondents and their job performance. As to the profile, the table reveals the chi-square value for the age of the respondents as 0. 488 which is insignificant at 0. 05 level of probability, thus the null hypothesis is accepted.There is no significant relationship between age of the respondents and the performance of the respondents. As to gender, the p-value is 0. 382 which is insignificant, thus the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that in terms of Gender, there is no significant relationship between the gender and the job performance of the respondents. Marital status, as revealed by the table, is not significantly related to the job performance of the respondents which has a p-value of 0. 393. The status of employment is not significantly related to the job performance of the respondents as shown in the above table, the p value of 0. 43 is insignificant at 0. 05 level. Lastly, as to the length of service at UDM, the computed p-value of 0. 213 is insignificant at 0. 05 level of significance, thus the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no significant relationship between the length of service and job performance of the teaching personnel of Universidad De Manila. 5. Is there a significant Relationsh ip between UDM teaching personnel’s motivating and hygiene factors as to job performance? Table 5. 1 Significant Relationship of the Motivating Factors of the Respondents and their Job Performance JOB MOTIVATOR FACTORS| x2 (p – value)| Significant Level (0. 5)| Decision| achievement| 0. 75| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Growth| 0. 72| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Recognition| 0. 54| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Responsibility| 0. 11| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Work Itself| 0. 48| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Table 5. 1 shows the significant relationship between UDM teaching personnel’s motivating factors and their job performance. Using ? = 0. 05 as the level of significance criterion, the results are statistically insignificant because the p-value of the tests such as 0. 75(achievement), 0. 72(growth), 0. 54(recognition), 0. 11(responsibility), 0. 48(work itself) is greater than 0. 05.In other words, we can accept the null hypothesis. It can be gleaned that the job motivator factors such as achievement, growth, recognition, responsibility, and work itself has no significant relationship to the job performance of the UDM teaching personnel. Table 5. 2 Significant Relationship of the Hygiene Factors of the Respondents and their Job Performance JOB HYGIENE FACTORS| x2| Significant Level (0. 05)| Decision| | (p – value)| | | Interpersonal Relations| 0. 837| Insignificant| Accept Ho| policy| 0. 996| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Salary| 0. 046| Significant | Reject Ho| Supervision| 0. 395| Insignificant| Accept Ho|Working Conditions| 0. 884| Insignificant| Accept Ho| Using ? = 0. 05 as the level of significance criterion, table 5. 2 revealed that the p value of 0. 837(Interpersonal Relations), 0. 996(policy), 0. 395(Supervision) and 0. 884(Working Conditions) are statistically insignificant since the values are greater than 0. 05, thus the null hypothesis is accepted while 0. 046(salary) is statistically significant since it is less than 0. 05. The above table revealed that factors such as interpersonal relations, policy, supervision and working conditions are not significantly related to the job performance of the respondents.On the other hand, only the factor salary has a significant relationship with the job performance of the UDM teaching personnel. 6. Is there a significant difference between UDM teaching personnel’s motivating and hygiene factors and job performance? Table 6. 1 Differences in the Motivating Factors and Job Performance of the Respondents Job Motivator Factors| Sources of Variation| Sum of Squares| df| Mean Square| F| p – value| Decision| Achievement| Between Groups| 9. 453| 38| 0. 25| 0. 80| 0. 73| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 6. 555| 21| 0. 31| | | | | Total| 16. 007| 59|   | | | |Growth| Between Groups| 20. 479| 38| 0. 54| 0. 70| 0. 83| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 16. 120| 21| 0. 77| | | | | Total| 36. 599| 59|   | | | | Recognition| Between Groups| 27. 934| 38| 0. 74| 0. 83| 0. 70| Accept H o| | Within Groups| 18. 665| 21| 0. 89| | | | | Total| 46. 599| 59|   | | | | Responsibility| Between Groups| 15. 621| 38| 0. 41| 0. 85| 0. 68| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 10. 179| 21| 0. 48| | | | | Total| 25. 799| 59|   | | | | Work Itself| Between Groups| 9. 017| 38| 0. 24| 0. 83| 0. 70| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 6. 039| 21| 0. 29| | | | | Total| 15. 056| 59|   | | | |Using the level of significance criterion at 0. 05, the results of the above table are statistically insignificant because the p-value, using the ANOVA, are greater than 0. 05. In other words, the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that achievement, growth, recognition, responsibility, and work itself has no significant difference in the job performance of the UDM personnel. Table 6. 2 Differences in the Hygiene Factors and Job Performance of the Respondents Hygiene Motivator Factors| Sources of Variation| Sum of Squares| df| Mean Square| F| P -value| Decision| Interpersonal Relations| Between Groups| 1 0. 83| 38| 0. 28| 0. 71| 0. 83| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 8. 415| 21| 0. 40| | | | | Total| 19. 197| 59|   | | | | Policy and Administration| Between Groups| 22. 938| 38| 0. 60| 0. 81| 0. 72| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 15. 581| 21| 0. 74| | | | | Total| 38. 519| 59|   | | | | Salary| Between Groups| 42. 203| 38| 1. 11| 0. 98| 0. 54| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 23. 861| 21| 1. 14| | | | | Total| 66. 064| 59|   | | | | Supervision| Between Groups| 29. 698| 38| 0. 78| 1. 57| 0. 14| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 10. 432| 21| 0. 50| | | | | Total| 40. 130| 59|   | | | |Working Conditions| Between Groups| 27. 549| 38| 0. 72| 0. 84| 0. 68| Accept Ho| | Within Groups| 18. 059| 21| 0. 86| | | | | Total| 45. 607| 59|   | | | | Using ? = 0. 05 as the level of significance criterion