Thursday, April 23, 2015

Research for Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Job Boredom of College Teachers of Dhaka City in Bangladesh


Researcher, Owner,Publisher, Psychological Research, PDF, File, Report File, Human, Research, Offcial Research, Documents, File for Jnu, Jagannath University, JNU Documents, Jnu file, Dhaka, Job respect, Job Bordom, Job Satisfaction, Corelation, Worker Sticke, Job performance,

Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Job Boredom of College Teachers of Dhaka City





A Project Report submitted to the Department of Psychology,

Jagannath University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree of Bachelor of Science



Submitted By

Md. Shafiqul Islam kazal
Roll no: 093837
Reg. no: 080013
Session: 2008-09
Dept. of Psychology
Jagannath University
Dhaka, Bangladesh
June, 2013








Approval


      This is to certify that I have read the thesis entitled “Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Job Boredom of College Teachers of Dhaka City’’, submitted by Md. Shafiqul Islam Kazal in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Psychology (Roll no: 093837; Session: 2008-09) and this is a record of bonfire research carried out by his under my supervision and guidance.
















Date: June 2013                                                       (Samsad Afrin Himi)
Lecturer
Department of Psychology
Jagannath University
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh




Acknowledgement




At first I  would  like  to  say  my  full  gratitude  to  the  Almighty for the successful accomplishment   of my thesis report .

             I owe my humble submission to my honorable teacher and supervisor, Samsad Afrin Himi, (Lecturer) Dept. of Psychology Jagannath University, Dhaka, whose encouraging support and supervision tremendously facilitate to carry out this report. I sincerely convey my gratefulness for her criticisms with constructive suggestions and ideas to make necessary correction of this report. I am particularly grateful to the authorities of the 12 college’s principal who permitted me to collect data in their institution.

          I am extremely grateful to my honorable teacher Fatema Zaman (Assistant professor of Jagannath University) and my two friends of Mitali & Nasrin who gave me time to carry out my project data collection. Lastly, I am also thankful to my parents, brothers & sisters, aunt, few of my friends and well wishers who helped me a lot to accomplish this task.




Date: June 2013






Summary


The study was designed to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and job boredom of college teachers. Regarding job boredom, we also tried to find out the difference between male and female, and government and non government college teachers.  A sample of 50 teachers was selected from 6 government and 6 non government colleges located in Dhaka city by purposively and conveniently. Bangla version of Job Descriptive Index (Khaleque, 1984) and Job Boredom Scale, only adapted for this study (Lee, 1986) were administered for data collection. The present study is basically correlational in nature. Results indicate that there were significant negative correlation between overall job satisfaction and job boredom. Job boredom and job satisfaction with present work and supervision were also negatively correlated. Along with there was found no gender difference in job boredom.  But job boredom of non government college teachers was higher than that of government college teachers.











Table of contents

                                                                                                                      Page No.
Approval …………………...................................…………………..….....……      i                                Acknowledgement  ..………………………….................……......….....…........      i i
Summary…………………………………………...……..………..........…...….      i i i
Table of content ….………………………………………......................…………    iV
SECTION-1: Introduction……………………………………………..…….    07-10
1.1          Research Question………………………………………………..….........       11
1.2          Rationale of the study……………………………………………...…….         11
1.3          Objective of the study…………………………………...………………          11
SECTION-2:  Review of literature ……………….....................………….       13-14
SECTION-3:    Method………………………………….………………            16-19
3.1       Sample     …………………………………….……….……...…..............      16    
3.2       Measuring Instrument         …….………………..…………….….........  16-17
3.3       Research Design……………………..…..……………………………….      18
3.4       Procedures……………………………………………………..…..…...    18-19
3.5       Data processing and analysis…………………………………………..          19
SECTION-4:    Results…………………………………….........................        21-22
SECTION-5:    Discussion……………………………………….....……....       24-25
References……………………………………………………..……………        26-29
Appendix A: Personal data sheet…………………………………………           Appendix B: Job Description Index ………………………...………………..........       
Appendix C: Job boredom Scale ………………………………………………            
Appendix D: Reliability analysis …..………………………………….…………..             
Appendix E: Data analysis ……………………………………………...………











Section: 1









Introduction
         Education is an important part for every human life, without basic education man can't do anything. So education makes a man perfect and perfect man can do or think something for his/her life prosperity. His performance largely depends on Job Satisfaction and job boredom. The widely studied subject in organization job satisfaction (JS) refers to an individual's general attitude toward his/her job. A person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive attitude towards the job, while a person who is dissatisfied with his or her job holds negative attitude and holding negative attitude they mostly suffered from job boring.

Job satisfaction
          A job is a task, piece of work, duty or responsibility. According to Locke (1969), Job satisfaction is as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experience. In general, job satisfaction is known to be the general attitude of an employee towards different aspects of job. Locke (1976) also defined that job satisfaction is an attitudinal state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences. Job satisfaction has been a matter of growing interest for the individuals concerned with the quality of working life and organizational efficiency. It is function of the perceived relationship between what one aspect and obtains from one's job and how much importance or value he attributes to it, (Mobley Locke, 1970, Locke, 1976). Researches show that a large number of personal, organizational, environmental, social, culture & economic factors are related to job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1959; Porner, 1978; Waddle, 1983).

In Bangladeshi studies on job satisfaction reveal that job satisfaction is related to the nature of the job, interpersonal relationship with the co-worker & supervisor, job status, opportunities for job enhancement, independence of the work, interpersonal communication etc. (Khaleque et al, 1980). If job performance increases job satisfaction level will be increased. The two variables-extrinsic and intrinsic reward increases the employee performance (Lawler & porter, 1967). Inffaldano and Muchinski (1985) examined 217 correlations between measures of satisfaction and performance from the published job satisfaction literature. The main correlation was 0.146 which was not only very small but also identical to the results obtained by previous researches. Velnampy (2008), in his study on job attitude and employees performance concluded that job satisfaction contains positive influence on the performance of the employees as it enhances job involvement and the higher performance also makes people feel more satisfied and committed to the organization. The satisfaction and performance of the employee works in a cycle and are interdependent. Teachers with higher levels of education were significantly less satisfied with the teaching profession and frequently stated that they wished to change their career (Sargent & Hannum, 2003). Trabue (1993) suggested that the real reward of the true teacher lies in deep satisfaction, he feels in watching students grow in their understanding of themselves and of their world, in seeing them develops self reliance, initiative and sense of responsibility. Sorenson (1991) in this context presented that a special reward, which a teacher receives, is the satisfaction the feeling of self respect.




Job Boredom
        Job boredom decreases job performance. Job boredom makes job un-enjoyable, tendency of dependent to others and kill the valuable time. One research shows that Job boredom has been associated with performance decrements in jobs with varied work demands such as physical repetition, perceptual discrimination, and sustained attention in laboratory and work setting (Mackworth, 1969; O'Hanlon, 1981);  Thackray, Bailey, & Touchstone, 1977).  According to Spector (1997) job dissatisfaction refers to the degree to which employee dislikes their job. So it's clear that dislike of job creates job boredom. Keeping in views above mentioned problems, it is a daunting task for both management of the universities and more important the Government, to take really focused efforts to enhance the quality of education and provide better opportunities to the young generation. Boredom has typically been assumed to exist in (or equated with) monotonous or repetitive work, or measured using single-item self-report scales. Another limitation of the literature has been the lack of differentiation between boredom as a state versus its consideration as a trait. Indeed, the preponderance of the work on boredom has considered it to be a transient condition. However, numerous writers have proposed a distinction between situational and dispositional boredom. Bernstein (1975) differentiated between ‘responsive' & ‘chronic' (trait-like) boredom. The term chronic boredom was also employed by O'Hanlon (1981). Fenichel (1953) illustrated this differentiation by using the terms "normal" as opposed to "pathological" boredom. Greenson (1953) proposed the distinction between "agitated" and "apathetic" boredom. Finally, the research focus of Zuckerman (1979), on boredom susceptibility, and farmer and sundberg (1986), on boredom proneness, he emphasized the trait-like aspects of boredom compared to its more common experience as a temporary state.
Understanding boredom is important for understanding interest, yet it's hard to pin down how interest and boredom relate. It's tempting to view boredom as interest's opposite; although this would be misleading-emotion don't really have opposites. Boredom isn't simply the absence of interest because many states involve the absence of interest. Mikulas and Vodanovich (1993) define boredom as "a state of relative low arousal and dissatisfaction, which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating situation". This would locate boredom in the passive-negative quadrant of affective space, diagonal to the active-positive quadrant containing interest (Feldman-Barrett & Russell, 1999). People do cite positive aspects of boredom, however such as opportunities for reflection and planning (Harris, 2000). Moreover, while people report that boredom is generally unpleasant, they also report difficulties in regulating feelings of boredom. Often people feel unmotivated when bored, suggesting that is more complex than a simple reaction to monotony (Harris, 2000; Spacks, 1995). Finally, the arousal dimension of boredom is unclear. Berlyne (1960) argued that boredom involved high arousal and cited sensory deprivation experiments as support. Vocal expressions of boredom, however, indicate reduced arousal (Scherer, 1986). All told, it seems likely that boredom reflects a constellation of motivational circumstances, uninterestedness being a primary feature. According to Fisher's (1993) Lack of physical energy, task, working environment and conditions are related to job boredom.

           Regarding educational sector, Bangladesh is facing immense challenges, in term of low literacy rate, less number of quality educational institutes, poor facilities and more important the low motivation level of teachers. Teachers are the main pillar of education. Their education largly depends on job satisfaction and job boredom.
1.1 Research Question
     Job satisfaction and job boredom both are related to the job performance. So, I want to find out the relationship between job satisfaction and job boredom of the college teachers.

1.2 Rationale of the Present Study
        Considering the above discussion it is clear that a person who is fully satisfied with his or her job can contribute a lot to improve the institutional condition. Again, the person who feels bored with his/her job cannot perform better. From this point of view, it would be very wise to find out the relationship between job satisfaction and job Boredom of the college teachers of Dhaka city to attain the goal for better education. So, the findings of the recent study would be enlightening the storehouse of knowledge in the educational field of Bangladesh. This study would be also helpful for proper utilization of the national budget of our country. As well as, this study might contribute in personnel decisions.

1.3 Objectives of the study
1.      To assess the relationship between Job Satisfaction with different aspects (nature of work, pay, promotion, coworkers, supervisor) and Job Boredom.
2.      To investigate whether there was any difference between Job Boredom of male and female college teachers.
3.      To investigate whether there was any difference between Job Boredom of government & non-government college teachers.













Section: 2




Literature Review
        There are many studies on job satisfaction and job boredom separately. Job satisfaction is an extensively researched topic (Li-Ping Tang & Talpade, 1999). Yousef (2000) explains that the reason for this is that job satisfaction is affected by numerous variables. Michaelowa (2002) and Spear et al. (2000) have shown that female teachers have higher overall job satisfaction than male teachers. Inconsistent with these studies are Bishay's (1996) and Mwam-wenda's (1997) which concluded that female teachers were less satisfied than male teachers. However, some other studies (Gosnell 2000; Sar-gent and Hannum 2003) found no relationship between gender and teachers' job satisfaction. Buitendach (2005) are of the opinion that job satisfaction has a positive association with life satisfaction and job performance (Babin & Boles , 1996 in Buitendach,2005). Studies show that age is an important determinant of job satisfaction of the teachers. Younger teachers were less satisfied than older teachers (Groot & Brink, 1999). Young teachers have been shown to be more likely to leave teaching to opt for other occupations than older teachers (Ingersoll, 2001; Marnane, 1987; perie et al, 1997). Women were more likely to state that teaching is there ideal profession. Lawler (1973) defines that job satisfaction is one-dimensional. Employs are either happy or unhappy with their work. But other scholar Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) says that job satisfaction is multi dimensional, Employ may be more satisfied or less with the factors that affect their jobs. Someone may be more satisfied with his pay but less satisfied with the supervisor or the promotion opportunities. There are also different theories that describe the concept of job satisfaction. Like Life discrepancy theory by Locke (1969) and equity theory by Mowday (1992). According to discrepancy theory the difference between the actual outcome and excepted outcome tells us about the satisfaction level of the employee (Lawler, 1973). If the actual outcome is greater than the excepted one, the employees would more satisfy with their work and vice versa. According to equity theory employees compare their input/output with the other individuals. If the ratio of one employee equal to the other, the individual would more pleased with his/her job, equity has been associated with satisfaction and inequity with dissatisfaction. The productivity of human resources depends upon their satisfaction level and satisfied recruits remain within the organization for longer time, while in case of dissatisfaction productivity will be low and individuals are more leaning to leave. As teachers perform very momentous role in the improvement and grooming of their students, so job satisfaction is also extremely vital for teachers to execute their duty well. The responsibility of a teacher is not only to provide new understanding to the students but also train the students for their future life (Siddique, Malik, Abbass, 2002). When the teachers will be satisfied with the job they can perform better. They can deliver their lectures more effectively and enhance the capabilities of students with more devotion. For instance, boredom  has been related to an increase in accident rate (Branton, 1970; Drory, 1982) assessed the boredom levels of 124 truck drivers and found boredom levels were significantly related to properly damage. Of particular interest to the present study, early evidence suggested that task repetition leads to feelings of boredom and fatigue (Wyatt, 1929) and produces lowered and more variable work output (Wyatt, Langdon, Stock, 1937) in manufacturing jobs. Caplan, Cobb, Franch, Harrison, and Pinneau (1975) conducted a survey of workers across over twenty jobs and found a significant, positive correlation between self ratings of boredom and repetitive tasks that underutilized one's ability. Subsequent laboratory and field research concluded that the detrimental effects of monotony in manufacturing setting is most prevalent in jobs requiring work cycles of an hour or more (Broadbent, 1979; Manen ica & Coorlett, 1977; Kishida, 1973).













Section: 3










Method


3.1 Sample
         We have collated our sample from 12 different colleges of Dhaka city.  Among them there were 6 government & 6 non-government colleges. The total sample of 50 teachers was selected conveniently and purposively. There were 31 male & 19 female teachers. Age ranges 26 to 53 years old with the mean of 38.18 years. Salary ranges 17,800 to 56,000tk with the mean of 28,634tk. Teachers designation by educational qualification was B.Sc. =12%, M.Sc. =68%, M.B.A=12% and PhD=8%.

3.2 Measures
 (1) A demographic information sheet was used to collect information about teachers' age, gender, educational qualification, monthly income, etc.

(2) Job Descriptive Index. Bangla version of Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall and Hulin 1969), translated by Khaleque (1984) was administered to measure the Job Satisfaction of the college teachers (as cited in Khaleque, 1984). JDI consists of 5 subscales. There are 72 items. The subscales work, supervision and co-workers consists of 18 items and rest of the subscales pay and promotion 9 items. The scoring procedure is ‘yes'=3, '?'=1 or ‘no'=0 for positive items, and on the other hand, ‘yes'=0, '?'=1 or ‘no'=3 for negative items. Split half internal consistency co-efficient has been reported to be above 0.80. In addition significant convergent and discriminate validity also have been reported for the JDI.


(3) Job Boredom Scale. In this present study Job Boredom Scale (Lee, 1986) was used. Bangla translation of the items of the original scale was prepared only for this study. We converted the true-false format of the JBS into a 5-point Likert-type format (‘totally disagree'=1, ‘disagree'=2, ‘not sure'=3, ‘agree'=4, ‘totally agree'=5) to increase its sensitivity. This scale consists of 17 items, All the items are positive except one item. Item no. 4 is negative item and scored in reverse order. The sum of the scores of all items was the score for the individual.  A high score indicates high job boredom. In the original scale, a coefficient alpha of .95 was reported from the responses of 322 clerical employees. We calculated reliability and validity on small sample (N=30) for using in the present study.

         The adaptation procedures are we follows: At first a Bangla translation of the items of the original scale was prepared. Then the translated form of Bangla version along with original version was given to two experts in the field of Psychology (teachers of the Department of Psychology, Jagannath University) to judge the appropriateness of each item as an indicator of job boredom. They were requested to check the translated form of the original scale and compare with the original scale for its content, meaning, form, and clarity of expression. They were also requested to suggest whether any correction was needed. Then systematic revision of items and classification of equivalence of two separate translations were done by the expert team. They synthesized the two separate translations into one. Then this scale was administered on 30 participants for collecting data.



Reliability of the scale
       The internal consistency of the 5-point Likert-type version has been Cronbach's Alpha (α) of .90. The reliability coefficients are quite comparable to those reported in the original instruments. The corrected item total correlations of the items were typically in the range of .25 to .80. The deletion of any item was not likely to improve the reliability of the scale (see Appendix- D).


Validity of the scale
       In this study we calculated only content validity. Content Validity refers to the systematic examination of the test content to determine whether it covers a representative sample of the behavior domains to be measured. To assure the content validity of a scale, items of the scale must be selected and analyzed carefully during its construction. When the Bangla version of the Job Boredom Scale was given to the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), it was found that the translated items are related about the insight of Job Boredom. The Subject Matter Experts gave their essential remarks during the translation of the Scale.

3.3 Research Design
         The cross sectional survey design was employed in this study.

3.4 Procedures
        Standard data collection procedures were followed in the study. At the beginning, participants were explained about the general purpose of the study and thus good rapport was established with them. They were also informed that the investigation was purely academic and their responses to the questionnaires would be kept confidential. Then the above instruments were administered to them. Prior to responding the items, they were asked to read standard instructions printed on the questionnaires and also to record their socio-demographic information. After completion of their task, the questionnaires were collected from them and they were given thanks for their sincere cooperation. Thus data collection was completed from all the participants.

3.5 Data processing and analysis
          Participants' responses were scored according to the scoring systems of the Job Descriptive Index and the Job Boredom Scale separately. The present research was correlational in its nature. SPSS 14 was used to analyze the data.




























Section: 4










Result

       The results of the present study are depicted below showing how job boredom is related to job satisfaction with present work, pay, supervision, promotion and co-workers of the participants.

Table 1. Correlation between Job Boredom and Job Satisfaction with different facets.



Present work
Present  pay
Supervision
Promotion
Coworkers

Total Job Satisfaction
Job Boredom
-.313(*)
-.103
-.404(**)
-.129
-.189
-.372(**)
*p<.05   **p<.001

           The figures of the above table presents that significant negative correlation existed between total job satisfaction and job boredom (r = -.372, p<0.001). Along with teacher's job boredom was also negatively correlated to job satisfaction with present work (r = -.313, p<0.05) and supervision (r=-.404, p<.001). The other job facets of job satisfaction (i.e. pay, promotion, co-workers) did not significantly correlated to job boredom.








Table 2. Mean difference in Job Boredom of the male & female college teachers.

Male
Female
t-value
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Job Boredom
42.19
11.709
42.05
12.470
0.040

       Table-2 shows that Job Boredom of the male and female teachers did not differ significantly.

Table 3. Mean difference in Job Boredom of the Gov. & Non-Gov. college teachers.

Government college
Non govt. college
t-value
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Job boredom
37.35
9.805
49.95
10.975
- 4.216**
**p<.001

         The findings of the table show that Job Boredom of the teachers differed significantly by the government and non-government colleges (t= - 4.21, p<.001). A comparison of group means further shows that boredom for non-govt. college teachers was higher (=49.95) than govt. college teachers (= 37.35).











Section: 5







Discussion


          The purpose of the present study was to determine the relationship between Job Boredom and Job Satisfaction of government and non-government college teachers.

          Result presented in Table-1 indicates that significant negative correlation existed between total job satisfaction and job boredom (r = -.372, p<0.001). Smith, Candle and Hulin (1969) also found significant negative correlation between job satisfaction and job boredom. Along with teacher's job boredom was also negatively correlated with job satisfaction with present work (r = -.313, p<0.05) and supervision (r=-.404, p<.001). Research shows that sometimes repetitive and monotonous job creates job boredom (Fisher, 1993). The other job facets of job satisfaction (i.e. pay, promotion, co-workers) did not significantly correlated to job boredom. However, there are no previous research findings available to compare with the present finding.

         Findings in the second table indicate that the job boredom of the male and female teachers did not significantly correlate. The present result contradicts with the previous study where males tend to be more prone to boredom than females. Actually the gender findings may be culture-specific.

           In table 3 we see that the job boredom of the teachers differed significantly by the government and non-government colleges (t= - 4.21, p<.001). A comparison of group means further showed that boredom for non-govt. college teachers was higher (=49.95) than govt. college teachers (= 37.35). Non-government employees feel more bored in their job than that of government employees. The reasons may be lack of job security, rigid schedule or long hours or insufficient breaks, organizational polices and practice, unhappy or uncommunicative colleagues. However, there are no previous research findings available to compare with the present findings.

Limitations
The present study had several potential limitations.
1.      The sample size was small.
2.      Job Boredom Scale used in this study was not adapted properly following the standardized adaptation procedures.
Recommendation
3.      There are several directions for future research. Findings from this study should be replicated on larger but very carefully selected more responsible sample, although several important findings were identified here.
4.      Job boredom scale must be adapted properly to conclude any concrete  statement.












References



References

Barrett, L. F. & Russell, J. A. (1999). Structure of current affect. Current Directions
      in Psychological Science, 8, 10-14.

Bernstein, B. (1975). Sources of consensus and disaffection in education. Class,
      Codes and Control, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bishay, A. (1996). Teacher Motivation and Career Satisfaction: A Study Employing
      the Experienced Sampling Method."  Psychology Journal of Undergraduate
      Science, 3, 147-154.

Branton, P. (1970). A field study of repetitive manual work in relation to accidents at
      the workplace. International Journal of Production Research, 8, 93-107.

Broadbent, S. (1979). One Way TV Advertisements Work, Journal of the
      Market Research Society, 23(3).

Buitendach, J.H. & De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity, extrinsic and intrinsic job
      satisfaction and affective organizational commitment of maintenance workers in a
      parastatal. South African Journal of Business Management, 36(2), 27-38.

Drory, A. (1982). Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness
      at work. Personnel Psychology, 35(1), 141-151.

Fisher, C.D. (1993). "Boredom at work: A neglected concept". Human Relation. 46
     (3), 395-417.

Gosnell, S. (2000). Determinant of Career Satisfaction among Federal Employees.
      Paper presented in Seminar on Public Policy, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A: Georgia  
      Institute of Technology

Groot, W. and H. M. van den Brink (1999). Overpayment and Earnings Satisfaction:
      An  Application of an Ordered Response Tobit Model, Applied Economics
      Letters. 6, 235-238.

Harris, J. R. (2000). Context-specific learning, personality, and birth order. Current
     Ditection in Psychology Science,9,174-177.

Herzberg, F. (1959), The Motivation to Work, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Iaffaldano, M.T. and Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: a
    meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin Journal, 97, 251-73.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
     analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Khaleque, A. (1984). Bengali version of the Job Descriptive Index. Job satisfaction
      and  Work in industry-three case studies in Bangladesh, University of         
      Dhaka, Bangladesh: Alamgir press, 131-138.

khaleque et al, (1985). Industrial and organizational psychology part-1,2, Dhaka,
      Bangladesh: Hasan book house publication.

Labuschange,M., Bosman, J. & Buitendach, J.H. (2005). Job insecurity, job
      satisfaction and work locus of control of employees in a government
      organization. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(2), 26-35.

Lawler, E. E. and Porter, L.W. (1967). "The Effect of Performance on Job
       Satisfaction". Industrial Relations, 7, 20-28.

Lawler, E. E., III (1973). "Motivation in work organizations". Brooks/Cole Publishing
       Company: Monterrey, CA.

Lee, T. W. (1986).  Toward the development and validation of a measure of job
      boredom. Available at http://www.theboredomsite.com/measures.htm.

Li-Ping Tang, T., & Talpade, M. (1999). Sex differences in satisfaction with pay and
     co-workers, Public Personnel Management, 28(3), 345-348.

Locke, E. A. (1969). "What is job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human
      performance".

Locke, E.A. (1976), "The nature and causes of job satisfaction", in Dunnette, M.D.
      (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Rand McNally,
      Chicago, IL, 1297-343.

Locke, E.A. and Henne, D. (1986). "Work motivation theories", in cooper, C.L. and
      Roberston, I. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
      Psychology: Wiley, London, 1-35.

Lofquist, L.H. and Dawis, R.V. (1969). Adjustment to Work-A Psychological View
      of Man's Problems in a work-Oriented Society, New York, NY: Appleton Century
      Crofts.

Michaelowa, K. (2002). Teacher Career Satisfaction, Student Achievement, and the
      Cost of Primary Education in Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa: Hamburg
      Institute of International Economics.

Mikulas, W. L. & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. Psychological
       Record,43, 3-12.

Mobley, W. H. & Locke, E. A. (1970). The relationship of value importance to 
        satisfaction. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance. 5, 463-483

Mowday, R. T. (1992). "Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations".
         New York: McGraw Hill.

Mwamwenda, T.S. (1997). Teacher Gender Difference in Job Satisfaction in Tanskei.
        Available at http://www.findArticles.com.

Sargent T. & Hannum E. (2003). Keeping Teachers Happy: Career Satisfaction     
     Among Primary School Teachers in Rural China. Paper prepared for the
     International Association Research Committee on Social Satisfaction and
     Mobility, New York University: New York City, U.S.A.

Scherer, K. R. (1986). Vocal affect expression: A review and a model for future
      research. Psychology Bulletin, 99, 143-165.

Siddique, A., Malik, N. H., and Abbass, N., (2002). "Determining Teacher's Level of
     Job Satisfaction in Faisalabad City". International journal of agriculture &
     biology. 4(3), 372-374.

Smith P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1953), the Measurement of Satisfaction
       in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes: Rand McNally,
       Chicago, IL.

Spector, P.E. (1997). Industrial and Organizational Psychological: Research and
      practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Thackray, R.I., Bailey, J., Touchstone R.M. (1977). Physiological,
      subjective, and performance correlates of reported boredom and
      monotony while performing a simulated radar control task. In R.R. Mackie(Ed.)
      Vigilance, New York: Theory operational performance and
      physiological correlates.

Trabue, M.R. (1993). Educational Psychology. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India
      (Pvt)Ltd

Velnampy T. (2008). Job Attitude and Employees Performance of Public Sector
      Organizations in Jaffna District, Sri Lanka. GITAM Journal of Management, 6(2),  
      66-73.

Wyatt, S., & Langdon, 1. N. assisted by Stock, F. G. L.
       Fatigue and boredom in repetitive work. London: Industrial Health Research
       Board. Report  No. 77. 1937.

Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of
       attitudes toward organizational change in non-western setting, Personnel Review,
       29(5), 557-592.

Zuckerman, M, (1979). Sensation Seeking, Beyond the Optimal Level of
      Arousal, Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.



























Appendix






Appendix D

Reliability Analysis



Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary


N
%
Cases
Valid
30
100.0

Excluded(a)
0
.0

Total
30
100.0
a  Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.


Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.899
.898
17


Item-Total Statistics


Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
itm1
41.00
145.379
.670
.809
.889
itm2
40.73
153.306
.507
.578
.895
itm3
41.17
166.489
.346
.520
.905
itm4
40.37
161.895
.247
.490
.903
itm5
40.50
149.017
.686
.852
.889
itm6
40.70
149.321
.723
.739
.888
itm7
40.50
148.190
.715
.882
.888
itm8
41.20
154.786
.572
.929
.893
itm9
41.23
156.047
.617
.823
.892
itm10
41.03
155.275
.529
.940
.894
itm11
40.43
146.116
.747
.925
.886
itm12
40.77
152.668
.634
.822
.891
itm13
40.47
144.878
.800
.883
.884
itm14
40.20
148.855
.665
.835
.889
itm15
41.23
164.116
.291
.504
.905
itm16
41.07
154.823
.478
.799
.896
itm17
40.73
151.513
.540
.946
.894







Appendices E

Data analysis
Correlations
Descriptive Statistics


Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Job satisfaction for present work
32.74
8.628
50
Job satisfaction for present pay
9.96
7.088
50
Job satisfaction for supervision
34.22
9.520
50
Job satisfaction for promotion
15.26
12.143
50
Job satisfaction for co-workers
37.06
7.896
50
Job boredom
42.14
11.877
50



Correlations


Job satisfaction for present work
Job satisfaction for present pay
Job satisfaction for supervision
Job satisfaction for promotion
Job satisfaction for co-workers
Job boredom
Job satisfaction for present work
Pearson Correlation
1
.290(*)
.319(*)
.336(*)
.187
-.313(*)
Sig. (2-tailed)

.041
.024
.017
.192
.027
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Job satisfaction for present pay
Pearson Correlation
.290(*)
1
.305(*)
.214
.098
-.103
Sig. (2-tailed)
.041

.031
.136
.499
.475
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Job satisfaction for supervision
Pearson Correlation
.319(*)
.305(*)
1
.060
.208
-.404(**)
Sig. (2-tailed)
.024
.031

.680
.148
.004
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Job satisfaction for promotion
Pearson Correlation
.336(*)
.214
.060
1
.162
-.129
Sig. (2-tailed)
.017
.136
.680

.260
.373
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Job satisfaction for co-workers
Pearson Correlation
.187
.098
.208
.162
1
-.189
Sig. (2-tailed)
.192
.499
.148
.260

.188
N
50
50
50
50
50
50
Job boredom
Pearson Correlation
-.313(*)
-.103
-.404(**)
-.129
-.189
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.027
.475
.004
.373
.188

N
50
50
50
50
50
50
*  Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).






T-Test



Group Statistics


Gender
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Job boredom
'male
31
42.19
11.709
2.103
'female''
19
42.05
12.470
2.861


Independent Samples Test


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Job boredom
Equal variances assumed
.046
.831
.040
48
.968
.141
3.496
-6.889
7.171
Equal variances not assumed


.040
36.342
.969
.141
3.551
-7.058
7.339


Group Statistics


Government or Non-Government
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Job boredom
Government
31
37.35
9.803
1.761
Non-Government
19
49.95
10.957
2.514

Independent Samples Test


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper
Job boredom
Equal variances assumed
2.173
.147
-4.216
48
.000
-12.593
2.987
-18.598
-6.587
Equal variances not assumed


-4.103
34.948
.000
-12.593
3.069
-18.823
-6.362



Porinam blog for solution of Daily Life, Android, Windows, News, Live TV, Radio. 
Do you know Human Attitude in mental psychology ?
To know psychological presentation Slide visit here
To know about psychology visit here
For reading psychological Facts File visit here
Support us by sharing this post in your social profile

This Research report owner and publisher only 
Md. Shafiqul Islam Kazal
Mobile:  +8801712-847694
Don't try to copy it. I will Give you Downloads link totally free.

Click here fro MS-Word.
Click for PDF file

0 comments:

    Post a Comment