Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

ISSN: 1360-080X (Print) 1469-9508 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Job satisfaction among accounting and finance

academics: empirical evidence from Irish higher
education institutions

Marann Byrne , Aamir Ali Chughtai , Barbara Flood & Pauline Willis

To cite this article: Marann Byrne , Aamir Ali Chughtai , Barbara Flood & Pauline Willis (2012)
Job satisfaction among accounting and finance academics: empirical evidence from Irish higher
education institutions, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34:2, 153-167, DOI:
10.1080/1360080X.2012.662740

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.662740

Published online: 18 Apr 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 505

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjhe20
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Vol. 34, No. 2, April 2012, 153–167

Job satisfaction among accounting and finance academics: empirical

evidence from Irish higher education institutions
Marann Byrne, Aamir Ali Chughtai*, Barbara Flood and Pauline Willis

Dublin City University Business School (DCUBS), Dublin, Ireland

The central aim of the present study was to examine the levels of job satisfaction among
accounting and finance academics in Irish higher education institutions. Additionally,
this research sought to uncover the factors linked to the overall job satisfaction of these
teachers. The findings showed that while, participants were generally satisfied with most
aspects of their jobs; they expressed dissatisfaction with promotion prospects and time
available for research. Furthermore, the results indicated that satisfaction with hours of
work and satisfaction with the department head were the strongest predictors of aca-
demic staffs’ overall job satisfaction. Finally, it was found that demographic variables
did not significantly influence the overall job satisfaction of academics but they did exert
a significant impact on their satisfaction with some of the job content and work context
factors. Implications for Irish higher education institutions are discussed.
Keywords: demographics; Ireland; job content and work context factors; job satisfac-
tion; university academics

Introduction
Job satisfaction is perhaps the most heavily researched work attitude in organisational stud-
ies (Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002; Lease, 1998; Oshagbemi, 1999).
The driving force behind the importance of job satisfaction is that it has positive con-
sequences for organisations. For example, research has demonstrated that high levels of
job satisfaction can yield significant benefits such as, reduced turnover rates (Daly & Dee,
2006) lower absenteeism (Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers, 2010), improved mental and phys-
ical well-being (Oshagbemi, 1999), more organisational citizenship behaviours (Organ &
Ryan, 1995) and superior performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). This evi-
dence suggests that a satisfied workforce is likely to be a powerful source of competitive
advantage for the concerned organisation.
Job satisfaction has been defined and conceptualised in many different ways. The most
commonly cited definition of job satisfaction is by Locke (1976), who defined this con-
struct as a ‘pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job’
(p. 1304). Similarly, Dawis and Lofquist (1984) argue that job satisfaction is an outcome
of worker’s appraisal of the degree to which the work environment fulfils the individual
needs. In a related vein, Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) contend that job satisfac-
tion is a feeling about a job that ‘is determined by the difference between the amount of
some valued outcome that a person receives and the amount of outcome he feels he should

*Corresponding author. Email: aamir_chughtai@hotmail.com

ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online © 2012 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the
L H Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.662740
http://www.tandfonline.com
154 M. Byrne et al.

receive’ (p. 53). Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) also echo similar thoughts and refer to job
satisfaction as an ‘affective reaction to one’s job, resulting from the incumbent’s compari-
son of actual outcomes with those that are desired’ (p. 1). In short, job satisfaction reflects
a discrepancy between what an individual expects to receive from a job and what he or she
actually receives (Oshagbemi, 2003).

The present study

Numerous empirical studies have investigated the causes and effects of job satisfaction in a
wide range of settings. Job satisfaction is particularly important for the teaching profession
because previous research has shown that lack of satisfaction among academic staff has
the potential to translate into dysfunctional outcomes such as, higher rates of absenteeism,
aggressive behaviour towards colleagues and learners, early exit from the teaching pro-
fession and psychological withdrawal from work (Mwamwenda, 1995). In addition, some
researchers contend that academics who do not feel supported in their work may be less
motivated to do their best work in the classroom, which in turn, may have an adverse impact
on student learning and achievement (Ostroff, 1992 ). Moreover, in a study on account-
ing educators, Strawser, Flagg, and Holmes (2000) found that academics who expressed
dissatisfaction with their work were more likely to quit their jobs and seek employment
elsewhere. High turnover among academic staff can prove detrimental for higher educa-
tion institutions because it results in the shift of valuable educational resources away from
actual instruction towards expensive staff replacements. Since, academic staff members are
both the largest cost and the main human capital resource of higher education institutions,
identifying and understanding factors which enhance their job satisfaction is critical for
improving the information base required to nurture a successful higher education system.
This research, therefore, sought to examine the job satisfaction of full-time account-
ing and finance academics teaching in publically funded higher education institutions in
the Republic of Ireland. Specifically, the present study was driven by the following four
objectives:

1. To ascertain the levels of job satisfaction of Irish accounting and finance academics;
2. To explore the effects of job content and work context factors on academic staff
members’ overall job satisfaction;
3. To examine the influence of demographic variables on academic staff members’
overall job satisfaction;
4. To investigate the impact of demographic variables on academic staff members’
satisfaction with the job content and work context factors.

Thus, by examining the job satisfaction of academic staff members and by identifying
the factors that are linked to their satisfaction, this study attempts to provide guidelines to
the education administrators for attracting and retaining high quality teaching staff at Irish
higher education institutions.

Job satisfaction among academics in higher education

Job satisfaction, job content and work context factors
Scholars and researchers have predominantly used the two-factor theory advanced by
Herzberg, Mauser, and Snyderman (1959) to identify the factors associated with teachers’
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 155

job satisfaction. Herzberg et al. (1959) contend that job satisfaction is not a uni-dimensional
concept. Specifically, they argue that the factors which promote job satisfaction are differ-
ent from those which contribute to dissatisfaction. These researchers suggest that only job
content or intrinsic factors (‘motivators’) such as recognition, achievement and responsibil-
ity can lead to job satisfaction. In contrast, the job context or extrinsic factors (‘hygiene’)
such as working conditions, pay level, company policies and job security, can reduce job
dissatisfaction but they cannot increase job satisfaction. However, contrary to the tenets of
two-factor theory, research has shown that both job content and work context factors can
contribute to the job satisfaction of university academics.
For instance, Boyer, Altbach, and Whitelaw (1994) in their research showed that profes-
sors reported a high level of satisfaction with their intellectual lives, the courses they taught
and the relationship with their colleagues. Contrary, to the arguments of the two-factor the-
ory, the results of this study revealed that both job content and work context factors can
promote job satisfaction.
In a study conducted among Australian academics, Lacy and Sheehan (1997) found that
factors related to teachers’ work environment, such as university atmosphere, morale, sense
of community and relationship with colleagues, were the key drivers of job satisfaction.
These findings suggest that the work context factors are likely to play a critical role in
fostering job satisfaction among academic staff members.
Similarly, Oshagbemi (1997a) demonstrated that besides the teaching and research
related-factors, work context factors, such as job security, opportunity for consultancy,
working hours and retirement benefits, also increased the job satisfaction of academics.
On the basis of these findings, Oshagbemi (1997a) concluded that both hygiene factors and
motivators are important and have the potential to boost job satisfaction.
Bellamy, Morley, and Watty (2003) undertook a study among Australian accounting
educators and uncovered three sets of factors that contributed to their job satisfaction: work
context factors (e.g., salary, job security); autonomy (autonomy/flexibility); and traditional
academic roles (teaching/research). These findings further reinforced the notion that job
content and work context factors complement each other and have the capacity to enhance
the job satisfaction of academics.
Additionally, the results of the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey (2007) also
indicate that the presence of both job content (e.g., opportunity for research) and work
context (e.g., higher salary levels) factors is necessary to increase teachers’ satisfaction
with the academic profession (Coates, Dobson, Edwards, Friedman, & Meek, 2009).
This study therefore, aims to explore the effects of both job content and work context
factors on academic staff members’ job satisfaction. Research evidence indicates that sev-
eral job content and work context factors, such as autonomy, recognition, salary, promotion
prospects, relationship with colleagues and department head, time available for research,
hours of work, job security, physical working conditions and work undertaken, can influ-
ence the job satisfaction of academics (e.g., Busch, Fallan, & Pettersen, 1998; Lacy &
Sheehan, 1997; Olsen, 1993; Oshagbemi, 1997a; Ward & Sloane, 2000). In view of this
evidence, we included the following job content and work context factors in our study (see
Table 1).

Job satisfaction and demographic variables

Research has demonstrated that in addition to the job content and work context fac-
tors, demographic variables or the personal characteristics of the individuals are also
likely to influence job satisfaction (Lease, 1998; Oshagbemi, 2003).Thus, we included the
156 M. Byrne et al.

Table 1. Job content and work context factors included in the study.
Job content factors Work context factors
Work undertaken Salary
Modules taught Relations with department head
Time available for research Relations with colleagues
Promotion prospects Job security
Autonomy Physical working conditions
Work hours

following four demographic variables in our study: gender, academic rank, type of institu-
tion and level of education. These demographic variables were selected because they have
been linked to the job satisfaction of academics in several previous studies (Oshagbemi,
2003; Paul & Phua, 2011; Schulze, 2006).
The results of studies examining the relationship between demographic variables and
job satisfaction have been fairly inconsistent and therefore, it is difficult to predict the
exact direction of the relationship between the two sets of variables. For instance, with
regards to gender, some studies have reported that male teachers are more satisfied than
their female counterparts (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011; Lacy & Sheehan 1997), while other
studies have found that female academics exhibit higher levels of satisfaction (Clark, 1997;
Sharma & Jyoti, 2009). On the other hand, there are studies which found no difference in
the satisfaction levels of the two sexes (Bellamy et al., 2003; Oshagbemi, 2000; Ward &
Sloane, 2000).
Several studies have uncovered that rank of the academic staff is an important deter-
minant of job satisfaction (Okpara, Squillace, & Erondu, 2005; Oshagbemi, 1997b).
Specifically, Oshagbemi (1997b) found that job satisfaction of academics progressively
increased with rank, with full professors exhibiting greater job satisfaction than junior aca-
demic staff members. Similar findings have been reported in studies undertaken among
accounting educators (Pop-Vasileva, Baird, & Blair, 2011; Strawser et al., 2000). However,
Eyupoglu and Saner (2009) found that satisfaction levels of academics did not progres-
sively increase with academic rank, thereby contradicting the findings of other studies (e.g.,
Oshagbemi, 1997b).
Research has also revealed a dichotomy in the relationship between job satisfaction
and type of institution. Some studies have shown that the type of institution can have a
significant bearing on the satisfaction levels of academic staff (Schulze, 2006); while other
studies have found no relationship between the two variables (Bowen & Radhakrishna,
1991; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997).
The relationship between the level of education and job satisfaction is also not clear.
Research has shown that education level can have both a positive (e.g., Fabra & Camison,
2009) as well as a negative (e.g., Vila & Garcia-Mora, 2005) impact on job satisfaction.
On the contrary, in some studies, researchers failed to find a significant link between these
two variables (e.g., Idson, 1990).

Methodology
The context of the study
This study focuses on accounting and finance academics working in higher education in
Ireland. In common with other developed countries, academics in Ireland have experienced
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 157

intense changes in their work environment. These changes include a massive growth in
student numbers, a substantial decline in resources, an increased emphasis on quality assur-
ance and accountability, a stronger focus on research output and pressure to attract research
funding (Darmody & Smyth, 2008; Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; O’Connell, McCoy & Clancy,
2006; Scheutze & Slowey, 2002; Winefield, Gillespie, Stough, Dua, & Hapuarachchi,
2003). There is also now an expectation that academics are well equipped with IT skills,
are good administrators and have the ability to constantly develop and market new pro-
grammes to an increasingly diverse student population (Brewer & McMahon, 2003; Doyle
& Hind, 1998; Winter, Taylor, & Sarros, 2000). Furthermore, in the context of account-
ing, several reports and articles have been published which have been highly critical of
accounting programmes for their failure to equip graduates with the skills needed for con-
temporary accounting practice (Albrecht & Sack, 2000; Bolt-Lee & Foster, 2003; Sundem,
1995). These criticisms have resulted in increased pressures on accounting educators. The
impact of the foregoing factors has been heightened by the fact that Irish academics have
had to endure significant pay cuts in recent years. Thus, research exploring the level of job
satisfaction among accounting and finance academics in Ireland is worthy of investigation
and very timely.

Sample and data collection

Ireland has 21 publicly funded higher education institutions, seven universities and 14 insti-
tutes of technology. Ninety per cent of the entrants to these institutions are school leavers
aged 17–18 who have just completed their second level education (Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2006). The target population for this
study are all full-time accounting and finance academics working in these higher education
institutions. Initially, the websites of the universities and institutes of technology were scru-
tinised to draw up a list of accounting and finance teachers. A colleague in each college
was then contacted to check the accuracy of the list. This resulted in a population of 243.
The questionnaire together with a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope were posted
to all full-time accounting and finance staff mid-way through the second semester in March
2010. Four weeks after the initial mailing, a follow up e-mail was sent thanking all those
who had completed the survey and requesting anyone who had not to please do so. The
researchers informed all potential respondents that their participation was completely vol-
untary and that individual responses would be held in confidence and the data would be
reported in aggregate form. One hundred responses were received, resulting in a response
rate of 41.2 per cent. This response rate is consistent with the return rates reported in many
other similar studies (Doyle & Hind, 1998; Ghorpade, Lackritz, & Singh, 2007). Moreover,
this sample appeared to be representative of the total population with regards to gender
(e.g., 55 per cent male in the sample versus 52 per cent male in the population) and the
percentage of academics based in universities and institutes of technology (e.g., 47 per cent
of the academics in the sample and 46 per cent of the academics in the population were
based in universities). This evidence seems to suggest that the demography of the study
sample was representative of the entire population.
The sample included 55 male and 45 female academics. The average teaching experi-
ence of the respondents was 12.6 years; 47 per cent of the participants were teaching in
universities, while the remaining 53 per cent were employed with the institutes of technol-
ogy. All respondents held a bachelors degree or above with 86 per cent holding a masters or
a PhD qualification. Finally, 82 per cent of the respondents held a permanent employment
contract; whereas, the remaining 18 per cent were on a temporary contract.
158 M. Byrne et al.

Measurement of variables
Overall job satisfaction
Overall job satisfaction was measured with a single item, ‘Taking everything into consid-
eration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?’ with a seven-point scale ranging from
‘Extremely Dissatisfied’ (1) to ‘Extremely Satisfied’ (7). Previous research has shown that
single item measures of job satisfaction are reliable and valid (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy,
1997). The single item measures of job satisfaction have been used in several previous
studies (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011; Ybema et al., 2010).

Job content and work context factors

As mentioned above in the present study, the following job content and work context factors
were included: work undertaken, autonomy, modules taught, salary, promotion prospects,
relations with department head, relations with colleagues, job security, time available for
research, work hours, and physical working conditions. Each factor was assessed with a sin-
gle item, which was rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 = Extremely Dissatisfied
to 7 = Extremely Satisfied.

Demographic variables
For this study, we included four demographic variables in our analyses: gender, type of
institution, academic rank and education level. Gender (1 = male; 2 = female) and type
of institution (1 = university; 2 = institute of technology) were measured through dummy
variables. Academic rank was measured by three categories: lecturer (coded as 1); senior
lecturer (coded as 2); and professor (coded as 3). Likewise, the level of education was also
assessed with three categories: undergraduate and postgraduate (PG) diploma (coded as 1);
masters (coded as 2); and PhD (coded as 3).

Data analysis
To determine the levels of job satisfaction among academics, mean scores and standard
deviations for overall job satisfaction as well as for each of the 11 job content and work
context factors were calculated and the results are incorporated in Table 2. Additionally,
participants were classified into three groups on the basis of their responses to questions
relating to job satisfaction. Respondents attaining a score of 5, 6 or 7 were classified as
satisfied, those with a score of 4 were considered neutral and those with a score of 1, 2 or
3 were deemed dissatisfied. The percentages in each group are shown in Table 2. This
approach to classification follows the norms used in previous research (Lacy & Sheehan,
1997; Oshagbemi, 1999).
Independent sample t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted
to investigate the influence of gender, type of institution, academic rank and education level
on academics’ perceived levels of job satisfaction. The relationship between overall job
satisfaction and the job content and work context factors was ascertained by computing cor-
relations between these variables and by conducting stepwise multiple regression analyses.

Results
Preliminary analysis
Before conducting the independent sample t-tests and the subsequent correlation and
regression analyses, all variables were checked for normality. The results showed that three
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 159

Table 2. Levels of job satisfaction.

Full sample (%)
Job content and work content factors Mean SD S I D
Modules taught 5.48 0.98 90 3 7
Relations with colleagues 5.49 1.21 85 6 9
Promotion prospects 3.48 1.49 22 29 49
Work undertaken 5.35 0.85 88 9 3
Salary 4.45 1.40 64 6 30
Autonomy 5.53 1.00 88 9 3
Time available for research 3.52 1.51 29 12 59
Relations with Head of department 5.17 1.74 76 7 17
Job security 5.52 1.71 82 1 17
Work hours 4.78 1.54 66 8 28
Physical working conditions 4.95 1.38 71 10 19
Overall job satisfaction 5.35 0.99 88 5 7
Note: S = satisfied, I = indifferent, D = dissatisfied.

of the work context factors, namely, satisfaction with head of the department, satisfac-
tion with colleagues and satisfaction with job security were moderately negatively skewed.
In order to manage the issue of skew, we applied the reflected logarithmic transformation
to these variables by following the procedure outlined by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001).
The skewness values of the transformed variables indicated an approximately normal
distribution.

Level of job satisfaction among academics

Results presented in Table 2 reveal that accounting and finance academics are generally
far more satisfied than dissatisfied with their job. On the overall measure of satisfaction
88 per cent of the respondents were satisfied, five per cent were indifferent and seven
per cent were dissatisfied. A high percentage of respondents indicate that they are par-
ticularly happy about the modules they taught; work undertaken, the autonomy they have
in their job and their relationships with colleagues. However, the participants in this study
report high levels of dissatisfaction with some aspects of their job. In particular, they are
dissatisfied with promotion prospects and the time available for research.

The influence of job content and work context factors on overall job satisfaction
The results of the correlation analysis presented in Table 3, show that all the job content
and work context variables were positively and significantly associated with overall job
satisfaction. Satisfaction with work hours (r = 0.63, p < 0.01), time available for research
(r = 0.56, p < 0.01), satisfaction with modules taught (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) and satisfaction
with promotion prospects (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) were the most closely related variables
with overall job satisfaction. Relationship with colleagues (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) on the
other hand, exhibited the weakest link with overall job satisfaction of the academic staff
members. Results also indicated that none of the demographic variables were significantly
related to the overall job satisfaction of accounting and finance educators. These variables
were thus, excluded from the subsequent regression analysis but their influence on the job
content and work context variables is considered later in the paper.
Next, we conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine, which job
content and work context factors were the strongest predictors of academic staff members’
160 M. Byrne et al.

Table 3. Pearson’s correlation coefficient between overall job

satisfaction and its determinants.
Variable R
Modules taught 0.52∗∗
Relations with colleaguesa 0.26∗
Promotion prospects 0.52∗∗
Work undertaken 0.41∗∗
Salary 0.41∗∗
Autonomy 0.34∗∗
Time available for research 0.56∗∗
Relations with head of departmenta 0.43∗∗
Job securitya 0.27∗∗
Work hours 0.63∗∗
Physical working conditions 0.32∗∗
Gender −0.002
Type of institution 0.01
Academic rank 0.19
Education level −0.03
Note: ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; a based on scores after Log(10) transformation
to correct skew.

Table 4. The results of stepwise multiple regression with overall job satisfaction as the dependent
variable and job content/work context factors as independent variables.
Step Variable entered R2 R2 F
1 Work hours 0.37 0.37 57.04∗∗
2 Head of departmenta 0.49 0.12 22.15∗∗
3 Modules taught 0.56 0.07 16.51∗∗
4 Work undertaken 0.61 0.05 9.99∗∗
Note: ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗ p < 0.01; a based on scores after Log(10) transformation to correct skew.

overall job satisfaction. The statistics on the four variables, which entered the stepwise mul-
tiple regression equation, are presented in Table 4. Satisfaction with work hours was the
first and the most salient of the four variables that entered the stepwise multiple regression
equation. This facet accounted for 37 per cent of the variation in overall job satisfaction.
At step 2, satisfaction with the head of the department entered the regression equation
and accounted for an additional 12 per cent of the variation in job satisfaction. At step 3,
satisfaction with modules taught entered the equation and explained an additional seven
per cent of the variation in job satisfaction. Finally, at step 4, satisfaction with work under-
taken entered the equation and accounted for a further five per cent of the variation in job
satisfaction.
The final model is presented in Table 5. Results depicted in Table 5 show that the job
satisfaction of accounting and finance academic staff members was primarily an outcome of
work hours; relations with head of the department; modules taught; and work undertaken.
Together, these four variables explained 61 per cent of the variation in job satisfaction. This
analysis suggests that satisfaction with work hours was the most important determinant of
job satisfaction among Irish accounting and finance educators. Finally, in line with previous
research (e.g., Lacy & Sheehan 1997; Oshagbemi, 1997a), these results indicate that both
job content and work context factors can significantly contribute to the job satisfaction of
university academics.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 161

Table 5. Final model for overall job satisfaction.

Standardised
Variables coefficients
Work hours 0.40∗∗
Head of departmenta 0.29∗∗
Modules taught 0.27∗∗
Work undertaken 0.22∗∗
R2 0.61
F-Value 36.14∗∗
Note: ∗∗ p < 0.01; a based on scores after Log(10) transformation to correct
skew.

The influence of demographic variables on overall job satisfaction and job content and
work context factors
In relation to the effects of demographic characteristics, the results of the independent sam-
ple t-tests showed that there were no differences in the overall job satisfaction of male
and female academics and the satisfaction levels of academic staff teaching in universities
and institutes of technology. In addition, the results of the one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) revealed that academic rank and education level also did not have a significant
effect on the overall job satisfaction of academic staff members.
Next, we explored the effects of the four demographic variables on satisfaction with
the job content and work context factors included in this study. The results of this analysis
revealed that the demographic variables did affect academic staff members’ satisfaction
with some of the job content and work context factors. For instance, it was found that
gender had a significant effect on satisfaction with job security. Specifically, the results
showed that male academics (M = 5.85) were more satisfied than their female (M =
5.11) counterparts with regards to this aspect of the job (t = 2.02; p < 0.05).
Furthermore, results indicated that university academics appeared to be more satis-
fied than their colleagues in the institutes of technology with regards to autonomy in their
work (t = 2.06; p < 0.05) and their physical working environment (t = 4.98; p < 0.01).
However, academics in the institutes of technology expressed significantly higher levels of
satisfaction with job security than their counterparts in the universities (t = 2.68; p < 0.01).
With regards to academic rank, a significant difference in satisfaction with promo-
tion prospects [F (2, 97) = 6.63, p < 0.01] was found across the three ranks: professor,
senior lecturers and lecturers. A post hoc analysis using the Tukey’s Honestly Significant
Difference Test (HSD) found a significant difference between professors and lecturers
(HSD = 1.90, p < 0.05). Professors reported higher levels of satisfaction with promotion
prospects (M = 5.17) than lecturers (M = 3.27).
Finally, significant differences were observed for satisfaction with autonomy [F (2, 96)
= 4.62, p < 0.05] and satisfaction with physical working conditions [F (2, 96) = 3.51, p <
0.05] across the three education categories: undergraduate and PG diploma; masters; and
PhD. The results of the Tukey’s HSD test showed that there was a significant difference
between PhD and masters degree holders with regards to satisfaction with autonomy (HSD
= 0.62, p < 0.05). Specifically, the results indicated that academics who held a PhD
expressed greater satisfaction with respect to autonomy than their colleagues who held a
masters degree. In addition, the results of Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed that there was
a significant difference in the satisfaction levels of academics with PhDs and academics
holding a master’s degree with regard to physical working conditions (HSD = 0.75, p <
162 M. Byrne et al.

0.05). Teachers with doctorate degrees reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction
with this aspect of the job.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to ascertain the level of job satisfaction among accounting and
finance academics in higher education institutions in Ireland and to uncover the factors,
which influenced their overall job satisfaction. The results of this study showed that gen-
erally accounting and finance academics expressed high satisfaction with their jobs. They
were particularly satisfied with the modules they teach, the work undertaken, the amount
of autonomy they have in their jobs and relations with their colleagues. These findings are
in sharp contrast to the results reported in some of the other studies on accounting educa-
tors, which found that these academics exhibited low or moderate levels of job satisfaction
(Bellamy et al., 2003; Pop-Vasileva, Baird, & Blair, 2011; Strawser et al., 2000). However,
in line with previous research, academic staff members did express dissatisfaction with
promotion prospects and time available for research (Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; Ward, Cook,
& Ward, 2004 ).
In addition, the results of the step-wise regression analyses revealed that satisfaction
with work hours; satisfaction with head of the department; satisfaction with the modules
taught; and satisfaction with work undertaken, were the main determinants of the overall
job satisfaction of accounting and finance educators. These findings suggest that both job
content and work context factors are likely to contribute towards the job satisfaction of
academics. Interestingly, these results contradict the Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which
contends that only the intrinsic or job content factors can lead to satisfaction.
Results indicate that satisfaction with work hours is the most important driver of teach-
ers’ job satisfaction. High work hours have been shown to manifest in negative outcomes,
such as work-family conflict and psychological distress (Hughes & Parks, 2007); poor
health and well being (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997); and sleep complaints and
fatigue (van Hooff , Geurts, Kompier, & Taris, 2006). The confluence of these factors can
lead to lower job satisfaction and higher psychological strain. On the contrary, flexible work
hours may enable individuals to create a better balance between work and home obligations
and give them more time for relaxation and personal interests, which in turn is likely to
breed greater job satisfaction (Kinman, 1998).
Moreover, the findings suggest that the quality of relationship which the academic staff
members have with their head of the department is also expected to have a significant
effect on their job satisfaction. The literature on leader-member exchange contends that
when employees develop high quality relationships with their supervisors, they are likely
to get access to important resources, such as constructive feedback, social support and
personalised coaching, which subsequently may have a positive impact on their job satis-
faction (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In view of this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that
high quality relationships with the head of the department might enable academics to reap
significant benefits, such as increased support, greater access to research funds and oppor-
tunities to teach modules of their interest. These factors are likely to enhance academic
staff members’ satisfaction with their jobs.
Additionally, it was revealed that satisfaction with the modules taught and work under-
taken were also positively linked to academic staff members’ job satisfaction. This finding
is in line with previous research, which suggests that satisfaction with university academics’
core tasks is an important determinant of their overall job satisfaction (Bellamy et al., 2003;
Oshagbemi, 1997a).
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 163

Results also showed that none of the four demographic variables included in this study:
gender, type of institution, academic rank and education level had a significant impact on
the overall job satisfaction of accounting and finance educators. However, results demon-
strated that these variables affected academic staff members’ satisfaction with some of the
job content and work context factors. For instance, it was found that male teachers reported
higher levels of satisfaction than their female counterparts with regards to job security.
Other studies have also reported similar findings (Lacy & Sheehan, 1997; Ward & Sloane,
2000). One possible explanation for this finding could be that a greater percentage of female
academics tend to be on short-term contracts and on the lower rungs of an academic career,
which may lead them to perceive lower job security than their male counterparts (Okpara
et al., 2005; Ward & Sloane, 2000).
Type of institution (university vs. institute of technology) also had a significant effect
on some of the job content and work context factors (job security, autonomy and physical
working conditions). Specifically, it was found that academics in universities were more
satisfied with physical working conditions and the amount of autonomy they had in their
jobs, while academics in the institutes of technology reported higher levels of satisfaction
with job security.
University lecturers are likely to be more positive about their physical working
environment because most of the Irish universities have recently built purposively designed
business schools in which academics typically have their own office space. In contrast, a
smaller number of institutes of technology have newly built business schools and many of
their academics share their office with one or more colleagues. With regard to autonomy,
as the teaching load for university lecturers is typically 6 hours a week compared to
16 hours a week for lecturers in institutes of technology it is not surprising that university
academics consider that they have greater autonomy than their colleagues in the institutes
of technology. In the case of job security, the higher levels of job satisfaction reported by
institute of technology academics may be explained by the fact that only 7.5 per cent of
these academics are in contract positions, whereas 30 per cent of the university lectures
are in contract posts.
In relation to academic rank, it was found that professors were most satisfied with pro-
motion prospects because of ‘having reached the peak of the academic ladder and having
experienced all associated benefits’ (Eyupoglu & Saner, 2009, p. 689). Lecturers on the
other hand, were found to be least satisfied with this aspect of the job. This finding is also
consistent with previous research (Eyupoglu & Saner, 2009; Oshagbemi, 2003; Strawser
et al., 2000).
Finally, concerning education level, the results indicated that PhD-holding academics
were more satisfied than masters’ degree holders with regards to the amount of autonomy
they had in their jobs and the physical working conditions linked to their jobs. PhD aca-
demics, because of their superior qualifications, are likely to be higher up on the academic
ladder. Therefore, it is plausible that they may be given greater latitude to carry out their
work roles. Moreover, because of their higher academic rank, these academics might also
have access to better physical amenities, such as more office space and advanced computer
facilities than masters’ degree holders. This may account for the difference in satisfaction
with regards to working conditions for the two groups.

Practical implications
The findings of this research may have important implications for policy-makers and senior
managers of Irish higher education institutions. Although, the results suggest that the
164 M. Byrne et al.

accounting and finance academics are generally satisfied with their jobs, they express dis-
satisfaction with regards to promotion prospects and time available for research. Education
managers need to ensure that there is clarity concerning the opportunities for promotion.
Furthermore, it is important to maintain a fair and unbiased promotion system. Okpara
et al. (2005) argue that ‘promotions based on merit and performance evaluations will
be perceived by academics as being fair and equitable and would enhance performance,
give a greater degree of job satisfaction and ultimately lead to higher productivity and
commitment’ (p. 188).
The administrators should also ensure that teaching loads of academics are adequately
managed so that they have more time for their research activities. In addition, universi-
ties and institutes can consider conducting workshops and training programmes, which are
geared towards improving the research related skills of staff. Improved research skills might
enable academics to utilise their research time more effectively.
Our findings showed that satisfaction with work hours was the strongest predictor of the
overall job satisfaction of accounting and finance educators. The results from the present
sample revealed that on average Irish accounting and finance academics work 48 hours
per week with 25 per cent of them working more than 50 hours per week. Kinman (1998)
reported that academics working over 40 hours per week experienced the highest levels of
work-related stress. Notwithstanding that self-reporting bias may occur when staff report
hours worked, it is recommended that education policy-makers consider providing a more
balanced workload so that academics have more time for relaxation and more opportunities
to engage in outside interests and fulfil family obligations.
Satisfaction with the department head, satisfaction with modules taught and satisfaction
with work undertaken were the other factors, which were found to be positively related to
overall job satisfaction. To build high quality relationships between academics and their
department heads, senior management should encourage department heads to create a
supportive work environment by treating their staff with respect and compassion, acknowl-
edging their contributions and providing them opportunities for professional and personal
growth and development. Such positive actions by department heads might facilitate them
to develop closer relationships with their academic staff, which in turn may have a positive
influence on staff job satisfaction (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Moreover, education managers can enhance academics’ satisfaction with the core
aspects of their work (i.e., teaching and research) by allowing greater autonomy in the con-
tent taught; recruiting high quality students; giving due recognition for work done well; and
providing research support in the form of funding and training (Olsen, 1993; Oshagbemi,
1997a; Ssesanga & Garrett, 2005).
Finally, the results revealed that the four demographic variables: gender, type of institu-
tion, academic rank and level of education affected academics’ satisfaction with regards to
some of the job content and work context factors. These findings imply that administrators
in higher education institutions might have to vary their management style and motivational
strategies to meet the unique needs of different groups of individuals (Paul & Phua, 2011).

Limitations
As with all studies, there are limitations to this research. First, we were unable to draw any
firm conclusions about causality because of the cross-sectional design of this study. Future
studies can use a longitudinal research design for determining causal links.
Second, data for this study were collected from accounting and finance academics
teaching in higher education institutions in Ireland. Thus, it is possible that the findings
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 165

and implications of this study may not generalise well to academics belonging to other aca-
demic disciplines. Future research should therefore, explore the relationships examined in
this study in a more diverse sample in order to increase the external validity of the findings
reported here.
Third, this study was limited by the fact that data on two important demographic vari-
ables, namely, age and marital status were not collected. This was done to protect the
anonymity of respondents in a relatively small population. However, since both age (Paul
& Phua, 2011) and marital status (Clark, Oswald, & Warr, 1996) can influence job sat-
isfaction, it is recommended that future studies should also examine the effects of these
variables on academic staff members’ job satisfaction.
Finally, overall job satisfaction in the present study was measured with a single item.
While, some researchers (Wanous et al., 1997) consider single item measures of job satis-
faction to be valid and reliable, others tend to be more sceptical about their use (Oshagbemi,
1999; Pollard, 1996). Thus, the results of this study need to be viewed with caution.
Future studies can replicate this research by using multi-item measures of overall job
satisfaction.

Conclusion
Recruiting and retaining high quality academic staff is critical for sustaining a strong higher
education system. One way to achieve this objective is to enhance the job satisfaction of
academics. The present study highlights factors, which may help to increase academic staff
members’ satisfaction with their jobs within the context of Irish higher education institu-
tions. We hope that the findings of this study will encourage education policy makers to
devise strategies that would enable them to foster job satisfaction among their academic
staff.

References
Albrecht, W.S., & Sack, R.J. (2000). Accounting education: Charting the course through a perilous
future. Sarasota, Florida: American Accounting Association.
Bellamy, S., Morley, C., & Watty, K. (2003). Why business academics remain in Australian universi-
ties despite deteriorating working conditions and reduced job satisfaction: An intellectual puzzle.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 13–28.
Bolt-Lee, C., & Foster, D.D. (2003). The core competency framework: A new element in the con-
tinuing call for accounting education change in the United States. Accounting Education: An
International Journal, 12(1), 33–47.
Bowen, B.E., & Radhakrishna, R.B. (1991). Job satisfaction of agricultural education faculty: A
constant phenomena. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 16–22.
Boyer, E., Altbach, P., & Whitelaw, M.J. (1994). The academic profession: An international
perspective. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual, work and
institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 155–186.
Brewer, E., & McMahon, J. (2003). Job stress and burnout among industrial and technical teacher
educators. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 28(2), 125–140.
Busch, T., Fallan, L., & Pettersen, A. (1998). Disciplinary differences in job satisfaction, self-efficacy,
goal commitment, and organizational commitment among faculty employees in Norwegian col-
leges: An empirical assessment of indicators of performance. Quality in Higher Education, 4(2),
137–157.
Clark, A.E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour
Economics, 4(4), 341–372.
Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational
and Organisational Psychology, 69, 57–81.
166 M. Byrne et al.

Coates, H., Dobson, I., Edwards, D., Friedman, T., & Meek, L. (2009). The attractiveness of the
Australian academic profession: A comparative analysis. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.
au/higher_education/11.
Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C., & Stone, E.F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs
and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington Press.
Daly, C.J., & Dee, J.R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities.
The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 776–803.
Darmody, M., & Smyth, E. (2008). Full-time students? Term-time employment among higher
education students in Ireland. Journal of Education and Work, 21(4), 349–362.
Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Doyle, C., & Hind, P. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout and job status in female academics.
Gender, Work and Organisation, 5(2), 67–82.
Eyupoglu, S.Z., & Saner, T. (2009). The relationship between job satisfaction and academic rank:
A study of academicians in Northern Cyprus. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1,
686–691.
Fabra, M.E., & Camison, C. (2009). Direct and indirect effects of education on job satisfac-
tion: A structural equation model for Spanish case. Economics of Education Review, 28,
600–610.
Ghorpade, J., Lackritz, J., & Singh, G. (2007). Burnout and personality: Evidence from academia.
Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 240–256.
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying multi-level, multi-
domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Herzberg, F., Mauser, B., & Synderman, B.S. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Hughes, E.L., & Parks, K.R. (2007). Work hours and well being: The roles of work-time control and
work-family interference. Work & Stress, 21(3), 264–278.
Idson, T.L. (1990). Establishment size, job satisfaction and the structure of work. Applied Economics,
22, 1007–1018.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E., & Patton, G.K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job per-
formance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3),
376–407.
Kinicki, A.J., McKee-Ryan, F.M., Schriesheim, C.A., & Carson, K.P. (2002). Assessing the construct
validity of the job descriptive index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), 14–32.
Kinman, G (1998). Pressure points: A survey into the causes and consequences of occupational stress
in UK academic and related staff . London: AUT.
Lacy, F., & Sheehan, B. (1997). Job satisfaction among academic staff: An international perspective.
Higher Education 34, 305–322.
Lease, S.H. (1998). Annual review, 1993–1997: Work attitudes and outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 53, 154–183.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organisational psychology (pp. 1297–1349), Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Mwamwenda, T.S. (1995). Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in Transkei. South
African Journal of Education, 15, 84–87.
O’Connell, P., McCoy, S., & Clancy, D. (2006). Who went to college? Socio-economic inequality in
entry to higher education in the Republic of Ireland in 2004. Higher Education Quarterly, 60(4),
312–332.
Okpara, J.O., Squillace, M., & Erondu, E.A. (2005). Gender differences and job satisfaction: A study
of university teachers in United States. Women in Management Review, 20(3), 177–190.
Olsen, D. (1993). Work satisfaction and stress in the first and third year of academic appointment.
The Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), 453–471.
Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors
of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2006). Higher education in
Ireland. Paris: OECD.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997a). Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education. Education &
Training, 39(9), 354–359.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 167

Oshagbemi, T. (1997b). The influence of rank on the job satisfaction of organisational members.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(8), 511–519.
Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus multiple-item measures?
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(5), 388–403.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Gender differences in job satisfaction of university teachers. Women in
Management Review, 15(7), 331–343.
Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Personal correlates of job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from UK universi-
ties. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(12), 1210–1232.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes and performance: An organiza-
tional level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963–974.
Paul, E.P., & Phua, S.K. (2011). Lectures’ job satisfaction in a public tertiary institution in Singapore:
Ambivalent and non-ambivalent relationships between job satisfaction and demographic vari-
ables. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2), 141–151.
Pollard, G. (1996). A comparison of measures of job satisfaction used in studies of social
communicators. Gazette, 57, 111–119.
Pop-Vasileva, A. Baird, K., & Blair, B. (2011). University corporatisation: The effect on academic
work-related attitudes. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(4), 408–439.
Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., & Hackman, J.R. (1975). Behaviour in organisations. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Scheutze, H., & Slowey, M. (2002). Participation and exclusion, a comparative analysis of non-
traditional students and lifelong learners in higher education. Higher Education, 44(3/4),
309 McGraw-Hill, 327
Schulze, S. (2006). Factors influencing the job satisfaction of academics in higher education. South
African Journal of Higher Education, 20(2), 318–335.
Sharma, R.D., & Jyoti, J. (2009). Job satisfaction of university teachers: An empirical study. Journal
of Service Research, 9(2), 51–80.
Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 70, 391–408.
Ssesanga, K., & Garrett, R.M. (2005). Job satisfaction of university academics: Perspectives from
Uganda. Higher Education, 50(1), 33–56.
Strawser, J.A., Flagg, J.C., & Holmes, S.A. (2000). Job perceptions and turnover behaviour of tenure-
track accounting educators. Journal of Accounting Education, 18, 315–340.
Sundem, G. (1995). Accounting educators prepare for the 21st century. Irish Accounting Review,
2(1), 157–165.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
Van Hooff, M.L.M., Geurts, S.A.E., Kompier, M.A.J., & Taris, T.W. (2006). Work-home interference:
How does it manifest itself from day to day? Work & Stress, 20, 145–162.
Vila, L.E., & Garcia-Mora, B. (2005). Education and the determinants of job satisfaction. Education
Economics, 13(4), 409–425.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Hudy, M.J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item
measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Ward, S.P., Cook, E.D., & Ward, D.R. (2004). Job satisfaction of male and female accounting fac-
ulty: The effect of sex-role orientation and academic rank. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, 8(1), 35–59.
Ward, M.E., & Sloane, P.J. (2000). Non-pecuniary advantages versus pecuniary disadvantages; job
satisfaction among male and female academics in Scottish universities. Scottish Journal of
Political Economy, 47(3), 273–303.
Winefield, A.H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., & Hapuarachchi, J. (2003). Occupational stress
in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress
Management, 10(1), 51–63.
Winter, R., Taylor, T., & Sarros J. (2000). Trouble at mill: Quality of academic work life issues within
a comprehensive Australian university. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 279–294.
Ybema, J.F., Smulders, P.G.W., & Bongers, P.M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of employee
absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout. European
Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 19(1), 102–124.