Quality of work life and academic staff performance: a comparative study in public and private universities in Malaysia Shno Mohammadi and Premalatha Karupiah School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia ABSTRACT KEYWORDS The aim of this study is to explore the relationship between the quality of Quality of work life (QWL); work life (QWL) of academic staff in universities and how QWL affects their job performance; university; performance. Data for this study were collected using a questionnaire from job satisfaction; Malaysia 379 academic staff in public and private universities in Malaysia. This study found differences among demographic variables in QWL and work performance by using t-test and one-way ANOVA method. Partial Least Square was used to explain the relationship among dimensions of QWL and performance. The result implied that dimensions of powerlessness and tolerance at workplace affected performance in public universities, while dimensions of financial, co-worker relationship and tolerance at workplace have positive significant relationship with performance in private universities. The findings show that managers of universities must pay more attention on the significant dimensions and improve them among the academic staff in order to achieve a high level of work performance. Introduction Quality of work life (QWL) can be defined as the terms of employment, physical conditions and facili- ties at the workplace that can affect the psychological well-being of employees (Nazir, Qureshi, and Shafaat 2011), i.e. with better terms and conditions of employment and facilities at the workplace, the psychological well-being of employees would improve, and thus their job performance would Improve (Herzberg 1986). QWL is indeed the manifestation of employees' feelings of satisfaction about all dimensions of work including economic rewards, security, working conditions, organiz- ational culture and climate, and co-worker relationship (Zahoor 2016). QWL not only focuses on the financial aspects related to work but also considers some other imperative aspects of the job such as employment conditions, performance, efficiency, organizational commitment, social support and social relevance (Farjad and Varnous 2013). Therefore, improving workers' QWL in an organization would contribute significantly to employee satisfaction. Similarly, sociologists have dis- cussed the importance of QWL in determining employees' satisfaction in their work (Dolan et al. 2008; Rose et al. 2006). Hence, QWL not only contributes to greater job satisfaction but also support improvement in productivity, capability and overall effectiveness of an organization. The well- being of the employees and a high level of QWL among them are paramount for the growth and development of an organization (Reena and Jayan 2012). In addition to this, a high level of QWL will help an organization retain and attract employees (Sushil 2013). Therefore, QWL not only improves working conditions of employees but also helps the organization to generate a high level of productivity. CONTACT Shno Mohammadi Shno_mohammadi@yahoo.com, shno8484@gmail.com 2019 Society for Research into Higher Education 1094 5. MOHAMMADI AND P. KARUPIAH Universities are important in a society and play a fundamental role in social, economic, cultural and political development of a country (Shahbazi et al. 2011). Universities are also different from other profit-making organizations. Therefore, the relationship between QWL of university employees, par- ticularly the academic staff, and their performance is vital to the success of the organization (Singh and Singh 2015). Improvement in the academic staff's QWL may lead to the amelioration in their teaching practices (Mustapha 2013), which is very important for the success of an academic insti- tution (Afsar 2015). Likewise, QWL of the academic staff is vital in promoting productivity, commit- ment and performance of an academic institution (Daud 2010). Therefore, since academic staff are the backbone of a university (Shahbazi et al. 2011), there is a need to explore important dimensions of QWL of academic staff in public and private universities in Malaysia and explain how these dimen- sions influence their performance in these universities. Review of literature This study uses three theories to identify the important dimensions of QWL and explain QWL among academic staff, i.e. Marx's Alienation Theory, Herzberg's Two Factor Theory and Kalleberg's Job Sat- isfaction Theory. The roots of the QWL concept can be found in the alienation theory of Karl Marx (Gowrie 2014). Marx stated that alienation is a situation in which the individuals become isolated from the outcome of their own work and lose control over their own work (Tummers 2011). In 1844, he proposed that the inequality inherent to work procedures cause employees to experience three forms of alienation (O'Donohue and Nelson 2014). First, is the alienation of workers from the products they were man- ufacturing or producing? The second form is the alienation from oneself. This refers to the extrinsic factors of work that estrange employees from their real self. The third form is the alienation from others. This means that the unique qualities of humanity are diminished and the employees are alie- nated from others (Farahbod et al. 2012). In this study, Marx's theory is used to identify job dissatisfaction among academic staff. It is because job dissatisfaction factors are important in understanding QWL among employees (Farah- bod et al. 2012; Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman 1959; Kotze 2005). This study only uses power- lessness and meaninglessness dimensions of alienation because alienation from a sociological perspective is described as the employees' feeling towards their job in terms of powerlessness and meaninglessness (Fulcher and Scott 2003). In addition to this, dimensions of powerlessness and meaninglessness are suitable to evaluate the alienation of employee in empirical study based on criticism on alienation theory given by Schwalbe (1986). Schwalbe (1986) argued that all aspects of alienation explained in this theory are not appropriate for empirical study and it isaspects of alienation explained in this theory are not appropriate for empirical study and it is useful if an employee's alienation is measured based on the powerlessness and meaninglessness only. In addition to this, the dimensions of powerlessness and meaninglessness have been used to evaluate the alienation level of employees by many scholars (Tummers 2011, 2012). Therefore, in this study based on the above-mentioned reasons dissatisfaction perception of academic staff is measured based on the powerlessness and meaninglessness dimensions. The second theory used in this study is Herzberg's Two Factors Theory which discusses motivators and hygiene factors. Motivators involve the factors constructed into the job itself and other intrinsic factors such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, development and clarity of mission. On the other hand, hygiene factors are extrinsic factors towards a job that include relationships, salary, super- vision and company core values (Udechukwu 2009). Therefore, Herzberg's theory introduced factors that can affect not only satisfaction but also dissatisfaction with the job (Bohm 2012). The motivators are associated with long-term positive effects on job performance, but the hygiene factors only produce short-term changes in the job attitudes and performance, which may quickly fall back to its previous level (Reed and Watmough 2015). Herzberg's theory has also been used in a number of studies to explain QWL among employees (Eslamian, Akbarpoor, and Hoseini 2015; Sushil 2013). In this study, only the core values dimension from Herzberg's theory has been selected as a STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1095 dimension to measure QWL. Other dimensions used by Herzberg are similar to the dimensions in Kal- leberg's job satisfaction theory and were also selected for this study but the core values dimension is not discussed in Kalleberg's job satisfaction theory. Kalleberg (1977) believed that rewards from the company, the nature of work, and interaction with citizens and clients could influence workers' job satisfaction and motivation. Kalleberg's theory, popu- larly known as work values and job rewards theory, explains six dimensions to identify the status of employees' job satisfaction. These six dimensions are intrinsic, convenience, financial, co-worker relationship, career opportunities and resource adequacy. The intrinsic dimension refers to job characteristics that allow employees to use their abilities and realize their work outcomes. Kalleberg (1977) has defined this dimension as a situation where employees are encoura encouraged and allowed to acquire skills at work. The convenience dimension deals with the workload and sufficient time to complete the tasks. Financial dimension refers to salary, fringe benefits and job security. Co- worker relationship refers to whether colleagues are helpful and friendly. The next dimension is career opportunity that is related to employees' desire for advancement and recognition. Resource adequacy is the last dimension and refers to employees' desire for having access to enough resources in order to perform well. It also includes having necessary equipment and helpful and competent co- workers to perform job tasks appropriately (Smerek and Peterson 2006). Kalleberg's theory has been used often to measure the level of QWL among employees in organ- izations (Zia ur Rehman, Khan, and Ali Lashari 2010). A number of scholars have used this theory to measure the QWL among teachers and students (Mukhtar 2012; Smerek and Peterson 2006). It can be argued that the job satisfaction theory is often used to measure QWL, as confirmed by Wooden and Warren (2003) who revealed that job satisfaction is associated with the QWL concept. Therefore, since the aim of this study is to identify the current level of QWL among academic staff in public and private universities, it is applicable to use Kalleberg's theory. Other than the seven dimensions identified from the three theories, tolerance at workplace is also included as one of the dimensions of QWL which may influence the performance of academic staff. Tolerance at workplace has been identified as an important dimension in explaining QWL in a multi-ethnic environment even though it has not been included as a dimension of QWL in pre- vious studies (Aukst-Margeti and Margeti 2005). In the current research, tolerance at workplace refers to the respect for academic staff that is from a different cultural or religious background in the university. Some previous studies implied that QWL and work performance often show positive associ- ation. Acheampong, Muhammed, and Agyapong (2016) have done a study on the perceived QWL and work performance among the academic staff in the University of Education Winneba, Kumasi Campus in Ghana. The findings of their study showed that QWL had a positive, significant relationship with performance of academic staff. A review done by Aketch et al. (2012) on various studies related to QWL and performance implied a positive relationship between QWL and performance. Vishwakarma, Lakhawat, and Poonam (2013) revealed that low level of aca- demic staff's QWL in terms of financial resources, job opportunity and job security affected col- league relationships in the Private Technical University in Allahabad, India. Additionally, it was found that there is a positive correlation between job satisfaction and QWL among faculty members in Zahedan University of Medical Science, Iran. Moreover, there is an enhancement of job satisfaction through changing and using the components of QWL (Kermansaravi et al. 2015). The finding of the study done by Tabassum (2012) implied that some factors of QWL such as social relevance of work life, adequate and fair compensation, and constitutionalism are predictor variables that determine the level of job satisfaction among the faculty members in private universities in Bangladesh. Based on the above-mentioned studies, QWL is an important variable that affects employee per- formance in educational institutions. However, since the effect of QWL of employee performance is different from one organization to another, it is important to examine the relationship between QWL and performance in public and private universities in Malaysia. 1096 S. MOHAMMADI AND P. KARUPIAH Conceptual research framework Based on the QWL dimensions identified in the previous section, a conceptual research framework was designed for this study to show the relationship between QWL dimensions and performance in public and private universities. In this study, QWL is the independent variable while academic staff performance, measured based on the Key Performance Index (KPI), is the dependent variable. The conceptual framework implies a high level of QWL among academic staff, would lead to a high level of performance (see Figure 1). Alternative hypotheses in the study are:H1: There is a significant difference in QWL dimensions between public and private universities. H2: There is a significant difference in performance between public and private universities. H3: There is significant relationship between powerlessness and performance. HA: There is significant relationship between meaninglessness and academic staff performance. Hs: There is significant relationship between convenience and academic staff performance. Hg: There is significant relationship between financial and academic staff performance. H7: There is significant relationship between co-worker relationship and academic staff performance. Hg: There is significant relationship between career opportunities and academic staff performance. He: There is significant relationship between university core values and academic staff performance. H10: There is significant relationship between tolerance at workplace and academic staff performance. Quality of Work Life (QWL) Performance Powerlessness Meaninglessness Teaching Convenience Research Financial Publication Relationships Supervision Opportunities Core values Tolerance at Workplace Figure 1. Conceptual research framework. STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1097 Methodology This study is a cross-sectional study and data collection was conducted at one point of time (Olsen and St George 2004). This study was conducted in a non-contrived setting. This research was conducted on academic staff working in two public and two private universities in Malaysia. The two public universities are among oldest universities in Malaysia and are research universities. One public university is located in the northern part of Malaysia while the other is in the central part of Malaysia. The two private universities are located in Subang Jaya and Cyberjaya. Both public and private universities are considered the best in the country based on university aca- demic ranking. The population of this study comprised of 4396 academic staff from the above- mentioned universities who had spent at least 3 years working in these universities. This includes 2000, 1539, 849 and 503 academic staff in working in public university 1, public university 2, private university 1 and private university 2, respectively. Based on the Krejcie and Morgan's (1970) table, the required sample size was 355, however, after consultation with experts, it was increased to 379. The details of the sample selected from each university are given in Table 1. For this study, stratified random sampling method was used because it is the appropriate method for a population that is a combination of subgroups (Levy and Lemeshow 2013). In the stratified random sampling technique, the first step in the process of selecting a sample is the preparation of a sampling frame according to the subgroups in the population. The researcher prepared four sampling frames by listing the names of all academic staff in each university taken from the univer- sities' official websites. After that, the sample was selected from each university using a random number table. Phone calls were made to the respondents to alert them of their selection in the study and their kind co-operation was requested. The questionnaire was later distributed to all the academic staff selected as the sample. In this study, data were collected by using a questionnaire among academic staff of the above- mentioned universities. This research employed a self-administered questionnaire as the instru- ment of data gathering. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: demographic variables, QWL dimensions and academic staff performance dimensions. The section on QWL and academic staff performance was adapted from Kalleberg (1977) and Masron, Ahmad, and Rahim (2012), respectively. In this study, QWL is measured based on the dimensions of QWL from the three the- pries explained in the literature review section and conceptual research framework. The three years of performance of academic staff working in these universities was measured based on the KPI dimensions which are research, publication, supervision and teaching (see Conceptual Research Framework). Various statistical data analysis techniques were used to analyse the data collected for this research. This study used the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) (v.22) to analyse the data for the first phase. In this study, researcher used t-test to identify the differences between demographic variables in QWL and performance in public and private universities. In addition, -test was used to find the differences in QWL and performance between public and private uni- versities in order to test the H, and H2 hypotheses. The ANOVA method along with post-hoc tests was used to compare the means of QWL and performance according to demographic variables that have more than two categories such as ethnicity, religion, monthly income and academic staff position. In the second phase, the PLS-SEM (v.2.0) was used to test hypothesises H3 to H10-Table 1. Population and sample size of the study. University Population Sample size Public university 1 2000 146 Public university 2 1539 112 Private university 1 849 61 Private university 2 503 60 Total 4891 379 1098 S. MOHAMMADI AND P. KARUPIAH Profile of respondents Table 2 shows the profile of respondents. In public universities, 54.5% of respondent were male and 45.5% were female. While 77.8% were married and 22.2% were unmarried. Among the respondents in public universities, 35.1% were less than 40 years old while 64.9% were 41 or older. In terms of ethnicity, 58.2%, 21.1%, 9.5% and 11.2 of respondents in public universities were Malay, Chinese, Indian and from other ethnic groups, respectively. In this study, 64.0% respondents in public university were Muslims, 14.0% Christians, 9.0% Buddhists, 8.4% were Hindus and 3.7% of respondents were from other religions. About 10.3% of respondents in public universities reported that their monthly income was between RM3000 to 6000, 51.7% were earning between RM6001 to 9000 and 38.0% of respondents received a salary above RM9000. In terms of the academic staff position in public universities, 13.1% of respondents were lecturers, 52.1% were senior lecturers, 23.6% were associate professors and 11.2% were professors. While in private universities, there were 56.3% male and 43.7% female respondents. Among respondents from private universities, 68.9% were married, 31.1% of respondents were unmarried. In terms of age, 57.4% of respondents were less than 41 years old and 42.6% of them were 41 or older. Among the respondents in private universities, 30.2% of academic staff were Malay, 33.4% were Chinese, 28.2% were Indians and 8.2% of respondents identified themselves as belonging to other ethnic groups. In terms of religion, 32.8% of academic staff in private universities were Muslims, 20.2% were Christians, 16.8% of respondents were Buddhists, 26.9% were Hindus and 3.4% were from other religions. In private universities, 31.9% of academic staff stated that their monthly income was between RM3000-6000, 42.0% were earning a salary between RM6001-9000 and 26.1% of Table 2. Demog Copy Select All Look Up Demographic vari Gender Male 54.5 Female 110 45.5 Marital status Married 187 77.8 82 68.9 Unmarried 55 22.2 37 31.1 Age Less than 41 85 35.1 68 57.4 41 and above 157 64.9 42.6 Ethnicity Malay 141 58.2 30.2 Chinese 51 21.1 33.4 Indian 23 9.5 28. Others 27 11.2 Religion Islam 155 $4. 32. Christian 34 4.0 20.2 Buddhism 24 6.8 lindus 20 6.8 Others Monthly Income RM3000-6000 9. RM6001-9000 25 Above RM9000 125 92 42.0 Academic position Lecturer 32 57.1 Senior lecturer 126 52.1 30.3 Associate professor 57 6.7 Professor 27 5.9 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1099 57.1% of academic staff of private universities were lecturers, 30.3% were senior lecturers, 6.7% of the respondents were associate professors and 5.9% were professors. Result of the study In order to identify the differences in QWL and performance between public and private universities, two hypotheses H, and H2' were tested. The first hypothesis H, was to identify the significant differ- ence in QWL dimensions between public and private universities. The result showed that there was no significant difference in the dimensions of meaninglessness, financial and tolerance at workplace among the academic staff between public and private universities. Due to the similarities in the nature of their jobs in these universities, academic staff do not have different perceptions on these dimensions of QWL. However, there was a significant difference in the dimensions of power- lessness, convenience, co-worker relationship and career opportunities among academic staff in public and private universities. These differences may be due to different work culture of public and private universities and also different facilities and opportunities that the managers were provid- ing for the academic staff in public and private universities. H2 was meant to test the difference in performance of academic staff between public and private universities. The t-test result illustrated that there was significant difference in performance between public and private universities at .01 level (see Table 3) and the mean score of performance for public universities was higher than private universities.Structural model explaining QWL and performance This section presents the structural model that was used to explain the relationship between the eight dimensions of QWL and performance as presented in the theoretical model. The validity of a model is explained using average of AVE, R-square (R), predictive relevance (Q)2 and the Good- ness-of-Fit (GOF). The Average Variance Extracted (AVEs) that reflect the overall amount of variance in the indicators accounted for by the latent construct, were in the range of .508-.704 in public universities and .528-.905 in the private universities. This exceeded the suggested value of .5 (Hair et al. 2014). It implied that there is sufficient convergent validity obtained in this research Table 3. t-Test result comparing public and private universities in QWL dimensions on performance. Constructs Universities Mean SD df big (2-tailed) Resul PL Public universities 242 3.990 .734 -.522 .000* Private 119 3.119 .670 ML Universities 242 3.954 .656 -.114 .115 Public 119 3.868 .621 universities Private universities CON Public universities 242 3.550 .809 .206 .024* Private universities 119 3.756 .820 Public universities 242 3.430 647 .093 280 NS Private universities 119 3.537 .816 CWR Public universities 242 3.668 .611 .214 .002** Private universities 119 3.882 .622 Co Public universities 242 3.260 .740 .225 .005* Private universities 119 3.48 .661 CV Public universities 3.330 .651 346 .000 Private universities 119 .784 .844 TW Public universities 242 4.122 .602 -.035 .627 NS Private universities 119 4.157 .674 P Public universities 242 15.050 12.720 258 .000* Private universities 7.793 5.130 Note: ("), ("), and (") indicate statistical significance at .05, .01, and .001 respectively. 1100 S. MOHAMMADI AND P. KARUPIAH Table 4. Results of predictive relevance. Performance Public Private Average of AVE .595 644 R2 .164 .260 Q' statistics .606 .371 GOF .312 409 242 119 (see Table 4). The R2 value was .164 and .260 in public and private universities, respectively. These values implied that the model explains about 16% and 26% of the variations performance in public and private universities, respectively. It showed an acceptable value of validity of the structural model for this study. Chin (1998, 2010) pointed out that R values of 25% were considered as large, 9% as medium and 1% as small. Therefore, the R" showed that the study model fits the data and is a valid model that covers a considerable amount of the variation (see Table 4). The rate of Q% statistic value is .606 and .371 for public and private universities, respectively. The value of Q2 more than zero indicates how well the model estimates the regression coeffi- cients, even if some data points are omitted (Chin 2010). Therefore, in this study the Q values are more than zero, which showed that the model has predictive relevance (see Table 4). The Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) indices summarize the discrepancy between the observed values, and the values expected under a statistical model (Tenenhaus et al. 2005). The GOF value is between 0 and 1, where a higher value represents better path model estimations. In this study, the GOF of public and private universities are .312 and .409 respectively. Therefore, it is possible to consider the result as a good value of fit. Wetzel, Odekerken-Schroder, and Van Oppen's (2009), rule of thumb of GOF is that a value above .36 is an excellent PLS model for the data (see Table 4). Here, the GOF is close to or higher than .36. In this model, the validity of the independent variables (powerlessness, meaninglessness, convenience, financial, co-worker relationship, career opportunities, core values and tolerance at workplace) and dependant vari- able, performance was tested. The eight hypotheses tested using PLS-SEM in order to identify the significant dimensions of QWL that affect performance in public and private universities in Malaysia are listed below. These hypoth- eses are listed as alternative hypotheses. H3: There is a significant relationship between powerlessness and performance As shown in Table 5, the values B=-.315, t= 2.630, p <.01 showed that powerlessness negatively influence performance in public universities therefore there is strong evidence to support h3 relation with while private b="-.036," t=".352," table path coefficients and hypotheses results on beta-value t-valu hypothesized pl>P -.315 2.630** H,:S -.036 .352 H3 NS ML ->P -.073 .993 HA: NS -.066 445 HANS CON > P .059 .525 Hs: NS .127 .989 HS.NS F - >P 054 351 H&:NS .375 2.774" CRW -P .011 .122 H7:NS 246 2.290* H7:S CO ->P 091 1.191 He:NS .186 1.230 Ha-NS CV ->P 073 .888 Ho:NS 114 1.256 HaNS TW ->P 201 1.904* H10S .290 1.697 H10:S Note: (") & (") indicate statistical significance at .05 and .01, respectively. "PL, Powerlessness; ML, Meaninglessness; CON, Convenience; F, Financial; P, Performance; CWR, Co-Workers Relationship; CO, Career Opportunities; CV, Core Values; TW, Tolerance at Workplace; S, Supported; NS, Not Supported; H, hypothesis.p > .05 demonstrated that powerlessness does not have a significant influence on work performance among academic staff in private universities. Therefore, there was no strong evidence to support H3 in private universities. Ha: There is a significant relationship between meaninglessness and performance For meaninglessness and performance, B = -.073, t= .993, p > .05; B= -.066, t= .445, p > .05 in public and private universities, respectively (see Table 5). Based on the result, the meaninglessness dimen- sion does not influence performance significantly. Therefore, there is no evidence to support H4 in both public and private universities. It can be argued that the meaninglessness did not play an impor- tant role to reduce the level of performance in public and private universities. Hs: There is a significant relationship between convenience and performance Based on the result, for the convenience dimension, B = .059, t= .525, p > .05; B=.127, t=.989,p> .05, in public and private universities, respectively. This shows that there is no significant relationship between the convenience dimension and performance in public and private universities (see Table 5). Therefore, there is no evidence to support Hs in both public and private universities. It can be argued that the work performance was not dependent on the convenience dimension in both public and private universities. He: There is a significant relationship between financial and performance According to the result =.054, t= .351, p > .05, the financial dimension has no significant relation- ship with performance in public universities. It means that work performance of academic staff is not dependent on academic staff's financial level. Therefore, there is no strong evidence to support Hs in public universities. Contrary to that, the financial dimension has positive, significant effect on per- formance in private universities (8= .375, t= 2.774, p <.01 which means that a high level of financial benefit leads to work performance among academic staff private univer- sities. this result implied there is strong evidence support the h4 hypothesis in sities table hy: significant relationship between co-worker and according t=".122," p> .05, there is no significant relationship between co- worker relationship and performance in public universities. Therefore, there is no evidence to support Hy in public universities. It implied that co-worker relationship among academic staff of public universities did not play an important role in their work performance. On the other hand, in private universities, B= .246, t= 2.290, p <.01 there is strong evidence to support h table therefore co-worker relationship has a significant with performance in private univer- sities. it can be argued that an important dimension of qwl for academic staff universities. ha: between career opportunities and as presented the result b=".091," t="1.191," p> .05; B=.183, t= 1.230, p > .05 in public and private universities, respectively. The result of career opportunities shows that the influence of career opportunity on performance was not statistically significant in public and 1102 S. MOHAMMADI AND P. KARUPIAH private universities. Therefore, there is no evidence to support Hg in both public and private universities. H,: There is a significant relationship between company core values and performance As shown in Table 5, the result for core values is B = .073, t= .888, p > .05; B=.114, t= 1.256, p > .05 in public and private universities, respectively. This illustrates that there is no significant relationship between the core values dimension and performance in public and private universities. Therefore, there is no evidence to support H, in both public and private universities. It means that in academic staff perception of core values did not affect their work performance. H10: There is a significant relationship between tolerance at workplace and performance For the tolerance at workplace dimension, B= .201, t= 1.904, p <.05 b=".290," t="1.697," p in public and private universities respectively. the result implies that tolerance at workplace has a sig- nificant effect on performance universities. therefore there is strong evidence to support h10 both it can be argued for academic staff of significant dimension qwl affect their workplace. means high level leads better work discussion this study showed influences dimensions powerlessness affected financial co-worker relationship positive with aca- demic negatively did not among low finding line previous found negative relationshipbetween faculty members university he explained felt more alienated compared similarly powerless was by dissatisfaction qwl. mainly because alienation common issue employees organization kingsley due size organizations bureaucracy these pandey meaninglessness had no consistent erdem who people are involved teaching never meaninglessness. lack influence feel dissatisfied towards job similar nature profession other aspects as an furthermore tend draw meaning from process knowledge dissemination. according convenience per- formance implied were satisfied current or they consider factor relation studies higher education performance. kim reported between balance employee coherent ballou godwin permarupan al- mamun saufi highlighted salary necessarily important factors such reputation security recognition than however benefits lower expected earn compensate security. univer- sities. beehr et al. which find any signifi- cant directly controlled managers giving them space flexibility communicate maintain good co-workers tansel gazioglu illustrated wang tsai taiwan. also supported herz- berg kalleberg stated colleagues associated satisfaction will career opportunities one influencing tamjidi growth may advancement provide promotion development based personal achievements rather fixed pos- itions hierarchy hence results table show core values play role surprising agrees substan- tially smerek peterson revealed probably last work- place influenced since have different ethnic religious groups respectful determining scholars margeti overall findings suggest need pay attention relationships order improve staff. conclusion recommendations some malaysia. s. mohammadi p. karupiah would lead must implement programs strategies reduce should increase auton- omy levels powerlessness. another significantly given multi-racial multi environment malaysian sities beneficial if improving staffomy considered enhance addition man- agers encourage social its well-being useful manager ensure able relationships. does only but university. plays ensuring benefit long run derani model tested terms powerless- ness posi- tive theories used study. introducing into conceptual framework enriched measurement concept explain importance contributed understanding multicultural society environment. same time differences culture vice versa. research provides valuable insights malaysia turn human resources pol- cies using combination well-designed initiatives competitive advantage quality future focus implementing intervention program explore how example college longitudinal assess impact providing supportive improved items decreased see formance. include evaluate success owl administrative explored. quantitative method could use mixed methods get in-depth note h difference h2: acknowledgements article first author her phd thesis. we like thank anonymous reviewers comments suggestions earlier drafts paper>