Analyzing Job Satisfaction Level of The Academic Staff

International SAMANM Journal of Marketing and Management
ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
Analyzing Job Satisfaction Level of the Academic

Staff: A Case Study of Public and Private Universities
of Punjab, Pakistan
Ms. Iram Saba
MS Scholar, Department of Management Sciences, The Islamia University Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Email: iramsaba01@yahoo.com
Ms. Ozaira Zafar

MS Scholar and Visiting Lecturer in Department of Management Sciences, The Islamia
University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Email: ozairazafar@yahoo.com
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore job satisfaction level of teachers in both public
and private universities. Author has aimed to collect data from previous researches regarding
various factors and then making a conceptual framework out of it and then to conduct an
empirical study regarding these factors. Moreover, author has aimed to suggest and recommend
solutions through which job satisfaction level of teachers could be raised.
Methodology: Author has firstly collected data from previous researches to segregate various
factors and then has conducted primary research through floating both questionnaires and taking
interviews from respondents. The target population is teachers of two public and two private
universities of Pakistan. From this sample has been deduced and data has been collected on basis
of convenience. Results are further analyzed by using SPSS software.
Findings: It is deduced that appropriate compensation, equivalent promotion opportunities, job
security, suitable working conditions and work itself can positively influence on job satisfaction
level of employees in both public and private universities of Pakistan.
Contribution: This study is beneficial for policy makers, management, faculty members of
universities and even the students will be benefited if job satisfaction of teachers could be
achieved.
Keywords: Public university, private university, job satisfaction, job performance.
12

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
1. Introduction
Education is one of the crucial elements in the life of all the human beings. According to the
Noordin and Jusoff (2009) societal expectations depends upon the successful running of
education system. The success of education system depends upon the involvement, effort and the
contribution of the academic staff or their professional expertise. Job satisfaction, retention and
commitment to the organization are essential for all the academic institutions. Moreover, higher
job satisfaction of the faculty results in the healthy and positive climate of the university.
Positive climate such as healthy working conditions, relationship with colleagues, support of
research and teaching, appropriate salary, promotion opportunities etc. of the university teachers
not only boost the job satisfaction of the staff but also overall productivity of the educational
institute fosters.
There are many important concepts at work environment that help the workers to do their work
efficiently and effectively. Job satisfaction is one of them. It is the feeling of happiness that ones
feel while performing that job. A lot of research work has been done on this topic because
according to the researcher the productivity of any organization significantly depends upon the
satisfaction level of the employees of that organization. If the employees of any organization are
satisfied with their work they will perform better and they will put their maximum effort to do
that work. So the ultimate results come in the form of success of that organization.
The major aim of this paper is to explore those factors that can affect the satisfaction level of
university teachers and in light of the results author has further provided suggestions and
recommendations to improve satisfaction level of teachers at tertiary academic institutes. The
target population of this research is faculty members of universities. Author has conducted a
comparative study in public and private universities of Pakistan and results are described in
detail in the latter sections. This research is fruitful because it is mainly done in underdeveloped
country named as Pakistan and very less literature is present in under developed countries.
Moreover, this study is beneficial for management and faculty members of universities and even
for the policy makers of the institute in specific and country in general.
2. Literature review
2.1 Introduction to job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a momentous concept that helps the employees to do their work with more
responsibility and passion. Various researchers have defined job satisfaction in various manners.
As according to Locke (1976) it is The sense of achievement and arrogance felt by employees
who get pleasure from their employment and complete it well. Or it could define as an
encouraging emotional condition resulting from the work (Locke, 1976; Spector, 1997).
Similarly, Robbins (2003) state that an individual common thought toward his job is also termed
as job satisfaction. The attitude can be positive or negative. The individuals who have positive
attitude towards their jobs are more satisfied than the individuals who have negative attitude. It
can be said that the individuals are dissatisfied with their jobs that have negative attitude towards
it.
13

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
Job satisfaction is a very essential concept in any wok setting. Because 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 lower and
individuals are more inclined to leave the job.
In the same way Lawler (1973) defines that job satisfaction has only one-dimension. Employees
are either pleased or unpleased with their work means that if they are satisfied with their work
they will be happy and if they are unsatisfied they will be unhappy. But other scholars as Smith,
Kendall and Hulin (1969) described that job satisfaction is a multi-dimensional concept, there
can be many factors that can make an employee more or less satisfied with the work as someone
might be extra satisfied with salary but could be least satisfied with supervisor behavior or
availability of promotion opportunities in an organization.
There are various factors that influence the job satisfaction intensity of the employees such as
pay, promotion opportunities, and relationship with colleagues, fringe benefits, working
environment and recognition (Hunjra et al., 2010). If someone is satisfied with even one of the
dimension it doesnt meant that he is satisfied with all other dimensions as well. For example if a
teacher is satisfied with the working environment it doesnt means he is also satisfied with the
salary package that he or she obtained after one month. Hence either provision of only one factor
cannot guarantee satisfaction of employee from job provision of all factors is crucial for
employee job satisfaction.
Moreover, Hunjra et al. (2010) described that high level of job satisfaction also leads toward the
low rate of absenteeism and turnover. In other words it can be said if someone is satisfied with
his job then he will be more regular and punctual and loyal in performing his job tasks. This
regularity and punctuality is also critical for university teachers.
Therefore, the concept of satisfaction has great importance at the education sector (Siddique et
al., 2011). Because students are one of the precious assets of our society so it is necessary that its
academic staff must be satisfied with their daily work so that they can perform their duties with
dedication.
2.2 Definitions of Job Satisfaction
Generally job satisfaction can be defined as a positive or negative feeling that the workers feel
about their work (Locke, 1976; Odom, Boxx, and Dunn, 1990). It is the satisfaction of
employees about the general aspects of job like pay, promotion, relationship with management,
job itself, and progression in the job etc. (Noordin and Jusoff, 2009). Definition of job
satisfaction is the sense of achievement and arrogance felt by employees who get pleasure from
their employment and complete it well. According to this definition it is the feeling of
accomplishment that ones feel after the completion of his work.
It could also be defined as an encouraging emotional condition resulting from the work (Locke,
1976; Spector, 1997). A positive emotional state that gives the feeling of happiness to the
employees when they complete their work is called job satisfaction. In the same way there are
different approaches that define the job satisfaction in different manner. An individual common
attention or attitude toward his or her job is also called job satisfaction (Robbins, 2003). The
attitude can be positive or negative. The individuals who have positive attitude towards their jobs
14

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
are more satisfied with their jobs as compared to the individuals who have negative attitude. It
can be said that the employees are satisfied with their job if they have the positive attitude and
are dissatisfied with their job if they have negative attitude towards it.
But on the other hand, Lawler (1973) defined that job satisfaction has only one-dimension.
Employees are either delighted or unhappy with their work. He further added that job satisfaction
has only one dimension, employees are either satisfied or dissatisfied with their work. If they are
satisfied with their work they will be happy and if they are dissatisfied they will be unhappy
from their job. There is no third option at any work place according to him.
In contrast to this other researchers as Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) stated it as multidimensional concept. Moreover, Baloch (2009) quoted in his research paper that job satisfaction
is the state of mind of any employees which is pleasurable for him.
2.3 Variables of Job Satisfaction at Higher Education
Various researches have been conducted to find out the factors that impact level of job
satisfaction in an organization as various researchers have quoted their views in different manner
(Onu et al., 2005; Tutuncu and Kozak, 2006; Sur et al., 2004; Greenberg, 1986; Wiedmar, 1998;
Knowles, 1978; Salmond, 2006; DeVaney and Chen, 2003).
According to Noordin and Jusoff (2009) the behavior of the academic staff is affected by the
working environment that must be safe and healthy, career progression, administration support,
salary, work teams, peers and the job itself. Along with these factors they also need autonomy in
their decisions because making decisions independently have great importance and if universities
are not giving importance to their employees then they may lose sense of owing the decisions
and working accordingly.
Similarly, Briggs and Richardson (1992) quoted that academic staff would feel demoralized and
devalued if they are not allowed to take part in decision making process. Ultimately this thing
leads toward low motivation and satisfaction. It may leads toward negative consequences like
decrease in productivity, turnover among the potential employees, deliberate absenteeism, lack
of interest, lethargy and low performance at the work place (Noordin and Jusoff, 2009).
According to them it may result in lose-lose situation which is ultimately harmful for the health
of any organization.
On the other hand, Siddique et al. (2002) indicated that salaries, fringe benefits, security of
service, chance of promotion and social status are some factors that have relationship with the
job satisfaction of the teachers. Some of them have significant while other have insignificant
relation with the dependent variable that is job satisfaction.
In the same way job satisfaction has a significant and clear relationship with the pay, promotion,
working conditions, fringe benefits, support of research, gender and support of teaching, as
suggested by Santhapparaj & Alam (2005).
Work itself, supervision, salary, working conditions, companies policies and procedures,
opportunities of promotion and coworkers are variables indicated by Alam et al. (2005) that have
considerable association with the job satisfaction at work place.
15

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
In line to this, Smith et al. (1969) also described in their job description index that working
condition, coworkers, pay, promotion opportunities, supervision and work itself are some factors
that affect the satisfaction intensity of the teachers along with the above factors discussed by the
other researchers. In contrast to this, Lacy & Sheehan (1997) identified that teaching, job
security, promotion prospects, academic freedom, and management are variables of job
satisfaction. These variables may help to indicate the satisfaction level of academic staff.
On the other hand Bayram et al. (2010) found that burnout, stress and depression have a negative
impact on the job satisfaction. Job satisfaction may decrease in the presence of these which lead
towards the absenteeism and turnover.
The conceptual framework below is achieved through the stated researches above.
Work itself
Salary
Promotion opportunities
Employee job satisfaction
Working condition
Job security
Figure 1.
16

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
3. Methodology
The basic intention of this research work is to explore the variables of the job satisfaction of the
academic staff. Authors have achieved this goal partially by studying the previous research work
and by pointing out various factors which have an effect on the satisfaction level of the faculty
members at university level. Another objective of this research is to explore the level of the
satisfaction for this purpose author has used a five point likert scale that have range from
strongly satisfied to strongly dissatisfy(1=strongly dissatisfied to 5=strongly satisfied).
Descriptive statistics is used to analyze the data by using the SPSS.
Respondents were asked to show their response regarding the factors of the job satisfaction
which the author mentioned in the questionnaire and also asked to tell about the other factors in
addition to the factors included in the questionnaire. It means that both quantitative and
qualitative information is collected and analyzed in this research. Some categorical information
is also collected from the respondents to support the reasoning related to the job satisfaction.
4. Finding and discussion
4.1 Analysis of the Work Itself
Factors of
satisfaction
the
job
Types of institutes
Public
Private Universities
Universities
Std.
Std.
Mean
Mean
Deviation
Deviation
Sig. (2 tailed)
4.22
-1.680
0.096
Work Itself
0.615
4.46
0.912
The mean score for public universities is 4.22 and for private universities it is 4.46 and the
standard deviation is .615 and .912 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is -1.680 with
p-value .096. As the p-value i.e. 0.096 is greater than the level of significance 0.05, it is
concluded that there is no considerable variation between the job satisfaction of the public and
private employees as far as this factor is concerned. Thus the Null Hypothesis has been accepted
at 5% level of significance.
These results indicate that there is no considerable distinction between the mean of the public
and private universities. Most of the respondents are satisfied with their work. It means that they
have joined this profession as their own choice. So they are interested to do the actual activity of
their job that is teaching. As discussed by Santhepparaj & Alam (2005) an employees job
satisfaction is a function of the personal uniqueness and the exclusivity of the job itself. Similarly
work itself is the most motivating feature at the work place for the faculty members. Other
factors also could have impact on their satisfaction like most of the respondents are female
having master degree and also at the initial stage of their career so they are satisfied with their
work because they are working in university at the post of a lecturer which is a factor of
satisfaction in comparison of a school or college.
17

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
Some respondents are not satisfied with their job the reason behind this might be their lower rank
in accordance to their qualification or any other factor that can affect their satisfaction like poor
working conditions or lower salary etc.
4.2 Analysis of the Salary
Factors of the
job
satisfaction
Types of institutes
Public
Universities
Salary
Sig. (2
tailed)
0.722
0.471
Private
Universities
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Mean
Std.
Deviation
3.79
0.942
3.67
0.790
standard deviation is .942 and .790 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is .722 with
concluded that there is no considerable distinction between the job satisfaction of the public and
private employees as for as salary is concerned. This means that Null Hypothesis has been
accepted at 5% level of significance.
These results indicate that there is no considerable variation between the mean scores of public
and private universities. The value of the mean shows that their satisfaction level falls between
the neutral and satisfied region. Material rewards are much essential in job satisfaction. Along
with their primary requirements wealth meets luxury wishes and desires of people (Ozdemir,
2009). According to the many researchers a productive relationship exists between salary and
satisfaction of job. Above results also confirm this relation that satisfaction with the salary also
increases the satisfaction with the work itself.
Demographic characteristic also have impact on their satisfaction most of the respondents having
masters degree holds a post of lecturer and they are at the initial stage of their career so they are
satisfied with their salary because they have an opportunity to obtain more salary by
advancement in the job.
Some respondents are dissatisfied with the salary, the increasing rate of inflation and the unstable
situation of the country might be the reason of their dissatisfaction.
18

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
4.3 Analysis of the Promotion Opportunities

Factors of the job
satisfaction
Promotion
Opportunities
Types of institutes
Public
Universities
Std.
Mean
Deviation
Private
Universities
Std.
Mean
Deviation
3.68
3.67
1.032
0.929
0.074
Sig. (2 tailed)
0.942
As the results indicate that the mean score for public universities is 3.68 and for private
universities it is 3.67 and the standard deviation is 1.032 and .929 respectively. The z-score for
equality of means is .074 with p-value 0.942. As the p-value i.e. 0.942 is greater than the level of
significance 0.05, it is concluded that there is no notable difference between the job satisfaction
of the public and private employees as for as promotion opportunities is concerned. It is proved
that Null Hypothesis has been accepted at 5% level of significance.
These results indicate that there is no major variation between the two mean scores. The
satisfaction level of the academic staff about the promotion opportunities is almost same. But
their satisfaction lies between the satisfied and neutral response because in the public scenario
they have promotion opportunities but with seniority base not on the base of talent. And in the
private sector they have minor chance but have higher salaries that is a major reason of their
satisfaction.
Above results can be supported with the help of literature such as suggested by Kosteas (n.d.)
promotion expectations also effect job satisfaction, workers who believe a promotion is possible
in the next two year report higher job satisfaction. On the other hand, Ozdemir (2009) discussed
that promotion opportunities can affect the satisfaction level of the employees in the different
manner because of the existence of a number of promotion strategies which varies to
organization to organization. Although they are satisfied with the promotion opportunities but
have different reasons in the public and private sector.
Some of the respondents who are not satisfied with this factor might have higher qualification in
accordance to the occupied position. Seniority base promotion is another reason of the
dissatisfaction.
19

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
4.4 Analysis of the Working Conditions

Factors of
the
job
satisfaction
Working
Conditions
Types of institutes
Public
Universities
Std.
Mean
Deviation
Private
Universities
Std.
Mean
Deviation
3.63
3.63
0.975
1.220
Sig. (2 tailed)
-.002
0.999
standard deviation is .975 and 1.220 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is -.002 with
concluded that there is no considerable dissimilarity between the job satisfaction of the public
and private employees as for as working conditions are concerned. This means that Null
Hypothesis has been accepted at 5% level of significance.
These results indicate that there is no main distinction between the mean of the public and
private universities. The academic staff of the public and private universities has same level of
satisfaction but pointing toward the neutral response of respondents. The main reason behind
their satisfaction is that now most of the universities are focusing on increasing their ambiance to
attract more and more students along with quality of education. Private universities have very
fascinating buildings along with all required facilities but at the same time government of
Pakistan is also spending their budget to provide good environment to their employees at public
academic institutes because it has a greater impact on the quality of work.
As determined by the Herzberg et al. (1959) working conditions are a key factor that effect job
satisfaction level. Job satisfaction can be increased by improving the working environment (Onu
et al, 2005). Female staff found to be more satisfied with the working conditions than the male
staff at the university level (Alam et al., 2005; Santhepparaj & Alam, 2005).
4.5 Analysis of the Job Security
Factors of the
job satisfaction
Job Security
Types of institutes
Public
Universities
Std.
Mean
Deviation
Private
Universities
Std.
Mean
Deviation
3.96
3.23
0.853
1.366
Sig. (2 tailed)
3.435
0.001
20

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
standard deviation is 0.853 and 1.366 respectively. The z-score for equality of means is 3.435
with p-value 0.001. As the p-value i.e. 0.001 is less than the level of significance 0.05, it is
concluded that there is a significant distinction between the job satisfaction of the public and
private employees as for as job security is concerned. Thus the Null Hypothesis has been rejected
and alternate hypothesis has been accepted at 5% level of significance.
The above results indicates that the academic staff of the public universities are more satisfied
with their job security in comparison of academic staff of the private university because once
they joined the university if they are permanent then it is their own choice remain in the
university or to leave it. But the employees of the private university feel insecure in this matter.
Security of service is a feature that has a considerable affiliation with the job satisfaction.
Siddique et al (2002). Permanent employees are more pleased with their jobs in comparison to
the employees who are on contract.
One of the major reason of their satisfaction is that they have a masters degree and working at
the position of a lecturer which is a pleasing factor for them because they feel secure by working
in a public institute. The academic staff of the private institutes is dissatisfied because no job
security has been offered to them at the time of appointment.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations
It is recommended that such recruitment and selection process of faculty members must be
adopted in universities through which teachers who have interest must be given job not the ones
who just do teaching because of unemployment or any other reason. Psychological tests must be
conducted through which real interest of potential applicants must be accessed.
It is suggested that teachers compensation packages must be revised according to their work
performance and level of expertise and qualification. This factor is highly essential for
motivating staff to perform in their fullest and to meet their job satisfaction level.
It is suggested that teachers must be provided with equivalent chances of career movements that
can be horizontal or hierarchical depending upon their desires and level of efforts in achieving
these. Unfair promotions or non transparent and illegal promotions can depreciate level of
performance and can cause dissatisfaction among teachers.
It is suggested that proper facilities must be provided in universities as well build infrastructure,
latest technology for teaching, and other resources so that teaching can be made more easy and
effective and teachers feel motivated in delivering quality education.
It is suggested that job security must be allotted to the talented employees of organization not
everyone. Most of the employees must be kept on contract of few years and in this way
performance of employees must be monitored.
21

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
References
1.
Alam, S. S., Talha, M., Sivanand, C. N., & Ahsan, N. (2005). Job Satisfaction of
University Woman Teachers in Bangladesh. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 88 - 91.
2.
Baloch, Q.B., (2009) Effects of Job Satisfaction On Employees Motivation & Turn over
Intentions. Journal of Managerial Sciences Volume II, Number I.
3.
Bayram, N., Gursakal, S., Bilgel, N. (2010). Burnout, Vigor and Job Satisfaction among
Academic Staff. European Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 17, No. 1.
4.
Briggs, L. D. & Richardson, W. D. (1992). Causes and effects of low morale among
Secondary teachers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19(2). Retrieved September 11, 2002,
from EBSCO Host research Database.
5.
DeVaney, S.A.,Chen, Z.S. (2003). Job Satisfaction of recent graduates in Financial
services. US Department of Labour. Bureau of Labour Statistics, Compensation and Working
Conditions Online
6.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Drankoski, R. D. (1995). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
7.
Hunjra, A. I., Chani, M. I., Aslam, S., Azam, M., & Kashif-Ur-Rehman. (2010). Factors
effecting job satisfaction of employees in Pakistani banking sector. African Journal of Business
Management
Vol.
4(10),
pp.
2157-2163,
18
August,
2010
http://www.academicjournals.org/ajbm
8.
Knowles, M.C., Knowles, A.D. (1978) Factors affecting Job satisfaction of
supervisors. J. of Industrial Relations, IRSA, Sage Publications. 20(2): 138-145.
9.
Kosteas, V. D. (n.d.). Job Satisfaction and Promotions. Cleveland State University
2121 Euclid Avenue, RT 1707 Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
10.
Lacy,F . J &. Sheehan, B .A (1997) _ Job satisfaction among academic staff: An
international perspective. Higher Education 34: 305322, 1997. 305 1997 Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
11.
Lawler, E. E., III (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Brooks/ Cool Publishing
Company: Monterrey, CA.
12.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL.
13.
Noordin, F & Josuff, K (2009) Levels of job satisfaction amongst Malaysian academic
staff. Asian social science, Vol. 5, No.5.
14.
Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., and Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational cultures
commitment, satisfaction, and cohesion. Public Productivity Management Review, 14, 157-168.
15.
Onu, M.O., Madukwe, M.C., Agwu, A.E. (2005). Factors affecting Job Satisfaction of
front-line extension workers in Engunu State agricultural development program. Nigeria,
Agro-Sci. 4: 19-22
16.
Ozdemir, S., (2009). Factors influencing job satisfaction in Azerbaijan companies.
Journal of Qafqaz University
17.
Robbins P. Stephen (2003) Organizational Behavior. 10th edition, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
18.
Salmond, S.W. (2006). Factors affecting Job Stress, Job Strain and Job Satisfaction
among acute care nurses. Eastern Nursing Research Society (ENRS) 18th Annual Scientific
Sessions. New momentum for nursing research. Multidisciplinary Alliances. 3: 20-22.
19.
Santhepparaj, A.S, and Alam, S.S., (2005). Job satisfaction among academic staff in
private universities in Malaysia .Journal of social sciences 1 (2):72-76.
22

ISSN 2308-2399
July 2013, Vol. 1, No.2
20.
Siddique, A., Aslam, H. D., Khan, M. and Fatima, U. (2011). Impact Of Academic
Leadership On Facultys Motivation And Organizationaleffectiveness In Higher Education
System. International Journal Of Academic Research. Vol. 3. No. 3.
21.
Siddique, A., Malik, N. H., and Abbass, N., (2002). Determining Teachers Level of Job
Satisfaction in Faisalabad City. International journal of agriculture & biology 1560
8530/2002/043372374
22.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969). Measurement of Satisfaction in
Work and Retirement. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.
23.
Spector, P. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Cause and
Consequences. Sage Publications, London. Job satisfaction and employee performance 375
24.
Sur, H., Mumcu, G., Soylemez, D., Atli, Y., Idrim, C. (2004). Factors affecting Dental
Job satisfaction, Evaluation and the Health Prof. The Haworth Press. 27: 152-164.
25.
Tutuncu, O., Kozak, M. (2006). An investigation of factors affecting job satisfaction.
Int. J of Hospitality and Tourism Admin. DOI: 1-19.
26.
Wiedmer, S.M. (1998). An examination of factors affecting employee satisfaction.
Department of Psychology, Missouri Western University Publications, USA.
23

Analyzing Job Satisfaction Level of The Academic Staff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analyzing Job Satisfaction Level of The Academic Staff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International SAMANM Journal of Marketing and Management