Next Article in Journal
Learning by Co-Designing a Board Game to Make Chain Store Knowledge More Robust
Next Article in Special Issue
Literature Review of Accreditation Systems in Higher Education
Previous Article in Journal
Gamification and the History of Art in Secondary Education: A Didactic Intervention
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Changing Face of Veterinary Professionalism—Implications for Veterinary Education
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/educsci13040390
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Universities’ and Academics’ Resources Shaping Satisfaction and Engagement: An Empirical Investigation of the Higher Education System

by
Jana Prodanova
1,* and
Ljupco Kocarev
1,2
1
Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
2
Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(4), 390; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040390
Submission received: 19 January 2023 / Revised: 20 March 2023 / Accepted: 4 April 2023 / Published: 13 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Trends and Challenges in Higher Education)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Higher education research has claimed that the successful future of the educational service is highly dependent on the competencies and observations of the participants in the system, where service quality, employee satisfaction and engagement play an essential role in organizational competitiveness. Therefore, to contribute to the scarce investigation of the role of the institutions’ efforts in the support of engaged academics, we aim to assess the quality of higher education from an internal angle by investigating universities’ and academics’ resources as the antecedents of job satisfaction and engagement. The data from a survey with 322 academics from Macedonian public universities were analyzed using partial least squares structural equations modelling. The results of the estimated model reveal that institutional and educational capacities and academics’ adequate competencies are essential for accomplishing favorable perceptions, leading to a committed community dedicated to improving the higher education system. The implications underline that it is vital to recognize the institution’s potential by identifying and assessing the resources and capacities it possesses or can access. Moreover, to involve satisfied employees, universities must encourage academics’ position and integrity in the institution and promote harmonious collaboration while motivating their capacities and excellence development.

1. Introduction

The differentiation of the companies has at all times been one of the most relevant elements for success, aiming at the employment of an exact combination of properties to accomplish a distinction. Thus, organizations differentiate from each other because of their resources at a given time and their heterogeneity [1]. Indeed, the relevant background on higher education claims that the prosperous future of the educational service is highly dependent on the competencies and views of the participants in the system [2]. Additionally, perceptions about the quality of the service and the employees’ satisfaction have been identified as essential indicators of organizational competitiveness [3]. To fulfil users’ necessities in the sense of the institutional resources, degree quality or employees’ performance should be considered as the institutional drives towards creating satisfaction and commitment. Generally, individual observations about the setting they act in influence behavioral responses [4], emphasizing the higher education working environment as the key to empowering professional growth and dedication.
Substantial research has focused on organizations’ activities in the marketplace, neglecting their internal capacities as the strength that positions them in the market. As a result, the need arises to investigate tangible and intangible resources simultaneously, provided those have been researched independently in many cases. With this in mind, adhering to the resource-based theory (RBT) [5], we propose investigating higher education institutions’ resources as the antecedents of academics’ job satisfaction and engagement with their profession. We observe the academics’ engagement as the critical driver of the university’s competitive advantage, determined by the effective recruitment and retention of competent and motivated employees [6]. For this, we employ this relatively unexplored approach to the higher education sector perceptions and behavioral responses. Thus, we tend to generate insights that allow us to observe the investment in universities and academics’ assets and competencies as one of the most critical implications offering a better-structured education system, which could mitigate brain drain in the long run. We focus the research on the case of the Republic of Macedonia, presenting a Western Balkan country with significant emigration, reporting this as a consequence of inadequate educational resources failing to provide the most effective learning environments for students [7].
Extensive research observes students’ and academics’ perceptions of the higher education system quality; however, it lacks the identification of the universities’ tangible and intangible resources and the academics’ competence as an additional influencing factor of institutions recognition [8]. With the intent to fill this gap, this study considers the university’s tangible and intangible resources, namely, the physical assets’ availability, educational quality and employees’ identity regarding their self-based and skill-based principles. The implications driven by this research contribute to the more systematic observation of higher education services, looking at the quality of the educational resources as the improvable element in controlling brain drain tendency in Western Balkans in the long run.
The remainder of the study describes the theoretical foundation for the proposed research (Section 2), followed by the methodology (Section 3) and the results (Section 4), to close with the discussion of the conclusions and the implications of the investigation (Section 5).

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Resource-Based Theory

The competitive advantage in the higher education sector is directly conditioned by employees’ engagement and satisfaction, generated by their capabilities, attitudes and identification [9,10,11], enabling the institutions to stand out from the competition [12] and offer a reputable service [13]. Engagement, performance or success have been considered in the literature as avenues for achieving competitive advantage and, likewise, as part of the competitive advantage itself [6,14,15,16].
Job satisfaction, widely studied in the literature as influenced by different personal and environmental factors, explains the positive state of the employee arising from their experience in performing the job and affects their engagement, which reflects their efficacy and intense involvement with the job [17]. The significance of the focus on academic engagement lies in the fact that engaged employees are considered vital for organizations’ success and performance [18]. Engagement arises from employees’ pleasure and satisfaction with their working routines and tasks [19,20]. Employees who put more effort into building expertise will likely experience more job satisfaction and fulfilment [21]. In turn, work engagement is motivated by employees’ keen perceptions and states, described by the insight into resources related to their job and the institution [22]. In this line, one of the most important incentives of individuals’ engagement is considered to be their satisfaction with the setting, stimulated by the resources, i.e., academics’ observations of themselves and the setting [23,24].
The RBT correctly supports the previous rationale, which presents companies’ tangible and intangible resources as determinants of their identity, relationships and competitive advantage [5,25,26,27]. It argues that what distinguishes a company is the combination of purely tangible and intangible assets related to its capabilities and competencies arising precisely from its reputation, technology or employees [28]. In line with the RBT, organizations need valuable, rare and non-replaceable resources to achieve a competitive position [5]. Universities are organizations that rely on the competence and expertise of academics for evaluating institutional performance, which is why they must build an efficient structure emphasizing valuable resources and capacities [29,30]. Thus, RBT becomes crucial for recognizing these institutional capabilities and know-how [31].
According to the RBT, companies’ resources are represented by imperfect mobility, meaning they are unavailable to all companies under the same conditions. The availability of valuable resources that are difficult to imitate will show the precise potential of the higher education institution’s unique set of tangible or intangible resources [32]. The tangible resources describe elements of the physical capital, considered to be easily imitable. In contrast, intangible resources indicate the employees’ knowledge, skills or strategies. Due to their heterogeneous nature, the latter is essential in building companies’ superior position in the marketplace [33]. The tangible resources are elements owned or controlled and exist relatively independently of their specific use, while the intangible ones represent the capabilities to use the resources and perform activities. The RBT emphasizes intangible resources, considering them crucial for creating companies’ distinctiveness. They represent valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable assets to the organization [5,34]. Accordingly, companies’ consolidated quality, employees’ skills and improvement-related resources are critical to the anticipated distinction, underpinning the need to focus on those to generate favorable outcomes in the long run [35]. The quality of the intangible assets that represent the incorporation of intellectual knowledge into the different productive activities of the organization provides the foundation for distinctive competitiveness in the sector [36]. The resources contributed by human beings to the company refer not so much to people as such but to their knowledge, training, experience, loyalty, motivation, adaptability, reasoning and decision skills, all of which assume greater importance and effectiveness than the tangible resources in creating value for the company [37].
In this sense, the RBT explains why companies which carry out their activity in the same competitive environment and are subject to the same success factors identified in the sector present different output levels [32]. The cause lies in the postulation that employees’ competencies and resources can directly enhance job satisfaction and further engagement, which are essential for a company’s performance [33,38]. Thus, higher education institutions must especially highlight the intangible resources related to employees’ performance and perception of organizational goals [39]. Those will be necessary for maximizing employees’ satisfaction and engagement to offer enhanced value to consumers [40].

2.2. Development of Hypotheses

Although the literature affirms that experiencing higher levels of employee satisfaction will result in greater engagement, further exploration of this relationship in higher education is needed to determine the antecedents that directly lead to academic satisfaction [41]. “Job satisfaction is one’s personal attitude towards one’s job and has been described as the set of positive desires or positive feelings that people have toward their jobs and employment by their organization” [19]. Therefore, given their heterogenic nature, universities’ resources, such as routines, information, skills or knowledge, must be addressed as the predecessors of this positive perception and fulfilment of employees [42,43]. These resources are assumed to produce asymmetries in the competition, making the existing resources a vital asset to build on to outperform and accomplish academics’ satisfaction and engagement [26]. Managing and balancing the resources and capabilities of the higher education system has been deemed necessary for the institution to measure its performance [44].
Previous literature has concluded that employees’ overall satisfaction is determined by complex situational and personal circumstances [45], integrating campus characteristics, organizational culture, relationships with colleagues or students, and job autonomy [46,47]. Institutional structure, climate and environment have been deemed vital in achieving employee satisfaction in higher education [48]. The higher education institutions’ recognition, achievements, work environment, and the academics’ personal working conditions, position and responsibilities determine how satisfied they feel with their job [19].
Similarly, the tangible resources, such as campus size, facilities, space and educational and recreational opportunities, and the intangible ones, related to the actual quality, responsibility and aim of the institution, have been well-known as factors with significant influence on academics’ satisfaction [41,49]. Therefore, effective and qualified universities and high-quality educational programs generate satisfied employees [50]. Following the RBT presumption regarding the relevance of tangible and intangible resources for shaping constructive outcomes, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1.
Academics’ perception of the university’s physical assets will impact their satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2.
Academics’ perception of the university’s educational quality will impact their satisfaction.
Given the immobility of the resources associated with the organizational knowledge, making it impossible for this to be replicated by the competition [26], employees’ identification and interaction factors are highlighted as essential for evaluating the higher education system [51,52]. Employees’ dedication to their methods, core values and beliefs about their job characterize their professional identity [53]. Academics with a mature self-based identity show commitment to their profession, have a strong passion for teaching, appreciate experience sharing and promote collaborative working. They enjoy the social recognition received from their position in the higher education system and believe in their role in the university [53,54]. Additionally, the high level of academics’ skill-based identity recognizes their enthusiasm for continuous education and skills enhancement and their desire for professional and personal growth [53,55].
Professional identity is considered vital for the development and effectiveness of the employees, conducing to their satisfaction and indicating a posterior commitment to the profession and institution they represent [51,56,57]. Hence, academics’ characteristics, revealing their educational capacity and skills due to continuous academic development, are considered a substantial precursor of their satisfaction with the higher education institution [58]. Indeed, how academics identify with their role and perceive their teaching aptitude and knowledge makes a substantial domain of their satisfaction and continuing development [39,55,57]. Accordingly, adhering to the RBT, which proposes increased satisfaction as a result of employees’ resources [33], it is assumed that:
Hypothesis 3.
Academics’ self-based identity will impact their satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4.
Academics’ skill-based identity will impact their satisfaction.
Different research fields on employees’ well-being in a company have highlighted the necessity to enhance the link between satisfaction and engagement [19,59]. Having employees who are satisfied with the university environment and quality results in the institution to standing out among the competition [60]. Therefore, given that individuals spend a significant portion of the day at work, the more favorable academics’ perception of their job and working tasks, the greater their engagement with the same [21]. The positive impact of employees’ satisfaction on their engagement has been extensively proved in the previous literature, including mentions in the higher education sector where academics’ engagement with their job was determined by the level of their general satisfaction with the setting [61]. Hence, the next hypothesis suggests that:
Hypothesis 5.
Academics’ level of satisfaction will impact their engagement with the educational tasks.
Regarding the proposition of the RBT, explaining the impact of tangible and intangible resources on university academics’ perceptions and performance, the following research model (Figure 1) is proposed to better explore the path toward capable and committed higher education institutions.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Procedure

In order to detect the critical aspects of higher education institutions’ management and performance, we carried out a literature review. In this way, first, we designated academics’ satisfaction and engagement as the elements the universities ultimately pursue in achieving success among competitors. Then, the literature review focused on the most influential originators of employee satisfaction from an institutional and personal perspective. Once we identified fundamental constructs, a pre-test was performed with ten managers and ten researchers from higher education institutions to determine the variables relevant to the research objective. We structured the questionnaire and refined the scale with the experts and additional 20 students, who double-checked the final survey to guarantee the declarations’ precision. The original survey language was Macedonian. Three bilingual speakers, academics of Macedonian and English, were consulted for the translation and back-translation to clarify the concepts, assure readability and avoid possible misinterpretations [62].

3.2. Sample

A non-probabilistic method was employed; more precisely, the purposive sampling technique recommended when the researched sample is a predefined group of individuals—in our case, the specific sample of higher education academics [63]. An online questionnaire was distributed to the three biggest public universities in Macedonia, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, University Goce Delchev and University St. Clement of Ohrid, after a previous agreement with the deans. According to the State Statistical Office, currently, there are 1985 teachers at these higher education institutions, 53% of whom are women, and 76.9% hold an associate professor or professor position [64]. While obtaining 322 valid responses, the survey’s response rate was 16.2%. The sample presents an error of ±5.46% at a 95% confidence level for the case of maximum uncertainty. Power analysis with G*Power software validated the sample size’s suitability. A power of 99.99% was obtained at α = 0.05 standard level of significance, f2 = 0.15 effect size and four predictors. Exceeding the recommended 80% power level, the sample size n = 322 was confirmed to be appropriate, enabling the continuation of the data analysis [65,66].
Academics from three public universities, principally the Ss. Cyril and Methodius University (68.6%), with associate professor and professor positions (80.1%) characterize the participants in the survey. The sample is represented mainly by women (56.2%); the most common age is between 25 and 44 years (66.4%).

3.3. Measures and Analyses

The scales employed in the survey were validated in the previous literature and adapted to the context of higher education for the purpose of the research. They have their base in previous studies for assessing universities’ tangible and intangible quality [67,68], academics’ self and skill-based identification [53], satisfaction [69] and engagement [70,71]. We implemented 5-point Likert scale measurements to categorize participants’ agreement with the statements, from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree.
The usual procedure for employing partial least squares–structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was followed, adhering to the established criteria for estimating scales’ reliability and validity to check for the measurement model’s robustness [72]. Next, the structural model explanatory and predictive power was confirmed, as well as the relevance and significance of the proposed relationships. The software used for the analyses was SmartPLS3 [73].

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Estimation

First, we refined the scales to estimate the measurement model, where two items were deleted from the construct defining the university’s physical assets due to low or non-significant loadings. Next, it was confirmed that all remaining indicators have adequate loadings (>0.7), significant at a 95% confidence level (t > 1.96), proving appropriate item reliability [74]. Further, the reliability and internal consistency of the scales and the convergent validity were corroborated, obtaining satisfactory values for Cronbach’s alpha (α > 0.7), composite reliability (CR > 0.7) and average variance extracted (AVE > 0.5) [75], as presented in Table 1.
Attending the Fornell and Larcker criterion [76] and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) [77], the discriminant validity of the constructs was demonstrated (Table 2). Namely, AVE values were verified to be greater than their squared correlations with other constructs, while HTMT stated consistency with the predetermined threshold (<0.9). Lastly, estimating the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), a good fit of the model was evidenced (SRMR = 0.075), following the recommended limit of 0.08 [78,79].

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

After validating the measurement model, we estimated R2 to confirm the model’s explanatory power [78], with values exceeding the recommended 0.1, namely, 0.549 for satisfaction and 0.141 for engagement. Then, we proceeded with the hypotheses testing, where all the proposed relationships were supported (Table 3), proving that intangible resources are considerably more important for academics’ satisfaction than tangible. Next, the predictive relevance of the model was likewise corroborated with Q2 values of 0.411 and 0.101 for satisfaction and engagement, respectively.
Control analysis assessed the potential alterations of the significance of the model’s interactions [80,81]. In this way, the model’s explanatory power could be controlled, and the investigation of higher education academics with similar perceptions guaranteed [82]. Hence, we affirmed that gender (β = 0.140, t = 2.654), age (β = −0.058, t = 1.104), position (β = −0.012, t = 0.190) and university (β = −0.076, t = 1.346) did not amend the proposed relationships, proving homogeneous allegations for the study of higher education employees’ behavior.
Finally, bearing in mind the structure of the proposed model, the mediating role of satisfaction has been measured. Following previous literature recommendations [83], indirect effects were observed (Table 4). As observed, the relationships of all the resources with academics’ engagement are mediated by their satisfaction, endorsing the importance of academics’ satisfaction in creating engagement with their work.

5. Discussion

Higher education quality has been studied mainly in light of students’ perceptions of the university’s excellence and the consecutive selection or continuance, which position the institution in the marketplace [8,84,85]. Moreover, teachers’ perceptions of quality in higher education, quality of teaching or good teaching practices have likewise been an object of research, providing insights into mechanisms for improving educational quality [86,87,88]. However, the institutional image, superiority and competitiveness could not persist without employees’ effort to realize the university’s goals. Higher education institutions have addressed educational quality and resources as the indicators for universities to determine quality elements they should focus on [41]. Indeed, universities’ educational properties and employees’ capabilities represent the resources that, in the long run, will provide value to the institution through satisfied professionals who deliver quality education. Employees’ engagement is an essential aspect of the institution’s success, given its consideration as a product of job satisfaction perceptions and motivations related to the academic contribution of the academics [89]. Therefore, it becomes critical to understand the employees’ perception of the organizational performance and the result of their competencies and practices as distinguished assets for building a commitment [39]. With this in mind, this study’s objective is to observe universities’ resources regarding educational quality and academic’s aptitudes as the antecedents of their job satisfaction and engagement.
Five hypotheses propose their effects on academics’ job satisfaction and further engagement, all supported by the empirical analysis. The RBT [5,25,26] have been applied to explain the resources as the essential drivers for employees’ satisfaction and further engagement. We contemplate academics’ perceptions of the university’s tangible and intangible assets and their self-based and skill-based professional identity. The findings are in accordance with the RBT, proposing the tangible and intangible resources as distinctive [90]. However, until now, the RBT has been related mainly to the value of the higher education system and institutions’ sustainable competitive advantage [91,92,93], barely suggesting the academics’ satisfaction due to the resources’ distinction.
Moreover, the results reveal that academics’ perception of the university’s physical resources related to the accessibility and convenience of facilities (H1) and the institutional quality endorsement (H2) positively affect academics’ job satisfaction. That explains the importance of the working conditions and the value of academics’ choice to be part of the institution. This study is in line with the previous literature that evidences the importance of higher education quality [92], yet adds value by validating the role of institutional resources as determinants of academics’ fulfilment.
Furthermore, the study provides evidence for the impact of academics’ self-based identity (H3) and skill-based identity (H4) on their job satisfaction. In effect, self-efficacy elements observed as professional identity with the work have been deemed necessary for job satisfaction [94], partly supporting this research’s findings. Nonetheless, the literature has more generally observed the professional identity through different constructs, often isolating its reflection as a measure of employees’ commitment [55] instead of contemplating it as a predecessor. With this in mind, the investigation observes the higher education institutions’ assets as the means of professional development and growth. However, contrary to our assumption, the study’s results show a negative effect of skill-based identity on academic’s satisfaction. Previous findings explain the reason for this, suggesting that academics who define themselves by their abilities and skills related to their work may struggle with challenges and setbacks in their work, collaboration and teamwork, which can lead to a decreased sense of satisfaction [95]. This sensation might be additionally emphasized since the pandemic, because of the possibility that academics feel overwhelmed by the pressure for continuous upgrading, advancement and use of new technologies, sometimes complicating the communication and work flow.
Current literature claims that service satisfaction is indispensable, yet not necessarily the unique requirement for future commitment [96], suggesting the possible effect of antecedents related to higher education service characteristics [97,98] and commitment behaviors important for employees’ retention and future competitive advantage [92]. We further measure the mediating role of job satisfaction, underlining academic satisfaction as the vital requirement for employee engagement. In this way, we empirically demonstrate academics’ satisfaction’s critical role in the relationship between environmental perceptions related to higher education resources and behavioral responses regarding academics’ engagement. Finally, the recognized relationship between job satisfaction and engagement has been confirmed (H5) for the higher education system in the Republic of Macedonia, offering this impact as a clarification for the difference in universities’ success based on the traits of their tangible and intangible resources.

5.1. Theoretical and Managerial Implications

In the last decade, the higher education system in Western Balkan countries has been pointed out as the critical wheel of young people’s tendency to move abroad [99]. It has been described as the reason for perceived higher education in the Republic of Macedonia as inferior to European Union countries, resulting in scarce possibilities for professional realization and improvement in the country. University academics occasionally share similar opinions, emphasizing educational quality as key to student retention [100], hence the importance of contemplating higher educational institutions through self-reflection as a tool to identify and pursue meaningful continuing professional development [57].
Moreover, RBT has rarely been applied in higher education research, provided that most studies exploring higher education quality observe it from the students’ perspective [90], and therefore not focusing sufficiently on the institutional organization intrinsically. Along the same line, the higher education assessment is associated with students’ experience with the quality of the university, such as the course, faculty and university service and accreditation [101], underlining the importance of addressing those elements as the means for providing more excellent service value. Still, employees’ resources and effort are an element that can additionally improve the general image of the quality of higher education, positioning the consecutive employees’ satisfaction and engagement as the essential measures for providing an improved educational service.
Therefore, we observe tangible and intangible resources, with a particular emphasis on intangible assets, as those can be the main ones responsible for providing a unique position for the institution. The originality of the intangible resources highlights the necessity to focus on the human resources, i.e., the academics’ enactment. The RBT suggested that employees’ resources might be especially relevant for their perception of the working tasks [33]. Indeed, how academics perceive their role in educational service delivery, regarding their resources covering higher education service provision [49], may designate the core of the educational quality. These assets can represent the professional identity, which usually has been researched through individual concepts describing motivation, self-efficacy, self-image or task perception [55]. Nevertheless, the extant research does not sufficiently present it as a complete set of personal perceptions of their capacity and relation to the tasks as indicators of academics’ job satisfaction; this is where the value of the self-based and skill-based identity, as the counterpart of the university’s quality, comes into focus as the driver of academic’s satisfaction, confirmed by the findings of this study.
Considering the outcome of this investigation, there are practical implications for universities to create a competitive advantage in the already critical higher education service offered in the Republic of Macedonia. Recognizing the institution’s potential is vital through identifying and assessing the resources and capacities it possesses or can access [67]. At the first level would be the tangible resources or company’s assets, and at the second, the organization’s intangible collective capacities, competencies or abilities. The characteristics of those resources enable them to distinguish themselves from the rest of the universities in the country. Therefore, the primary convenience of the physical conditions that universities provide for service delivery is essential, as employees will evaluate it as a motivating environment and supportive infrastructure, facilitating the process of building job satisfaction. The advantageous working and learning settings and the quality of universities’ intangible resources create the foundation for building up academic’s fulfilment. In this sense, the perceived educational quality of the university and the faculty, as well as their endorsement and the degrees’ content quality, are elements that institutions have to respect, as they add to academics’ gratification with their choice to form a part of the university.
Furthermore, employees’ critical thinking regarding their performance can be a powerful instrument for institutions to recognize and encourage professional advancement [57]. Accordingly, professional identity requires serious contemplation when universities develop engagement and progress-related strategies and guidelines in higher education. On this point, academics’ perception of their role in the educational process, communication with and recognition of the employees and passion for teaching shape their self-based identity. Thus, to involve satisfied employees, universities must encourage academics’ position and integrity in the institution and promote harmonious collaboration while carefully motivating their capacities and excellence development without the urge or tension for evidence.
Finally, academics who show satisfaction with the institution and their work decisions are more likely to feel inspired, enthusiastic and proud of their job, as the components that describe a committed community. Those deductions are a valuable indicator of how the higher education system is perceived in a developing society. Western Balkan universities should rely on such evidence in explaining their employees’ experiences and perceptions to meet students’ expectations regarding superior higher education services worth attending.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research Lines

The limitations of this study offer valuable opportunities for future research. The fact that the investigation focuses on only one country bounds the possibility for generalization. In order to overcome this issue, the study could be replicated in other Western Balkan countries to contrast the results and detect the similarities and variations of the higher education systems. Furthermore, future research could incorporate students’ perspectives and even the universities’ administrations’ view of the resources and possibly get deeper into precise demands for enhancing the overall educational quality as the factor determining young people’s brain drain intentions [102]. Additionally, public versus private universities could be assessed to compare institutions with potentially different involvement [103]. In this context, institutional or personal triggers, such as organizational support or work-family balance, could be observed as antecedents of academic’s satisfaction [104,105]. Similarly, different explanatory variables, such as the organizational practices or teaching efficacy, could be integrated into the model to describe more meticulously the elements that shape academic engagement [106]. Finally, given the learning and teaching transformations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, special attention could be paid to the electronic provision of the service, where elements of e-learning quality and academics’ ICT skills would form a more detailed picture of higher education [107].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.P. and L.K.; methodology, J.P. and L.K.; software, J.P.; validation, J.P.; formal analysis, J.P.; investigation, J.P. and L.K.; resources, J.P. and L.K.; data curation, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P.; writing—review and editing, J.P. and L.K; visualization, J.P.; supervision, L.K.; project administration, J.P. and L.K.; funding acquisition, L.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant number 101006279.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Approval was obtained by the ethical committee of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chen, M.-J.; Michel, J.G.; Lin, W. Worlds apart? Connecting competitive dynamics and the resource-based view of the firm. J. Manag. 2021, 47, 1820–1840. [Google Scholar]
  2. Santini, F.O.; Ladeira, W.J.; Sampaio, C.H.; da Silva Costa, G. Student satisfaction in higher education: A meta-analytic study. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2017, 27, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schlesinger, W.; Cervera, A.; Iniesta, M.Á. Key elements in building relationships in the higher education services context. J. Promot. Manag. 2015, 21, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. MacRae, I.; Sawatzky, R. Remote Working: Personality and Performance ResearchResults. Available online: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/65534893/Remote_Working_Personality_and_Performance_Research_Results_1_-libre.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2022).
  5. Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pham-Thai, N.T.; McMurray, A.J.; Muenjohn, N.; Muchiri, M. Job engagement in higher education. Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 951–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Council of Europe Development Bank. Social Infrastructure in the Western Balkans. Available online: https://coebank.org/media/documents/Social_Infrastructure_in_the_Western_Balkans.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  8. Binnawas, M.S.H.; Khalifa, G.S.A.; Bhaumik, A. Antecedents of student’s behavioral intentions in higher education institutions. Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 2020, 24, 1949–1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Decuypere, A.; Schaufeli, W. Leadership and work engagement: Exploring explanatory mechanisms. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 34, 69–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cycyota, C.S.; Ferrante, C.J.; Schroeder, J.M. Corporate social responsibility and employee volunteerism: What do the best companies do? Bus. Horiz. 2016, 59, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, T.J. Relationship between Intrinsic Job Satisfaction, Extrinsic Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions among Internal Auditors. Ph.D. Thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ali-Choudhury, R.; Bennett, R.; Savani, S. University marketing directors’ views on the components of a university brand. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2009, 6, 11–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Akrivou, K.; Bradbury-Huang, H. Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2015, 14, 222–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gaud, D.; Zaveri, B. Estimation of Student Satisfaction and Student Loyalty in Indian University offering Higher Education. ASM Sci. J. 2021, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fleischman, D.; Raciti, M.; Lawley, M. Degrees of co-creation: An exploratory study of perceptions of international students’ role in community engagement experiences. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2015, 25, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Welch, C.; Ismail, N.A.M. Leader engagement and its impact upon knowledge-sharing behaviour in a Higher Education Context. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Famalicão, Portugal, 2–3 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Xu, L.; Guo, J.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, Q. Teacher Well-Being in Chinese Universities: Examining the Relationship between Challenge—Hindrance Stressors, Job Satisfaction, and Teaching Engagement. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Truss, C.; Delbridge, R.; Alfes, K.; Shantz, A.; Soane, E. Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 0415657423. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tepayakul, R.; Rinthaisong, I. Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement among Human Resources Staff of Thai Private Higher Education Institutions. Int. J. Behav. Sci. 2018, 13, 68–81. [Google Scholar]
  20. Schaufeli, W.B. What is engagement. Empl. Engagem. Theory Pract. 2013, 15, 29–49. [Google Scholar]
  21. Vincent-Höper, S.; Muser, C.; Janneck, M. Transformational leadership, work engagement, and occupational success. Career Dev. Int. 2012, 17, 663–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mercali, G.D.; Costa, S.G. Antecedents of work engagement of higher education professors in Brazil. RAM. Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 2019, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Blanco-González, A.; Del-Castillo-Feito, C.; Miotto, G. The influence of business ethics and community outreach on faculty engagement: The mediating effect of legitimacy in higher education. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2021, 30, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Converso, D.; Sottimano, I.; Molinengo, G.; Loera, B. The unbearable lightness of the academic work: The positive and negative sides of heavy work investment in a sample of Italian university professors and researchers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wernerfelt, B. On the role of the RBV in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 42, 22–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Barney, J.; Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Wright, M. The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline? J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1299–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Famiola, M.; Wulansari, A. SMEs’ social and environmental initiatives in Indonesia: An institutional and resource-based analysis. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020, 16, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Misseyanni, A.; Papadopoulou, P.; Marouli, C.; Lytras, M.D. Active Learning Strategies in Higher Education; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2018; ISBN 1787144879. [Google Scholar]
  30. Priyadarshini, C.; Mamidenna, S.; Sayeed, O.B. Identifying dimensions of employer attractiveness in Indian universities: An approach towards scale development. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2016, 10, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramaditya, M.; Syamsul Maarif, M.; Affandi, J.; Sukmawati, A. Reinventing Talent Management: How to Maximize Performance in the Higher Education. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, 929697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. López, J.E.N.; Martínez, P.A.; Riveros, P.H. La diversificación desde la Teoría de Recursos y Capacidades. Cuad. Estud. Empres. 2004, 14, 87–104. [Google Scholar]
  33. Vu, H.M.; Nwachukwu, C. Influence of entrepreneur competencies on profitability and employee satisfaction. Int. J. Manag. Enterp. Dev. 2021, 20, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ichsan, M.; Abbas, B.S.; Hamsal, M.; Sadeli, J. Project portfolio management capabilities of strategic initiatives and PMO practices in strategy implementation: A perspective of dynamic capability in banking industries in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business and Management Research (ICBMR), Padang, Indonesia, 1–3 November 2017; pp. 657–673. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cardona, R.A. Estrategia basada en los recursos y capacidades. Criterios de evaluación y el proceso de desarrollo. Rev. Electrón. Forum Doc. 2011, 4, 113–147. [Google Scholar]
  36. Prodanova, J.; San Martín, S.; Jimenez, N. Customers’ predisposition to use mobile banking: Resource’s availability is decisive. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2023, 21, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alvarez, M.; Torres-Barreto, M. Can resources act as capabilities foundations? A bibliometric analysis. Rev. UIS Ing. 2018, 17, 185–200. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wayne, J.H.; Matthews, R.; Crawford, W.; Casper, W.J. Predictors and processes of satisfaction with work–family balance: Examining the role of personal, work, and family resources and conflict and enrichment. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 59, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dalal, R.; Akdere, M. Examining the relationship between talent management and employee job-related outcomes: The case of the Indian manufacturing industry. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Del-Castillo-Feito, C.; Blanco-González, A.; González-Vázquez, E. The relationship between image and reputation in the Spanish public university. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2019, 25, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Prakash, G. Quality in higher education institutions: Insights from the literature. TQM J. 2018, 30, 732–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sri Ramalu, S.; Subramaniam, C.; Nadarajah, G. Expanding the Horizons of Supply Chain in Higher Education Institution: Resources and Expatriate Academics (EAs) Outcomes. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 7, 25–35. [Google Scholar]
  43. Esteban, R.F.C.; Mamani-Benito, O.; Chaparro, J.E.T.; Lingán-Huamán, S.K.; Pajares, A.E. Psychological distress and workload as predictors of satisfaction with life in Peruvian female university professors with a family burden. Heliyon 2022, 8, e08711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Medne, A.; Lapiņa, I.; Zeps, A. Challenges of uncertainty in sustainable strategy development: Reconsidering the key performance indicators. Sustainability 2022, 14, 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fukuzaki, T.; Iwata, N. Association between the five-factor model of personality and work engagement: A meta-analysis. Ind. Health 2022, 60, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Trivellas, P.; Santouridis, I. Job satisfaction as a mediator of the relationship between service quality and organisational commitment in higher education. An empirical study of faculty and administration staff. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2016, 27, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Do, Q.H. Factors affecting job motivation among faculty members: Evidence from Vietnamese public universities. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 603–611. [Google Scholar]
  48. August, L.; Waltman, J. Culture, climate, and contribution: Career satisfaction among female faculty. Res. High. Educ. 2004, 45, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Teeroovengadum, V.; Kamalanabhan, T.J.; Seebaluck, A.K. Measuring service quality in higher education: Development of a hierarchical model (HESQUAL). Qual. Assur. Educ. 2016, 24, 244–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Espinoza, O.; McGinn, N.; González, L.; Sandoval, L.; Castillo, D. Education and employment in two Chilean undergraduate programs. Educ. Train. 2019, 61, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barbara-i-Molinero, A.; Cascón-Pereira, R.; Beatriz Hernández-Lara, A. Professional identity development in higher education: Influencing factors. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2017, 31, 189–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Culver, K.C.; Bowman, N.A.; Pascarella, E.T. How Students’ Intellectual Orientations and Cognitive Reasoning Abilities and May Shape Their Perceptions of Good Teaching Practices. Res. High. Educ. 2021, 62, 765–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abu-Alruz, J.; Khasawneh, S. Professional identity of faculty members at higher education institutions: A criterion for workplace success. Res. Post-Compuls. Educ. 2013, 18, 431–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hanna, F.; Oostdam, R.; Severiens, S.E.; Zijlstra, B.J.H. Assessing the professional identity of primary student teachers: Design and validation of the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 64, 100822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hanna, F.; Oostdam, R.; Severiens, S.E.; Zijlstra, B.J.H. Domains of teacher identity: A review of quantitative measurement instruments. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 27, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Henderson, M.; Bradey, S. Shaping online teaching practices: The influence of professional and academic identities. Campus-Wide Inf. Syst. 2008, 25, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Efu, S.I. An evaluative inquiry into continuing professional development: Understanding faculty perceptions. Teach. Dev. 2020, 24, 688–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, S.; Yang, C.; Shiau, J.; Wang, H. The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education. TQM Mag. 2006, 18, 484–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Vorina, A.; Simonič, M.; Vlasova, M. An analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. Econ. themes 2017, 55, 243–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Abraham, S. Job satisfaction as an antecedent to employee engagement. SIES J. Manag. 2012, 8, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
  61. Aboramadan, M.; Dahleez, K.; Hamad, M.H. Servant leadership and academics outcomes in higher education: The role of job satisfaction. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 29, 562–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brislin, R.W. The wording and translation of research instruments. In Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1986; pp. 137–164. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; ISBN 1412972663. [Google Scholar]
  64. State Statistical Office of the Republic of Macedonia. Teachers and associates in higher education institutions in the academic year 2021/2022. Available online: https://www.stat.gov.mk/PrikaziSoopstenie.aspx?rbrtxt=22 (accessed on 17 March 2023).
  65. Cohen, J. The Concepts of Power Analysis BT—Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Revised Edition). Stat. Power Anal. Behav. Sci. 1988, 2, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  66. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Noaman, A.Y.; Ragab, A.H.M.; Madbouly, A.I.; Khedra, A.M.; Fayoumi, A.G. Higher education quality assessment model: Towards achieving educational quality standard. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 23–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Volkwein, J.F.; Parmley, K. Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private universities. Res. High. Educ. 2000, 41, 95–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lai, L.S.L.; To, W.M.; Lung, J.W.Y.; Lai, T.M. The perceived value of higher education: The voice of Chinese students. High. Educ. 2012, 63, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Aboramadan, M.; Albashiti, B.; Alharazin, H.; Dahleez, K.A. Human resources management practices and organizational commitment in higher education: The mediating role of work engagement. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2019, 34, 154–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hair, J.F.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2015, 10, 32–49. [Google Scholar]
  74. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; ISBN 1483377385. [Google Scholar]
  75. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 8–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Esposito Vinzi, V.; Chin, W.W.; Henseler, J.; Wang, H. Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA; Heidelberg, Germany; Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK, 2010; ISBN 3540328254. [Google Scholar]
  81. Román-Calderón, J.P.; Krikorian, A.; Ruiz, C.F.; Gaviria, A.B. Apoyo organizacional y empoderamiento como antecedentes de comportamientos empoderados y participación de los empleados. Estud. Gerenciales 2016, 32, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Kock, N. Using WarpPLS in e-collaboration studies: Mediating effects, control and second order variables, and algorithm choices. Int. J. e-Collab. 2011, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G., Jr.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010, 37, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hwang, Y.-S.; Choi, Y.K. Higher education service quality and student satisfaction, institutional image, and behavioral intention. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2019, 47, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Haverila, M.J.; Haverila, K.; McLaughlin, C. Variables affecting the retention intentions of students in higher education institutions: A comparison between international and domestic students. J. Int. Stud. 2020, 10, 358–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Okolie, U.C.; Igwe, P.A.; Nwajiuba, C.A.; Mlanga, S.; Binuomote, M.O.; Nwosu, H.E.; Ogbaekirigwe, C.O. Does PhD qualification improve pedagogical competence? A study on teaching and training in higher education. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2020, 12, 1233–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Alonso-García, S.; Aznar-Díaz, I.; Caceres-Reche, M.-P.; Trujillo-Torres, J.-M.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. Systematic review of good teaching practices with ICT in Spanish Higher Education. Trends and Challenges for Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Dicker, R.; Garcia, M.; Kelly, A.; Mulrooney, H. What does ‘quality’in higher education mean? Perceptions of staff, students and employers. Stud. High. Educ. 2019, 44, 1425–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Klahn Acuña, B.; Male, T. Toxic leadership and academics’ work engagement in higher education: A cross-sectional study from Chile. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2022, 17411432221084474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hemaloshinee, V.A. Resource-Based View Theory Application on the Educational Service Quality. Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2021, 6, 174–186. [Google Scholar]
  91. Abbas, Z.; Sarwar, S.; Rehman, M.A.; Zámečník, R.; Shoaib, M. Green HRM promotes higher education sustainability: A mediated-moderated analysis. Int. J. Manpow. 2022, 43, 827–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Butt, A.; Lodhi, R.N.; Shahzad, M.K. Staff retention: A factor of sustainable competitive advantage in the higher education sector of Pakistan. Stud. High. Educ. 2020, 45, 1584–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Soares, J.L.; Dos Reis, D.R. Ambidexterity and competitiveness in Brazilian higher education institutions. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2020, 14, 401–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Richter, E.; Brunner, M.; Richter, D. Teacher educators’ task perception and its relationship to professional identity and teaching practice. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 101, 103303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Deci, E.L.; Koestner, R.; Ryan, R.M. Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Rev. Educ. Res. 2001, 71, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. de Oliveira Silva, J.H.; de Sousa Mendes, G.H.; Ganga, G.M.D.; Mergulhão, R.C.; Lizarelli, F.L. Antecedents and consequents of student satisfaction in higher technical-vocational education: Evidence from Brazil. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 2020, 2035, 1–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hora, M.T.; Smolarek, B.B. Examining faculty reflective practice: A call for critical awareness and institutional support. J. High. Educ. 2018, 89, 553–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Qiwang, Z.; Xiaorui, W. Factors Influencing Employment Rate and Mobility of Science and Engineering and Economics and Management Graduates in Northeast China: An Examination. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 158244020931935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Naumovski, L. The Attraction of Intellectual Migration-Brain Drain or Exodus of Human Capital in Southeast Europe-Western Balkans and North Macedonian Transitional Conditions. Int. J. Soc. Sci. World 2021, 3, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  100. Thomas, L.; Kift, S.; Shah, M. Student Retention and Success in Higher Education. In Student Retention and Success in Higher Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  101. Mandernach, B.J. Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature and assessment tools. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2015, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  102. Naumovski, L.; Naumovska, J. Education and Professional Adaptation of Young Specialists on the Labor Market. J. Econ. Soc. Dev. 2019, 6, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
  103. Prodanova, J.; San Martín, S.; Sánchez-Beato, E.J. Quality Requirements for Continuous Use of E-learning Systems at Public vs. Private Universities in Spain. Digit. Educ. Rev. 2021, 40, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mascarenhas, C.; Galvão, A.R.; Marques, C.S. How Perceived Organizational Support, Identification with Organization and Work Engagement Influence Job Satisfaction: A Gender-Based Perspective. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Žnidaršič, J.; Marič, M. Relationships between work-family balance, job satisfaction, life satisfaction and work engagement among higher education lecturers. Organizacija 2021, 54, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Han, J.; Perron, B.E.; Yin, H.; Liu, Y. Faculty stressors and their relations to teacher efficacy, engagement and teaching satisfaction. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2021, 40, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mseleku, Z. A literature review of e-learning and e-teaching in the era of covid-19 pandemic. SAGE 2020, 57, 6. [Google Scholar]
Education 13 00390 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Figure 1. Proposed research model.
Education 13 00390 g001
Table
Table 1. Measurement model.
Table 1. Measurement model.
Construct Name and Measurement Itemsλ
University’s physical assets (AVE = 0.563; α = 0.807; CR = 0.865)
Availability of library0.703
Availability of social space/hub where students/academics can socialize0.748
Availability of sports facilities0.712
Additional not-compulsory events (e.g., conferences, seminars, meetings) for students/academics0.809
Availability of adapted infrastructure and materials for persons with disabilities0.787
University’s educational quality (AVE = 0.786; α = 0.908; CR = 0.936)
University accreditation0.786
University educational quality0.900
Faculty educational quality0.942
Degree educational quality0.911
Academics’ self-based identity (AVE = 0.589; α = 0.902; CR = 0.920)
I am committed to the profession.0.719
I have a strong passion for teaching.0.707
I enjoy sharing my ideas and experiences with other faculty members in the field.0.743
I can only see myself as a faculty member working in a university setting.0.773
I enjoy the social recognition I get as a faculty member.0.787
My students and colleagues regard me as an effective faculty member.0.815
I promote harmonious collaboration between employees to enhance the quality of work.0.791
I feel part of the community of academics.0.800
Academics’ skill-based identity (AVE = 0.798; α = 0.916; CR = 0.940)
I strive for continuous learning and excellence.0.908
For me, it is important to develop my knowledge and teaching skills.0.932
I demonstrate strong ongoing personal and professional growth.0.870
I would like to be a more skilled faculty member.0.862
Academics’ satisfaction (AVE = 0.776; α = 0.856; CR = 0.912)
Based on my experience, I am very satisfied with the quality of the degree programs.0.875
My overall evaluation of the services provided by the university is very good.0.906
Overall, I am very satisfied with the decision to choose this university.0.862
Academics’ engagement (AVE = 0.707; α = 0.895; CR = 0.923)
To me, my job is challenging.0.732
My job inspires me.0.911
I am enthusiastic about my job.0.886
I am proud of the work that I do.0.858
I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.0.806
Table
Table 2. Latent variables correlation matrix vs. heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
Table 2. Latent variables correlation matrix vs. heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT).
PAEQSFSKSE
University’s physical assets (PA) 0.7210.4990.2320.6500.269
University’s educational quality (EQ)0.629 0.5770.3840.7490.307
Academics’ self-based identity (SF)0.4570.541 0.8120.6530.613
Academics’ skill-based identity (SK)0.2050.3510.709 0.3490.504
Academics’ satisfaction (S)0.5550.6640.5960.312 0.424
Academics’ engagement (E)0.2370.2870.5520.4620.376
Note: Lower diagonal shows the correlation matrix, and the upper diagonal (italic) presents HTMT values.
Table
Table 3. Structural model estimation.
Table 3. Structural model estimation.
Hypothesized RelationshipsCoefficient βt ValueResult
H1: Academics’ perception of the university’s physical assets will impact their satisfaction.0.1392.857 ***Supported
H2: Academics’ perception of the university’s educational quality will impact their satisfaction.0.4007.662 ***Supported
H3: Academics’ self-based identity will impact their satisfaction.0.4306.674 ***Supported
H4: Academics’ skill-based identity will impact their satisfaction.−0.1622.316 **Supported
H5: Academics’ level of satisfaction will impact their engagement with the educational tasks.0.3767.427 ***Supported
Note: ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Mediation analyses.
Table 4. Mediation analyses.
Indirect EffectCoefficient βt Value
Physical assets → Satisfaction → Engagement0.0522.608 *
Educational quality → Satisfaction → Engagement0.1505.776 *
Acad. self-based identity → Satisfaction → Engagement0.1624.476 *
Acad. skill-based identity → Satisfaction → Engagement−0.0612.162 **
Note: * p < 0.001; ** p < 0.005.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Prodanova, J.; Kocarev, L. Universities’ and Academics’ Resources Shaping Satisfaction and Engagement: An Empirical Investigation of the Higher Education System. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040390

AMA Style

Prodanova J, Kocarev L. Universities’ and Academics’ Resources Shaping Satisfaction and Engagement: An Empirical Investigation of the Higher Education System. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(4):390. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040390

Chicago/Turabian Style

Prodanova, Jana, and Ljupco Kocarev. 2023. "Universities’ and Academics’ Resources Shaping Satisfaction and Engagement: An Empirical Investigation of the Higher Education System" Education Sciences 13, no. 4: 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040390

APA Style

Prodanova, J., & Kocarev, L. (2023). Universities’ and Academics’ Resources Shaping Satisfaction and Engagement: An Empirical Investigation of the Higher Education System. Education Sciences, 13(4), 390. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040390

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop