Gender differences in job satisfaction and lecturing skills of faculty members in Saudi universities

Job satisfaction has received greater attention in organizational settings as satisfied employees are a primary asset to organizations. In higher education institutions (HEIs), it is considered one of the most critical factors that motivate faculty members to attain high competence and effectiveness in the learning and educational process. A high level of job satisfaction among faculty members is essential as they are a key pillar of higher education and provide theoretical and practical knowledge to students in different fields (Al-Smadi & Qblan, 2015). Such job satisfaction is mainly related to two factors: external and internal factors (Qingwen, 2006). Extrinsic factors include working conditions, pay, opportunities for job advancement and job characteristics such as task identity, task significance, skill diversity, independence/autonomy and feedback, whereas intrinsic factors include personality, motivation, self-esteem and emotion (Tawalbe, Al-Khazaleh, Albhirat, & Tawalbeh, 2024; Pratama & Mulyono, 2024; Akosile & Ekemen, 2022; Stokowski, Li, Goss, Hutchens, & Turk., 2018). Additionally, various theories have been developed to explain the constructs related to job satisfaction. Some of these theories consist of Maslow's need hierarchy theory (1970), Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman's two-factor theory of job satisfaction (1959), Vroom's expectancy theory (1964), discrepancy theories, Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics model (1976) and Karasek's job demand-control model (1979). Among these theories, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943) recognized five levels of need: physiological, social, esteem and self-actualization. While analyzing job satisfaction using Maslow's theory, Cherrington (1991) found that factors relating to physiological and social needs include pay and benefits, a safe and pleasant working environment, access to a cafeteria and job security. Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory includes motivators and hygiene factors. Motivators are job-related, such as achievement, recognition, responsibility and advancement, whereas hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job, including interpersonal relationships, salary, supervision and company policy. Several studies have adopted the key variables from the theories that influence job satisfaction, which include working environment, facilities, supervision, policies, including those related to compensation, recognition and rewards, training and development, interpersonal relationships, job security and promotion opportunities, are significant determinants of job satisfaction (Tawalbeh et al., 2024; Sundaram, 2024; Al-Smadi, & Qblan, 2015; Al Hinai & Bajracharya, 2014; Dhanapal, Alwie, Subramaniam, & Vashu, 2013; Viet, 2013). In the higher education sector, academic job satisfaction among faculty members is influenced by several institutional factors that contribute to their overall working environment and personal fulfillment. These include workload and job status (Al Hinai & Bajracharya, 2014), support from management, including administrative support and transparent management (Aswathy & Jayalakshmi, 2025), adequate institutional resources such as access to research facilities and funding (Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure, & Meek, 2015), competitive salaries and financial security, including benefits such as health care (Sundaram, 2024), career development and promotion (Aswathy & Jayalakshmi, 2025) and a positive organizational culture of cooperation, transparency and participation (Smith, 2024) all of these will significantly increase job satisfaction. Thus, it is paramount that HEIs understand the factors influencing job satisfaction, as this helps them retain faculty members by meeting their needs and improving their performance (Dave & Raval, 2014). An earlier study by Nicolas, Leona, Carlos, and Cochanco (2024) found that higher job satisfaction is associated with increased commitment and professionalism among faculty members. Satisfied faculty members are more likely to demonstrate ethical behavior and dedication to their roles, which enhances their overall performance. Moreover, faculty satisfaction has a direct impact on recruitment and retention, as satisfied faculty members are more engaged in their work and less likely to leave the institution (Sundaram, 2024). Ultimately, faculty members' satisfaction affects their productivity and the quality of education they deliver; satisfied professors are more productive and provide a superior learning experience for students (Aswathy & Jayalakshmi, 2025). On the other hand, faculty members who are dissatisfied with their jobs may exhibit low job commitment, which can negatively affect their job performance. Faculty dissatisfaction often results in lower teaching quality as dissatisfied faculty may lack the motivation to engage deeply with their teaching responsibilities, leading to less effective teaching methods and reduced student engagement (Hebert, 2019), which in turn leads to poorer student outcomes and higher attrition rates (Loes, An, & Trolian, 2024).

In examining the impact of faculty job satisfaction on performance, it is essential to understand the factors that influence faculty job satisfaction, including gender, age, experience, academic qualifications and race/ethnicity, as these are key demographic factors in terms of faculty retention, performance and overall institutional effectiveness (Mohd Rokeman, Che Kob, & Untong, 2024; Chapagain, 2021; Seifert & Umbach, 2008). Among these, gender plays a major role in faculty members' job satisfaction, with women often less satisfied than their male counterparts and this disparity can vary across academic disciplines (Sabharwal & Corley, 2009). Therefore, HEIs need to recognize the importance of gender differences in faculty members' job satisfaction and address them to improve job satisfaction levels. Although many studies have observed gender differences in job satisfaction, none have examined gender differences as predictors of job satisfaction. Moreover, no studies have assessed gender differences in job performance, specifically lecturing skills as evaluated by students, as well as the predictors of job performance. This is because faculty members' job satisfaction may influence their job performance. Therefore, this study was conducted with three objectives: (1) to study the gender differences in faculty job satisfaction and to ascertain the predictors of overall job satisfaction; (2) to study the gender differences in faculty job performance and to find out the predictors of job performance; and (3) to ascertain the influence of job satisfaction factors on male and female faculty job performance. Thus, the authors attempted to answer the following research questions: (1) What are those factors identified as predictors of job satisfaction as well as job performance among faculty members? (2) Is there any significant gender difference in faculty job satisfaction and job performance? (3) Do job satisfaction factors influence job performance specifically with regard to male and female faculty members?

This study employed an exploratory design in which faculty responses to the Academic Job Satisfaction Survey (AJS) and their respective students' responses to the Students' Survey of Lecturing Skills (SSLS) were examined to fulfill the study objectives.

The study population consisted of 2,953 faculty members and 30,089 students enrolled in various colleges during the 2023–2024 academic year at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU), a public university in Saudi Arabia. The minimum sample size required was calculated using this known population size, confidence level (95%) and acceptable margin of error (5%). Accordingly, the study setting was divided into 9 strata (i.e. colleges), and a stratified random sampling method was used to proportionally recruit faculty members and students from these colleges. These Colleges include “Applied Medical Sciences”, “Arts”, “Clinical Pharmacy”, “Dentistry”, “Education”, “Medicine”, “Nursing”, “Science” and “Community College”. Specifically, a total sample of 750 faculty members from nine colleges (N = 9) was randomly selected, and their respective SSLS surveys were selected. The AJS was administered to a randomly selected sample of faculty members (N = 750), and 599 completed responses were received, yielding an 80% response rate. Based on that, the authors included the respective students (N = 599) who evaluated the lecturing skills of the faculty members who taught their courses. Since one faculty member may teach more than one course, the SSLS with a response rate of over 80% (N = 99,367) for all courses taught by that faculty member was included and used to evaluate the faculty member's teaching performance in their respective courses. Faculty members who had not been at IAU for at least one semester (and thus had insufficient data on student evaluations) as well as surveys on the SSLS with a response rate below 80% in each of the included courses were excluded to maintain sufficient representativeness of student feedback. Except for the nine colleges included in this study, other colleges attached to the study settings were excluded.

Two content-validated questionnaires were used to assess faculty job satisfaction and job performance, viz. (1) the AJS tool and (2) the SSLS tool. Specifically, the authors used the SSLS as a tool to measure faculty members' teaching performance, as students complete it to assess various aspects of their faculty members' lecturing skills, which are part of faculty members' job performance. Administration of both questionnaires and data collection was carried out using a custom-made online web-based application named “Estibana” to generate feedback from the students and faculty, and their responses were collected electronically. This application enables anonymous online data collection for faculty and students with automated compilation and export. In addition, the data can be easily imported into a spreadsheet or other statistical software such as statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) for further analysis and graphical representation of results obtained on the spot (Al Kuwaiti, Subbarayalu, & Al Faraj, 2025). The AJS consists of 11 domains totaling 47 items, and one global rating item (overall satisfaction). The domains in AJS are “IAU administrative policies”, “supervision”, “interpersonal relationships”, “recognition and reward”, “working conditions”, “job security”, “nature of work”, “professional responsibilities”, “professional achievements”, “professional advancement” and “salary“ (Kuwaiti et al., 2020a, b). The SSLS consists of four domains totaling 13 items, and one global item (overall performance). The domains in SSLS encompass “the organization and structure of lectures”, “lecturers' impact on learning and understanding”, “professional interactions between faculty and students”, and “the support provided by faculty” as well as “the physical aspects of presentation” (Kuwaiti et al., 2020a, b). The responses to each item in both questionnaires were captured in a Likert-type scale, and the responses were rated using a 5-point ordinal scale as “Strongly Agree” (5), “Agree” (4), “Neutral” (3), “Disagree” (2) and “Strongly Disagree” (1). Both the AJS and the SSLS have already been validated for use in the Saudi higher education context; the AJS was validated and reported by Kuwaiti et al. (2020a, b), and the SSLS was also validated and reported by the same author (Cronbach's alpha >0.80 across domains).

In this study, descriptive statistics and the t-test were used to examine gender differences in job satisfaction and job performance among faculty members. Furthermore, a gender-wise multiple linear regression analysis was performed to find out (1) the influence of all the domains of AJS (independent variables) on overall job satisfaction (dependent variable), (2) the influence of all the domains of SSLS (independent variables) on job performance (dependent variable) and (3) the influence of the factors of job satisfaction on overall faculty performance. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. In addition to p-values, effect sizes were calculated to enhance the discovery of findings. For independent-sample t-tests, Cohen's d was used to measure differences between genders in job satisfaction and lecturing skills (large: d = 0.8; medium: d = 0.5; small: d = 0.2). In multiple linear regression analyses, standardized beta coefficients and the coefficient of determination (R2) were used as indicators of effect size, which show the percentage of the variance in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 31.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Table 1 shows the descriptive characteristics of faculty members at IAU. Out of 599 faculty members, 382 (63%) are females and 217 (37%) are males. It is observed that 59% of faculty members fall within the age range of 35 to 49 years. Concerning educational qualifications, 44% of faculty members hold a PhD degree and 29% hold a postdoctoral degree. Regarding the current positions and experience of faculty members, approximately 47% are assistant professors, and 36% have served at IAU for 11 years or more.

Table 2 shows the mean Job Satisfaction score by Gender. A significant difference was observed in the average job satisfaction scores of male and female faculty members across all domains except recognition and reward (p < 0.05). The effect sizes for all 12 comparisons fall within a small range (d = 0.19 to d = 0.47). Working conditions and administrative policy showed the strongest gender gap, d = 0.47 and d = 0.44, respectively. Male faculty members have reported an average job satisfaction score of 4 or higher across all domains, except professional advancement and salary. At the same time, female faculty members have reported an average job satisfaction score of 4 or higher only in supervision (Table 2 and Figure 1).

Table 3 depicts the results of a multiple linear regression analysis that assesses the influence of AJS factors (domains) on overall job satisfaction, adjusting for faculty members' profile characteristics among both male & female faculty members (Table 3). The regression coefficients should be interpreted as follows: for a unit change in satisfaction with a domain factor, there is a corresponding change in the regression coefficient for overall job satisfaction. Among male faculty members, for a unit change in satisfaction with supervision and salary, there were statistically significant changes of 0.16 and 0.24 in overall job satisfaction, respectively. Within the female subgroup, for a unit change in satisfaction with recognition and rewards, job security, nature of work, professional advancement and salary, there were statistically significant changes of 0.10, 0.11, 0.20, 0.15 and 0.12 in overall job satisfaction, respectively.

Table 4 and Figure 2 present the mean job performance scores of faculty members, as evaluated by students in the classroom, based on the SSLS. Both male and female faculty members reported average job performance scores of 4 or higher across all domains and overall performance. Importantly, no significant difference is observed in job performance (in terms of both magnitude and variability of performance scores) between male and female faculty members (p > 0.05), and the effect sizes of all five comparisons are insignificant (d = 0.00).

Table 5 presents the findings of a multiple regression analysis used to assess the influence of students' satisfaction with various factors on overall satisfaction with faculty members' performance, adjusting for faculty members' profile characteristics within male and female subgroups (Table 5). Students' satisfaction with factors such as the effects on learning and understanding, professional interaction and support and physical aspects of presentation has significantly influenced their overall satisfaction with the performance of both male and female faculty members. Conversely, students' satisfaction with the organization and structure of lectures had no significant influence on their overall satisfaction with the performance of both male and female faculty members (p > 0.05). Among female subgroups, the most significant factors influencing students' overall satisfaction with faculty members' performance were professional interaction and support (regression coefficient = 0.56, p < 0.05) and effects on learning and understanding (regression coefficient = 0.40, p < 0.05). Among male subgroups, the performance on physical aspects of presentation (regression coefficient = 0.52, p < 0.05) and on professional interaction and support (regression coefficient = 0.47, p < 0.05) were the most significant factors influencing students' satisfaction with faculty members' performance. Additionally, the authors conducted a multiple regression analysis to examine the impact of factors influencing job satisfaction on faculty members' overall job performance (Table 6).

The outcome of a multiple linear regression analysis conducted to determine the effect of AJS factors (domains) on the overall classroom performance of the faculty members, considering the profile characteristics of faculty members between the two sample groups (male and female faculty members), is given in Table 6. The regression coefficients indicate that a unit change in job satisfaction with a domain factor leads to a corresponding change in the regression coefficient for overall classroom performance. None of the domains of job satisfaction among male faculty showed a statistically significant change in overall classroom performance (p > 0.05). However, among female faculty members, job satisfaction factors such as Interpersonal relationships (p = 0.03), working conditions (p = 0.04) and professional advancement (p = 0.07) significantly affect their job performance.

This study documents gender differences in job satisfaction factors and their impact on faculty members' job performances at a Saudi HEI. Several earlier studies have examined gender differences in job satisfaction (Sabharwal & Corley, 2009; Oshagbemi, 2000; Okpara, Squillace, & Erondu, 2005; Catherine, 2014); however, the present study examined how faculty job satisfaction influences their job performance. In addition, the present study aimed to determine whether there is a significant difference between genders in terms of both job satisfaction and job performance. As such, a gender-wise analysis of factors influencing job satisfaction and job performance as well as the influence of job satisfaction factors on faculty's overall job performance, is discussed.

While analyzing the average job satisfaction scores, a significant difference was found between genders in all domains except for two specific factors: “recognition” and “reward”. This might be because uniform regulations exist across Saudi universities concerning the compensation and rewards system, as each university centrally regulates it (Higher Education Council, 1996). In addition, each university has established several awards of excellence, such as the “Best Teacher Award” for academic excellence and the “Best Researcher Award”, which are offered to faculty members who excel in research (Excellence Award in University Education (TAJ), 2024). These awards are offered in four different fields: Teaching (Learning and Teaching), Scientific Research, Community Service and Administrative Creativity. In line with our observation, an earlier study also demonstrated that equal opportunities are provided to the entire faculty in Saudi universities to attend training and development programs (Subbarayalu & Al Kuwaiti, 2019). Nevertheless, another Saudi-based study demonstrated a significant difference in perceptions of teaching staff regarding compensation and rewards offered by ethnic background, with Saudi nationals being more satisfied than non-Saudi teaching staff (Subbarayalu & Al Kuwaiti, 2018). In terms of overall job satisfaction, male faculty members are more satisfied than female faculty members (Table 2). These findings align with various studies that have demonstrated that men are more satisfied with their jobs than women (Koirala & Khatiwada, 2024; Al-Mashaan, 2003; Bender & Heywood, 2006). To further explore the individual factors of job satisfaction, the authors examined each of the eleven domains included in this study to determine whether they are perceived equally by both faculty genders. Among the 11 domains, male faculty members reported an average job satisfaction score of 4.1, with “supervision” identified as a significant factor. However, even though female faculty members reported an average job satisfaction score of 4.1, certain variables, such as satisfaction with professional advancement and salary, were rated at 3.6 and 3.0, respectively (Table 2). From these observations, it is revealed that men are more satisfied than women in most of the dimensions of job satisfaction, and it is consistent with the observations of earlier studies that indicated that women often report lower satisfaction with pay, promotion opportunities and fringe benefits, contingent rewards, participation in decision-making processes and operating conditions compared to their male counterparts (Koirala & Khatiwada, 2024; Scharff, 2017).

Furthermore, a gender-wise analysis of domains influencing overall job satisfaction revealed that salary and supervision have a significant impact on job satisfaction among male faculty members (Table 3). Faculty members who perceive their salary as adequate are more likely to report higher job satisfaction levels (Sundaram, 2024). Likewise, faculty members who rate their supervisor's experience positively report higher job satisfaction, underscoring the importance of effective supervision in fostering a supportive and motivating work environment (Krueger et al., 2017). Earlier studies also indicated that male faculty members have higher levels of overall job satisfaction than female faculty members, especially in terms of salary and benefits (Hult, Callister, & Sullivan, 2005; Okpara et al., 2005; Bilimoria et al., 2006; Callister, 2006; Settles et al., 2006) and promotion opportunities (Ward & Sloane, 2000; Okpara et al., 2005). Additionally, our study reported that “recognition and reward”, “job security”, “nature of work”, “professional advancement” and “salary” are significant factors influencing overall job satisfaction among female faculty members (Table 3). A previous study also identified promotion opportunities and relationships with coworkers as the most influential factors in women's job satisfaction (Hajiha, Ghaffari, & Bahrami, 2009). Nash (1985) identified the factors influencing job satisfaction by gender and ranked them in order of importance. Women ranked type of work first, followed by company, security, coworkers, advancement, supervision, pay, working conditions, duration of work and then benefits. In addition, Sarwar (2014) found that job autonomy, job security and social support are important predictors of gender-specific job satisfaction.

The present study measured faculty teaching performance and assessed it using students' ratings of their lecturing skills. Regarding the faculty's average job performance scores, no difference was observed between genders (Table 4). This finding was consistent with previous studies that found no statistically significant difference in teaching and research performance scores between male and female faculty members (Sinuany-Stern & Davidovich, 2008, 2014). In addition, our study reported an overall mean score of 4.1 from students for faculty performance for both male and female faculty members (Table 4). This is in accord with the results of Samian and Md Noor (2012), who reported that students' overall satisfaction with the faculty's teaching performance ranged from 4.2 to 4.7 on a Likert scale and described it as “very good” to “excellent”. Specifically, students' satisfaction with “effects on learning and understanding,” “professional interaction and support,” and “physical aspects of presentation” has significantly influenced the overall satisfaction with the performance of faculty members of both genders (Table 5). This observed result aligns with an earlier Saudi-based study, which indicated that the effectiveness of lectures on learning and understanding, as well as the professional interactions of teaching staff, presentation and classroom atmosphere, are significant predictors of faculty members' teaching performance (Al Kuwaiti, 2022).

Furthermore, the authors have sought to determine the influence of job satisfaction factors on faculty lecturing skills, particularly with respect to gender. Regarding male faculty, except for overall satisfaction, none of the other factors influencing job satisfaction had a significant impact on job performance. On the other hand, for female faculty, job satisfaction factors such as Interpersonal relationships (p = 0.03), working conditions (p = 0.04) and professional advancement (p = 0.07) have a significant impact on their job performance. Interpersonal skills, encompassing cognitive, behavioral and communication skills, exhibit a strong positive correlation with faculty performance and these skills enhance strategic, core and support functions, ultimately leading to improved teaching effectiveness (Nacalaban & Jala, 2024). HEIs that provide sufficient resources and support systems, a manageable workload, flexible working hours, supportive leadership, inclusive policies and a harassment-free work environment enable female faculty to focus on their teaching and research responsibilities, thereby improving their performance (Methiyarasan, Chandrakhanthan, & Dhanapal, 2023; Elliott & Blithe, 2020; Raheem, Vveinhardt, Ahmad, & Sadiq, 2016). Lastly, a recent study by Aishath, Omar, and Aishath (2021) found a weak positive correlation between professional development activities and lecturers' competencies, suggesting that professional development has some impact on lecturers' skills in higher education (Aishath et al., 2021). A recent study also indicated that Saudi universities need faculty development programs tailored to the needs of female faculty, with significant implications for enhancing work-life balance, building leadership capacity and expanding networking opportunities (AlQahtani, 2025).

It is important to recognize that this study has limitations. First, the results are based on a survey that asked faculty members to self-report on various aspects of their work at IAU. Additionally, students were asked to rate the faculty members' lecturing abilities. It was not feasible to independently verify the data. The entire study was conducted to capture the perceptions and attitudes of faculty members and the students they teach in a single university setting, and utmost caution is needed when generalizing the findings. Although the study setting is a public university run by the Saudi Ministry of Higher Education, and Saudi universities are subject to uniform regulations regarding teaching load, delivery of instruction, the availability of facilities for teaching and learning, promotion criteria and the provision of compensation and other fringe benefits to faculty, it is advised that future research incorporate a more thorough survey of teaching staff and students enrolled at other Saudi universities in order to generalize the findings.

This study elucidated gender differences in job satisfaction and job performance among faculty members as ascertained through students' feedback on their lecturing skills at a Saudi HEI. The key focus of this study was to determine whether job satisfaction influences the job performance of faculty members as well as any differences in findings with regard to faculty gender. To execute this study, the authors used two survey instruments, namely the “faculty job satisfaction survey” and the “students' survey of lecturing skills of their teachers,” to study job satisfaction and job performance factors, respectively. The findings revealed that male faculty members reported higher satisfaction across all job satisfaction domains, except recognition and reward, than female faculty members. The most significant influential factors on female job satisfaction are “recognition and rewards”, “job security”, “nature of work”, “professional advancement” and “salary”. For male faculty members, “supervision” and “salary” are key factors affecting their job satisfaction. Furthermore, no significant difference exists between the overall lecturing skills of male and female faculty members, as captured through the voices of students. Professional interactions between faculty and students, the support provided and their impact on learning and understanding are revealed as the most significant factors influencing students' overall satisfaction with the lecturing skills of both male and female faculty members. Moreover, the authors affirm the influence of faculty job satisfaction factors on their lecturing skills. Specifically, individual job satisfaction factors such as interpersonal relationships, working conditions and opportunities for professional advancement are significant factors that impact the lecturing skills of female faculty members. As such, this study contributes to the literature on the impact of job satisfaction on faculty members' lecturing skills in higher education. This will help educational policy planners devise suitable strategies to improve faculty member performance by addressing all the factors identified in this study. The following policy interventions is suggested, which are rooted from the findings of this study, might be employed in universities: (1) develop clear and fair salary review schemes, in accordance with the faculty grade and ensure that female faculty obtained more similar pay packages to their male counterparts, (2) implement structured mentoring and supervision systems, especially among male faculty who reported “supervision” as a major source of job satisfaction, (3) provide leadership training programs to department heads so as to inculcate and support leadership behaviors, (4) offer congenial and creative working conditions, especially to female faculty, where flexible work arrangements are provided with sufficient time for research, and other professional development activities and (5) foster gender sensitive faculty development initiatives, where male and female academics have different sources of satisfaction as reported in this study. For female faculty, development programs must include elements of work-life balance, leadership capacity building and networking opportunities that support professional development. For male faculty, peer collaboration and academic supervision training programs can be effective. These focused interventions would provide greater benefits in terms of faculty satisfaction and classroom performance outcomes than one-size-fits-all interventions.