AN ANALYSIS OF THE SATISFACTION OF HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING STAFF REGARDING THEIR JOBS

(1)

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SATISFACTION OF HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING STAFF REGARDING THEIR JOBS

Assoc. Prof. Sibel ERKAL* Prof. Şükran ŞAFAK* Prof. Canan YERTUTAN* Research Assist Selda COŞKUNER*

Özet

Bu araştırma, ev idaresi personelinin yürüttükleri işlere ilişkin memnuniyet durumlarının incelenmesi amacıyla planlanmış ve yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya bir üniversite hastanesinin gündüz vardiyasında çalışan 330 ev idaresi personelinden araştırmayı kabul eden 184 personel alınmıştır. Araştırma tanımlayıcı tipte bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın verileri araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan anket formuna bağlı kalınarak 11 Şubat- 18 Mayıs 2008 tarihleriarasında ev idaresi personeli ile yüz yüze yapılan görüşmeler sonucunda toplanmıştır. Veriler SPSS 11.50 paket programında değerlendirilmiş ve khi-kare analizi uygulanmıştır.

Araştırmaya katılan personel arasında yaptıkları işlerden ‘‘genellikle memnun” olanlar önde gelmektedir (süpürme %55.7, paspaslama %54.1, makine ile yer döşemesi fırçalama %48.5, yer döşemesi cilalama %43.3, toz alma %44.0, duvar temizliği %44.9, pencere temizliği %48.4, çöp toplama % 42.7, çöp taşıma %35.4, ıslak mekan temizliği %41.4).

Anahtar Kelimeler: Ev idaresi personeli, memnuniyet durumu

Abstract

This study was designed and carried out to analyze the satisfaction of housekeeping personnel regarding their jobs. Of the 330 housekeeping personnel working the day shift at a university hospital, 184 who agreed to participate in the study constituted the study participants. The study was a descriptive study. Study data were collected via a questionnaire developed by the researchers and administered in face-to-face interviews with the participants between February 11 and May 18, 2008. Chi-square analysis and SPSS 11.50 software were used to evaluate the obtained data.

________________________________________________________________________________ *Hacettepe University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, Ankara

(2)

The majority of the study participants were “generally satisfied” with the jobs they did (sweeping by hand 55.7%, mopping 54.1%, sweeping with a sweeping machine 48.5%, floor polishing 43.3%, dusting 44.0%, wall cleaning 44.9%, window cleaning 48.4%, garbage collection 42.7%, garbage removal 35.4% and wet floor cleaning 41.4%).

Key words: Housekeeping personnel, job satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

The hospital, as one of the most important organizations in society, plays a crucial role in the lives of both its people and the overall community. Hospitals, which are among the most complex service providing institutions in structural and functional terms and are among the institutions with the highest operation expenses, have to render and maintain high quality health services (Yıldırım, 1997; Aslan et al, 2004). Rendering high quality health services by the hospitals can be achieved through numerous units. Housekeeping is one such area. The role of housekeeping is to create a hygienic, tidy, secure, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing environment. The environment meeting these requirements is not only important for those working in the institution, and those receiving the services from it, but also in maintaining the prestige of the institution in the community. Therefore, the need for Housekeeping Services to be operated in a systematic, planned and scheduled way, with a modern business management, becomes ever more apparent. It is essential that such services be managed as successfully as possible for all institutions (Şafak, 1997) .

Within the scope of work performance, those undertaking service provision need to be not only talented, but also competent in their specific jobs. These tasks involve the services that should be fulfilled in the most effective and efficient ways. That is, there is a linear relationship between efficiency and the competency of the actor to undertake the job (Tutum, 1979). To increase work efficiency, the competency levels of individuals must be considered and their needs and expectations taken into account as well (Yertutan, 2000). Employee success will increase in an environment where their expectations and needs are considered since they feel happier in such a place (Taner, 1993; Ehtiyar, 1995; Yertutan, 2000).

(3)

Satisfaction, one of the quality indicators of a working life, refers to an individual’s appreciating her/his job, or her/his satisfaction of the job using a placing or positive feeling (Luthans, 1992). If this feeling is positive, satisfaction is felt; on the other hand, dissatisfaction is felt if the feeling is negative. Satisfaction means a sort of feeling which makes an individual happy, increases her/his motivation, and drives her/him to be more efficient provided that s/he gains satisfaction in the workplace where an individual spends most of his/her life (Ehtiyar, 1995). Because in a work environment where there is satisfaction, procedures will be carried out at the required time, in the correct manner and with quality deliverance, without interruption and without creating any chaos (Yertutan, 2000). A high level of satisfaction is particularly important in jobs where the individuals personally offer their efficiency and achievement and the job is based on making the individuals happy and satisfied (Calt et al, 1991).

The present study was planned and conducted to identify the effects of variables such as gender, age and education level on the satisfaction amongst housekeeping staff regarding their jobs in a university hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

184of the 330 housekeeping staff working on both day and night shifts in a university hospital in Ankara agreed to participate in this study based on a questionnaire that was developed to assess the satisfaction of housekeeping personel regarding their tasks (Yertutan et al. 1995, Aksu and Terzioğlu, 1998, Messing et al., 1998). The form is comprised of two sections. Section one contains questions regarding gender, age and education levels of the participant staff. Section two includes questions about the satisfaction level of the staffs regarding the tasks they undertake. Thirty staff were used for the pilot study to check the feasibility of the questionnaire form. Data of this descriptive research were collected during face to face interviews held with the housekeeping staff between 11 February and 18 May in 2008 on the basis of the questionnaire form. Collected data were analyzed by using chi-square analysis on the SPSS WIN 11.5 program in order to find out the effects of gender, age and education level on the satisfaction.

(4)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General Information about the Housekeeping Staff

Of the participants, 67.9 % are male, 38.0 % are graduates of primary school or less, 39.1 % are between 26 -33 years old.

Satisfaction of the Housekeeping Staff Regarding the Tasks They Undertake

Table 1 regarding the satisfaction of the participant staff regarding all tasks they undertake shows that the are “mostly satisfied” with what they do (sweeping floors 55.7%, mopping the floor 54.1%, brushing the floors by using machine 48.5 %, polishing the floors 43.3%, dusting 44.0%, cleaning walls 44.9%, cleaning windows 48.4 %, collecting garbage 42.7 %, carrying garbage 35.4%, wet floor cleaning 41.4%).

In a study carried out by Yertutan et al. (1995) of the housekeeping staffs working in a university hospital regarding their satisfaction, 76.6% of the employees reported dissatisfaction. In a study conducted by Aksu and Terzioğlu (1998) on housekeeping staffs working in state and private hospitals, the majority of the employees (80.7%) stated that they do not like their jobs. The difference between previous studies and the present study can be explained with more emphasis being placed on practices to increase employee satisfaction.

Within the framework of the effect of gender on satisfaction; in both of the groups, those reporting that they are “mostly satisfied” with sweeping floors, mopping, polishing floors, cleaning windows, garbage collection, carrying garbage and wet floor cleaning rank highest. As for cleaning walls, 37.2 % of women participants were found to be “modestly satisfied” and 53.9% of male participants were found to be “mostly satisfied” while women were reported to be less satisfied than men with brushing the floors using a machine (mostly dissatisfied, 17.0%), polishing floors (completely dissatisfied, 20.4%), cleaning walls (mostly dissatisfied, 23.3%) collecting garbage (mostly dissatisfied, 16.1%) and carrying garbage (mostly dissatisfied, 19.6%) (Table 1) (p<0.05). This finding implies that women are less satisfied than men with tasks requiring physical power.

In a study carried out by Erdoğan (1992) to identify the satisfaction of contracted employees and civil servants in public institutions, it was found that men are more satisfied than women employees with their job; on the other hand, Güler’s study (1990) carried out on employees in a factory demonstrated that gender is not the only effective factor on employee satisfaction.

(5)

Table 1 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Their Satisfaction and Gender

Satisfaction

Gender

Female Male

Total

Number % Number % Number %

Sweeping Floors Totally dissatisfied 1 1.7 3 2.4 4 2.2 Mostly dissatisfied 2 3.5 1 0.8 3 1.7 Moderately satisfied 13 22.4 17 13.6 30 16.4 Mostly satisfied 26 44.8 76 60.8 102 55.7 Absolutely satisfied 16 27.6 28 22.4 44 24.1 Total 58 100 125 100 183 100.0 X2=5.912 p>0.005 Mopping Totally dissatisfied 1 1.7 0 0 1 0.5 Mostly dissatisfied 3 5.1 1 0.8 4 2.2 Moderately satisfied 9 15.3 15 12.1 24 13.1 Mostly satisfied 28 47.4 71 57.3 99 54.1 Absolutely satisfied 18 30.5 37 29.8 55 30.1 Total 59 100 124 100 183 100.0 X2=6.469 p>0.005 Brushing the Floors by Using Machine Totally dissatisfied 7 14.9 0 0 7 4.2 Mostly dissatisfied 8 17.0 2 1.7 10 6.1 Moderately satisfied 9 19.1 21 17.8 30 18.2 Mostly satisfied 10 21.3 70 59.3 80 48.5 Absolutely satisfied 13 27.7 25 21.2 38 23.0 Total 47 100 118 100 165 100.0 X2=41.282 p<0.005 Polishing Floors Totally dissatisfied 9 20.4 0 0 9 6.3 Mostly dissatisfied 8 18.2 3 3.1 11 7.8 Moderately satisfied 8 18.2 22 22.7 30 21.3 Mostly satisfied 10 22.7 51 52.6 61 43.3 Absolutely satisfied 9 20.5 21 21.6 30 21.3 Total 44 100 97 100 141 100.0 X2=35.217 p<0.005 Dusting Totally dissatisfied 2 3.4 4 3.2 6 3.3 Mostly dissatisfied 1 1.7 16 12.9 17 9.3 Moderately satisfied 4 6.9 9 7.3 13 7.1 Mostly satisfied 23 39.7 57 46.0 80 44.0 Absolutely satisfied 28 48.3 38 30.6 66 36.3 Total 58 100 124 100 182 100.0 X2=9.046 p>0.005 Cleaning Walls Totally dissatisfied 1 2.3 7 6.9 8 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 10 23.3 3 2.9 13 9.0 Moderately satisfied 16 37.2 22 21.6 38 26.2 Mostly satisfied 10 23.2 55 53.9 65 44.9 Absolutely satisfied 6 14.0 15 14.7 21 14.4 Total 43 100 102 100 145 100.0 X2=24.233 p<0.005 Cleaning Windows Totally dissatisfied 1 1.7 6 4.8 7 3.9 Mostly dissatisfied 7 12.1 8 6.5 15 8.2 Moderately satisfied 15 25.9 20 16.1 35 19.2 Mostly satisfied 21 36.2 67 54.0 88 48.4 Absolutely satisfied 14 24.1 23 18.6 37 20.3 Total 58 100 124 100 182 100.0 X2=7.660 p>0.005 Collecting Garbage Totally dissatisfied 9 16.1 0 0 9 5.0 Mostly dissatisfied 5 8.9 12 9.9 17 9.6 Moderately satisfied 12 21.4 27 22.1 39 21.9 Mostly satisfied 19 33.9 57 46.7 76 42.7

(6)

Absolutely satisfied 11 19.7 26 21.3 37 20.8 Total 56 100 122 100 178 100.0 X2=21.171 p<0.005 Carrying Garbage Totally dissatisfied 10 17.9 4 3.3 14 7.9 Mostly dissatisfied 11 19.6 17 14.0 28 15.7 Moderately satisfied 13 23.2 29 23.8 42 23.6 Mostly satisfied 14 25.0 49 40.2 63 35.4 Absolutely satisfied 8 14.3 23 18.9 31 17.4 Total 56 100 122 100 178 100.0 X2=14.25 p<0.005 Wet Floor cleaning (wc, bathroom) Totally dissatisfied 3 5.4 7 5.6 10 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 1 1.8 15 12.0 16 8.8 Moderately satisfied 15 26.8 21 16.8 36 19.9 Mostly satisfied 20 35.7 55 44.0 75 41.4 Absolutely satisfied 17 30.3 27 21.6 44 24.3 Total 56 100 125 100 181 100.0 X2=8.368 p>0.005

Table 2 shows that the employees from all age groups are “mostly satisfied” satisfied with tasks such as sweeping, mopping, brushing floors by using a machine, dusting, cleaning walls, collecting and carrying garbage rank highest. Among all age groups, only those between 18-25 years old were found to be “modestly satisfied” with wet floor cleaning (29.0%) and “moderately satisfied” with polishing floors (29.2%) at equal levels.

The satisfaction of the employees with “sweeping” in relation to age groups was found to be statistically significant (Table 2) (p<0.05).

Table 2 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Age Satisfaction

Age

18-25 26-33 34-41 42+ Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Swee pin g F lo o rs Totally dissatisfied 2 6.5 1 0.7 1 1.5 0 0 4 2.2 Mostly dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 3 4.6 0 0 3 1.6 Moderately satisfied 8 25.8 5 6.9 16 24.2 1 7.1 30 16.4 Mostly satisfied 14 45.1 48 66.7 30 45.5 10 71.5 102 55.7 Absolutely satisfied 7 22.6 18 25.0 16 24.2 3 21.4 44 24.1 Total 31 100.0 72 100.0 66 100.0 14 100.0 183 100.0 X2=21.489 p<0.005 M o pp in g Totally dissatisfied 1 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 Mostly dissatisfied 0 0 1 1.4 3 4.5 0 0 4 2.2 Moderately satisfied 5 16.7 9 12.5 10 15.2 0 0 24 13.1 Mostly satisfied 18 60.0 38 52.8 33 50.0 10 66.7 99 54.1 Absolutely satisfied 6 20.0 24 33.3 20 30.3 5 33.3 55 30.1 Total 30 100.0 72 100.0 66 100.0 15 100.0 183 100.0 X2=12.640 p>0.005 B ru sh in g t h e F lo o rs by Usi ng M a ch ine Totally dissatisfied 2 6.9 2 3.0 3 5.2 0 0 7 4.2 Mostly dissatisfied 2 6.9 4 5.2 3 5.3 1 7.1 10 6.1 Moderately satisfied 8 27.6 14 21.5 7 12.3 1 7.1 30 18.2 Mostly satisfied 10 34.5 33 50.8 30 52.6 7 50.0 80 48.5 Absolutely satisfied 7 24.1 12 18.5 14 24.6 5 35.8 38 23.0 Total 29 100.0 65 100.0 57 100.0 14 100.0 165 100.0

(7)

X2=8.480 p>0.005 P o lis hi ng F lo o

rs Totally dissatisfied_{Mostly dissatisfied} 3₂ 12.5_8.3 2₆ _11.53.9 ₂4 _3.97.7 ₁0 _7.60 ₁₁9 6.3_7.8

Moderately satisfied 7 29.2 12 23.1 9 17.3 2 15.4 30 21.3

Mostly satisfied 5 20.8 23 44.2 27 51.9 6 46.2 61 43.3

Absolutely satisfied 7 29.2 9 17.3 10 19.2 4 30.8 30 21.3

Total 24 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 13 100.0 141 100.0

X2=11.730 p>0.005 Table 2 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Age (continued)

Yapılan İşlerden Memnun Olma Durumu

Age

18-25 26-33 34-41 42+

Toplam

Dus tin g Totally dissatisfied 0 0 2 2.8 4 6.2 0 0 6 3.3 Mostly dissatisfied 3 10.0 7 9.7 6 9.2 1 6.7 17 9.3 Moderately satisfied 5 16.7 5 6.9 2 3.1 1 6.7 13 7.1 Mostly satisfied 13 43.3 30 41.7 30 46.2 7 46.6 80 44.0 Absolutely satisfied 9 30.0 28 38.9 23 35.3 6 40.0 66 36.3 Total 30 100.0 72 100.0 65 100.0 15 100.0 182 100.0 X2=9.333 p>0.005 Cle a n in g W a ll s Totally dissatisfied 3 12.0 2 3.6 3 5.7 0 0 8 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 3 12.0 5 9.1 5 9.4 0 0 13 9.0 Moderately satisfied 6 24.0 16 29.1 14 26.4 2 16.7 38 26.2 Mostly satisfied 7 28.0 26 47.3 25 47.2 7 58.3 65 44.9 Absolutely satisfied 6 24.0 6 10.9 6 11.3 3 25.0 21 14.4 Total 25 100.0 55 100.0 53 100.0 12 100.0 145 100.0 X2=10.443 p>0.005 Cle a n in g W in d o w s Totally dissatisfied 3 9.7 2 2.9 2 3.0 0 0 7 3.9 Mostly dissatisfied 3 9.7 6 8.6 6 9.1 0 0 15 8.2 Moderately satisfied 3 9.7 15 21.4 14 21.2 3 20.0 35 19.2 Mostly satisfied 16 51.6 33 47.1 29 44.0 10 6.7 88 48.4 Absolutely satisfied 6 19.3 14 20.0 15 22.7 2 13.3 37 20.3 Total 31 100.0 70 100.0 66 100.0 15 100.0 182 100.0 X2=8.730 p>0.005 Co llec tin g G a rb a g e Totally dissatisfied 2 6.4 1 1.5 5 7.8 1 6.7 9 5.0 Mostly dissatisfied 2 6.4 8 11.8 5 7.8 2 13.3 17 9.6 Moderately satisfied 6 19.4 19 27.9 12 18.8 2 13.3 39 21.9 Mostly satisfied 14 45.2 27 39.7 29 45.3 6 40.0 76 42.7 Absolutely satisfied 7 22.6 13 19.1 13 20.3 4 26.7 37 20.8 Total 31 100.0 68 100.0 64 100.0 15 100.0 178 100.0 X2=6.702 p>0.005

(8)

Table 2 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Age (continued) Satisfaction

Age

18-25 26-33 34-41 42+ Total

Ca rry in g G a rb a g e Totally dissatisfied 2 6.4 2 2.9 9 14.1 1 6.7 14 7.9 Mostly dissatisfied 2 6.4 13 19.1 10 15.6 3 20.0 28 15.7 Moderately satisfied 6 19.4 21 30.9 13 20.3 2 13.3 42 23.6 Mostly satisfied 14 45.2 22 32.4 21 32.8 6 40.0 63 35.4 Absolutely satisfied 7 22.6 10 14.7 11 17.2 3 20.0 31 17.4 Total 31 100.0 68 100.0 64 100.0 15 100.0 178 100.0 X2=12.468 p>0.005 Wet F lo o r cle a n in g ( w c, ba thr o o m) Totally dissatisfied 3 9.7 2 2.8 4 6.3 1 6.7 10 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 3 9.7 7 9.9 4 6.3 2 13.3 16 8.8 Moderately satisfied 9 29.0 15 21.1 9 14.0 3 20.0 36 19.9 Mostly satisfied 8 25.8 27 38.0 34 53.1 6 40.0 75 41.4 Absolutely satisfied 8 25.8 20 28.2 13 20.3 3 20.0 44 24.3 Total 31 100.0 71 100.0 64 100.0 15 100.0 181 100.0 X2=10.536 p>0.005

Table 3 shows that for all education levels, participants that are “mostly satisfied” with sweeping floors and cleaning windows have rank the highest.

In this study, the relationship between the employee education level and their satisfaction with “polishing floors” was found to be statistically significant; while graduates of high school and higher schools were reported to be less satisfied than the others with “polishing floors” (Table 3) (p<0.05).

In the study carried out by Yertutan et al. (1995), it was noted that the level of satisfaction decreased as education level increased. However, in İncir’s (1990) and Erdoğan’s (1992) study, it was found that education level does not have any effects on employee satisfaction.

(9)

Table 3 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Education Level

Satisfaction Illiterate and Educational Level

elementary school Secondary school High school Higher school Total

Swee pin g F lo o rs Totally dissatisfied 0 0 2 3.2 2 4.1 0 0 4 2.2 Mostly dissatisfied 0 0 2 3.2 1 2.0 0 0 3 1.6 Moderately satisfied 11 15.9 12 19.0 7 14.3 0 0 30 16.4 Mostly satisfied 41 59.5 32 50.8 27 55.1 2 100.0 102 55.7 Absolutely satisfied 17 24.6 15 23.8 12 24.5 0 0 44 24.1 Toplam 69 37.7 63 34.4 49 26.8 2 1.1 183 100.0 X2=7.145 p>0.005 M o pp in g Totally dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 0 0 1 0.5 Mostly dissatisfied 0 0 2 3.2 2 4.1 0 0 4 2.2 Moderately satisfied 7 10.0 7 11.3 10 20.5 0 0 24 13.1 Mostly satisfied 42 60.0 37 59.7 18 36.7 2 100.0 99 54.1 Absolutely satisfied 21 30.0 16 25.8 18 36.7 0 0 55 30.1 Total 70 38.2 62 33.9 49 26.8 2 1.1 183 100.0 X2=14.364 p>0.005 B ru sh in g t h e F lo o rs by U si n g M a ch ine Totally dissatisfied 1 1.6 2 3.6 4 9.1 0 0 7 4.2 Mostly dissatisfied 2 3.2 5 8.9 3 6.8 0 0 10 6.1 Moderately satisfied 10 15.9 8 14.3 11 25.0 1 50.0 30 18.2 Mostly satisfied 34 53.9 31 55.4 14 31.8 1 50.0 80 48.5 Absolutely satisfied 16 25.4 10 17.8 12 27.3 0 0 38 23.0 Total 63 38.2 56 33.9 44 26.7 2 1.2 165 100.0 X2=13.375 p>0.005 P o lis hi ng F lo o rs Totally dissatisfied 2 3.9 3 6.2 4 9.8 0 0 9 6.3 Mostly dissatisfied 1 2.0 4 8.3 5 12.2 1 100.0 11 7.8 Moderately satisfied 10 19.6 7 14.6 13 31.7 0 0 30 21.3 Mostly satisfied 26 51.0 27 56.3 8 19.5 0 0 61 43.3 Absolutely satisfied 12 23.5 7 14.6 11 26.8 0 0 30 21.3 Total 51 36.2 48 34.0 41 29.1 1 0.7 141 100.0 X2=29.116 p<0.005

(10)

Table 3 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Education Level (continued) Satisfaction Öğrenim Durumu Illiterate and elementary school Secondary

school school High Higher school Total

Dus tin g Totally dissatisfied 2 2.9 3 4.8 1 2.1 0 0 6 3.3 Mostly dissatisfied 5 7.1 7 11.3 5 10.4 0 0 17 9.3 Moderately satisfied 3 4.3 4 6.4 6 12.5 0 0 13 7.1 Mostly satisfied 32 45.7 28 45.2 19 39.6 1 50.0 80 44.0 Absolutely satisfied 28 40.0 20 32.3 17 35.4 1 50.0 66 36.3 Total 70 38.5 62 34.1 48 26.3 2 1.1 182 100.0 X2=5.495 p>0.005 Cle a n in g W a ll s Totally dissatisfied 1 1.8 3 5.9 4 10.3 0 0 8 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 2 3.7 4 7.8 6 15.4 1 100.0 13 9.0 Moderately satisfied 10 18.5 14 27.5 14 35.9 0 0 38 26.2 Mostly satisfied 32 59.2 23 45.1 10 25.6 0 0 65 44.9 Absolutely satisfied 9 16.7 7 13.7 5 12.8 0 0 21 14.4 Total 51 37.2 51 35.2 39 26.9 1 0.7 145 100.0 X2=25.231 p>0.005 Cle a n in g W in d o w s Totally dissatisfied 1 1.4 2 3.2 4 8.2 0 0 7 3.9 Mostly dissatisfied 3 4.3 3 4.8 9 18.4 0 0 15 8.2 Moderately satisfied 13 18.8 12 19.4 10 20.4 0 0 35 19.2 Mostly satisfied 36 52.2 33 53.2 17 34.7 2 100.0 88 48.4 Absolutely satisfied 16 23.2 12 19.4 9 18.4 0 0 37 20.3 Total 69 37.9 62 34.1 49 26.9 2 1.1 182 100.0 X2=16.684 p>0.005 Co llec tin g G a rb a g e Totally dissatisfied 2 3.0 3 4.9 4 8.7 0 0 9 5.0 Mostly dissatisfied 9 13.0 4 6.5 4 8.7 0 0 17 9.6 Moderately satisfied 9 13.0 15 24.6 15 32.6 0 0 39 21.9 Mostly satisfied 32 46.4 27 44.3 16 34.8 1 50.0 76 42.7 Absolutely satisfied 17 24.6 12 19.7 7 15.2 1 50.0 37 20.8 Total 69 38.8 61 34.3 46 25.8 2 1.1 178 100.0 X2=12.131 p>0.005

(11)

Table 3 Distribution of Housekeeping Staff by Satisfaction and Education Level (continued) Satisfaction Öğrenim Durumu Illiterate and elementary school Secondary school High school Higher school Total

Ca rry in g G a rb a g e Totally dissatisfied 4 5.8 4 6.6 6 12.8 0 0 14 7.9 Mostly dissatisfied 12 17.4 10 16.7 6 12.8 0 0 28 15.7 Moderatel y satisfied 12 17.4 14 23.3 16 34.0 0 0 42 23.6 Mostly satisfied 27 39.1 22 36.7 13 27.6 1 50.0 63 35.4 Absolutely satisfied 14 20.3 10 16.7 6 12.8 1 50.0 31 17.4 Total 69 38.8 60 33.7 47 26.4 2 1.1 178 100.0 X2=9.946 p>0.005 Wet F lo o r cle a n in g ( w c, ba thr o o m) Totally dissatisfied 1 1.5 5 8.1 4 8.3 0 0 10 5.5 Mostly dissatisfied 8 11.6 5 8.1 3 6.3 0 0 16 8.8 Moderatel y satisfied 11 15.9 14 22.5 11 30.0 0 0 36 19.9 Mostly satisfied 31 44.9 28 45.2 15 31.2 1 50.0 75 41.4 Absolutely satisfied 18 26.1 10 16.1 15 31.2 1 50.0 44 24.3 Total 69 38.1 62 34.3 48 26.5 2 1.1 181 100.0 X2=11.093 p>0.005

Conclusion and Recommendations

For this study, carried out in order to identify satisfaction of hospital housekeeping staff regarding their jobs, the results can be summarized as follows:

 Among the staff, the number of those mostly satisfied with their job is highest.  Male employees are generally more satisfied with jobs such as “brushing floors

by using a machine”, “polishing floors”, “cleaning walls”, “collecting garbage” and “carrying garbage”.

 The relationship between the employees’ satisfaction with their job and their education level was found to be significant.

(12)

 Awareness must be raised among staff regarding the importance of their job for both the institution and themselves in order to increase their job satisfaction and so that they can be motivated further.

 The eligibility of the employees must be taken into consideration during the recruitment process.

 The age, gender and education level of the staff must be considered while undertaking task distribution.

 Other studies could be conducted to identify staff expectations that are effective in increasing their satisfaction.

References

Aksu, S., Terzioğlu, G. (1998); Hastanelerde Çalışan Kurum ev İdaresi Personelinin Sevip Sevmediği İşlerin İncelenmesi, 1. Ulusal Kurum Ev İdaresi Kongresi, 21-23 Ekim, Ankara.

Aslan, Ş., Özata, M., Atayeter, C. (2004); Sağlık İşletmelerinde Ekip Yönetimi: Fırsatlar ve Sınırlılıklar, Standard Ekonomik ve Teknik Dergi, 43 (516).

Calt, S.S., Miller, D.S., Irwin, R.D. (1991); Supervision Working with People, Homewood, Boston.

Ehtiyar, R. (1995); Otel İşletmelerinde Çalışan Personelin İş Tatmini ve Verimliliğin Bir Göstergesi Olan İşgören Devir Hızı ile İlişkisinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Antalya Yöresindeki Beş Yıldızlı Otel İşletmelerinde Araştırmalı Bir Uygulama, Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Antalya.

Erdoğan, İ. (1992); Kamu Kuruluşlarında Sözleşmeli ve Memur Statüsünde Çalışan Personelin Bazı Değişkenlere Göre İş Doyum Düzeyinin Karşılaştırılması, H.Ü. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara.

Güler, M. (1990), Endüstri İşçilerinin İş Doyumu ve İş Verimine Depresyon, Kaygı ve Diğer Bazı Değişkenlerin Etkisi, H.Ü. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.

(13)

İncir, G. (1990); Çalışanların İş Doyumu Üzerine Bir İnceleme, MPM Yayın No: 401, Ankara.

Luthans, F. (1992); Organizational Behavior, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill.Inc., New York.

Messing, K., Chatigny, C., Courville, J. (1998); Light and Heavy Work in the Housekeeping Service of A Hospital, Applied Ergonomics, Vol: 29, No: 6pp. 451-459.

Şafak, Ş. (1997); Kurumlarda Ev İdaresi, Damla Matbaacılık, Ankara.

Taner, B. (1993); Büyük Otellerde Yönetim Biçimlerinin Personel Üzerindeki Etkileri ve Yöneticilerin Personele Yaklaşımlarında Bir Sistem Önerisi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi, Ankara.

Tutum, C. (1979); Personel Yönetimi, Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü Yayınları No: 179, Ankara.

Yertutan, C., Sökmen, A., Öztop, A. (1995); Hastanede Çalışan Ev İdaresi Personelinin İşlerinden Memnun Olma Durumları ve Bunu Etkileyen Faktörler, 5. Ergonomi Kongresi, İstanbul.

Yertutan, C. (2000); Kurumlarda Ev İdaresi Hizmetlerinin Verimliliği, Minpa Matbaacılık, Ankara.

Yıldırım, S. (1997); Profesyonel Hastane Yöneticilerinin Nitelikleri Konusunda Sağlık Meslekleri Mensuplarının Ön Kabulleri, H.Ü. Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Bilim Uzmanlığı Tezi, Ankara.