AN ANALYSIS OF THE SATISFACTION OF HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING STAFF ... · 1 an analysis of the...

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


X2=41.282 p<0.005

Polishing

Floors


X2=35.217 p<0.005

Dusting


X2=9.046 p>0.005

Cleaning

Walls


X2=24.233 p<0.005

Cleaning

Windows


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


X2=14.25 p<0.005

Wet Floor

cleaning (wc,

bathroom)


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 %

Sw

eep

ing

Flo

ors

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

Mo

pp

ing

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

Bru

shin

g t

he

Flo

ors

by

Usi

ng

Ma

chin

e

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

Po

lish

ing F

loors

Totally dissatisfied 3 12.5 2 3.9 4 7.7 0 0 9 6.3 Mostly dissatisfied 2 8.3 6 11.5 2 3.9 1 7.6 11 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 Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Du

stin

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

an

ing

Wall

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


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

an

ing

Win

dow

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

arb

ag

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 Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Ca

rryin

g G

arb

age

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


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

Flo

or

clea

nin

g (

wc,

ba

thro

om

)

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


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 Educational Level

Illiterate and

elementary

school

Secondary

school High

school Higher

school

Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Sw

eep

ing

Flo

ors

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 X

2=7.145 p>0.005

Mo

pp

ing

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

Bru

shin

g t

he

Flo

ors

by

Usi

ng

Ma

chin

e

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

Po

lish

ing F

loors

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 High

school Higher

school

Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Du

stin

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

an

ing

Wall

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

an

ing

Win

dow

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

arb

ag

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 Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Ca

rryin

g G

arb

age

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

Flo

or

clea

nin

g (

wc,

ba

thro

om

)

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.

In the light of the research findings, it can be recommended that:

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.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SATISFACTION OF HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING STAFF ... · 1 an analysis of the...

Documents

Transcript of AN ANALYSIS OF THE SATISFACTION OF HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING STAFF ... · 1 an analysis of the...