Education transforms people into a better way of living. Students’ academic excellence and careers depend upon teachers' intellectual and teaching skills. To transform the students, teachers should be satisfied with their jobs. The outermost feeling employees should feel in an organization is job satisfaction. Teaching is a service more than a job to educate students. The work autonomy practices provided by the institutions for teachers will help in choosing the way of teaching, scheduling the work, and decision-making in task completion. Deci& Ryan (2000) explained Self-determination theory based on work autonomy by way of psychological necessity. It highlights the significance of autonomy in enhancing intrinsic motivation, emotional happiness, and progressive performance in the place of work. The effectiveness of autonomy in employee manners, commitment, and job satisfaction is explained by Deci & Ryan (1985) in the conceptual framework of Self-determination theory. Teachers who experience autonomy in work will feel effective in scheduling, teaching, deciding, and completing academic and extracurricular work.

A consistent relationship is seen between work autonomy and self-efficacy in this research. Self-efficacy is a person’s conviction about his potential to attain performance goals (Bandura, 1977, 1988, 1997). Self-efficacy is the self-assurance needed to accomplish an achievement. Freedom at work (work autonomy) causes a feeling of belongingness for their work, decisions, and creativities (Susanti Saragih,2011). Employees may become more self-efficacious as a result of feeling competent and effective (Wang & Netemeyer, 2002). Self-efficient employees work more effectively even if the situation or target is combatting (Kreitner & Kinicki,2004). Low, self-efficient employees easily give up before completing tasks (Susanti Saragih,2011). Autonomous employees will have self-esteem and self-efficacy in attaining their goals, leading to job satisfaction. Self-efficacy has a considerable relationship with job satisfaction. Efficient work autonomy practices improve the performance of employees and creativity, and they help employees become self-efficient in facing challenges and achieving job satisfaction (Susanti Saragih,2011). Employees who feel free in their jobs to an extent will perform the tasks in a way suitable for them and become adaptive, creative, and self-efficient in nature, doing things in a better way with job satisfaction.

Albert Bandura (1977) introduced the term Self-efficacy as one's confidence in one's talent to do the work and meet the preferred results. Self-efficacy has a dominant place in Social Cognitive theory, in which people’s insight about their abilities affects their conduct, movements, and expressions. Self-efficacy is perceptions of one's capacities to perform tasks better (Bandura,1986). People with higher self-efficacy will put in more hard work, determination, and bounciness while facing troubles, causing better accomplishment and fulfilment (Bandura,1997). Bong and Skaalvik (2003) explained that self-efficacy is judgments about a person's abilities and skills and what he can accomplish with those traits. So, self-efficacy is perceptions of what one can do with all one's abilities and skills. Teachers' self-efficacy is self-assurance in their skills and abilities to schedule, establish, and perform the tasks for educational purposes (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).

Job satisfaction is a widely used term in Organizational Behavior, yet the exact factors that contribute to it remain unknown (Taylor & Westover,2010). Without job satisfaction, employees are unlikely to work with full commitment. An organization's productivity is heavily dependent on employee satisfaction (Elton Mayo, 1930). Job satisfaction is a significant factor that influences employees' work in all dimensions, including psychological, emotional, and behavioral norms, and it affects the well-being of both employees and the organization (Judge & Klinger,2008). Satisfied employees are more likely to work hard for the organization's success (Berry,1997). An organization is likely to be more efficient if its employees are satisfied (Robbins& Judge,2007). This underscores the crucial role that job satisfaction plays in organizational productivity and success.

Job satisfaction is essential for every organization's well-being and growth. Job satisfaction is unavoidable for employees who work hard in an organization. Organizations can implement some work autonomy practices to make the employees more satisfied. This may make the employees more satisfied and self-efficient. This study deals with the direct effect of work autonomy on the JS of teaching staff and the intervening effect of SE between WA and JS

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis

Work autonomy is the level at which a job grants liberty, individuality, option for task scheduling, and deciding steps for task completion. Work autonomy causes employees to feel responsible for their performance, leading to intrinsic motivation and effective performance (Hackman & Oldham,1975). Work autonomy perception leads to recognizable achievements (Gellatly & Irving,2001). Work autonomy practices improve job performance and satisfaction (Claessens et al., 2004). Work autonomy causes enhanced performance, and employees may feel capable and self-efficacious (Moye,2004). Meaningfully, employees get motivated to fulfill their tasks. There exists a significant relationship between work autonomy and self-efficacy (Wang & Netemeyer, 2002). A positive association exists between work autonomy and creativity (Kauffeld et al.,2006). Self-efficacy acts as a motivational factor (Gist & Mitchell,1992). According to Jiang et al. (2023), two types of work autonomy exist: goal autonomy and execution autonomy. Self-efficacy is a state of adaptiveness and perseverance to achieve goals. Self-efficacy is learning from experience. When autonomy experienced by the employee is high, the employee has to depend on their creativity, decisions, and efforts. These efforts make them more efficient at doing things in their manner and become self-efficient (Wang dan Netemeyer,2002). Self-efficient employees will put more effort into overcoming challenges (Kreitner& Kinicki,2004). From the studies the following hypotheses is formed

H1: Work autonomy has a significant relationship with Self-efficacy

Job satisfaction is an essential paradigm in an organization's culture that leads to organizational success connected to individual, organizational, and ethical results (Balzer et al.,1997). JS refers to the employees’ overall attitude toward the job (Porter et al.,1975). JS shows individuals' commitment toward a job role (Lease,1998). Brief (1998) explains JS as an internal stage expressed by collective favour/disfavour by employees. JS is a state of feeling and expression from employees’ evaluation of their jobs. Oshagbemi (2003) explained job satisfaction as an assessment of actual and desired outcomes from the job.

Job Characteristics Theory by Hackman and Oldham (1976) explained that JS raises employees’ intrinsic motivation towards their jobs. The job features that intrinsically encourage employees to have better job outcomes are satisfaction, absenteeism, motivation, performance, and turnover, with three stages of mentality: knowledge of results, experiencing responsibility, and meaningfulness. According to this theory, a job acts as a motivating factor. Intrinsic factors inside the employees include freedom to choose the work speed (autonomy), their performance, etc. Extrinsic factors are factors external to the employee, such as working conditions, job security, and other fringe benefits. Rose (2001) identified that extrinsic and intrinsic factors are essential for satisfaction.

 Job Satisfaction is the level of willingness or gladness experienced by employees. The freedom given by work autonomy enhances job satisfaction. Work autonomy plays a role in intrinsic motivation and task satisfaction (Morrison et al.,2005). A study by Finn (2001) found that work autonomy is essential for the job satisfaction of nurses. The convenience of work autonomy is practical for job satisfaction among temporary and permanent workers (Cuyper & Witte,2005). According to DeCarlo and Agarwal (1999), work autonomy affects the job satisfaction of salespersons. WA is essential for development at the professional level (Gray & Pratt,1989; Hart & Rotem,1995) and significantly affects JS (Weismann et al.,1980; Blegen,1993). WA is essential for the well-being of employees as it can reduce work stress (Karasek,1998). WA leads enhanced performance (Sarigih,2011) and leads JA (Spector,1997; Judge et al.,2001). As per the studies, employees with a high degree of autonomy cause higher JS. According to these studies, a hypothesis is generated as follows

H2: Work autonomy has a significant direct impact on Job Satisfaction.               

Self-efficacy positively influences job satisfaction (Susanti Saragih,2011). Self-efficacy made the employees more able, confident, competitive, and satisfied in their jobs. Work autonomy among employees will enhance self-efficacy as a sense of belongingness in their work and decisions. They can explore their ideas at the work level without much control and guidance, leading to a high work autonomy and self-efficacy bond. Work autonomy practices put forward a feeling of outcomes of the job prior to the result of their hard work (Wang & Netemeyer,2002; DeCarlo & Agarwal, 1999). The obligation to their job causes an adequate response, favourable approaches, and enhanced JS (Susanti Saragih,2011). A positive relationship exists between SE and JS (Cohrs et al., 2006). Employees with enhanced self-efficacy will attain job satisfaction as self-confidence and proficiency made by self-efficacy give pleasure to the job (Purwanto,2002). In a study of corporate employees in India by Mohite and James (2024), a significant relationship exists between SE, WA, and JS. These statements will generate the following hypothesis

H3: Work autonomy significantly affects JS and SE as a mediating variable.

H4: SE has a direct effect on JS.

The relationship between the constructs WA, SE, and JS with hypotheses is illustrated in Figure 1

Figure 1 Research Frame Model

Data were collected from teaching staff in Arts colleges in Kerala using a convenient sampling method. 348 samples were taken for analysis purposes. The questionnaire consists of two parts: questions related to demographic variables and work autonomy, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction variables. Structural equation Modelling in AMOS software and SPSS are used for data analysis. Work autonomy is measured using the scale of James A. Breaugh (1985), which has 8 items. The variables are work schedule autonomy, work method autonomy, and work criteria autonomy for teachers.

Self-efficacy of teachers means teachers’ confidence in their skills in teaching and controlling students, managing the classroom, and creating a positive environment for learning and student engagement. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy’s (2001) Teacher Self-Efficacy Model is meant to measure the self-efficacy of teaching staff.

It consists of three items: strategies for giving instructions, engagement of students, and management in the classroom.

JS is measured using a scale from Spector's (1985) model of the Job Satisfaction Survey. It includes nine dimensions: pay, opportunities for growth, supervision, fringe benefits, recognition based on performance, working environment, coworkers, organisation culture, and communication between colleagues. A 5-point Likert scale is used for data collection and analysis.

Table 1 Descriptive Analysis of the Samples

Table 1 displays the descriptive analysis of the samples. Teachers in arts colleges in Kerala are taken as the population. Data was collected from teaching staff using a structured questionnaire.348 samples were taken using the convenience sampling method. The sample size is adequate for analysing statistical data (Farr & Timm,2004; Crimp & Wright,1995; Kumar,2009; Field,2009). Most of the teachers who responded are in the age group below 30 (32.5%), gender group of male (59.5%), qualification with PG level (78%), marital status of unmarried (51.7%), experience below 5years (58.9%) and income per month below in the range of 30,000(57%).   Structural equation Modeling is adopted for multivariate data analysis (Hair et al.,2017).

Data Analysis

The reliability of the constructs WA, SE, and JS is assessed through Cronbach’s alpha. The obtained alpha values for WA, SE, and JS are 0.926, 0.890, and 0.935, respectively. The values are more significant than 0.7, showing high reliability (Nunnally,1978).

The validity of the constructs is assessed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) values

Table 3. Inter-correlation of Constructs with Square Roots of AVE

Note: The values in brackets are the square root of the AVE value                 

Primary Data

Table 3 shows the intercorrelation of all constructs WA, SE, and JS with square roots of AVE values. The average of item-to-total correlation coefficients (>0.622) of each construct shows the validity of the scales. This indicates an acceptable range of validity of the constructs (Kerlinger,1999). The Convergent and Discriminant validity of the constructs WA, SE, and JS are obtained from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The factor loading values are greater than the value of 0.5, which shows an acceptable range of convergent validity for all constructs (Hair et al.,2017). Table 2 demonstrates the CFA values, Cronbach's alpha, AVE, and composite reliability (CR value). The intercorrelation constructs with the square roots of AVE values are represented in Table 3. The square root of AVE values is greater than the values of intercorrelation of constructs, showing the constructs’ discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker,1981).

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is displayed in Figure 2 which is applied to the structural path model and the testing of hypotheses. AMOS 22 is used for SEM analysis. The exogenous construct WA influences the endogenous constructs SE and JS. The model shows the intervening effect of SE on WA & JS and the direct impact of WA on JS. All the effects are seen to be statistically significant.

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model Results

The model’s overall fitness is determined from parsimonious, incremental, and absolute fit indices.

Parsimonious Fit Indices

According to Mulaik et al. (1989), the Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI)= 0.697(>0.5) and Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) =0.802(>0.5) of the model.

Incremental Fit Indices

Bagozzi and Yi (1988) suggested Comparative Fit Index (CFI) =0.969(>0.9), Normal Fit Index (NFI) =0.944(>0.9), Relative Fit Index (RFI)=0.934(>0.9), and Incremental Fit Index (IFI) =0.970(>0.9) .

Absolute Fit Indices

According to Hair et al. (1998), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) are used to measure the accuracy of the model. The AGFI and RMSEA values obtained are 0.890(close to 0.9) and 0.057(<0.08), respectively.

Table 4 represents the measured model fit values.

Table 4. Measured Model Fit values

Table 5 represents the Fitness of the model concerning the recommended value.

Table 5 Fitness of the model

Tables 4 and 5 show the goodness of model fit. Cole (1987), Bentler (1990), and Marsh et al. (1988) reported that NFI , CFI, GFI and AGFI values are more than 0.9 show model accuracy in a good level. The AGFI value is nearer to 0.9, GFI more than 0.9, and NFI more than 0.9, so the fitness of the model is in an accepted level.

As per Kline (1998), a value of CMIN/DF less than 3 represents a sound fitness level. The obtained CMIN/DF value is 2.114, so the model fit is good.

Table 6. Test Results of Hypotheses

Note: *** indicates p < 0.001

From Table 6, WA significantly affects SE, supporting hypothesis H1. WA possesses a direct significant effect on JS; thus, hypothesis H2 is accepted. SE significantly affects JS, so hypothesis H4 is also accepted.

Mediation effect

Cheung &Lau (2008) suggested the Bootstrapping technique for detecting mediation. The bootstrapping test determined the effect of SE (mediating construct) between WA and JS by using 5000 bootstrap samples. The mediation effect and total effects of the constructs are shown in Table 7 below. Here, the target construct is JS, and the exogeneous constructs are WA and SE

Table 7 Mediation and Total Effect

The mediation effect is significant as the total effect of ꞵ=0.772 from the construct(exogeneous) WA to the construct(endogenous) JS.

Hypothesis H3: WAàSEàJS is confirmed

This study analytically proves a correlation exists between WA, SE, and JS constructs. The SEM results show that WA significantly affects SE. Thus, hypothesis one(H1) is accepted. SE significantly affects JS. Thus, hypothesis two(H2) is valid. For every organization to sustain itself, employees’ job satisfaction is essential. The mediation effect of SE between WA and JS is significant, so the results support hypothesis three(H3) and are confirmed by the Bootstrapping test. Predominantly, the direct impact of WA on JS is more effective than the mediation role of SE. Thus, hypothesis four is also supported. From the studies of Pousette and Hansen (2002), Hackman and Oldham (1980), and Fried and Ferris(1987), there exists a significant direct relationship between WA and JS. For the success of the organization, especially educational institutions, the authorities should ensure some freedom to their employees, especially the teachers, to decide their way of teaching, class handling, and student engagement actions. This independence and liberty satisfied them and gave them better performance in their field. For every sector, employees expect some freedom at their job to work effectively and interestingly. This makes them more creative and self-efficient. Self-efficacy also makes them satisfied as they have a feeling of belongingness in their work results.

IMPLICATIONS

The research study focused on teaching staff in arts colleges in Kerala. However, some bias may exist in the sampling results. Management and institutional practices are different, so there are limitations to work autonomy practices in colleges. The study of constructs on demographic variables is not included, so there is scope for further research. For the varying learning and teaching cultures, the teachers can adopt new tools and technologies for further development.

DECLARATIONS

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

CONSENT DECLARATION

Human participation is involved because my research is associated with teaching staff in Arts colleges in Kerala.

1. Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. B., & Bachiochi, P. D. (1997). Users' manual for the Job Descriptive Index and the Job Involvement Questionnaire. Western Michigan University, Department of Psychology.
2. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational application of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of Management, 13(2), 275–302.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
6. Berry, C. M. (1997). Employee satisfaction and organizational success. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(2), 194-210.
7. Blegen, M. A. (1993). Nurses' job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of related variables. Nursing Research, 42(1), 36-41.
8. Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Sage Publications.
9. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40.
10. Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 517-523.
11. Cuyper, N. D., & Witte, H. D. (2005). The relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction among temporary and permanent workers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 253-267.
12. DeCarlo, T. E., & Agarwal, R. (1999). Job autonomy and job satisfaction: A comparison between salespersons and non-salespersons. Journal of Business Research, 44(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00053-9
13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
15. Elton Mayo, E. (1930). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Macmillan.

       Farr, J. L., & Timm, R. L. (2004). Applied measurement: A multivariate approach. Oxford University Press.

16. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

       Finn, P. (2001). The role of work autonomy in job satisfaction of nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31(5), 259-264.

17. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.
18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
19. Gellatly, I. R., & Irving, P. G. (2001). The relationship between perceived autonomy and organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22(3), 355-372.
20. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
21. Gray, A. M., & Pratt, P. (1989). Autonomy and job satisfaction in the professional sector. Work and Occupations, 16(1), 66-89.
22. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.
23. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
24. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.
25. Hart, W. L., & Rotem, A. (1995). Work autonomy and professional development: A study in job satisfaction among teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 464-471.
26. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2017). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Pearson.
28. James, L. R., & Mulaik, S. A. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.
29. Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2008). Job satisfaction and job performance: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 25-36.
30. Jiang, X., He, Q., & Huang, S. (2023). The role of work autonomy in fostering employee creativity: A multi-dimensional perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(1), 45-67.
31. Karasek, R. A. (1998). Demand/Control model: A social, emotional, and physiological response. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 24(3), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199809)24:3<195::AID-AJIM5>3.0.CO;2-8
32. Kauffeld, S., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Ziegler, M. (2006). The effects of autonomy and teamwork on job performance: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1396-1410.
33. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2004). Organizational behavior (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
34. Lease, S. H. (1998). The relationship between job satisfaction and employee commitment in the context of professional roles. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(5), 506-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199810)19:5<506::AID-JOB857>3.0.CO;2-X
35. Mayo, E. (1930). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Macmillan.
36. Moye, M. J. (2004). The relationship between work autonomy, self-efficacy, and job performance in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00068-3
37. Morrison, E. W., O'Neill, R. M., & Barclay, L. (2005). Work autonomy and job satisfaction: A review of the literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 233-246.
38. Mohite, A., & James, R. (2024). A study on the relationship between self-efficacy, work autonomy, and job satisfaction in corporate employees in India. Indian Journal of Management and Organization, 21(3), 256-267.
39. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
40. Oshagbemi, T. (2003). Satisfaction with co-workers’ behaviour and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 35-49.
41. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1975). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 603-609.
42. Pousette, A., & Hansen, P. (2002). Job autonomy, social support, and work characteristics as predictors of psychological well-being in working men and women. Work & Stress, 16(3), 235-246.
43. Purwanto, W. (2002). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and employee performance: A study on Indonesian workers. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(4), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0148-2963(02)00013-1
44. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
45. Rose, R. (2001). The role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 46(2), 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0148-2963(00)00113-7
46. Saragih, S. (2011). The effects of job autonomy on work outcomes: Self-efficacy as an intervening variable. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 4(3), 203–215.
47. Saragih, S. (2011). The impact of autonomy on job satisfaction and employee performance. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(3), 145-148.
48. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. *Journal of Educational Psychology.