Administrative Management and Faculty Job Satisfaction in Higher Education: A Documentary Review ()
1. Introduction
Faculty job satisfaction is a relevant issue for the management of higher education institutions (HEIs), because the academic work experience is shaped within organizational structures that distribute responsibilities, resources, degrees of autonomy, opportunities for participation, and recognition. Consequently, administrative management cannot be reduced to the technical coordination of procedures; it also establishes concrete conditions for teaching, research, outreach, and other university functions.
Evidence from Mexico has shown that organizational climate is positively associated with job satisfaction in higher education (Soria Reséndez et al., 2019). Assessments related to leadership, communication, motivation, institutional identity, and teamwork have also been identified (Palma Gardea et al., 2022). These dimensions are relevant because they connect formal administrative processes with the way faculty members interpret their relationship with the institution.
Work organization constitutes another central component. Institutional reforms and transformations may modify academic tasks and, consequently, dimensions of faculty job satisfaction (Olaskoaga-Larrauri et al., 2023). In university telework settings, resources, autonomy, skills, and work-life balance have also proved relevant to satisfaction (Hinojosa-López et al., 2023). Taken together, these findings indicate that the work experience does not depend on a single job attribute, but on organizational configurations that combine material conditions, professional relationships, and management practices.
Recent literature reinforces this multidimensional interpretation. Celis Domínguez (2025) conceptualizes university faculty job satisfaction as a subjective, continuous, and dynamic evaluation. Complementarily, a meta-analysis of leadership and academic staff job satisfaction found a positive relationship of moderate magnitude between the two constructs (Kasalak et al., 2022). In Mexico, Muñoz-Chávez and López-Chau (2022) further showed that organizational phenomena such as work overload and the devaluation of work can be examined through job-satisfaction responses. More recently, Rangel-Lyne et al. (2026) documented that workplace happiness may mediate the links between socially responsible institutional practices and faculty organizational commitment.
Despite these advances, the evidence remains partially fragmented. Some studies focus on climate; others on leadership, working conditions, satisfaction, well-being, or commitment. This dispersion makes it difficult to observe the set of administrative mechanisms that structure faculty work experience. A documentary review guided by management categories makes it possible to integrate these findings without assuming that all observed relationships are equivalent or causal.
The research problem therefore lies in the need to articulate the evidence on management and job satisfaction among higher education faculty from an administrative perspective. The research question guiding the study is: Which dimensions of administrative management are related to faculty job satisfaction in higher education institutions, according to the scientific evidence reviewed between 2016 and 2026? The objective is to analyze these dimensions, identify convergences and divergences, and propose an interpretive structure useful for university management and future research.
The contribution of this article is to shift the discussion from isolated factors toward a relational interpretation. Administrative management is proposed as an organizational framework that articulates three levels: management practices—leadership, communication, participation, organization, and recognition; conditions of the work experience—autonomy, resources, workload, relationships, and development; and attitudinal outcomes—satisfaction, well-being, commitment, and belonging. This proposition does not assume demonstrated causality; rather, it constitutes an interpretive synthesis of documented associations.
2. Theoretical Foundations
2.1. Administrative Management and Work Experience in Higher Education
Administrative management can be understood as an articulated set of planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and monitoring processes through which an institution aligns resources and actions with its objectives. In higher education, these processes have both organizational and human dimensions: decisions concerning task allocation, communication, participation, evaluation, resources, and recognition delimit the conditions under which academic staff perform their work.
From this perspective, management is not exhausted by procedural compliance. The same formal structure may produce different work experiences depending on role clarity, communication quality, the leadership style of institutional authorities, and degrees of autonomy. Administrative analysis therefore requires consideration of both formal arrangements and the everyday practices through which decisions are implemented.
Organizational climate is treated here as a perceptual synthesis of management practices and workplace conditions, not as a discrete administrative intervention. Faculty perceptions of leadership, communication, support, and working arrangements reflect both institutional practices and the conditions in which work occurs. Studies of Mexican higher education report associations between climate and satisfaction (Soria Reséndez et al., 2019), while research on climate and performance or workplace development provides contextual—not direct satisfaction—evidence (Pedraza-Melo et al., 2020; Salas-Torres et al., 2020). A systematized review identifies recurrent organizational components (Escobar & Toasa, 2026).
2.2. Faculty Job Satisfaction as a Multidimensional Construct
Job satisfaction expresses individuals’ evaluation of their work and the conditions under which they perform it. Among university faculty, it includes material, relational, professional, and symbolic components. Satisfaction may be associated with compensation and job stability, but also with autonomy, recognition, development opportunities, workplace relationships, a sense of belonging, and balance between work demands and personal life.
The dynamic perspective proposed by Celis Domínguez (2025) is useful for avoiding a static conception of satisfaction. Faculty expectations and needs change along with institutional conditions. Consistently, Hinojosa-López et al. (2023) show that, in telework situations, resource availability, autonomy, and work-life balance acquire particular importance. Satisfaction should therefore be understood as a context-dependent evaluation.
This interpretation also makes it possible to distinguish satisfaction, well-being, and commitment without treating them as synonyms. Satisfaction refers to the evaluation of work; well-being broadens the focus toward a positive and sustainable experience; and commitment refers to the bond with the organization. Rangel-Lyne et al. (2026) provide recent evidence among Mexican university faculty by showing relationships among institutional practices, workplace happiness, and affective and normative commitment.
2.3. Leadership, Communication, and Participation
Leadership constitutes an administrative practice because it intervenes in the translation of institutional policies into everyday decisions. Its relevance lies not only in the personal attributes of those who lead, but also in how they organize communication, distribute responsibilities, recognize contributions, and open—or restrict—spaces for participation.
The meta-analysis by Kasalak et al. (2022), based on 57 research data sets in higher education, found an overall positive and moderate relationship between leadership and academic staff job satisfaction. This result is important for the present review because it provides aggregated evidence that goes beyond isolated institutional studies. Nevertheless, a statistical association does not imply that a leadership style produces satisfaction by itself; context, organizational culture, and working conditions remain relevant.
Communication and participation complement this dimension. When decisions are communicated clearly and mechanisms exist to consult or involve faculty, perceptions of support and institutional trust may be strengthened. In contrast, role ambiguity, centralization, and lack of recognition may undermine the work experience. Leadership, communication, and participation are therefore analyzed as an interdependent core theme.
2.4. Work Organization, Recognition, and Well-Being
Work organization encompasses workload, distribution of functions, resources, autonomy, coordination between academic and administrative tasks, and work modalities. Olaskoaga-Larrauri et al. (2023) show that reform processes may reconfigure teaching activity and modify dimensions of satisfaction. Hinojosa-López et al. (2023) add that technological conditions and work-life balance should be incorporated into the analysis.
Professional recognition introduces a symbolic dimension. The valuation of work, institutional identity, and opportunities for growth help explain why two individuals with similar contractual conditions may evaluate their work experience differently. In addition, the devaluation of work appears as a relevant organizational phenomenon in the study by Muñoz-Chávez and López-Chau (2022).
Consequently, faculty well-being can be understood as an outcome related to the quality of work organization and management practices. This relationship requires caution: the reviewed evidence comes from diverse designs and is largely cross-sectional. Accordingly, this article refers to associations and interpretive patterns rather than universal causal effects.
3. Methodology
3.1. Design
A qualitative documentary review with a descriptive-interpretive scope was conducted. The methodological orientation follows the qualitative research principles discussed by Hernández-Sampieri and Mendoza Torres (2018). The design was intended to integrate scientific findings on administrative dimensions related to job satisfaction among higher education faculty. It was not conceived as a systematic review or a meta-analysis and therefore does not claim bibliometric exhaustiveness. This clarification delimits the scope of the inferences and avoids attributing to the corpus a representativeness that the design cannot guarantee.
The analytical unit was a scientific publication with identifiable methods and findings. The period of interest was 2016-2026. Studies involving higher education faculty and directly assessing satisfaction, well-being, or organizational commitment were prioritized. Evidence from other educational workers and studies addressing climate, performance, or workplace development were used only for contextual interpretation and were not treated as direct evidence of faculty satisfaction.
3.2. Search and Selection Strategy
The manuscript’s documented search sources were SciELO, Redalyc, Dialnet, scientific journal publisher portals, and Google Scholar as a complementary tool. Reported search concepts included “administrative management,” “educational management,” “faculty job satisfaction,” “university faculty,” “organizational climate,” “leadership,” “work organization,” “workplace well-being,” and “higher education,” together with Spanish equivalents. The original database-specific Boolean strings, search dates, retrieved-record totals, screened-record totals, and exclusion counts were not retained. Accordingly, exact historical search strings and a numerical selection flow cannot be reconstructed reliably from this manuscript. The 14 publications in Table 1 represent the identifiable core analytical studies, not the total number retrieved or screened. This is a material reproducibility limitation.
Peer-reviewed articles published within the defined period were included when they showed a direct relationship between at least one organizational or management dimension and variables associated with faculty satisfaction, well-being, or commitment; the higher education context was prioritized. Duplicates, non-academic dissemination documents, texts lacking sufficient methodological information, and studies only tangentially related to the categories were excluded. Methodological sources published before the period were retained only when necessary to justify the design.
Table 1. Synthesis of core studies in the corpus.
Study/context |
Design |
Dimension |
Contribution to the synthesis |
Evidence role |
Soria Reséndez et al. (2019), Mexico |
Quantitative |
Climate and satisfaction |
Positive association between organizational climate and job satisfaction. |
Direct: climate/satisfaction |
Pedraza-Melo et al. (2020), Mexico |
Pilot quantitative |
Climate and performance |
Provides evidence on the organizational environment and its relationship with work outcomes. |
Contextual: climate/performance |
Salas-Torres et al. (2020), Mexico |
Mixed-method diagnostic |
Climate and conditions |
Identifies organizational factors linked to work development. |
Contextual: climate/development |
Muñoz-Chávez & López-Chau (2022), Mexico |
Cross-sectional; 248 faculty members |
Satisfaction and organizational phenomena |
Links satisfaction responses with work overload and devaluation of work. |
Direct: satisfaction/organizational factors |
Palma Gardea et al. (2022), Mexico |
Survey; 81 faculty members |
Climate, leadership, and identity |
Reports favorable assessments of leadership, motivation, communication, and identity. |
Contextual: climate perceptions |
Ponce et al. (2022), Peru |
Correlational |
Climate and satisfaction |
Reports a strong positive relationship between climate and satisfaction. |
Direct: climate/satisfaction |
Kasalak et al. (2022), international |
Meta-analysis |
Leadership and satisfaction |
Estimates a moderate positive relationship between leadership and academic staff satisfaction. |
Direct: leadership/satisfaction |
Olaskoaga-Larrauri et al. (2023), Mexico |
Reform analysis |
Organization and satisfaction |
Shows that reorganization of teaching activity modifies dimensions of satisfaction. |
Direct: organization/satisfaction |
Hinojosa-López et al. (2023), Mexico |
Quantitative |
Telework and satisfaction |
Highlights resources, autonomy, skills, and work-life balance. |
Direct: telework/satisfaction |
Quispe-Morales et al. (2024), Peru |
Quantitative; 374 teachers |
Educational management and satisfaction |
Reports a significant relationship between educational management and satisfaction. |
Complementary: other educational context |
Celis Domínguez (2025), Mexico |
Mixed method |
University faculty satisfaction |
Conceptualizes satisfaction as a subjective, continuous, and dynamic evaluation. |
Direct: satisfaction conceptualization |
Quispe-Fernández et al. (2025), Peru |
Non-experimental |
Administrative management and satisfaction |
Reports the explanatory capacity of management regarding satisfaction in its context. |
Complementary: educational-sector workers |
Rangel-Lyne et al. (2026), Mexico |
Structural equation modeling; 204 faculty members |
Well-being and commitment |
Links institutional practices, workplace happiness, and organizational commitment. |
Direct: well-being/commitment |
Escobar & Toasa (2026), international |
Systematized review; 22 studies |
Climate and management practices |
Integrates leadership, communication, participation, and human resource management in HEIs. |
Contextual: HEI climate synthesis |
Note. “Direct” denotes evidence on satisfaction, well-being, or commitment among higher education faculty; “contextual” and “complementary” studies are not used to infer direct satisfaction associations. Classification is based on the outcomes and populations reported in the manuscript and should be checked against the full texts.
Selection was purposive and analytical. Consequently, the results should be read as a qualitative synthesis of relevant evidence rather than as prevalence estimates or an exhaustive map of all available scientific production. This methodological decision is consistent with the objective of identifying conceptual relationships and management patterns.
For transparency, the documented screening principles were thematic relevance to management or organizational conditions, identifiable methodological information, and educational context. Duplicates, non-academic texts, insufficiently documented methods, and tangentially related studies were described as exclusions in the original manuscript; their numerical frequencies are unknown. These are reported as stated criteria, not as a retrospectively verified screening log. No new search was conducted for this revision.
3.3. Analysis Procedure
The information was organized in a documentary matrix containing the following fields: author and year, country or context, objective, design or methodology, participants or unit of analysis, dimensions examined, relevant findings, and contribution to the research problem. Analytical reading and thematic coding were then conducted.
The initial categories were: a) administrative management—leadership, communication, participation, work organization, recognition, climate, professional development, and working conditions; and b) faculty work experience—satisfaction, motivation, well-being, commitment, belonging, and intrinsic and extrinsic components. During the analysis, findings were grouped according to thematic convergence, and differences arising from the context and design of each study were recorded.
Evidence classification and critical appraisal. Direct evidence refers to research involving university faculty and assessing job satisfaction, well-being, or commitment; contextual evidence refers to studies of other education-sector populations or different outcomes. The studies span surveys, correlational and cross-sectional designs, mixed-method studies, structural equation models, and research syntheses. Surveys and correlational designs describe associations but generally cannot establish temporal or causal direction; institution-specific samples constrain transferability. Meta-analytic evidence integrates multiple studies but depends on the quality and heterogeneity of primary studies. No standardized study-level risk-of-bias tool was applied, and this narrative appraisal should not be construed as a formal quality assessment.
Analytical rigor was strengthened through traceability among the research question, selection criteria, categories, results, and conclusions. Results reported by the original studies were distinguished from interpretations developed in this review. Because this was documentary research involving neither participants nor personal data, informed consent was not required; criteria of academic integrity, attribution, and faithful representation of sources were observed.
4. Results
The documentary synthesis identified five recurrent core themes: 1) organizational climate; 2) leadership, communication, and participation; 3) work organization and working conditions; 4) recognition and professional development; and 5) well-being, satisfaction, and organizational commitment. These themes do not operate in isolation; they form a network of conditions and practices through which management structures faculty members’ work experience.
Organizational climate was a recurrent construct in the selected studies, particularly those addressing satisfaction and institutional working conditions. This description reflects its repeated appearance and conceptual role in the identifiable corpus; no prespecified frequency, effect-size, or quality-weighted comparison was undertaken to establish that climate was the “most consistent” dimension. Soria Reséndez et al. (2019) and Ponce et al. (2022) report climate-satisfaction associations. Pedraza-Melo et al. (2020) and Salas-Torres et al. (2020) instead inform the organizational context through different outcomes and are not evidence of a direct climate-satisfaction relationship.
4.1. Organizational Climate as an Integrating Category
Organizational climate was a recurrent and analytically relevant dimension in the reviewed corpus. Soria Reséndez et al. (2019) identified a positive and significant association between climate and job satisfaction in a Mexican HEI; Ponce et al. (2022) reported a strong positive relationship at a Peruvian public university. Although the designs and contexts differ, both studies converge in showing that perceptions of the organizational environment are related to the evaluation of work.
Palma Gardea et al. (2022) broaden this interpretation by including objectives, teamwork, leadership, communication, identity, and motivation. Rather than interpreting climate as an isolated variable, these results allow it to be considered a perceptual synthesis of institutional practices. Pedraza-Melo et al. (2020) and Salas-Torres et al. (2020) provide complementary evidence concerning climate, performance, and work development.
The systematized review by Escobar and Toasa (2026) reinforces the relevance of an integrated interpretation by identifying leadership, culture, communication, participation, and human resource management among the relevant dimensions of climate in HEIs. For the present review, this convergence supports the idea that climate functions as an interface between administrative structures and work experience.
4.2. Leadership, Communication, and Participation
Leadership is associated with the ways in which trust, communication, and participation are constructed. Kasalak et al. (2022) provide aggregated evidence: their meta-analysis found a moderate positive relationship between leadership styles and academic staff job satisfaction. The result does not warrant establishing universal causality, but it does confirm that leadership is a relevant dimension across different higher education contexts.
Within the Mexican corpus, assessments of leadership and communication form part of both climate and work experience (Palma Gardea et al., 2022). The administrative interpretation derived from this convergence is that directing involves more than assigning tasks; it also involves establishing rules of interaction, information channels, and conditions for participation. Satisfaction may be affected when there is a gap between institutional decisions and faculty members’ ability to understand, discuss, or influence their implementation.
4.3. Work Organization and Working Conditions
Work organization is the core theme that most directly connects administrative decisions with everyday activity. Olaskoaga-Larrauri et al. (2023) show that higher education reforms may alter the organization of teaching activity and dimensions of satisfaction. Hinojosa-López et al. (2023), in the context of telework, highlight resources, autonomy, skills, and work-life balance.
The role of recognition and professional development in faculty job satisfaction is further discussed in Section 4.4.
4.4. Recognition and Professional Development
Recognition integrates symbolic and professional dimensions. The institutional identity identified by Palma Gardea et al. (2022), the devaluation of work examined by Muñoz-Chávez and López-Chau (2022), and the dynamic conception of satisfaction proposed by Celis Domínguez (2025) converge in showing that professional valuation cannot be reduced to compensation.
Professional development is linked to expectations for growth, autonomy, and a sense of career trajectory. When the institution provides clear recognition criteria and learning opportunities, these practices may contribute to a more favorable work experience. However, the reviewed evidence does not allow determination of which recognition mechanisms are most effective across all types of HEIs; this question remains an area for comparative research.
4.5. Well-Being, Satisfaction, and Commitment
The fifth core theme integrates attitudinal outcomes that are related but conceptually distinct. Rangel-Lyne et al. (2026) show that workplace happiness may mediate the relationship between socially responsible institutional practices and affective and normative commitment among university faculty. This finding extends the analysis beyond satisfaction toward organizational outcomes associated with well-being and institutional attachment.
The three-level interpretive model differentiates 1) management practices—leadership, communication, participation, work organization, allocation of resources, recognition, and development policies; 2) workplace conditions and perceptions—autonomy, workload, relationships, work-life balance, perceived support, and organizational climate; and 3) attitudinal outcomes—job satisfaction, well-being, commitment, and belonging. Climate is explicitly situated at the second level as an integrating perception of practices and conditions, not as an independent managerial action. The levels express a conceptual ordering, not a tested mediation model or causal pathway.
4.6. Interpretive Model Derived from the Review
The integration of the five core themes makes it possible to propose a three-level interpretive model. The first level comprises management practices: leadership, communication, participation, organization, resource allocation, recognition, and professional development. The second comprises conditions of the work experience that these practices help shape: climate, autonomy, workload, relationships, work-life balance, identity, and perceived support. The third level comprises attitudinal outcomes: satisfaction, well-being, commitment, and belonging.
The model proposes articulating relationships rather than a demonstrated causal chain. Its usefulness lies in organizing dimensions that are often studied separately and providing a basis for institutional diagnosis. From this perspective, interventions focused solely on financial incentives or isolated well-being activities may be insufficient if problems of communication, overload, centralization, lack of resources, or limited recognition persist.
5. Discussion
The findings confirm that faculty job satisfaction in higher education is a multidimensional and organizationally situated phenomenon. The convergence of studies on climate, leadership, work organization, and well-being shows that work experience is shaped through the interaction between institutional conditions and individual evaluations. This interpretation is consistent with the dynamic perspective of Celis Domínguez (2025) and helps avoid monocausal explanations.
The first contribution of the review is the identification of climate as an integrating category. Mexican and Latin American studies show that climate is related to satisfaction and other work outcomes (Soria Reséndez et al., 2019; Ponce et al., 2022). However, climate should not be used as a label that substitutes for process analysis. Its explanatory value increases when it is disaggregated into leadership, communication, participation, recognition, and work organization.
The second contribution is to position leadership within a system of administrative practices. The meta-analysis by Kasalak et al. (2022) provides evidence of a moderate positive association between leadership and academic staff satisfaction, but interpreting that association requires consideration of culture, resources, workload, and autonomy. This avoids attributing absolute explanatory capacity to individual authorities and shifts attention toward the organizational conditions under which leadership is exercised.
The third contribution is to link work organization with satisfaction. The institutional reforms analyzed by Olaskoaga-Larrauri et al. (2023) and the telework conditions studied by Hinojosa-López et al. (2023) show that changes in tasks, resources, and autonomy affect the faculty experience. In management terms, this implies that any academic or administrative transformation should incorporate an assessment of its effects on workload, coordination, resources, and work-life balance.
The fourth contribution is the integration of recognition, well-being, and commitment. The devaluation of work documented as an organizational dimension by Muñoz-Chávez and López-Chau (2022) represents the inverse of recognition. In turn, Rangel-Lyne et al. (2026) show that workplace well-being may intervene in the relationship between institutional practices and commitment. Consequently, academic staff management policies should consider both objective conditions and experiences of valuation and belonging.
The review also identifies tensions. A substantial proportion of the evidence comes from cross-sectional and correlational studies; therefore, the association between management and satisfaction is not equivalent to causality. In addition, institutional contexts are heterogeneous: public and private universities, technological institutions, and national systems have different career, governance, and funding structures. The transfer of findings requires attention to these particularities.
Interpretive boundaries. Evidence from Mexico and Peru is prominent among the institution-specific studies, and the corpus also includes international syntheses and studies of broader educational-sector populations. Findings from non-university educational workers are used to generate contextual hypotheses, not to generalize estimates to university faculty. The review’s selective sampling, missing historical search counts, absence of formal risk-of-bias assessment, and heterogeneity of outcomes and study designs limit the strength of comparative claims.
Within the Ibero-American context, there is also a need to strengthen qualitative, longitudinal, and comparative studies that explain mechanisms rather than only associations. It is particularly relevant to examine how faculty interpret administrative decisions, how middle-management practices affect the everyday climate, how academic and administrative workloads are distributed, and how recognition policies are perceived across different types of employment arrangements.
For university management, the interpretive model suggests a diagnostic sequence: identify administrative practices; examine the working conditions they generate or sustain; and evaluate outcomes in satisfaction, well-being, and commitment. This sequence may guide institutional instruments that are more useful than general satisfaction surveys when such surveys are not connected to specific decision-making processes.
The review supports considering management practices alongside the working conditions and perceptions associated with faculty satisfaction. Evidence directly connecting professional development opportunities to satisfaction is insufficient in the present corpus to recommend specific development interventions as proven mechanisms. Institutional responses may examine communication, workload, autonomy, recognition, and professional learning opportunities, while evaluating their effects locally rather than assuming universal benefits.
The reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that administrative management constitutes a relevant framework for understanding job satisfaction among higher education faculty. Organizational climate, leadership, communication, participation, work organization, recognition, and working conditions recurrently appear linked to evaluations of the institutional experience.
Job satisfaction does not depend exclusively on compensation or contractual conditions. The literature examined includes autonomy, identity, recognition, workplace relationships, resources, work-life balance, and development opportunities. Consequently, academic staff management requires an integrated perspective that connects administrative processes with well-being and commitment.
The proposed interpretive model organizes the findings into three levels: management practices, conditions of the work experience, and attitudinal outcomes. Its main usefulness is to show that satisfaction should not be addressed through isolated interventions, but through a coherent review of how the institution directs, communicates, organizes, recognizes, and supports academic work.
For administrative practice, the results support the value of strengthening communication and participation channels; reviewing workloads, resources, and degrees of autonomy; establishing transparent mechanisms for recognition and development; and periodically evaluating climate, satisfaction, well-being, and commitment. These actions should be designed according to the type of institution and accompanied by indicators that make it possible to assess changes over time.
The study has limitations. The corpus was selected for qualitative and interpretive purposes and does not constitute an exhaustive systematic review; the designs, populations, and contexts are heterogeneous, and cross-sectional studies predominate. Therefore, causal effects are not established and results are not generalized to all HEIs. Future research may broaden searches in international databases, document a systematic selection flow, assess the methodological quality of studies, and develop comparisons across types of institutions and employment arrangements.
The main contribution of the article lies in integrating evidence that is often presented in fragmented form and translating it into a structure useful for educational administration. Understanding faculty satisfaction as an outcome of a complex organizational experience positions faculty well-being not as a peripheral issue, but as a dimension that should be considered in the planning and management of higher education.