Running head: PROFESSOR RETENTION

Literature Review Proposal

Angelina Pechota
Siena Heights University
October 19, 2016

PROFESSOR RETENTION
Job satisfaction and employee retention has been the subject of many studies for over

forty years (Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek & Frings-Dresen, 2003). Job satisfaction and employee
retention are two complex issues that many universities, public and private, face on a daily basis.
Universities continuously focus on how to build a culture that encourages open communication,
feelings of worthiness within the organization and feelings of being a part of something bigger
than themselves. Diligent efforts to recognize and act on the factors that play a role in job
dissatisfaction are a good start for universities as this directly correlates to professor retention
(Selesho & Naile, 2014). There are two perspectives on job satisfaction that research has placed
emphasis on. The first perspective is employee turnover, focusing on why employees leave and
is that customarily of the university. The second perspective researched is employee retention,
focusing on why employees stay and is normally that of the employee (Young, 2012).
The purpose of this literature review is to examine how universities can improve turnover
within their organizations among their professors. The research will also look at to what degree
does a competitive salary correlate to job retention of university professors. The literature
review will also review, other than competitive salaries, what contributing factors play a role as
to why professors leave their prospective universities. "An understanding of the causes and
antecedents of turnover is a first step for taking action to reduce turnover rates (Selesho &
Naile, 2014, p.296). The research will also discuss what key tactics universities can utilize to
increase retention of their university professors. Impending shortages are a challenge as topperforming employees strive to stay ahead of the competition. "Organizations that
systematically manage retention in good times and badwill stand a great chance of
weathering such shortages" (Allen, 2008, p.3).

PROFESSOR RETENTION
3
Research methods will contain a variety of peer-reviewed articles and books to support
the findings. Scholarly articles and various institutional establishments are places in which
information will be included in this literature review to offer insight and perspective within
higher education regarding job satisfaction and retention. In this literature review professor or
faculty will indicate college as well as university or another type of institution, both
interchangeable meaning the same thing.
Definitions of Key Terms
Employee retention policies are those policies and procedures put in place by employers
to entice employees to remain in the organization (Nair, 2009).
Intent to stay refers to the likelihood that an individual employee will remain in the
organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993).
Job satisfaction can be defined as an individuals attitude about work roles and the
relationship to worker motivation (Scott, Swortzel, & Taylor, 2005, p.89).
Retention refers to the ability of management to retain employees. Retention policies are
those put in place by employers to entice employees to remain in the organization (Nair, 2009).
Outline
This paper will focus on qualitative and quantitative analysis performed on the topic of
university turnover within their organizations among professors from studies published with
specific emphasis on the following research questions:

To what degree does a competitive salary correlate to job retention of university

professors?
Other than competitive salaries, what contributing factors play a role as to why
Professors leave universities?

PROFESSOR RETENTION
4
What impact does employee turnover have on the employer?
What key tactics can universities utilize to increase retention of their university
professors?
Literature Review
Salary Correlation
Research has shown that professors in higher education continue in higher education
because of the love for their profession, not because of money earned. Multiple factors play into
the correlation between a competitive salary amongst professors and the universities job
retention such as workload, the ability for research projects and tenure (Mamiseishvili & Rosser,
2011). Although salary is important, salary is not the main focus for university faculty and
historically indicate that faculty wages do not differ much from where they were in 1970. Salary
correlation shows to be a "part" of job retention and job satisfaction among higher education but
is not the main factor to why they choose to leave (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002).
Increasing Demands. Faculty across institutions are finding increasing demands by
ways of conducting more research and heavier class loads, due to multiple reasons including lack
of faculty. Other demands include service involvement as well as administrative functions such
as Department Chair positions. Department Chair positions frequently require more time from
faculty but institutions often offer a minimal increase in pay. With these increasing demands
from faculty, so does the expectancy of salaries to increase (Mamiseishvili & Rosser, 2011).
Factor or not a factor.
Tenured and non-tenured. When determining job satisfaction amongst university
faculty, studies suggest that tenure plays a direct correlation to job satisfaction (Bozeman &

PROFESSOR RETENTION
Gaughan, 2011). Studies reflect that a tenured university faculty has a direct correlation with

longer work experience hence earning tenured university faculty higher pay. "Tenured
professors tend to have higher income and are less likely to suffer financial hardship than their
non-tenured counter-parts" (Tang & Tang, 2012, p.104). Non-tenured professors tend to be the
opposite, having less job loyalty, lower status and have an increase feeling that being rewarded
influences teaching (Ryan, Healy, & Sullivan, 2012). Studies show that annual university pay
increases tend to be smaller than market increases and non-tenured professors also tend to have
smaller pay raises due to their short tenure on campus. Non-tenured professors work to gain
experience giving them the ability to achieve and be eligible to apply for academic tenure.
Eligibility for academic tenure is about six years with no prior university teaching experience.
With prior university teaching experience, assistant professors may apply in less than six years
meaning those could include non-tenured professors as well (Tang & Tang, 2012).
The Impact
The overall impact of professor turnover at universities is quite substantial, but
universities realize it is a part of doing business (Allen, 2008). Some turnover can be good and
often bring opportunities for new faces and new ideas to happen within the university (Xu,
2008). The cost estimate of turnover upon universities can range from $80,000 per employee to
150% of the positions salary but this is often hard to determine. To effectively calculate the
impact that professor turnover has on the university an analysis must be done. Some questions to
answer would be: (1) What is the number of faculty leaving? (2) Who is leaving? (3) Of the
current turnover, what are the associated costs and benefits?

PROFESSOR RETENTION
To calculate the current turnover rate, use the equation below:

Turnover Rate =

Average number of employees

Number of employees leaving

X 100

Effectively identifying high turnover types such as voluntary vs. involuntary will assist the
universities focus on troublesome areas. Gaining the whole picture contributes to the
organizations understanding to what extent employee turnover and retention are of an issue as
well as an effective strategy to successfully reduce both (Allen, 2008).
When turnover happens within a university, a multitude of things happen including
increased workloads for the remaining faculty due to the shortage of other faculty, higher costs in
the areas of recruiting, hiring, and retaining current employees as well as the enormous hit on the
universities bottom line. A universities bottom line is referring to its overall operational budget.
There are multiple types of employee turnover which include: Voluntary, involuntary, functional,
dysfunctional, unavoidable and avoidable all in which have different implications for
organizations. "Turnover is defined as an employee leaving an organization for any number of
reasons" (Allen, 2008, p. 2).
Contributing Factors
Other aspects of higher education that may lead to reduced employee retention and job
satisfaction are advancement opportunities, the ability for professional growth and development,
communication between administrators and faculty as well as increased stress levels due to

PROFESSOR RETENTION
7
growing demands. The results indicated that job satisfaction directly influence faculty and their
intent to either leave or stay (Chen, 2011). Organizational and environmental factors have shown
in studies to be a significant part of the academic career development and in maintaining faculty
vitality. Mentoring shows to be a factor that more universities are implementing into their
orientation period as well as continuing it throughout a faculty member's career at the university.
"A mentoring relationship involves a more experienced professional serving as a supportive and
guiding role model for another professional who is less experienced in the field" (Tareef, 2013, p.
703). For mentees, findings have indicated that a few skills are needed and are beneficial
throughout the process. Those set of competencies includes an understanding of the teaching
process, good articulation skills, openness to the process as well as an overall commitment to
being mentored. This type of learning is not meant for every faculty member within the
organization, but it is considered a partnership between the mentor and the mentee (Tareef,
2013).
Three significant predictors for intent to stay are years at the institution, seniority, and
organizational commitment. However, this can also be seen as comfortability and time put into
the university. Studies show that faculty would more likely consider leaving (odds became two
times greater) from added stress from just one of the following factors. Those factors include
committee work, faculty meetings, institutional procedures and "red tape," teaching load, lack of
personal time, and working with underprepared students (Ryan, Healy & Sullivan, 2012).
Resolution
Effective retention strategies. According to Ryan, Healy, & Sullivan (2012),
institutional leaders may pursue differential strategies across faculty to be more efficient at

PROFESSOR RETENTION
increasing employee retention and job satisfaction. Such strategies would include

demonstrating the valued input of its professors, developing strategies to enhance "fit" and
"support," alleviating stress by implementing more of a family-friendly atmosphere and
encourage dialogue between administration. The more faculty feel their views are that of the
university including shared goals and values; they will have an increased sense to invest in the
university and start to feel deeper ties (Young, 2012). During the recruitment process,
universities can also improve their recruiting strategies by being forthright and realistic about
what the job entails and exactly what the university stands for. Creating that trust in the
beginning and being able to uphold what is communicated during the recruitment will enhance
that facultys ties to the university in the long term (Allen, 2008).
Studies have also shown that employee engagement is an important part of retaining
faculty and should be found within the job design, recruitment and selection, training and
development as well as the compensation and performance management. When an employee is
engaged their view of the company tends to change as they believe that their job is important and
is five times less likely to quit than those employees who were not engaged (Allen, 2008).
Implementation. Universities realize retention is a costly part of doing business. With
effective strategies in place universities can lessen the impact as a whole upon the institution
(Ryan, Healy, & Sullivan, 2012). Three retention factors that help immensely are the focus of
compensation, training and development as well as promotion amongst faculty in higher
education. Compensation committees are an effective way institutions can review and
adequately manage compensation plans. Higher education institutions should also provide the
administration with adequate managerial training and leadership skills as they are the ones who

PROFESSOR RETENTION
are supervising university faculty (Selesho & Naile, 2014). In efforts to manage retention,

preparation of administrators to make effective relationships with faculty and staff have shown to
have positive impacts. Due to time with the university or contributions that have been made to
the university, some professors have been promoted to an administrator or supervisor positions
without any prior experience. By encouraging in this way, universities cannot guarantee said
person will be an effective administrator (Allen, 2008). Communication also shows to be a key
factor in faculty job satisfaction as well as knowing with where faculty stand and how faculty
can be seen as a valued part of the institution. Faculty contributions to vision and mission of the
university are one that university faculty feels need to be communicated so faculty can feel as
they are necessary and part of something bigger thus developing trust amongst faculty (Selesho
& Naile, 2014). According to Allen (2008), an effective management plan for retention should
include the four key areas below. Table 1: Retention Management Plan.

Conclusion
Summary
Institutional leadership has a responsibility to both the institution as well as its faculty
members regarding faculty advocacy and administrative governance. There is increased

PROFESSOR RETENTION
10
attention to undergraduate education and the pressure for accountability amongst institutions.
Pressures in which administration must pay close attention to. Faculty look to the administration
to have the faculty members interests such as promotion, institutional support and activities
related to the public in a positive way (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002). "Faculty members want
advocacy and leadership from their administrators, but the majority of U.S. faculty members
view top-level administrators as less than competent leaders" (Boyer, Altbach, & Whitlaw, 1994,
p. 98). US faculty perceptions of that of administration within universities are only about onethird of US faculty seeing the administration as "competent." Note this is similar to that of the
developed world which range between one-third and two-fifths but differ to that of Hong Kong
and Germany whom a majority feel the administration is competent (Finkelstein & Cummings,
2012).
Contrary to other studies, faculty members intent to leave are not significantly affected
by fit, support, nor satisfaction factors. Faculty in one study tended to see factors such as
administrative support and facilities, compensation, and autonomy as part of work life, no matter
the university. University faculty leave for a variety of reasons but realizing the issue at hand
and being able to understand it is important to the university, its' faculty as well as the students
(Ryan, Healy & Sullivan, 2012).

References
Allen, D. G. (2008.) Retaining talent: A guide to analyzing and managing employee turnover.
SHRM Foundation Effective Practice Guidelines Series, 1-43. Retrieved from

PROFESSOR RETENTION
https://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/research/documents/retaining%20talent-

11

%20final.pdf
Boyer, E. L., Altbach, P.G., & Whitlaw, M.J. (1994). The academic profession: An international
perspective. Princeton, NY: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011, March/April). Job satisfaction among university faculty:
Individual work and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2),
154-186. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29789513
Chen, S. H. (2011). A performance matrix for strategies to improve satisfaction among faculty
members in higher education. Quality & Quantity,45(1), 75-89. doi:10.007/511135-0097291-2
Finkelstein, M., & Cummings, W. (2012). American faculty and their institutions: The global
view. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,44(3), 48-59.
doi:10.1080/00091383.2012.672882
Mamiseishvili, K., & Rosser, V.J. (2011). Examining the relationship between faculty
productivity and job satisfaction. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(2), 100-132. Retrieved
from web3.apiu.edu
Nair, S. S. (2009, June 26). Employee retention. Articles base. Retrieved from
http://www.articlesbase.comlhuman-resources-articleslemployee-retention-995426.html
Ryan, J.F., Healy, R., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Oh, wont you stay? Predictors of faculty intent to
leave a public research university. Higher Education, 63(4), 421-437.
doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9448-5
Scott, M., Swortzel, K. A, & Taylor, W. N. (2005). Extension agents' perceptions of

PROFESSOR RETENTION
fundamental job characteristics and their level of job satisfaction. Journal of

12

Southern Agricultural Education Research, 55, 88-101. Retrieved from

http://www.jsaer.org/pdfiVoI55/55-01-088.pdf
Selesho, J.M., & Naile, I. (2014, March/April). Academic staff retention as a human resource
factor: University perspective. International Business & Economics Research Journal,
13(2), 295.304. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu
Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, T. L. N. (2012). The love of money, pay satisfaction and academic
tenure: professors in a public institution of higher education. Public Personnel
Management, 41(1), 97-126. doi:10.1177/009102601204100106
Tareef, A. B. (2013, Winter). The relationship between mentoring and career development of
higher education faculty members. College Student Journal, 47(4), 703-710. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/openview/b6e3e4ea50f7dd479112b9f6eb0d2137/1?pqorigsite=gscholar
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analyses based on metaanalytic findings. Personnel
psychology, 46(2), 259-293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-65701993.tb00874.x
Van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., & FringsDresen, M. H. W. (2003).
Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfactiona systematic
review. Occupational Medicine, 53(3), 191-200. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqg038
Xu, Y. J. (2008). Faculty turnover: Discipline-specific attention is warranted. Research in Higher
Education, 49(1), 40-61. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9062-7