UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK-LIFE FLEXSTYLE, JOB 
SATISFACTION, AND TURNOVER INTENTION AMONG NEW PROFESSIONALS IN 

STUDENT AFFAIRS 

 

By 

Paolo Artale 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 A DISSERTATION  

Submitted to  

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements  

for the degree of  

 

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education – Doctor of Philosophy 

 

2020 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

ABSTRACT 

UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK-LIFE FLEXSTYLE, JOB 

SATISFACTION, AND TURNOVER INTENTION UPON NEW PROFESSIONALS IN 

STUDENT AFFAIRS 

 

By 

 

Paolo Artale 

 

 

Attrition amongst new professionals in student affairs has been cited as high as sixty-

percent Holmes, Verrier, & Chisholm 1983; Ward, 1995).  High rates of employee turnover are 

problematic for institutions and result in work inefficiencies, costly rehiring processes, and 

overburdening current employees with increased load (Kantor, 2016).  Studies of attrition within 

student affairs have found several factors that contribute to these high rates of departure 

including but not limited to heavy workloads, working long and unusual hours, lack of 

opportunities for advancement, low levels of pay compared to the private sector, difficulty 

keeping tasks and emotions that originated at work with those at home (and vice versa), and 

emotional stress due to being personally invested in the lives of students (Evans, 1988; Lorden, 

1998; Marshall, Gardner, Hughes, & Lowery, 2016; Ward, 1995).   

Within the discussion of meeting combating turnover, the topic of workplace flexibility 

has emerged.  Employees are requiring more latitude to deal with issues such as childcare, elder 

care, as well as other day-to-day needs.  While studies have often referred to policies and formal 

mechanisms regarding workplace flexibility and the impact it has on retention, there has been a 

lack of discussion around the role flexstyle plays in employee performance and satisfaction.  

Flexstyle refers to a way of thinking about the relationships between work and personal life 

(Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  

The purpose of this study was to understand the potential relationship between work-life  

 

 

 
 

 

flexstyle amongst new student affairs professionals and the variables of job satisfaction and  

turnover intention. To examine the relationship between flexstyle, job satisfaction, and turnover  

intention, an electronic survey utilizing Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, and Hannum’s (2012)  

work-nonwork boundary management assessment, Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger’s (1998)  

shortened version of Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) Job Satisfaction Schedule, and Bothma and  

Roodt’s (2013) Turnover Intention Scale – 6 (TIS-6) was administered to those who identified  

as new professionals to members of the National Association of Student Personnel  

Administrators (NASPA) Knowledge Community for Graduate Students and New  

Professionals, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and the Southern 

Association of College Student Affairs (SACSA).  A total of 287 members provided usable data  

for use in analysis. 

Results from the data that utilized ANCOVA showed that significant differences in 

means existed for behavior factor groups in relation to both job satisfaction and turnover 

intention.   Results from the data that utilized multiple regression showed that significant 

positive relationships existed between the flexstyle factors of boundary control and work 

identity with job satisfaction.  In addition, data that utilized multiple regression showed that a 

significant negative relationship existed between the flexstyle factor of boundary control and 

turnover intention. Implications for student affairs practitioners and researchers and 

recommendations for future research are also discussed. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Copyright by  
PAOLO ARTALE 
2020

 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

Dedicated to my wife Sherri: Thank you for loving me and my dreams. 

 

v 

 
 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

My success through this program would not have been possible without the help of many.  

Acknowledgement must begin with my parents Carmen and Tina who fought for me to be 

integrated into a school system that said I was “special needs” and needed “different schooling” 

than other children- whatever the heck that means anyways.  Thirty-five years later I am walking 

away with the highest academic degree an individual can earn from the top program in the world 

in my field.  Thank you. 

 

To my advisor and chair Marilyn Amey for taking me on as an advisee and helping me 

focus emotion into an actual piece of academic work.  Not an easy task.  I am extremely grateful 

for all that you have done for me. 

 

To my committee: Dr. Brenden Cantwell, Dr. Roger Baldwin, and Dr. Angela Hall.  

Thank you for all you have done not just with the dissertation itself but the openness to help me 

whenever I needed it over the years.     

 

To my family at Toastmasters International.  I walked into the meeting room at noon on a 

Monday in Erickson Hall so that I could learn about Toastmasters and find a venue to practice 

motivational speaking.    What I ended up finding was a group of people who would be my 

support system, a sounding board for turning academic thought into plain, coherent language 

(also not an easy task), dear friends, a second family, and the best darn fans a motivational 

speaker can have.  That family has grown from Erickson Hall to across the globe; especially 

when I became Michigan’s first (and presently only) Accredited Speaker.   

To Susan DeRosa; for helping me feel welcome at MSU and supporting me.   

 

vi 

 
 

 

To Ed Tate; who often told me to slow down or I’d burn out and that it was ok to go at a 

slower place in my speaking to get this PhD done.  It’s also nice to have a world champion of 

public speaking be one of your biggest supporters.  

 

To University of Toronto Varsity Blues Football Program (Coaches Howlett and Hadley) 

for giving a walk on kid who looked different and ran like Mr. Snuffleupagous a chance to fulfill 

his dream.  The resilience and grit I learned as part of the program was what got me through this 

PhD Journey.  I will always bleed Varsity Blue. 

 

To my cousin and best friend Cori; this never seemed crazy to you.  The debates and talks 

we had about organizational culture and work-life balance weren’t just fun but helped sharpen 

my knowledge and helped me figure out what was actually reasonable in a corporate context.   

Now that I’m done, let’s start that podcast.    

 

To the HALE faculty and administration, just like my football career, HALE gave me a 

chance to “walk on” and make something of myself.  I did that.   Thanks for the opportunity and 

support along the way.   

 

To the faculty and administrators in the Human Resources and Labor and Industrial 

Relations Program; thanks for helping me hone my expertise and welcoming me into your 

program. 

 

To Dr. Ellen Kossek for the support, endless resources, and honest advice through this 

time.  I have learned so much from your work and insight and was always touched by your 

generosity to me.   

 

To Dr. Elizabeth Heilman who looked at an autoethnography I wrote for our qualitative 

methods class and said “This is really good.  You should get this published.”    The paper was on 

my experience with burnout and lack of work-life balance in student affairs.  I didn’t have a 

 

vii 

 
 

 

dissertation topic in my mind at the time.  Well…you can read the rest of the story in the coming 

pages. 

To the department of Student Life and Graduate Career Services for giving me the 

opportunity to be a graduate assistant but always treating me like a professional colleague. 

To Dr. Tammison Smith; for pushing me to be my best and accepting nothing less.   

To Dr. Matt Helm; for helping me feel like I belonged du ring that rough first year in the 

program and for being a great mentor. 

To the members of my cohort; me getting to this point in the program probably means 

most of you lost a $20 bet.  Sorry about that. 

 

To those who helped me along the way as I birthed this dissertation: Tonya Jamison, 

Mary Tate, Nicole Jess, Inese Berzina-Pitcher, Erin Carter, Leanne Perry, and John Lowry.   

Finally, to my son Alessio and daughter Sofia.  Becoming a father in the middle of a PhD 

was tough.  It changed my trajectory, my progress, and so many other things.   It was worth 

every moment, every delay, every challenge.  Remember me when I am old and want a villa in 

Italy to retire.  I love you both. 

 

 

 

viii 

 
 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... xi 

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 
Problem Statement ................................................................................................................... 2 
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................ 7 
Research Questions.................................................................................................................. 7 
Background ............................................................................................................................. 7 
Theoretical Frameworks ........................................................................................................ 13 
 
Boundary Theory  .......................................................................................................... 13 
  Work-Life Flexstyle  ..................................................................................................... 14 
 
Behavior Factor ................................................................................................. 15 
Control Factor  ................................................................................................... 16 
 
 
Identity Factor  ................................................................................................... 16 
Methods................................................................................................................................. 17 
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................. 18 

 
 
 

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................. 19 
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 19 
Hypotheses Related to Job Satisfaction .................................................................................. 19 
Hypotheses Related to Turnover Intention ............................................................................. 20 
Theoretical Basis ................................................................................................................... 20 
Boundaries ............................................................................................................................ 21 
Flexstyle ................................................................................................................................ 24 
The Relevance of Flexstyle for New Professionals in Student Affairs .................................... 27 
Job Satisfaction in Student Affairs ......................................................................................... 28 
Turnover Intention ................................................................................................................. 34 
Turnover Intention in Student Affairs  ................................................................................... 35 
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................. 37 

Chapter 3: Methodology ......................................................................................................... 38 
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 38 
Research Questions................................................................................................................ 38 
Research Design .................................................................................................................... 38 
Instrumentation ...................................................................................................................... 39 
  Work-Nonwork Boundary Management Profiles  .......................................................... 40 
 
Job Satisfaction Schedule  ............................................................................................. 45 
The Turnover Intention Scale 6 (TIS-6) Assessment  ..................................................... 45 
 
 
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)  ......................................................... 47 
Sample Selection ................................................................................................................... 48 
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 50 
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 51 
Hypotheses Related to Job Satisfaction  ................................................................................. 52 

 

ix 

 
 

 

Hypotheses Related to Turnover Intention ............................................................................. 52 
Risks and Limitations ............................................................................................................ 53 
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................. 55 

Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................................... 56 
Hypotheses Related to Job Satisfaction  ................................................................................. 56 
Hypotheses Related to Turnover Intention ............................................................................. 57 
Demographics of Survey Participants .................................................................................... 57 
Age................................................................................................................................ 58 
Demographic Breakdown ...................................................................................................... 59  
Demographics Based on Behavior Factor  .............................................................................. 60 
Demographics based on Boundary Control Factor ................................................................. 63 
Demographics based on Identity Factor ................................................................................. 65 
Results for Research Question #1........................................................................................... 68 
Results for Research Question #2........................................................................................... 74 
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................. 82 

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................... 85 
Overview of the Study ........................................................................................................... 85 
Discussion of the Findings ..................................................................................................... 86 
  Work-Life Flexstyle and Job Satisfaction ...................................................................... 86 
  Work-Life Flexstyle and Turnover Intention  ................................................................. 89 
The Role of Positive and Negative Affect ...................................................................... 90 
The Role of Having Children in this Study .................................................................... 91 
The Role of Number of Years in the Profession in This Study ....................................... 91 
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 92 
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................................ 97 
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 101 

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 104 

APPENDIX A: Permission to use Work-Life Indicator and Work-Nonwork Boundary 

Management Profiles ...................................................................................................... 105 
APPENDIX B: Permission to use the TIS-6 ......................................................................... 106 
APPENDIX C: Additional Demographic Outputs ................................................................ 107 
APPENDIX D: Survey Instrument ....................................................................................... 118 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 125 

 

  

 

 

x 

 
 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 

Description of Behavior Factor Sub-classifications ............................................ 15 

Table 2  

Description of Control Factor Sub-classifications  .............................................. 16 

Table 3  

Description of Identity Factor Sub-classifications  .............................................. 16 

Table 4  

Gender of all Participants  .................................................................................. 57 

Table 5  

Race and Ethnicity of all Participants  ................................................................ 58 

Table 6  

Marital Status of all Participants  ........................................................................ 58 

Table 7  

Child Status of all Participants  .......................................................................... 59 

Table 8  

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor ............................................... 59 

Table 9  

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor  ................................ 59 

Table 10  

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor  ................................................ 60 

Table 11  

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Gender  ........................... 61 

Table 12  

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Race and Ethnicity  ......... 61 

Table 13  

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Marital Status  ................. 62 

Table 14  

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Child Status  .................... 63 

Table 15  

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Gender .............. 63 

Table 16  

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Race and  
Ethnicity  ........................................................................................................... 64 

Table 17  

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Marital Status  ... 65 

Table 18  

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Child Status  ...... 65 

Table 19  

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Gender  ............................. 66 

Table 20  

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Race and Ethnicity ............ 66 

Table 21  

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Marital Status  ................... 67 

 

xi 

 
 

 

Table 22  

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Child Status ....................... 67 

Table 23  

Job Satisfaction Means Based on Behavior Factor  ............................................. 68 

Table 24  

Job Satisfaction Means Based on Boundary Control Factor  ............................... 70 

Table 25  

Job Satisfaction Means Based on Identity Factor  ............................................... 71 

Table 26  

Turnover Intention Means Based on Behavior Factor  ........................................ 75 

Table 27  

Turnover Intention Means Based on Boundary Control Factor  .......................... 76 

Table 28  

Turnover Intention Means Based on Identity Factor ........................................... 77 

Table 29  

Index of Hypotheses and Results Related to Job Satisfaction .............................. 83 

Table 30  

Index of Hypotheses and Results Related to Turnover Intention  ........................ 83 

Table 31  

Index of Recommendations Based on Findings  ............................................... 100 

Table 32  

Sexual Orientation of all Participants  .............................................................. 107 

Table 33  

Disability Status of all Participants  .................................................................. 107 

Table 34 

Disability Type of all Participants  ................................................................... 107 

Table 35  

Degree Attainment of all Participants  .............................................................. 107 

Table 36 

Graduate Degrees in Student Affairs of all Participants  ................................... 108 

Table 37 

Units Within Student Affairs of all Participants  ............................................... 108 

Table 38 

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Sexual Orientation  ........ 108 

Table 39 

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Disability Status  ........... 109 

Table 40 

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Units in Student Affairs  110 

Table 41 

Table 42 

 

Table 43 

 

Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Number of Jobs Held in 
Student Affairs  ................................................................................................ 111 
 
Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Sexual  
Orientation  ...................................................................................................... 111 

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Disability 
 Status ............................................................................................................... 112 

xii 

 
 

 

Table 44 

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Units in  
Student Affairs  ................................................................................................ 113 

Table 45 

Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Number of  
Jobs Held in Student Affairs  ............................................................................ 114 

Table 46 

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Sexual Orientation  .......... 114 

Table 47 

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Disability Status  ............. 115 

Table 48 

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Units in Student Affairs  .. 115 

Table 49 

Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Number of Jobs Held in 
Student Affairs  ................................................................................................ 116 

 

 

 

xiii 

 
 

 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

It is 6:45p.m and Gary has been searching for jobs on indeed.com for 45 minutes; an occurrence 

that is becoming increasingly regular.  At 6pm, Gary was ready to shut down his computer and 

head home.  He has been on campus since 9 am and was excited at the prospect of working a 

standard business day.  Gary has been working 10-12 hour days steadily over the past few weeks 

and a few weekends.  Although it is the beginning of the year, the pace will not slow down that 

much for him.  A quick review of his outlook calendar reveals an average of three late nights per 

week he will be on campus to advise Campus Activities Board and oversee their events.  Some of 

this wouldn’t be so bad if his supervisor Leslie didn’t require him to be in the office no later than 

8:30 AM or to attend more evening events just to give student organizations moral support.  

That’s why Gary was thrilled when Leslie allowed him to go home at 6 p.m. on the evening 

Campus Activities Board was showing a movie.  The phone rang as he began to shut down his 

computer.  

“Hey Gary, it’s Leslie.  I have been rethinking things and I need you to be there for 

movie night just in case there are issues.” 

Gary sighs. “Campus Activities Board does these all the time.  They are ok on their own 

and if there are issues, they can contact the student union staff or public safety.” 

“I feel safer if our people are there.  See you at our staff meeting at 8:00 a.m.  Enjoy the 

movie!” 

Movie night will get done at 11:30 pm when accounting for clean-up etc.  It will be almost 

midnight by the time Gary would get out of the building plus a 30-minute commute to his 

apartment.  Frustrated, Gary turns his computer back on and thinks about how he does not want 

to be in this environment much longer.  He mutters to himself, “There has to be a better way.” 

 

1 

 
 

 

Problem Statement 

The student affairs profession has seen an attrition rate for new professionals that has 

been cited to be between 40% and 60% (Holmes, Verrier, & Chisholm 1983; Ward, 1995).  A 

new student affairs professional is defined as someone who has worked full-time in the 

profession for five years or less.  In general, high rates of employee turnover are problematic for 

institutions and result in work inefficiencies, costly rehiring processes, and overburdening 

current employees with increased load (Kantor, 2016).  Studies of attrition within student affairs 

have found several factors that contribute to these high rates of departure.  Heavy workloads, 

working long and unusual hours, lack of opportunities for advancement, low levels of pay 

compared to the private sector, difficulty keeping tasks and emotions that originated at work with 

those at home (and vice versa), and emotional stress due to being personally invested in the lives 

of students have all been shown to have some impact on attrition (Evans, 1988; Lorden, 1998; 

Marshall, Gardner, Hughes, & Lowery, 2016; Ward, 1995).  To minimize disruption, colleges 

and universities have sought ways to support staff and encourage stability within the 

organization.  Researchers have recommended several interventions to reduce turnover rates in 

the field including investing more in professional development of staff, more targeted recruiting 

structures, and meeting employees’ personal needs (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1999; Lorden, 1998; 

Tull, 2006).  Minimizing the turnover rates of new professionals is important as retention helps 

build and strengthen a knowledgeable and talented workforce.  This can be heightened within the 

student affairs context given that many professionals find their way into the field and did not 

enter college with student affairs as a career ambition.  As a result, losing new professionals 

means losing skillsets and institutional knowledge that takes several years to train and thus 

becomes difficult to replace.  

 

2 

 
 

 

Indeed, meeting employees’ personal needs are as important as familial situations have 

become increasingly complex (Lee, Walker, & Shoup, 2001; Odle-Dousseau, Hammer, Crain, & 

Bodner, 2016).  Within the discussion of meeting employee needs, the topic of workplace 

flexibility has emerged.  Employees are requiring more latitude to deal with issues such as 

childcare, elder care, as well as other day-to-day needs.  Workplace flexibility in the form of 

being able to control one’s schedule in order to meet needs has become an area of focus in 

research and at institutions.  While studies have often referred to policies and formal mechanisms 

regarding workplace flexibility, there has been a lack of discussion around the role flexstyle 

plays in employee performance and satisfaction.  Flexstyle refers to a way of thinking about the 

relationships between work and personal life (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  Within the human 

resource literature, work-life flexstyles have emerged as a way to bring greater harmony between 

one’s preferred way of working and one’s job, creating routines that are “win-win” for employer 

and employee, increase employee retention, and generally increasing satisfaction in the 

workplace and are the primary framework of the present study (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  

Studying retention from a flexstyle perspective is important given the mixture of 

employee personal needs do not always coincide with traditional office hours and work 

commitments often bleed past the traditional 9 to 5 structure (Massman, Kibertz, Gregory, 

McCance, & Biga, 2015).  Flexibility then becomes an important tool in retaining employees as 

it gives them the control to meet both their personal and professional demands, which in turn 

decreases the desire to find work elsewhere.  It should be noted that the traditional 9-to-5 

workplace structure was a product of industrialism at a time when rational systems of production 

were dominant in manufacturing industries, where most households were one income families 

and where the world was not nearly as integrated as it is today (Grossman, 1978).  Integration 

 

3 

 
 

 

refers to blending and blurring of personal/professional domains caused by the increased rise in 

communications technology such as cell phones, social media, and other wireless devices.  

Employees and employers now have the ability to communicate with each other at all hours and 

across different time zones presenting a unique (but not unconquerable challenge).  Presently, 

smart technology and increasing pressures for student affairs divisions to do more with less have 

further blurred the lines between work and personal life (Golden & Geisler, 2007; Schieman & 

Young, 2013; Schlacter, McDowall, Cropley, & Inceoglu, 2017).   

Workplace flexibility is a need employees of all generations have.  If one was to use the 

broad stroke of generational labels, each generation views work-life balance (and flexibility 

differently.  Generation Xers (born roughly between 1965-1980) value time with family and 

work-life initiatives but do so from a systemic approach.  Generation Xers look for work-life 

balance from a company and value aspects such as PTO and flexible work policies to enable 

them to meet both their personal and professional needs (Kohll, 2018).  Over the past ten years, 

generation Xers are also requiring more time to take care ailing family members from the prior 

baby boomer generation.  Baby boomers (born between 1945-1965) are looking to continue 

working but in part-time and alternative work capacities and Millennials seek flexibility and 

work-life balance as essential components to their careers (Eisner, 2005).  Added to this is the 

workforce trend that expects the option for more flexible work arrangements and work places 

that promote better work-life balance (Bennett, Baehr, & Ivanitskaya, 2017; Hershatter & 

Epstein, 2010).  Thus, both boomers and generation Xers have an interest in alternative and 

flexible work arrangements. 

Generations Y (Millennials) and Z have a need not only for work-life balance in the form 

of flexible policies, but go further in that they seek jobs that align with their values and their 

 

4 

 
 

 

lifestyle preferences.  Millennials value a personalized experience, social responsibility, and 

generally look for companies that promote positive cultures.  It should be noted that at present 

Millennials are the largest generation in the labor force accounting for more than 35% of 

workers; a number that will continue to grow (Fry, 2018).  This shift in attitude becomes 

important when discussing work-life and work-flexibility issues because organizations who want 

to retain their top (millennial) talent need to begin to think more creatively about how work is 

constructed.  Both Millennials and Generation Z have work-life philosophies that contrast with 

the traditional work structure with the former enjoying the mashup of work and life and the latter 

valuing self-direction and flexibility to accomplish tasks (Pulevska-Ivanovska, Postolov, 

Janeska-Iliev, & Magdinceva, 2017).  As Millennials and Generation Z continue to grow and 

represent a majority in the workforce the most successful companies will be those who adapt to 

and adjust to the needs of multiple generations in the workplace (Berkup, 2014; Pulevska-

Ivanovska, et al., 2017). 

In student affairs this is increasingly important as Millennials and eventually Generation 

Z graduates will comprise a significant percentage of entry level staff -  especially since student 

affairs gains much of its workforce from recent graduates and has the lowest average starting age 

of any unit in college administration (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018).  Furthermore, personal 

situations and preferences are diverse, can have an impact on job satisfaction, intent-to-stay, and 

are impacted by managerial relationships (Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Tull, 2006).  The diversity of 

personal situations and preferences are further complicated in student affairs because of the large 

variance in student affairs jobs.  Examples of jobs within student affairs include but are not 

limited to fraternity/sorority advisor, student activities coordinator, career counselor, admissions 

counselor, and orientation coordinator.  Each of these positions has a different set of expectations 

 

5 

 
 

 

regarding workload, scheduling, and relationships with students and are further impacted by 

managerial philosophy.  This variation is important in examining flexstyle and 

satisfaction/turnover intention as certain flexstyle preferences may be a better fit for specific job 

roles.  Theoretically, a new professional who prefers more separation between work and family 

life may be better suited in academic advising that has more defined working hours versus 

student activities that requires a greater range of availability during the week.   

Finally, linkages between satisfaction and turnover intention have been shown in the 

literature.  Generally, we know that as employees become more dissatisfied, they are more likely 

to make departure plans (Mobley, 1977; Tett & Meyer, 1993).  Literature also shows that 

employees are more willing to stay if interventions can be made to improve work-life situations 

and/or address workplace problems (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018; Kossek, 2012; Moen, Kelly, Fan, 

Lee, Almeida, Kossek, & Buxton, 2016).   

The relationship flexstyle has with satisfaction can be used as another method of 

identifying turnover that would negatively impact the operations of the unit, also known as 

negative turnover (Kossek, 2012).   As stated, the needs of employees can be complex and can 

compete directly with their duties at work.  The less control employees have of their ability to 

manage and curate both work and personal demands successfully via flexibility, the more likely 

they are to be dissatisfied.  In addition, employees who are able to exercise control and choice of 

how they integrate (or not integrate) work and life are more likely to stay in their roles as they 

feel their current work situation meets their needs and enables them to be successful in all areas 

of life. 

 

 

 

6 

 
 

 

Purpose of the Study 

The purpose of this study was to understand the potential relationship between work-life 

flexstyle amongst new student affairs professionals and the variables of job satisfaction and 

turnover intention.  Given a high five-year turnover rate in the student affairs profession that 

ranges between 40-60% and the limited literature on the topic of flexstyle in student affairs, a 

study such as this is useful in helping to gauge a strong connection between new professionals 

and their overall fit into the student affairs profession (Holmes, Verier, & Chisholm 1983; Ward, 

1995).  It should be noted that although extrinsic factors have been shown to have an impact on 

attrition in the profession (i.e., pay and lack of promotion), this study will focus on intrinsic 

preference as defined through the flexstyle assessment (Evans, 1988; Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1988). 

Research Questions 

Based on the information presented, the two overarching research questions in this study were: 

a)  What is the relationship between work-life flexstyle and job satisfaction among new 

student affairs professionals? 

b)  What is the relationship between work-life flexstyle and turnover intention among new 

student affairs professionals? 

Background 

There is an old cliché that says people do not leave jobs; they leave situations.  In other 

words, an employee is more likely to leave a position when either their environment or their 

situation infringes on some aspect of their personal domain (i.e., time, values/beliefs, feeling 

valued, etc.).  Within a student affairs context an example of this is represented by the Campus 

Activities Board Advisor who may love their work but who may experience negative feelings 

towards their job since it often involves working weekends, staying late to supervise events, and 

 

7 

 
 

 

then having to be on campus at 8am the next morning for meetings.  The advisor’s feelings and 

attitudes towards work are more likely to turn negative when the nature of the job bleeds into 

their personal life or if the position does not lot allow enough flexibility to travel between 

personal and professional domains.  What results is a realization that the advisor’s work-life is 

now encroaching upon their personal life and having negative effects such as thoughts about 

leaving the job or the profession altogether.  Thus, the stage is being set for employee turnover 

and/or dissatisfaction.   

Turnover refers to the number or percentage of workers who leave and are replaced in an 

organization (Fischer, Schoenfelt, & Shaw, 2006).  Staff leave their positions for a variety of 

reasons ranging from promotion to termination due to poor job performance.  Although turnover 

itself is not inherently negative as open positions can make way for new and talented individuals, 

high turnover rates should be monitored closely since these rates can be indicative of a negative 

work culture (Arocas & Camps, 2007; Hester, 2015). High turnover can also reflect undesirable 

organizational outcomes such as loss of employees (and the organizational knowledge they had 

accumulated), a disruption in operations, short-term increased workload on other employees, and 

increased strain on existing employees to socialize/train incoming employees (Hale, Ployhart, & 

Shepherd, 2016; Hancock, Allen, Bosco, McDaniel, & Pierce, 2013). Within the human resource 

literature, it is known that losing a staff member and having to fill that vacancy costs anywhere 

from one-third to over 250% of the employee salary (Fischer, Schoenfelt, & Shaw, 2006; Hester, 

2015). 

Reducing turnover in an attempt to keep qualified staff is a process companies take 

seriously.  It should be noted that that not all turnover is bad and that some positions are created 

with the expectation that the employee will leave within two or three years.  With this in mind, 

 

8 

 
 

 

however, professions such as student affairs that have high attrition rates should look at 

initiatives that facilitate transition from one job in the profession to another whenever possible.  

Work-life balance initiatives are one of the methods used to combat turnover and in recent years 

have gained attention over more traditional methods such as intentional pre-screening/selection 

processes, incentive programs, strategic compensation packages, and mentoring programs 

(Earnest, Allen, & Landis, 2011; McNall, Masuda, & Nicklin, 2009). Work-life initiatives can be 

defined as tactics that aim to alleviate conflict between work and personal commitments and 

include initiatives such as reduced work-schedules, compressed or flexible work-schedules, and 

assistance with childcare, telecommuting, and family leave policies (Cook, 2004).  Organizations 

that invest in work-family policies and practices see lower turnover and burnout rates, and higher 

job satisfaction rates (Bloom, Kretschmer, & Van Reenen, 2009; Moen, Kelly, & Hill, 2011). 

One work-life initiative that can be used as a means to increase employee retention and 

satisfaction comes through examining work-life flexstyle.  Work-life flexstyle refers to the 

psychological and physical ways in which a person manages the flexibility between their 

personal and professional lives in order to create a positive balance (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  

In Kossek and Lautsch’s (2008) book CEO of ME there are three overarching flexstyle types that 

each contain two subtypes: integrators (those who mesh work and family), separators (those who 

draws distinct boundaries between work and family), and volleyers (those who both separate and 

integrate at various points in their life).  More information on the flexstyles and their subtypes is 

given in the theoretical framework section of this chapter. 

No single flexstyle is inherently good nor bad; it just is.  Conflict occurs however when 

an individuals’ preferred flexstyle does not mesh well with their work environment or when the 

individual loses control over how to navigate the spaces between personal and professional 

 

9 

 
 

 

commitments and domains.  When this occurs, there is a greater chance of job dissatisfaction and 

turnover occurring in the workplace. 

The issue of turnover is all too familiar when referring to student affairs administrators, 

who are those who work directly with students in non-academic positions in a post-secondary 

setting (NASPA, 2017; Schuh, Jones, & Harper, 2011).  Studies show that the attrition rate for 

student affairs professionals within the first five years on the job hovers between forty and sixty 

percent (Evans, 1998; Lorden, 1998; Renn & Hodges, 2007; Tull, 2006).  The reasons for 

attrition/turnover in the student affairs profession have been well documented over the years. 

Some studies have shown the impact job design has played on departure, and the design of jobs 

that target new professionals in student affairs may contribute to departure from the profession.  

By their nature, some jobs require a blending of work and personal life more than others do.  For 

example, those employed in fraternity/sorority life require a more fluid schedule to tend to the 

needs of the Greek community and to address issues that suddenly occur.  This fluidity needed to 

successfully perform the job would most likely better suit an integrator versus a separator 

(Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  

In addition to issues of job design, the literature has shown that there are cultural 

variables that lead to turnover in the profession as well. The culture of student affairs work 

promotes working long and irregular schedules, being overwhelmed by duties, increased 

workloads due to working with diminished financial and human resources, as well as a 

professional culture that discourages employees from utilizing work-life initiatives (Brewer & 

Clippard, 2002; Tarver, Canada, & Lim, 1999).  In turn, the challenges and constraints listed 

above contribute to lower satisfaction rates and higher turnover intention of student affairs 

professionals- particularly new professionals.   

 

10 

 
 

 

Furthermore, new professionals are socialized into a professional culture where the needs 

of the profession/job must often come before personal needs (Davidson, 2009).  This is not 

always immediately evident to the entry level professional given that many student affairs 

administrators fell into this line of work. Taub and McEwan (2006) note that many professionals 

enter student affairs work because they enjoyed being student leaders as undergraduates and 

became aware of student affairs as a profession as they approached graduation.  Decisions to 

enter the profession were also typically made later in a student’s academic career and often 

because an administrator made them aware of student affairs work as a career option. As a result, 

those new to student affairs work have a passion for their work but enter the field with little or no 

concept of the work-life culture in the profession. In sum, the combination of the design of entry-

level student affairs administration jobs, the culture of student affairs work and little knowledge 

about what the profession entails for new professionals creates a tension between the employees’ 

personal and professional domains. In fact, the literature suggests that the conflict between 

personal and professional domains is one of the chief factors in departure and dissatisfaction in 

the profession (Lagana, 2007; Lorden 1998; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Volkwein & Zhou, 2003).  

Although work-life conflict has been identified as a factor in departure in student affairs, no 

study has examined the role work-life flexstyle (that is to say, how one prefers or wishes their 

work and life to interact) may have in gauging satisfaction and turnover intention among new 

student affairs professionals.  Examining the impact of flexstyle can help give insight into the 

intrinsic reasons people leave (or stay) with an organization.   

While studies have not looked at work-life flexstyle amongst student affairs 

administrators, a few have delved into how internal belief systems influences employee 

satisfaction via locus of control (Tarver, Canada, & Lim, 1999; Tull & Freeman, 2011).  Locus 

 

11 

 
 

 

of control refers to the extent to which a person believes they can influence events and comes in 

two forms: internal and external.  Those with internal locus of control believe they can influence 

events; individuals with external locus of control believe that external events and forces 

influence them (Rotter as cited in Tarver, Canada, & Lim, 1999).  Tarver et al. (1999) studied 

locus of control amongst 600 student affairs administrators and found that administrators with an 

internal locus of control reported better job satisfaction rates and were less likely to consider 

leaving the organization since they believed they could institute change and regulate their work 

environment. In other words, preference and perceived situational control did have some 

relationship to satisfaction. 

Building upon Tarver et al.’s (1999) study, Tull and Freeman (2011) sought to find a 

correlation between locus of control and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) organizational frameworks 

by surveying 487 student affairs professionals. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), 

organizational behavior is best understood via one of four frames: the structural frame (values 

standardization and systemic principles); the human resource frame (focus on individuals); the 

political frame (focus on coalitions and gaining influence/power); and the symbolic frame (focus 

on common symbols and experiences to unite the organization). Tull and Freeman (2011) found 

that student affairs professionals predominantly identified with the human resources frame and 

external locus of control. These results imply that although student affairs professionals value 

relationships and group norms, they often do so at the expense of their own work-life control 

(Tull & Freeman, 2011).  From a work-life perspective, conceding control over factors such as 

schedules, workload, etc., is linked to lower satisfaction levels and higher likelihood of departure 

from the job (Lyness, Gornick, Stone, & Grotto, 2012; Tarver et al., 1999). 

 

12 

 
 

 

The Tarver et al. (1999) and Tull and Freeman (2011) studies are important in the context 

of this study as work-life flexstyles are a reflection of internal belief systems and personal 

preference on how work and life should interact (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  Some studies 

examining student affairs administrators have given insight into how control over schedule 

affects job satisfaction and intent to leave.  From an organizational standpoint, employees who 

reported a strong perception of control over their schedules and work environments reported 

higher levels of job satisfaction (Lyness et al., 2012).   

Theoretical Frameworks 

Flexstyle is rooted in boundary theory.  Boundary theory examines how people construct 

and navigate their own personal boundaries and becomes a principal framework in understanding 

the principle framework of this study: work-life flexstyle. 

Boundary Theory 

Boundary theory begins with Nippert-Eng’s (1996) work that discusses how people either 

integrate their personalities in all aspects of life or have distinct personalities depending on what 

they are doing or where they are.  Clark (2000) expands on this concept by concluding that 

people are the authors of their own domains and that the self-determination of boundaries is what 

leads to increased levels of happiness, control and satisfaction. Clark (2000) also recognizes that 

although people create their own borders, these borders are impacted and manipulated by several 

external actors. When the demands from these external actors are not congruent with the 

individuals then tension occurs. Moreover, the permeability (ability to be physically present in 

one domain but mentally in another) and flexibility (the pliability of specific roles and domains) 

of these boundaries are critical in determining if an individual is able to maintain a healthy work-

life balance. An example within the student affairs administrative context would be the 

 

13 

 
 

 

Fraternity/Sorority Life coordinator who chooses to separate her life.  Although she will 

occasionally check emails at home, she does not do so while her children are awake. Likewise, 

she does not give out her personal cell phone number to students and only to select staff for 

emergency purposes.  With that in mind, the late nights on the job and the insistence that she be 

available at all times for students begins to conflict with the impermeable boundaries she is 

trying to erect. Thus, when the coordinator is at an event her thoughts are less on what needs to 

be done and more on how she sees less of her family or begins to question if her presence is even 

necessary and when she will ever have adequate time to spend with her family. 

Work-Life Flexstyle 

Flexstyle has been chosen as the theoretical framework for this study as it gives a new 

and needed insight into the factors of job satisfaction, turnover intention and work-life 

preference, and provides a fresh perspective on the work-life debate within the profession. 

Flexstyle looks at one’s work-life from a more personal perspective by taking into account 

personality, job and personal (and/or family) situation.  Flexstyle is also a holistic approach that 

combines several work-life theories into its matrix, most notably spillover theory and boundary 

control theory (Hannum, Kossek, & Ruderman, 2011).  Spillover theory discusses the extent to 

which personal and professional domains interfere and interact with one another (Hill, Ferris, & 

Martinson, 2003).  Boundary control theory discusses the extent to which people can control (or 

perceive to control) their work-life boundaries (Clark, 2000).  Boundary control and spillover are 

infused into the three distinct flexstyle categories (and subcategories) of integrators (fusion 

lovers, reactors), separators (firsters, captives), and volleyers (quality timers, job warriors) 

(Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  These flexstyle categories deal with how much control one has over 

their boundaries and the extent to which an individual wants their work and personal lives to 

 

14 

 
 

 

bleed/spillover into each other.  For example, individuals who have a higher tendency to have 

distinct work-life boundary controls such as no emails at home, or no personal calls at work may 

be classified as separators.  Likewise, those who are comfortable with work and life blending and 

spilling over into each other may more likely be integrators.  Volleyers are individuals who 

prefer to shift their attention to what is most important at the time.  In student affairs this can be 

the Fraternity/Sorority Life Advisor who will concentrate their attention and hours into Greek 

Week and Recruitment Week activities but will become more available to family during periods 

when commitments are minimal. In addition, the concepts of boundary control and spillover help 

determine whether well-being and happiness levels are high or low.  For example, an individual 

who may prefer to have strict boundaries between their different life aspects but has low 

boundary control via working in a more integrative environment (i.e., a residence hall director) 

will experience a lower well-being/happiness level on the assessment.    

The definition of flexstyle has changed and evolved over the years.  Kossek and 

Lautsch’s (2008) work categorized flexstyle into three overarching categories (integrator, 

volleyer, and separator).  In 2011, the work-life inventory (WLI) (Hannum, Braddy, Leslie, 

Ruderman, & Kossel, 2011)) built upon CEO of ME (Kossek and Lautsch, 2008) and looked at 

flexstyle via three distinct factors (behavior factor, control factor, and identity factor).   Each 

factor had its’ own classifications.   Based on Hannum et al. (2011), the three factors and their 

sub-classifications are as follows.  

Behavior Factor 

Table 1 Description of Behavior Factor Sub-classifications  

Cyclers 

 

 

Cyclers switch between periods of highly integrating family and 
work and periods of deliberately separating them.  This is done 
based on priorities and circumstances.  Such a shift of behavior 
pattern is done on an established cycle. 

15 

 
 

Table 1 (cont’d) 
Family Firsters 

Integrators 

Separators 

Work Firsters 

 

This group allows family to interrupt work 
but do not allow work to interrupt family.   
This group blends work and personal tasks 
consistently. 
Separators keep establish boundaries between 
work and personal life.  Specific blocks of 
time are committed to both work and family 
with no interruption of one domain by the 
other. 
This groups permits work to interrupt family 
time but do not like family to interrupt work 
time. 

 
Control Factor 
 
Table 2 Description of Control Factor Sub-classifications  

High Control 

Midlevel Control 

Low Control 

Individuals with high-level control have the ability and authority 
to control their time and interruptions between work and family. 
Individuals with midlevel control have some ability and authority 
to control their time and interruptions between work and personal 
life. Individuals with midlevel control may also be in a work 
situation that allows for adaptation as needed.   
Individuals with low control have a life that is constructed in such 
a way that they have fixed boundaries around when, where, and 
how they work; making it difficult to address family needs in an 
optimal fashion. 

 
Identity Factor 
 
Table 3 Description of Identity Factor Sub-classifications  

Dual Focused 

Family Focused 

Other Focused 

Work Focused 

 

Dual focused individuals identify and invest equally in their work 
and family.  Days are constructed to give energy equally to both 
domains. 
Family focused individuals identify with and channel most of 
their energy into their family roles.  Lives are structured to best 
meet familial needs and commitments.  
Individuals who are other focused invest time and energy into 
identities that are not work and family related.  Examples include 
athletics, volunteering, performing arts, motivational speaking 
etc.  As a result, other focused individuals try to funnel as much 
time as possible into these other endeavors. 
Work focused individuals identify with and channel most of their 
energy into their career.  Lives are structured to best meet 
professional needs and commitments. 

 

16 

 
 

 

Methods 

This study attempted to answer the research questions: 1) what is the relationship 

between flexstyle and job satisfaction among new student affairs professionals, and 2) what is 

the relationship between flexstyle and turnover intention among new student affairs professionals 

by conducting a quantitative analysis.  Quantitative analysis was the best choice for answering 

the research questions because I sought to gain a general understanding of new professionals in 

student affairs. Moreover, quantitative analysis has the ability for me understand correlation (and 

possible causation) between two variables. Participants for the study were drawn from the 

American College Personnel Association (ACPA), National Association of Student Personnel 

Administrators (NASPA) Knowledge Community for Graduate Students and New Professionals, 

and the Southern Association of College Student Affairs (SACSA), which were all organizations 

that serve the student affairs profession as a whole. 

Given that one single instrument does not exist to answer all these research questions, 

four separate (and validated) assessments were utilized and will be described in more detail in 

Chapter 3.  To determine flexstyle, Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, and Hannum’s (2012) work-

nonwork boundary management assessment was used and the flexstyles were sorted using the 

three overarching factors that made up Kossek et al.’s (2011) Work-Life Indicator.  The 

assessment was a seventeen-item, five-subscale survey.  Kossek et al.’s (2012) work validated 

the qualitative description of flexstyle initially create in CEO of ME (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008) 

and further refined the initial Work-Life Indicator Assessment (Hannum, Braddy, Leslie, 

Ruderman, & Kossek, 2011).  Job satisfaction was measured with a shortened version of 

Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) job satisfaction scale as was conducted by Judge, Locke, Durham, 

and Kluger’s (1998).   The Job Satisfaction Schedule was a five-item survey that measured the 

 

17 

 
 

 

satisfaction level of a respondent.  Turnover intention was measured using Bothma and Roodt’s 

(2013) Turnover Intention Scale – 6 (TIS-6). The TIS-6 is a six-item scale that measures how 

likely one is to stay in their current role.  In order to control for personality, a 10-item version of 

the Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale was used (Mackinnon, Jorm, Christensen, Korten, 

Jacom, & Rodgers, 1999).  The PANAS measures the extent to which a respondent has a positive 

or negative approach to life and for the purposes of this study, how that influences participant 

responses.  These four assessments were analyzed utilizing a correlational approach that would 

involve regression analysis.  Regression was used to understand the nature of the relationship 

between two or more variables and would be appropriate given that both research questions are 

seeking to answer.   

Chapter Summary 

 

An initial assessment of the landscape in higher education has shown that departure from 

student affairs professions amongst new professionals is problematic given their high turnover 

rate.  Although some reasons for involuntary turnover have been cited such as burnout and lack 

of advancement, no studies have looked at the issue from the perspective of flexstyle.   

Examining flexstyle not only offers a fresh perspective on the experience and satisfaction of new 

professionals but also can help to better understand if emerging trends in generational workforce 

are also reflected in the student affairs arena.  In the next chapter I will outline the literature 

related to student affairs administration, new professionals, and flexstyle to deepen 

understanding on this topic.  

 

 

 

 

18 

 
 

 

Chapter 2: Literature Review 

Introduction 

The two research questions of this study were:  

1)  What is the relationship between flexstyle and job satisfaction among new student 

affairs professionals? 

2)  What is the relationship between flexstyle and turnover intention among new student 

affairs professionals? 

Understanding flexstyle is important because creating and maintaining a sense of 

boundary is an integral part of employee satisfaction (Vanderkam, 2015).  A sense of control 

over one’s schedule and arrangements (regardless of style) has also been shown to increase an 

employee’s resolve to persist through challenges at work (Cheng, Mauno, & Lee, 2013).  Given 

the high turnover rate of new professionals including those in student affairs, it is important to 

know if specific flexstyles interact with the variables of job satisfaction and turnover intention.  

Studying this may allow better insight as to the role internal preference plays in a professional’s 

decision to stay in the field.   

Given that this is an exploratory study and there is little literature on flexstyle in student 

affairs, the following hypotheses have been made as it regards the variables of behavior factor, 

control factor, and identity factor and their potential relationship with job satisfaction and 

turnover intention.   

Hypotheses Related to Job Satisfaction 

Hypothesis 1a: There will be no mean difference for flexstyle (behavior factor) groups. 

Hypothesis 1b: There will be no mean difference for boundary control factor groups. 

Hypothesis 1c: There will be no mean difference for work-life identity factor. 

 

19 

 
 

 

Hypotheses Related to Turnover Intention 

Hypothesis 2a: There will be no mean difference for flexstyle (behavior factor) groups. 

Hypothesis 2b: There will be no mean difference for boundary control factor groups. 

Hypothesis 2c: There will be no mean difference for work-life identity factor. 

This chapter begins by exploring both boundary creation and flexstyle both as a construct 

and its relevance to new professionals in student affairs.  Next, the chapter defines and discusses 

the constructs of job satisfaction and turnover intention both broadly and within the student 

affairs literature. 

It should be noted that although lack of previous research has made it difficult to create 

hypotheses based on overall flexstyle groups, more predictive hypotheses were made using the 

subscales of the work-nonwork boundary management profiles (Kossek et al., 2012).  The 

subscales were work interrupting nonwork, nonwork interrupting work, boundary control, family 

identity and work identity.  The remaining hypotheses will be revealed throughout this chapter. 

Theoretical Basis 

The introductory chapter defined and highlighted boundary theory and the three 

overarching flexstyles (integrator, separator, and volleyer).  This section discusses some of the 

theoretical bases incorporated into that model as well as how boundary theory has been assessed 

in the human resource literature. Flexstyle has been chosen as a framework because of its ability 

to characterize boundary preferences and how they can impact a person’s satisfaction in life. 

Previous literature in student affairs has not directly discussed flexstyle (or preferences) and the 

role it may play in retaining employees. It is important to look at flexstyle because boundaries 

establish the rules by which we want to engage in our work.  When the time demands of the 

work environment is incongruent with employee boundary preferences then chances of increases 

 

20 

 
 

 

the chances of job dissatisfaction and intent-to-leave increase (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006; 

Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009).     

Boundaries 

A review of flexstyle must first begin with a theoretical foundation of boundary creation, 

management, and transition.  Boundaries are best defined as the parameters placed around life 

roles as well as how people order and maintain environments (Nippert-Eng, 1996). Three key 

pieces are revealed in the literature as the foundation of boundary management theory: Neppert-

Eng’s (1996) work on boundary roles, Clark’s (2000) work on work/family border theory, and 

Ashforth, Kreiner, and Fugate’s (2000) work on boundary transitions. A brief description of each 

work follows.    

Patricia Nippert-Eng’s (1996) work dealt largely with the basic concept of boundaries 

and work. Nippert-Eng’s (1996) continuum clearly defines the differences between those who 

have a highly integrative and those who have a highly segmented approach to boundary creation.  

Thus, in a highly integrated continuum, the concept of “home” and “work” do not have distinct 

differences; they are the same. This not only influences where work and family roles may occur, 

but also one’s mental disposition towards them.  Highly integrative individuals do not switch 

roles and they act similarly with all people (Nippert-Eng, 1996).  Conversely, those who rate as 

highly segmented on the continuum have clearly defined boundaries and expectations for their 

various roles.   

One’s boundary preferences are created and reinforced largely through artifacts and 

ritual. A calendar, for example, represents order and precision amongst those who are highly 

segmented, whereas integrators may have several calendars, post-it notes or receive other cues 

(looking at a clock, music etc.) to assist them in transitioning into another activity or role 

 

21 

 
 

 

(Nippert-Eng, 1996).  Such differences drastically alter how integrators (those who prefer to 

blend work and life) and segmentors (those who like to have separate and clean boundaries 

between work and life) view time, space, and commitment. Therefore, what an integrator may do 

out of sheer will, a segmentor will do out of obligation. What an integrator may perceive as “the 

way it is” may present a threat to the borders that a segmentor has clearly defined (Nippert-Eng, 

1996).  

Building on Nippert-Eng’s (1996) work, Clark (2000) introduces the idea of people being 

the authors and creators of the boundaries between their work and family life. Although people 

shape borders between worlds, they are also influenced and shaped by their various roles, which 

presents an interesting paradox. Work/family border theory attempts to explain the complex 

interaction between border-crossers and their work and family lives as well as predicts when 

conflict will occur, and gives a framework for attaining balance (Clark, 2000). 

Clark (2000) discusses the importance of border strength in determining one’s ability to 

cope with work/family boundaries. Although many would interpret having weak borders 

(characterized as being permeable and having high flexibility) as a positive asset in today’s 

changing world, in reality workers were found to demonstrate great frustrations with these 

arrangements as expectations and duties become murkier on both ends of the work-family 

spectrum. Clark (2000) also introduces the concept of border keepers and their influence in 

border creation. A border keeper can be a supervisor, spouse, or other figure of importance in a 

person’s life. These keepers have their own definition of what constitutes work and family, 

which in turn can directly conflict with an employee’s ability to create and maintain appropriate 

work-family boundaries. Thus, border-keepers (particularly supervisors) need to be aware of the 

extreme power and influence they have over employee wellness and balance. The study also 

 

22 

 
 

 

concludes that although companies have made strides in creating flexible work arrangements and 

more work-family friendly policies, they have generally failed to create a culture that supports 

these arrangements (Clark, 2000).   

Ashforth et al. (2000) discuss the importance in understanding how people transition 

from one role to another. They discuss the concept of role segmentation (the level to which work, 

family, and other roles are separated in a person’s life) and its interplay with the permeability of 

one’s own boundaries. The greater the extent to which an individual segments his/her life, the 

more time they will need to transition from one role to the next (Ashforth et al., 2000).  Higher 

segmentation and higher impermeability also mean that consistent shifts in patterns or attempts 

that blur the line between domains will have negative effects on employees.  Likewise, 

employees who integrate their lives must work to define and maintain their boundaries to the 

extent that work, family, and other roles do not become interchangeable. Ashforth et al. (2000) 

discourage a “one size fits all” supervisor approach to work-boundary management given how 

unique and diverse employees’ lives are.  More importantly, respecting employee boundary 

preferences and allowing a reasonable amount of autonomy in determining the level of 

integration-segmentation in their lives led to increased organizational commitment (Ashforth et 

al., 2000).  Ashforth et al.’s (2000) work on segmentation should be of note to student affairs 

managers who may be unaware of employees’ boundary preferences and may inadvertently 

construct work and expectations in a manner that is not congruent with those preferences. For 

example, adding meetings and extra assignments that alter a student affairs professional’s work 

schedule often may prove to be stressful for employees with high boundary segmentation. 

 

 

 

23 

 
 

 

Flexstyle 

While boundaries and boundary management focus on how we create and navigate our 

boundaries, flexstyle deals with the psychological and physical ways we manage relationships 

between our job and personal lives (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  Flexstyle moves away from the 

binary that work and life need to come into a tight balance and focuses more on finding a 

personal fit between the person and the environment they are in (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  

Although a more thorough description of flexstyle was given in chapter 1, an explanation of the 

importance of flexstyle in today’s work environment warrants some attention. 

First, flexstyle emphasizes putting control of work-life issues back into the hands of the 

individual. This is significant given how important perceived control is in bringing about job 

satisfaction and dealing with workplace adversity (Tarver et al., 1999).  Second, today’s 

marketplace features a much wider array of job types that could better suit the flexstyle 

preferences of the administrator. Third, acceptance of alternative work arrangements is becoming 

more commonplace in today’s society (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012).  By understanding flexstyle 

and the level to which an individual may want to segment (or unsegment) their personal and 

work life, one is better able to decrease the amount of role conflict in their lives (Greenhaus & 

Beutell, 1985; Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).   

An example of this would be Rothbard, Phillips, and Dumas’ (2005) research that 

examined the relationship between the desire for segmentation/integration and employees’ access 

to policies that would be congruent with their preferences.  Surveying 460 employees, the study 

found that individuals were more committed to and satisfied with their company when policies 

allowed for greater segmentation.  For example, a separator would be far more content when the 

 

24 

 
 

 

company did not offer on-site childcare as it would increase the likelihood of spillover between 

the professional and personal domains (Rothbard et al., 2005).   

Another area related to flexstyle discusses the interaction between flexstyle and 

technology.  Fleck, Cox, and Robison (2015) conducted a study with 287 employees using a 

questionnaire to ask about their use of technology at home and work. Fleck et al. (2015) found 

that almost 75% of participants used between 2-4 technological devices in their daily lives. The 

results also showed that using separate devices for work and home was something that workers 

did but the extent to which they separated their devices was closely related to their flexstyle 

(Fleck et al., 2015).  Thus, those who were separators were just as likely to use as many devices 

as integrators with the difference being that the separator had devices specifically for their work 

or family domain.  Although the current study will not discuss the role of technology, Fleck et 

al.’s (2015) research demonstrates that flexstyle affects how people interact with their 

professional environment.   

The importance of flexstyle as an intervention strategy to improve employee engagement 

and satisfaction has shown some positive results.  Kossek (2016) lists flexstyle education within 

an organizational context as the first key strategy in bringing about positive organizational 

culture.  Kossek (2016) calls for flexstyle assessments to be given and discussed in workshops at 

all levels in order to bring about a deeper understanding of employee needs and preferences. The 

sessions also serve as opportunities to set goals and interventions for the workplace. This was 

tested by creating family supportive supervisor behavior training at 12 grocery stores in 

Michigan.  Six stores received training in family supportive behaviors including understanding 

flexstyle while six stores did not receive the training.  Job satisfaction and other items were 

surveyed at the stores at both the time of training and several months after the training. The 

 

25 

 
 

 

results found that employees showed increased job satisfaction and wellbeing after training 

versus employees at stores where managers did not receive the training (Kossek, 2016). The 

results of the study indicate that not only is knowing flexstyle important on an individual level, 

but that managerial understanding of flexstyle and personal needs has a positive impact on job 

satisfaction (Kossek, 2016).  

The results mentioned above are consistent with Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, and 

Hannum’s (2012) survey of managers that found that a person-centered approach to managing 

boundary profiles (aka flexstyle) was needed when addressing employees’ needs in part because 

of how different flexstyle (and the clusters within those flexstyles such as work firster) deal with 

role conflict and work-to-family and family-to-work interruptions (Kossek et al., 2012).  Work-

to-family interruptions are characterized by job duties encroaching on a person’s family time.  

Examples may include taking a business call on the weekend, answering emails on vacation, etc.  

Conversely, family-to-work interruptions are typified by family matters overlapping with the 

business days.  Examples include arranging emergency childcare or conversing with a child’s 

teacher from work. The report also held that greater perceptions of control over boundaries and 

flexstyle were negatively correlated with turnover intention and psychological distress (Kossek 

et al., 2012).   

This section has highlighted both the reasoning for using flexstyle in this study and some 

of the theoretical literature related to flexstyle itself.  Flexstyle was chosen as the framework for 

this study because it helps us understand the conditions that help people navigate their personal 

and professional lives.  Flexstyle helps us to account for how different dynamics can interplay 

with one’s flexstyle preference such as managerial style or the role of technology.  It is through 

 

26 

 
 

 

this understanding of flexstyle that we are better able to create interventions that improve 

working conditions for professionals in all fields, including student affairs administrators.   

The Relevance of Flexstyle for New Professionals in Student Affairs 

Flexstyle is likely to have relevance for new professionals in student affairs.  One of the 

more common challenges for new professionals deals with jobs that are not completely defined 

and often cause conflict between employees’ personal and professional domains. This conflict 

has been shown to have lower job satisfaction rates and in some cases has been cited as a chief 

factor in leaving the profession (Marshall, Gardner, Hughes, & Lowery, 2016).  Given that 

managers often act as the gatekeepers of employee schedules in student affairs an examination of 

flexstyle may also be useful in determining if at least some conflict and dissatisfaction is a result 

of not meeting the needs of those with a particular flexstyle.  

Issues of satisfaction and work-life flexibility can be found in the student affairs literature 

to some extent by looking at literature that discuss stress and burnout.  An underlying 

observation is that student affairs work itself is extremely stressful and puts a great deal of strain 

on the shoulders of administrators in relation to time and expectations (Birk, Dye, & Hughey, 

2016; Volkwein & Zhou, 2003).  The recommendations on how to handle the stress of student 

affairs focuses on an individualistic approach as handling stress and navigating the work-life 

landscape varies from person to person (Kerka as cited in Guthrie, Woods, Gusker, & Gregory, 

2005).  It is within this individualistic approach to dealing with stress that understanding 

flexstyle and its relationship with satisfaction and turnover intention is important.   

To date I have found no studies directly examining flexstyle and student affairs 

administration.  Studying flexstyle would be useful to student affairs administration for several 

reasons.  The flexstyle assessment may reveal if professionals with specific flexstyle types are 

 

27 

 
 

 

more satisfied with student affairs work in general. The assessment may also potentially reveal if 

there is a relationship between flexstyle and different areas of student affairs work 

(fraternity/sorority life, advising, etc.).  For example, integrators may show to be more satisfied 

in campus activities work that may allow for more flexible work options given the consistent 

irregular hours associated with that position. Conversely, separators may be more satisfied with 

positions in career services or advising that have a more consistent schedule, thus allowing for a 

much easier separation between an individual’s personal and professional worlds.  

Job Satisfaction in Student Affairs 

Job satisfaction is defined as the level of contentment a person has with her/his job and 

involves employees weighing their values and expectations against the organizational climate 

within which they operate (Alam & Shahi, 2015). An individual’s level of job satisfaction 

determines the extent to which they look to stay or leave an organization. Generally speaking, 

the more satisfied one is in their job, the more likely they are to stay at that company/institution 

(Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000; Rosser, 2004).  Several variables impact job satisfaction 

across professionals such as compensation, job security, recognition, mobility, working 

conditions, and relationships within the organization (Alam & Shahi, 2015; Rosser & Jaivnar, 

2003; Ward, 1995).  Research has been unable to find a single factor that decisively impacts job 

satisfaction.  For example, it is sometimes believed that in student affairs low pay is the cause of 

poor job satisfaction and turnover intention (Evans, 1988; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016; 

Rosser & Javinar, 2003).  Pay, however, both within higher education and in other professional 

sectors has not definitively impacted satisfaction one way or another.  Even if pay were a 

determining factor, it is difficult to attribute level of pay to the job satisfaction of an employee 

(Smith & Shields, 2012).  Likewise, role stress has been shown to lead to burnout and decreased 

 

28 

 
 

 

satisfaction (Bender, 1980; Tull, 2006).  Role stress can be defined as the stress experienced by 

an individual because of their job and the expectations placed upon them.  Within student affairs, 

this can occur via heavy workloads, lack of staffing, and the emotional and physical fatigue that 

comes with the expectation to mentor and advise students and student groups.  

Bender (1980) surveyed 145 student affairs professionals and found that overall, those in 

the profession were generally satisfied with their jobs, posting a satisfaction rate of 66%.  

Despite such high levels of satisfaction, her results also showed that over 41% of professionals 

between the ages of 23-36 did not see themselves continuing with student affairs work (Bender, 

1980). Anderson’s (1998) research compliments Bender’s (1980) work by examining job 

satisfaction amongst senior student affairs officers (SSAOs) finding that older, married 

professionals were more satisfied with their work. The Anderson study (1998) noted, however, 

that positive job satisfaction rates were largely due to the senior professionals being established 

in the profession and being able to navigate better navigate.  SSAOs higher satisfaction rates 

were due to learning to navigate and set their own boundaries and communicate them with 

supervisors as they climbed the ranks.  

Thus, younger professionals face more professional turbulence in the field as they have 

greater difficulty understanding boundaries, setting boundaries, and building positive 

relationships with supervisors and as a result question whether a long-term career is a good fit.  

Student affairs work has been cited as unfulfilling and an emotional burden that interferes with 

new professional’s work-life balance (Silver & Jakeman, 2014).  Studies of those who left the 

student affairs profession noted a more positive work-life situation largely due to non-student 

affairs jobs having schedules that are more regular and offering more control to the employee 

(Marshall et al., 2016).   

 

29 

 
 

 

Given how important control of boundaries is in impacting satisfaction rates, the 

following hypotheses can be made: 

Hypothesis 1d: There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and job satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1e: There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and job 
satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1f: There will be a positive relationship between boundary control and job 
satisfaction. 
 

An important factor in examining satisfaction amongst new professionals in student 

affairs is the mid-level manager.  Since mid-level managers act as a buffer between senior 

administration and new professionals, they often find themselves in the unique position of having 

to interpret and implement policy, mirror acceptable behaviors, and are often the gatekeepers to 

alternative work arrangements, accommodating flexstyle, and other work-life accommodations 

(Tull, 2006).  This gatekeeper role, then, becomes important in relation to new professionals as 

the expectations around employee work-life have a direct impact on the new professional.   

Volkwein and Zhou (2003) conducted a robust and in-depth analysis of job satisfaction 

amongst student affairs professionals. Their study looked for correlations between institution 

type and various factors that could affect job satisfaction, and sought to explain how state, 

institutional, and personal characteristics impacted administrative work climates and job 

satisfaction. The study examined satisfaction by classifying campus administration into five 

categories: academic affairs, human resources, institutional research, business, and student 

services. Volkwein and Zhou (2003) found that institution type did not influence job satisfaction 

but they did find significant relationships between organizational climate, personal variables and 

satisfaction. The results showed that student service professionals scored significantly low on 

extrinsic satisfaction (factors such as pay, security, and working conditions) and low on intrinsic 

 

30 

 
 

 

satisfaction (factors such as recognition and autonomy).  Furthermore, the results indicated that 

there was a considerable amount of family-to-work conflict amongst all types of administrators 

as age and familial situations were shown to have significant correlations with job satisfaction 

(Volkwein & Zhou, 2003).  Finally, the study concluded that personal problems and employee 

perception of control in the work environment had significant ties to job satisfaction. The authors 

also found that the workplace culture and teamwork had positive impacts on job satisfaction and 

called for a deeper understanding of job satisfaction for university administrators.   

Surveying 2000 mid-level administrators (which included student affairs administrators) 

Rosser (2004) examined how personal demographics and work-life issues affected the 

relationship between morale, job satisfaction and intent to leave. The results revealed that work-

life issues were directly correlated to an employee’s intent to leave. The study listed a number of 

variables in its definition of “work-life” issues including career support, discrimination, external 

review, intra-departmental relations, etc.  Factors that affected satisfaction were career support, 

advancement, feedback/intervention, and development.  The study revealed that job satisfaction 

had a significant relationship with morale, but morale had no relationship to job satisfaction 

(Rosser, 2004).  What can be taken from this last point is that satisfaction with work spills over 

into one’s personal domain but that happiness in one’s own personal domain does not necessarily 

spillover into job satisfaction.  Furthermore, there can be a difference between how a person 

feels about the organization they work for and the current role they have.    

Workplace relationships have been shown to positively impact job satisfaction in student 

affairs.  Rosser (2004) noted that mid-level manager relationships with faculty and other 

stakeholders external to their department increased satisfaction levels. Likewise, Loyd’s (2005) 

work found a positive connection between satisfaction and teamwork amongst student affairs 

 

31 

 
 

 

professionals.  Hirschy, Wilson, Liddell, Boyle, and Pasquesi (2014) examined several variables 

that contributed to professional identity formation among new professions and among the factors 

listed that were statistically significant in their model were relationships with peers, mentors, and 

professional associations.  In general, the student affairs literature has shown that satisfaction has 

a link to relationships and interactions between members of the organization. Interactions with 

the organization and professional relationships typically begin with the period in which 

employees learn the essential tools, skills, and relationships needed to be successful in their role 

known as the onboarding process. Without proper socialization and onboarding into the 

organization, new professionals experience greater frustration, dissatisfaction, and ultimately will 

look to leave the organization (Exum, 1998).  It is during the onboarding process that mentors 

(both supervisors and nonsupervisors) play a role in employee retention and increased 

satisfaction (Coleman & Johnson, 1993; Pittman & Foubert, 2016).  Gaining assistance and 

advice from a knowledgeable professional helps create positive collegial relationships that in 

turn increase job satisfaction (Barr, 1993). 

Davidson’s (2009) dissertation examined job satisfaction amongst entry-level and mid-

career student affairs professionals.  Surveying 766 professionals, the results indicated that mid-

level administrators were far more satisfied than entry-level professionals were. There were also 

considerable satisfaction differences between new professionals and experienced professionals 

with new professionals scoring much lower regarding job satisfaction (Davidson, 2009). Thus, 

while the study did not parcel out new professionals (those who have been working 1-5 years) it 

was clear that employees serving in job functions traditionally left to new professionals were 

dissatisfied with their work.  Davidson (2009) did find that opportunities for promotion/growth 

and relationships at work were predictors of satisfaction.     

 

32 

 
 

 

Recent research indicates that new professionals are more dissatisfied with their work and 

are more likely to exit the profession than their more established counterparts (Mullen, Malone, 

Denney, & Santa Dietz, 2018).  New professionals are more likely to experience job 

dissatisfaction as navigating the work environment proves challenging (Renn & Jessup-Anger, 

2008; Renn & Hodges, 2007).  Postsecondary institutions can be highly complex and politicized 

organizations that can make navigating the landscape difficult and frustrating.  In addition, many 

of the jobs new professionals are hired into come with ambiguous duties (Renn & Hodges, 

2007). For example, advising a student organization may involve attending general meetings and 

key events but may also require attendance at all functions and consistent contact outside of 

traditional office hours.  In addition, new professionals who do not receive adequate training and 

mentoring have been shown to be less satisfied in their roles.  A study of 435 new professionals 

in student affairs that focused on synergistic supervision (which is defined as a focus on a 

holistic approach to management which discusses performance, career goals and needs) showed 

a strong positive relationship between perceived synergistic supervision and job satisfaction 

amongst new student affairs professionals (Tull, 2006).  Tull (2006) also found strong negative 

correlations between low perceptions of synergistic supervision and turnover intention.  In other 

words, the better supported and understood a new professional felt, the more satisfied they were 

and the less likely they were to leave the profession.  Bartham and Winston Jr. (2006) reinforce 

this last point as their qualitative study found new professionals were satisfied and better 

transitioned into their roles when supervisors were able to identify and address their needs. 

In summation, relationships are significant indicators of job satisfaction amongst student 

affairs professionals.  The nature of student affairs work often makes juggling family and work 

difficult.   Thus, I posit:  

 

33 

 
 

 

Hypothesis 1g: There will be a negative relationship between family identity and job satisfaction. 

Conversely, student affairs professionals often have strong identities and ties to their 

work.  Their love of their work leads to the final hypotheses related to job satisfaction. 

Hypothesis 1h: There will be a positive relationship between work identity and job satisfaction. 

Turnover Intention 

Turnover intention is best defined as the measurement of whether employees at a 

company desire to leave (or not leave) and refers to the final cognitive decision-making process 

that leads to turnover (Ovalle, 1984).  The decision-making process relating to turnover intention 

deals with employees’ thoughts on quitting a job, searching for a job, and intention to leave a job 

(Kim, Tam, Kim, & Rhee, 2017).  Several variables can be identified as factors that affect 

turnover such as managerial support, supervisor, reward/compensation, fairness in the 

workplace, fair grievance procedures, perceived employee control, and shifts/schedules (Kumar 

& Govindarajo, 2014). Findings suggest that an employee with a high turnover intention is the 

forerunner to leaving the organization and in the case of student affairs work, often the 

profession altogether (Markowitz, 2012).  Not all turnover intention is negative.  Intent-to-stay 

refers to the likelihood an employee will stay in their current position.  It can be argued that both 

intent-to-leave and intent-to-stay have a somewhat symbiotic relationship since factors that 

impact intent-to-leave can also influence intent-to-stay when they are inverted (Cho, Johanson, & 

Guchait, 2009).  For example, the variable of perceived organizational support (defined as 

support from managers and policies that help employees) was shown to be positively related to 

intent-to-stay and had a negative effect on intent-to-leave (Cho et al., 2009).  

Understanding turnover intention is important because linkages have been shown to exist 

between intended turnover and actual turnover (Kim et al., 2017; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 

2001).  Kim et al. (2017) examined turnover intention through the lens of three variables: 

 

34 

 
 

 

organizational justice (perception of fair treatment from an organization), supervisory justice 

(perception of fairness from a supervisor), and authoritarian control culture (a top down decision-

making culture that has little regard for employee input).  Their survey of 300 employees found 

that turnover intention was most impacted by factors at the organization level. The organization-

employee relationship was critical in relation to turnover intention (negative relationship 

correlated to higher turnover intention rates).   

The organization-employee relationship was also examined by Jensen, Patel, and 

Messersmith (2013) who looked at the impact of high-performance work systems (HPWS) on 

turnover intentions.  HPWS is a specific and targeted blending of theory-into-practice that aims 

to improve organizational effectiveness (Jensen et al., 2013).  Although HPWS aim to give 

organizations a competitive edge, they can also potentially create heavy workloads and strain on 

employees.  Jensen et al. (2013) found that when employees had lower levels of job control (the 

ability to control their job functions and how/when they were performed) their turnover 

intentions increased.  In other words, if an employee’s work-style and level of control over it is 

not aligned with organizational culture and expectations, increased turnover intention occurs.   

Turnover Intention in Student Affairs 

Much of the literature in student affairs frames turnover intention in terms of intent-to-

stay/intent-to-leave.  One study that examines turnover intention more directly is Mullen, 

Malone, Denney and Santa Dietz’s (2018) study of the relationship between job stress, job 

satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intention among student affairs professionals.  Surveying 789 

student affairs professionals, Mullen et al. (2018) found that higher levels of job stress and 

burnout were correlated with higher levels of job dissatisfaction and turnover intention.  The 

study also noted that although student affairs professionals generally reported higher rates of job 

 

35 

 
 

 

satisfaction, overall, younger professionals’ scores were lower than the population and thus they 

were more likely to consider exiting the profession (Mullen et al., 2018). 

In an examination of departure for new professionals in student affairs, Frank (2013) 

interviewed 24 former student affairs professionals who earned a master’s degree in student 

affairs or a related profession between 2004 and 2010 and left the field between 2009 and 2011.  

Findings revealed that professionals left the field for both individual and institutional reasons.  

Among the individual reasons for attrition, Frank (2013) found that a connection to the 

institution and the work being performed was important and led to departure if those needs for 

connection were unmet.  Frank (2013) also noticed that juggling work-life balance was difficult 

for new professionals.  The setting and enforcing of boundaries were found to be difficult and 

affected a professional’s decision to stay within student affairs (Frank, 2013).  Likewise, 

participants stated that although the nature of student affairs work involved long and irregular 

hours, they felt that there was a lack of flexibility in setting a work schedule that would better 

suit their personal needs (Frank, 2013).  For these reasons, I hypothesize: 

Hypothesis 2d: There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and 
turnover intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2e: There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and turnover intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2f:  There will be a negative relationship between boundary control and turnover 
intention. 
 

Renn and Hodges’ (2007) qualitative study of new professionals found that fit with the 

job was a chief factor in aiding satisfaction and ensuring a positive transition from graduate work 

to full-time work.  Hirschy, Wilson, Liddell, Boyle, and Pasquesi (2015) found that congruence 

between personal values and the values of the institution/profession were significant factors in 

the identity development of new student affairs professionals.  This last point is important 

 

36 

 
 

 

because professional culture influences whether an employee feels that their values (which 

includes how they visualize the relationship between work and personal life) fit with the 

profession.  If there is incongruence between personal and professional values, then exiting the 

profession is more likely. Given the stated importance of values (personal and professional) and 

the stated conflict student affairs work and family life can have on departure it was hypothesized: 

Hypothesis 2g: There will be a negative relationship between family identity and turnover 
intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2h: There will be a p relationship between work identity and turnover intention. 
 

Chapter Summary 

This chapter began with a discussion of boundary theory and its relationship with 

flexstyle. Relating to how people construct boundaries it was established that individuals have a 

certain preference as to how much they want to integrate or separate their work and personal 

domains.  Clark (2000) introduced the concept of people being the authors of their own 

boundaries as well as the concept of border keepers (those who can potentially influence an 

individual’s work/life boundaries). Kossek and Lautsch (2008) built upon these theories by 

creating flexstyle categories and subcategories that take into account both a person’s integrative 

preference and the impact outside forces (i.e., border keepers) have on their contentment.  Job 

dissatisfaction amongst new professionals was linked to both irregular schedules and ambiguous 

job definitions and expectations from the organization. Flexstyle was chosen as the theoretical 

framework for this study as it allows the ability to study issues related to job satisfaction and 

turnover intention from a new perspective that may potentially allow for a deeper understanding 

of why new professionals leave student affairs work.  Imbedded in this work is also the concept 

of personal values and needs and their intersection with job expectations.   

 

 

 

37 

 
 

 

Chapter 3: Methodology 

Purpose of the Study 

The purpose of the current study was to determine if any relationship exists between 

flexstyle and the variables of job satisfaction and turnover intention among new student affairs 

professionals and aimed to discover if understanding an individual’s flexstyle will shed new light 

into the student affairs departure puzzle.  A better understanding of how flexstyle interplays with 

the nature of student affairs work will be useful in helping administrators better understand and 

prevent negative staff turnover. 

Research Questions 

Since the current study seeks to explore the relationship between flexstyle and job 

satisfaction and turnover intention, the two central research questions were: 

1)  What is the relationship between flexstyle and job satisfaction among new student affairs 

professionals? 

2)  What is the relationship between flexstyle and turnover intention among new student 

affairs professionals? 

Research Design  

The current study was conducted using quantitative methods via an online survey.  

Quantitative methods are the best choice as the questions seek to find overall trends when 

examining the relationship between variables (Field, 2013).  Understanding the relationships 

between flexstyle, job satisfaction, and turnover intention with a focus on if there is a prevalent 

trend among the variables is at the core of the research questions above.  The dissertation began 

used a correlational research design.  Correlational research design is used to discover if a 

relationship exists between two variables and if so, what type of relationship exists between them 

 

38 

 
 

 

(Wheelan, 2013).  After responses were collected and analyzed and in reevaluating the 

instrumentation, it was decided to use analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in addition to 

correlational research design in order to understand the research question more holistically.  

ANCOVA would help to discover if significant differences existed between different group types 

within flexstyle.        

The dependent variables for this study were job satisfaction and turnover intention; the 

independent variables was flexstyle.  A separate assessment was used to measure each of the 

dependent and independent variables.  As a result, the instrumentation for the current study 

combined four assessments to answer the research questions.  The assessments utilized were: the 

work-nonwork boundary management profiles (Kossek, Ruderman, Hannum, & Braddy, 2012), 

Judge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger’s (1998) shortened version of Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) 

Job Satisfaction Schedule. the Turnover Intention Scale (TIS-6) (Bothma & Roodt, 2013), and a 

10-item version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Mackinnon, Jorm, 

Christensen, Korten, Jacom, & Rodgers, 1999).  Detailed descriptions of each of these 

instruments is discussed in the instrumentation section of this chapter. 

Instrumentation 

The instrument in the current study had five distinct sections in addition to the consent 

form.  After filling out a consent form, participants were next taken to sections where they 

completed several assessments. Those who met the initial criteria next took the following 

assessments in this order: the work nonwork boundary management profiles, the job satisfaction 

schedule, the TIS-6, and the 10-item version of the PANAS.  Upon completing the assessments, 

participants input their demographic data (gender, age, race, etc.). The order in which the 

assessments were organized was chosen based on the order of the research questions.  

 

39 

 
 

 

Participants were not given their flexstyle score or the score to any other assessment in the study 

so that assessment results would not influence future answers.   

Please note the validity and reliability of each survey used in the current study was 

previously tested using the Cronbach’s alpha.  Reliability is best defined as the extent to which a 

scale measures what it should (Field, 2013).  The Cronbach’s alpha is an estimate of reliability of 

a survey and is an indicator of consistency (Field, 2013).  It is used to see if multiple question 

Likert scale assessments are reliable (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003).  This is a logical test to 

use to rate the individual assessments since they are also all Likert-Scale measures.  Cronbach 

alpha scores range from .00 (no consistency in measurement) to 1.0 (perfect consistency in 

measurement).  As a general rule, alpha scores below .50 are deemed unacceptable, and scores 

above .7 are deemed strong indicators of reliability (Field, 2013). 

Work-Nonwork Boundary Management Profiles 

Work-life flexstyles were originally conceptualized in Kossek and Lautsch’s (2008) book 

CEO of Me.  The instrument that was used to determine flexstyle was later expanded and led to 

the creation of the Work-Life Indicator (WLI) (Hannum et al., 2011).  Initially the WLI was a 

23-item survey that measured sorted took scores from five subscales to determine an individual’s 

preferences into one of three areas: behaviors, boundary control factor and identity.  In 2012, 

Kossek et al. took the WLI assessment validated it into the work-nonwork boundary 

management profiles: 17-item, five subscale survey with Likert responses ranging from 1 

(Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree).  The work-nonwork boundary management profiles 

validate the initial questions that were present in Kossek and Lautsch’s (2008) flexstyle self-

assessment and alters them to give better clarity.  For example, the original question “except in 

an emergency, I generally try to take care of personal or family needs at work only when I’m on 

 

40 

 
 

 

break or during my lunch hour” was simplified to “I take care of personal or family needs during 

work” (Kossek et al., 2012).  The assessment asks participants to answer all questions and adds 

up their raw score in five distinct categories.  Those categories are: work-interrupting nonwork, 

nonwork interrupting work, boundary control, family focus, and work focus ad in brief are thusly 

defined.  Work interrupting non-work behaviors relates to behaviors that allow work 

responsibilities and duties to interrupt one’s personal life.  Conversely, non-work interrupting 

work relates to behaviors that allow family and other non-work commitments to interrupt work 

duties.  Boundary refers to how one manages the boundaries and borders between the work and 

professional domain.  Family focused and work focused identity refers the extent to which an 

individual identifies with and invests in the work or family respectively (Kossek et al., 2012).  

Permission to use the work-life-indicator (WLI) and work-nonwork boundary management 

profiles was given by Dr. Ellen Kossek (Appendix A).   

Kossek and Lautsch’s (2008) flexstyle assessment (also referred to as boundary 

management profiles) built on previous literature relating to boundary control theory (Ashforth et 

al., 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996).  The assessment categorizes responses into one of three boundary 

management styles: separators, integrators, and volleyers (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008).  Flexstyle 

was initially covered in Kossek, Lautsch, and Eaton (2006).  245 professionals at two Fortune 

500 firms with telework policies were surveyed.  Kossek et al.’s (2006) work examined the 

impact of perceived job control integration strategies and the impact they had on work-family 

conflict.  These strategies were pulled from Kossek, Noe, and DeMar’s (1999) construct of 

boundary management strategy.  Likert-scale questions ranging from 1 to 5 were used to gauge if 

strategies favored high separation (1) or integration (5) (Kossek et al., 1999).  Relationships 

between boundary management and job control were examined in Kossek et al. (2006) and found 

 

41 

 
 

 

that higher integrative strategies were related to increased work-family conflict.  Moreover, 

Kossek et al.’s (2006) model of integration began to talk about how psychological variables 

affected job control and family conflict.  Boundaries, then, are not exclusively set by the 

employer but are also a product of individual value, belief, and how those values and beliefs 

integrate with the environment (Kossek et al., 2006).  

As discussed, Kossek and Lautsch’s (2008) study classifies individuals into three distinct 

overarching clusters: integrators, separators, and volleyers.  Although the work on flexstyle did 

infer that distinct flex preferences exist, and that they could be linked to outcomes, the measure 

itself was never validated or linked to quantitative measures.  In 2011, Hannum et al. took the 

flexstyle construct and create the WLI which broke flexibility into three principle factors: 

behavior factor, boundary factor, and identity factor.  Seeking further validation, Kossek, 

Ruderman, Braddy, and Hannum (2012) further validated these measures via the work nonwork 

boundary management profiles. The profiles validated the distinction between separative and 

integrative behavior.  In addition, Kossek et al.’s (2012) work took Kossek and Lautsch’s (2008) 

flexstyle assessment modifying the questions to add clarity, and further divided the questions 

into the categories of work interrupting nonwork behaviors and nonwork interrupting work 

behaviors (which gave greater clarity and validity to the separator/integrator classifications).   

Cronbach alpha scores of work interrupting nonwork behaviors were .84 and .83 in their 

respective samples, while Cronbach alpha scores for work interrupting non-work behaviors were 

.79 and .74 in their respective samples.  Alphas for boundary control were .88 in both samples.  

Finally, Cronbach alpha scores for work identity were .76 ad .75 and family identity were .85 

and .77 in both their respective samples (Kossek et al., 2011).  The alpha scores indicate that the 

 

42 

 
 

 

questions are not only consistent but that more definitive distinctions between separative and 

integrative flexstyles can now be ascertained.   

In this study, the alphas for work-interrupting nonwork, nonwork interrupting work, 

boundary control, family identity and work identity were .87, .66, .83, .82, and .63.  In the case 

of nonwork-interrupting work, a reliability without items analysis was conducted on SPSS and 1 

item was removed to create a slightly more reliable alpha of .67.  Although two of the subscales 

were below the .7 threshold, they were still utilized in the final analysis.  The guidelines 

regarding alpha scores have some level of subjectivity.  As Kline (1999) points out that although 

alphas above .8 for intelligence tests and .7 for ability tests are acceptable, surveys that examine 

psychological/emotional ideas can dip below .7 and still be reliable due the diversity of the 

constructs being measured.  In the case of the nonwork interrupting work subscale, the .67 alpha 

score is not far below the recommended .7 threshold.   In the case of the lower work identity 

alpha of .62, it should be noted that two-question subscales can lend themselves to lower alpha 

score (Fields, 2013).     

A note on the use of the Work Nonwork Boundary Management Profiles and Work-Life Indicator 

Interpretation and use in this study 

 

Prior to beginning this study, it was conceptualized to look at flexstyle as a continuum 

between those being more integrative vs those being more separative based on Kossek and 

Lautch’s (2008) work.   Seeking to use a more validated measure in this research and in 

consultation with Dr. Ellen Kossek, the work nonwork boundary management profiles (Kossek 

et al., 2011) and the WLI (Hannum et al., 2011) were presented as validated alternatives.  

Initially, the intent was to use and/or combine the work interrupting nonwork and nonwork 

interrupting work subscales of work nonwork boundary management profiles to better 

 

43 

 
 

 

understand the integrator/separator dynamic.  In further consultation with Dr. Kossek, it was 

decided that approach would be too blunt and that using the work nonwork boundary 

management profiles in their entirety was a more appropriate methodological choice. 

Kossek et al.’s (2012) work-nonwork boundary profiles interpret the scores from the 

instrument’s five subscales and place them into one of six flexstyle categories which is achieved 

by conducting a K-Means cluster analysis with a Euclidian distance (Kossek et al., 2012).  In the 

case of this study, it was observed that responses did not fit into these six flexstyles in a way that 

coincided with Kossek et al.’s (2012) typography.  As a result, I decided to interpret the five 

subscales using Hannum et al.’s (2011) work-life indicator as a guide which took scores from the 

five subscales and broke them into three overall categories: behavior factor (comprised of the 

work-interrupting nonwork and nonwork interrupting work subscales); boundary control factor; 

(calculated using the boundary control subscale); and identity factor (calculated using the work 

focus and family focus subscales). 

 The use of the three work-life dimensions also changed the nature of analyses as now 

ANCOVAS were used to understand the research questions.  This marks a departure from the 

original analytical plan that initially involved a purely correlational design.  This study was 

rooted in understanding correlation and as such it was determined to utilize multiple regression 

with each of the five subscales individually as well in order to get a deeper perspective on this 

research topic. 

Out of 287 usable surveys, the results revealed that two work-life behaviors [integrators 

(n=135) and family firsters (n=102)] comprised 82% of the sample population.  This statistic not 

only explains why responses did not fall cleanly into Kossek et al.’s 2012 model but may also 

 

44 

 
 

 

give insight into shifts in generational work-style preferences.  This insight is discussed later in 

the implications section of this chapter. 

Job Satisfaction Schedule 

 

Job Satisfaction was measured using a shortened version of Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) 

job satisfaction scale.  The original scale consisted of nineteen Likert scale questions (Strongly 

Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree) that looked at assessing overall job 

satisfaction and reported a coefficient alpha of 0.87.  In their (1998) study that focused on core 

self-evaluation, Judge et al. (1998) took five items from Brayfield and Rothe’s (1951) job 

satisfaction index and administered it to their sample population.  The five items were “I feel 

well satisfied with my present job,” “Most days I am enthusiastic about my work,” “Each day of 

work seems like it will never end” (reverse scored), “I find real enjoyment in my work,” and “I 

consider my job rather unpleasant” (reversed scored) (Judge et al., 1998).  The Job Satisfaction 

Schedule is available for public use for educational purposes. 

 

To test validity and reliability, Judge et al. (1998) administered the shortened measure to 

222 university employees and yielded a Cronbach alpha of .88.  The Cronbach alpha for the 

Judge et al.’s (1998) measure in this study was .88. 

The Turnover Intention Scale 6 (TIS-6) Assessment 

The second research question asks if there is a relationship between flexstyle and 

turnover intention.  The TIS was a 15 item Likert scale developed to measure the likelihood that 

an employee would leave their job (Bothma & Roodt, 2013).  The TIS was developed in 

response to a lack of multi-item scales addressing intent to leave within human resources 

research and a prevalence to use single item measures to determine turnover intentions (Roodt, 

2004).  Single item scales make it difficult to determine if a survey is measuring what it claims 

 

45 

 
 

 

and thus have a low construct validity (Field, 2013).  Roodt’s (2004) original scale was 

unpublished but a shortened version of the instrument (TIS-6) was created and validated in 2013 

(Bothma & Roodt, 2013).  Much like its 15-item counterpart, this 6-item survey utilizes a 5- 

point Likert scale (1= never, 5 = always) and measures the likelihood that an individual is willing 

to stay at an organization.  Scores ranging between 1-2 indicate a likelihood that someone is 

willing to stay in their position, a mean score between 2-3 indicates uncertainty about staying in 

a job, and a mean score between 3-5 indicates the likelihood that an individual will leave the 

company if given the opportunity (Bothma & Roodt, 2013).  As a result, the lower one’s score on 

the assessment, the more likely they are to stay at an organization (Bothma & Roodt, 2013).  The 

TIS-6 was used with the permission of Dr. Gerhard Roodt (Appendix B).  The TIS-6 has been 

chosen as an instrument for the current study for two reasons.  First, the TIS-6 can determine the 

likelihood someone is going to stay in an organization, and this allows the researcher to answer 

secondary question B (is there a relationship between flexstyle and turnover intention).  Second, 

the TIS-6 has proven reliability and validity.  

  The TIS-6 scale was initially used and validated in a study of 2429 employees that 

examined multiple organizational principles such as managerial relationships and values 

congruence.  Bothma and Roodt (2013) tested the TIS-6 for reliability and validity. The TIS-6 

had a Cronbach alpha score a 0.80.  These findings confirm the reliability of the TIS-6 especially 

as measured against Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994) work that states an alpha of .70 is the 

threshold for reliability.  The initial Cronbach alpha for the TIS-6 in this study was .41; well 

below the acceptable standard.  A reliability analysis without items was conducted in SPSS and 2 

questions were dropped from the instrument for analysis.  The modified four-item version of the 

TIS-6 yielded an alpha of .79. 

 

46 

 
 

 

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) 

 Initially created in 1988, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) was a 

self-reported questionnaire comprised of two 10-item scales that would measure positive and 

negative affective.  Respondents were asked to rate how much they had felt a specific emotion 

(some examples include “alert,”  “inspired,” “enthusiastic,” and “scared”) over the past week on 

a 5 point Likert scale that ranged from “very slightly or not at all” (1) to “extremely” (5).  Affect 

describes the extent to which an individual experiences positive or negative emotions and how 

that influences their relationships with their surroundings (Watson & Clark, 1988).  The PANAS 

was appropriate to use in this study as a control variable in order to determine if how respondents 

overall affect had any impact on their satisfaction or turnover intention scores.  Judge, Erez, and 

Thoresen (2000) discuss that negative affect (NA) has a significant impact on measuring stress 

related variables (such as turnover intention and satisfaction) and can bias the way survey items 

are answered.  In order to determine whether NA impacts stress related constructs it is important 

to also control for positive bias (positive affect) as well (Judge et al., 2000).  In short, controlling 

for both positive and negative affect as appropriate for this study as it helped to mitigate potential 

biases and helped control for the individual personality of participants (Judge et al., 2000).   In 

order to decrease overall response time and increase completion rates, a shortened 10-item 

version of the PANAS by Mackinnon et al. (1999) was employed.    

MacKinnon et al.’s (1999) short-form version of the PANAS yielded Cronbach alpha for 

the Positive Affect Schedule of 0.78 and 0.87 for the Negative Affect Schedule.  The alpha for 

Mackinnon et al.’s (1999) shortened measure in this study were .82 for positive affect and .81 for 

negative affect. 

 

 

47 

 
 

 

Sample Selection 

The population for the current study was full-time administrators in student affairs who 

were new professionals.  New professionals are defined as those with five years or less of full-

time experience in student affairs work (Cilente et al., 2006; Coleman & Johnson, 1990; Renn & 

Hodges, 2007).  Student affairs has a wide variety of units within its realm.  Love (2003, 

paragraph 7) states that units typically associated with student affairs include (but are not limited 

to):  

Residence life, commuter services, graduate student services, admissions, new student 
orientation, financial aid, counseling centers, advising centers, leadership development, 
Greek affairs, student activities, student unions, leadership development, community 
service, service learning, career planning and placement, discipline and judicial affairs, 
alumni relations and development, services for students with disabilities, developmental 
learning services, and advocacy and support programs (e.g., for students of color, lesbian, 
bisexual, gay, and transgender students, veterans, women, international students, adults). 
 
The current study employed purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is defined as a 

non-probability sampling technique where the participants studied are based on the judgment of 

the researcher (Creswell, 2009). Purposeful sampling focuses on particular characteristics of a 

population that are of interest.  In this case, the characteristics of interest related to student affairs 

professionals employed for less than five years in the field.  The decision to use five years of 

full-time professional experience was chosen as that mark has been used to define new 

professionals and is referred to as the cut-off point for this population (Cilente et al., 2006; 

Coleman & Johnson, 1990; Renn & Hodges, 2007).   

Three associations were chosen to help distribute the survey instrument.  The Association 

of College Personnel Administrators (ACPA) was chosen to select a sample because it is one of 

the largest and broadest associations for student affairs professionals. ACPA has a membership 

of 6,500 (ACPA, 2019).  ACPA’s membership also provides a rich diversity in respects to job 

 

48 

 
 

 

types and functional areas. This diversity in job types and areas made ACPA a strong choice 

given that the current study sought to find relationships among all new professionals and the 

membership work in these areas (as opposed to new professionals in a specific field such as 

Fraternity/Sorority Life).  Likewise, the National Association of Student Affairs Professionals 

(NASPA) is also one of the largest professional associations in student affairs.  Although 

distribution to all new professionals in NASPA was not possible, NASPA’s subcommittee 

(known as a knowledge community) for New Professionals and Graduate Students did distribute 

the survey on my behalf.  Finally, the Southern Association for College Student Affairs 

(SACSA) also sent out the survey to all members who identified as new professionals.  All three 

associations have members who represent a broad cross section of student affairs work and were 

thus strong choices for survey distribution. 

The survey was sent out to a total of 1,623 members of ACPA who identified as new 

professionals, 1,500 members of the NASPA New Professionals and Graduate Student 

Knowledge Community listserv, and 96 members who identified as new professionals from 

SACSA.  A cover letter was included with the email and ACPA sent the link to their members 

twice on my behalf.  The appropriate sample size for the current study was obtained by 

determining the needed sample size.  The needed sample size is found by setting the confidence 

level to 95% and margin of error to 5% in order to meet the assumptions of normality.  

Confidence level refers to the assurance that the test will continually fall within the same 

parameters.  Margin of error (confidence interval) simply refers to amount of error or inaccuracy 

the study will allow.  These levels were set as they are standard levels used in educational 

research (Hinkle, Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003).  With these parameters in place, a target sample size 

 

49 

 
 

 

of 260 was needed to have the ability to conduct parametric tests when total number of surveys 

sent equals 800.   

Basic distribution statistics for this study were as follows:  3,191 surveys were sent to 

association membership in ACPA, NASPA, and SACSA combined.  358 surveys were collected 

(11.2% response rate).  Seventy-one surveys were eliminated from the pool for the following 

reasons: incomplete assessments (53 respondents), more than five years of full time professional 

experience (18 respondents), Thus, a total of 287 surveys were deemed acceptable for analysis 

for this study.    

Data Collection 

Data were collected using the cloud-based program Qualtrics, which is licensed to 

Michigan State University students.  Each of the assessments was coded (and reverse coded 

when appropriate) and made ready for distribution via the online program Qualtrics.  Participants 

received a link to the surveys that captured both demographic data and assessment scores. 

Survey data were downloaded from Qualtrics and uploaded into SPSS where raw data was 

cleaned then tabulated to get descriptive measures as well as tabulating scores for each of the 

four separate assessments.  The demographic variables were gender, age, race/ethnicity, sexual 

orientation, marital status, number of children (if applicable), education level, if graduate degrees 

were attained in student affairs or related programs, ability status, type of disability (if 

applicable), and type of student affairs unit worked in (i.e., Fraternity/Sorority Life, Campus 

Activities etc.), number of years conducting full- time work in student affairs, and number of 

full-time positions held in student affairs.  Although the research questions are broad in scope, 

these demographic variables were important to the study as literature has revealed that these 

variables may impact the data as they relate to the research questions.  Given that employees 

 

50 

 
 

 

have different identities based on gender, race, age etc., it may prove useful to capture 

demographic data to ascertain if there are any unique patterns amongst these groups.  

Understanding student affairs units was important to the current study since the varied nature of 

administrative work in the profession may have impacted satisfaction levels amongst employees.  

Moreover, this variance needed to be examined to determine whether the results were 

representative of the overall population or if subsets of student affairs work varied greatly from 

the overall population.   

In regards to protecting privacy, participant privacy was protected in several ways.  First, 

participant names were not collected in the survey.  Second, specific survey data were not shared 

with participant supervisors or institutions.  Furthermore, data were collected and stored via 

password-protected software and downloaded to the researcher’s computer.  Survey response 

were tabulated and coded as they were received.  The computer itself was password protected 

and the data were placed in a password-protected folder.  Participants received a $5 Amazon gift 

card for completion of the survey.  Emails were collected using the cloud-based software Survey 

Monkey.  A link to the Survey Monkey form presented itself at the end of the survey.  Since the 

link was provided on a platform outside of Qualtrics, participant anonymity was protected. 

Data Analysis 

Data were analyzed and interpreted using SPSS.  SPSS was used to provide descriptive 

analyses for demographic variables (i.e., race, gender identity, age) as well as to conduct 

regression analyses.  In order to discover relationship between flexstyle and job satisfaction and 

flexstyle and turnover intentions, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to 

understand relationships between the continuous dependent variables of job satisfaction and 

turnover intention and the independent variables of work-life behaviors, boundary control factor, 

 

51 

 
 

 

and identity factor.  Multiple regression was used to understand each of the work-nonwork 

boundary management profiles subscales (work interrupting nonwork, nonwork interrupting 

work, boundary control, work identity, family identity) relationship with the variables of job 

satisfaction and turnover intention. 

 

It also was determined that there would be value in testing each of the work-nonwork 

boundary management profiles subscales individually to discover if more nuanced and subtle 

relationships could be found.  As has been discussed in the previous chapter, several hypotheses 

were formed that would help answer the two overarching research questions. Those hypotheses 

are: 

Hypotheses Related to Job Satisfaction 

Hypothesis 1a: There will be no mean difference for behavior factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 1b: There will be no mean difference for boundary control factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 1c: There will be no mean difference for identity factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 1d: There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and job satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1e: There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and job 
satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1f: There will be a positive relationship between boundary control and job 
satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1g: There will be a negative relationship between family identity and job satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1h: There will be a positive relationship between work identity and job satisfaction. 
 

Hypotheses Related to Turnover Intention 

 

Hypothesis 2a: There will be no mean difference for behavior factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 2b: There will be no mean difference for boundary control factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 2c: There will be no mean difference for identity factor groups. 

 

52 

 
 

 

Hypothesis 2d: There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and 
turnover intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2e: There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and turnover intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2f:  There will be a negative relationship between boundary control and turnover 
intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2g: There will be a negative relationship between family identity and turnover 
intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2h: There will be a p relationship between work identity and turnover intention. 
 

With categories created, I decided to understand group means via ANCOVA which 

would help determine if there was a difference among the different behavior (flexstyle), 

boundary control, and identity groups.   

The second dimension to understanding the research questions employed a correlational 

design that examined the relationship between each of the Kossek et al.’s (2012) five subscales 

and the variables of job satisfaction and turnover intention.  Multiple regression was used to 

estimate if there was a predictive relationship between work-life flexstyle and job satisfaction, 

and intent-to-stay when controlling for multiple variables (Field, 2013).  The variables that were 

controlled for were age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student affairs, 

number of full-time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in full-

time work in student affairs, if the respondents had children, educational attainment, positive 

affect and negative affect. 

Risks and Limitations 

There were few potential risks for participating in this study.  First, an online survey did 

not pose any physical harm to the participant.  Questions about job satisfaction and turnover 

intention could have potentially posed a minimal emotional risk to participants as it may trigger 

 

53 

 
 

 

negative or sensitive memories.  With that in mind, the risk was minimized as questions did not 

ask for specific experiences or recollections.     

Given that the respondents’ identities were not known to the researcher there is no 

conflict of interest.  Likewise, the researcher did not financially gain from this study.  It should 

be noted that the researcher does present and conduct workshops on work-life issues for several 

national associations at national conferences, webinars, and in his practice as a professional 

speaker, which may have some impact on participants taking the survey.  It is still unlikely that 

the researcher had a known relationship to any of the participants, and anonymity of the surveys 

should have protected against this.   

The limitations to the current study were as follows.  First, the current study was broad in 

its outreach and may not have reached a proportionate number of student affairs professionals. In 

other words, there may have been overrepresentation in one field (for example campus activities) 

from others areas of student affairs work (e.g., fraternity/sorority life).  The current study 

conducted its outreach using listservs of major professional associations in student affairs.  

Although this was a logical choice given that ACPA, NASPA, and SACSA represent the student 

affairs profession as a whole and that the listservs gave easy access to the target populations, the 

samples may not have been representative of all student affairs practitioners given that: a) each 

institution funds professional development differently which leads some professionals to not join 

an association; b) some new professionals may opt to join a more specialized professional 

association (i.e., the National Association of Colleges and Employers for those in Career 

Services), and c) some professionals may not be a part of any association.   

 

Another limitation of the study is the time of year the survey was distributed.  The survey 

was distributed in July, a time of year that is often fairly calm in the student affairs 

 

54 

 
 

 

administration.  This may have skewed the data.  Another limitation of the study is that 

participants were not asked what type of institution they worked at.  Thus, understanding the 

sample responses from an institutional type perspective was not conducted in this study.   

Chapter Summary 

 

This chapter outlined the methodological choices made associated with the study, the 

validity and reliability of the instruments used, the challenges and alterations to the research 

design that were made base in order to best answer the research questions, and new hypotheses 

that were created in order to best answer the two principal research questions.  The next chapter 

will outline the findings of the researcher and which hypotheses were supported. 

 

 

55 

 
 

 

Chapter 4: Results 

This chapter shares the findings of the study including participant demographics, answers 

to hypothesis and rationale for analytical courses of action when appropriate.  The research 

questions for this study were: 

1)  What is the relationship between flexstyle and job satisfaction among new student affairs 

professionals? 

2)  What is the relationship between flexstyle and turnover intention among new student 

affairs professionals? 

Given that it was not possible to determine a six-cluster solution as laid out in Kossek et al. 

(2012), it was decided to answer the research questions using both ANCOVA and regression.  

ANCOVA would determine if there were significant differences between the categories of 

behavior, boundary control, and identity with job satisfaction and turnover intention.  In addition, 

I felt it was important to see if a relationship existed between job satisfaction and turnover 

intention with each of the five subscales separately to see if there were any nuances and other 

findings that could be found in the sample.  As a result, the following hypotheses were created: 

Hypotheses Related to Job Satisfaction 

Hypothesis 1a: There will be no mean difference for behavior factor groups. 

Hypothesis 1b: There will be no mean difference for boundary control factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 1c: There will be no mean difference for identity factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 1d: There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and job satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1e: There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and job 
satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1f: There will be a positive relationship between boundary control and job 
satisfaction. 

 

56 

 
 

 

Hypothesis 1g: There will be a negative relationship between family identity and job satisfaction. 
 
Hypothesis 1h: There will be a positive relationship between work identity and job satisfaction. 
 

Hypotheses Related to Turnover Intention 

 

Hypothesis 2a: There will be no mean difference for behavior facto) groups. 
 
Hypothesis 2b: There will be no mean difference for boundary control factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 2c: There will be no mean difference for identity factor groups. 
 
Hypothesis 2d: There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and 
turnover intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2e: There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and turnover intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2f:  There will be a negative relationship between boundary control and turnover 
intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2g: There will be a negative relationship between family identity and turnover 
intention. 
 
Hypothesis 2h: There will be a positive relationship between work identity and turnover 
intention. 
 

Demographics of Survey Participants 

 

Thirteen demographic questions were asked of participants.  All questions gave 

respondents the option to not answer or not to disclose their information.   The breakdowns for 

the variables of gender, race/Ethnicity, marital status, and child status are listed below.  The 

demographic output of other variables can be found in Appendix C. 

Table 4 Gender of all Participants  

 
Frequency  Percent 
75 
Male 
200 
Female 
2 
Transgender 
6 
Non-Binary 
3 
Other 
Prefer not to Disclose  1 
Total 

26.1 
69.7 
7 
2.1 
1 
0.3 
100 

287 

 

57 

 
 

 

Female participants were the largest gender group in this study comprising almost 

seventy percent of the population.  Men were the second largest group in the study at twenty-sex 

percent.   In general, the participants in this survey conformed with gender binary norms.  This is 

consistent with the national trend that reports seventy-one percent of student affairs positions are 

held by women (Pritchard & McChesney, 2018). 

Age 

 The median age for participants was 27.7 years of age.  The significance in this median 

age is that the median age for the group that validated the Kossek et al.’s (2012) work nonwork 

boundary management profiles was 44.4.   This marks a significant demographic shift from the 

group for which the chief instrument in this study was created. 

Table 5 Race and Ethnicity of all Participants 
Frequency 
172 
38 
22 
22 
3 
13 
2 
1 
1 
11 
2 
287 

 
White/Caucasian 
Black/African American 
Hispanic (regardless of race) 
Asian/Pacific Islander 
Native American/1st Nations 
Mixed Race 
Latinx 
Caribbean 
Middle Eastern 
Other 
Prefer not to Disclose 
Total 

 
Table 6 Marital Status of all Participants 

Percent 
59.9 
13.2 
7.7 
7.7 
1.0 
4.5 
.7 
.3 
.3 
3.8 
.7 
100 

 
Frequency 
194 
Single 
Married 
54 
Domestic Partnership  26 
Divorced 
2 
Prefer not to Disclose  1 
Total 
 

277 

Percent 
67.6 
18.9 
12.5 
.7 
.3 
100 

58 

 
 
 

 

 
 

Table 7 Child Status of all Participants 

 

 
Yes 
No 
Prefer not to Disclose  1 
Total 

287 

Frequency 
17 
269 

Percent 
6.4 
93.7 
.3 
100 

 
 

Comparing marital status to the population Kossek et al. (2012) used when creating the 

work-nonwork boundary management profiles reveals a stark contract to this population.  31.4% 

of the participants of this study were married or partnered compared to 85.1% of Kossek et al. 

(2012).  The reason for this is quite simple given that new professionals are typically (albeit not 

exclusively) in early stages of their careers and trend younger as a result. On a much more macro 

level, the predominant group participating in this study were single with no children.  This 

demographic finding had implications for the how flexstyle grouping came about in this study.  

This phenomenon is discussed later in the chapter. 

Demographic Breakdown 

 

Hannum et al.’s (2011) work-life indicator is broken down into three distinct profiles: 

behavior factor, boundary control factor, and identity factor.  Demographic breakdown for each 

of the three factors was as follows:  

Table 8 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor 

  
Cyclers 
Family Firster 
Integrators 
Separators 
Work Firster 
Total 

Frequency 
45 
102 
135 
4 
1 
287 

Percent 
15.6 
35.5 
47 
1.4 
.3 
100 

 
Table 9 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor  

 
High Control 
Midlevel Control  21 
Low Control 

115 

Frequency 
151 

Percent 
52.6 
7.3 
40.1 

59 

 

 

 

 
 

Table 9 (cont’d) 

Total 

287 

100 

 
Table 10 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor 

 
Dual Focus 
Family Focus 
Other Focus 
Work Focus 
Total 

 

Frequency 
 84 
7 
4 
192 
287 

Percent 
29.3 
2.4 
1.4 
66.9 
100 

In brief, tables 8, 9, and 10 reveal a few interesting trends in terms of preferences of the 

participants.  In relation to behavior factor the population in this study was largely family firsters 

and integrators.  Family firsters allow family to interrupt work but not the inverse.  Hard 

boundaries are created to ensure that family time remains uninterrupted.  Integrators allow work 

and life to blend into each other (Hannum et al., 2011).  The dominance of these two behavior 

factors indicates that allowing outside forces such as family and personal commitments to 

interrupt and shift work patterns is common but work interrupting personal and family 

commitments does not necessarily hold true.  Table 9 examined boundary control factor (the 

extent to which an individual can control how they construct work and life) and reveals that new 

professionals in this study either had very high or very low boundary control; there was very 

little middle ground. Finally, the identity factor demographics indicate that the new professionals 

in this study have a very strong work identity.  

Demographics Based on Behavior Factor 

 

In addition, demographic information for each of the three dimensions of the work-life 

indicator (behavior factor, boundary control factor, and identity factor) were tabulated. The first 

group examined were work-life behaviors (flexstyle).  Work-life behaviors are broken down into 

five distinct subgroups: cyclers, family firsters, integrators, separators, and work firsters.  Below 

 

60 

 
 

 

is the output for the variables of gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and child status.  Outputs 

for additional variables can be found in Appendix C.  

Table 11 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Gender 

 

Cyclers 

 

Male 

Female 

Non-Binary 

Total 

Family Firster  Male 

Female 

Non-Binary 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Frequency  Percent 

9 

33 

3 

45 

29 

69 

3 

1 

20.0 

73.3 

6.7 

100.0 

28.4 

67.6 

2.9 

1.0 

Total 

102 

100.0 

Integrators  Male 

Female 

Transgender 

Other 

Total 

Male 

Female 

Total 

Separators 

Work Firster  Male 

35 

95 

2 

3 

25.9 

70.4 

1.5 

2.2 

135 

100.0 

1 

3 

4 

1 

25.0 

75.0 

100.0 

100.0 

 
Table 12 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Race and Ethnicity 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Cyclers 

White/Caucasian 

24 

53.3 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Native American/First Nations 

Mixed Race 

Total 

Family Firster  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

3 

3 

7 

3 

5 

45 

57 

16 

8 

9 

6.7 

6.7 

15.6 

6.7 

11.1 

100.0 

55.9 

15.7 

7.8 

8.8 

 

 

61 

 
 

Table 12 (cont’d) 
 

Mixed Race 
Other 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Integrators  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Mixed Race 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Separators  White/Caucasian 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Mixed Race 

Total 

Work Firster  Hispanic (regardless of race) 

 

 

3.9 
6.9 

1.0 

4 
7 

1 

102 

100.0 

89 

19 

11 

4 

11 

1 

65.9 

14.1 

8.1 

3.0 

8.0 

.7 

135 

100.0 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

50.0 

25.0 

25.0 

100.0 

100.0 

Table 13 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Marital Status 

 

 Cyclers 

 

Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Divorced 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Family Firster  Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Frequency  Percent 

33 

4 

5 

2 

1 

45 

63 

27 

12 

73.3 

8.9 

11.1 

4.4 

2.2 

100.0 

61.8 

26.5 

11.8 

Total 

102 

100.0 

Integrators 

Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Separators 

Total 

Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Total 

 

95 

22 

18 

70.4 

16.3 

13.3 

135 

100.0 

2 

1 

1 

4 

50.0 

25.0 

25.0 

100.0 

62 

 
 

 

Table 13 (cont’d) 
Work Firster 
 
Table 14 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Child Status 

Single 

1 

100.0 

 

Cyclers 

 

Yes 

No 

Total 

Family Firster  Yes 

No 

Prefer not to 
Disclose 

Total 

Yes 

No 

Total 

Integrators 

Separators 

No 

Work Firster  No 

Frequency  Percent 

2 

43 

45 

6 

95 

1 

102 

9 

126 

135 

4 

1 

4.4 

95.6 

100.0 

5.9 

93.1 

1.0 

100.0 

6.7 

93.3 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

 
These demographics indicate that those who are married/partnered are more likely to be 

integrators or family firsters. These demographics show a trend away from highly separative 

tendencies; including participants who are married or partnered. 

Demographics based on Boundary Control Factor 

Boundary Control factor is broken down into three sub-categories: low, medium, and 

high.  Below is the output for the variables of gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and child 

status.  Outputs for additional variables can be found in Appendix C. 

Table 15 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Gender 

 
Low 
 

 
Male 

Female 

Frequency  Percent 
23.5 

27 

82 

71.3 

Transgender 

Non-Binary 

Other 

Total 

 

 

1 

3 

2 

.9 

2.6 

1.7 

115 

100.0 

63 

 

 
 

Table 15 (cont’d) 

Medium  Male 

Female 

Total 

High  Male 

Female 

Transgender 

Non-Binary 

Other 

Prefer not to Disclose 

4 

17 

21 

44 

101 

1 

3 

1 

1 

19.0 

81.0 

100.0 

29.1 

66.9 

.7 

2.0 

.7 

.7 

Total 

151 

100.0 

 
Table 16 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Race and Ethnicity  

 

 

Low 

White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Mixed Race 

Other 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Medium  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Native American/First Nations 

Mixed Race 

Total 

High  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Native American/First Nations 

Mixed Race 

Other 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

 

Frequency  Percent 

80 

10 

7 

8 

8 

1 

1 

69.6 

8.7 

6.1 

7.0 

7.0 

.9 

.9 

115 

100.0 

10 

3 

3 

2 

1 

2 

21 

82 

25 

12 

12 

2 

16 

47.6 

14.3 

14.3 

9.5 

4.8 

9.6 

100.0 

54.3 

16.6 

7.9 

7.9 

1.3 

10.6 

.7 

.7 

100.0 

1 

1 

151 

64 

 
 

 

Table 17 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Marital Status 

 

 

Low 

Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Divorced 

Total 

Medium  Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Total 

High 

Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Frequency  Percent 

77 

23 

13 

2 

115 

14 

4 

3 

21 

103 

27 

20 

1 

67.0 

20.0 

11.3 

1.7 

100.0 

66.7 

19.0 

14.3 

100.0 

68.2 

17.9 

13.2 

.7 

151 

100.0 

 
Table 18 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Child Status 

 

Low 

 

Yes 

No 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Medium  No 

High 

Yes 

No 

Total 

Frequency  Percent 

8 

106 

1 

115 

21 

9 

142 

151 

7.0 

92.2 

.9 

100.0 

100.0 

6.0 

94.0 

100.0 

 

 

Demographics Based on Identity Factor 

The third element of the work-life indicator is work identity factor that has four 

subgroups: dual focus, family focus, other focus, work focus.  A demographic breakdown of this 

for the variables of gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, and child status are below.  For the 

output of additional demographic variables, please see Appendix C. 

 
 
 

 

65 

 
 

 

Table 19 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Gender 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Dual Focus 

 Male 

Female 

Non-Binary 

Total 

Family Focus  Female 

Other Focus  Male 

Female 

Non-Binary 

Total 

Work Focus  Male 

Female 

Transgender 

Non-Binary 

Prefer not to Disclose 

20 

61 

3 

84 

7 

2 

1 

1 

4 

53 

131 

2 

5 

1 

23.8 

72.6 

3.6 

100.0 

100.0 

50.0 

25.0 

25.0 

100.0 

27.6 

68.2 

1.0 

2.6 

.5 

Total 

192 

100.0 

 
Table 20 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Race and Ethnicity 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Dual Focus  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Native American/First Nations 

Multiple  

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Family Focus  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Total 

Other Focus  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 
Asian/Pacific Islander 
Total 

 

 

66 

50 

15 

2 

7 

2 

8 

1 

59.5 

17.9 

2.4 

8.3 

2.4 

9.6 

1.2 

84 

100.0 

3 

1 

1 

2 

7 
2 
1 
1 
4 

42.9 

14.3 

14.3 

28.6 

100.0 
50.0 
25.0 
25.0 
100.0 

 
 

Table 20 (cont’d) 

Work Focus  White/Caucasian 

Black/African American 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Hispanic (regardless of race) 

Native American/First Nations 

Mixed Race 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

 

117 

21 

18 

13 

1 

21 

1 

60.9 

10.9 

9.4 

6.8 

.5 

10.9 

.5 

192 

100.0 

 
Table 21 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Marital Status 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Dual Focus 

Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Divorced 

Total 

Family Focus  Single 

Married 

Divorced 

Total 

Other Focus 

Single 

Married 

Total 

Work Focus 

Single 

Married 

Domestic Partnership 

Prefer not to Disclose 

52 

18 

13 

1 

84 

5 

1 

1 

7 

2 

2 

4 

135 

33 

23 

1 

61.9 

21.4 

15.5 

1.2 

100.0 

71.4 

14.3 

14.3 

100.0 

50.0 

50.0 

100.0 

70.3 

17.2 

12.0 

.5 

Total 

192 

100.0 

 
Table 22 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Child Status 

 

Dual Focus 

 

Yes 

No 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Family Focus  No 

Frequency  Percent 

12 

71 

1 

84 

7 

14.3 

84.5 

1.2 

100.0 

100.0 

67 

 

 
 

Table 22 (cont’d) 

Other Focus  No 

Work Focus  Yes 

No 

Total 

 

 

4 

5 

187 

192 

100.0 

2.6 

97.4 

100.0 

The primary research question asked if there was a relationship between flexstyle and job 

Results for Research Question #1 

 

satisfaction among new professionals in student affairs.  The results to the hypothesis related to 

this question is as follows:  

Hypothesis 1a.  There will be no significant mean difference between job satisfaction and 
behavior factor groups 
 
 

The means for job satisfaction scores amongst all participants was 3.81 on a scale of five.  

The job satisfaction schedule (Judge et al., 1998) consisted of five Likert scale questions ranging 

from (1) to (5).   The higher ones score was on the scale, the more satisfied they were.  

Satisfaction scores below 2.5 indicate a stronger trend towards job dissatisfaction.  Therefore, an 

overall mean of 3.8 indicates a fairly strong level of job satisfaction amongst all participants.  

The job satisfaction means of the five flexstyles were as follows:  

Table 23 Job Satisfaction Means Based on Behavior Factor 

 
Cycler 
Family Firster 
Integrator 
Separator 
Work Firster 

Frequency  Mean 
45 
102 
135 
4 
1 

3.79 
3.98 
3.68 
4.3 
2.6 

 
 

Family firster had the highest job satisfaction rate out of the behavior factor sub-

classification groups.  It can be inferred from this result that placing some priority on 

family/personal matters has a positive impact on job satisfaction.  Family firster individuals put a 

high priority on the family. In addition, the behavior factor sub-classification group with the 

 

68 

 
 

 

second highest job satisfaction mean (Cyclers) prioritize what times of year require attention for 

personal matters and  Integrators scores were lower, indicating that the blending of work and life 

may have some negative impact on job satisfaction when compared to other the other behavior 

control sub-classifications.   Separator and work firster groups were too small to make proper 

inference.   

An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the effect between 

behavior factor on job satisfaction in new professionals in student affairs with the following 

variables being controlled for: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student 

affairs, number of full time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in 

full time work in student affairs, if the  respondents had children, educational attainment, 

positive affect and negative affect.  A Levene’s test and normality check were conducted and the 

assumptions were met.  In order to run post-hoc tests, the work firster group was eliminated from 

the analysis as it only had one participant.  Results indicated no significant main effect for work-

life behavior, F(3,219) = 1.00, p > .05 (.394) η2 = 0.014.  Although no significant relationship 

was found between flexstyle and job satisfaction the following effects had significant impact on 

variation within the model: number of fulltime jobs in student affairs F(3,219) = p < .05.036 =. 

η2 = .038, positive affect F(1,219) = 82.379 p < .01 (.000) η2 = 0.273, negative affect F(1,219) = 

9.942 p < .01 (.001) η2 = 0.043, and years of full-time work in student affairs F(1,219) = 5.049, 

p < .05 (.026), η2 = 0.023 all had significant variation on the model.  The hypothesis was 

supported. 

Hypothesis 1b. There will be no significant mean difference between job satisfaction and 
boundary control factor groups 
 

 

69 

 
 

 

The means for job satisfaction scores amongst all participants was 3.81 on a scale of five with 

higher scores indicating job satisfaction.  Broken down individually the means of the three 

boundary control groups were as follows:  

Table 24 Job Satisfaction Means Based on Boundary Control Factor 

 
Low 
Medium 
High 

 

Frequency  Mean 
115 
21 
151 

3.61 
4.55 
4.00 

Examining job satisfaction rates based on boundary control factor indicates some 

interesting results.  Those with medium control had the highest mean of 4.55 indicating very 

strong job satisfaction while those with high control also have a high satisfaction rates.  It may be 

possible that those with medium boundary control have found an equilibrium between what 

aspects of life they wish to control and which ones they are ok not having a direct say in matters.   

What this chart also reveals that one some level, as control levels increase there is a possibility 

that satisfaction increases as well.  This phenomenon is tested in hypothesis 1f.     

 An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the effect between 

boundary control factor on job satisfaction in new professionals in student affairs with the 

following variables being controlled for: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in 

student affairs, number of full time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of 

years in full time work in student affairs, if the  respondents had children, educational attainment, 

positive affect and negative affect.  The Levene’s test and normality checks were conducted and 

the assumptions were met.  Results indicated a significant relationship between job satisfaction 

and boundary control factor, F(2,221) = 3.628, p = < .05 (.027) η2 = 0.032.  In addition, the 

following variables had significant impact on variation within the model:  positive affect 

F(1,221) = 81.494 p < .01 (.000) η2 = 0.269, and negative affect F(1,221) = 6.153 p < .05 (.014) 

 

70 

 
 

 

η2 = 0.027.  Post hoc tests showed there was a significant difference between medium and high 

boundary control (p = .019). The null hypothesis of there not being a significant relationship 

between boundary control factor and job satisfaction was not supported.   

Hypothesis 1c: There will be no significant mean difference between job satisfaction and  
work-life identity factor groups 
 

The means for turnover intention scores amongst all participants was 3.81 on a scale of 

five, with five indicating strong job satisfaction.  Thus, the higher an individual scores on the job 

satisfaction scale the more satisfied they are with their current job.  Broken down individually 

the means of the four work-life identity groups were as follows:  

Table 25 Job Satisfaction Means Based on Identity Factor 

 
Dual Focus 
Family Focus 
Other Focus 
Work Focus 

 

Frequency  Mean 
84 
7 
4 
192 

3.87 
3.31 
3.25 
3.81 

The job satisfaction means based on identity factor yielded some interesting results.  Dual 

focus had the highest satisfaction rate at 3.87.  When broken down by identity factor, satisfaction 

tends to favor those whose identity has a strong work identity.  It should be noted that identity 

factor assesses the extent to which an individual’s identity is attached to work or personal life 

while behavior factor examines the extent to which individuals allow work and personal 

commitments to interrupt (or not interrupt) each other.  

An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the effect between 

work-life identity on job satisfaction for new professionals in student affairs with the following 

variables being controlled for: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student 

affairs, number of full-time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in 

full time work in student affairs, if the  respondents had children, educational attainment, 

 

71 

 
 

 

positive affect and negative affect.  The Levene’s test and normality checks were conducted and 

the assumptions were met.  Results indicated a significant main effect for work-life identity, 

F(3,220) = 2.919, p < .01 (0.035) η2 = 0.038.  In addition positive affect F(1,220) = 89.231, p < 

.01 (.000) η2 = .289, negative affect  F(1,220) = 8.609, p < .01 (.004) η2 = 0.038, number of full 

time jobs in student affairs, F(3,220) =  3.430 .018,  p <.05 (.018) η2 = .045, and years of full-

time work in student affairs F(1,220) = 5.765 p < .05 (.017), η2 = .026 all  had significant 

variation on the model.  The hypothesis was not supported.     

Hypothesis 1d. There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and job satisfaction 
 

As previously mentioned, the flexstyle score was ascertained by comparing the means of 

two subscales (work interrupting nonwork behaviors and nonwork interrupting work behaviors).   

I thought it was beneficial to see if there was a significant relationship between these subscales 

individually and job satisfaction.  To do so a multiple regression was carried out to investigate 

whether nonwork interrupting work behaviors could impact job satisfaction when controlling for 

the following variables: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student affairs, 

number of full time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in full-

time work in student affairs, if the respondents had children, educational attainment, positive 

affect and negative affect.  In the first step, the control variables were entered into the model 

with the independent variable entered during the second step. 

 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 41.8% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 13.911, p < 

.001 (000).  Although nonwork interrupting work did not have a significant contribution to the 

model (B = -.053, p = .413) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and 

negative affect, a small negative correlation did exist.  Positive affect (B = .563, p = .000), 

 

72 

 
 

 

negative affect (B = -.203, p = .000), and years of full-time professional student affairs work (B 

= -.081, p= .047) all had significant contributions to the model.  The results of the model 

demonstrate that a positive relationship between non-work interrupting work does not exist.  The 

hypothesis was not supported.   

Hypothesis 1e. There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and job 
satisfaction 
 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 40.8% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 13.911, p < 

.001 (000).  Although work interrupting nonwork did not have a significant contribution to the 

model (B = -.062, p = .097) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and 

negative affect, a small negative correlation did exist.  Positive affect (B = .561, p = .000) and 

negative affect (B = -.188, p = .000), all had significant contributions to the model.  The results 

of the model demonstrate that a statistically significant negative relationship between work 

interrupting nonwork and job satisfaction did not exist.  The hypothesis was not supported. 

Hypothesis 1f: There will be a positive relationship between boundary control and job 
satisfaction 
 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 41.9% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 13.911, p <. 

001 (000).  Boundary control factor was found to have a statistically significant contribution to 

the model (B = .137, p = .001) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and 

negative affect.  Positive affect (B = .551, p = .000) and negative affect (B = -.169, p = .001) 

both had significant contributions to the model.  The results of the model demonstrate that a 

statistically significant positive relationship between boundary control and job satisfaction does 

exist and the hypothesis was supported.   

 

73 

 
 

 

Hypothesis 1g. There will be a negative relationship between family identity and job satisfaction 
 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 40.4% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 13.965, p <. 

001 (000).  The family identity subscale was found to not have a statistically significant 

contribution to the model (B = .071, p = .075) when controlling for demographic variables and 

both positive and negative affect.  Positive affect (B = .551, p. = .000) and negative affect (B= -

.196, p = .000), and years of full-time professional experience in student affairs (B = -.081, p = 

.046) all had significant contributions to the model.  The results of the model demonstrate that 

there was no statistically significant negative relationship between family identity and job 

satisfaction.  As such, the hypothesis was not supported. 

Hypothesis 1h. There will be a positive relationship between work identity and job satisfaction 
 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 40.5% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 14.177, p < 

.001 (000).  The work identity subscale was found to have a statistically significant positive 

contribution to the model (B = .138, p = .028) when controlling for demographic variables and 

both positive and negative affect.  Positive affect (B = .528, p. = .000), negative affect (B=          

-.210, p = .000), and years of full-time professional experience in student affairs (B= -.086, p = 

.033) all had significant contributions to the model.  The results of the model demonstrate that 

there was statistically significant positive relationship between work identity and job satisfaction.  

As such, the hypothesis was supported. 

Results for Research Question #2 

The second research question asked if there was a relationship between flexstyle and 

turnover intention.  The results to the hypothesis related to this question is as follows:  

 

74 

 
 

 

Hypothesis 2a. There will be no significant mean difference between turnover intention and 
behavior factor groups 
 

The means for turnover intention scores amongst all five flexstyles was 2.42.  Bothma 

and Roodt’s (2013) Turnover Intention Scale–6 (TIS-6) consisted of four Likert-scale questions 

ranging from 1 (unlikely to turnover) to 5 (likely to turnover).  The higher one’s score the more 

likely they would be to turnover.  Broken down individually the means of the five flexstyles 

were as follows:  

Table 26 Turnover Intention Means Based on Behavior Factor 

 
Cycler 
Family Firster 
Integrator 
Separator 
Work Firster 
Overall 

Frequency  Mean 
45 
102 
135 
4 
1 
287 

2.36 
2.21 
2.60 
2.15 
2.5 
2.42 

 

The TIS-6 scale (Bothma & Roodt, 2013) is a five-point scale with scores indicating a 

higher likelihood of turnover intention as scores get larger.  The overall mean of 2.42 for all 

groups reveals that new professionals in student affairs are neither highly likely to turnover in 

their current positions nor are they highly likely to stay.  Given that the sample was overall 

satisfied and relatively young, the scores not indicating strong or weak turnover intention may be 

reflective of new professionals looking for opportunities to find a position that advances their 

career. In regards to behavior factor, Separators were the most likely to stay in their jobs 

although low numbers in this group make it difficult to make accurate observations regarding 

turnover intention and the separator sub-classification. Integrators are the most likely to leave 

their positions but this number itself if just north of the 2.5 midpoint on the 5.0 TIS-6 scale.  The 

2.6 mean indicates that integrators were neither highly likely nor highly unlikely to leave their 

positions at the time the assessment was taken. 

 

75 

 
 

 

An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the effect between 

behavior factor and job satisfaction for new professionals in student affairs with the following 

variables being controlled for: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student 

affairs, number of full-time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in 

full-time work in student affairs, if the  respondents had children, educational attainment, 

positive affect and negative affect.  Results indicated that there was no significant main effect for 

the variable of behavior factor F(3,219) = .908, p > .05 (0.438) η2 = 0.012.  In addition positive 

affect F(1,219) = 43.930, p< .01 (.000) η2 = .167, negative affect  F(1,219) = 26.653, p < .01 

(.000) η2 = 0.108, years of full-time work in student affairs F(1,219) = 10.031 p < .01 (.002), η2 

= .044, and age F(1,219) = 4.107, p < .05 (.044), η2 =  .018 all had significant variation on the 

model.  The results of this test demonstrate that there is no significant relationship between 

flexstyle and turnover intention and the hypothesis was supported. 

Hypothesis 2b: There will be no significant mean difference between turnover intention and 
boundary control factor groups 
 

The means for turnover intention scores amongst all participants was 2.42.  Broken down 

individually the means of the three boundary control groups were as follows:  

Table 27 Turnover Intention Means Based on Boundary Control Factor 

 
Low 
Medium 
High 
Overall 

Frequency  Mean 
115 
21 
151 
287 

2.63 
2.61 
2.23 
2.42 

 
The overall mean of 2.42 for all groups reveals that new professionals in student affairs 

are neither highly likely to turnover in their current positions but they are also not highly likely 

to stay. In regards to boundary control factor, those with high boundary control were less likely 

to turnover than those with low and medium boundary control.  This indicates that the more 

 

76 

 
 

 

boundary control an individual has the less likely they are to turnover and leave their jobs in an 

organization.   

 An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the effect between 

control factor on turnover intention on new professionals in student affairs with the following 

variables being controlled for: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student 

affairs, number of full-time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in 

full-time work in student affairs, if the respondents had children, educational attainment, positive 

affect and negative affect.  The Levene’s test and normality checks were conducted and the 

assumptions were met.  Results indicated no significant main effect for boundary control factor, 

F(2,221) = .905, p >.05 (0.406) η2 = 0.008.  Although there was no significant interaction 

between boundary control factor and turnover intention, the following variables had significant 

impact on variation within the model:  positive affect F(1,221) = 41.461, p < .01 (.000) η2 = 

0.158, negative affect  F(1,221) = 19.222 p < .01 (.000) η2 = 0.080, years of full-time work in 

student affairs F(1,221) = 63.956, p < .05 (0.011), η2= 0.029, and if participants had children 

F(1,221) = 2.865, p < .05 (.018), η2 = .036.  Thus, there was no significant relationship between 

boundary control factor and turnover intention.  The hypothesis was supported. 

Hypothesis 2c:  There will be no significant mean difference between turnover intention  
and identity factor groups 
 

The means for turnover intention scores amongst all participants was 2.42.  Broken down 

individually the means of the four work-life identity groups were as follows: 

Table 28 Turnover Intention Means Based on Identity Factor 

 
Dual Focus 
Family Focus 
Other Focus 
Work Focus 
Overall 

Frequency  Mean 
84 
7 
4 
192 
287 

2.37 
2.85 
3 
2.41 
2.42 

 

77 

 
 

 

Given that the higher the score (closer to 5), the higher the intention to turnover, the mean 

scores when broken down by identity group also show that individuals whose primary focus is 

not work (specifically family focus and other focus) are more likely to leave their positions than 

those where work is a primary or equal focus to their outside commitments.  The participants 

who were dual focused (had an equal emphasis on work and personal commitments) were the 

least likely to turnover out of the four identity factor groups.   

An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the effect between   

identity factor on turnover intention for new professionals in student affairs with the following 

variables being controlled for: age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student 

affairs, number of full-time jobs in student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in 

full-time work in student affairs, if the respondents had children, educational attainment, positive 

affect and negative affect.  The Levene’s test and normality checks were conducted and the 

assumptions were met.  Results indicated a significant main effect for work-life identity, 

F(3,220) = 3.187, p < .05 (0.25) η2 = 0.042.  In addition positive affect F(1,220) = 43.232, p < 

.01 (.000) η2 = .164, negative affect  F(1,220) = 23.317, p < .01 (.000) η2 = 0.096, whether 

participants had children  F(2,220) = 5.659, p < .01 (.004), η2 = 0.049,  years of full-time work 

in student affairs F(1,220) = 9.549, p < .01 (.002), η2 = .042, and age F(1,220) = 5.020, p < .05 

(.026), η2 = .022 all had significant variation on the model.  Given that there was a significant 

difference in means the null hypothesis was not supported.  

Hypothesis 2d. There will be a negative relationship between work interrupting nonwork and 
turnover intention 

To test the relationship between work-interrupting nonwork subscale and turnover 

intention, a multiple regression was carried out to investigate  whether nonwork interrupting 

work behaviors could impact job satisfaction when controlling for the following variables: age, 

 

78 

 
 

 

gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student affairs, number of full-time jobs in 

student affairs over career, marital status, number of years in full time work in student affairs, if 

the respondents had children, educational attainment, positive affect and negative affect.  In the 

first step, the control variables were entered with the independent variable entered during the 

second step. 

 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 34.9% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 11.033, p < 

.001 (000).  Although work interrupting nonwork did not have a significant contribution to the 

model (B = -.192, p = .266) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and 

negative affect, a small positive correlation did exist.  Positive affect (B = -1.812, p = .000), 

negative affect (B = -1.258, p = .000), years of full-time professional student affairs work (B = 

.555, p = .003), and if respondents had children (B = -1.812, p = .041) all had significant 

contributions to the model.  The results of the model demonstrate that a negative relationship 

between work interrupting nonwork does not exist.  The hypothesis was not supported. 

Hypothesis 2e: There will be a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting work 
behaviors and turnover intention 

  To test the relationship between nonwork-interrupting work subscale and turnover 

intention, a multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether nonwork interrupting work 

behaviors could impact job satisfaction when controlling for the following variables: age, gender, 

race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student affairs, number of full-time jobs in student 

affairs over career, marital status, number of years in full-time work in student affairs, if the  

respondents had children, educational attainment, positive affect and negative affect.  In the first 

step, the control variables were entered with the independent variable entered during the second 

step. 

 

79 

 
 

 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 34.7% of the variance 

 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 10.934, p < 

.001 (000).  Nonwork interrupting work did not have a significant contribution to the model (B = 

.189, p = .526) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and negative affect, 

a small positive correlation did exist.  Positive affect (B = -1.815, p = .000), negative affect (B = 

-1.304, p = .000), years of full-time professional student affairs work (B = .567, p = .003), and if 

respondents had children (B = -1.822, p = .042) all had significant contributions to the model.  

The results of the model demonstrate that a positive relationship between nonwork interrupting 

work does not exist and the hypothesis was not supported. 

Hypothesis 2f.  There will be a negative relationship between boundary control and turnover 
intention 

A multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether boundary control had a 

relationship with turnover intention when controlling for the following variables: age, gender, 

race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student affairs, number of full-time jobs in student 

affairs over career, marital status, number of years in full-time work in student affairs, if the 

respondents had children, educational attainment, positive affect and negative affect.  In the first 

step, the control variables were entered with the independent variable entered during the second 

step. 

 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 35.8% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 11.514, p < 

.001(000).  Boundary control was found to have a significant contribution to the model (B = -

.456 p = .022) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and negative affect.  

The nature of the relationship was negative.  Positive affect (B = -1.775, p. = .000), negative 

affect (B = 1.193, p = .000), years of full-time professional student affairs work (B = .555, p = 

 

80 

 
 

 

.003), and if respondents had children (B = -1.841, p = .036) all had significant contributions to 

the model.  The results of the model demonstrate that a negative relationship between boundary 

control and turnover intention exists at a statistically significant level and as such the hypothesis 

was supported. 

Hypothesis 2g: There will be a negative relationship between family identity and turnover 
intention 

A multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether family identity had a 

relationship with turnover intention when controlling for the following variables: age, gender, 

race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student affairs, number of full-time jobs in student 

affairs over career, marital status, number of years in full-time work in student affairs, if the  

respondents had children, educational attainment, positive affect and negative affect.  In the first 

step the control variables were entered with the independent variable entered during the second 

step. 

 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 34.8% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 11.020, p < 

.001 (000).  Family identity was found to have no significant contribution to the model (B = -

.196 p = .289) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and negative affect.  

The nature of the relationship was negative.  Positive affect (B = -1.781, p. = .000), negative 

affect (B = 1.283, p = .000), years of full-time professional student affairs work (B = .568, p= 

.003), and if respondents had children (B = -2.036, p = .023) all had significant contributions to 

the model.  The results of the model demonstrate that a negative relationship between family 

identity and turnover intention did not exist at a statistically significant level.  The hypothesis 

was not supported.   

 

 

81 

 
 

 

Hypothesis 2h: There will be a positive relationship between work identity and turnover 
intention 

A multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether work identity had a 

relationship with turnover intention when controlling for the following variables: age, gender, 

race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, units in student affairs, number of full-time jobs in student 

affairs over career, marital status, number of years in full-time work in student affairs, if the  

respondents had children, educational attainment, positive affect and negative affect.  In the first 

step the control variables were entered with the independent variable entered during the second 

step. 

 

The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 35.2% of the variance 

and that the model itself was a significant predictor of job satisfaction F(13,268) = 11.197, p < 

.001 (000).  Work identity was found to have no significant contribution to the model (B =        -

.470.  p = .105) when controlling for demographic variables and both positive and negative 

affect.  Positive affect (B =.-1.698, p. = .000), negative affect (B = 1.329, p = .000), years of full-

time professional student affairs work (B = .585, p= .002), and if respondents had children (B = -

1.968, p = .026) all had significant contributions to the instrument.  The results demonstrate that 

a positive relationship between work identity and turnover intention did not exist at a statistically 

significant level.  The hypothesis, therefore, was not supported. 

Chapter Summary 

 

This chapter analyzed the results of the two-pronged research approach that gave deeper 

Understanding into the discovering whether significant relationships existed between flexstyle 

and job satisfaction and turnover intention.  A summary of the hypotheses can be seen in the 

chart on the following page: 

 
 

 

82 

 
 

 

Table 29 Index of Hypotheses and Results Related to Job Satisfaction 

Hypothesis  
Hypothesis 1a. There will be no significant 
mean difference for behavior factor groups.  
Hypothesis 1b. There will be no significant 
mean difference for boundary control 
factor groups. 
Hypothesis 1c. There will be no significant 
mean difference for identity factor groups. 
Hypothesis 1d. There will be a positive 
relationship between nonwork interrupting 
work behaviors and job satisfaction. 
Hypothesis 1e. There will be a negative 
relationship between work interrupting 
nonwork and job satisfaction.  
Hypothesis 1f. There will be a positive 
relationship between boundary control and 
job satisfaction. 
Hypothesis 1g. There will be a negative 
relationship between family identity and job 
satisfaction. 
Hypothesis 1h. There will be a positive 
relationship between work identity and job 
satisfaction. 

Result 
 
Hypothesis supported. 
Hypothesis not supported. 

Hypothesis not supported. 

Hypothesis supported.   

Hypothesis supported. 

Hypothesis supported. 

Hypothesis not supported. 

Hypothesis supported. 

 
Table 30 Index of Hypotheses and Results Related to Turnover Intention 

Hypothesis  
Hypothesis 2a. There will be no significant 
mean difference for behavior factor groups. 
Hypothesis 2b. There will be no significant 
mean difference for boundary control factor 
groups. 
Hypothesis 2c. There will be no significant 
mean difference for identity factor. 
Hypothesis 2d. There will be a negative 
relationship between work interrupting 
nonwork and turnover intention.  
Hypothesis 2e. There will be a positive 
relationship between nonwork interrupting 
work behaviors and turnover intention.  
Hypothesis 2f.  There will be a negative 
relationship between boundary control and 
turnover intention.  
Hypothesis 2g. There will be a negative 
relationship between family identity and 
turnover intention.  

Result 
Hypothesis supported. 

Hypothesis supported. 

Hypothesis not supported. 

Hypothesis not supported. 

Hypothesis not supported. 

Hypothesis supported. 

Hypothesis not supported. 

 

83 

 
 

Table 30 (cont’d)  

Hypothesis 2h. There will be a positive 
relationship between work identity and 
turnover intention.  

 

Hypothesis not supported. 

 

 

In the next chapter, I will discuss the practical and research implications of these results. 

84 

 
 

 

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 

 

In this chapter I review the initial premise behind the study, challenges in the study, and 

the overall research questions.  This chapter next will provide a brief summary of my findings, 

their interpretations; identify implications for research, theory, and practice.  This chapter ends 

with recommendations for future research. 

Overview of the Study 

 

This study was conducted to help better understand the issue of attrition amongst new 

professionals in student affairs; a profession that has an attrition rate between 40 and 60% 

(Bender, 1980; Lorden, 1998; Tull, 2006).  The literature review demonstrated several 

determinants that contributed to the departure puzzle such as pay, irregular hours, workload, and 

lack of advancement (Evans, 1988; Lorden, 1998; Marshall et al., 2016; Mullen et al., 2018).  

Despite this large body of work, no studies had looked to see if flexibility preference (aka 

flexstyles) had any impact on attrition of new professionals in student affairs.  As such, Kossek 

et al.’s (2012) work-nonwork boundary management profile instrument was chosen as a means 

for understanding flexibility preferences.  It should be noted that Kossek’s work-nonwork 

boundary management profile instrument evolved from two instruments: the Work-Life Indicator 

(Hannum et al., 2011) and Kossek and Lautsch’s (2008) flexstyles assessment that was found in 

the book CEO of ME.  The result was a 17-item Likert scale instrument comprised of five 

subscales and six flexstyles as a result.    

 

The purpose of this study was to understand if a potential relationship existed amongst 

new student affairs professionals and the variables of job satisfaction and turnover intention.  

Based on the information presented previously, the two overarching research questions in this 

study were: 

 

85 

 
 

 

1)   What is the relationship between work-life flexstyle and job satisfaction amongst new 

student affairs professionals? 

2)  What is the relationship between work-life flexstyle and turnover intention amongst new 

student affairs professionals? 

Discussion of the Findings 

 

The following section discusses the overall findings of the study.  In addition, the section 

also discusses any statistically significant results from this study, giving insight as to how the 

findings fit in the literature as well as practical implications for practice. 

Work-Life Flexstyle and Job Satisfaction 

 

This study found that no significant relationship existed between flexstyle and job 

satisfaction.  The average job satisfaction mean of all groups was fairly high with a mean of 3.81 

(on 5.0 scale).  Overall, new professionals are satisfied in their jobs.  Although no significance 

was found, the large skewness of work-life flexstyles signals a potential shift that may reflect the 

generational shifts present in new professionals, namely Millennials and Generation Z.  This is 

indicative of current generational and broad-based workforce trends that reveal that employees 

prefer to mix work and nonwork commitments in ways that allow them to find fulfillment and 

success in both arenas (Berkup, 2014; Pulevska-Ivanovska, Postolov, Janeska-Iliev, & 

Magdinceva, 2017).  This is reflected in two out of the three dominant flexstyles that emerged in 

this study: integrators and cyclers.  What is of interest is the second largest group in the study 

(family firster) allows nonwork to interrupt family but not the reverse.  This group demonstrated 

the highest mean on the boundary control factor scale (3.98) as well as had the largest grouping 

of high-boundary controlling individuals (73 out of 102).  Moreover, perhaps what is most 

significant is which groups are not represented well in the overall study sample: work-firsters 

 

86 

 
 

 

and separators.  The overarching narrative of Millennials and Generation Z in the workplace 

states that personal commitments, experiences, and the ability to navigate a life that allows 

personal needs to be met is important (Pulevska-Ivanovska, et al., 2017).  Thus, the flexstyle that 

put work above personal commitments (work-firster) was not represented.  Likewise, the 

separator flexstyle was not well represented which may reflect the millennial preference to blend 

domains.   

 

This study also found that boundary control factor had a significant positive relationship 

with job satisfaction.  Those with high boundary control tendencies reported a statistically 

significant higher mean (4.00) than those with medium (3.55) and low (3.61) boundary control 

factors.  These results indicate that employees who have the ability to set their own boundaries 

are more satisfied than those who may not feel that they have control between their domains.  

Two factors of importance should be noted about this observation: first, employees skilled at 

setting boundaries should be sought after if a more positive work climate is desired.  Although 

boundary setting alone does not create a positive work climate, clearer expectations and 

agreements definitely contribute to an ideal work culture.  This is in line with research that posits 

employees who can be open and honest about their needs and have those needs met perform 

better than those who cannot (Mas-Machuca, Berbegal-Mirabent, & Alegre, 2016; Tull, 2006).  

Second, managers should be aware that employees with high boundary control factors are more 

likely to articulate their needs and managers should therefore be prepared to articulate job 

requirements, job expectations, flexible work options, expectations related to flexible work 

options.   

 

A statistically significant relationship existed between job satisfaction and work identity 

factor. The means for work identity factor groups were dual focus, family focus, other focus, and 

 

87 

 
 

 

work focus were 3.87, 3.31, 3.25 and 3.81, respectively.  Family focus and other focused 

individuals did have lower satisfaction levels than their Work Focus and Dual Focused 

colleagues. At the individual subscale level, there was no significant difference between job 

satisfaction and family identity but there was a significant positive relationship between work 

identity and job satisfaction.  This indicates that new professionals invest a large part of 

themselves into their work and that the work itself is a positive force in their work-life.  This is 

reflective of literature in the field that often speaks to the initial passion new professionals have 

for student affairs work as the work itself touches a part of their personal identity (race, gender, 

ability, etc.) or valuable experience as an undergraduate (athletics, fraternity/sorority life, or 

admissions, etc.) (Hunter, 1992; Taub & McEwen, 2006).   

 

A distinction in terminology should be noted at this point. The overall flexstyle of family 

firster may be somewhat confusing when contrasted to the work first subscale identity – both of 

which had large group participation.  On the surface it may seem as if these two styles and 

dimensions cannot coexist so dominantly within a single sample.  It should be noted that the 

family firster flexstyle deals with an individual’s ability to allow personal matters to interrupt 

work.  This does not mean that work is not important to family firster; it simply helps us 

understand the parameters individuals create that allow them to be successful in both their 

personal and professional domain.  The identity of work firster discusses the amount of energy 

and identity individuals put into their work.  This is not necessarily at odds with a family firster 

interruption behavior type; rather it is a nuanced subset that seems to be more dominant in this 

sample. To give a hypothetical example, a professional with both of these identities may commit 

much of their time to their professional lives yet allow family to call them when needed.   

Because so much time is invested in professional endeavors, the student affairs administrator 

 

88 

 
 

 

may naturally put up stricter boundaries around work interrupting family time since family time 

may be rarer and thus more heavily protected.   

Work-Life Flexstyle and Turnover Intention 

 

This study also examined the relationship between work-life flexstyle and turnover 

intention.  In relation to flexstyle, no statistically significant relationship was found both in terms 

of overall flexstyles and by analyzing the individual subscales of work interrupting nonwork and 

nonwork interrupting work, respectively.  Indeed, the mean for the sample was 2.42 indicating a 

trend neither towards nor away from turnover intention.  Likewise, identity factor and its 

respective subscales did not have a statistically significant relationship with turnover intention.  

The examination of boundary control found when divided into groups (low, medium, high) there 

was no significant variance or relationship with turnover intention.  When boundary control was 

measured as a single continuous scale, a small but statistically significant negative relationship 

existed.  The ability to control and set boundaries does have some impact on whether individuals 

look to stay at a company even if they are satisfied.  A lack of boundary control has the potential 

to contribute to the turnover intention.    

The ability for someone to control his or her work-life environment seems to be the 

clearest and most significant finding in this study especially when coupled with job satisfaction’s 

positive relationship to boundary control.  Categorically the lack of a statistically significant 

mean difference among groups (yet a significant relationship through multiple regression) can be 

best explained in that the means from all three groups were similar and relatively low for this 

dimension. The regression then verified the nature of this relationship between these two 

variables.   

 

89 

 
 

 

As individual subscales, no relationships were found between turnover intention and 

family identity and work identity.  Significant mean differences were found in respect to work-

life identity types.  One explanation for this outcome is that the individual subscales of family 

identity and work identity may have been too general and blunt a measure for this study and that 

work and family identity are interrelated.  Participants who were dual focused and work focused 

had lower turnover intention than those who were other or family focused.  Of all the four 

identity groups those who were dual focused recorded the lowest likelihood of turnover intention 

(mean of 2.37).  This would make sense theoretically as those who are able to strike an equal 

balance between both realms would (and did) have higher levels of job satisfaction (Dual 

focused had a mean satisfaction of 3.87 - the highest in this study).  There was no significant 

mean difference between dual focused and work focused identity types.  The satisfaction and 

lower turnover rates in this group can be attributed in part to student affairs professionals loving 

their work and having a connection to it and as a result, an early career work-focused individual 

would not necessarily think to exit their job or the field. 

The Role of Positive and Negative Affect 

 

The control variables of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) had statistically 

significant impact on the findings in this study.  In general, new student affairs administrators 

had fairly strong positive affect scores (mean of 3.35) and low negative affect scores (mean of 

2.05).  PA and NA interacted with job satisfaction; as one would logically predict, those with 

higher PA scores had higher satisfaction and lower turnover intention ratings.  Conversely, those 

with higher NA scores saw decreases in job satisfaction and increases in turnover intention.  The 

significance of this signals that new professionals generally have a positive outlook in life and in 

initial stages of employment (which is as much as we can forecast in this study).  This can be 

 

90 

 
 

 

seen as a benefit because positive outlook can carry professionals through some of the 

uncertainty and rigors of student affairs work.  This study reveals that how an individual views 

their environment has a meaningful impact on how they interpret and respond to the situation, 

both good and bad.    

The Role of Having Children in this Study 

 

Another factor that had an impact on the findings regardless of outcome was whether 

participants had children or not.  Participants with children reported lower levels of job 

satisfaction and higher levels of turnover intention.  In the case of turnover intention, there was 

statistically significant difference between those who had children and those who did not and the 

statistic was significant at the .05 level reporting a p value of .019.  Thus, attention should be 

paid to child status and that although satisfied, employees with children are more likely to look at 

leaving their positions, particularly if work environments do not allow for flexibility and 

integration.  53% of participants with children identified with the integrator personality style and 

70% of participants with children identified as having a dual focus in terms of work-life identity.  

These reinforces the idea that both groups value their personal time and work time equally, 

which is contrary to some notions that an individual with child(ren) may be more family-focused 

in their work-life preferences.  

The Role of Number of Years in the Profession in This Study 

 

The final variable that had consistent impact on the findings was the number of years of 

full-time work in the student affairs profession.  With this data set, there was no significant mean 

difference for both job satisfaction and turnover intention.  A small drop in satisfaction levels 

and increase in turnover intention does occur for those in their third year of professional work, 

but this was not proven to be statistically significant.  What should be noted is that years in the 

 

91 

 
 

 

field does play a factor in the professional experiences of new professionals and that time 

progression can be an indicator of departure from a job.   A true trend could not be ascertained 

from this sample as those with four or more years of work experience in student affairs only 

amounted to three cases and thus lacked statistical power.  A breakdown of levels by year of 

work for both dependent variables also indicated that job dissatisfaction and turnover intention 

were at their highest during the first year in the profession.  This is consistent with previous 

research that discusses the importance in helping new professionals acclimate to the work as 

poor transition and support mechanisms may lead to early departure from the profession 

(Buchanan & Shupp, 2015; Lombardi & Mather, 2016; Renn & Hodges; 2007; Renn & Jessup-

Anger, 2008). 

Recommendations for Future Research 

 

This study sought to determine if there were any relationships between flexstyle, job 

satisfaction and turnover intention.  Although there were few statistically significant findings, 

there is still much to be examined in the realm of flexstyle and workplace flexibility.  What 

follows are my recommendations for future research. 

 

On a pragmatic level, this study revealed that researchers need to be mindful of age and 

possible generational effect when conducting research that involves personality typography 

given the rapid changing characteristics present in generations due to technological changes that 

impact how work and life interact.  Previous studies that utilized the Work-Life Indicator 

reported an average age of 44.58 and 75% of the population was married (75%) or living as 

married (10%) (Kossek et al., 2011).  This is in contrast with this study’s sample that reported an 

average age of 27, with 18% reported being married and 12% reporting living as married 

(classified as domestic partnership in this study).  Future research should continue to follow 

 

92 

 
 

 

student affairs professionals throughout their career to reassess if flexstyle changes with age, 

years of experience, and marital status.  Likewise, continued investigation into flexstyle should 

be continued with new professionals to determine if the trends in this study were unique to the 

sample or more generalizable and can signal future shifts in generational conceptualizations of 

work and life. 

With respect to timing of this survey, the majority of participants took this survey in July 

of 2019- a month in which many units are experiencing lower levels of workload.  Although the 

instrument was released in July for practical reasons, researchers studying student affairs should 

be aware of how particular times of year may impact results.  It was not clear whether the July 

timeframe influenced satisfaction and turnover intention levels.  Furthermore, it can only be 

theorized as to whether a survey release in September-October when work is much busier would 

have significantly changed the results of the study.  Thus, the time of year surveys are conducted 

should be considered at the very least given how cyclical student affairs work often is.  Future 

research could investigate job satisfaction and turnover intention based on time of year to see if 

different levels of workloads and commitments has a significant effect.  Future research should 

investigate the relationship between flexstyle, job satisfaction, and turnover intention based on 

time of year in the student affairs calendar to see how different flexstyles respond to varying 

levels of workload intensity.   

    Future research should be conducted using Kossek et al.’s (2012) model on mid-level 

and senior level administrators as well as a sample of student affairs administrators across all 

points in their career.  Doing so would allow for deeper understanding in two areas: generational 

trends and impact over career span.  Given that there were not enough members of the separator 

and work-firster groups, a larger sample across career levels and ages will help illuminate if the 

 

93 

 
 

 

findings in this study were specific to this sample or were reflective of the millennial generation 

in the workplace.  Doing so could allow for a more definitive answer as to whether flexstyle has 

a relationship with job satisfaction and turnover intention with new professionals.  Finally, 

further research in this realm would also allow us to better understand to what extent flexstyle 

tendencies change as careers progress and those changes have any impact on job satisfaction and 

turnover intention. 

 

The significant impact of having (or not having) children spurs the following 

recommendations. Future research may want to examine not only the impact of being a parent 

but also if other major life commitments (elder care, pets, or serious hobbies) have a statistically 

significant impact on job satisfaction and turnover intention.  Since employees with children 

were a relatively small group, further research could also focus on if employees with children are 

more likely to have dominant flexstyles.  Research could also further explore the dynamic 

between employees with children and those without and the impact that may have on inter-office 

culture and team building.  Qualitative study could also be conducted to better understand how 

employees with children navigate their flexstyle and what their challenges, successes, and 

experiences are. Understanding how parents navigate their flexstyle is important as it would give 

a voice to the challenges and lived experiences of student affairs professionals, perhaps even 

dispelling or confirming stereotypes of in which areas of student affairs professionals with 

children prefer to work.  Although quantitative data helps to understand trends and relationships, 

a qualitative study would deepen our understanding of this experience on a more personal level 

and would produce recommendations supervisors could tailor to their staff.  Although this study 

asked participants if they had children as a demographic control variable since parenting 

definitely creates a unique set of personal circumstances for employees with children (Fochtman, 

 

94 

 
 

 

2010; Waltrip, 2012), future research may also wish to examine or include questions about elder 

care and other personal commitments such as pets, serious hobbies such as competitive marathon 

running, and side businesses.   The number of employees who have to take care of a parent or 

other aged family member continues to rise and research conducted in this realm to better 

understand what king of implications elder care may have for turnover intention, job satisfaction, 

and flexstyle is warranted (Cheng, Jepsen, & Wang, 2018; Zacher & Shulz, 2015.)   

 

An additional area for further research would be to understand the impact an increase in 

pay may have on turnover intention.  One of the questions in this study asked if participants 

would leave their current job for a similar job at another institution for the same pay.  The goal of 

the question was to determine if there was an environmental/organizational cultural push towards 

departure.  It may be of benefit if questions examined whether an increase in pay or position 

would have an impact on turnover intention. According to a recent study by the Society for 

Human Resource Managers (SHRM) (2018) quite often individuals will not leave a job for a 

lateral move with comparable pay if the nature of the work is essentially identical.  An employee 

is more likely to stay and wait for a job with better pay or one that offers an opportunity for 

career advancement via promotion, increased exposure or both (SHRM, 2018).   

 

Continued research in the area of positive and negative affect would also be of value due 

to how significant these two variables were both to the instrument and to the sample population.  

Given the emphasis on employee mental health in today’s workplace (LaMontagne, Martin, 

Page, Reavley, Nobley, Milner, Keegel, & Smith, 2014; World Health Organization, 2019), 

seeking to better understand how affect may impact mental health, resilience, and workplace 

innovation may be of interest to student affairs researchers.  Burnout is still a challenge in 

student affairs and understanding how positive/negative affect may or may not associate with 

 

95 

 
 

 

that could provide useful insights and interventions for employees experiencing psychological 

distress (Buchanan, 2012; Mullen et al., 2018). This is especially of interest given that 17 out of 

33 participants who disclosed having a disability listed “psychological” as their disability type.  

This study was a snapshot of a segment of the student affairs profession and more research into 

positive and negative affect could assist in professionals maintaining positive mental health and 

increased resilience over the duration of their careers. 

 

Further research should also be conducted on the impact of individuals who prefer to 

integrate work and life.  Not only was this the most dominant group in the study numerically, but 

integration itself has been the cause for much debate in the workplace.   More integrative 

approaches to work and life are increasing since digital technology is continually blurring 

boundary lines for employees and as this study showed, employees value their life outside of 

work (Alton, 2018; Kossek, 2016; Williams, Berdahl, & Vandello, 2016). Although there will 

always be those who separate, cycle, or prioritize their work-life, the establishment of smart 

technology has changed the nature of work, boundaries, privacy, and employee engagement.  In 

many respects, the rise of integrators coincides with the rise in smartphones, the internet, and the 

global world market.  More research should explore this phenomenon both on how integrative 

employees operate in the current work environment as well as how managers are adjusting to a 

more integrative workforce. 

A formal study of schedule control and job control, and their relationship on or with 

flexstyles as well as job satisfaction and turnover intention should also be considered for future 

research.   Schedule control is the extent to which an individual believes they control (or do not 

control) their work schedule.   Job control is the extent to which one believes they can (or 

cannot) control the way their job is structured.  This study provided early glimpses into this 

 

96 

 
 

 

factor by examining boundary control as a measure (Fisher, Schoenfeld, & Shaw, 2013).  The 

use of a more targeted and specific schedule and job control measures would provide deeper 

insight into this phenomenon and help to define to what elements of student affairs work and job 

structures may be of concern. 

It is recommended that further research be conducted that compares satisfaction and 

turnover related to manager and employee flexstyles.  This study focused on the student affairs 

professional and did not include what type of supervisory duties they had nor did it take into 

account managerial relationships.  Given that managerial relationships have been shown to have 

a significant impact on job satisfaction and turnover intention in past studies (Kossek & 

Thompson, 2016; Tarver, Canada, & Lim, 1999; Tull 2006), an examination of the employee-

supervisor dynamic using flexstyles as a frame of reference would provide an alternative method 

of understanding interpersonal relationships in the workplace.  

Implications for Practice 

 

There are some practical implications for student affairs practitioners that can be 

ascertained from this study. First, managers should consider incorporating training for new 

professionals that is focused on communicating and setting boundaries.  As has been established, 

the impact of boundary control on job satisfaction was one of the most statistically significant 

findings in this research.  For employees with low boundary control, training may assist with 

their ability to navigate between work and nonwork spaces in a manner that allows them to be 

successful in both arenas.  Training on setting boundaries would also help set a cultural standard 

within student affairs units that having boundaries is not only permissible but also encouraged.    

To further expand upon boundary training, managers should also consider receiving 

training themselves not only because it could be of personal benefit, but also because it will help 

 

97 

 
 

 

encourage dialogue between managers and employees about what boundary preferences are, 

what is acceptable within the scope of the job, and in general what are the personal and 

professional needs and challenges of all parties involved.  It has been shown that engaged, 

synergistic supervision that involves open dialogue and playing to employee strengths has had 

positive results on job satisfaction and employee engagement with new professionals in student 

affairs (Tull, 2006) and as such, these interactions based around boundaries and needs may help 

spur synergistic interactions.   

Another recommendation would be for managers and institutions to look towards more 

results oriented work environments (ROWE).  ROWEs stress the importance of meeting 

objectives and expectations by clearly defining them, giving employees the necessary training to 

be successful, and then empowering them to get the work done in whatever manner is deemed 

best by the employee.  ROWE gives employees the flexibility and freedom to succeed while also 

holding them completely accountable for the deliverable results (Ressler & Thompson, 2008, 

2013).  This approach is appropriate option given the importance of boundary control factor with 

this sample.  It would allow employees with high boundary control to flourish while allowing 

those with low boundary control the ability to improve their work-life interactions with minimal 

interference from institutional policies. 

Given the impact positive and negative affect had on the instrument student affairs units 

may want to examine and bolster mental health and wellness programs and initiatives.  Mental 

health is garnering more attention in human resource practices (and rightfully so!).   Practitioners 

should pay careful attention to mental health issues and should include mental health awareness 

into their onboarding and staff trainings.  Consistent promotion of resources and benefits (such 

as free counseling sessions in employee assistance programs) should also be incorporated into 

 

98 

 
 

 

the student affairs workplace culture.  In short, just as much effort should be placed into 

promoting positive mental health amongst student affairs professionals as is put into promoting 

positive mental health among students.   

 

Generational understanding and dynamics is another theme that emerged from this study.  

Understanding generational dynamics are an important workplace culture and retention tool 

given that professional careers are lasting longer which is leading to more generations being 

present in the workplace at once.  Within the context of this study managers and institutions 

should continue to learn about generational preferences, so that they can continue to create work 

environments that are commensurate with the work and boundary preferences of current 

employees.  If the results of this study are any indication, this will be increasingly important as 

work preferences of emerging generations may continue to be more integrative in nature.  

Recommendations to assist with this include continued professional development workshops in 

the area of managing employees who have integrative flexstyles as well as a review of all 

positions to see if they can be adapted for more integrative work preferences. 

 

Finally, administrators should pay careful attention to the fact that in this study new 

professionals have a very high work focus identity.  This study found satisfaction levels to be 

higher among new professionals and turnover intention levels to be moderate at best, and also 

found work focus a dominant feature of the sample.  Managers should continue to provide 

resources and trainings on maintaining work-life balance.  As years progress, high work focus 

identities could be more prone to burnout and departure from the field.  Teaching work-life 

balance from a holistic point of view would benefit student affairs professionals as they continue 

to define what work-life means for them.  Managers should also examine the behaviors they 

demonstrate themselves and the cultural norms that are rewarded to ensure that work-life 

 

99 

 
 

 

initiatives are accepted and encouraged on their respective campuses.  Research has shown that 

how new professionals are socialized into the field impacts how they conduct work and what is 

deemed to be professionally acceptable work behavior (Tull, Hirt, & Saunders, 2009).  

Socialization into the profession that includes work-life balance as an element of successful 

practice will help combat the high turnover in the field.  For professionals with high work focus 

identities this is of importance when life events (birth of children, medical events, loss of loved 

one, etc.) occur and a high work focus may make it difficult for them to step away from 

professional duties.   A summary of take-way recommendations can be seen in Table 31. 

Table 31 Index of Recommendations Based on Findings 

Category 
Training and Development 

Organizational Operations 

Mental Health 

Recruitment and Onboarding of Staff 

Recommendation 

 

Incorporate training on boundary setting 
for new professionals 

  Foster environments and culture that 

support open communication about 
boundaries and work-life needs 

  Continuous training on generational 

dynamics in workplace  

  Adopt work-life practices that support 

flexibility, personal needs, and 
organizational goals. 

  Adopt Results Oriented Work 

Environments (ROWE) principles as 
much as possible 

  Managers should be open to considering 

alternative ways of achieving work 
objectives in order to lesson conflict 
between personal and professional 
domains 

  Continually promote mental health 

resources and programs available to staff 
  Evaluation of organizational culture and 
impact it has on employee mental health 
(via social norms) 

  Current positions should be examined to 

see how the best (mis)align with 
integrative, separative, or volleying 
behaviors.   

 

 

100 

 
 

Table 31 (cont’d) 

 

Recruitment and Onboarding of Staff 

  Current positions should be examined to 

see how the best (mis)align with 
integrative, separative, or volleying 
behaviors.   

  Managers and organizations should be 

upfront about the type of hours and 
schedules jobs carry to ensure a better fit 
between candidates and positions. 

 

Conclusion 

 

This study wanted to understand if there was any relationship between flexstyle and job 

satisfaction and turnover intention among new student affairs professionals.  What was 

discovered went well beyond understanding these simple relationships.  What can be most 

inferred from this study is that the nature of how work is seen and performed amongst new 

professionals has the potential to redefine the intersections between work identity, family 

identity, and boundary control.  This is seen primarily through the significant impact boundary 

control had on both job satisfaction and turnover intention.  The more boundary control someone 

had the better satisfied they were and less likely to leave their jobs.  This sample, and perhaps the 

generation(s) it represents in the workforce wants a say in how work and life interacts.  The 

company, or in this case, the educational institution needs to pay attention to this because this 

study also showed that although new professionals value their endeavors outside of work, that 

they also had a strong work identity.  Departure from the field is not because professionals do not 

like the work or because they value other aspects of life more.  The results indicate the contrary.  

The findings in this study point to that departure becomes more likely when work and life cannot 

interact in a manner that the new professionals deem to be optimal for their lifestyle.  Student 

affairs administrators enter the profession in large part because they love the work they do and 

have a sincere desire to improve the postsecondary experience for students.  As a result, they 

 

101 

 
 

 

throw much of themselves into their work.  That being said, they also value the time outside of 

work, holding it sacred, and work should not interrupt this outside work time unless absolutely 

necessary. 

Digital technology continues to blur the lines and boundaries between the various 

domains in our lives.  As Generation Z enters the workforce, we must be mindful that this trend 

will likely continue.  Student affairs work is often more art than science.  There are many 

variables as to what makes employee X successful in a student affairs job.  These variables go 

well beyond time spent in an office or attending the umpteenth function for the sake of visibility 

and support (whatever that means) and hinge on factors relating to work-life balance such as job 

flexibility, schedule control, and open communication about realistic job and time demands 

(Anderson, Guide-DeBrito, & Morrell, 2000; Marshall, Gardner, Hughes, & Lowery, 2016) . 

This sample’s tendency to have more integrative flexstyle, the highly significant tendency 

towards high boundary control, and a high work focus means higher education managers and 

chief student affairs officers need to ask one central question of their employees when 

deciding how he work gets done.  That question is: what is the deliverable?  In other words, what 

actually needs to be produced within a certain time?  Providing an answer to this question and 

being able to define the overall objective of the work will give new professionals a clear 

expectation of what needs to be done while also giving them the ability to mold their nonwork 

needs around their work (and vice versa).  Doing so requires a level of freedom to trust on the 

part of senior student affairs officers.  Trusting that the work gets done in a manner that may not 

be familiar to a seniors student affairs officer (SSAO) will be uncomfortable and strange at first , 

but doing so will not only begin to align with emerging workplace trends; it will help ensure that 

new professionals who are currently satisfied in their jobs stay satisfied.  Staying satisfied means 

 

102 

 
 

 

a higher likelihood of staying in the profession.  Staying in the profession means a deeper and 

more experienced pool of talent that will become managers themselves and eventually senior 

student affairs officers who will be more likely to embrace the integrative nature of work-life.  

This study was inspired in its infancy by the simple statistic that new professionals have a 

five-year turnover rate that ranged between 40% and 60% (Holmes, Verrier, & Chisholm, 1983; 

Ward, 1995).  My desire to find another way to look at the turnover puzzle via flexstyle was 

rooted in not only reducing turnover cost and keeping talent in the profession for the sake of 

keeping talent in the profession.  It was rooted in the idea that keeping talent in the profession 

better serves the students in our institutions AND allows for a rewarding profession for 

administrators that allows them to meet all of their life needs.  This study has provided a glimpse 

that supporting integration may very well be a significant method of achieving this idea. 

 

 

 

103 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES 

 

104 

 
 

 

APPENDIX A 

Permission to use Work-Life Indicator and Work-Nonwork Boundary Management 

Profiles 

---------- Forwarded message --------- 
From: Kossek, Ellen E <ekossek@purdue.edu> 
Date: Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 3:55 PM 
Subject: RE: Permission to use WLI in dissertation instrument 
To: Paul Artale <paulartale@gmail.com> 

Hi Paul, 

Yes I think you wrote to me and I said yes.  Just be sure to put this cite in 

Kossek, E., Ruderman, M., Braddy, P., Hannum, K. 2012. Work-nonwork boundary 
management profiles: A person-centered approach, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Selected as 
Monograph (longer featured article), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003; 81: 112–128.  

From: Paul Artale <paulartale@gmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 3:31 PM 
To: Ellen Ernst Kossek <kossek@msu.edu> 
Subject: Permission to use WLI in dissertation instrument 

Hello Dr. Kossek, 

I am putting together my appendices (which include permissions) and realized that I may not 
have asked to use the WLI as in my dissertation instrument.  

Please let me know if I can.   

  

I hope all is well 

 

-Paul 

 

 

 

105 

 
 

 

APPENDIX B 

Permission to use the TIS-6 

---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
From: Roodt, Gerhard <groodt@uj.ac.za> 
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:12 AM 
Subject: RE: Use of the TIS-6 in my study. 
To: Paul Artale <artale@msu.edu> 

Dear Paul 

You are welcome to use the TIS! 

For this purpose please find attached the longer 15-item version of the scale.  The six items used 
for the TIS-6 are high-lighted.  You may use any one of these two versions. 

Please note that some item numbers are followed by an ‘R’.  These items’ scores should be 
reflected or reverse scored.  The total score can be calculated by merely adding the individual 
item scores.  I would strongly recommend that you also conduct a CFA on the item scores to 
determine which item scores should be reflected. 

The only conditions for using the TIS is that you acknowledge authorship (Roodt, 2004) by 
conventional academic referencing.  The TIS may not be used for commercial purposes. 

I wish you the very best with your research project! 

Best regards  

Gert 

Prof Gert Roodt 
Vice Dean: Research 
Faculty of Management 

 

106 

 
 

 

APPENDIX C 

Additional Demographic Outputs 

Table 32 Sexual Orientation of all Participants 

 
Asexual 
Bisexual 
Gay 
Straight/Heterosexual 
Lesbian 
Queer 
Questioning/Unsure 
Identity not listed 
Multiple boxes checked 
Prefer not to Disclose 
Total 

Frequency 
2 
16 
29 
177 
6 
21 
5 
5 
8 
9 
287 

Percent 
.7 
5.6 
10.1 
61.7 
2.1 
7.3 
2.1 
1.7 
2 
3.1 
100 

 
Table 33 Disability Status of all Participants 

 
Yes 
No 
Prefer not to Disclose  9 
Total 

287 

Frequency 
33 
245 

Percent 
11.5 
85.4 
3.1 
100 

 
Table 34 Disability Type of all Participants 

 
Physical 
Intellectual/Learning 
Psychological 
Visual Impairment 
Hearing Impairment 
Neurological 
Checked more than 1 box 
(multiple) 
Prefer not to Disclose 
Did not reply 
Total 

Frequency 
6 
3 
14 
2 
2 
1 
4 

1 
1 
34 

Percent 
18 
9 
42 
6 
6 
3 
12 

3 
3 
100 

 

Table 35 Degree Attainment of all Participants 

 
High School/GED 
Bachelors 
Masters 

Frequency 
1 
48 
224 

Percent 
.3 
16.7 
78 

 

 

107 

 

 
 

Table 35 (cont’d) 

PhD 
Other 
Total 

8 
6 
287 

2.8 
2.1 
100 

 
Table 36 Graduate Degrees in Student Affairs of all Participants 

 
Masters 
PhD 
No degree in student affairs, 
higher education, or related field 
Other 
Total 

Frequency 
191 
1 
39 

Percent 
82.3 
.4 
16.8 

1 
232 

.4 
100 

 
Table 37 Units Within Student Affairs of all Participants 

 
Student Advising and Success 
Affinity and Identity Services  
Career Services 
Conduct/Judicial Affairs 
Residence Life 
Student Activities 
Residence Life (blended with 
another functional area) 
Blended positions (with no 
residence life duties) 
Other 
Total 

Frequency 
40 
27 
17 
7 
63 
31 
13 

40 

49 
287 

Percent 
13.9 
9.4 
5.9 
2.4 
22 
10.8 
4.5 

13.9 

17.1 
100 

 
Table 38 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Sexual Orientation 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Cyclers 

Bisexual 

Gay/Lesbian 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Non-Binary 

Questioning/Unsure 

Identity not listed 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Family Firster  Bisexual 

Gay 

 

 

6.7 

6.6 

68.9 

8.8 

2.2 

4.4 

2.2 

100.0 

6.9 

10.8 

3 

3 

31 

4 

1 

2 

1 

45 

7 

11 

108 

 

 
 

Table 38 (cont’d) 
Family Firster  Straight/Heterosexual 

Non-Binary 

Queer 

Questioning/Unsure 

Identity not listed 

Prefer not to Disclose 

59 
8 

8 

4 

1 

4 

57.8 
7.8 

7.8 

3.9 

1.0 

3.9 

Total 

102 

100.0 

Integrators 

Asexual 

Bisexual 

Gay 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Lesbian 

Non-Binary 

Queer 

Questioning/Unsure 

Identity not listed 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Separators 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Work Firster  Gay  

2 

6 

15 

85 

5 

6 

11 

1 

2 

2 

1.5 

4.4 

11.1 

63.0 

3.7 

4.4 

8.1 

.7 

1.5 

1.5 

135 

100.0 

2 

2 

4 

1 

50.0 

50.0 

100.0 

100.0 

 
Table 39 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Disability Status 
 

Frequency  Percent 

 

Cyclers 

Yes 

No 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Family Firster  Yes 

No 

Integrators 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 
Yes 
No 
Prefer not to Disclose 

 

 

6.7 

86.7 

6.7 

100.0 

9.8 

88.2 

2.0 

100.0 
14.1 
83.0 
3.0 

3 

39 

3 

45 

10 

90 

2 

102 
19 
112 
4 

109 

 
 

Table 39 (cont’d) 
Integrators 

Total 

Separators 

Yes 

No 

Total 

Work Firster  No 

Total 

 

135 

100.0 

1 

3 

4 

1 

1 

25.0 

75.0 

100.0 

100.00 

100.00 

 
Table 40 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Units in Student Affairs 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Cyclers 

Student Advising and Success 

Affinity and Identity 

Career Services 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 

Multiple Positions (Res Life Duties) 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life 
Duties) 

Total 

Family Firster  Student Advising and Success 

Affinity and Identity 

Career Services 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 

Multiple Positions (Res Life Duties) 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life 
Duties) 

Total 

Student Advising and Success 
Affinity and Identity 
Career Services 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Residence Life 

110 

Integrators 

 

 

4 

3 

5 

1 

11 

4 

7 

2 

8 

45 

16 

14 

4 

4 

19 

15 

14 

4 

12 

8.9 

6.7 

11.1 

2.2 

24.4 

8.9 

15.6 

4.4 

17.8 

100.0 

15.7 

13.7 

3.9 

3.9 

18.6 

14.7 

13.7 

3.9 

11.8 

102 

100.0 

18 
10 
7 

2 

33 

13.3 
7.4 
5.2 

1.5 

24.4 

 
 

Table 40 (cont’d) 
 

Student Activities 
Other 

Multiple Positions (Res Life Duties) 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life 
Duties) 

Total 

Separators 

Student Advising and Success 

Career Services 

Other 

Total 

Work Firster  Residence Life Blended 

 

12 
27 

6 

20 

8.9 
20.0 

4.4 

14.8 

135 

100.0 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1 

50.0 

25.0 

25.0 

100.0 

100.0 

 
Table 41 Participant Population Based on Behavior Factor and Number of Jobs Held in Student 
Affairs 

 

Cyclers 

Family Firster 

Integrators 

Separators 

Work Firster 

# of Jobs  Frequency 

Percent 

1 

2 

3 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Total 

1 

1 

25 

17 

3 

45 

60 

35 

6 

1 

102 

80 

36 

17 

2 

135 

4 

1 

55.6 

37.8 

6.7 

100.0 

58.8 

34.3 

5.9 

1.0 

100.0 

59.3 

26.7 

12.6 

1.5 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

 
Table 42 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Sexual Orientation 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Low 

Asexual 

1 

.9 

 

111 

 

 
 

Table 42 (cont’d) 
Low 

Bisexual 
Gay 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Lesbian 

Non-Binary 

Queer 

Questioning/Unsure 

Identity not listed 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Medium  Bisexual 

Gay 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Queer 

Total 

High 

Asexual 

Bisexual 

Gay 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Lesbian 

Non-Binary 

Queer 

Questioning/Unsure 

Identity not listed 

Prefer not to Disclose 

8 
18 

67 

6 

6 

8 

3 

2 

2 

7.0 
15.2 

58.3 

3.5 

5.3 

7.0 

2.6 

1.7 

1.7 

115 

100.0 

1 

2 

17 

1 

21 

1 

7 

13 

93 

2 

10 

12 

3 

3 

7 

4.8 

9.5 

81.0 

4.8 

100.0 

.7 

4.6 

8.6 

61.6 

1.3 

6.8 

7.9 

2.0 

2.0 

4.6 

Total 

151 

100.0 

 
Table 43 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Disability Status 

 

Frequency 

Percent 

 

Low 

Yes 
No 
Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Medium  No 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

 

 

17 
96 
2 

14.8 
83.5 
1.7 

115 

100.0 

20 

1 

21 

95.2 

4.8 

100.0 

112 

 
 

 

Table 43 (cont’d) 

High 

Yes 
No 
Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

16 
129 
6 

151 

10.6 
85.4 
4.0 

100.0 

 
Table 44 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Units in Student Affairs 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Low 

Student Advising and Success 

Affinity and Identity 

Career Services 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 

Multiple Positions (Res Life Duties) 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life Duties) 

11 

9 

5 

2 

31 

11 

21 

4 

21 

9.6 

7.8 

4.3 

1.7 

27.0 

9.6 

18.3 

3.5 

18.3 

Total 

115 

100.0 

Medium  Student Advising and Success 

Affinity and Identity 

Career Services 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life Duties) 

Total 

High 

Student Advising and Success 

Affinity and Identity 

Career Services 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 
Multiple Positions (Res Life Duties) 
Multiple Positions (No Res Life Duties) 

3 

2 

2 

4 

2 

4 

4 

21 

26 

16 

10 

5 

28 

18 

24 
9 
15 

14.3 

9.5 

9.5 

19.0 

9.5 

19.0 

19.0 

100.0 

17.2 

10.6 

6.6 

3.3 

18.5 

11.9 

15.9 
6.0 
9.9 

Total 

151 

100.0 

 
 

 

113 

 
 

 

Table 45 Participant Population Based on Boundary Control Factor and Number of Jobs Held in 
Student Affairs 

# of Jobs  Frequency  Percent 

 

Low 

1 

2 

3 

Total 

Medium  1 

2 

3 

4 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

High 

68 

37 

10 

115 

12 

6 

2 

1 

21 

90 

45 

14 

2 

59.1 

32.2 

8.7 

100.0 

57.1 

28.6 

9.5 

4.8 

100.0 

59.6 

29.8 

9.3 

1.3 

Total 

151 

100.0 

 

Table 46 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Sexual Orientation 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Dual Focus  Bisexual 

Gay 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Lesbian 

Non-Binary 

Queer 

Questioning/Unsure 

Identity not listed 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 
Straight/Heterosexual 

Family 
Focus 

Other Focus  Bisexual 

Straight/Heterosexual 

Questioning/Unsure 

Non-Binary 

 

 

 

3 

3 

62 

1 

1 

6 

1 

2 

2 

3.6 

3.6 

73.8 

1.2 

4.8 

7.1 

1.2 

2.4 

2.4 

84 
7 

100.0 
100.0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

25.0 

25.0 

25.0 

25.0 

114 

 

 
 

Table 46 (cont’d) 
Other Focus  Total 
Work Focus  Asexual 

Bisexual 

Gay 

4 

2 

12 

26 

Straight/Heterosexual 

107 

Lesbian 

Non-Binary 

Queer 

Questioning/Unsure 

Identity not listed 

Prefer not to Disclose 

5 

11 

15 

4 

3 

7 

100.0 

1.0 

6.3 

13.5 

55.7 

2.6 

5.6 

7.8 

2.1 

1.6 

3.6 

Total 

192 

100.0 

 
Table 47 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Disability Status 

 

Dual Focus 

 

Yes 

No 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Total 

Family Focus  No 

Other Focus 

Work Focus 

Yes 

No 

Total 

Yes 

No 

Prefer not to Disclose 

Frequency  Percent 

 

8 

72 

4 

84 

7 

1 

3 

4 

24 

163 

5 

9.5 

85.7 

4.8 

100.0 

100.0 

25.0 

75.0 

100.0 

12.5 

84.9 

2.6 

Total 

192 

100.0 

 
Table 48 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Units in Student Affairs 

 

 

Frequency  Percent 

Dual Focus  Student Advising and Success 

Affinity and Identity 

Career Services 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 

 

115 

13 

9 

5 

1 

16 

9 

15 

15.5 

10.7 

6.0 

1.2 

19.0 

10.7 

17.9 

 
 

Table 48 (cont’d) 
 

Multiple Positions (Res Life 
Duties) 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life 
Duties) 

Family 
Focus 

Total 

Career Services 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 

Total 

Other Focus  Affinity and Identity 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life 
Duties) 

Total 

Work Focus  Student Advising and Success 

Affinity and Identity 

Career Services 

Conduct/Judicial Affairs 

Residence Life 

Student Activities 

Other 

Multiple Positions (Res Life 
Duties) 

Multiple Positions (No Res Life 
Duties) 

Total 

 

4 

4.8 

12 

14.3 

84 

100.0 

1 

2 

2 

2 

7 

2 

1 

1 

4 

27 

16 

11 

5 

45 

20 

32 

9 

14.3 

28.6 

28.6 

28.6 

100.0 

50.0 

25.0 

25.0 

100.0 

14.1 

8.3 

5.7 

2.6 

23.4 

10.4 

16.7 

4.7 

27 

14.1 

192 

100.0 

 
Table 49 Participant Population Based on Identity Factor and Number of Jobs Held in Student 
Affairs 

 

Dual Focus 

 

1 

2 

3 

Frequency  Percent 

55 

21 

8 

65.5 

25.0 

9.5 

 

Table 49 (cont’d) 

 

116 

 
 

Dual Focus 

Family Focus 
 

Other Focus 

Work Focus 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 

1 
2 
Total 

1 

2 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

84 

4 
3 
7 

3 

1 

4 

108 

63 

18 

3 

100.0 

57.1 
42.9 
100.0 

75.0 

25.0 

100.0 

56.3 

32.8 

9.4 

1.6 

Total 

192 

100.0 

 

117 

 
 

 

APPENDIX D 

Survey Instrument 

(Qualtrics Estimated Completion Time – 11 Minutes) 

CONSENT 

 
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM FOR STUDY   
  
Study title:   What is the impact of flexstyle on job satisfaction and intent to stay amongst new 
professionals in student affairs      
  
Researcher: Paul Artale, doctoral candidate in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education 
(HALE)     
  
Department and Institution: Educational Administration, Michigan State University        
  
Purpose of Study:   You are asked to participate in a study that seeks to see if there is a 
relationship between flexstyle and the factors of job satisfaction and turnover intention for new 
professionals in student affairs.   We are defining the term “new professional” as someone who 
has worked in the profession full time for less than five years   This study is interested in seeing 
if what role flexstyle (if any) has in employee satisfaction and loyalty to the organization and 
how that may potentially aid in retaining new professionals in student affairs.        
  
You will be asked to complete a survey with Likert-style questions that will help ascertain your 
overall flexibility preference, your overall job satisfaction, and your turnover intention.  The 
survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.    You will be also be asked to answer 
some basic demographic questions. Your survey responses and scores will be used for further 
statistical analysis by the researcher only.  Please note you must be at least 18 years old to 
participate.  
  
Please note that no identifiable information (name, email, address, institution etc.) will be asked 
of you in this study.  Your answers are completely anonymous.    
  
Your Rights to Participate, Say No, or Withdraw  
  
Participation in this research project is completely voluntary.  You have the right to say no. You 
may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific 
questions or to stop participating at any time without penalty.  
  
Costs and Compensation for Being in this Study   
  
There is no compensation or costs associated with this participation in this study.  
 

 

118 

 
 

 

Confidentiality and Privacy:  The data for this project are being collected by survey using a 
software called Qualtrics.  The Qualtrics software disassociates identifiable student information 
from survey responses so that the researchers will not be able to link your survey data to you.  
Survey responses from all participants will be pooled and reported collectively to further aid in 
maintaining confidentiality.         
  
Voluntary Participation:  Your participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate or withdrawal 
of your consent or discontinued participation in the study will not result in any penalty or loss of 
benefits.             
  
Request for Additional Information:  If you have any questions about this study, please 
contact Paul Artale, doctoral candidate, at (913) 749-2489 or artalepa@msu.edu.   Mailing 
address is 3150 Pine Run Drive, Swartz Creek, MI 48473. 
  
If you have concerns regarding your rights as a study participant or are dissatisfied at any time 
with any aspect of this study, you may contact – anonymously, if you wish, Dr. Marilyn Amey, 
418 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University (517) 432-1056 or via email amey@msu.edu 
.      Clicking the “I Agree” button and beginning the survey, indicates your voluntary agreement 
to participate in this study.       

o 
o 

I agree to participate in this study (1)   
I do not agree to participate in this study (2)   

  

SECTION 1 

 
Read each statement.  Select the number indicating how much you agree or disagree with the 
statement.   
 

Neither 
agree nor 
disagree 
(3)   
3 

3 

3 

3 

Somewhat 
agree (4)   

Strongly 
agree 
(5)   

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

 

Strongly 
disagree 
(1)   

Somewhat 
disagree 
(2)   

I take care of personal or family 
needs during work. (1)    
I respond to personal 
communications (e.g., emails, 
texts, and phone calls) during 
work. (2)    
I do not think about my family, 
friends, or personal interests 
while working so I can focus. 
(3)    
When I work from home, I handle 
personal or family responsibilities 
during work. (4)    

1 

1 

1 

1 

 

 

 

2 

2 

2 

2 

119 

 
 

Section 1 (cont’d) 

1 

1 

1 
1 

I monitor personal-related 
communications (e.g., emails, 
texts, and phone calls) when I am 
working. (5)    
I regularly bring work home. (6)     1 
I respond to work-related 
1 
communications (e.g., emails, 
texts, and phone calls) 
during my personal time away 
from work. (7)    
I work during my vacations. (8)    
I allow work to interrupt me when 
I spend time with my family or 
friends. (9)    
I usually bring work materials 
with me when I attend personal or 
family activities. (10)    
I control whether I am able to keep 
my  work  and  personal 
life 
separate. (11)    
I control whether I have clear 
boundaries between my work and 
personal life (12)    
I control whether I combine my 
work and personal life activities 
throughout the day. (13)    
People see me as highly focused 
on my work. (14)    
I invest a large part of myself in 
my work. (15)    
People see me as highly focused 
on my family. (16)    
I invest a large part of myself in 
my family life. (17)    

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

 

4 

4 
4 

4 
4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

5 

5 
5 

5 
5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

3 
3 

3 
3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 
2 

2 
2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

 

 
Please select your level of agreement with the following statements: 

SECTION 2: 

 

 
 
 

 

Strongly 
Disagree 
 
(1) 

Disagree 
 
 
(2) 

Neither 
Disagree or 
Agree 
(3) 

Agree 
 
(4) 

Strongly 
Agree 
(5) 

120 

 
 

Section 2 (cont’d) 

I feel fairly satisfied with my 
present job 
Most days I am enthusiastic about 
my work 
Each day at work seems like it will 
never end 
I find real enjoyment in my work 
I consider my job to be rather 
pleasant 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

 

 

4 

4 

4 

4 
4 

5 

5 

5 

5 
5 

2 

2 

2 

2 
2 

3 

3 

3 

3 
3 

SECTION 3 

  
  Please read each question and indicate your response using the scale provided for each 
question:  
 
 During the past 9 months… 

 

Never 
(1)   

Sometimes 
(2)   

How often have you considered leaving 
your job? (1)    
How often are you frustrated when not 
given the opportunity at work to achieve 
your personal work-related goals? (2)    
How often do you dream about getting 
another job that will better suit your 
personal needs? (3)    
How often do you look forward to 
another day at work? (4)    

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

 
Please indicate your agreement with the following statements: 
(2) 

 

To no 
extent 
(1) 

About 
half the 
time 
(3)   
3 

Most 
of the 
time 
(4)   
4 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

(3) 

(4) 

To what extent is your current job satisfying 
your personal needs? (5) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

 
 
 
 

 

121 

Always 
(5)   

5 

5 

5 

5 

To a 
very 
large 
extent 
(5) 
5 

 
 

 

How likely are you to accept another job 
at the same compensation level should it 
be offered to you? (6) 

 

Highly 
Unlikely 
(1)   

Click to 
write 
Scale 
point 2 
(2)   

Neither 
Likely or 
Unlikely 
(3)   

1 

2 

3 

Click 
to 
write 
Scale 
point 4 
(4)   
4 

Highly 
Likely 
(5)   

5 

 

SECTION 4 

 
This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each 
item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent 
you resonate with the items generally in your life.  Use the following scale to record your 
answers 
 
1 - Very Slightly or not at all     2- A little 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

______ Alert   
______ Excited 
______ Inspired 
______ Enthusiastic 
______ Determined 

3 - Moderately      4 - Quite a bit       5 - Extremely 

 
 
 
 
 

______ Afraid 
______ Upset   
______ Nervous 
______ Scared 
______ Distressed 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

SECTION 5: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 

   
Q1 With which gender do you identify?   

  Male (1)    
  Female (2)    
  Transgender (3)   
  Non-binary (4)   
  Other (please specify) (5)    
  Prefer not to disclose (6)  

 
Q2: Please enter your age _____  
  
Q3 With which race and ethnicities do you identify with?  

  White/Caucasian (1)    
  African-American (2)    
  Asian/Pacific Islander (3)    
  Latino/Latina/Latinx  
  Native American/First Nations (4)    
  Middle Eastern (5)    
  Multiple/mixed race (6)  
  Other race (please specify) (7)  

 

122 

 
 

 

  Prefer not to disclose (8)    

  
 Q4 What is your sexual Orientation (choose all that apply):   

straight (heterosexual) (4) 
lesbian (5) 

  asexual (1) 
  bisexual (2) 
  gay (3) 
 
 
  Pansexual (6) 
  queer (7) 
  questioning or unsure (8) 
 
  an identity not listed: ________ (10) 
  Prefer not to disclose (11) 

same-gender loving (9) 

  
Q5 What is your marital status?  

In a domestic partnership (3) 

  Single (1) 
  Married (2) 
 
  Divorced (4) 
 Widowed (5) 
 
  Prefer not to disclose (6) 

 
Q6 Do you have children?   
 IF YES  6.1 How many?   ______ 
 
Q7 Do you have a disability?  
Yes 
No 
Prefer not to answer 
 
IF YES -  7.1  
Please indicate the nature of your disability/disabilities (check all that apply) 
[   ]  Physical Disability 
[   ]  Intellectual or Learning Disability 
[   ]  Psychiatric Disability 
[   ]  Visual Impairment 
[   ]  Hearing Impairment 
[   ]  Neurological Disability 
 
Q8 What is the highest degree you have attained?   

  Associates Degree (1)    
  Bachelor’s Degree (2)    
  Master’s Degree (3)    
  PhD (4)    
  Other Professional Degree (5)    

 

123 

 
 

 

  IF YES 8.1. 
 
Which of your graduate degrees were in student affairs, higher education administration, or 
another similar field? [check all that apply]  

  Masters (1)  
  PhD (2) 

 
Q9 What units within student affairs do you work?   

  Career Services (1)    
  Fraternity and Sorority Life (2)  
  Student Activities (3)    
  Student Organizations (4)  
  Advising (5)    
  Academic Success (6)   
  Conduct/Judicial Affairs (7) 
  LGBTQ Center (8)  
  Residence Life (9)    
  Multicultural affairs (10)  
  Disability Services (11)  
  Student Veteran Resource Center (12)  
  Orientation (13)  
  Athletics (14)  
  Student Success (15)  
  Other (please specify) (16)    

   
Q10 How long have you been working full time in student affairs?   

  0-1 years (1)    
  1-2 years (2)    
  2-3 years (3)    
  3-4 years (4)    
  4-5 years (5)    
  5+ years (6)    

  
Q11 To date, how many full-time positions have you had in student affairs?  

  1 position (1) 
  2 positions (2) 
  3 positions (3) 
  4 positions (4) 
  5 positions (5) 

 

 

 

124 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 

125 

 
 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 

American College Personnel Association, (2019) Who we are retrieved from: 

http://www.myacpa.org/who-we-are, April 1, 2019 

 
Alam, S. M. T. (2015). Factors affecting job satisfaction, motivation and turnover rate of medical  

promotion officer (MPO) in pharmaceutical industry: a study based in Khulna city. Asian 
Business Review, 1(2), 126-131.  

 
Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (2016). The Oxford handbook of work and family: Oxford University 

Press. 

Anderson, J. E. (1998). A comparison of female and male senior student affairs officers' job 

satisfaction, life satisfaction, and inter-role conflict. (Doctoral Dissertation, University 
of Northern Colorado) 

 
Anderson, J. E., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Morrell, J. S. (2000). Factors That Influence Satisfaction  
for Student Affairs Administrators. New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(1), 99-
110.  

 
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro 

role transitions. Academy of Management review, 25(3), 472-491.  

 
Barham, J. D., & Winston Jr, R. B. (2006). Supervision of New Professionals in Student Affairs: 

Assessing and Addressing Needs. College Student Affairs Journal, 26(1), 64-89.  

 
Barr, M. J. (1993). The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration. The Jossey-Bass Higher 

and Adult Education Series.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass  

 
Bender, B. E. (1980). Job satisfaction in student affairs. NASPA journal, 18(2), 2-9.  
 
Bennett, M. M., Baehr, T. A., & Ivanitskaya, L. V. (2017). Work-family conflict: Differences 
across generations and life cycles. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 314-322.  

 
Berkup, S. B. (2014). Working with generations X and Y in generation Z period: Management of 

different generations in business life. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(19), 
218.  

 
Bloom, N., Kretschmer, T., & Van Reenen, J. (2009). Determinants and Consequences of 

Family-Friendly Workplace Practices: An International Study. Strategic Management 
Journal.  

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations (ed.). San Francisco, CA:  

Jossey-Bass. 

 

126 

 
 

 

Bothma, C. F., & Roodt, G. (2013). The validation of the turnover intention scale. SA Journal of  

Human Resource Management, 11(1), 1-12.  

 
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of applied 

psychology, 35(5), 307.  

 
Brewer, E. W., & Clippard, L. F. (2002). Burnout and job satisfaction among student support 

services personnel. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 169-186.  

 
Buchanan, J. (2012). Factors that influence attrition of new professionals in student affairs: 

Widener University. 

 
Buchanan, J., & Shupp, M. (2015). Factors that influence the attrition of entry-level student 

affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs, 25, 107.  

 
Burke, M. G., Dye, L., & Hughey, A. W. (2016). Teaching mindfulness for the self-care and 
well-being of student affairs professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 34(3), 93-
107.  

 
Cheng, T., Mauno, S., & Lee, C. (2014). Do job control, support, and optimism help job insecure 

employees? A three-wave study of buffering effects on job satisfaction, vigor and work-
family enrichment. Social Indicators Research, 118(3), 1269-1291.  

 
Cheng, Z., Jepsen, D. M., & Wang, B. Z. (2018). A dynamic analysis of informal elder 
caregiving and employee wellbeing. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-14.  

 
Cho, S., Johanson, M. M., & Guchait, P. (2009). Employees’ intent to leave: A comparison of 

determinants of intent to leave versus intent to stay. International Journal of Hospitality 
Management, 28(3), 374-381.  

 
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human 

relations, 53(6), 747-770.  

 
Coleman, D. D. (1990). The New Professional: A Resource Guide for New Student Affairs 

Professionals and Their Supervisors. Monograph Series Volume 10: ERIC. 

 
Daly, C. J., & Dee, J. R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public 

universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 776-803.  

 
Davidson, D. L. (2009). National Job Satisfaction of Entry-and Mid-level Student Affairs 

Professionals. (Doctoral Dissertation, Bowling Green State University). 

 
Earnest, D. R., Allen, D. G., & Landis, R. S. (2011). Mechanisms linking realistic job previews 

with turnover: A meta‐analytic path analysis. Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 865-897.  

 
Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4.  

 

127 

 
 

 

Evans, N. J. (1988). Attrition of Student Affairs Professionals: A Review of the Literature.  

Journal of College Student Development, 29(1), 19-24.  

 
Exum, M. (1998). An examination of the relationship between organizational socialization and 

the organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and role orientation of new student 
affairs professionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University.  

 
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

 
Fleck, R., Cox, A. L., & Robison, R. A. (2015). Balancing boundaries: Using multiple devices to 

manage work-life balance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM 
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 

 
Fochtman, M. M. (2010). Mid-career women student affairs administrators with young children: 

Negotiating life, like clockwork. (Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University) 

 
Frank, T. E. (2013). Why do they leave? Departure from the student affairs profession. (Doctoral 

Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic University).    

 
Golden, A. G., & Geisler, C. (2007). Work–life boundary management and the personal digital 

assistant. Human Relations, 60(3), 519-551.  

 
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. 

Academy of management review, 10(1), 76-88.  

 
Gregory, D. M., Way, C. Y., LeFort, S., Barrett, B. J., & Parfrey, P. S. (2007). Predictors of 

registered nurses' organizational commitment and intent to stay. Health Care 
Management Review, 32(2), 119-127.  

 
Guthrie, V. L., Woods, E., Cusker, C., & Gregory, M. (2005). A Portrait of Balance: Personal 

and Professional Balance among Student Affairs Educators. College Student Affairs 
Journal, 24(2), 110-127.  

 
Hale Jr, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Shepherd, W. (2016). A two-phase longitudinal model of a 

turnover event: Disruption, recovery rates, and moderators of collective performance. 
Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 906-929.  

 
Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013). Meta-

analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of 
Management, 39(3), 573-603.  

 
Hannum, K. M., Braddy, P. W., Leslie, J. B., Ruderman, M. N., & Kossek, E. E. (2011). 

WorkLife Indicator: Increasing Your Effectiveness On and Off the Job Technical Manual. 
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. 

 

 

128 

 
 

 

Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and 

management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 211-223.  

 
Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of 

how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence 
aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220-
241.  

 
Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (2003). Applied Statistics for the behavioral sciences, 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning 

.  
Hirschy, A. S., Wilson, M. E., Liddell, D. L., Boyle, K. M., & Pasquesi, K. (2015a). 

Socialization to student affairs: Early career experiences associated with professional 
identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 56(8), 777-793.  

 
Holmes, D., Verrier, D., & Chisholm, P. (1983). Persistence in student affairs work attitudes and 
job shifts among master’s program graduates. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 
439-443.  

 
Hunter, D. E. (1992). How student affairs professionals choose their careers. NASPA journal, 

29(3), 181-188.  

 
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High-performance work systems and job 

control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of 
Management, 39(6), 1699-1724.  

 
Johnsrud, L., & Rosser, V. (1999). Predicting and reducing mid-level administrative staff 

turnover. CUPA Journal, 49(1), 2.  

 
Johnsrud, L. K., Heck, R. H., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel administrators 

and their intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 34-59.  

 
Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (1999). College and university midlevel administrators: 

Explaining and improving their morale. The review of higher education, 22(2), 121-141.  

 
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job 
and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of applied psychology, 83(1), 
17.  

 
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Thoresen, C. J. (2000). Why negative affectivity (and self‐deception) 
should be included in job stress research: Bathing the baby with the bath water. Journal 
of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 101-111. 

 
Kantor, J., & Crosser, A. (2016). High turnover costs way more than you think. The Huffington 

Post.  

 

 

129 

 
 

 

Kim, S., Tam, L., Kim, J.-N., & Rhee, Y. (2017). Determinants of employee turnover intention: 

Understanding the roles of organizational justice, supervisory justice, authoritarian 
organizational culture and organization-employee relationship quality. Corporate 
Communications: An International Journal, 22(3), 308-328.  

 
Kossek, E., Ruderman, M., Braddy, P., & Hannum, K. (2011). Development and validation of 

work-nonwork boundary management profiles. Paper presented at the National Academy 
of Management meetings, San Antonio, TX.  

 
Kossek, E. E. (2016). Implementing organizational work–life interventions: toward a triple 

bottom line. Community, Work & Family, 19(2), 242-256. 

  
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2008). CEO of me: Creating a life that works in the flexible job 

age: Pearson Prentice Hall. 

 
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2012). Work–family boundary management styles in 

organizations: A cross-level model. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(2), 152-171.  

 
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work–life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and 

work–life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy of Management 
Annals, 12(1), 5-36.  

 
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary  

management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family 
effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347-367.  

 
Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., & Hannum, K. M. (2012). Work–nonwork 
boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational 
Behavior, 81(1), 112-128.  

 
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges: 

Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of management 
journal, 52(4), 704-730.  

 
Kumar, D., & Govindarajo, N. S. (2014). Instrument development “intention to stay instrument” 

(ISI). Asian Social Science, 10(12), 149-169.  

 
Lagana, B. T. (2007). Preliminary investigation of the relationships between involvement in 

student affairs professional development and margin in life. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 327-
340.  

 
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turnover 

intent: a test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. The 
Social Science Journal, 38(2), 233-250.  

 
 

 

130 

 
 

 

LaMontagne, A. D., Martin, A., Page, K. M., Reavley, N. J., Noblet, A. J., Milner, A. J., . . . 
Smith, P. M. (2014). Workplace mental health: developing an integrated intervention 
approach. BMC psychiatry, 14(1), 131.  

 
Lee, J. A., Walker, M., & Shoup, R. (2001). Balancing elder care responsibilities and work: The 

impact on emotional health. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 277-289.  

 
Lombardi, K. M., & Mather, P. C. (2016). Understanding anticipatory socialization for new 

student affairs professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 34(1), 85-97.  

 
Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA journal, 35(3), 207-216.  
 
Love, P. (2003). Considering a career in student affairs. Retrieved on June 3rd, 2019 

https://www.myacpa.org/considering-career-student-affairs  

 
Luna-Arocas, R., & Camps, J. (2007). A model of high performance work practices and turnover 

intentions. Personnel Review, 37(1), 26-46.  

 
Lyness, K. S., Gornick, J. C., Stone, P., & Grotto, A. R. (2012). It’s all about control: Worker 

control over schedule and hours in cross-national context. American Sociological Review, 
77(6), 1023-1049.  

 
Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. 
(1999). A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of 
factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. 
Personality and Individual differences, 27(3), 405-416.  

 
Markowitz, G. A. (2012). Faculty intent to stay and the perceived relationship with supervisor at 

a career-focused university. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Miami) 

 
Marshall, S. M., Gardner, M. M., Hughes, C., & Lowery, U. (2016). Attrition from student 

affairs: Perspectives from those who exited the profession. Journal of Student Affairs 
Research and Practice, 53(2), 146-159. 

  
McNall, L. A., Masuda, A. D., & Nicklin, J. M. (2009). Flexible work arrangements, job 

satisfaction, and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. 
The Journal of psychology, 144(1), 61-81.  

 
McNall, L. A., Nicklin, J. M., & Masuda, A. D. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the 

consequences associated with work–family enrichment. Journal of Business and 
Psychology, 25(3), 381-396.  

 
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and 

employee turnover. Journal of applied psychology, 62(2), 237.  

 
 

 

131 

 
 

 

Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., Fan, W., Lee, S.-R., Almeida, D., Kossek, E. E., & Buxton, O. M. (2016). 

Does a flexibility/support organizational initiative improve high-tech employees’ well-
being? Evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological 
Review, 81(1), 134-164.  

 
Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., & Hill, R. (2011). Does enhancing work-time control and flexibility 
reduce turnover? A naturally occurring experiment. Social problems, 58(1), 69-98.  

 
Mullen, P. R., Malone, A., Denney, A., & Santa Dietz, S. (2018). Job stress, burnout, job 

satisfaction, and turnover intention among student affairs professionals. College Student 
Affairs Journal, 36(1), 94-108.  

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (2019). NASPA Membership FAQ 

Retrieved from: https://www.naspa.org/about/membership/faq  April 1, 2019.   

 
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996, September). Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and 

“work”. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 563-582). Kluwer Academic 
Publishers-Plenum Publishers. 

 
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 

131-147.  

 
Perrigino, M. B., Dunford, B. B., & Wilson, K. S. (2018). Work–Family Backlash: The “Dark 
Side” of Work–Life Balance (WLB) Policies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 
600-630.  

 
Pittman, E. C., & Foubert, J. D. (2016). Predictors of professional identity development for 

student affairs professionals. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(1), 13-
25.  

 
Pritchard, A., & McChesney, J. (2018). Focus on Student Affairs, 2018: Understanding Key 

Challenges Using CUPA-HR Data. College and University Professional Association for 
Human Resources. 

 
Pulevska-Ivanovska, L., Postolov, K., Janeska-Iliev, A., & Magdinceva Sopova, M. (2017). 

Establishing balance between professional and private life of generation Z. Research in 
Physical Education, Sport and Health, 6(1), 3-10.  

 
Raina, R., & Roebuck, D. B. (2016). Exploring cultural influence on managerial communication 

in relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the employees’ 
propensity to leave in the insurance sector of India. International Journal of Business 
Communication, 53(1), 97-130.  

 
Renn, K. A., & Hodges, J. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new professionals in 

student affairs. NASPA journal, 44(2), 367-391.  

 

 

132 

 
 

 

Renn, K. A., & Jessup-Anger, E. R. (2008). Preparing new professionals: Lessons for graduate 

preparation programs from the national study of new professionals in student affairs. 
Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 319-335.  

 
Ressler, C., & Thompson, J. (2008). Why work sucks and how to fix it: No schedules, no 

meetings, no joke--The simple change that can make your job terrific: Penguin. 

 
Rosser, V. J. (2000). Midlevel Administrators: What We Know. New Directions for Higher 

Education, 111, 5-13.  

 
Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung 

professionals in the academy. Higher Education, 48(3), 317-337.  

 
Rosser, V. J., & Javinar, J. M. (2003). Midlevel student affairs leaders' intentions to leave: 

Examining the quality of their professional and institutional work life. Journal of College 
Student Development, 44(6), 813-830.  

 
Rosser, V. J., & Tabata, L. N. (2010). An examination of faculty work: Conceptual and 

theoretical frameworks in the literature Higher education: Handbook of theory and 
research (pp. 449-475): Springer. 

 
Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. (2005). Managing multiple roles: Work-family 

policies and individuals’ desires for segmentation. Organization Science, 16(3), 243-258.  

 
Sagaria, M. A. D., & Johnsrud, L. K. (1988). Mobility within the Student Affairs Profession: 

Career Advancement through Position Change. Journal of College Student Development, 
29(1), 30-40.  

 
Schieman, S., & Young, M. C. (2013). Are communications about work outside regular working 
hours associated with work-to-family conflict, psychological distress and sleep problems? 
Work & Stress, 27(3), 244-261.  

 
Schlachter, S., McDowall, A., Cropley, M., & Inceoglu, I. (2018). Voluntary Work‐related 

Technology Use during Non‐work Time: A Narrative Synthesis of Empirical Research 
and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(4), 825-846.  

 
Services, N. O. f. H. (2019). What is Human Service?  Retrieved April 4, 2019 
 
Silver, B. R., & Jakeman, R. C. (2014). Understanding intent to leave the field: A study of 

student affairs master’s students’ career plans. Journal of Student Affairs Research and 
Practice, 51(2), 170-182.  

 
Smith, D. B., & Shields, J. (2012). Factors related to social service workers' job satisfaction: 

Revisiting Herzberg's motivation to work. Administration in Social Work 37(2), 189-198.  

 
 

 

133 

 
 

 

Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship 

between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of applied psychology, 
69(4), 673.  

 
Tarver, D. Canada, R., & Lim, M.(1999). The relationship between job satisfaction and locus of 

control among college student affairs administrators and academic administrators. 
NASPA Journal, 36(2), 96-105.  

 
Taub, D. J., & McEwen, M. K. (2006). Decision to enter the profession of student affairs. 

Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 206-216.  

 
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover 
intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings. Personnel 
psychology, 46(2), 259-293.  

 
Thompson, J., & Ressler, C. (2013). Why Managing Sucks and How to Fix It: A Results-Only 

Guide to Taking Control of Work, Not People: John Wiley & Sons. 

 
Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new 

professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465-480.  

 
Tull, A., & Freeman, J. P. (2011). Reframing student affairs leadership: An analysis of 

organizational frames of reference and locus of control. Research in the Schools, 18(1), 
33.  

 
Tull, A., Hirt, J. B., & Saunders, S. A. (2009). Becoming socialized in student affairs 

administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors: Stylus Publishing, 
LLC. 

 
Vanderkam, L. (2015, March 6). Work-life balance is dead; here’s why that may be a good thing.  

Retrieved from: https://fortune.com/author/laura-vanderkam/page/4/ 

 
Volkwein, J. F., & Zhou, Y. (2003). Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction. Research 

in Higher Education, 44(2), 149-171.  

 
Waltrip, L. H. (2012). Voices from the field: Stories of women who chose to leave their careers 

as student affairs professionals: University of Florida. 

 
Ward, L. (1995). Role stress and propensity to leave among new student affairs professionals. 

NASPA Journal, 33(1), 35-44.  

 
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures 

of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social 
psychology, 54(6), 1063. 

 
Williams, J. C., Berdahl, J. L., & Vandello, J. A. (2016). Beyond work-life “integration”. Annual 

review of psychology, 67, 515-539.  

 

134 

 
 

 

Zacher, H., & Schulz, H. (2015). Employees’ eldercare demands, strain, and perceived support. 

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(2), 183-198.  

 

135