INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly to order. U n iv ersity M icrofilm s In te rn a tio n a l A Be ll & H o w e l l I n f o r m a t i o n C o m p a n y 3 0 0 N o r t h Z e e b R o a d . A n n A r b o r, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U S A 3 13/7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0 Order N um ber 9314730 F actors in flu en cin g fa cu lty retention: A stu d y o f jo b sa tisfa ctio n a n d th e role o f th e d ep artm en t chairperson as th ey relate to fa cu lty m em b e rs’ decision s to rem ain at M ich igan S ta te U n iv ersity Nienhuis, Robert Wayne, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1992 C o p y rig h t © 1992 b y N ien h u is, R o b e rt W ayne. A ll rig h ts reserv ed . UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY RETENTION: A STUDY OF JOB SATISFACTION AND THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON AS THEY RELATE TO FACULTY MEMBERS' DECISIONS TO REMAIN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Robert Wayne Nienhuis A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1992 ABSTRACT FACTORS INFLUENCING FACULTY RETENTION: A STUDY OF JOB SATISFACTION AND THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON AS THEY RELATE TO FACULTY MEMBERS' DECISIONS TO REMAIN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Robert Wayne Nienhuis Several recent publications have drawn attention to the projected demand for new faculty by the beginning of the next century. The large cohort of faculty members hired during the boom years of the 1950s and 1960s are approaching retirement. At the same time, the pool of new faculty members is quite a bit smaller than the number of retirees. All of this points to the potential for a "seller's market" where the faculty member may well be able to sell his or her services to the university making the most attractive offer. The purpose of this study was to identify the elements, especially those related to job satisfaction and the role of the department chairperson, which influence faculty members' decisions to remain at Michigan State University when offered another job opportunity. If higher education is entering a time when campus raids and bidding wars will become the more common, it is imperative that institutions be informed of those elements which are most likely to result in the retention of faculty. The data for this study come from interviews conducted with twenty-five faculty members at Michigan State University who had received offers from other institutions and chose to remain. In addition, nine department chairpersons who had had conversations with faculty members about outside job offers were also interviewed. Additional data were derived from a survey of all 2,051 faculty members at Michigan State University. The survey instrument explored numerous areas of faculty mobility but two sets of questions focusing on job satisfaction and reasons to leave an institution were particularly important to this study on retention. Conducted during the spring of 1991, the survey achieved a response rate of approximately 51% . The results of the study indicate that several elements of job satisfaction, including collegial relationships and work recognition, are influential elements in faculty retention. Somewhat important are promotion and tenure potential and job variety. Evidence from this study suggests that the role of department chairperson is less important to faculty retention than often thought. Recommendations for institutional policy and practice are included in the discussion of the results. Copyright by ROBERT WAYNE NIENHUIS 1992 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply grateful to the faculty, staff and students of the Department of Educational Administration for the friendship and support offered me during the course of my studies. I have benefited from their encouragement, their good-natured prodding to "get that dissertation finished," and the opportunities they provided me to grow and develop as a scholar and teacher. My special thanks go to Dr. Kathryn M. Moore, my dissertation director, mentor, colleague and friend. She has encouraged me, pushed me, stretched me and assisted me and I am the better scholar and researcher for her efforts. I will long remember her admonition to "work faster, with fewer mistakes." It has truly been a privilege to work with and learn from her. I extend my appreciation as well, to the members of my committee: Dr. Robert Church, Dr. David Labaree and Dr. Alicia Marshall. Their thoughtful comments on the dissertation proposal and on this final manuscript have improved its quality many times over. I would also thank Dr. James Votruba, Vice Provost for University Outreach at Michigan State University, for supporting the Faculty Mobility Survey project from which part of this study is drawn. Finally, I must acknowledge the place my family has v played in the successful completion of my doctoral studies. To my wife, Bette Jo, who willingly shouldered the responsibility of earning the family paycheck and allowing me the privilege of being a full-time student, and to our daughters, Rebecca and Sarah, who agreed to leave the security of one set of friends to move to a new community and new schools and make a whole set of new friends, I say this: WE DID IT! Thank you for your love, encouragement, prayers and good humor; thank you for allowing me to disappear hours on end while I did the writing on this manuscript; thank you for helping me to fulfill a dream. vi I love you! TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................... x ........................................ xi LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 Overview ....................................... Purpose of the Study ........................... Importance of the Study ........................ 1 3 6 ................................ 8 .............................. Faculty Retention Job Satisfaction ............................... 8 14 Work Environment . ........................... Faculty Vitality ............................. Compensation ................................. Responses to Job Dissatisfaction ............ 15 16 18 21 LITERATURE REVIEW Academic Careers 26 Beginning the Academic Career ............... Mobility During the Academic Career ......... Ending the Academic Career .................. The Department Chairperson .................... The Role of the Department Chairperson ...... Interpersonal Skills ......................... 33 33 36 ........................................ 41 ...................................... 45 ............................. Research Questions ......................................... Design Instrumentation, Population and Sampling ...... Data Collection ................................ 45 46 46 48 Summary III. 27 28 31 METHODOLOGY Survey ...... 48 vii IV. Faculty Interviews .......................... Department Chairperson Interviews ........... 52 56 Analysis of Interview Data .................... Analysis of Survey Data ....................... Limitations .................................... 58 59 60 RESULTS .......................................... Job Satisfaction at MSU ....................... 62 63 Institutional Quality ....................... Work Load .................................... ....................... Institutional Support Instruction .................................. Career Outlook ............................... Compensation ................................. 65 68 68 68 69 69 The Process of Mental Accounting.. .............. Retention Issues/Academic Life atMSU ......... 70 74 Potential for Promotion and Tenure .......... Job Variety ..................... Institutional Resources Institutional and DepartmentalReputation .... Colleagues ................................... .................................. Recognition 74 76 78 81 85 88 Non-work Factors ............................... Climate and Geography ....................... Children and/or Parents ..................... Spouse or Significant Other ................. Job Offer and Offering Institution ............ Interaction with the Chairperson................. 93 93 94 97 100 108 Informing of the Job Offer .................. 108 Counter-Offers ............................. . 120 The Department Chairperson .................... Role ......................................... Decision-making .............................. The Difficulty of the Decision to Remain or Leave .......................... V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................... The Issue of Job Dissatisfaction .............. Retention Factors Related to JobSatisfaction .. viii 124 124 127 128 134 135 136 The Department Chairperson and Faculty Retention ............................ Other Retention Issues ........................ Recommendations for Institutional Policy and Practice.. ................................ Recommendations forFurther Research ........... 143 147 148 153 APPENDIX A: FACULTY MOBILITY SURVEY INSTRUMENT APPENDIX B: SURVEY COVER LETTER APPENDIX C: POSTCARD REMINDER APPENDIX D: SURVEY FOLLOW-UP LETTER APPENDIX E: FACULTY INTERVIEW INVITATION APPENDIX F: FACULTY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL APPENDIX G: FACULTY CONSENT FORM APPENDIX H: CHAIRPERSON INTERVIEW INVITATION APPENDIX I: CHAIRPERSON INTERVIEW PROTOCOL APPENDIX J: CHAIRPERSON CONSENT FORM APPENDIX K: TABLE 14: JOB SATISFACTION FACTOR LOADINGS ....... 191 TABLE 15: REASONS TO LEAVE FACTOR LOADINGS ....... 193 ..................................... 195 APPENDIX L: LIST OF REFERENCES ix ....... 158 ....................... 174 ......................... 17 5 ................... 17 6 .............. 177 ................ 178 ...................... 183 ......... 184 ............ 186 .................. 190 LIST OF TABLES Page 1 Distribution of Faculty 2 Survey Response Rate by College 3 Interviewees by Faculty Rank 4 Latent Factors for Job Satisfaction 5 Levels of Job Satisfaction with Relation to Selected Faculty Characteristics(Means) 6 7 8 9 10 ......................... 51 ................ 52 ................... 53 ............ ... 65 66 Levels of Job Satisfaction with Relation to Individual Colleges (Means) ............... 67 Did You Discuss Your Job Offer with Your Chairperson? (By Academic Rank) .............. 110 Did You Discuss Your Job Offer with Your Chairperson? (By Gender) ................ Ill When Did You Discuss Your Job Offer with Your Chairperson? (By Academic Rank)............ 112 When Did You Discuss Your Job Offer with Your Chairperson? (By Gender) ................ 113 11 Were You Satisfied with the Response of Your Department Chairperson? (By Academic Rank). 115 12 Were You Satisfied with the Response of Your Department Chairperson? (By Gender) ..... 116 ...... 130 13 Latent Factors for Reasons to Leave a Job 14 Job Satisfaction Factor Loadings ............... 191 15 Reasons to Leave Factor Loadings ............... 193 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 2 Page Hirschman's Model for Response to Dissatisfaction ................................ 23 Barry's Amended Version of Hirschman's Model 24 xi .... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education stated that, in the next twenty-five years, the majority of faculty members in U.S. colleges and universities will have to be replaced (Watkins 1986). Bowen and Schuster sound a similar note when they estimate that approximately one-half million academic appointments will have to be made between now and the year 2010 (Bowen and Schuster 1986). With the current U.S. faculty numbering about 680,000, including 460,000 full-time and 220,000 part-time faculty members in some 3,100 institutions, Bowen and Schuster estimate that nearly three-fourths of current faculty members will need to be replaced in the next quarter century. One of the ways of addressing this need for faculty is through the recruitment of high quality young men and women to academic careers. However, the rapidly growing need for faculty, coupled with the relatively small pool of replacements and the lengthy time it takes to prepare for a career in higher education, will inevitably direct more and more attention to faculty already in place. We can expect to see an increasing emphasis on attempts to entice faculty already employed at one institution into leaving that position to accept a position at another institution or organization. In addition, it is reasonable to expect that this upcoming need for additional faculty, along with the fact that over 61% of present higher education faculty are 1 2 under the age of fifty (Bowen and Sosa 1989, 17), will cause faculty raids and faculty turnover to become more and more prevalent and may turn the academic marketplace into a "seller's market" where many academics can sell their services to the highest bidder. In the next twenty-five years, institutions of higher education will have to work hard at retaining those faculty already in place, not only because of the demands of the academic marketplace but for several other reasons as well. First, the recruitment process for new faculty is an expensive one (DuVall 197 6). Obviously there are the direct expenses involved in advertising the faculty opening, travel costs to bring prospective faculty in for interviews, and moving expenses to relocate the newly-hired faculty member. But there are also a number of indirect expenses including time faculty members must spend as members of the search committee in reviewing applications, checking references, and engaging in interviews; time which could be spent doing research or working with students. Second, in a "seller's market", quality faculty will be in high demand. Each time an institution loses one of its faculty they face the prospect that the replacement faculty member will be one of lesser quality. In such a case, there is a potential for loss of prestige that affects the entire institution as well as the department and each of its members. In extreme cases, this may result in additional faculty losses causing an even greater loss of prestige. Finally, the retention of current faculty is imperative if an institution wants to build stable departments and programs which will be capable of excellence in scholarly work and quality in classroom teaching. A department facing constant upheaval due to faculty departures will find it very difficult to be productive in its scholarly, instructional, and service pursuits. It must be recognized at the outset that, despite an institution's best efforts to retain faculty, some will still leave. Why this is so cannot always be determined but Hall (1977), building on earlier studies of faculty retention and turnover, provides some preliminary answers as to why faculty leave. 1. A perception on the part of the faculty member that tenure will not be granted. 2 . A belief that the opportunities for professional advancement are better at another institution than at the present one. 3. The offering of a better salary, research support, travel funds, and the availability of student assistants at another institution. 4 . A variety of personal reasons: spousal career opportunities, proximity to other family members, good schools for one's children, and a different pace of life in a new community. 5. The relationship with, and perceived attitudes of, the unit administrator. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY While the retention of faculty will not directly address the coming faculty shortage, it may actually help many 4 institutions lessen the impact of the shortage being prophesied. It is imperative, therefore, that administrators be as knowledgeable as possible concerning the elements which impact faculty retention. There are many elements that faculty members consider when faced with a decision to leave or remain at their current institution, and not all of them are equally influential nor are they equally relevant. As a group, professors have been characterized as 'mobile' (Brown 1967). This is due, at least in part, to the fact that academics frequently tend to identify more strongly with their field or discipline than with a particular institution. The result of this loyalty to the discipline is academic careers built among institutions as well as within institutions (Rosenfeld and Jones 1986). While a willingness to move may be necessary in the building of an academic career (Rosenfeld and Jones 1986), too much mobility can be seen as indicative of instability and a lack of commitment and actually exert a negative influence on career development (Brown 1967). The majority of studies on faculty mobility have focused on those faculty members who have already left a particular institution. Beginning with the study by Caplow and McGee (1958), a study recently replicated (Burke 1988), a basic understanding was established which maintains that full professors are less mobile than assistant professors, but more mobile than associate professors. In addition, Caplow and McGee argue that "the 'push' of academic migration is stronger than the 'pull'" (p. 80). In other words, faculty members are more likely to seek out and respond to outside 5 offers because of dissatisfaction with their present employment situation than they are to be enticed to leave simply by the opportunities of a new workplace (Matier 1988) . According to Caplow and McGee, job satisfaction is a critical issue in faculty retention. Those faculty members who are satisfied with their job— the courses they teach, the support they receive, and the potential for advancement they perceive--will be less likely to leave their institution when presented with another job offer than a dissatisfied faculty member. It stands to reason, then, that an attempt to increase faculty retention must begin by identifying those factors which influence job satisfaction The purpose of this study is to identify those elements which influence faculty members' decisions to remain at Michigan State University when offered another job opportunity. Two questions form the basis for this study. First, what are the major elements of job satisfaction which influence faculty members to remain at their present university when given a job offer by another institution or organization? Second, what is the role of the department chairperson in a faculty member's decision to stay in his or her present position? There are many reasons for job satisfaction including achievement, recognition, responsibility, growth, and other matters associated with the motivation of the individual in his or her job. Of course, there are other reasons why an individual may choose to reject an outside offer and remain in his or her current job. Some faculty members may decide to remain because the timing of the job offer is poor in 6 relation to their career development. Other faculty may reject an offer because of their age (nearing retirement), the age of a child (about to graduate from high school), to defer to the career development of a spouse, or to remain proximate to other family members. Still other faculty may choose to stay because the present institution is more prestigious than the calling institution, because of significant relationships built between the faculty member and his or her colleagues, or because the offering institution is located in a geographical area that is not appealing to the faculty member. It is not practical for us to try to rule out all the competing factors that go into a decision to leave or stay in order to isolate the single factor of job satisfaction. We will, however, seek to be alert to these competing issues as we attempt to determine the role of job satisfaction in faculty retention. To focus on the role of the department chairperson in faculty retention is not to imply the lack of significance of a spouse's opinion, the value of collegial perspectives, or the appeal of the department chairperson from the offering institution. It does imply, however, that when and how a unit administrator responds to the news of a faculty member's offer will have a great deal of effect on whether or not the faculty member decides to remain at Michigan State University. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY This study will be of particular interest and importance to college and university administrators who are responsible 7 for retaining faculty in a time of increasing competition. By identifying those variables of job satisfaction which are perceived to be most important to faculty members, administrators will be able to better understand what faculty members value and what will best aid in the retention of those faculty members who have received job offers from other institutions and organizations. This study will also be of direct value to department chairpersons and unit administrators, those individuals most directly involved in faculty retention. By avoiding those mistakes which alienate and offend faculty with job offers, and by emphasizing those qualities and efforts which make potentially mobile faculty want to remain in the present position, the administrator will keep his or her faculty and create a more positive environment in the department/unit. Finally, this study will be of interest to those who are concerned with advancing the study of faculty, and facultyadministrator relationships, in higher education. Little is known of why faculty choose to accept or reject job offers and even less is known of the role of the department chairperson/unit administrator in a faculty member's decision to stay or go. This study will begin to address these deficiencies and hopefully lead the way for more and varied studies on these themes. CHAPTER LITERATURE II REVIEW To lay an adequate foundation for the study being undertaken, it is necessary to examine four separate, yet related, areas pertaining to faculty. The four areas of review include: 1) E’aculty retention; 2) Job satisfaction, with special attention to issues of work environment, faculty vitality, compensation and responses to job dissatisfaction; 3) Academic careers, including a discussion of faculty mobility; and 4) The department chairperson. FACULTY RETENTION Two years after Caplow and McGee (1958) published their work on faculty mobility, a study essentially focused on those faculty members who decided to leave their academic institutions, Stecklein and Lathrop (1960) undertook an inquiry designed to study all faculty members considering coming to, or leaving, the University of Minnesota during a one year period. Included in their study were new faculty hires, individuals who declined jobs offered to them, faculty members who left the University of Minnesota for positions elsewhere, and faculty who received job offers from other institutions but declined to move. As Stecklein and Lathrop state it, Obviously it is to the university's advantage to be able to identify as many as possible of the factors which enter into faculty decisions to stay or not to stay at Minnesota. An understanding of the enticements proffered to Minnesota faculty members, and of the features of the university which are currently most (and least) influential in holding faculty members, will 9 guide the institution in strengthening its defenses against outside offers and in determining the best ways of counterbalancing offers when they occur (1960, 58). Stecklein and Lathrop found that two factors, improved salary and better professional opportunities, were the primary attractions in job offers made to Minnesota faculty. When focusing on retention, the one factor that kept faculty at Minnesota was the professional opportunities available to faculty. Interestingly, it was the "younger faculty members stressing the importance of professional opportunity, and individuals in their late 40's stressing personal or family considerations" (p. 75). Stecklein and Lathrop did find that the issue of salary was a factor in decisions to leave or remain at the University of Minnesota. For example, for faculty under the age of 50, salary was seen to be a more important enticement to leave than for those over 50. At the same time, faculty who turned down offers from outside institutions would frequently discount the importance of salary in their decision-making process but it was a salary increase that was most frequently offered in an effort to cause the faculty member to remain at Minnesota. Flowers and Hughes (1973) contend that "the fact that an employee stays on a payroll is meaningless; the company must also know why he stays there" (p. 50). word, is 'inertia.' Their answer, in a In the physical sciences, the concept of inertia is used to explain that, unless acted upon by some force, a body will remain as it is. When applied to business, Flowers and Hughes state that inertia will cause 10 employees to "remain with a company until some force causes them to leave" (p. 50). This inertia, according to Flowers and Hughes, is caused by four factors, two internal to the company and two external to it. Inside the company there are the issues of job satisfaction and the company environment. Job satisfaction elements include achievement, recognition, responsibility, and growth. The company environment draws together such items as work rules, facilities, wages, and benefits. When we begin to look outside the company we must deal with the employee's perceived job opportunities in other institutions and nonwork factors such as financial responsibilities, family ties, friendships, and community contacts. While many would say that the reasons to leave an organization and the reasons to remain are essentially opposites, Flowers and Hughes argue that they are really quite different. A decision to remain in or leave an organization, according to Flowers and Hughes, is based on the interplay between job satisfaction and environmental pressure; that individuals will leave only when they are both dissatisfied with their job and have little or no environmental pressure to remain where they are. In the end, employers must not concern themselves with discovering why people leave but instead must focus on learning why people remain. By reinforcing the reasons for employees staying, and avoiding the reasons people leave, employers and managers can begin to influence their retention rates. According to Flowers and Hughes, "Companies can do this by providing conditions compatible with employees' 11 values for working and living" (p.51). Implicit within the discussion of job retention, yet quite distinct from it, is the issue of organizational commitment. While numerous studies have explored organizational commitment in both the industrial and public sectors (see Neumann and Finaly-Neumann (1990) for an excellent summary of research in organizational commitment), little is known about faculty commitment to their university. Even one of the more recent and complete studies of faculty work and careers (Finkelstein 1984) omits discussion of this topic. The reason is clear: little research on faculty commitment to the university has been conducted. Recently, two studies (Harshbarger 1989; Neumann and Finaly-Neumann 1990) have attempted to address this issue. Both studies begin with the same definition of organizational commitment: "the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization, which includes three components: (1) the acceptance of organizational goals and values, (2) a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and (3) a desire to maintain membership in the organization (Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1982, 27). Neumann and Finaly- Neumann then explore the power of support and reward determinants on faculty commitment while Harshbarger seeks to identify those factors which would differentiate highly committed faculty from their less committed counterparts. Two of the findings from the Neumann and Finaly-Neumann study are of particular interest. First, faculty commitment to the university will vary across the career of the faculty 12 member. University commitment reaches its highest point among senior faculty while little difference is to be found between those faculty who are in the early stage of their career and those faculty at mid-career. This seems to be in harmony with the results of studies on the potential for job changes (Baldwin 1979; Baldwin and Blackburn 1981; Finkelstein 1984) where senior faculty are the least likely to change jobs and where maximum change potential is found at the pre-tenure stage (early career), at the point prior to promotion to full professor, and at the point just following that promotion (both of which are mid-career stage). Neumann and Finaly-Neumann also found that rewards (pay equity) are more important determinants of commitment in the physical sciences and support (from colleagues and chair as well as the intrinsic aspects of the job) is a more noticeable predictor of commitment in the social sciences. The result is a call for employing differing strategies for increasing faculty commitment to their university. In the physical sciences, emphasis must be placed on the establishment of clear equity criteria for rewarding faculty members. In the social sciences, however, faculty commitment will be enhanced by stressing the challenge and meaning in the work while also providing a supportive environment with friendly colleagues and an understanding chairperson. In a result that parallels a part of what Neumann and Finaly-Neumann found, Harshbarger (1989) notes that "respondents at the rank of associate professor had significantly lower levels of institutional commitment than did their colleagues" (p. 40). Surmising that assistant 13 professors are filled with the hope and promise of advancement and opportunity, and full professors are content in the realization of their aspirations, Harshbarger wonders if associate professors are unsettled due to the stressful process of obtaining tenure and the opportunities which now confront the tenured associate professor. Acknowledging that a sector of the faculty is at risk, he suggests the establishing of clear criteria for promotion and tenure decisions, as well as the provision of rewards for teaching and service excellence, as means of increasing the commitment levels of associate professors. Other issues that Harshbarger notes as influencing the commitment of a university's faculty are: 'academic freedom', the freedom to pursue one's own academic priorities; a sense of belonging and of unity, of being appreciated; congruence between the values of the university and the personal values of the faculty member; and a perception of basic fairness and justice in issues of pay, resource distribution, opportunity, and overall treatment. In the end, however, Harshbarger echoes a perspective heard several times before (Baldwin 1979; Baldwin and Blackburn 1981; Finkelstein 1984; Neumann and Finaly-Neumann 1990) when he says, "I urge institutions to pay particular attention to the transitional period in individual faculty advancement to maintain the bonds between individual and institution" (p. 43). 14 JOB SATISFACTION Research on job satisfaction has produced an interesting debate in recent years. Until approximately 1959, job satisfaction was viewed as primarily a one-dimension factor. Essentially, it was believed that any job-related item would elicit either a positive or negative response on the part of the worker; that any job-related item could be either a source of job satisfaction or of job dissatisfaction. In the last thirty years, however, this thinking has been called into question by the work of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) . They argue that, rather than being one-dimensional, job satisfaction is multi-dimensional. Those items which are said to contribute to job satisfaction are almost always separate from those which contribute to job dissatisfaction. While the normal assumption might be that the opposite of job satisfaction is job dissatisfaction, Herzberg and his associates contend that the opposite of job satisfaction is an absence of job satisfaction and that the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction but no job dissatisfaction (Herzberg 1968). According to Herzberg, job satisfaction is the result of a variety of "intrinsic factors" or "motivators", items which are essentially related to the content of the work. For the educator, these items might include contact with students in the classroom, achievement in one's research and scholarship, and a sense of challenge and excitement in doing one's job. On the other hand, job dissatisfaction results when "extrinsic factors" or "hygiene factors" fail to meet the worker's expectations or needs. These factors, primarily 15 related to the context of the job, might include salary and fringe benefits, workplace conditions, and administrative relationships. Research involving the Herzberg framework as applied to higher education has tended to support the two-factor theory. Hill (1987), in a study involving over one thousand higher education faculty at 20 institutions in Pennsylvania, found that Herzberg's theory of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction could be accurately applied to institutions of higher education. Baldwin (1985) has shown that intrinsic and extrinsic factors will affect faculty vitality and that, while the extrinsic factors are important, the intrinsic factors tend to be of greater importance and value. Bowen and Schuster (1986) also stress the importance of intrinsic rewards. Given our discussion of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors which influence job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, we will do well to look at several of these issues more carefully. Work E nvironment . In a study of the academic workplace, Austin and Gamson (1983) noted those factors that impacted the morale of faculty. Lowered faculty morale, they suggest, is the result of such things as a reduced level of involvement in institutional decision-making and declining autonomy. Among their suggested remedies, increased collaboration between faculty and administrators and increased sensitivity on the part of administrators for the institution's "culture". Faculty place great value on the "intrinsic reward 16 system" and will even accept significant compensation inequity because of it (Bowen and Schuster 1986). However, the work environment is undergoing tremendous change (Bowen and Schuster 1986; Bowen and Sosa 1989) and while that change is often necessary and possibly even desirable, it may take away from the perceived quality of the workplace and even cause stress (Seldin 1987). Recent research seems to indicate that academics suffer from relatively high levels of stress in their jobs. In a survey of some 2,000 faculty members at 17 colleges, Melendez and de Guzman (1983) reported that approximately 62% admitted to experiencing moderate or severe job stress. In an attempt to summarize the literature concerning stress-producing factors in the academic world, Seldin (1987) notes the following six primary causes: Inadequate participation in institutional planning and governance Too many tasks, too little time Low pay and poor working conditions Inadequate faculty recognition and reward Unrealized career expectations and goals Unsatisfactory interactions with students, colleagues, and department chairpersons Quick (1987) recommends four preventive actions which institutions can take to aid in reducing the impact of stress on faculty members: participative management, flexible work schedules, career development, and social support. Faculty Vitality. Faculty development programs, until very recently, have primarily focused on the faculty 17 member in the early stage of his or her career. several years, however, In the last research has begun to recognize the very different needs of the mid-career (tenured, with from ten to twenty years experience) and late-career (approaching retirement) faculty from those of the early-career faculty member (Baldwin 1984). Clark and Corcoran (1989) put forth the argument that a faculty member's career begins in graduate school and continues, in identifiable stages, through pre-tenure, promotions, post-tenure, mid-career, and late-career phases with each of these phases presenting different challenges for professional development. Schuster, while commending the commitment of today's faculty, also expresses concern that "developments in recent years have harmed rather than helped the faculty, have made their jobs more difficult" Associates 1990, 7). (in Schuster, Wheeler, and He then goes on to identify several conditions or "megatrends" which negatively affect the faculty work environment, depress faculty morale, and demand correction: Deteriorating work conditions Inadequate compensation A tightened academic labor market and reduced career mobility Conflicting expectations and demands Compressed career ladders One remedy which may reinvigorate the faculty, and also positively impact faculty retention, is allowing faculty to redesign their jobs at certain points in their careers. Many professors, having achieved the highest academic status and 18 facing another twenty years of academic life, come to the point of career reassessment (Baldwin and Blackburn 1981). In a later study, Baldwin (1990) notes that many faculty will, on occasion, wish to make a significant change in their careers. He goes on to suggest several steps a college or university might consider taking in an effort to revitalize its faculty and enhance their potential for retention: Fostering diversified academic careers Encouraging career planning by faculty Facilitating faculty collaboration, risk-taking, and role change Flexible employment of academic personnel policies Recognizing and rewarding professors' achievements Training deans and department chairpersons to work as faculty developers In the end, neither faculty vitality nor faculty retention can be accomplished by a mass-production effort. Attention must be paid to the differing needs of the individual faculty member. "Academic life is too specialized and too fragile to compose a simple formula that will guarantee dynamic careers for professors in general" (Baldwin 1990, 178). Compensation. Conventional wisdom says that faculty compensation has a direct effect on faculty retention, although there are no studies that can either prove or disprove that assumption. Some inferences have been made, however, between compensation and faculty retention (Bowen and Schuster 1986; Bowen and Sosa 1989). Hansen (in Bowen and Schuster 1986, Chapter 6) presents 19 a comparative study of faculty salaries in the period between 1970 and 1985. In that 15 year span, he notes, the Consumer Price Index rose 166% while faculty salaries increased by only 124%; at the same time, salaries in other areas were rising with, and sometimes even exceeding, the Consumer Price Index. In 1982, when faculty salaries were compared with the salaries of 15 other professions, both the mean and the median of faculty salaries were ranked tenth out of sixteen. Bowen and Sosa (1989, Chapter 8) looked at faculty salaries in 1984 and compared them to salaries in 1961. When the increase in the Consumer Price Index is factored into the equation, faculty salaries showed a 0% gain while other workers' salaries increased by 22%. They also note that, in the years between 1971 and 1984, faculty salaries declined by 18.7%, relative to the Consumer Price Index, while salaries in other areas showed a 1.8% increase. It should come as little surprise, given these inequities, that there has been growing competition between the academic world and the non-academic world for the services of faculty members in recent years. The result has been salary inequity, salary compression, and salary dispersion (Bowen and Schuster 1986). Salary inequity is the difference between salaries paid to faculty and salaries paid to persons with similar credentials in the non-academic workplace (i.e., government and industry). As academic institutions have attempted to address this inequity by raising the salary of the newlyhired faculty member, the result has been salary compression. Salary compression results when the compensation package 20 offered new faculty members increases at a faster rate than does the compensation for experienced, in-place faculty. The consequence of salary compression is a compacted salary differential within the academic ranks of a department and/or discipline. For example, the high cost of hiring new business faculty forces compensation for assistant professors to rise faster than compensation for associate and full professors, resulting in a compacted compensation schedule and less difference between the salary of an incoming assistant professor and a veteran full professor. Salary dispersion occurs when faculty in similar rank but different disciplines are given differing compensation depending on whether or not their field is in high demand. Business faculty assistant professors, for example, are generally accorded significantly higher compensation than assistant professors in the humanities. In reporting on the effect of these changes on faculty, Bowen and Schuster (1986) state that faculty feel under­ valued. While the voluntary attrition of faculty is not large, when tenured faculty do leave academe, poor compensation and poor working conditions are the generallystated reasons. And Ehrenberg, Kasper, and Rees (1989) suggest that compensation issues, especially salary dispersion, have their greatest impact on faculty movement from one academic institution to another. To remedy the situation, Bowen and Schuster (1986) recommend a compensation package that is adequate enough to compete with the non-academic sector and varied enough across the ranks to encourage advancement and retention. Bowen and 21 Sosa (1989) build on that base and suggest that other incentives such as research support, child care, spousal employment assistance, and workload modification might help to reduce the differences between compensation in the academic and non-academic world. Responses to Job Dissatisfaction. Employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs can respond in a number of ways. They can find a different, and hopefully better, job and quit (exit). They can choose to remain in their present job and work to better the situation (voice). They can stay where they are and accept things as they are (loyalty). Or they can direct their primary energies and attention elsewhere while doing nothing about their work situation (neglect). Credit for this delineation of possible responses to job dissatisfaction goes, in large part, to Albert 0. Hirschman and his seminal work, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (1970). It was Hirschman's contention that organizational performance is "subject to deterioration for unspecified, random causes" (1970, 4) leading to a decline in the quality of the organization's product or service. Expressions of dissatisfaction concerning this deterioration can be a means by which management learns of its problems and begins the process of correcting its faults. Though Hirschman's design was originally focused on organizational responses to decline, they are also helpful in understanding how individuals may respond when things are not going well. One response to dissatisfaction is exit. Exit refers to 22 leaving an organization by quitting, transferring, searching for a different job within the organization, or talking about quitting. The decision to exit, when made by an employee, is usually based on the belief that the situation is unlikely to improve. Hirschman views the exit option as "uniquely powerful" in its ability to provide a "wonderful concentration of the mind" on the abandoned employer (1970, 21) . Voice, a second response to job dissatisfaction, describes actively and constructively trying to improve conditions through discussing problems with a supervisor or co-workers, taking action to solve problems, suggesting solutions, seeking assistance for an outside agency such as a union, or whistle-blowing. The exercise of voice, though relatively new in organizations, is a basic and familiar part of the political system, where it is referred to as "interest articulation" (Hirschman 1970, 30). While voice may become more effective with an increase in volume, it is also possible to overdo the use of voice and become so harassing as to actually hinder the effort to change. According to Hirschman, voice is the only option an employee has when the option of exit is not available. It is also possible to use voice as an alternative to exit, provided one perceives the prospects for the use of voice to be effective and substantial. In either case, however, exit and voice are viewed as standing in inverse relation to one another so that the more likely one is to choose the exit option, the less likely he or she is to voice complaints. Loyalty, the third of Hirschman's categories, means 23 passively but optimistically waiting for conditions to improve. The loyal employee hopes things will get better, gives public and private support to the organization, and practices good citizenship within the organization. Hirschman is careful not to confuse loyalty with faith. Loyalty is reasoned calculation for it is rooted in the belief that "an individual member can remain loyal without being influential himself, but hardly without the expectation that someone will act or something will happen to improve matters" (Hirschman 1970, 78). Loyalty, then, is Hirschman's explanation why those who have an alternative choose to remain in hopes of improving the organization. Hirschman's model is really quite simple and is put into diagrammatic form in Figure 1. Dissatisfaction » N o Loyalty-— >Exit (in silence) Remain— Exit Not an Option Figure 1. Hirschman's Model for Response to Dissatisfaction In a subsequent study, Rusbult, Zembrodt and Gunn (1982) add a factor to Hirschman's model, the option of neglect. a study of romantic involvements, neglect was the term Rusbult and her associates chose to give to generally inattentive behavior such as staying away or a lack of caring. In an organizational context, neglectful behavior can be seen in such employee behaviors as lateness, In 24 absenteeism, use of company time for personal business, increased error rates, and psychological inattention. Shortly after the publication of Hirschman's book, two British scholars took him to task for very different reasons. Barry (1974) observed that Hirschman has collapsed two separate choices into one thereby making his model (see Figure 1) more simple than it actually is. Barry argues that there is a choice between exit and loyalty and an additional choice between voice and silence. Barry's version of the model is seen in Figure 2. Silence Dissatisfaction Voice Exit Silence Figure 2. Barry's Amended Version of Hirschman's Model The second British scholar commends Hirschman's work as an "elegant and attractive piece of writing" (Birch 1975, 73) but then argues that it suffers from a lack of attention to the possibility of retaliation. One reason someone may choose to remain in the organization, but to remain silent, according to Birch, is the likelihood of retaliation. He goes on to suggest that in many situations voice is only feasible if it is either preceded or quickly followed by exit as a means of thwarting potential retaliation. In short, the opportunity to exit may encourage voice because it reduces the potential for retaliation. It is an interesting argument, well illustrated by numerous anecdotes, but it does 25 not take away from the value of Hirschman's model. While Hirschman has his critics, he also has his supporters. Farrell (1982) used multidimensional scaling to explore the usefulness of the exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model for understanding responses to job dissatisfaction. What Farrell found was that these four responses to dissatisfying situations were conceptually and empirically distinguishable, even though the boundaries between them may be imprecise. What they do, according to Farrell, is provide a useful set of categories for thinking about how people respond to dissatisfaction. Whithey and Cooper (1989) built on Farrell's work and set out to understand what predicts each of the responses to a dissatisfying job. Two longitudinal studies were conducted to discover when dissatisfied employees will respond with exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect. Their results can be summarized as follows: 1) Exit was exercised most frequently when there was a low cost in leaving, when there was little hope of change, and when the options were more attractive than remaining. 2) Voice appears to be the most difficult response to predict due, in part, to the fact that it depends upon another to respond to one's voice. 3) Loyalty is viewed as both an attitude and a behavior. Behaviorally, loyalists were concerned with the efficacy of their responses; attitudinally, loyalty looked more like entrapment than it did commitment. 4) Neglect was essentially the result when people 26 perceived the costs of voice to be too high, the possibility of success too remote, or the potential for exit too difficult. Whithey and Cooper conclude by affirming Hirschman's model as a "promising framework" (1980, 538) for studying choices in job dissatisfaction. ACADEMIC CAREERS The study of academic careers can follow one of two basic tracks. On the first track, which focuses on the individual, it is becoming increasingly apparent that differences in career outcomes are related to differences in gender (Rosenfeld 1981), the prestige of the doctoralgranting institution (Rosenfeld and Jones 1986), and in the quality of the doctoral mentors (Long and McGinnis 1985). These individual differences serve to sort faculty members into different labor markets and to set them upon fairly well-defined career courses. The second track looks at academic organizations rather than at the individual. By directing attention to the differences among academic departments (Smelser and Content 1980) and the differences among universities and colleges (Clark 1987), and the ways these academic organizations have of providing opportunities for and rewarding faculty members, stress is laid upon the relationship between the academic organization, the academic labor market, and the academic career. According to this line of thinking, careers are inextricably woven into the fabric of the organization. While acknowledging the validity of studying the faculty 27 member as an individual, this study seeks to understand the academic career in relation to the academic organization. In an attempt to do so, we will break the academic career into three separate parts and look at each individually. The three parts of the academic career that we will focus on here are: Beginning the academic career, Mobility during the academic career, and Ending the academic career. Beginning the Academic Care e r . It was Caplow and McGee (1958) who first put forth the idea that a faculty member's academic career actually began in graduate school and not when accepting his or her first academic position. In their study of the academic marketplace, they discovered that the key factors in hiring decisions were the prestige of the candidate's graduate department and the prominence of his or her sponsors. Subsequent studies (Crane 1970; Long and McGinnis 1981) have supported Caplow and McGee's conclusions. Generally, those academic institutions that reside at the pinnacle of the prestige hierarchy will recruit their new faculty from one another (Cartter 197 6; Smelser and Content 1980; Youn 1988). In the same way, those institutions in the first level down from the pinnacle will tend to recruit from their own level or from above. This leads to the generalization that, at least among the more prestigious academic institutions, initial employment is determined by where an individual received the Ph.D. We understand, therefore, that entry into the academic career is dependent upon two factors: the chosen field of specialty and the prestige of the institution that granted the doctorate. Once employed as a faculty member, however, 28 the rules for promotion and mobility become more normative across universities. Mobility During the Academic Career. After the first job, an individual's academic prestige1 is largely determined by the status of the prior position and the number of publications in the prior six years (Allison and Long 1987). Gone is the clout exerted by the doctoral-granting institution and the quality of the mentor. Scholarly accomplishments, especially the number of articles published in the leading journals of the field, become the primary measure of competency. Allison and Long (1987) show that the number of faculty members moving to less prestigious institutions is greater than the number moving to institutions of higher prestige, likely due to both the greater number of opportunities at less prestigious institutions and the difficulty of getting into a more prestigious institution because of their research ’In the academic labor market, prestige has become a commodity to be bartered and exchanged. Both the academic institution and the faculty member seek to emphasize their prestige and maximize its value (Caplow and McGee 1958; Long, Allison and McGinnis 1979; Smelser and Content 1980). Initially, individual prestige is based on the one's faculty mentor and on the department which grants the doctorate. These prestige elements become extremely influential in determining the new Ph.D.'s first place of employment but are quickly replaced by scholarly productivity in subsequent job searches. Institutional prestige is determined, in part, by the ranking given by the Carnegie Classification (1985). Additional institutional prestige is rooted in research productivity. The research university is able to provide its faculty with better research support, more research opportunities and lighter teaching loads. Since research is the most highly valued activity in academe, these institutions generally have high prestige (Rosenfeld and Jones 1986) and work to maintain that prestige by hiring productive scholars for its faculty ranks. 29 expectations for both incoming and continuing faculty members. It is also interesting to note that faculty members employed in research universities tend to move less frequently than those employed in institutions devoted primarily to teaching (Youn and Zelterman 1988). One possible explanation for this lack of mobility is the difficulty of moving one's research. Laboratory set-ups can be extremely difficult to dismantle and reassemble, with a significant loss of research time resulting; and research already underway may be lost, or at least seriously delayed, by a move. Teaching faculty, on the other hand, would appear to be much more mobile. When we turn our attention to academic rank, Allison and Long (1987) suggest that promotion is likely to be associated with locational mobility and that, at least among academic scientists, it is unusual for a faculty member to take a lower rank when moving to another institution. Approximately two-thirds of assistant professors were granted associate ranking when moving to another institution while half of the associate professors became full professors when accepting a position at a different institution (Allison and Long 1987). What is true for men may not be equally true for women, however. Rosenfeld and Jones (1986) found that women would frequently be reduced in rank, or shifted into a nontenuretrack position, while men were usually granted promotions when moving to another institution. Based on a national study involving nearly 300 scientists, it appears that rank promotion is not impacted very significantly by either the prestige of the doctorate 30 nor the prestige of prior jobs (Allison and Long 1987) but whether or not the academic is employed in a tenure-track position may be influenced by the prestige of the doctoral institution (Rosenfeld and Jones 1986). More influential in rank promotion is the research productivity of the individual with citations being more significant than just the number of articles published (Allison and Long 1987). If a faculty member is seriously determined to gain promotion it is best to move from a more prestigious institution to one of lower prestige for, in doing so, the potential for promotion is increased over three and one-half times (Allison and Long 1987) . Roger Baldwin (1979; 1981) has creatively sought to link theories of adult development with phases of career development of faculty. He identifies five career stages for the academic: 1. Assistant professors in the first three years of full-time college teaching 2. Assistant professors with more than three years of college teaching 3. Associate professors 4. Full professors more than five years from retirement 5. Full professors within five years of retirement Among other findings, Baldwin discovered that the greatest amount of consideration concerning job changes occurred most often at two career stages: 1. The experienced assistant professor stage (Stage 2) 2. The continuing full professor stage (Stage 4) According to Baldwin, this is because the experienced 31 assistant professor is approaching tenure review and he or she must consider the alternatives if not given tenure. It may be possible for this individual to negotiate tenure with another institution which has offered him or her a job, thus making that new job seem more attractive. The continuing full professor, on the other hand, is facing another twenty years in the profession. The challenges offered by a move to a new position may be "just what the doctor ordered" to revive a flagging career. Two recent studies seem to indicate that for women and dual career couples the pattern of mobility may vary considerably. In Burke's study (1988) nearly 20% of the resignations and appointments were influenced by the issue of spouse employment. These spouses seeking employment may be part of an academic couple or they may be seeking employment outside of academe, but it is clear that their needs are an issue in faculty career decision-making. Indeed, Burke seems to suggest that some academic moves may actually be to a lesser position (in prestige, salary, etc.) in order to accommodate a spouse's employment needs. Rosenfeld and Jones (1987) found that women are more likely to move to institutions located in urban areas. They contend that, when the job market tightens, mobility for women academics will be restricted and may force women to accept jobs of lessened prestige in an effort to remain in the urban areas. Ending the Academic Career. Not all academic careers end with the faculty member retiring from his or her position at the university, some leave academia before 32 reaching retirement. Bowen and Sosa (1989) provide a helpful discussion of the three types of ways faculty members end their academic careers: death, retirement, and voluntary or involuntary decisions to pursue another type of employment-what Bowen and Sosa have termed "quits" (p. 20). Generally, once an individual leaves academia, he or she will find it virtually impossible to return (Rosenfeld and Jones 1987). There is not much that we can, or need, to say concerning the first type of ending to an academic career. The mortality rate of faculty members is relatively low for those under 35 and increases moderately over the ensuing years (Bowen and Sosa 1989, 24-25). Similarly, retirement is a non-existent option until we look at those faculty members in the 45-49 age bracket. From that point on, the retirement rate increases dramatically until it is assumed that all faculty over the age of 69 will leave academe via the retirement route (Bowen and Sosa 1989, 23). Bowen and Sosa (1989, 23) are quick to point out a limitation in their analysis of the retirement data: their information did not distinguish between those faculty who retire from academia completely and those faculty who retire from one institution and then accept an appointment at another institution, It may well be that an interesting study could be done of those faculty who retire from one institution only to move to another institution to develop a "second career." Quits, according to Bowen and Sosa (1989, 21-23), refers to those faculty who choose to leave academia, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, for a career in a nonacademic 33 context. "Decisions by faculty members to leave teaching altogether are influenced not only by opportunities in nonacademic fields, but also by those created— or closed off— by academic institutions themselves" 154). (Bowen and Sosa 1989, "Voluntary quits," then, are those faculty members who decide to leave academe for personal, financial or family reasons, because of a lack of job opportunities in their field, or because of a disillusionment with the profession. While "involuntary quits" refers to faculty who leave because of failing to attain tenure or who fail to be reappointed at their institution. It is almost a statement of the obvious to say that an individual institution, and academe in general, will be well served by seeking to keep the quit rate as low as possible. THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON We will begin with a look at the role of the department chairperson. Then, because the chairperson appears to hold such a critical place in faculty satisfaction and retention, we will look at those interpersonal skills deemed necessary for the effective chairperson. The Role of the Department Chairperson. Early studies of the role of the department chairperson tended to be anecdotal musings of former chairpersons (Peterson 1976). In more recent years, however, the role, function, and evaluation of the department chairperson has begun to receive the careful attention and study it deserves (Atwell and Green 1981; Bennett 1983; Bennett and Figuli 1990; Booth 1982; Hirokawa and others 1989; Knight and Holen 1985; Lee 1985; 34 Singleton 1987; Tucker 1981). The role of the department chairperson is one of growing importance. The trend toward decentralized decision-making that has been adopted in many academic institutions has resulted in an estimated 80% of all administrative decisions being made at the departmental level (Roach 197 6). In 1981, J. W. Peltason, then the President of the American Council on Education, wrote in the forward to Tucker's (1981) book on the academic chairperson that "an institution can run for a long time with an inept president but not for long with inept chairpersons" (p. xi). The satisfaction of faculty members, the general morale in the department, and even the productivity of individual faculty have all been linked to the leadership provided by the chairperson of the department (Coltrin and Glueck 1977; Glueck and Thorp 1974; Madron, Craig and Mendel 1976). In addition, the number of specific roles established for the chairperson seems almost unlimited, with estimates ranging from ten to in excess of 40 (Peterson 197 6; Tucker 1981). Robert Jeffrey, a dean who also served ten years as a department chairperson, says that the "chairperson of a department is literally the lifeblood of an academic institution" (1985, 15). He then goes on to enumerate the role and powers of an ideal chairperson. The ideal chair is one who (1) efficiently conducts the department's business; (2) solves departmental problems without consistently submitting them to the dean's office for solution; (3) provides concise, accurate data to support all requests and recommendations; (4) has a vision for the department that is consistent with the mission of the college; and (5) provides intellectual leadership that creates a proper environment in which faculty members may teach 35 and conduct research. (15-16) Clearly, the role of department chairperson is a daunting one. The multitude of tasks demanded of the chairperson has resulted in considerable ambiguity concerning the role this vital administrator is expected to play. 1982; Ehrle 1975; Heimler 1967; Smart 1976). (Booth In addition, competing demands from administration and faculty create constant tension for the chairperson (Bennett 1983). Given the importance and complexity of the role, it should be a point of major concern that many, perhaps most, department chairpersons are apparently ill-prepared for their role, having been chosen from the ranks of the faculty and often being selected on the basis of their abilities as teachers and researchers (Lee 1985; McKeachie 1968; Miles 1983; Tucker 1981). Then, after assuming the position of chairperson, training may or may not be available, leaving most new chairpersons to learn their role through an informal, trial and error process and through communication with peers, staff, and superiors (Stanton-Spicer and Spicer 1987; Tucker 1981). Glueck and Thorp (1974) summarized the literature on administrative role definitions by identifying 5 roles for the department administrator: 1) resource person (assisting in the provision of space, funds, equipment, etc.); 2) coordinator (a communication function designed to maximize productivity); 3) manager (planning, organizing, and directing the department's activities); 4) technical consultant (making one's expertise available to the department); and 5) trouble-shooter (conflict resolution). 36 Administrators who chose to function in either the 'resource person' or 'coordinator' role, or some combination of the two, were most acceptable to the faculty and resulted in a heightened sense of satisfaction on the part of the faculty with the administrator. Least acceptable of the five roles was that of 'troubleshooter.' It is clear that no matter how one chooses to look at the role of the department chairperson, it is a complex and demanding role. As Roach (1976, 14-15) points out, [t]he successful department chairperson must: (a) possess certain personal qualities such as openness, integrity, objectivity; (b) be able to administer the departmental program; (c) possess and use certain job skills and certain human relation skills; and (d) at the same time maintain high professional competence.... The department chairperson's responsibilities encompass everything that he does and everything that he should have done to carry out the department's activities in helping the school to achieve its objectives." What is needed is some help in the identification and explication of those critical skills which enhance the leader's effectiveness. Interpersonal Skills. The department chairperson must realize that he or she is, in a very real respect, a human resource manager. This demands a basic belief in human potential, a commitment to human rights and equity, and an emphasis on process and quality of life as well as on outcome and productivity. In essence, we could say that the department chairperson must be concerned with two things: communication and affirmation. It has been estimated that 75% of a chairperson's time is spent in communication with fellow faculty members, students, higher-level administrators, and others (Roach 37 197 6). Similarly, Dill (1984) reports that department heads spend only 25% of their time alone and over 40% of their time in meetings, most of which are initiated by others. Eble (1990b) goes so far as to say that the ability to communicate is "the single most important skill necessary to being an outstanding department chairperson" (p. 23) . While we typically think of communication in traditional terms, an oral or written exchange, it must be viewed in a broader context. It can be the act of walking to someone's office rather than always having them come to yours, of removing barriers to access— the secretary to be approached, the anteroom to wait in, the telephone voice asking, "Who is calling, please?" It can be showing up for some faculty or student activity out of both honest interest and a sensed need to lend support. It can be pats on the back . . .and the picking up of people who have stumbled (Eble 1990b, 26). In a national study of department chairpersons of large public universities, Whitson and Hubert (1982) found that the chairperson was the most influential person in decisions concerning personnel, faculty selection and evaluation, discipline and dismissal of faculty, and salary and budget items. In many of these tasks, the chairperson is called upon to work with one or more faculty members, and possibly with one or more administrators, to arrive at a decision. Lunsford (1970) encourages the chairperson to spend time building channels of communication and support. These channels, he notes, must include opportunities for frequent, informal communication. He goes on to suggest that the chairperson teach a class as a means of maintaining communication with students or that the chairperson use 38 faculty task forces to deal with some administrative problems and thereby maintain contact with faculty members. In a similar vein, Stringer (1977) supports the use of special "assistant to the chair" personnel, drawn from the faculty, to provide input on major policy areas and to engage in a variety of informal contacts with the chairperson. Dill (197 6) calls upon department chairpersons to build a "reservoir of mutual trust" (pp. 16-17) with faculty members in order to gain their cooperation and participation. This trust can best be built by providing faculty members opportunities to input and influence departmental decisions, by using every feasible means of communication (i.e., regular faculty meetings; bulletin boards; routing slips; newsletters; etc.) to keep faculty informed, and by publicly acknowledging the achievements and contributions of faculty members. Hoshmand and Hoshmand (1988) put forward a humanistic orientation to academic human resource management. A humanistic orientation places value on elements such as empowerment, the actualization of human potential, and the promotion of growth and self-esteem. To effect this type of orientation, a department chairperson will need to communicate a valuing of others' experiences, a tolerance for uncertainty, and an honoring of others' perspectives in the quest for understanding. Gone will be the dismissal of complaints, negative labeling and punitive reaction towards individuals who complain or undermine participation. Perhaps at no point are effective communication and interpersonal skills more essential for the department 39 chairperson than at the point of faculty development. Department chairpersons are finding a growing emphasis being placed upon the role of faculty development (Hirokawa and others 1989; Hoshmand and Hoshmand 1988; Lee 1985; McLaughlin, Montgomery, and Malpass 1975; Vavrus, Grady, and Creswell 1988) . In fact, Roach (1976) has gone so far as to say that "good chairpersons are those who gain satisfaction from helping colleagues grow" (p. 19). In an attempt to portray the ways that the department chairperson can fulfill his or her responsibilities in faculty development, Tucker describes three possible role models (pp. 94-96). The "caretaker" chairperson acknowledges the need for faculty development but believes that the responsibility for that development lies with the faculty member, not the chairperson. As a "caretaker," the chairperson manages the administrative tasks and responds to faculty members who seek assistance in their professional development. The "broker" chairperson seeks to match the individual faculty member's career objectives with institutional and community resources. This type of chairperson seeks to facilitate an individual's growth but does not get personally involved, choosing referrals to outside resources over direct assistance. In contrast, the "developer" chairperson takes a very active role in faculty development. Varied programs help faculty members increase their knowledge and skills in ways that complement departmental goals, with the additional benefit of increasing individual competencies. The role a department chairperson chooses to assume may 40 be influenced by his or her personality, the makeup of the department, and institutional constraints. In any event, Tucker stresses the dual nature of faculty development: the development of the individual faculty member and the development of the department. Boice (1986) places a great deal of emphasis on the role of the department chairperson in faculty development when he suggests that the chairperson should address the problem of mid-career, disillusioned faculty members. By engaging these persons in significant activities and productive conversation, the chairperson may be able to take these lessproductive faculty members and reengage them in their faculty role. While some might tend to downplay an emphasis on the chairperson's interpersonal skills, Solmon and Tierney's (1977) national study of administrative job satisfaction discovered that, when interpersonal behaviors were emphasized, satisfaction levels rose. And, as Hoshmand and Hoshmand (1988) note, "collegial recognition and credit for contributions represent a motivational approach different than regulation with extrinsic contingencies" (p. 25). The same can be said for the chairperson as a developer of faculty. Hoyt and Spangler (197 9) studied chairpersons at four universities and found that faculty development, faculty morale, and faculty work loads were all positive influences on the relationship between the chairperson and the faculty. In addition, Coltrin and Glueck (1977) and Glueck and Thorp (1974) report that the satisfaction of research faculty and their chairperson is directly linked to the chairperson's 41 communication skills (accuracy, completeness, and frequency) and his or her interest in the faculty member's work and attempts to recognize and reward that work. Finally, Madron, Craig, and Mendel (197 6) found that the morale of a department is influenced by the amount of consideration shown to faculty members by the chairperson. That is, the greater the consideration, the higher the morale. While we want to be careful about over-generalizing on the basis of these studies, we do need to acknowledge the critical role of the department chairperson's interpersonal skills and the importance of the chairperson's involvement in faculty development. Both appear to be important in determining the chairperson's and faculty members' satisfaction. SUMMARY In their seminal study on faculty mobility, Caplow and McGee (1958) argue that "the 'push' of academic migration is stronger than the 'pull'"(80). In other words, faculty members are more likely to seek out and respond to outside offers because of dissatisfaction with their present employment situation than they are to be enticed to leave simply by the lure of greener pastures (Matier 1988). Caplow and McGee also argue that job satisfaction is a critical issue in faculty retention. who are satisfied with their job — Those faculty members the courses they teach, the support they receive for their research and other work, and the potential for advancement they perceive, etc. -- will be less likely to leave their institution when presented with 42 another job offer than will dissatisfied faculty members. It stands to reason, then, that an attempt to increase faculty retention must begin by identifying those factors which influence job satisfaction. At the conclusion of the Herzberg (1968) study, five factors were identified as being strong influencers of job satisfaction: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement. "satisfiers." These items became known as At the same time, an entirely different set of factors were identified as being "dissatisfiers, " strong determinants of job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions. Herzberg chose to call the satisfier elements "motivators" since they tended to serve to motivate the employee to high quality performance and effort. The dissatisfier elements were termed "hygiene factors," a term borrowed from the medical world where hygiene means 'preventative and environmental', because these factors describe the work environment and essentially prevent job dissatisfaction while exerting little influence on positive job attitudes. More recently, Matier (1990) identified 33 separate items which influence faculty members' decisions to stay in their present positions. These items were then grouped into three categories: tangible benefits (cash salary, teaching/research load, etc.), intangible benefits (reputation of institution and department, etc.), and nonwork-related benefits (geography, proximity to family and friends, etc.). Matier's tangible benefits are similar to 43 Herzberg's hygiene factors and his intangible benefits generally correspond to Herzberg's motivating factors. The question can therefore be raised: What is it that makes faculty members satisfied in their job, thus reducing the likelihood of an exit to join another institution? If the elements of job satisfaction can be determined, an institution wanting to heighten the job satisfaction of its faculty members, and also increase the retention rate, will know how better to do so. Of equal interest is the role of the department chairperson/unit administrator in this process. Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959) found that the supervisor was often a point of focus when an employee was dissatisfied but he or she was seldom mentioned when the employee was content. The exception, however, was the frequent mention of the supervisor as the source of recognition and affirmation for successful work. They also noted that "it is likely that a successful supervisor was often instrumental in structuring the work so that his subordinates could realize their ability for creative achievement" (135). This being the case, it may be that the two most important tasks of the supervisor are to commend employees for the successful completion of their work and to plan and organize the work in such a way that the employees will be able to be creative and successful in doing it. But, do all department chairpersons conduct themselves in a similar fashion, regardless of the kind of department or discipline they represent? Biglan (1973a) would answer, No. Department chairpersons will tend to view their task differently, and 44 demonstrate considerable variance in emphases, depending on the type of department and/or discipline in which they find themselves. While faculty members value the concept of academic freedom, most will also acknowledge that there is a measure of supervisory control exercised by the department chairperson. Given this supervisory relationship, and since most faculty members will, at some point, bring a job offer to the attention of the department chairperson, questions focusing on the role of the department chairperson in faculty retention naturally arise. It is these two issues, the determination of job satisfaction elements that lead to a decision to remain and the role of the department chairperson in that decision, that are the focus of this study. CHAPTER III ME T H O D O L O G Y Scholars of higher education recently have been given to pessimistic and ominous predictions concerning the future of the academic marketplace (Bowen and Schuster, 1986). Increasing rates of retirement are expected to intersect with declining entries into college and university teaching to create a shortage of new faculty members. A reasonable expectation, therefore, is an increasing emphasis on attempts to entice faculty already employed at one institution into leaving that position to accept a position at another institution or organization. As the market for faculty shifts into a seller's market, a university will have to work harder to retain its faculty members when they receive job offers from other institutions and organizations. The purpose of this study is to identify those elements, especially those related to job satisfaction and the role of the department chairperson, which influence faculty members' decisions to remain at Michigan State University when offered another job opportunity. RESEARCH Q UESTIO NS Two research questions guided this study: Research Question #1: What are the major factors which influence faculty members to remain at their present university when given a job offer by another institution or organization? While acknowledging that there are many influences which come into 45 46 play when a faculty member is making a decision to stay or leave, we are particularly interested in identifying those influences which the institution can affect. Research Question #2: What is the influence of academic leadership, and particularly the department chairperson/unit administrator, in faculty members' decisions to stay in their present position? How a department chairperson responds to the news of a faculty member's offer may play a part in whether or not the faculty member accepts or rejects the new offer. DESIGN Studies of faculty retention have been done in two ways. One way is to interview faculty members who had received and accepted job offers from another institution and ask what it would have taken for them to remain at their previous institution. The other way is to seek out faculty members who have received and rejected external job offers to discover the reasons for their decision to remain in their present institution. The latter approach was used in this study. INSTRUMENTATION, POPULATION AND SAMPLING The primary large-scale information-gathering device in this study was a survey instrument, the Faculty Mobility Survey (see Appendix A), developed by a research team headed by Dr. Kathryn Moore and Dr. Philip Gardner. The questionnaire, consisting of approximately seventy-five items, looked at academic appointment and general job 47 satisfaction; the likelihood of leaving for another job; salary and benefits; dual career opportunities and constraints; issues of concern at Michigan State University; and demographic information. Not all of the items were equally relevant to this particular study. survey. However, there were two key parts to the In Part I, Question 8, respondents were asked to use a 5-point Likert scale to indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied they felt about each of thirty-one aspects of their job at Michigan State University. The other critical element of the survey was Part II, Question 3. This question was modeled after, and modified from, Matier's (1990) survey and contained a list of forty-four factors that might be taken into account when deciding to leave the university. Faculty were again asked to use a 5-point Likert scale to indicate the relative degree of importance each factor could have in making a decision to leave the institution. The population for the survey portion of the study consisted of all tenured, tenure-stream, and specialist faculty members at Michigan State University, a Carnegie classification Research I institution located in East Lansing, Michigan. Labels giving the name, position, and campus address of each faculty member were provided by the Office of the Assistant Provost for Academic Human Resources. After removing the names of those faculty members who were not available during the survey period, the final population consisted of 2,051 faculty members distributed across fourteen colleges and seventy-nine departments in the University. 48 On the last page of the survey sent to each faculty member was a form which allowed them to indicate a desire to participate in a follow-up study on faculty mobility. Those faculty members who had received a job offer within the past two years, and who were willing to participate in a decision study on job offers, were asked to complete the form and return it in a separate envelope. In addition, a letter was sent to all seventy-nine department chairpersons at Michigan State University. This letter asked whether they had engaged in a conversation with one or more of their faculty members concerning outside job offers within the previous two years. Those chairpersons who had been part of such a conversation, and who were willing to talk about it, were asked to return a response-device included with the letter indicating their willingness to participate and on which they were to write their name, department and telephone number. The result was two self- identifying samples, one of faculty and a second of department chairpersons who had direct involvement with external job offers and were willing to talk about the decision-making process involving those offers. No attempt was made to match a faculty member with his or her department chairperson or vice versa. DATA Survey. COLLECTION With respect to the Faculty Mobility Survey, a three-stage mailing process (Dillman 1978) was used in an attempt to maximize participation and assure accurate results. The first mailing went out between March 4 and 49 March 8, 1991 and was sent to a total of 2,051 faculty members at Michigan State University. This mailing consisted of a cover letter signed by Dr. Kathryn Moore, Professor of Educational Administration, Dr. Philip Gardner, Research Administrator for the Collegiate Employment Research Institute, and Dr. Linda Forrest, Professor of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education (see Appendix B), a copy of the questionnaire, and a preaddressed return envelope for use in returning the completed questionnaire via the campus mail system. A record of all names and addresses of faculty being surveyed was made and an identification number was assigned to each. This identification number was then placed on the bottom of the second-to-the-last page of the questionnaire and utilized for follow-up purposes. Access to this record book was controlled to maintain the confidentiality of participants. A follow-up postcard (see Appendix C), signed by the investigators, was mailed to all faculty on April 10, 1991. A second letter (see Appendix D) and another copy of the questionnaire were sent to all nonrespondents on April 30, 1991. Finally, personal notes to select faculty colleagues were sent out between May 20 and 24, 1991. These notes were written and signed by either Dr. Moore, Dr. Gardner, or Dr. Forrest. Uniform procedures were established and followed pertaining to the handling of return questionnaires. All questionnaires were returned to the Collegiate Employment Research Institute, a neutral site which conducts numerous 50 surveys every year and is well-equipped to deal with a study of this size. When a new batch of questionnaires was delivered to the Institute, one of the Project Directors would check to make sure the last page of the survey form had been removed. This page was used by those willing to participate further in the study of on faculty mobility and asked them to include their name and address. In those instances where the form had been completed and left attached to the survey, it was removed by the Project Director to protect the confidentiality of the faculty member. The date of the receipt of the questionnaire was then recorded beside the respondent's name in the record book. A usable response of 50.6% was achieved. Table 1 provides a distribution of the faculty at the University as a whole and of the faculty who participated in the survey. Table 2 shows the distribution of respondents by college. The distribution of the survey respondents, when compared to the distribution of all faculty members in the university indicates that the survey results have a high degree of validity. The distribution of respondents by college also indicates a high degree of validity. As a result, we can say that the results of this survey of the faculty of Michigan State University are valid due to the representative number of faculty that chose to participate in the survey. The coding and entering of the data provided by the questionnaires was carried out between June and September, 1991. Three experienced student employees from the Collegiate Employment Research Institute, working under the direction of Dr. Gardner, were employed to do data entry. 51 All work was done in space and on equipment provided by the Research Institute. Table 1. Distribution of Faculty % of University Population % of Sample 54 .1 27.1 14 .9 3.9 54 .6 25 .1 16.6 3 .6 77 .7 22 .3 76.0 24.0 4.2 89.0 6.7 3.3 90 .2 6.5 Status: Tenured 80.3 78 .8 Years at University: < 10 years 11-19 years > 20 years 33.6 27 .2 39.2 36.5 28 .3 35 .2 Rank: Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Specialist Gender: Male Female Race: African-American White All Others 52 Table 2. Survey Response Rate by College Usable Responses o o Colleae (Primary Appointment) # 16.8 Agriculture and Natural Resources 172 12 .5 Arts and Letters 128 Business 60 5.9 Communication Arts 3.8 39 Education 9.3 95 Engineering 57 5.6 3.2 Human Ecology 33 64 6.3 Human Medicine James Madison 0.8 8 Natural Science 134 13 .1 Nursing 12 1.2 4 .1 Osteopathic Medicine 42 111 10.8 Social Science 0.3 Urban Affairs 3 Veterinary Medicine 42 4.1 Non-College Faculty 0.9 9 Other 1.3 15 Faculty Interviews . % of College Faculty 60 39 43 59 63 42 57 46 32 41 54 51 50 — 51 69 44 A total of 202 of the faculty members completing the survey indicated the receipt of one or more job offers in the period between September 1, 1989 and March 1, 1991. Of this number, thirty-nine (19%) faculty members returned the form indicating a willingness to participate further in the study. All faculty members who returned the participation form were sent a letter (see Appendix E) inviting their participation in an interview and informing them of the fact that some of the data from the survey and interviews would be used in a dissertation. The 53 letter, signed by Dr. Kathryn Moore, was followed by a telephone call by the interviewer to arrange a time for the interview. Of the thirty-nine faculty members who indicated an initial willingness to participate further, twenty-five (64%) were actually interviewed as a part of the study. The remaining fourteen faculty members either declined participation when contacted by the researcher or were dropped from the study because, despite numerous attempts to contact them, they were unavailable. Of those who chose not to participate, four cited a lack of time for the interview, two suggested that there had been a mistake because they had not indicated a willingness to participate further, and three denied having received job offers in the previous two years. Of the interviewees, eight (17%) were female and seventeen (68%) were male. Table 3 provides the distribution of interview participants by faculty rank. Table 3. Interviewees by Faculty Rank Faculty Rank Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Interviewees # % 11 6 8 44 24 32 A semi-structured protocol was developed to guide the interviews with faculty members (see Appendix F ) . By using a semi-structured interview, one can be confident of getting comparable data from numerous subjects (Bogdan and Biklen 54 1982). Also, the use of a semi-structured interview protocol allows the interviewer to maintain control over the general direction of the interview while allowing the interviewees to tell their stories in their own words. The use of semi­ structured interviews has been successfully employed in several national studies of institutional leaders, most notably the Institutional Leadership Project, a five-year longitudinal study of leaders in institutions of higher education, conducted as part of the National Center for Postsecondary Governance and Finance (Birnbaum, Bensimon and Neumann 1989; Neumann in press). All of the interviews, with one exception, were conducted in the campus office of the interviewee. It was felt that, by interviewing the faculty member in his or her own office, there would be a greater sense of comfort which would allow for a better interview (Hammersley and Atkinson 1989). The singular exception to this practice came at the request of the interviewee who found it more convenient, because of campus responsibilities near the interviewer's office, to meet there. Before conducting the interview, the interview protocol was pretested. Three interviews were conducted with faculty members not included in the interview sample. These interviews resulted in minor changes in some of the questions to enhance their clarity and constructive comments to the interviewer concerning the manner of conducting the interviews. At the time of the telephone call to arrange for an interview, the interviewee was reminded of the purpose of the 55 requested interview, assured of confidentiality in the interview and report process, and asked to give forty-five minutes to an hour for the interview. The majority of the faculty interviews took place between May 31 and June 14, 1991. Schedule conflicts caused six interviews to be delayed with all faculty interviews concluded by July 17, 1991. Upon arriving for the interview, the interviewer reviewed the purpose of the study and the interview and asked the faculty member to read and sign a waiver form (see Appendix G) before beginning. While the waiver gave the interviewer the right to audio-tape the interview, it was explained that, during the pretesting of the interview protocol, a decision was made to eliminate audio-taping in favor of interviewer note-taking. When the form had been signed and returned to the interviewer, the conversation would begin. Each interview began at the same point: with a request to the interviewee to describe in detail his or her most recent job offer from another institution or organization. From that point on, however, each interview was shaped by the comments of the interviewee and the questions of the interviewer. The majority of the interviews were conducted within the forty-five to sixty minute time-frame. Several of the interviews took between one and one and one-half hours while two of the interviews extended to nearly two hours in length. Only one interview failed to take forty-five minutes. After the interview, a brief thank-you note was written by the interviewer and sent, via campus mail, to the faculty 56 member who had been interviewed. Also, as soon as possible after the completion of the interview, the field notes of the conversation were transcribed by the interviewer into a more complete record of the interview. The transcription of the interview was coded, and kept in a secure area along with the field notes, in order to ensure confidentiality. Department Chairperson Interviews. In late May, 1991, a letter was sent to all seventy-nine department chairpersons at Michigan State University (see Appendix H ) . Signed by Dr. Kathryn Moore, Professor of Educational Administration, this letter was designed to identify department chairpersons who had conversations with one or more of their faculty members concerning outside job offers. Those who had engaged in such a conversation were asked to self-identify by means of a response device included with the letter. All department chairpersons who were willing to be interviewed were instructed to return this form to the office of the interviewer. Nine department chairpersons, eight men and one woman, indicated having job offer conversations with faculty members in their departments and a willingness to be interviewed concerning those conversations. No attempt was made to pair interviewed faculty with their department chairpersons. Interviews with the department chairpersons were conducted in a semi-structured format similar to that used with faculty members (see Appendix I). All of the interviews took place in the offices of the department chairpersons. Most of the interviews were completed within the forty-five to sixty minute time requested; none of the interviews went 57 longer than one hour and twenty minutes. All of the interviews with department chairpersons took place between June 24 and July 11, 1991. Upon receipt of a department chairperson's willingness to participate in an interview, a telephone call was made to arrange a time for the interview. Upon arriving for the interview, the interviewer reviewed the purpose of the study and the interview and asked the department chairperson to read and sign a waiver form (see Appendix J ) . While the waiver called for an audio-tape to be made of the interview, it was explained that an earlier decision had been made against such taping in lieu of note-taking by the interviewer. When the form had been signed and returned to the interviewer, the conversation would begin. Each interview began at the same point: with a request to the interviewee to describe in detail the most recent conversation with a faculty member who had received an outside job offer. From that point on, however, each interview was shaped by the comments of the interviewee and the questions of the interviewer. After the interview, a brief thank-you note was written by the interviewer and sent, via campus mail, to the department chairperson who had been interviewed. Also, as soon as possible after the completion of the interview, the field notes of the conversation were transcribed by the interviewer into a more complete record of the interview. The transcription of the interview was coded, and kept in a secure area along with the field notes, in order to ensure confidentiality. 58 ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW DATA Faculty member interviews were analyzed with special attention being paid to the job offer and the offering institution, issues relating to academic life and job satisfaction, nonwork factors which may be influential in making a decision to leave or stay, and interaction about the job offer between the faculty member and his or her chairperson. Discussion concerning the job offer and the offering institution focused on the institution extending the new offer, the details of the job and how they compared to the present job, and the financial packages of the new and current jobs. A preliminary glimpse into the issue of job satisfaction was found in questions which focused on the attractive features of the job offer and those factors which led to a rejection of the offer. Academic life and job satisfaction issues, as well as nonwork factors, were focused on research question #1, which asked about the major factors which influence a decision to remain at the present institution. Academic life and job satisfaction issues revolved around perceived potential for promotion, job variety, institutional resources, institutional and departmental reputation, colleagues, and recognition for one's work while nonwork factors included the influence of climate and geography, children and/or parents, and spouse or significant other. Conventional wisdom would indicate that satisfied faculty are more inclined to remain at their present institution while their dissatisfied colleagues will be more inclined to leave. Variations on 59 this normal expectation will be examined to determine if there are additional factors, other than job satisfaction, which cause faculty members to remain at their present institution. Discussion about the interaction between the faculty member and his or her chairperson concerning the job offer relates specifically to research question #2, the influence of the department chairperson in a faculty member's decision to remain at Michigan State University. When the faculty member informed the chairperson of the offer and the response of the administrator, as well as the contents of MSU's counter-offer, were the essential contents of this area. In an attempt to maintain a balanced perspective, department chairpersons were also interviewed concerning their interaction with faculty members from their departments who had received job offers. No attempt was made to interview the respective chairpersons of the faculty members interviewed. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA The core of this study is the interviews with individual faculty members. In addition, material having to do with job satisfaction and reasons to leave an institution, elements of the Faculty Mobility Survey, have also been used. No attempt was made to link specific surveys with interviewed faculty. In analyzing the data from the survey, the sample was limited to faculty holding academic rank in one of the colleges and does not include specialists or those few 60 faculty who do not have academic appointment in a college. Initial analysis involved the development of a general understanding of job satisfaction and the reasons to leave an institution through the use of means and distributions. Once a basic understanding began to emerge from the data, addition analysis was done to determine if there were variations due to rank (full, associate or assistant professor), gender (male or female), group (whether the position called for 50% or more time given to instruction, research, extension, administration, or a balance) , interest in leaving (want to leave, not sure or want to remain) or college. Where appropriate, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to generate frequency distributions, factor analyses and ANOVAs. LIM ITA TIO N S Dillman (1978) notes that there are general limitations to the mail questionnaire approach to survey research. Among the general limits he points out are the difficulty of answering questions without the presence of an interviewer to clarify responses and the limited success in avoiding item nonresponse. Hammersley and Atkinson (1989) call attention to some limitations to the interviewing process. The simple presence of the interviewer may hinder the free expression of the interviewee. Similarly, the researcher must guard against verbal and nonverbal cues of assent or disagreement being given to the interviewee since these could serve to influence 61 his or her future responses. Finally, especially in those instances where the interview is not being recorded, attention lapses on the part of the interviewer may result in incomplete notes and observations. One limitation of this particular study is its focus on faculty mobility at a Research I institution, as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1987). Because there is such a great difference between a Research I university and a Liberal Arts II college, this study cannot be generalized to any university or college but is most useful for Research I universities. Secondly, this study is particularly focused on faculty who received a job offer from an outside institution or organization and chose to remain at Michigan State University. The results are limited, therefore, in that the study does not include faculty who have received job offers and have chosen to leave the university. Their input concerning what it would have taken to keep them at Michigan State University has not been added to the data. This limitation, though recognized early in the process, could not be eliminated due to financial and time constraints placed upon the study. A final limitation of the study has to do with the self-identifying nature of the faculty and department chairperson interviewees rather than a more scientific sampling of the population. This self-identifying component limits the study to those faculty members and department chairpersons who are willing to surrender an hour to talk about something that took place in their recent past. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Several questions in the survey were designed to elicit the willingness of faculty members to move to a new position. Just over half of the faculty members (56%) indicated an intention to remain at the university. Of the remaining number, 23% were interested in leaving and another 21% were uncertain as to their intentions. When asked to assess their situation at MSU and the job market in their particular field, faculty members were then asked to note the actions they might take in the next two years. The largest number planned to remain at MSU (49%) while another 11% said they planned to retire. An interest in taking a similar position at another university was indicated by 23% and the remaining 17% said that they would be willing to explore new job opportunities but were unwilling to commit to leaving the university. No matter how the question is asked, nearly one-quarter (23%) of the faculty at Michigan State University are actively desirous of leaving. With another 17-21% being uncertain but open to the possibility of leaving MSU for another position, it is conceivable that over 40% of the faculty members at Michigan State University could leave over the next two years. Clearly, faculty retention is of critical importance. The purpose of this study is to identify those elements, especially those related to job satisfaction and the department chairperson, which influence faculty members' 62 63 decisions to remain at Michigan State University when offered another job opportunity. A survey of the regular faculty of Michigan State University, plus interviews with some faculty members who had received job offers, provided the data for this study. JOB SATISFACTION AT MSU Overall job satisfaction among faculty members at Michigan State University is high with 74.9% of the faculty reporting that they were "somewhat" to "very satisfied" with their job. While over half of the faculty members in each of the colleges are satisfied with their job, the most satisfied faculty members can be found in the Colleges of Agriculture and Natural Resources (82.3%), Education (81.3%) and Natural Science (80.7%) . Two of the colleges registered a fairly high number of faculty members who said that they were somewhat to very dissatisfied with their job. One-fifth (20.5%) of the faculty members in the College of Veterinary Medicine and nearly one-third (30.4%) of the College of Arts and Letters faculty are unhappy in their jobs. (It should be noted that 66.7% of faculty in the College of Veterinary Medicine and 57.6% of faculty in the College of Arts and Letters report being satisfied with their job). The lowest percentage of dissatisfied faculty (7.8%; 76.5% satisfied) is found in the College of Engineering. In addition to an overall job satisfaction rating, faculty members were also asked to rate an additional thirty aspects of the work environment which influence one's 64 satisfaction with the job. Those aspects which received the highest job satisfaction ratings (percent reporting somewhat to very satisfied) included: The authority I have to makedecisions about content and methods in thecourses I teach My job security My benefits, generally The authority I have to make decisions about what courses I teach Quality of graduate students whom I have taught here 92.5 86.9 78.3 77.5 72.3 Those aspects which received the lowest job satisfaction ratings (percent reporting somewhat to very dissatisfied) included: Time available to work on scholarship and research Relationship between administration and faculty at Michigan State University Availability of support services (including clerical support) Quality of chief administrative officers at Michigan State University Research assistance that I receive 51.9 51.2 44.4 43.9 40.9 Factor analysis of thirty aspects of job satisfaction provided six broad areas of grouping: institutional quality, work load, institutional support, instruction, career outlook and compensation. Table 4 shows the latent factors and related information and Appendix K provides the factor loading for each variable. Faculty members are generally satisfied with instruction, career outlook and compensation while greater dissatisfaction is evidenced for institutional quality, work load and institutional support. 65 Table 4. Latent Factors for Job Satisfaction Latent Factors Inst. Quality Work Load % Variance Exp lained 26.2 8.1 7 .1 5.2 4.8 Inst. Support Instruction Career Outlook Compensation Cronbach's Alpha .787 .808 .696 .690 .661 Mean 3.10 3.21 3.16 3.79 3.72 3.73 Table 5 depicts job satisfaction levels across various faculty characteristics. Comparisons using ANOVA procedures found differing levels of job satisfaction according to academic rank, gender, group and interest in leaving. An additional ANOVA explored differences by the college of a faculty member's primary appointment (see Table 6). Institutional Quality. Significant differences were discovered for gender (F=6.062), group (F=2.891), and interest in leaving (F=60.872). Those most satisfied with the institutional quality of MSU included women, faculty members with administrative and extension appointments, and faculty who had no desire to leave the institution. Dissatisfaction with the quality of the institution was seen in those faculty members most committed to leaving. Among the colleges, faculty members in the Colleges of Human Ecology, Agriculture and Education were most satisfied with the institutional quality while those in Social Science and Arts and Letters were least satisfied (F=4.462). Table 5. Levels of Job Satisfaction with Relation to Selected Faculty Characteristics (Means) Characteristic Overall Rank : Professor Associate Assistant Gender: Male Female Group: Instruction Research Institutional Quality Work Institutional Load Support Instruction Career Outlook Compensation 3.10 3.21 3.16 3.79 3.72 3.73 3.10 3.08 3.46 2.87 3.23 2.94 3.89 3.69 3.98 3.54 3.76 3.62 3.11 2.93 3.26 3.57 3.49 3.80 3.07 3.36 3.26 3.19 2.65 2.95 3.82 3.67 3.49 3.81 3.74 3.69 3.00 2.10 2.99 4.01 2.99 3.47 3.79 3.80 3.50 4.02 3.53 3.76 3.56 3.91 3.98 3.99 Extension Administration 3.27 3.02 3.03 3.35 2.99 3.32 3.72 3.89 Balance 3.08 3.18 3.14 3.76 3.75 3.77 Want to go 2.67 2.75 2.75 3.49 3.28 3.36 Unsure Want to stay 2.94 2.94 3.03 3.67 3.48 3.50 3.33 3.50 3.38 3.95 4.01 3.97 Interest in Leaving: Table 6. Levels of Job Satisfaction with Relation to Individual Colleges (Means) College Institutional Work Ouality LQd LIST OF REFERENCES Allison, P. D., and J. S. Long. 1987. Interuniversity mobility of academic scientists. American Sociological Review 52 (Oct.): 643-652. Atwell, R. H. and M. F. Green (eds.) 1981. Academic leaders as managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Austin, A. E., and Z. F. Gamson, 1983. Academic workplace: New demands, heightened tensions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10, Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Baldwin, R. G. 1990. Faculty vitality beyond the research university. Journal of Higher Education 61 (2) : 160180. Baldwin, R. G. (ed.) 1985. Incentives for faculty vitality. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Baldwin, R. G. 1984. The changing development needs of an aging professoriate. In C . M. N. Mehrotra (ed.), Teaching and Aging. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Baldwin, R. G. 1979. Adult and career development: What are the implications for faculty? In R. Edgerton (ed.), Current issues in higher education, 2: 13-20. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. Baldwin, R. G., and R. T. Blackburn. 1981. The academic career as a developmental process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education 52 (6): 598-614. Bare, A. C. 1986. Managerial behavior of college chairpersons and administrators. Research in Higher Education 24 (2): 128-138. Barry, B. 1974. Exit, voice, and loyalty. of Political Science 4: 79-107. 195 British Journal 196 Bazerman, M. H., G. F. Loewenstein, and S. B. White. 1992. Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (June): 220-240. Bennett, J. B. 1983. Managing the academic department: Cases and notes. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Co. Biglan, A. 1973a. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (3): 195-203. Biglan, A. 1973b. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (3): 204-213. Birch, A. H. 1975. Economic models in political science: The case of 'exit, voice, and loyalty.' British Journal of Political Science 5: 69-82. Birnbaum, R., E. M. Bensimon, and A. Neumann. 1989. Leadership in higher education: A multi-dimensional approach to research. The Review of Higher Education 12 (2) : 101-105 . Blackburn, R. T. 1985. Faculty career development: Theory and practice. In Shirley M. Clark and Darrell R. Lewis (eds.), Faculty vitality and institutional productivity. NY: Teachers College Press. Blinder, A. S. (ed.) 1990. Paying for productivity: A look at the evidence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Quoted in J. N. Baron and K. S. Cook. Progress and outcome: Perspectives on the distribution of rewards in organizations, 191-197. Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (June), 1992. Bogdan, R. C., and S. K. Biklen. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Boice, R. 1985. Differences in arranging faculty development through deans and chairs. Research in Higher Education 23: 245-255. Boice, R. 1986. Faculty development via field programs for middle-aged, disillusioned faculty. Research in Higher Education 25: 115-135. 197 Booth, D. B. 1982. The department chair: Professional development and role conflict (Report No. 10) . Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. Bowen, H. R., and J. H. Schuster. 1986. American professors: A national resource imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press. Bowen, H. R., and J. A. Sosa. 1989. Prospects for faculty in the arts and sciences: A study of factors affecting demand and supply, 1987-2012. Princeton, N J : Princeton University Press. Boyer, C. M., and D. R. Lewis. 1985. Maintaining faculty vitality through outside professional consulting. In S. M. Clark and D. R. Lewis (eds.), Faculty vitality and institutional productivity. New York: Teachers College Press. Brown, D. G. 1967. The mobile professors. D.C.: American Council on Education. Washington, Burke, D. L. 1988. A new academic marketplace. York: Greenwood Press. New Caplow, T., and R. J. McGee. 1977. The academic marketplace. New York: Basic Books, 1958; reprint, New York: Arno Press. Cartter, A. M. 1976. Ph.D.s and the academic labor market. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Cartter, A. M. 1974. The academic labor market. In M. S. Gordon (ed.), Higher education and the labor market, 281-308.New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Clark, B. R. 1987. The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press . Clark, S. M., C. M. Boyer, and M. Corcoran. 1985. Faculty and institutional vitality in higher education. In S. M. Clark and D. R. Lewis (eds.), Faculty vitality and institutional productivity. New York: Teachers College Press. Clark, S. M., and M. E. Corcoran. 1989. Faculty Renewal and Change. In G. G. Lozier and M. J. Dooris (eds.), Managing faculty resources. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 63. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publications. 198 Coltrin, S., and W. F. Glueck. 1977. Effect of leadership roles on satisfaction and productivity of universityresearch professors. Academy of Management Journal 20 (1): 101-116. Crane, D. 1970. The academic marketplace revisited: A study of faculty mobility using the Cartter ratings. American Journal of Sociology 7: 953-964. Creswell, J. W., and J. P. Bean. 1981. Research output, socialization, and the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education 15 (1): 69-91. Creswell, J. W., and R. W. Roskens. 1981. The Biglan studies of differences among academic areas. The Review of Higher Education 4 (3): 1-16. Creswell, J. W., A. T. Seagren, and T. C. Henry. 1979. Professional development training needs of department chairpersons: A test of the Biglan model. Planning and Changing 10 (Spring): 225-237. Dill, D. D. 1984. The nature of administrative behavior on higher education. Educational Administration Quarterly 20 (3): 69-99. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. DuVall, C. R. 197 6. A cost study of the activities of a selected search and screen committee. Indiana University at South Bend, South Bend, Indiana. ERIC 126 800. ED Eble, K. E. 1986, Chairpersons and faculty development. The Department Advisor 1: 1-5. Eble, K. E. 1990a. Chairpersons and faculty development. In J. B. Bennett and D. J. Figuli (eds.), Enhancing departmental leadership: The role of the chairperson. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Co. Eble, K. E. 1990b. Communicating effectively. In J. B. Bennett and D. J. Figuli (eds.), Enhancing departmental leadership: The role of the chairperson. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Co. Ehrenberg, R., H. Kasper, and D. Rees. 1989. Faculty turnover at American colleges and universities: Analysis of AAUP data. A paper presented at the American Economic Association, Atlanta, Georgia. 199 Ehrle, E. B. 1975. Selection and evaluation of department chairmen. Educational Record 56: 29-38. Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal 26 (4): 596-607. Finkelstein, M. J. 1984. The American academic profession. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Flowers, V. S., and C. L. Hughes. 1973. Why employees stay. Harvard Business Review. 4 (July/Aug.): 49-60. Furniss, W. T. 1981. Reshaping faculty careers. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Glueck, W. F., and C. D. Thorp. 1974. The role of the academic administrator in research professors' satisfaction and productivity. Educational Administration Quarterly 10 (1) : 72-90. Gmelch, W. H. 1987. What colleges and universities can do about faculty stressors. In P. Seldin (ed.), Coping with faculty stress. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Grasha, A. F. 1987. Short-term coping techniques for managing stress. In P. Seldin (ed.), Coping with faculty stress. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Hall, R. N. (ed.) 1977. A symposium on faculty retention, tenure, promotion, and graduate department evaluation. A report prepared at the Speech Communication Association. ERIC ED 144 110. Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 1989. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New York: Routledge; reprint, 1983, London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd. Harshbarger, B. 1989. Faculty commitment to the The Review of university: Influences and issues. Higher Education 13 (1): 29-45. Hayward, P. C. 1986. A discriminant analytic test of Biglan's theoretical distinction between biology and English department chairpersons. Research in Higher Education 25 (2): 136-146. 200 Heimler, C. H. chairman. 1967. The college departmental Educational Record 48 (2): 158-162. Hemphill, J. K. 1955. Leadership behavior associated with the administrative reputations of college departments. Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 385-401. Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, Ohio: The World Publishing Company. Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hill, M. D. 1987. A theoretical analysis of faculty job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Educational Research Quarterly, 10 (4): 36-44. Hirokawa, R. Y., J. K. Barge, S. L. Becker, and J. L. Sutherland. 1989. The department chair as responsible academic leader: A competency-based perspective. ACA Bulletin 67 (January): 8-18. Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holland, J. L. 1966. The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell. Holland, J. L. 1971. Making vocational choices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hoshmand, L. L. T., and A. R. Hoshmand. 1988. Quality administration for academic departments: A human resource investment. CUPA Journal 3 9 (4): 21-30. Hoyt, D. P., and R. K. Spangler. 1979. The measurement of administrative effectiveness of the academic department head. Research in Higher Education 10 (4): 291-303. Jeffrey, R. C. 1985. A dean interprets the role and powers of an ideal chair. ACA Bulletin 52 (April): 15-16. Jennerich, E. J. 1981. Competencies for academic chairpersons: Myths and realities. Liberal Education 67 (1): 46-70. Kelly, R., and Hart, B. D. 1971. Role preferences of faculty in different age groups and academic disciplines. Sociology of Education 44: 351-357. 201 Knight, W. H., and M. C. Holen. 1985. Leadership and the perceived effectiveness of department chairpersons. Journal of Higher Education 56 (6): 677-690. Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ladd, E. C., and S. M. Lipset. New York:McGraw-Hill. 1975. The divided academy. Larson, L. L., J. G. Hunt, and R. H. Osborn. 1976. The great hi-hi leader behavior myth: A lesson from Occam's Razor. Academy of Management Journal 19: 628-640. Lee, D. E. 1985. Department chairpersons' perceptions of the role in three institutions. Perceptual and Motor Skills 61: 23-49. Long, J. S., P. D. Allison, and R. McGinnis. 1979. Entrance into the academic career. American Sociological Review 44 (October): 816-830. Lunsford, T. F. 1970. Authority and ideology in the administered university. In C. E. Kruytbosch and S. L. Messinger (eds.), The state of the university: Authority and Change. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lynton, E. A., and S. E. Elman. 1987. New priorities for the university. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Madron, T. M., J. R. Craig, and R. M. Mendel. 1976. Departmental morale as a function of the perceived performance of department heads. Research in Higher Education 5: 83-94. Matier, M. W. 1990. Retaining faculty: A tale of two campuses. Research in Higher Education 31 (1): 39-60. Matier, M. W. 1988. Factors influencing faculty migration. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Phoenix, A Z . McGee, G. W., and R. C. Ford. 1987. Faculty research productivity and intention to change positions. The Review of Higher Education 11 (1): 1-16. McKeachie, W. J. 1968. Educational Record Memo to new department chairmen. 49 (Spring): 221-227. 202 McKeachie, W. J. 1979. Perspectives from psychology: Financial incentives are ineffective for faculty. In D. R. Lewis and W. E. Becker, Jr. (eds.), Academic rewards in higher education. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co. McLaughlin, G. W., J. R. Montgomery, and L. F. Malpass. 1975. Selected characteristics, roles, goals, and satisfactions of department chairmen in state and landgrant institutions. Research in Higher Education 3: 243-259. Miles, B. W. 1983. Trials and tribulations of the academic chair. CUPA Journal 34 (4): 11-15. Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter, and R. M. Steers. 1982. Employee-organization linkages. New York: Academic Press, 27. Cited in Neumann and Finaly-Neumann 1990, 76. Muffo, J. A., and I. W. Langston IV. 1981. Biglan's dimensions: Are the perceptions empirically based? Research in Higher Education 15 (2): 141-159. Neumann, Y., and E. Finaly-Neumann. 1990. The reward support framework and faculty commitment to their university. Research in Higher Education 31 (1): 7597 . Newell, L. J., and G. D. Kuh. 1989. higher education professoriate. Education 13 (1): 63-90. Taking stock: The The Review of Higher Patterson, L. E., R.. E. Sutton, and E. M. Schuttenberg. 1987. Plateaued careers, productivity, and career satisfaction of College of Education faculty. Career Development Quarterly 35 (3): 197-205. Peterson, M. W. 197 6. The academic department: Perspectives from theory and research. In J. C. Smart and J. R. Montgomery (eds.), Examining Departmental Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Perrucci, R., K. O'Flaherty, and H. Marshall. 1983. Market conditions, productivity, and promotion among university faculty. Research in Higher Education 19 (4): 431-449. Quick, J. C. 1987. Institutional preventive stress management. In P. Seldin (ed.), Coping with faculty stress. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. 203 Roach, J. H. L. 1976. The academic department chairperson: Functions and responsibilities. Educational Record 57 (1): 13-23. Rosenfeld, R. A. 1981. Academic men and women's career mobility. Social Science Research 10: 337-363. Rosenfeld, R. A., and J. A. Jones. 1987. Patterns and effects of geographic mobility for academic women and men. Journal of Higher Education 58: 4 93-515. Rosenfeld, R. A., and J. A. Jones. 1986. Institutional mobility among academics: The case of psychologists. Sociology of Education 59: 212-226. Rusbult, C., D. Farrell, G. Rogers, and A. Mainous. 1988. The impact of exchange variables. Academy of Management Journal 31 (3): 599-627. Schriesheim, C. A. 1982. The great high consideration-high initiating structure leadership myth: Evidence on its generalizability. Journal of Social Psychology 116: 221-228. Schuster, J. H., D. W. Wheeler, and Associates. 1990. Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Singleton, B. S. 1987. Sources and consequences of role conflict and role ambiguity among department chairs. Capstone Journal of Education 1 (2): 39-50. Skipper, C. E. 1976. Personal characteristics of effective and ineffective university leaders. College and University 51: 138-142. Skipper, C. E. 1977. Administrative skills of effective and ineffective university leaders. College and University 52: 276-279. Skipper, C. E. 1978. Factor analysis of university leaders' behavior. College and University 53: 330-334. Smart, J. C. 1976. Duties performed by department chairmen in Holland's model environments. Journal of Educational Psychology 68 (2): 194-204. Smart, J. C., and C. F. Elton. 1975. Goal orientations of academic departments: A test of Biglan's model. Journal of Applied Psychology 60 (5): 580-588. 204 Smart, J. C., and C. F. Elton. 1976. Administrative roles of department chairmen. In J. C. Smart and J. R. Montgomery (eds.), New directions for institutional research: Vol. 3(2). Examining departmental management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications. Smart, J. C., and G. W. McLaughlin. 1974. Variations in goal priorities of academic departments: A test of Holland's theory. Research in Higher Education 2: 377-390. Smart, J. C., and G. W. McLaughlin. 1978. Reward structures of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education 8: 39-55. Smelser, N. J., and R. Content. 1980. The changing academic market: General trends and a Berkeley case study. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Solmon, L. C., and M. L. Tierney. 1977. Determinants of job satisfaction among college administrators. Journal of Higher Education 48 (4): 412-431. Stanton-Spicer, A. Socialization communication Quarterly 23 Q., and C. H. Spicer. 1987. of the academic chairperson: A typology of dimensions. Educational Administration (1): 41-64. Stecklein, J. E., and R. L. Lathrop. 1960. Faculty attraction and retention: Factors affecting faculty mobility at the University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, M N : The University of Minnesota. Stringer, J. 1977. The role of the 'assistant-to' in higher education. Journal of Higher Education 48 (2): 19320 1 . Taylor, A. L. 1982. Decision-process behaviors of academic managers. Research in Higher Education 16 (2) : 155173. Tucker, A. 1981. Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers. With a forward by J. W. Peltason. Washington D. C.: American Council on Education. Vavrus, L. G., M. L. Grady, and J. W. Creswell. 1988. The faculty development role of department chairs: A naturalistic analysis. Planning and Changing 19 (1) : 14-29. 205 Weiler, W. C. 1985. Why do faculty members leave a university? Research in Higher Education 23 (3): 270278. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). 1990. Factors affecting faculty supply and demand. Unpublished manuscript. Withey, M. J., and W. H. Cooper. 1989. Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (December): 521-539. Youn, T. I. K. 1988. Patterns of institutional self­ recruitment of young Ph.D.s: Effects of academic markets on career mobility. Research in Higher Education 29: 195-218. Youn, T. I. K., and D. Zelterman. 1988. Institutional career mobility in academia. In D. W. Breneman and T. I. K. Youn (eds.), Academic labor markets and careers. New York: Falmer Press.