Faculty Members' Intentions to Stay in Jordanian Public Universities

Abstract

Abstract: This paper presents findings from a study of factors that lead to faculty members' turnover intent involving 150 faculty members in the Jordanian universities. Through the path model that is grounded in expectancy theory, a total of 150 faculty members participated in the study who enrolled during the first semester 2007/ 2008 term at the Hashemite University, and by using a 43item survey, this study shows that elements of the structural, psychological, and environmental variables directly and indirectly influence faculty members' turnover intent. Five structural variables; autonomy, communication openness, distributive justice, role conflict, and workload had significant total effects on intent to stay. Autonomy and communication openness had positive indirect effects through both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Distributive justice had a positive indirect effect through organizational commitment. Role conflict had a negative indirect effect through both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Workload had a negative indirect effect through job satisfaction. The two psychological variables; job satisfaction and organizational commitment had positive effects on intent to stay. Job opportunity had a direct negative effect on intent to stay. None of the demographic variables: Gender and academic rank had a statistically significant total effect on intent to stay. Introduction Few current studies attempt to explain faculty members' behavioral outcomes such as their intentions to stay or leave (Barnes, Agago, & Coombs, 1998; Hagedorn, 1996; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Smart, 1990). The intent to stay or leave a position has been found to be a good proxy for actual turnover (Lee & Mowday, 1987; Mobley, 1982; Steers & Mowday, 1981). The implications for practice and policy of behavioral outcomes, such as faculty intentions to leave, continue to be important to college and university campuses (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002). Turnover is important to both organizations, as well as to individuals. Mobley (1982) contends that from an organizational perspective, employee turnover can represent a significant cost in terms of lost recruiting, training, socialization investments, and disruption and replacement. Employee turnover can also provide positive changes in the organization through the creation of promotion opportunities, reorganization and restructuring of reporting lines and decision-making, and the infusion of new people with new ideas. From an individual perspective, Mobley suggests that the decision to quit a position can be positively associated with the pursuit of an individual's career objectives, or with the movement away from a stressful situation. Alternatively, turnover can have negative implications for the individual. The individual may lose nonvested benefits and be subject to the grass looks greener phenomenon, only to experience later disillusionment. Practitioners and scholars have raised concerns about stress, workload, and burnout among university faculty (Fuhrmann, 1994; Goodwall, 1970; Spaights, 1980). Heavy teaching loads, community based research, and professional service responsibilities may constitute an overwhelming set of role expectations (Kingston-Mann & Sieber, 2001). Workplace stressors often have detrimental effects on faculty job satisfaction (Sanderson, Phua, & Herda, 2000) and may lead to decisions to leave the institution or to leave higher education entirely (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Rosser, 2004). Although some degree of turnover is inevitable and perhaps desirable, high rates of faculty turnover can be costly to the reputation of an institution and to the quality of instruction. Additional negative consequences of faculty turnover include costs for recruiting replacements, reduced integration within the academic department, disruption of course offerings, and diminished morale among those employees who remain in the organization (Mobley, 1982; Price, 1997). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.