i
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND TURNOVER INTENTION
by
THOMAS DASHER MILES
(under the direction of Laura Bierema)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this quantitative study was to identify the relationship among work-life
balance, job satisfaction, job embeddedness and intention to leave one’s job. It examined the
relationship between the work-life balance and voluntary turnover intentions of student affairs
professionals who were affiliated with the following student affairs professional associations:
NASPA—Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education and ACPA—College Student
Education International. A sample of 7,500 student affairs professionals working in the U.S.
participated in an online survey. Useable data was obtained from 1,573 respondents which
equated to a 21 percent return rate. The final questionnaire contained five sections including: (a)
job satisfaction, (b) job embeddedness, (c) work-nonwork interference and enhancement, (d)
voluntary turnover intention, and (e) demographics.
Conclusions of the study were (a) student affairs professionals with profession-related
graduate degrees were more likely to leave their jobs; (b) student affairs professionals were less
likely to leave if their work environments had positive impacts on their personal lives; (c) job
satisfaction had no impact on the relationship between work-life balance and intention to leave a
ii
job; and (d) job embeddedness had an impact on the relationship between work-life balance
facet, “personal life enhancement of work,” and intention to leave.
This study also unraveled some long-standing beliefs held by student affairs
professionals, including the following: a) a high attrition rate among graduate with student affairs
related degrees, b) a divorce rate comparable to the national average, c) males dominating the
highest leadership positions in student affairs, and (d) student affairs professionals as highly
satisfied with their jobs. The most interesting revelation was an attrition rate of only 11% among
professionals holding a graduate degree related to the student affairs profession.
This research contributes to human resources and organizational development (HROD)
by furthering our understanding of student affairs professionals’ leave intentions as it relates to
work-life balance. Student affairs practitioners and researchers can use this information to
identify and study work environments that support employees’ work-life balance and in turn
reduce voluntary turnover. Professional associations within student affairs can use this
information to aid in the development of a scholarship ethos.
INDEX WORDS: Border theory; Intent to leave; Job embeddedness; Job satisfaction;
Student affairs professionals; Voluntary turnover; Work-family; Work-life balance; Work-life conflict; Work enhancement; Work interference.
i
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND TURNOVER INTENTION
by
THOMAS DASHER MILES
B.S. Ed., Georgia Southern University, 1987
M.P.A., Georgia College & State University, 1991
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
ATHENS, GEORGIA
2013
iii
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WORK-LIFE BALANCE AND TURNOVER INTENTION
by
THOMAS DASHER MILES
Major Professor: Laura Bierema
Committee: Juanita Johnson-Bailey Khalil Dirani Nancy Thompson Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia August 2013
iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Rebecca A. Miles, and my son, Thomas D.
Miles, Jr. who allowed me to live out a life-long dream of achieving my doctorate. For the
sacrifices you made and for being there for me throughout this process, I would like to express
my appreciation and unconditional love for both of you. Thank you for making my dreams come
true.
I would like to also dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Ellen Rackley; my father,
John E. Miles, Sr.; my step-mother, Yuvonne Miles; and my sister, Ronnie Moore, for their
endless support throughout my educational journey. Thank you for allowing me live my dream
of a higher education.
A final dedication is to my family members (brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews and
cousins). Let this dissertation represent hard work and determination through which most things
can be accomplished. Let it also represent that it is never to late to further your education.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the guidance and insight of my advisor, Dr. Laura Bierema.
Thank you for your direction and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies. Thank you
teaching me to be more patient with the academic and dissertation processes. I express my
sincerest appreciation to my dissertation committee: Dr. Juanita Johnson-Bailey, Dr. Nancy
Thompson, and Dr. Khalil Dirani. The hours spent reviewing drafts and offering suggestions
have made my dissertation a well-crafted document. I thank you for your time, support and
encouragement throughout the process.
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Paul Jahr and Georgia College & State University for
supporting my professional development over the last seven years. Because you allowed me to
maintain a flexible schedule while working full-time, I was able to successfully complete my
doctorate. I will be forever in your debt for approving my tuition assistance and for allowing
time away from the office to study and write.
To an incredible group of student affairs professionals in the Department of Campus Life
at Georgia College & State University, I express my undying gratitude. Your tolerance with my
absences, missed meetings, etc., along with your encourgement of my academic endeavors
helped me pave the way to the successful completion of my degree. I offer you a very heartfelt
thank you.
David Phillips, a family friend, dubbed me “Dr. Tom,” during my oldest brother’s
wedding. Throughout my childhood and even into adulthood, he called me “Dr. Tom.” I longed
for the day when he could use the term officially, but he passed before I could finish my
vi
dissertation. His words echoed over the years like a constant reminder to get the job done. It is
fitting that he be acknowledged for inspiring a young man to live out his dream.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Study ......................................................................................................... 6
Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................... 9
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 11
Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................... 11
Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 15
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................ 19
Higher Education and Student Affairs ................................................................................... 21
Challenges within the Student Affairs Profession ................................................................. 22
Voluntary Turnover of Student Affairs Professionals ........................................................... 23
Work-Life Balance ................................................................................................................ 27
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement .................................................................... 36
Job Satisfaction ...................................................................................................................... 38
Job Embeddedness ................................................................................................................. 40
Turnover Intention ................................................................................................................. 41
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 47
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 47
viii
Overview of the Study ........................................................................................................... 48
Population and Sample .......................................................................................................... 52
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 53
Instrument Development ....................................................................................................... 53
Reliability and Validity .......................................................................................................... 58
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 69
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................ 70
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 71
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .................................................................................................... 72
Sample and Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................. 74
Moderator Results .................................................................................................................. 83
Relationship Between Work-Life Balance and Voluntary Turnover Intention ..................... 83
Moderating Effect of Job Satisfaction and Job Embeddedness ............................................. 89
Additional Information .......................................................................................................... 92
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 94
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 95
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 95
Problem Statement and Methodology ................................................................................... 96
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 97
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 101
Myth Busting Findings ........................................................................................................ 108
Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 110
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 112
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 113
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 129
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1. Literature Associated with Voluntary Attrition of Student Affairs Professionals ...... 25
Table 2. Constructs and their roles ........................................................................................... 45
Table 3. Contents of the Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire (SATIQ) ............ 59
Table 4. SATIQ – Job Satisfaction Survey Pilot Results with JSS Norms (national) ............. 64
Table 5. Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Results ............................................ 65
Table 6. Factor Loadings for WNIE Items ............................................................................... 66
Table 7. Factor Loadings for Job Satisfaction Survey Items ..................................................... 67
Table 8. Factor Loadings for Job Embeddedness Items ........................................................... 68
Table 9. Factor Loadings for Voluntary Turnover Intention Items .......................................... 69
Table 10. Respondents’ Aggregate Demographic Data ............................................................ 76
Table 11. Intention to Leave by Demographics and Gender ..................................................... 81
Table 12. Work Assignment Areas Examining Above Average High-Levels of Intention
to Leave ..................................................................................................................... 82
Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations Among Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference
and Enhancement, Turnover Intentions, Job Embeddedness, Job Satisfaction,
and Demographics ..................................................................................................... 84
Table 14. Correlations Among WNIE Facets, ITL, JE, JS, and Demographics ....................... 86
x
Table 15. Regression Model Summary for Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference
Enhancement and Demographic Variables as Predictors of Intention to Leave ....... 88
Table 16. Multiple Regression Results for Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and
Enhancement and Demographic Variables as Predictors of Voluntary Intention
to Leave ..................................................................................................................... 89
Table 17. Moderating Effect of Job Satisfaction on the Relationship Between Facets of
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Intention to Leave .................. 91
Table 18. Moderating Effect of Job Embeddedness on the Relationship Between Facets
of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Intention to Leave .............. 92
Table 19. Summary of Reasons Respondents Left the Student Affairs Profession .................. 93
Table 20. Summary of the Length of Time Respondents Left the Student Affairs
Profession .................................................................................................................. 93
Table 21. Myths within the Student Affairs Profession ............................................................ 109
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship among work-nonwork interference and
enhancement and turnover intentions with job satisfaction and job
embeddedness as moderators. ................................................................................... 15
Figure 2. Conceptual model of the relationship among work-nonwork interference and
enhancement and turnover intentions with job satisfaction and job
embeddedness as moderators. ................................................................................... 48
Figure 3. Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire (SATIQ) Design. ....................... 51
Figure 4. Research procedures. ................................................................................................ 54
Figure 5. Conceptual model of the relationship among work-nonwork interference and
enhancement and turnover intentions with job satisfaction and job
embeddedness as moderators. ................................................................................... 73
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Organizations in the 21st century are undergoing continuous and rapid change, including
higher education (Bryan & Joyce, 2005; Kezar, 2001). Rapidly changing technologies,
workplace diversity, funding, and organizational restructuring are a few of the current challenges
facing higher education. As these changes occur in higher education, the amount of inherited
responsibilities and added pressures within student affairs continues to evolve in order to meet
the needs of college students. These changes affect the retention of persons working within
higher education and may necessitate adjustments within organizations, specifically changes in
human resource talent management units. Lying in the wake of these changes is a large group of
baby-boomer administrators who are retiring. In the Monthly Labor Review, Dohm (2000)
indicated that the effect of baby-boomer retirements was expected to peak following the decade
of 2008. By 2018 most baby-boomers will be eligible for retirement. With this group’s exodus
along with a much smaller pool of workers to follow (Dohm, 2000), the U.S. will lose a vast
amount of knowledge and experience held by these employees. This will certainly have an
impact on higher education institutions, including student affairs divisions. In 2018 it is
estimated that over 40,000 postsecondary administrator jobs will be open due to job growth and
replacement needs (Lacey & Wright, 2009). During this same period of time, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics estimates little growth (< 2.4%) in these jobs, which potentially means that over
31 percent of estimated available positions could go unfilled (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011).
Two contributing factors included requirements for higher levels of education beyond the
2
bachelor’s degree and availability of higher paying jobs in other postsecondary administrative
occupations. Both of these may have implications on filling student affairs positions,
particularly since student affairs positions are some of the lowest paid on college campuses
(Lorden, 1998).
While organizations differ in their approach to human resource development (HRD), they
commonly agree upon the importance of a qualified, stable, and motivated group of employees
(Huselid, 1995). The student affairs literature continues to recommend ways to retain student
affairs professionals (Kortegast & Hamrick, 2009; Ashley Tull, 2006; Winston, 2003), which
suggests that attrition remains an issue despite the lack of current, broad-based data supporting
this claim. It is known that many institutions are hiring people with undergraduate academic
credentials and experiences with helping professions to meet the programmatic and service needs
of college students beyond the classroom (Janosik, 2003), which again sugggests there is an
employee retention issue. In a study conducted by Rosser and Javinar (2003), midlevel student
affairs professionals agreed that turnover was an issue within their units. Retention of qualified
student affairs professionals (SAPs) within higher education is important to the stability and
viability of the profession (Bender, 1980; Holmes, Verrier, & Chisholm, 1983) and to
institutional efficiencies (Blum, 1989). The concern over the lack of stability in retaining student
affairs professionals was stressed by Evans (1988) who stated that “given the time, resources,
and energy being invested by students, faculty, and student affairs staff in the preparation of new
professionals, the revolving door syndrome evident in the profession is a major concern” (p. 19).
Further complicating the issue is that student affairs and higher education researchers are
not consistently collecting and publishing attrition data. For this reason, many of the works cited
in this article are dated or only address ways to decrease attrition and not the actual attrition
3
numbers. Research specifically assessing the voluntary turnover of student affairs professionals
is absent. An article on job satisfaction in student affairs by Bender (1980) was recently
reprinted in the NASPA Journal (Bender, 2009), some three decades after the original
publication. In Bender’s article masters trained professionals were uncommitted to student affairs
as a long-term career. She indicated that 39 percent of her sample were undecided regarding
student affairs as a career despite 77 percent holding a masters degree and 16 percent with a
doctorate in student affairs or a related field. Holmes and his colleagues (1983) revealed a
retention rate of just 39 percent by the sixth year of being in the profession. That is, over 60
percent of student affair professionals are leaving the profession by their sixth year.
Arguably, the student affairs workforce and higher education workplace has changed
substantially in the last 25-30 years, and the body of knowledge on attrition of student affairs
professionals needs to be updated. Almost two decades after Bender’s original article, Lorden
(1998) reported as part of a literature review that switching occupations is common, and
suggested that such may be true for student affairs professionals, which signals that student
affairs may not be so different from other organizations. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics’ 2008 report, individuals held an average of 11 jobs from age 18 to age 44, with the
majority of the jobs being held before age 27 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Given this
statistic and the fact that new student affairs professionals generally start around age 24, the
switching of careers should not be surprising. We can project the loss of experienced
professionals to retirement each year; however, the attrition of non-retiring student affairs
professionals, while maybe not so surprising, is still a concern that deserves further study.
Job satisfaction among student affairs professionals has been reported as relatively high
(Bender, 1980), but the literature continue to suggest that these professionals are leaving for
4
other full-time positions (Kortegast & Hamrick, 2009; Winston & Creamer, 1997). Reasons for
leaving the profession have been cited as stress, burnout, work overload, lack of professional
development, career advancement concerns (Berwick, 1992; Conley, 2001; Ashley Tull, 2006)
and quality of supervision (Ashley Tull, 2006). Anderson, Guido-DiBrito, and Morrell (2000)
wrote an article entitled Factors that Influence Satisfaction for Student Affairs Administrator and
three very important work environment issues were affirmed. They concluded from a review of
the literature that SAPs where dissatisfied with the high level of inter-role conflict between work
and nonwork, the high level of stress related to too much work and lack of time, and changes to
work environment, such as organization realignments. The implications and recommendations
of this study were that physical and psychological health of SAPs should be a top priority. Other
recommendations included examining reward structures, including pay, benefits, recognition,
and professional development opportunities on topics like change, time management, conflict
resolution, community building, and general leadership skills.
In anticipation of stagnant growth in post-secondary jobs along with a decrease in the
number of available people to fill these positions, a deeper understanding of attrition of SAPs is
needed to lessen the potential impact on institutions of higher education and those working
directly in the student affairs profession. Historic data and antedotal evidence, as mentioned
above, certainly imply that attrition is a concern for the student affairs profession. More recent
research also suggests that attrition is a continuing concern; however, no broad-based studies
have been conducted on the profession as a whole since Holmes and his colleagues conducted
their study in 1983.
Numerous studies about the student affairs work environment have been conducted
(Anderson, et al., 2000; Andres & Finlay, 2004; Bender, 1980; Berwick, 1992; Blake, 2007;
5
Evans, 1988; Hamrick, Evans, & Schuh, 2002; Janosik, 2003; Lorden, 1998; Nobbe & Manning,
1997; Rosser & Javinar, 2003; Sandeen, 2004; Ashley Tull, 2006) and suggest that facets of the
environment are triggers for job dissatisfaction and turnover (e.g. work overload, supervision,
stress). Work-life balance has been linked with job satisfaction and work environments (Ellen
Ernst Kossek & Hammer, 2008). A healthy work environment refers to an organization in which
people are valued, and priority is given to the multiple aspects of the workplace that affect
employees’ ability to function well in order to accomplish the goals of the organization
(Kraybill, 2003). Work-life or work-nonwork balance is a specific set of organizational
practices, programs, and policies that actively support efforts to help everyone who works to
achieve success within and outside of the workplace (Rhodes, 2009). As indicated above, the
work environment for student affairs professionals is concerning. A study conducted by Berwick
(1992) suggested job satisfaction and morale influenced work-related stress. In this same study,
he indicated three ways individuals can reduce work-related stress: increase sense of personal
hardiness or efficacy with work, increase satisfaction felt toward job, and increase loyalty to the
organization and willingess to go the extra mile. In some of the latest research, van Steenbergen
and Ellemers (2009) have found support that work-nonwork facilitation experiences, such as
social support and skill development, are related to better scores on health indicators and predict
increased performance levels at work. Therefore, study of the work-nonwork environment in
conjunction with job satisfaction and turnover intention seems appropriate.
This study sheds light on the need to further examine the attrition of SAPs utilizing a
broader perspective than job satisfaction and work-life conflict. There is a need to expand
thinking to include the bidirectional research on work-nonwork interference and enhancement
(Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, 2009), which goes beyond examining work’s impact on personal life to
6
include both the positive and negative impact of personal life on work. The following sections
of this chapter address the attrition of student affairs professionals and make a case for looking
broadly at the work-nonwork interface. Specifically, an examination of Fisher, Bulger, &
Smith’s (2009) work will be highlighted because it is inclusive of all aspects of life (work and
personal life experiences) and examines the relationship between the two in a bidirectional
manner. Rosser and Javinar (2003) indicated that turnover among student affairs professionals
continues to be relatively high compared to other units within higher education. They call for
further research to examine the quality of student affairs professionals’ work lives to enhance job
satisfaction and morale and “thus influencing them to remain and to better serve our students” (p.
825). More research is needed to determine the extent of the voluntary turnover problem and its
underlying predictors. Evans (1988) indicated that strategies needed to be developed to foster a
long-term attraction to the profession. As Barr and Upcraft (1990) indicated “To do less would
mean that we would not be able to serve both our students and our institutions effectively in the
future” (p. 168).
Background of the Study
Careers in student affairs have been described as transitory (Appleton, Briggs, &
Rhatigan, 1978), not unlike careers in most complex human resource organizations (McClellan
& Stringer, 2009). Causes of attrition have been attributed to a multitude of factors, some
external to the organization (e.g. the labor market), institutional (e.g. work conditions, salary, and
supervision), employee characteristics (e.g. gender, level of interest in job, age, length of service,
and intelligence), and employee responses to his or her job (e.g. job satisfaction and job
expectations) (Zeffane, 1994). Despite all the research conducted on job attrition, much
confusion still exists on what might cause employees to leave or stay in their current
7
organization. This same confusion exists in the student affairs profession and calls for a deeper
understanding of factors leading to attrition of these professionals.
The instability among student affairs professionals has been examined mostly from an
employee turnover perspective. Employee turnover occurs when an individual leaves an
organization either voluntarily or involuntarily. It is one of the most studied topics in
organizational psychology (Mitra, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1992). For the last thirty years, researchers
have embraced the idea that student affairs has a significant attrition rate (Bender, 1980; Holmes,
et al., 1983; Lorden, 1998). During this time, many articles have been written indicating what
influences SAPs’ intent to leave (Huang, Lawler, & Lei, 2007; Johnsrud & Rosser, 1997; Kelley
Rodriguez, 2000; Manger & Eikeland, 1990; Rosser & Javinar, 2003). Studies on student affairs
professionals conducted in the 1980’s (Bender, 1980; Holmes, et al., 1983) reported an attrition
rate that took out 60 percent of master’s graduates from the profession within 6 years. This high
attrition rate was present despite high job satisfaction rates among student affairs professionals
(Bender, 1980). Reasons for the high attrition rate have been identified as a lack of promotional
opportunities and career mobility (Evans, 1988), need for a terminal degree to advance (Rosser
& Javinar, 2003), burnout (Barr & Upcraft, 1990), unmet job expectations (Stamatakos, 1978),
and earning a competitive and respectable salary (McClellan & Stringer, 2009). A study by
Ward (1995) indicated that new professionals with less than 2 years of experience indicated that
job-related stress affected their job satisfaction and decision to leave the profession. While these
researchers substantiate a high attrition rate, they also call for additional research to better
understand the nature of this phenomenon.
As the student affairs profession continues to evolve and as professional associations call
for student affairs professionals to assume more scholarly roles in the academy (ACPA, 2009;
8
NASPA, 2009), understanding and stablizing voluntary turnover has never been more important.
Professional associations within the field of student affairs are calling for the recruitment and
retention of student affairs professionals who embrace and understand the educative role that
these professionals play in higher education. Specifically, professional associations are calling
for its members to go beyond being knowledgeable of student development, and to collaborate
internally and externally to meet the needs of a diverse student population, and to be more data-
driven providing evidence of effectiveness and efficiency (Torres et al., 2010). In support of the
recommendation to advance student affairs’ role in student learning as published in NASPA and
ACPA’s Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004), Arminio, Roberts and Bonfiglio (2009)
recommended hiring authorities be more purposeful in selecting educators who demonstrate a
scholarship ethos (scholar practitioners). Candidates for entry-level or senior positions should be
able to demonstrate that they understand the complexity and serious purposes of higher
education and are committed to being lifelong learners and contributing scholars. The call from
student affairs’ largest professional associations sheds additional light upon the need to stabilize
attrition of entry-level and senior professionals in order to fully support student learning.
Hearing the call from professional associations, the quality of work-life plays an
important role in the retention of qualified SAPs. In a time when downsizing and layoffs
continue, work-life balance continues to emerge in human resource development (HRD) thinking
and practice (Morris & Madsen, 2007). Life outside of one’s work can be quite complex and
challenging, both mentally and physically. Nonwork activities can include child care, elder care,
service to community, membership in civic organizations, and leisure activities. These nonwork
activities cause positive and negative conflict with the work environment by creating a busy
mental state and consuming time of employees on and off the job (Leaptrott & McDonald,
9
2009). Swanson and Holton (2009) indicated that an important HRD role is to help people create
a sense of meaning in their work and personal lives. The mythical idea that work and life are
separate worlds (Kanter, 1977) is no longer accepted as family and other life demands influence
employee’s ability to contribute fully to the workplace (Kossek & Lambert, 2005). For example,
an IBM workforce survey revealed that the decision of high performers on whether or not to stay
with the company was most likely dependent on their ability to balance work and personal
responsibilities (Landauer, 1997).
Work-life conflict is seen as a significant cause of attrition in student affairs (Belch &
Strange, 1995; Lorden, 1998). Boehman (2006) identified several conflict components that
negatively affected work-nonwork interaction of student affairs professionals, including
increased expectations for working long hours, changing socialization patterns, gender roles that
cross work-nonwork lines, and the prevalence of wireless technology (i.e. e-mail, cell phones)
and other “electronic leashes” to the work environment. A more recent study by Fisher, Bulgar
and Smith (2009) expanded researchers’ ability to measure both work-nonwork conflict
(interference) and work-nonwork enhancements. The role conflict between work and nonwork
has been shown to be an antecedent to job satisfaction (Spector, 2000), which could lead to
voluntary turnover of SAPs.
Statement of the Problem
Institutions of higher education are experiencing high turnover rates among student
affairs professionals due to attrition of entry-level professionals and the retirement of baby
boomers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Losing experienced professionals in high-level
positions and new professionals at the entry-level positions creates issues at all organizational
levels, including the mid-level positions because these employees will seek to advance. Bender
10
(1980) reported that over 60 percent of new professionals leave the student affairs profession
within the first six years. The voluntary turnover rates within student affairs is much higher
relative to other work units in higher education (Holmes, et al., 1983; Ward, 1995). Evans’
(1988) review of the literature further suggests that such a high rate of attrition could be harmful
to the profession and even threaten its viability.
Factors identified as causes of the attrition include limited advancement opportunities,
burnout due to long hours and stressful conditions, unclear job expectations, dissatisfaction with
low pay, and lack of professional development opportunities. Many of the suggested causes of
attrition may be influenced by the level of job satisfaction and morale. Determining if external
(exogenous) or non-external (endogenous) variables impact turnover intentions may assist higher
education administrators in potentially addressing high voluntary turnover rates (Price, 2001).
Improving voluntary turnover rates among student affairs professionals may be an issue of
identifying factors and recommending interventions related to work-nonwork interference and
enhancement, job satisfaction and job embeddedness.
Rosser and Javinar’s (2003) study on midlevel student affairs leaders’ intention to leave
examined individual perceptions of work-life issues (e.g. recognition, working conditions, career
support), job satisfaction, and morale on intent to leave. There is limited research pertaining to
the perceptions of work-life conflict (role overload, work to family interference, family to work
interference, work to family spillover and caregiver strain), job satisfaction and morale on the
intent to leave the student affairs profession.
Johnsrud and Rosser (1997) state that although demographic and structural factors play a
role in turnover intentions, “it is clear that future research needs to probe perceptions in order to
adequately identify those factors that make a difference in individuals’ decisions to stay or leave”
11
(p. 14). To my knowledge, no studies examine student affairs professionals’ perceptions of work-
nonwork interference and enhancement on intent to leave a position, institution or career. In
fact, there has been a limited amount of research produced on turnover intentions of student
affairs professionals. This lack of research underscores the need and significance of this study.
Therefore, an argument can be made that a current study is warranted on the attrition of student
affair professionals as it relates to the interferences and enhancements of both work and personal
life.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study is to test whether work-nonwork interference and
enhancement correlate with voluntary turnover intentions among student affairs professionals,
and to determine if the relationship is moderated by job satisfaction and job embeddedness.
Research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. Is work-nonwork interference and enhancement related to voluntary turnover intentions
of student affairs professionals?
2. Do job satisfaction and job embeddedness moderate the relationship between work-
nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover intentions?
Theoretical Framework
Work-nonwork conflict and voluntary turnover intentions have been addressed intently in
the last few decades and continues today (Barr & Upcraft, 1990; Boone, 2004; Burns, 1982;
Dalton & Todor, 1979; Huang, et al., 2007; Leaptrott & McDonald, 2009; Lorden, 1998;
Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). This study will address the work-nonwork interface
and voluntary turnover intention as it relates to student affairs professionals. The theoretical
12
framework incorporates the use of conservation of resource theory, role theory, border theory,
spillover theory, and employee turnover theory. Each of these theories will be discuss further in
this chapter and defined more clearly in chapter 2, which is a review of the literature partaining
to the study.
The conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) claims that stress is a reaction to an
environment in which a person is threatened by a potential loss of resources, experiences an
actual loss of resources, or fails to gain expected resources. Work-nonwork interference
(conflict) occurs when resources in one role are exhausted or perceived to be exhausted by
meeting the demands of the other role. Greenhaus and Powell’s theory (2006) supports the idea
that a resource can be renewed or generated by completing the demands of one role that could
then be helpful for successful engagement in another role.
Role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) examines the roles that a
person accumulates in her life, including roles at work (e.g. manager) and roles external to work
(e.g. providing child or elder care). Interference between two or more of these roles creates
pressure at the same time making compliance with one or the other more difficult. However, this
inference may also have positive consequences in that additional resources may be provided due
to the strain of the interference (Sieber, 1974).
Work-family border theory (Kretovics, 2002) argues that the connection between work
and family systems is not emotional, but human. Individuals are daily border-crossers who
transition between two worlds--the world of family and the world of work. The work-family
border theory attempts to explain the complex relationship between border-crossers and their
work and family lives. It also attempts to predict when conflict will occur and provides a
framework for finding balance.
13
The spillover theory (Aldous, 1969; Crouter, 1984; Staines, 1980) has been used widely
to explain relationships between work and personal life. The theory simply suggests that what
happens at work “spills over” and affects personal life (Hsieh, Kline, & Pearson, 2008). Positive
spillover occurs when an individual’s positive feelings and energy from work crosses over into
personal life or when positive feelings and energy from one’s personal life crosses over into
work (Hill, Hawkins, & Miller, 1996). Negative spillover from work to personal life manifests
when problems, conflicts, or energy at work henders an individual, making it difficult to
participate in personal life positively (Foley & Powell, 1997). Also, negative spillover from
personal life can cross over into work and have negative consequences (e.g. divorce, death of
friend or family member, a sick child). While overlap occurs between this theory and others
listed, spillover provides a foundational concept that underpins assumptions of work-nonwork
interference and enhancement.
Most employee turnover studies differentiate between actual turnover and the intent to
leave an organization (turnover intention). The study of intent serves as a proxy for actual
turnover. Mobley (1977) was the first to incorporate behavioral intentions into the turnover
framework. Research supports the concept of “intent” to stay or leave a position to be a good
indicator of actual turnover (Steers & Mowday, 1981). Steel (2002) indicated that “the utility of
behavioral intentions as predictors of personnel turnover has unerringly shown that they are one
of the best, if not the best, predictor of this behavior” (p. 346). Rosin and Korabik (1995) linked
intent to leave to affective responses to work in areas such as job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Their finding indicated that position characteristics, organizational commitment
and job satisfaction were significant predictors of turnover intentions. Mitchell and others
(2001) linked turnover intentions to the nonaffective responses of job embeddedness.
14
In this study, job satisfaction and job embeddedness are being studied as potential
moderators of the relationship between the work-nonwork interface and voluntary turnover
intention. A moderator variable is one that influences the strength of a relationship between the
dependent and independent variables being studied. First, job satisfaction is widely studied and
has been correlated with voluntary turnover intention (Bender, 1980; Boone, 2004; Lorden,
1998; W. H. Mobley, 1977; Rosser, 2004; Spector, 1997). In addition, work-family conflict has
been correlated with voluntary turnover (Bird, 2006; Brough & Kalliath, 2009; Grzywacz &
Carlson, 2007; Hill et al., 2007; Johnsrud, 2002; Kossek & Hammer, 2008; van Steenbergen &
Ellemers, 2009) so a reasonable inquiry on the relationship between work-nonwork interface and
voluntary turnover as moderated by job satisfaction seems plausible. Job embeddedness (JE)
explains how and why employees remain with their organizations (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, et al.,
2001) and incorporates both work and nonwork dimensions. Mitchell and his colleagues
believed that combining both the work and nonwork dimensions of JE explains voluntary
turnover and called for more research on how organizations foster JE through effective human
resource management (HRM) practices. While some research has begun on linking HRM
practices and effectiveness with voluntary turnover (Allen, 2006; Wheeler, Harris, & Harvey,
2010), to date there is no evidence of linking the HRM practice of work-nonwork balance to
voluntary turnover using JE as a moderator. Figure 1 provides a conceptual model of the
relationship among work-nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover
intention with job embeddedness and job satisfaction as moderators.
15
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship among work-nonwork interference and enhancement and turnover intentions with job satisfaction and job embeddedness as moderators.
Significance of the Study
The study of the relationship between the work-nonwork interface and voluntary turnover
intentions of student affairs professionals adds to the theoretical body of knowledge within the
field. In addition, the study’s practical significance for the student affairs profession furthers the
discussion surrounding turnover among these professionals.
Theoretical Significance
First, the primary aim of this study is to undertake research on SAPs to identify variables
that influence turnover intentions. In particular, this research explores the concept of turnover
intentions and extends previous theoretical research by investigating the relationship between
work-nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover intentions as moderated by
Work-Nonwork Interference and
Enhancement
Turnover Intentions
Job Satisfaction
Job Embeddedness
16
job satisfaction and job embeddedness. Therefore, research investigating the most influential
variables is of considerable benefit to the empirical body of knowledge.
Second, this study extends previous studies on student affairs professionals’ work-life
balance by using work-nonwork interference and enhancement scale items that included the
nonwork domain more holistically. It aims to expand the conversation from the dominant work-
related focus (work-life) to one that incorporated aspects of personal life (nonwork). Nonwork
items refer to “personal life” rather than the more traditional “family” term so as to be more
inclusive of persons without families and to allow the respondents to interpret items relevant to
their situation (Hsieh, et al., 2008). Student affairs professionals with nonfamily roles and
responsibilities outside of work can be fully incorporated into this and future studies. In
addition, student affairs professionals with families that have commitments outside of the family
can include these personal life factors (Fisher, et al., 2009). It seeks to extend the body of
knowledge regarding student affairs professionals’ work and personal life balance related to what
influences SAPs’ choice to leave their job, institution, or career.
Third, this study seeks to increase the knowledgebase by offering new insights into
student affairs professionals’ perceptions of balance as influenced by the spillover between work
and personal life. As student affairs professionals cross borders between work and nonwork,
they are experiencing spillover, which may have implications on job satisfaction and job
embeddedness, and ultimately turnover intentions.
Practical Significance
First, developing a knowledgebase on what influences employees to leave gives
organizations the opportunity to curb voluntary turnover and to manage the turnover process
more effectively. By understanding the reasons student affairs professionals intent to leave,
17
higher education administrators can develop policies and practices that address issues that matter
most to these employees and reduce turnover (Johnsrud & Rosser, 1997). The identification of
the variables contributing to turnover intentions is considered to be effective in reducing actual
turnover levels (Maertz & Campion, 1998).
Second, the costs associated with high attrition rates are considerable. They include the
amount of time and effort to recruit, select and train a new employee (Dalton, Krachkhardt, &
Porter, 1982). In addition, the impact on the morale of those professionals who stay in the field
(Johnsrud et al., 2000) is substantial due to increase workloads from being short staffed.
Mitchell and colleagues (2001) indicated that the direct replacement costs can reach as high as
50-60 percent of an employee’s annual salary, with total costs associated with turnover (e.g.
recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training, reduced productivity) ranging from 90 percent to 200
percent of an employee’s annual salary.
Third, this study will provide an assessment of student affairs professionals’ work and
personal life balance. An imbalance between work and personal life could influence outcomes in
affected life domains, including work, and can influence the overall health and well-being of
individuals exposed to imbalance (Frone, 2003). Work and personal life balance may lower
burnout, provide employees with more autonomy, a more supportive workplace, and a social
support system (Hsieh, et al., 2008).
Finally, based on the emphasis from the academic and popular press for organizations to
focus on both the on and off-the-job lives of its employees, this study seeks to assist
organizations in indentifying additional indicators for attrition. These indicators may provide
talent management personnel with important information on providing work environments that
encourage retention of student affairs professionals.
18
Summary
This chapter provided the framework of the study. The background to the problem
related to attrition of student affairs professionals was discussed. In addition, a problem
statement was written to identified the concerns over the attrition of student affairs professionals.
The purpose statement was composed along with two research questions. The first research
questions addressed the relationship between work-life balance and turnover intentions; and the
second question addressed potential modifiers of the relationship between work-life balance and
turnover intentions. Theories supporting the study were also discussed along with development
of a conceptual model representing the potential relationship between work-life balance and
intention to turnover and two moderators (job satisfaction and job embeddedness). Finally, the
practical and theoretical significant of the study were identified and discussed.
19
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this quantitative study is to test whether work-nonwork interference and
enhancement correlate with voluntary turnover intentions among student affairs professionals,
and to determine if the relationship is moderated by job satisfaction and job embeddedness.
Research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. Is work-nonwork interference and enhancement related to voluntary turnover intentions
of student affairs professionals?
2. Do job satisfaction and job embeddedness moderate the relationship between work-
nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover intentions?
This chapter is a review of the literature on the voluntary turnover of student affairs
professionals and its potential relationship to the work-nonwork interface; and a call to higher
education administrators and researchers to continue studying factors that may lead to voluntary
attrition of these professionals. Specifically, this chapter provides an overview of student affairs
professionals within higher education, attrition among these professionals, and the work-
nonwork interface experienced by these professionals. A review of the literature was conducted
to provide a general framework for understanding attrition and the work-nonwork interface as it
pertains to student affair professionals. The literature reviewed was selected from student affairs
journals, adult education journals, general literature, and journals of higher education. Extensive
searches of the Georgia Library Learning Online (GALILEO) databases were completed to
identify resources that specifically address the topic. These databases included, but were not
20
limited to: Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, PsycINFO, Educational
Resource Information Center (ERIC), Book Collection: Nonfiction, Education Research
Complete, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Health Source - Consumer Edition,
MasterFILE Premier, PsycARTICLES, Professional Development Collection, Psychological and
Behavioral Science Collection, Public Affairs Index, SocINDEX with Full Text, Sociological
Collection, Vocational and Career Collection, TOPICsearch and Women's Studies International.
Textbooks written by authors versed in the four topic areas listed above were researched along
with online sources. Search terms used included the following: student affairs, college student
personnel, student affairs professionals, attrition, turnover intention, voluntary turnover, work-
life (family) balance, work-life conflict, work-nonwork interface, work interference, work
enhancement, personal life balance, personal life enhancement, personal life interference,
retention, higher education, job satisfaction, career commitment, job embeddedness, and
organizational commitment. The literature was organized based on the findings of these
database searches.
The first section of the literature review provides a prospective on higher eduation,
development of the student affairs profession, and current members of the student affairs
profession. The second section addresses the challenges faced by student affairs professionals
(SAPs) in their work environment and beyond. The third section provide insight into work-life
balance. The fourth section addresses the work-nonwork interference and enhancement view of
the work-nonwork interface. Finally, the fifth section identifies possible implications for human
resource development.
21
Higher Education and Student Affairs
Higher education is comprised of multiple subcultures (Kuh, 1996) each with its own set
of characteristics and varying employee experiences. Examples of these subcultures include but
are not limited to academic affairs, business affairs, university advancement, athletics and
student affairs. Within the higher education administrative hierarchy, student affairs can be one
of the largest employee groups in many colleges and universities (Montegomery & Lewis, 1996)
but is often considered a low level profession (Bloland, Stamatakos, & Rogers, 1994), which
means they are not valued as much as other positions in the academy.
The history of the origins and the development of the student affairs profession are
essentially unknown. Fenske (1989) stated that student affairs “has never had a single functional
focus, has never been stable in its role over significant periods of time, and never had a
consensual integrative philosophy” (p. 27). What we do know is that a proliferation of college
administrators took place late in the nineteenth century. These administrative positions were
most often referred to as Registrar, Dean of Women, Dean of Men, and Director of Admissions
(Delworth & Hanson, 1980). Most of these positions or some version of them can be found in
today’s student affairs organizations, along with a significant number of others, including
positions within financial aid; food services; mail services; parking and transportation; student
activities; multicultural affairs; career services; counseling services; international student affairs;
housing and residence life; women’s centers; wellness and recreation centers; health services;
disability services; and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender services.
Post-secondary education continues to confront pressures from a multitude of
constituencies to demonstrate its efficiency and effectiveness in accomplishing its mission and
goals (Rosser & Javinar, 2003). Student affairs professionals play a vital role in the
22
accomplishment of these goals by administering programs, services, and functions important to
fulfilling the mission of colleges and universities throughout higher education.
Challenges within the Student Affairs Profession
Student affairs is a division within many institutions of higher education where rapid
change is occurring. Changing technologies, workplace diversity, funding, and organizational
restructuring are a few of the challenges facing higher education, including student affairs.
Managing change in higher education is difficult and more so during eras of limited resources
(Hirt, Collins, & Plummer, 2005).
Hirt (2006) examined the body of literature on the student affairs profession including the
work and roles of student affairs administrators. Through her research, she identified three main
categories of study: (a) status of student affairs administrators and the student affairs profession;
(b) work and role of student affairs administrators; and (c) characteristics of student affairs
professionals. This review of the literature falls within Hirt’s third category of study:
characteristics of student affairs professionals. It addresses the voluntary turnover rate of student
affairs professionals and the need to further our understanding of voluntary attrition among these
professionals.
Research on relational factors to turnover of student affairs professionals included such
areas as job satisfaction (Bender, 1980), morale (Johnsrud, Heck, & Rosser, 2000), commitment
(Boehman, 2007) and synergistic supervision (Janosik, 2003). The nature of the student affairs
profession offers many challenges to professionals in the field. Areas of challenge identified in
the literature and also relevant to this study include: voluntary turnover, work-nonwork balance,
job satisfaction, job embeddedness, and voluntary turnover.
23
Voluntary Turnover of Student Affairs Professionals
Employee turnover occurs when an individual leaves an organization voluntarily or
involuntarily. Voluntary turnover is difficult to predict and can decrease the overall
effectiveness of an organization (Smith & Brough, 2003). Voluntary turnover research has
focused on intention to leave an organization and actually leaving. Generally, the research
literature supports the notion that the intention to leave an organization appears to be the best
predictor of actual leaving (Motowidlo & Lawton, 1984; Steers & Mowday, 1981).
Large employers like institutions of higher education are facing issues arising from
turnover and retirement of employees. Foot (1998) believes that turnover and retirement call for
institutions of higher education to replace outgoing talent with individuals who possess similar
experience, knowledge, skills and abilities. Harrison and Hargrove (2006) indicate that
appropriate policies and procedures must be in place to hire individuals who possess or exceed
the knowledge and skills of their predecessors. Their statements highlight the importance of
recruiting, training, and retaining individuals in light of the retirement of large numbers of baby
boomers. Because of the transitory nature of student affairs professionals (Evans, 1988) and the
suspected high turnover rate, institutions of higher education may find it difficult to retain
student affairs professionals.
Knowing the factors that influence turnover intention is important both to understanding
the turnover process and providing practical ways to address it (Manger & Eikeland, 1990). The
model of turnover developed by Price (1977) determined that turnover was influenced by
personal characteristics, role-related characteristics, facility characteristics, turnover
opportunities, and job characteristics. Three primary groups of variables have been identified as
influencing turnover intentions (1) organizational variables, such as job satisfaction, occupational
24
stress and organizational commitment, (2) individual demographic variables, including age,
gender, and marital status, and (3) external variables, such as alternative employment
opportunities (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). The relationship between turnover intentions and
organizational variables is of particular importance, with a need to pay attention to low job
satisfaction and high psychological strain levels (George & Jones, 1996; O’Driscoll & Beehr,
1994). Johnsrud and Edwards’ (2001) research on midlevel student affairs administrators and
managers spoke to the influences that affective responses to work had on turnover intentions,
specifically the impact of commitment and satisfaction.
There has been a limited amount of research produced on turnover of student affairs
professionals since 1983. As Table 1 makes evident, the available literature examines either
specific types of employees, such as new or midlevel professionals, or provides a review of the
literature on turnover of SAP’s. Each article references a seminal article by Bender (1980),
which examined positions within student affairs across the board. While the knowledgebase on
employee attrition is vast, the unusually high attrition rate among student affairs professionals
has not been studied adequately or consistently over time. While a review of the literature
reveals some causative factors for the attrition of student affairs professionals, minimal research
has been conducted that unearths a broader understanding as to why these professionals stay or
leave. Much of the literature addresses the impact that work has on one’s personal life, but
neglects the impact of personal life on work.
Bender (1980) indicated in her study that student affairs professionals are satisfied with
their jobs, but are leaving the profession in high numbers. Rosser (2004) examined job
satisfaction and morale of student affairs mid-level managers and found that the work
environment had a profound effect on employees’ intent to leave, ultimately resulting in actual
25
Table 1. Literature Associated with Voluntary Attrition of Student Affairs Professionals Literature Associated with Voluntary Attrition of Student Affairs Professionals Year Author(s) Title of Article / Summary Journal 1980
Bender, B. E. Job satisfaction in student affairs Bender indicated attrition of SAP’s might become a problem because high percentages of respondents were undecided about remaining in Student Affairs.
NASPA Journal
1983 Holmes, D. Verrier, D. Chisholm, P.
Persistence in student affairs work: Attitudes and job shifts among master’s progam graduates Researchers found that master’s program graduates’ year-by-year movement out of the field of student affairs resulted in a 39 percent retention rate by the sixth year of employment.
Journal of College Student Development
1988 Evans, N. J. Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the literature Evans signaled that the revolving door syndrome within student affairs is a major concern. It was suggested that a high attrition rate among student affairs professionals could be harmful to the profession and even threaten its viability.
Journal of College Student Development
1995 Ward, L.
Role stress and propensity to leave among new student affairs professionals Ward’s study on role stress found that role ambiguity was a variable in job satisfaction and the decision to leave.
NASPA Journal (table continues)
26
Table 1 (table continued)
1998 Lorden, L. P.
Attrition in the student affairs profession Lorden conducted a literature review that examined the perceived attrition crisis in student affairs including career patterns, factors that influence decisions to leave, and effects of attrition. It was suggested that attractive job options and readily transferable job skills may be reasons for turnover, not dissatisfaction with the job.
NASPA Journal
2003 Rosser, V. J. Javinar, J. M.
Midlevel student affairs leaders’ intention to leave: Examining the quality of their professional and institutional work life The authors conducted a national study that examined demographic characteristics and work-life issues that may have an impact on the morale and satisfaction of midlevel student affairs leaders and their intention to leave their positions.
Journal of College Student Development
2006 Tull, A. Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new professionals in student affairs Tull examined the role of effective supervision of new professionals as a way to reduce voluntary turnover in student affairs.
Journal of College Student Development
turnover. Intention to leave a job is a good indicator of actual turnover (Lee & Mowday, 1987).
Studies on student affairs professionals with graduate degrees conducted in 1983 (Holmes, et al.)
reported an attrition rate that takes out 60 percent of master’s graduates from the profession in
six years. Reasons for the high attrition rate have been identified as a lack of promotional
opportunities and career mobility (Evans, 1988; Lorden, 1998), need for a terminal degree to
27
advance (Rosser & Javinar, 2003), burnout (Barr & Upcraft, 1990), unmet job expectations
(Stamatakos, 1978), and earning a competitive and respectable salary (McClellan & Stringer,
2009). Another study by Ward (1995) indicated that new professionals with less than 2 years of
experience indicated that job-related stress affected their job satisfaction and decision to leave
the student affairs profession.
While these researchers support specific, causative factors for high attrition rates, they
also call for additional research to identify other potential factors contributing to this
phenomenon. Therefore, a deeper examination of attrition that considers the relationship of the
work-nonwork interface is supported.
Work-Life Balance
Work-life balance has always been a concern of those interested in the quality of working
life and its relation to broader quality of life (Guest, 2002). Guest states that one definition of
work-life balance might be “a perceived balance between work and the rest of life” (p. 1). Clark
(2002) defined it as “satisfaction and good functioning at work and at home with a minimum of
role conflict”. Despite the worldwide interest in work-life balance, a standard acceptable
definition of the concept has not been agreed upon. The concept continues to be argued.
According to Bird (2003), there is no perfect, one-size fits all, balance you should achieve. The
best work-life balance is different for each person because of divergent priorities and lifestyles.
He uses the following definition of work-life balance: “Meaningful daily achievement and
enjoyment in each of four life quadrants: work, family, friends and self” (p. 1). While his and
others’ definitions can be argued, the study of the relationship between work and nonwork
continues.
28
O'Driscoll (1996) denoted five main models typically used to explain the relationship
between work and life outside work. The segmentation model hypothesizes that nonwork and
work are two separate domains of life that are lived independently and have no influence on each
other. In contrast, the spillover model hypothesizes that the work and nonwork domains can
influence each other in positive or negative ways. The third model is a compensation model
which suggests that what lacks in one sphere (i.e. work or nonwork) in terms of demands or
satisfactions, can be made up in the other. For example, when satisfaction is experience in a
nonwork activity, it compensate for dissatisfaction at work. A fourth model is an instrumental
model where activities in one domain facilitates success in the other domain (e.g. a instrumental
worker accepts a job working long hours to purchase a home and a car for his or her young
family). The final model is a conflict model, which suggests that heighten demand in all
domains of life (i.e., work and nonwork) force choices to be made creating conflicts and possbile
overload on an individual.
Life outside of one’s work can be quite complex and challenging, both mentally and
physically. In 1999, 92 percent of American workers expressed concerns that they have
insufficient flexibility in their work schedule to take care of family needs (University of
Connecticut and Rutgers University, Center for Survey Research and Analysis and John J.
Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, 1999). These nonwork activities cause positive
and negative conflict with the work environment by creating a state of mental busyness and
consuming employees’ time on and off the job (Leaptrott & McDonald, 2009). Swanson and
Holton (2009) indicated that an important HRD role is to help people create a sense of meaning
in their work and personal lives. The mythical idea that work and life are separate worlds
(Kanter, 1977) is no longer accepted as family and other life demands influence employee’s
29
ability to contribute fully to the workplace (Kossek & Lambert, 2005). John de Graf (2003),
who authored the book Take Back Your Time: Fighting Overwork and Time Poverty in America,
argues that Americans are working far too much with negative effects on family, personal health,
civil society, and the environment. He calls, as part of the Take Back Your Time movement, for
change in public policy to rectify the imbalance between work and personal life so as to expand
the amount of personal time allowed. October 24, 2003 was the first annual Take Back Your
Time Day. This date is 9 weeks before the end of the year—symbolizing the fact that the
average American works 9 weeks longer than the average Western European worker.
Over the last 30 years, a shift in labor force demographics along with family
responsibilities outside of work has fueled the study of work and personal life balance. Two
major shifts in demographics include women making up 54.7 percent of the U.S. work force (U.
S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a) and over 66 percent of families having both parents
working (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). According to Waumsley (2005) work-life balance is a
subjective phenomenon, and may be defined as being able to achieve a balance between working
life and personal life (away from work) that is satisfactory to the individual. She goes on to say
that balance is achieving minimal stress in the fulfillment of both the work and personal life
domains. Specifically, the role expectations of the two areas are not always compatible, which
creates conflict between work and personal life (Netemeyer, et al., 1996).
The next four subsections include conservation of resources, role theories, spillover
theory, and border theory, and discuss previous research that supports the work-nonwork
interference and enhancement model used in this study. Understanding work-nonwork balance
necessitates a basic knowledge of theories that explain the relationship between work and
personal life. More specificially, it will provide the knowledge needed to grasp a fuller
30
understanding of work-nonwork interference and enhancement, which serves as the study’s
independent variable.
Conservation of Resources
Obtaining, retaining, fostering, and protecting things (resources) that individuals centrally
value are the tenets of the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1998). Key
resources are employed in order for people to regulate themselves, their operation of social
relations, and how they behave, organize, and fit into organizations and culture itself. COR
theory puts forward values that are universal, such as family, self-preservation, health, well-
being, peace, and a positive sense of self. It proposes that those deficient in resources will be
more vulnerable to the experiencing of loss spirals and those with ample resources will have
more opportunity for resource increases. Loss spirals occurs when resources are consumed and
are not available to handle future loss threats, thus potentially leading to further loss. Broader
life circumstances and resource loss events are products of the resource conservation processes.
Conditions that cause a loss of resource tend to lead to further resource loss. Individuals apply
resource conservation strategies when losses occur, whereby they utilize available resources in
order to adapt. Adapting successfully generates new resources, which replenishes people’s
collection of resources and offsets the conditions that produced the initial resource loss.
Unsuccessful strategies result in psychological distress and material loss. This diminishes the
resources invested and further generates resource loss, resulting in loss spirals.
Communities, groups and individuals are more vulnerable to the negative impact of
additional resource challenges. Those with abundant resources are considered resilient, but even
these groups or individuals are challenged when resources are being lost. Hence, loss spirals are
a powerful influence that is apparent in individuals and groups already deficient in resources.
31
According to COR theory, “human being’s primary motivation is to build, protect and foster
their resource pools in order to protect the self and the social bonds that support the self”
(Buchwald, 2010, p. 286). The theory also provides a model for averting resource loss,
maintaining current resources, and increasing resources necessary for participating in appropriate
behaviors. COR theory claims that resources are the main components to determining if
individuals see an event as stressful, and it additionally defines how individuals cope with
stressful situations. Gaining resources (gain spirals) have received far less attention than loss
spirals. Gain cycles are important not only in the workplace, but also to work-family interface.
Work and family are both high demanders of individuals’ resources. When resources are built in
one domain, it facilitates the other domain creating a ‘battle for resources’ (Hobfoll, 2011).
The conservation of resources (COR) theory is of specific interest in understanding the
work-nonwork interface and turnover intention because it goes past merely linking resources to
performance. COR theory developed from resource and psychosocial theories of stress and
human motivation. It has been used as an explanatory model for organizational stress in health
systems and other organizations (Grant & Campbell, 2007). Social scientist who study stress
have found that personal resources (e.g. perceptions of improvement, perceived control, self-
efficacy) and social resources (e.g. emotional support, assistance from friends and family)
safeguard against the possible negative impact of stressful life happenings (Folkman &
Moskowitz, 2004). COR theory recognizes real things happen in people’s lives that challenge
them, and these things result in an accumulation of resource reservoirs. It further recognizes that
stress results from the combination of an event that is perceived as taxing or beyond people’s
available resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the objectives or circumstances that threaten
or reduce people’s resources (Seyle, 1951). The reduction or threat of resource loss provides a
32
better understanding of organizational stress, and can assist in the development of work
environments that are meaningful and productive. COR theory contributes to understanding the
function of resources in the work-nonwork interface. As a result of the strong relationship to life
conditions, COR theory can add to our knowledge of stress and coping, particularly as it relates
to the role dimensions of work and personal life.
Role Theories
Another theory that helps explain the work-nonwork interface is general role theory.
Madsen and Hammond (2005) indicated that role theory refers to behaviors that have been
socially agreed-upon and accepted as norms. Typical roles include spouse, mother, father,
manager, employee, church member, student, friend, and more. Roles can represent
relationships or functions, and are essential for the realization of goals and the maintenance of
group cohesion. The variety of roles that an individual plays or occupies is called a role set.
When two or more of these roles conflict or compete for one person’s attention, it creates strain.
Role theory reasons that multiple roles can lead to stressors (e.g work overload and interrole
conflict) and to indicators of strain (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984). Work overload refers to
opportunities that can lead to an escalation in workload and feelings of overload within the work
or nonwork domains. Interrole conflict simply refers to the conflict between the various roles.
Role theories (Kahn, et al., 1964; Katz, 1978), particularly those based on the scarcity
perspective, where individuals have a limited amount of time and energy to divide among
various roles (Marks, 1977), suggest that individuals experience interrole conflict when fulfilling
the requirements of one role makes it more difficult to fulfill the requirements of another role.
Work-family conflict, a construct that represents negative interdependencies between work and
family roles, is a type of interrole conflict (Barnett & Gareis, 2006; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)
33
that has received considerable attention in the work-family literature (Barnett, 1998; Eby,
Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Frone, 2003). This study embraces role theories
because they help explain the dynamic relationship between the roles of work and nonwork and
how they may influence organizational practices (Powell & Greenhaus, 2010).
Border Theory
Work-life border theory (Kretovics, 2002) explains how people balance the domains of
work and personal life. Border theory views work and personal life as two domains with flexible
and permeable borders. Humans are seen as “border-crossers who make daily transitions
between two worlds—the world of work and the world of family. People shape these worlds,
mold the borders between them, and determine the border-crosser’s relationship to that world
and its members” (p. 748). Clark also argues that it is human nature that links work and personal
life. She compares work and life as two different countries. Some people will experience little
difficulty as they travel between the two countries; but others may have trouble with language
and customs of the other country. Outcomes, both positive and negative, for businesses,
families, and individuals who travel across the borders, are based upon what strengthens or
weakens work-family borders (Secret, 2006). Determinants of the outcomes, both postive and
negative, depend on characteristics of the employee, meaning attached to work and family
networks, individual preference for separating or integrating work and personal life, and the
nature of the workplace (Sagaria & Johnsrud, 1988).
People who choose to keep work and family separate are called “segmenters” and they
maintain highly impereable boundaries between the work and family domains. People who
allow work and family to blend or merge are called “integrators” and they maintain highly
permeable boundaries around the work and family domains (Center for Disease Control and
34
Prevention, 2013). Segmentation preferences in the two domains of work and family can vary
independently from each other (J. Boehman, 2006). The amount of segmentation of the work
domain from family domain (e.g. not taking work phone calls at home) and the family domain
from the work domain (e.g. not taking personal phone calls at work) is based on individual
preference. People’s segmentation of their work and family domains are based on the value
placed on the linkage between their work and family domains (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2013; Kretovics, 2002).
Spillover Theory
Spillover theory seeks to explain work influences in family life. Positive spillover refers
to situations in which the satisfaction, energy, and sense of accomplishment derived from one
domain transfers to another (Madsen & Hammond, 2005). For example, increased satisfaction
(dissatisfaction) in the work domain leads to increased satisfaction (dissatisfaction) with the life
domain. The literature addresses two types of spillover, positive and negative.
Positive spillover occurs when the satisfaction, energy, happiness, and stimulation an
individual has at work spans into positive feelings and energy at home or when positive
satisfaction, energy, and happiness from home spans to a positive experience at work (Hill, et al.,
1996; Nidiffer & Bashaw, 2001). Hanson, Hammer and Colton (2012) delineates between two
broad types of work-family positive spillover: affective and instrumental. A person experiences
affective positive spillover when they transmit positive affect (e.g., happiness or positive mood)
from one domain to the other domain. A person experiences instrumental positive spillover when
they transmit values (e.g., embracing diversity), skills (e.g., using a database management
program), and behaviors (e.g., acting collaboratively) obtained in one domain to the other
domain.
35
Negative spillover occurs when problems are carried over from one domain to another.
Negative spillover occurs when an individual has difficulty partaking in family life effectively
and positively due to problems, conflicts, or energy at work causing strain or preoccupation of
the individual (Foley & Powell, 1997). In addition, negative spillover from family to work (e.g.,
divorce, child care issues, or the death of family member) can be a hindrance. While there is
some overlap between this theory and others outlined in this chapter, the spillover theory
provides perhaps the most basic and foundational concepts that support some of the assumptions
of role theories, border theory, and the conservation of resources theory.
Summary
As a result of downsizing, layoffs, and other corporation actions, work-life balance
emerged as a perspective in human resource development (HRD) thinking and practice (Morris
& Madsen, 2007). Products of work-life effectiveness include dependent care (child care and
elder care), health and wellness (employee assistance programs, on-site workshops, workplace
service), workplace flexibility (flextime, telecommuting, compressed workweek, job sharing),
financial support (tuition reimbursement, flexible spending accounts, financial planning), paid
and unpaid time off (sabbaticals, leave bank), community involvement (matching gift program,
volunteer program, shared leave program, disaster relief fund), and cultural change initiatives
(diversity or inclusion initiatives, work environment initiatives, women’s advancement
initiatives, work redesign).
The quality of work-life is important to student affairs professionals and has a substantial
influence on job satisfaction, morale, and subsequently intentions to leave their current position
(Rosser & Javinar, 2003). Examples of these influences include: working conditions,
recognition for competence and expertise, professional activities and career development, and
36
departmental and external relationships. When organizations offer work-life policies to their
employees, it sends a signal to the employees that the organization cares about them and their
families (Cook, 2009).
Unfortunately, these policies can be exclusionary and provide little benefit to some
employees and may communicate that some employees are more valued. The significant portion
of the work-nonwork research concentrates on the interface between work and family roles, such
as childcare, eldercare, or marital relationships, with little attention to nonfamily roles outside of
work (Kirchmeyer, 1964; Torres, et al., 2010); however, newer research focuses on a work-
nonwork interface that is appropriate for all workers regardless of marital or family status
(Fisher, et al., 2009).
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement
Resulting from the work of a virtual think tank of experts, the work-nonwork interference
and enhancement (WNIE) model was developed by Fisher, Bulger, and Smith (2009). The
WNIE model has four dimensions: work interference with personal life, personal life
interference with work, work enhancement of personal life, and personal life enhancement of
work. It expands researchers ability to measure both work-nonwork conflict (interference) and
work-nonwork enhancements. As part of their work, these researchers developed a validated
instrument that measures work-nonwork interference and enhancement. First, they generated
items related to work-nonwork interference and enhancement. These items were developed to
intentionally capture bidirectionally work and nonwork elements. Their goal was to measure
perceptions of the extent to which work interferes with personal life and personal life interferes
with work, and the extent to which work enhances personal life and personal life enhances work.
The items generated to measure these perceptions were reviewed by subject matter experts. After
37
two additional studies. a validated instrument was developed to broadly measure work-nonwork
interference and enhancement.
Unlike previous research utilizing work-life balance or work-family balance, the work-
nonwork interference and enhancement view, referred to in this study as work-nonwork
interface, is more inclusive because it does not discriminate on the basis of marital or family life
status. The increased attention on the roles of work and personal life (nonwork) in recent years
has generated a realization that these roles are not independent of each other; and that demand in
one role may have positive or negative effects on the other (Kanter, 1997; Kirchmeyer, 1991).
A significant oversight in the study of student affairs professionals has been the limited
view on the effects of personal life (nonwork) on work-life. Most research has been
unidirectional and examined the impact of work on an individual’s personal life, where personal
life was narrowly focused on family. More specifically, research on work-family conflict
excluded workers who were single, childless, and had no elder care responsibilities. The work-
nonwork interface reaches beyond family to embrace workers regardless of marital, parenthood
or eldercare status, and allows families to include other commitments outside of family that may
be relevant (Fisher, et al., 2009) . The work-nonwork interface closes gaps found in work-family
conflict by reducing bias against those without certain aspects of family, and broadening the
view of personal life to include commitments beyond family.
Work-life conflict is seen as a significant cause of attrition in student affairs (Belch &
Strange, 1995; Lorden, 1998). Boehman (2006) identified several conflict components that
negatively impacted work-nonwork interaction of student affairs professionals, including
increased expectations for working long hours, changing socialization patterns, and gender roles
38
that cross work-nonwork lines, and the prevalence of wireless technology (i.e. e-mail, cell
phones) and other “electronic leashes” to the work environment.
Many work-life programs have been developed by organizations that assess work and
family, but none are utilizing a valid measure to assess anything beyond work and family. As
examples, programs have been developed that examine reducing work-personal life interference
and others that focused on how work can enhance one’s personal life. A promising tool
developed by Fisher, Bulger, & Smith (2009) allows organizations to assess work-nonwork
perceptions among employees. According to the authors of this tool, no other validated measure
of work-nonwork interference and enhancement (WNIE) has been developed. The term personal
life compared to family provides organizations with the opportunity to measure the interface
between work and personal life without limitations of an employee’s family status. WNIE seeks
to measure perceptions of the extent to which work interferes with personal life and personal life
interferes with work, and the extent to which work enhances personal life and personal life
enhances work. With the use of this tool to provide a better measure of the work-nonwork
interface, future assessments may reveal new factors in the attrition of student affairs
professionals.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is the extent to which people like their jobs (Spector, 2000). It is one of
the most studied variables in organizational psychology (Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, &
Carson, 2002) and directly influences turnover. The dimensions of job satisfaction include:
contingent rewards, nature of work, promotion, pay, supervision, fringe benefits, operating
procedures, coworkers, and communication within organization. There are two factors currently
known that attribute to job satisfaction: personal factors and environmental antecedents (Spector,
39
1997). Personal factors focus on individual characteristics or attributes and environmental
antecedents of job satisfaction are considered the work environment or the work itself.
Employees who indicate higher levels of job satisfaction generate work of a higher quality and
quantity for their employers (Ellickson, 2002). The met expectations theory (Mowday, Porter, &
Steers, 1982) proposes that individuals have certain expectations of work. If these expectations
are not met, dissatisfaction with work results (Best & Thurston, 2004). One area of
dissatisfaction that resulted in people leaving the student affairs profession was in part due to a
lack of advancement opportunities (Rosser & Javinar, 2003). As part of a literature review,
Lorden (1998) identified the following factors as reasons for attrition of student affairs
professionals: (a) burnout, (b) unclear job expectations, (c) conflict between perception and
reality of position, and (d) low pay. All of these are associated with high job dissatisfaction and
unmet expectations of the job.
Bender (1980) raised the flag on attrition potentially becoming a problem based on
number of student affairs professionals indicating they would not remain in the field of student
affairs. This was indicated despite high levels of job satisfaction. Twenty-five percent (25%) of
those surveyed indicated that they did not intend to do student affairs work their entire career,
while 39 percent were undecided about staying in the field. Only 36 percent indicated they
would remain in student affairs for their entire career. She segmented the data by age groups and
gender. Looking at 23-36 years olds, 31 percent did not intend to stay in student affairs for their
entire career and 41 percent were undecided. Only 28 percent indicated they intended to stay in
student affairs. An examination of SAPs older than 36 years yielded 12 percent indicating they
did not intend to stay in the field with 34 percent remaining undecided. The data suggests that
younger student affairs professionals are less committed to the profession than older
40
professionals. In addition, gender seemed to play a role in as well. Twenty-one percent (21%)
of men and 30 percent of women indicated that they did not intend to stay in student affairs, and
36 percent of men and 42 percent of women indicated they were undecided about remaining in
student affairs. This left 43 percent of men and 28 percent of women intending to stay in the
profession. This research also pointed out that women and younger professionals perceived little
opportunity for advancement in the student affairs profession.
Job Embeddedness
Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001) introduced a construct called job
embeddedness (JE). Job embeddedness was believed to be a key factor in helping employers
understand why people stay on their jobs. These authors describe JE “like a net or a web in
which an individual can become stuck” (p. 1104). They believe that people can become
enmeshed or embedded in many different ways and that the level of embeddedness, rather than
the specific elements of embeddedness, is the key factor. Critical aspects of job embeddedness
are (a) the extent to which people have links to other people or activities, (b) the extent to which
their job and communities fit with other life space aspects, and (c) the ease with which links with
job and community can be broken (e.g. leaving their home for a new job in another city). Job
embeddedness is not necessarily a negative concept as “stuck” would seems to imply. Quite
opposite, job embeddedness is a positive concept if the person is satisfied with their work-life
and nonwork-life. These critical aspects (dimensions) where labeled as “links,” “fit,” and
“sacrifice.” Links dealt with the connections between a person and institutions, or other people.
JE suggests that strands connect a worker and his or her family in a financial, social and
psychological web that includes work and nonwork aspects (i.e. friends, groups, community, and
41
the physical environment) in which he or she lives. The more strands or links of connection
between the person and the web, the more the worker is bound to their job or organization.
Fit is the second critical dimension of JE. It is defined as a worker’s perceived
compatibility or comfort with an organization and with his or her environment. Fit in this sense
is determined by how well a worker’s personal values, career goals and future plans match with
the their organization’s culture and the demands of his or her job (i.e. job abilites, skills, and
knowledge). The worker also considers how well he or she fits the community and surrounding
environment. Mitchell and his colleagues (2001) suggested that the better the fit, the more likely
the worker would feel tied to the organization.
Sacrifice is the third critical dimension of JE. It attempts to capture the costs associated
with leaving a job (i.e. material and psychological costs). The more an employee would have to
give up to leave an organization, the more difficult it would be to sever employment with the
organization. Example of associated job costs include comparable salary, benefits, colleagues,
job stability, and advancement opportunities. Community sacrifices would include loss of such
things as ones level of respect within a community, safety level of the community, attractiveness
of the community, day care services, and loss of religious support systems. It is the hope of
these authors that further research on JE will increase the understanding of why people stay in
their jobs, why they leave, and how these actions can be influenced.
Turnover Intention
Turnover has been defined as employees voluntarily leaving his or her employer. Price
(1977) defines it as "the degree of movement across the membership boundary of a social
system" (p. 4). Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, and Lockhart (2005) referred to staff turnover as the
incidents of employees quitting an organization voluntarily. Another definition is the rotation of
42
workers around the labor market; between companies, jobs and occupations; and between the
statuses of employed and unemployed (Abassi & Hollman, 2000). It is not uncommon for
managers to refer to turnover as the entire process related to filling a vacant position. Each time
a position is vacated a new employee must be hired and trained. This replacement cycle is known
as turnover (Wood, 1995). All of these definitions commonly suggest that turnover is a process
and does not occur instantly.
Voluntary turnover intention has focused on the relationship between the intention to
leave an organization and actual leaving (attrition). The research literature confirms that
intention to leave an organization appears to be the best indicator of actual leaving (Lee &
Mowday, 1987; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Some have theorize about what precedes an
employee’s decision to leave an organization. Some suppositions have included the job search
process (W. H. Mobley, 1977), supervisory style (Winston & Hirt, 2003), morale (Johnsrud &
Rosser, 1997), job satisfaction (Bender, 1980), quality of work-life (Rosser & Javinar, 2003) and
job embeddedness (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, et al., 2001).
Steel and Ovale (1984) conducted a meta-analysis of 34 studies and concluded that the
primary models in turnover research recognized an order to the decision making process that
progress from affective variables (i.e. organizational commitment and job satisfaction), through
intentions to stay or quit and that terminates in turnover behavior. This study suggested that
intention to stay was a stronger predictor of turnover than affective variables. Additionally, it
validated previous work that discovered intention to stay or leave is the final step in the decision
making process (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand & Meglino, 1979; Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth,
1978).
43
Rosser (2004) conducted a national study on midlevel managers in higher education, who
she called “the unsung professionals in the academy” (p. 317) because they are rarely
recognized for their contributions to higher education. Throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s,
growth of midlevel managers was unprecedented within college and university systems across
the United States (Grassmuck, 1991). As the number of positions and personnel grew, the
turnover rate did as well (Blum, 1989; Ward, 1995) causing higher education institutions to
experience instability, inefficiencies, and a surge in training and development needs (Blum,
1989). Rosser’s (2004) research revealed that the following work-life indicators lessened
midlevel leaders’ likelihood of leaving indirectly through job satisfaction level:
• positive perceptions of support for their career and developmental activities;
• recognition and respect for contributions to the institution;
• positive relationships with faculty members, students, senior administrators, and
the public; and
• review and intervention of State and Federal mandates and institution policies.
The most direct and powerful effect on the intention of midlevel leaders to voluntarily
turnover was any discriminatory experience (age, racial, and gender). She concludes that the
perceived quality of work-life matters to satisfaction of midlevel leaders, and it is the
combination of work-life issues, morale, demographic characteristics, and satisfaction that
determines voluntary turnover intentions.
Summary
Is student affairs as we know it in jeopardy? The transitory nature of student affairs
professionals along with a history of losing academically trained professionals to other careers is
a concern that heightens as professional associations call their members to implement student
44
learning outcome measures and to specialize in addressing needs of target populations on our
campuses (e.g. ethnic minorities, disabled students, veterans, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender students) and off campus (e.g. parents and community service partners) (Maertz &
Campion, 1998). The demands on student affairs professionals have never been greater. As they
embark upon this new territory, assessment of student affairs professional’s responses to the
work-nonwork interface may provide more insight as to why student affairs professionals may be
leaving the field.
Universities and colleges are currently experiencing significant financial and human
resource challenges and may do so into the foreseeable future. It is important for administrators,
faculty, and staff to understand the profound impact that attrition of student affairs professionals
will have on campus life and higher education in general. Examples include major concerns
such as recruitment, retention and discipline of students to more specific student needs such as
mental and physical health, career development, and other support services (e.g. disability
services, multicultural services, and housing).
The study will examine facets of work-life balance as it relates to intention to leave in
addition to moderator variables. As indicated in Table 2, facets of work-nonwork interference
and enhancement are independent variables. Job satisfaction and job embeddedness are
moderator variables. Intention to leave (ITL) is the dependent variable.
Specifically, the facets of work-nonwork interference and enhancement (WIPL, WEPL,
PLIW, PLEW) look at work and personal life bi-directionally. The bi-directional examination of
work-life balance will provide a more holistic view, allowing inclusion of factors that go beyond
family. Being able to examine work-life balance from this view, may provide a better
understanding of attrition.
45
Table 2. Constructs and their roles Constructs and their roles ____________________________________________________________________________ Construct Name Independent Variables Moderator Variables Dependent Variables WIPL X WEPL X PLIW X PLEW X Job Satisfaction X Job Embeddedness X Intention to Leave X _____________________________________________________________________________ Note: WIPL – work interference with personal life, WEPL – work enhancement of personal life, PLIW – personal life interference with work, PLEW – personal life enhancement of work
Additionally, by examining other potential moderators of attrition, such as job
satisfaction and job embeddedness, higher education administrators and researchers may be able
to develop a fuller understanding of the attrition of student affairs professionals. Enhancing our
understanding of the factors leading to attrition of student affairs professionals may provide new
insight to the role the work-nonwork interface plays. Armed with new and current information
on turnover intentions, higher education administrators may be able to identify areas where
policy or programmatic changes could make a difference in the personal and work-life of student
affairs professionals.
Further examination may suggest that the student affairs professionals may need to
reexamine current organizational structures and rewards systems. A potential starting place may
be to examine the long-standing tenure and promotion system used by faculty within higher
education, which rewards faculty for their teaching, research and service (ACPA, 2009; NASPA,
2009).
46
If needs of student affairs professionals’ personal and work lives are not identified and
addressed, higher education institutions may not be able to develop measures of learning beyond
the classroom or to specialize in meeting the needs of target populations. As student affairs
professional associations continue to rally the masses to address these needs, the call to action is
clear; institutions of higher education must seek to better understand factors leading to attrition
of student affairs professionals and create pathways that allow these professionals to commit to
long-term careers in student affairs.
47
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research method used in conducting this study. Next is the
design of the study, the sample selection and population, and instrumentation used. This section
concludes with a description of the validity and reliability of the survey instrument, details on
how the data will be collected, and an explanation of how the data will be analyzed.
Introduction
The purpose of this quantitative study is to test whether work-nonwork interference and
enhancement correlate with voluntary turnover intentions among student affairs professionals,
and to determine if the relationship is moderated by job satisfaction and job embeddedness.
Research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. Is work-nonwork interference and enhancement related to voluntary turnover intentions
of student affairs professionals?
2. Do job satisfaction and job embeddedness moderate the relationship between work-
nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover intentions?
Evidence of this relationship could have implications for human resource practices
regarding the reduction of employee attrition. Additionally, if the analysis denotes that job
satisfaction and/or embeddedness influence the relationship between WNIE (Work-Nonwork
Interference and Enhancement) and TI (Turnover Intention), this could lead to a better
understanding of the interaction and provide additional insight into what makes student affairs
professionals leave or stay.
48
Overview of the Study
This is a quantitative study that examines the relationship between work-nonwork
interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover intention and determines, as
conceptualized in Figure 2, if moderators of job satisfaction and job embeddedness significantly
influence the relationship between WNIE and TI.
Figure 2. Conceptual model of the relationship among work-nonwork interference and enhancement and turnover intentions with job satisfaction and job embeddedness as moderators.
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement (4 facets)
• Work Interference with Personal Life
• Personal Life Interference with Work
• Work Enhancement of Personal Life
• Personal Life Enhancement of Work
Turnover Intentions
(single dimension)
Job Satisfaction (9 facets) • Pay • Promotion • Nature of Work • Contingent Rewards • Supervision • Fringe Benefits • Operating Procedures • Coworkers • Communication
Job Embeddedness (single dimension)
49
The conceptual model as indentified in Figure 2 suggests that the intention to quit may be
stimulated by aspects of work-nonwork interference and enhancement. Work-nonwork
interference and enhancement specifically looks at four variables and their relationship to
employees’ intention to quit. The first variable is work interference with personal life, which
entails how work impacts a person’s ability to meet personal needs. These items include:
missing important activities due to work, work making a person too tired for personal things,
neglecting personal needs because of work, and not being able to maintain the personal life one
would enjoy. The second variable is personal life interference with work. These items include:
personal life drains energy needed for work, work suffers from personal life activities, inability
to devote more time to work due to personal life activities, being to tired to be effective at work
due to personal life activities, and worrying about personal life activities when working. The
third variable is work enhancement of personal life. These items include: job provides a person
with energy to pursue activities outside of work, being in a better mood at home due to work, and
work helps me deal with issues at home. Finally, the fourth variable is personal life
enhancement of work. These items include: being in a better mood at work due to personal life
activities, personal life generates energy to do work activities, and personal life cause one to
relax and feel ready for work. Job satisfaction and job embeddedness are used to determine if
relationships between the the work-nonwork interface and turnover intentions are related to
them. Job satisfaction among student affairs professionals has been consistently reported as high
(Bender, 1980; Burns, 1982; Nestor, 1988) so this moderator will determine if this remains the
case. Job embeddedness examines individuals’ links to other people or activities at work and
within the community, the fit between work and community and other aspects of life, and the
ability to sacrafice links with work and community.
50
Data will be collected from a convenience sample of student affairs professionals who are
members of two large professional student affairs associations. These organizations were chosen
in accordance with the focus of this study and the feasibility of reaching the targeted audience.
According to van Patten (1993) surveys are among the most frequently used instruments
in non-experimental studies that measure attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of respondents.
Trochim (2000) stated “Survey research is one of the most important areas of measurement in
applied social research” (p. 1). The broad area of survey research encompasses any measurement
procedures that involve asking questions of respondents.” Therefore, the use of a survey to
collect data from student affairs professionals in the United States was considered appropriate for
addressing the proposed research questions. The survey uses summated rating scales, which is a
frequently used tool in the social sciences and one that is most useful in behavioral research.
Summated scales are a collection of related questions that measure underlying constructs. This
means that items making up the scale are summed to produce a total score. Rensis Likert is
credited with inventing this technique for assessing attitudes, beliefs, and behavior (Spector,
1992a).
The research design and data collection approaches used to answer the research questions
depends upon a six-section survey instrument as shown in Figure 3. The use of a reliable
instrument is important in addressing concerns over reliability and validity (Spector, 1992b).
Four questionnaires including Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Scale (WNIES)
(Fisher, et al., 2009), Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 2007), Job Embeddedness (JE) (Crossley,
Jex, Bennett, & Burnfield, 2007), Turnover Intention Scale (TIS) (Rosser & Javinar, 2003) along
with Demographics were compiled into one survey instrument. The instrument is named the
Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire (SATIQ).
51
Figure 3. Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire (SATIQ) Design.
Qualifiers (4 items)
• Consent Form (must agree) • Level of Employment (full-time) • Location of Institution (US only) • Age 18 or older
Section I (36 items)
Job Satisfaction
Section II (7 items)
Global Job Embeddedness
Section III (17 items)
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement
Section IV (3 items)
Voluntary Turnover Intention
Section V (4 items)
Leaving and Returning to the Student Affairs Profession
Section VI (15 items)
Demographics
Age, Sex, Race, Marital Status, Children, Adult Care, Highest Level of Education,
Graduate Degree Earned, Type of Institution, Assigned Work Units, Level of Employment, Year of Service to Current
Institution, Year of Service in the Profession, Living Arrangements,
Classification of Institution
Yes
Survey Ends
No
52
Population and Sample
Data was collected from student affairs professionals who are members of two large
professional associations. Research studies using questionnaire instruments mainly target
specific professional groups (Gall & Borg, 1989). NASPA - Student Affairs Administrators in
Higher Education and ACPA - College Student Educators International are both professional
associations for a wide variety of college administrators who address the developmental needs of
college students. NASPA currently has over 11,000 members at 1,400 campuses, representing
29 countries (NASPA, 2009). ACPA has over 8,500 members at 1,500 campuses in the U.S. and
around the world (ACPA, 2009). Both associations were contacted to secure email addresses for
student affairs professionals in the student development areas (assigned work units) of housing
and residence life, student activities and unions, multicultural services, disability services,
student health services, recreational sports, counseling services, international student services,
student conduct and career services.
The study’s target population was full-time student affairs professionals in specific work
units within each institution studied. Each student affairs professional is associated with any
number of work units within higher education institutions, some unit which may report to other
divisions beside student affairs (e.g. admissions may report to academic affairs). For the purpose
of this study, employees were identified as student affairs professionals regardless of which
division they report. Because each of the work units listed has membership in these professional
associations, they represent an accessible population. While these professional associations do
not include all student affairs professionals, they do represent the sample being specifically
studied. Based on the first-hand knowledge of the members of these professional associations,
53
the researcher used his personal judgment in selecting this sample population. The member of
the professional associations aligned with the identified work units received an email invite.
Data Collection
In accordance with University of Georgia regulations and to ensure the protection of
participants in the study, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was secured before data
collection. Contact was made with both professional associations and an explanation of the
study was provided. Permission to survey members from the selected work units was sought and
received.
According to Flowers and Massie (2006), higher education and student affairs
professionals preferred web-based survey (95%) over paper-and-pencil surveys (5%). Therefore,
items from the SATIQ (Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire) will be placed into
Survey Monkey (1999), an online survey software company. Participants will receive an email
indicating the purpose of the survey and soliciting their participation via a link to the survey. One
week later a second email will be sent to non-respondents as a last plea to participate. At the
conclusion of the data collection period, the data will downloaded from Survey Monkey and
placed in a statistical software program called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS,
2007) for analysis.
After two weeks of data collection, the total number of responses reached 1,573
participants. One thousand four hundred twenty-nine valid responses were collected. For more
details, please see Demographics section of Chapter 4.
Instrument Development
After an extensive review of the literature, the Student Affairs Turnover Intention
Questionnaire (SATIQ) instrument (Appendix A) was developed. It is comprised of validated
54
and reliable instruments, which allowed for the examination of the constructs within the study.
The constructs included: work-nonwork interference and enhancement, job satisfaction, job
embeddedness, and turnover intention. Figure 4 demonstrates the systematic process used in
Figure 4. Research procedures.
Initial contact with student affairs professional associations’
research units
Received confirmations of participation from professional
associations
Analyzed data
ata
Review of the literature
Developed a draft survey
Conducted pilot test of questionnaire with sample from a
state professional association
Modified questionnaire based on feedback from pilot test
National associations sent emails with survey link to student affairs
participants
Downloaded data from Survey Monkey and imported into SPSS
Checked validity
ata
55
identifying, validating, and use of SATIQ instrument. The SATIQ contains five sections and
includes empirically established measurement scales. Details on the development of the SATIQ
are further explained below.
Job Satisfaction Survey
Section one of the SATIQ utilizes the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) by Spector (2007). It was
originally developed for human service, public and nonprofit sector organizations; however, it is
applicable to other organizations. While Spector’s website (1985) did not specifically list all of
the organizations that used the survey, he did list a number of organizational areas within the
United States that utilized the JSS. They included: education, manufacturing, medical, mental
health, nursing, police, retail, private sector, public sector, and social services. The JSS is a 36-
items questionnaire comprised of nine subscales each consisting of four items used to assess
employee attitudes about their jobs and aspects of their job. Participates in the questionnaire rate
each item on a Likert-like scale, which ranges from “disagree very much = 1” to “agree very
much = 6.” The subscales, which include four items each, include: Contingent Rewards, Nature
of Work, Promotion, Pay, Supervision, Fringe Benefits, Operating Procedures, Coworkers, and
Communication within Organization. The range of scores for each subscale is 4 to 24, and the
total score ranges from 36 to 216. Higher overall scores indicate more job satisfaction. These
scores will be discussed later under validity and reliability sections.
Job Embeddedness
In section two of the SATIQ, Crossley, Jex, Bennett and Burnfield (2007) developed and
tested a global, reflective measure of job embeddedness. Job embeddedness is defined as “the
combined forces that keep a person from leaving his or her job” (Yao, Lee, Mitchell, Burton, &
Sablynski, 2004). It includes such factors as marital status, community involvement, and job
56
tenure. Forms of embeddedness include three underlying facets: links (formal or informal
connections between a person and institutions, locations, or other people), fit (employees’
compatibility or comfort with work and nonwork environments), and sacrifice (cost of material
or psychological benefits that one may forfeit by leaving one’s job or community) (Cossley, Jex,
Bennett, & Burnfield, 2007).
Global job embeddedness is assessed by a seven-item scale that considers both work
related and nonwork related factors. Responses to all items are rated using a five-point Likert
agreement scale ranging from “strongly disagree = 1” to “strongly agree = 5.” Validity and
reliability scores will be discussed in a later section.
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Scale
In section three of the SATIQ, Fisher, Bulgar and Smith (2009) identified a strong need
to measure the nonwork domain often referred to as “family” domain. They acknowledged that
diversity in families, trends in marriage and childbearing, and having nonfamily roles and
responsibilities outside of work called for a broader measure of the nonwork role. The work-
nonwork interference and enhancement instrument was created out of a need to broaden the
conversation of work-family conflict to include all employees regardless of marital or family life
status (Fenske, 1980). Fisher et al. (2009) took three studies in which they developed a
theoretically grounded and empirically validated multidimensional, bidirectional measure of
work-nonwork interference and enhancement. The work-nonwork interference and enhancement
was assessed by a 17-item scale with four dimensions: (1) work interference with personal life,
(2) personal life interference with work, (3) work enhancement of personal life, and (4) personal
life enhancement of work. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they
have felt a particular way during the last three months using a 5-point scale: “not at all = 1”,
57
“rarely = 2”, “sometimes = 3”, “often = 4” and “almost all of the time = 5”. Validity and
reliability scores will be discussed in a later section.
Voluntary Turnover Intention
In section four of the SATIQ, the dependent variable in this study, voluntary turnover
intention, was measured by a series of 3 selected items including: (1) the extent to which student
affairs administrators would be likely to leave their current position, (2) leave their institution,
and (3) leave their career or profession. Scaled responses ranged from “indicating little
likelihood of leaving = 1” to "greater likelihood of leaving = 5”. Turnover intention (TI) items
were taken from Rosser and Javinar’s (2003) instrument, which examined turnover intention of
mid-level student affairs professionals in the areas of leaving one’s job, leaving one’s
organization, and leaving one’s career. Validity and reliability scores will be discussed in a later
section.
General Demographics
Section six of the SATIQ will include the demographic variables in this study and capture
the profile and background characteristics of the respondents. These variables will include
participants’ age, gender, minority status, marital status, number of children, highest level of
education, years of service to institution, years in career and profession, campus living
arrangement, institutional type (private or public), and assigned work unit(s) at institution.
Summary of Instrumentation
The final instrument contains a total of 86 items divided into six sections: Thirty-six
items in Section I (job satisfaction), 7 items in Section II (job embeddedness), 17 items in
Section III (work-nonwork interference and enhancement), 3 items in Section IV (turnover
58
intention), 4 items in Section V (leaving and returning to student affairs profession) and 11 items
in Section VI (demographics). The contents of the online survey are summarized in Table 3.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability refers to the extent to which an instrument contains “measurement errors” that
cause a score to differ for reasons unrelated to the individual respondent. The fewer errors
contained, the more reliable the instrument. Validity is the degree to which correct inferences
can be made based on the results of an instrument (Fisher, et al., 2009). In other words, does the
instrument measure what it purports to measure and does it have meaning to the respondent?
Job Satisfaction Survey
Spector (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2002) sampled 2,870 participants using the Job Satisfaction
Survey and yielded a coefficient alpha of .91 for the total scale and ranged from .60 to .82 on the
subscales. Seven out of the 9 subscales had coefficient alphas of .70 or above. This means
overall that the scales showed internal reliability, even though two subscales (co-workers and
operating procedures) fell below the standard coefficient alpha of .70. The subscale with the
highest coefficient alpha (.82) was supervision. The test-retest reliability estimate was .71 for the
entire scale and ranged from .27 to .74 for the subscales. Spector used a small sample (n=43)
and re-tested after 18 months, which was an extended amount of time for re-testing purposes; yet
he yielded an overall correlation coefficient of .71.
Spector (1985) provided evidence of discriminant and convergent validities by providing
a multitrait-multimethod analysis of the JSS and Job Description Index (1985). The validity
coefficients between equivalent subscales from both instruments were of reasonable magnitude,
.61 to .80. Simply stated, the researcher can reasonably predict what a participant completing a
subscale on one survey will score on the other.
59
Table 3. Contents of the Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire (SATIQ) Contents of the Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire (SATIQ)
Section
Contents
Study Identifier
Level of Measurement
Number of Items
Qualifiers (4 items)
Consent form (item 1)
Nominal
1
Level of employment (item 2)
Nominal 1
Location of institution (item 3)
Nominal 1
Age 18 or older (item 4)
Nominal 1
Section I Job Satisfaction (36 items)
Pay (items 5, 14, 23, 32)
Interval 4
Promotion (items 6, 15, 24, 37)
Interval 4
Supervision (items 7, 16, 25, 34)
Interval 4
Fringe Benefits (items 8, 17, 26, 33)
Interval 4
Contingent rewards (items 9, 18, 27, 36)
Interval 4
Operating conditions (items 10, 19, 28, 35)
Interval 4
Coworkers (items 11, 20, 29, 38)
Interval 4
Nature of work (items 12, 21, 31, 39)
Interval 4
Communication (items 13, 22, 30, 40)
Interval 4
Sum of all Facets (items 5 – 40)
JS Interval 36
Section II Global Job Embeddedness (7 items)
Job Embeddedness (items 41-47)
JE Interval 7
(table continues)
60
Table 3 (table continued)
Section
Contents
Study Identifier
Level of Measurement
Number of Items
Section III Work/Nonwork Interference and Enhancement (17 items)
Work Interference with Personal Life (items 48-52)
WIPL
Interval
5
Personal Life Interference with Work (items 53-58)
PLIW Interval 6
Work Enhancement of Personal Life (items 59-61)
WEPL Interval 3
Personal Life Enhancement of Work (items 62-64)
PLEW Interval 3
Section IV Voluntary Turnover Intention (3 items)
Intention to Leave (items 65-67)
ITL Interval 3
Section V Leaving and Returning to the Student Affairs Profession (4 items)
Leaving and Returning to the Student Affairs Profession (items 68-70)
LR Nominal 3
Reason for leaving and returning (item 71)
LRR Text 1
Section VI Demographics (15 items)
Age (item 72)
Interval 1
Sex (item 73)
Nominal 1
Race (item 74)
Nominal 1
Marital status (item 75)
Nominal 1
Children (item 76)
Nominal 1
Adult care responsibilities (item 77)
Nominal 1
(table continues)
61
The JSS was tested for validity and reliability when it was first developed. However, Spector
(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) indicated that he has re-evaluated the validity and reliability of
the JSS through utilization of researchers from organizations of many types including education.
Job Embeddedness
Crossley, Bennett, Jex, and Burnfield (2007) developed a global measure of job
embeddedness that focuses on job-related factors (work) and community-related issues
(nonwork). Their participants included a cross-section of employee from a mid-sized
organization in the midwestern United States that provides assisted living for older adults and
disabled youths. There were 616 employees in the organization and 318 completed the survey.
Section
Contents
Study Identifier
Level of Measurement
Number of Items
Highest Level of Education (item 78)
Nominal
1
Graduate degree earned (item 79)
Nominal 1
Type of Institution (item 80)
Nominal 1
Assigned work unit(s) (item 81)
Nominal 1
Level of employment (item 82)
Nominal 1
Years of service to current institution (item 83)
Interval 1
Years of service in the profession (item 84)
Interval 1
Living arrangement (item 85)
Nominal 1
Classification of institution (item 86)
Nominal 1
Total 86
Table 3 (table continued)
62
The Cronbach’s alpha index for the scale was .88, which means that the internal consistency was
reliable. There was also evidence of both construct validity and discriminant validity.
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Scale
Fisher, Bulgar, and Smith (Huang, et al., 2007) developed a measure to focus on work-
nonwork interference and enhancement (WNIE) without being limited to the term “family,” as in
work-family conflict. Quantitative analysis of the WNIE scale across three studies yielded a 17-
item scale with four dimensions: work interference with personal life, personal life interference
with work, work enhancement of personal life, and personal life enhancement of work.
Construct validity for the scale was established across multiple studies. Empirical results
demonstrated evidence of desirable levels of internal consistency reliability, as well as
convergent and criterion-related validity. Factor analysis suggested that work-nonwork scale
performed as least as well as the work-family conflict scale.
Turnover Intention Scale
Turnover intention is the dependent variable in this study. Rosser and Javinar (2003)
reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .76 for their turnover intention scale, which indicates that the
internal consistency of the turnover intention scale was reliable.
Results of Pilot Study
A pilot study of the SATIQ was conducted in September 2011. This timeframe was
chosen because most colleges and universities in Georgia were back in session for the fall term,
which might help with securing a good return rate. The survey was distributed to 95 members of
the Georgia College Personnel Association. A response rate of 42 percent was achieved.
Participants were asked to complete the survey and to make comments about items they did not
understand and suggestions for revisions and additions. The following paragraphs will discuss
63
the face validity, internal consistency reliabilties (coefficient alpha), and confirmatory factor
analysis (identification of underlying relationships between measured variables) based on the
pilot study.
The feedback from respondents was used to determine face validity. Revisions were
suggested and made to the survey accordingly. Specifically, items 57 and 58 in the work-
nonwork interference and enhancement section were modified to lessen confusion. Items 57 and
58 were changed to include an introductory clause. Item 57 originally read “I would devote
more time to work if it weren’t for everything I have going on in my personal life.” It was
rewritten as “If it weren’t for everything going on in my personal life, I would devote more time
to work.” Item 58 was changed in a similar fashion to read “Because of things I have going on
in my personal life, I am too tired to be effective at work.” Final revisions included correcting
the consent form to reflect the number of questions and the average time to complete the
questionnaire based on responses from participants.
Additions to the questionnaire included adding a choice to question 73 in the
demographic section. A large number of people indicating “furthering my education” as a
reason for leaving the profession. Adding an option of “no children” to item 77 and “do not
count graduate assistantship years” to items 87 and 88 were further improvements. Answer
choices for item 90 were changed to Carnegie Foundation’s basic classification of colleges and
universities. Final additions included creating a new demographic question. “What type of
completed graduate degree do you have related to the student affairs profession?” was created in
order to identify academically trained student affairs professionals. This was necessary so that
results could be compared to previous studies.
64
To determine the internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha), data from the pilot
study was exported from Surveymonkey.com (SurveyMonkey.com, 1999) and imported into the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 2007). In statistics and research, internal
consistency is a measure based on the correlations between different items on the same test. It
measures whether several items that propose to measure the same construct produce stable,
consistent measurements (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007).
In Table 4 facets of the Job Satisfaction Survey are examined for internal consistency. In
addition, the established reliability norms for these instruments are listed. All facets of the JSS
demonstrated internal consistency reliability except one, operating procedures (0.46). The small
sample size of 40 responses may have lead to the inconsistency. Overall, the pilot study
indicated excellent internal consistency measuring job satisfaction.
Table 4. SATIQ – Job Satisfaction Survey Pilot Results with JSS Norms (national) SATIQ – Job Satisfaction Survey Pilot Results with JSS Norms Using Cronbach Alpha ____________________________________________________________ Facet SATIQ Pilot National Norms (n = 40) (n = 1157) Pay .68 .75 Promotion .76 .73 Supervision .93 .82 Benefits .77 .73 Contingent Rewards .81 .76 Operating Procedures .46 .62 Nature of Work .78 .78 Communication .78 .71 _____________________________________________________________ Total .90 .91 Note: JSS uses 1–6 Likert-like scale and SATIQ using a 1–5 Likert-like scale
65
The four facets of the work-nonwork interference and enhancement, WNIE, indicated
acceptable to excellent internal consistency reliability. Table 5 indicated the Cronbach alpha’s
for each facet.
Table 5. Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Results Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Results Using Cronbach Alpha _______________________________________________________________________ Facet n SATIQ Pilot Fisher, Bulger and Smith Work Interference with Personal Life 1324 .93 .91 Personal Life Interference with Work 1291 .80 .82 Work Enhancement of Personal Life 1315 .75 .70 Personal Life Enhancement of Work 1319 .71 .81
The Global Job Embeddedness measurement (Crossley, et al., 2007) utilized in the
SATIQ had an Cronbach alpha of 0.61, which is lower than the 0.88 reported by Crossley, et al.
Again, the lower than expected alpha may have resulted from a small sample size. The
reliability measure of the intent to leave produced a Cronbach alpha of .73, which is an
acceptable level. It is very comparable to Rosser and Javinar’s findings of .76.
Construct Validity of SATIQ Based on Pilot Study
After collecting data as part of the pilot study, an exploratory principal compontent factor
analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure. Based on Kaiser Normalization criteria
of selecting compontents with eignvalues greater than one, the analysis of the different variables
of SATIQ produced comparable factors to the dimensions described in the theoretical
framework. The following sections present results for factor analysis for the work-nonwork
66
interference and enhancement (WNIE), job satisfaction survey (JSS), job embeddedness (JE),
and intent to leave (TI).
Dimensions of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement. Factor analysis for the
JSS produced four factors. A summary of the factor loadings is listed in Table 6. An
examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the same
was factorable (KMO=.873). When factors loading less than .30 were excluded, the analysis
yielded a four-factor solution with a simple structure. The four factors had eigenvalues greater
than one, and accounted for 69 percent of total variance. Results showed that the factors tightly
represent the WNIE factors.
Table 6. Factor Loadings for WNIE Items Factor Loadings for WNIE Items (n =1324 ) Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
51 .93 50 .90 49 .88 52 .83 48 .63
56 .80 58 .75 54 .74 53 .56 57 .51
63 .96 62 .78 64 .69
60 .82 61 .72 59 .68
Extracted Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
67
Dimensions of job satifaction. Factor analysis for the JSS produced eight factors. A
summary of the factor loadings is listed in Table 7. An examination of the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the same was factorable (KMO=.921). When
factors loading less than .30 were excluded, the analysis yielded an eight-factor solution
Table 7. Factor Loadings for Job Satisfaction Survey Items Factor Loadings for Job Satisfaction Survey Items (n =1326 ) Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8
34 .99 16 .88 25 .87
7 .81
5 .88 23 .88 32 .69 14 .56
21 .83 31 .83 39 .79 12 .60
6 .95
37 .81 15 .71 24 .43
30 .87 22 .73 40 .47
26 .80 17 .77 33 .59
8 .54
29 .93 13 .88
35 .84 28 .60
Extracted Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
68
with a simple structure. The eight factors had eigenvalues greater than one, and accounted for 62
percent of total variance. Results showed that the factors tightly represent the JSS factors, except
contingent rewards.
Dimensions of Global Job Embeddedness. Factor analysis for the JE produced one
factor. A summary of the factor loading is listed in Table 8. An examination of the Kaiser-
Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the same was factorable
(KMO=.894). When factors loading less than .30 were excluded, the analysis yielded a single-
factor solution. The single factor had an eigenvalue greater than one, and accounted for 65
percent of total variance. Results showed that the factor tightly represent the JE factor.
Table 8. Factor Loadings for Job Embeddedness Items Factor Loadings for Job Embeddedness (JE) Items (n =1324 ) Item JE Factor
42 .88 41 .80 47 .80 46 .78 44 .78 43 .73 45 .62
Extracted Method: Principal Axis Factoring. One factor extracted. Five iterations required.
Dimensions of Voluntary Turnover Intentions. Factor analysis for the TI produced one
factor. A summary of the factor loading is listed in Table 9. An examination of the Kaiser-
Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy suggested that the same was factorable
(KMO=.594). When factors loading less than .30 were excluded, the analysis yielded a single
factor solution with a simple structure. The single factor had an eigenvalue greater than one, and
accounted for 71.5 percent of total variance. Results showed that the factors tightly represent the
TI factors.
69
Table 9. Factor Loadings for Voluntary Turnover Intention Items Factor Loadings for Voluntary Turnover Intention Items (n =1324 ) Item TI Factor
65 .93 66 .93 67 .65
Extracted Method: Principal Component Analysis. One component extracted.
Overall, the study was successful at determining the validity and reliability of the SATIQ.
Factor analysis of the different variables of the SATIQ produced factors comparable to the
original dimensions described in the theoretical framework.
Data Analysis
The following sections describe how data will be organized and how statistical tests will
be used to answer the research questions.
Variables and Descriptive Statistics
General descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and percentages) will be used
to gather basic information about data. The WNIE has four dimensions: (a) work interference
with personal life, (b) personal life interference with work, (c) work enhancement of personal
life, and (d) personal life enhancement of work. These dimensions are considered independent
variables. The dependent variable is voluntary turnover intention (TI). Eight facets of job
satisfaction identified by Spector (1985) and seven items identified by Crossley, et al (2007)
serve as moderator variables. These variables include: contingent rewards, nature of work,
promotion, pay, supervision, fringe benefits, operating procedures, coworkers, communication
within organization, attachment to organization, difficulty in leaving organization, too caught up
in organization, feel tied to organization, simply could not leave organization, easy to leave
organization, and tightly connected to organization. The data will be collected from an online
70
survey tool and imported into a software program called Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS, 2007) for analysis.
Relationship Measures
To determine the relationship between work-nonwork interference and enhancement four
dimensions and turnover intention, Pearson’s correlation coefficient will be used. The most
commonly used descriptive statistic to assess correlation is Pearson’s correlation coefficient
(SPSS, 2007). It will allow the researcher to determine the strength and the direction of the
relation between WNIE and TI.
Moderating Measures
To address the research question regarding the interaction between the moderator
variables (job satisfaction and job embeddedness) with work-nonwork interference and
enhancement, linear regression analysis was used. Linear regression analysis tested for main
effects (WNIE and JSS facets, WNIE and JE items) and the interaction terms (four dimensions of
WNIE multiplied by each of the facets or items of JSS and JE) on turnover intention.
Limitations of the Study
There are limitations to this study. First, collecting data via a questionnaire requires
volunteers to serve as respondents. Rogelberg, Luong, Sederburg and Cristol (2000) found that
non-respondents exhibited more negative attitudes about aspects of their work than did
respondents. This issue could cause a skewing of the data, which in turn hampers interpretation
and generalizability of the results.
Second, membership costs in large international professional associations can be costly.
Another limitation may be that smaller student affairs divisions or smaller institutions are not
adequately funded to secure membership into ACPA or NASPA.
71
Third, current economic conditions may influence student affairs professionals’ intent to
leave their position, institution, or career or profession. Higher than usual unemployment rates
may result in less turnover in student affairs.
Summary
This chapter described the procedures and methodology that provided the framework for
this research. The purpose of the study was reviewed and the population of the study was
identified. Steps were presented on collecting data from the research. Reliability coefficients for
the chosen test instruments were presented to support their use. The subsequent chapters will
include data analysis relating to the research questions presented and discuss possible future
research.
72
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The purpose of this quantitative study was to test whether work-nonwork interference and
enhancement correlate with voluntary turnover intentions among student affairs professionals,
and to determine if the relationship was moderated by job satisfaction and job embeddedness.
The results of this study were intended to contribute to the body of knowledge on these variables.
It is also intended to help supervisors of student affairs professionals to understand attrition as it
related to work-life balance. Research questions guiding this study were as follows:
1. Is work-nonwork interference and enhancement related to voluntary turnover intentions
of student affairs professionals?
2. Do job satisfaction and job embeddedness moderate the relationship between work-
nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover intentions?
This chapter provides an analysis of the data utilizing descriptive, correlation, and
multiple regression statistics. The analyses and results for each of the research questions are
presented after a description of the population and demographics. The last section contains a
summary of all sections within this chapter.
The conceptual model as indentified in Figure 5 suggests that the intention to quit may be
related to aspects of work-nonwork interference and enhancement. Work-nonwork interference
and enhancement specifically looks at four variables and their relationship to employees’
intention to quit. The first variable, work interference with personal life, entails how work
impacts a person’s ability to meet personal needs. These items include: missing important
73
activities due to work, work making a person too tired for personal things, neglecting personal
needs because of work, and not being able to maintain the personal life one would enjoy. The
second variable, personal life interference with work, include the following items: personal life
drains energy needed for work, work suffers from personal life activities, inability to devote
Figure 5. Conceptual model of the relationship among work-nonwork interference and enhancement and turnover intentions with job satisfaction and job embeddedness as moderators.
more time to work due to personal life activities, being to tired to be effective at work due to
personal life activities, and worrying about personal life activities when working. The third
variable, work enhancement of personal life includes the following items: job provides a person
with energy to pursue activities outside of work, being in a better mood at home due to work, and
work helps me deal with issues at home. Finally, the fourth variable is personal life
enhancement of work. These items included: being in a better mood at work due to personal life
activities, personal life generates energy to do work activities, and personal life cause one to
Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement
•Work Interference with Personal Life
•Personal Life Interference with Work
•Work Enhancement of Personal Life
•Personal Life Enhancement of Work
Turnover Intentions
Job Satisfaction
Job Embeddedness
74
relax and feel ready for work. Job embeddedness and job satisfaction were used to determine if
relationships between the the work-nonwork interface and turnover intentions were related to
them. Job embeddedness examines individuals’ links to other people or activities at work and
within the community, the fit between work and community and other aspects of life, and the
ability to sacrafice links with work and community. Job satisfaction is the extent to which
people likes their jobs. Job satisfaction among student affairs professionals has been consistently
reported as high (Bender, 1980; Burns, 1982; Nestor, 1988) so this moderator will determine if
this remains the case.
Sample and Demographic Characteristics
This section is a summary of different demographic distributions from the participants.
Data collected included information regarding respondents’ level of employment, birth year
(age), sex, race, martial status, number of children by age, adult care responsibilities, living
arrangement, highest level of education, type of degree, type of institution, basic classification of
institution, assigned work area, years of services to institution, and years of service to career or
profession. The demographics information collected may assist in better understanding different
segments of the student affairs profession. In addition, they may serve as predictors of voluntary
turnover.
The sample of this study included 7,500 student affairs professionals working in the U.S.
Demographic data were obtained from 1,573 respondents (21%) who completed an online
survey. Table 10 represents a summary of the demographic data including the aggregate number
of usable responses obtained. Of the 1,573 respondents, 1,429 responses (91%) met the
requirements of the study. Participants were allowed to complete the entire survey if they
worked at an institution of higher education in the U.S., were age 18 or older, fell within the
75
study’s definition of a student affairs professional, and were considered a full-time employee.
There were 144 respondents (9%) who did not meet the requirements of the study.
Data collected on sex of respondents indicated that 66 percent were female, 33.6 percent
were male, and 0.4 percent were transgender and other. The age distribution showed
respondents in the 30-39 age category at 37 percent with under age 30 and age 40-49 categories
at 23 percent each. The race of respondents were 77 percent white, 9 percent Black or African-
American, 5 percent Latino or Hispanic. The other race categories made up the remaining 9
percent of respondents.
A majority of the respondents were married (54%) or partnered (4%). The number of
respondents divorced or separated was less than 5 percent. Thirty-three percent (33%) were
never married. Sixty-two percent of respondents indicated they did not have children. Of the
remaining respondents with children (38%), the majority of children (33%) were 12 years old or
less. Respondents indicating they had adult care responsibilities was 9 percent. The majority of
those with adult care responsibilities were taking care of aging or disabled parents.
A unique facet of university housing is that some professionals actually live within
property owned by their universities. Almost 20 percent of respondents were living in
university-owned property (residence hall room, apartment, or house). The remaining 80 percent
lived independent of the university with 61 percent living within a 30 minute drive of the
university.
Educational degrees held by respondents included 2 percent with undergraduate degrees,
60 percent with master’s degrees, 11 percent with some doctoral work, and 22 percent with
completed doctoral degrees. The type of degrees was heavily related to degrees typically
76
associated with the student affairs profession (88%). The degrees were primarily in educational
leadership, higher education, college student personnel, and student affairs.
Fifty-nine percent of respondents worked at public institutions of higher education. A
majority of respondent’s institutions were classified as doctorate-granting universities (54%).
The remaining institutions included 18 percent master’s college or university, 21 percent
Table 10. Respondents’ Aggregate Demographic Data Respondents’ Aggregate Demographic Data ______________________________________________________________________________ Demographic Category n % Age (n=1311) Less than 30 years old 304 23 30 – 39 years old 485 37 40 – 49 years old 308 23 50 – 59 years old 142 11 More than 59 72 6 Sex (n=1326) Males 445 33 Females 875 66 Transgender and other 6 < 1 Race (n=1326) White 1026 77 Black or African-American 127 9 Latino or Hispanic 68 5 American Indian or Alaskan Native 7 1 Asian 39 3 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 6 1 Multi-racial 44 3 Other 9 1 Marital Status Married 713 54 (n=1327) Partnered 58 4 Widowed 8 < 1 Divorced 49 4 Separated 7 < 1 Never married 443 33 Other 49 4 (table continues)
77
Table 10 (table continued) ______________________________________________________________________________ Demographic Category n % Children by Age No children 810 62 (n=1316) Child(ren) 506 38 Less than 5 years of age 224 17 6 – 12 years old 205 16 13 – 17 years old 110 8 18 years old or older at home 75 6 18 years old or older not home 75 6 Adult Care Yes 121 9 Responsibilities No 1207 91 (n=1328) Living Arrangement Not university property (< 30 min) 808 61 (n=1429) Not university property (>30 min) 255 19 Residence hall room 7 < 1 University apartment within residence hall 204 15 University house or apartment (not res hall) 48 4 Other work-related living arrangements 4 < 1 Highest level Some college (did not graduate) 1 < 1 of education Graduated from college 27 2 (n=1333) Some graduate school 34 3 Completed masters degree 796 60 Completed education specialist 4 < 1 Completed course work doctoral degree 153 11 Completed doctoral degree 292 22 Other 26 2 Type of Degree Completed graduate degree – not typical 298 12 (n=1429) College student personnel 137 21 College student development 107 10 College administration 6 < 1 College community leadership 185 13 Educational leadership 486 34 Higher education 312 22 Student affairs 230 16 Type of Institution Public 782 59 (n=1326) Private 538 41 (tables continues)
78
Table 10 (table continued) ______________________________________________________________________________ Demographic Category n % Basic classification Associate’s college 51 4 (n=1327) Baccalaureate college 278 21 Master’s college or university 240 18 Doctorate-granting university 714 54 Special focus 44 3 Assigned Work Housing / Residence Life 455 32 Areas (n=1429) Student Activities 295 21 Student Organizations 253 18 Leadership Programs 250 18 Orientation / First Year Programs 225 16 Asst./Assoc. Vice President or Dean 223 16 Student Conduct 222 16 Vice President or Dean of Students 160 11 Student Support Services 155 11 Years of Service Service to Current Institution (n=1323) Less than 5 years 650 49 5 – 9.99 years 339 26 10 – 14.99 years 144 11 15 – 19.99 years 80 6 20 years or more 110 8 Service in Career or Profession (n=1316) Less than 5 years 341 26 5 – 9.99 years 312 24 10 – 14.99 years 231 17 15 – 19.99 years 181 14 20 years or more 251 19 Note: n = Response, % = Response rate.
baccalaureate college, 4 percent associate’s college and 3 percent special focus (e.g., technology,
religious affiliated).
Respondents indicated that their assigned work areas included student housing and
residence life (32%), student activities (21%), student organizations (18%), leadership programs
(18%), orientation or first –year programs (16%), student conduct (16%), assistant or associate
79
vice president or assistant or associate dean (11%) and student support services (11%).
Respondents also had assigned work in the following areas but accounted for less than 10
percent each: multicultural programs; career services; student union operations; student
business services; event management and conference services; fraternity and sorority life;
community and volunteer services; counseling services; women’s programs; GLBT services;
recreational programs; wellness programs; international programs; health services; commuter
services; safety, security and police; disability services; veteran services; parent and family
programs; transfer student services; adult student services (non-traditional students); student
publications; enrollment management and admissions; alumni relations; and campus ministry.
The lowest number of responses in these work areas was 34 so all areas identified in the study
were represented.
Almost half of the respondents indicated that they have worked for their current
institution for less than 5 years (49%). The total number of years in the student affairs profession
was more broadly distributed with 26 percent of respondents in the profession for less than 5
years, 24 percent ranged from 5 – 9.99 years, 17 percent ranged from 10 – 14.99 years, 14
percent ranged from 15 – 19.99 years, and 19 percent worked for 20 years or more.
Both NASPA and ACPA (student affairs professional associations) work to create
environments that supports women. They accomplish this through coalition building, education,
and advocacy for women (ACPA, 2009). In a higher percentages, women in this study assumed
responsibility for the highest level positions, vice president and dean of students. The number of
women who assumed responsibility for these positions was 93 of 157 total respondents (59%).
The sex of respondents in this sample was not evenly distributed. Females accounted for
two-thirds of the sample. Males accounted for nearly one-third of the participants and
80
transgender participants accounted for less than one percent. This result indicates that women
continue to make up the largest portion of student affairs professionals (Nidiffer & Bashaw,
2001).
Examining specific items within the composite measure of ITL revealed that 47 percent
of student affairs professionals were likely or very likely to leave their current position; 35
percent indicated they were likely or very likely to leave their current university; and only 11
percent were likely or very likely to leave the student affairs profession.
Using the composite measure of ITL (total of leaving position, university, and profession)
three categories (low, moderate, high) were created in order to isolate respondents who were
more likely to leave or stay. With a ITL minimum value of 3 and a maximum value of 15,
ranges were created. The low-level range was from three to six, and the high-level range was
from 12 to 15.
Table 11 is a listing of selected demographics by sex and ITL categories. Examining ITL
revealed 223 respondents (17%) scored within the high-level of intention to leave. Of the 17
percent, females represented 12 percent of the group, more than double that of men. Nine
percent of these women were under the age of 40 years. In this study, the highest level of risk
for ITL were women under the age of 40 years.
A deeper look into high-level ITL revealed the following about children, adult care
responsibilities, living arranagments, and highest level of education. The number of respondents
with children was 328 (29%). Only 4 percent of respondents with children indicated a high-level
of ITL compared to 15 percent without children. Nine percent of student affairs professionals
indicated they had adult care responsibilities. Only one percent of these professionals fell within
the high-level category for ITL. Eighty percent of respondents do not live on university
81
Table 11. Intention to Leave by Demographics and Gender Intention to Leave by Demographics and Gender
Low ITL Moderate ITL High ITL Variables
% Male
% Female
% Male
% Female
% Male
% Female
Sex (n=1323) 10 21 18 34 5 12
Age (n=1303)
Less than 40 years old 4 10 10 23 4 9
40 or more years old 6 11 7 10 2 3
Child(ren) (n=1135)
Yes 4 8 5 8 1 3
No 5 12 12 27 5 10
Adult Care (n=1318)
Yes 1 3 1 3 <1 1
No 9 18 17 31 5 11
Living Arrangement (n=1312)
On university property 1 2 4 8 2 3
Off university property 10 19 13 26 3 9
Related Degree (n=1093)
Yes 9 17 16 33 5 9
No 1 3 1 4 1 2
property. Twelve percent of those not living on university property indicated a high-level ITL
compared to less than 5 percent of those living on university property. Two percent of student
affairs professionals did not have a college degree. Less than five percent had an undergraduate
degree. Almost 94 percent of student affairs professional in this study had completed a graduate
degree. Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they completed a degree related to
82
the student affairs profession. Of these respondents 14 percent fell in the high-level ITL
compared to only 3 percent of those without a degree related to the student affairs profession.
Examining assigned work areas yielded information regarding areas that had a higher
than average percentage of respondents in the high-level ITL. Specifically, this area was studied
inconjunction with gender to determine any differences. Table 12 represents student affairs work
areas with higher than average high-level ITL scores. The results indicated that women who had
a high-level ITL (greater than 17%) intended to leave nine student affairs work areas in higher
percentages. Men with high-level ITL intended to leave three student affairs work areas in
higher percentages. These results supported student affairs administrators examining work areas
to reduce the number of student affairs professionals who intend to leave.
Table 12. Work Assignment Areas Examining Above Average High-Levels of Intention to Leave Work Assignment Areas Examining Above Average High-Levels of Intention to Leave High-Level of Intention to Leave Work Areas
n
Female %
Female n
Male %
Male n
Housing / Residence Life 454 20 176
Multicultural Programs 135 18 85 20 50
Student Activities 293 18 195
Student Organizations 252 18 170
Fraternity and Sorority Life 128 18 71 18 57
Leadership Programs 249 19 167
Student Support Services 155 20 108
Orientation/1st Year Programs 223 19 166
Community/Volunteer Service 127 19 81
Wellness Programs 119 18 72
Note: Average high-level intention to leave is 17 percent.
83
Moderator Results
There were two moderators being examined in this study. Both job satisfaction and job
embeddedness yielded new information. Each moderator is described below along with results
from this study.
The job satisfaction survey consisted of 36 items with a rating scale of 1 to 5 ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The total job satisfaction score indicated dissatisfaction
between 36 and 89, ambivalent from 90 – 125, and satisfaction between 126 and 180. In this
study total job satisfaction results indicated that respondents were ambivilant (neither unsatisfied
nor satisfied)(M = 120.30, SD = .38).
The global job embeddedness survey consisted of 7 items with a rating scale of 1 to 5
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The scale for job embeddedness indicates low
embeddedness between 7 and 17, moderate embeddedness between 18 and 24, and high
embeddedness between 25 and 35. In this study, total job embeddedness results indicated
moderate levels of embeddedness (M = 20.15, SD = 3.03).
Means and standard deviations for demographic and moderator variables are included in
Table 13. These variables include the four facets of WNIE, three leaving items that make up the
ITL variable, the moderator variables of job embeddedness and job satisfaction (including nine
facets that make up total job satisfaction) and six general demographic variables (sex, age,
marital status, children, education, and years of service to institution and profession).
Relationship Between Work-Life Balance and Voluntary Turnover Intention
Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to evaluate the
relationship between work-life balance and voluntary turnover intention. Correlations between
.10 and .40 represented small or weak postive relationships, correlations between .41 and .60
84
represented moderate positive relationships, correlations between .60 and .80 represented highly
positive relationships, and correlations between .81 and above represented very sizable positive
relationships or an error in calculation (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2002). The correlation matrix is
presented in Table 14. The matrix indicates significant relationships between the facets of work-
life balance (work-nonwork interference and enhancement) and voluntary turnover intentions.
Research Question 1: Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Voluntary Turnover
Intentions
Correlation coefficients were computed to answer the following question: Is work-
nonwork interference and enhancement (WNIE) related to voluntary turnover intentions of
student affairs professionals? Pearson correlation results indicated that 3 out of 4 facets of
WNIE had significant relationships with intention to leave (ITL). There was no significant
relationship between Personal Life Interference with Work (PLIW) and one’s intention to leave.
Table 13. Means and Standard Deviations Among Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement, Turnover Intentions, Job Embeddedness, Job Satisfaction, and Demographics Means and Standard Deviations Among Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement, Turnover Intentions, Job Embeddedness, Job Satisfaction, and Demographics Variables n M SD 1. WIPL 1324 15.42 4.31 2. PLIW 1292 10.83 3.22 3. WEPL 1315 8.09 2.47 4. PLEW 1319 10.24 2.44 5. Leaving Position 1333 3.22 1.31 6. Leaving Institution 1333 3.15 1.29 7. Leaving Profession 1332 2.02 1.09 8. Intention to Leave 1330 8.40 3.12 9. Job Embeddedness 1324 20.15 3.03 10. Pay 1326 10.86 3.70 11. Promotion 1329 10.70 3.33 12. Supervision 1329 15.82 3.62 13. Fringe Benefits 1323 14.11 3.06
(tables continues)
85
Table 13 (table continued) Variables n M SD 14. Contingent Rewards 1317 12.95 3.37 15. Operating Conditions 1324 11.34 2.87 16. Coworkers 1324 13.77 2.99 17. Nature of Work 1321 16.13 2.84 18. Communication 1333 14.56 2.81 19. Job Satisfaction 1157 120.30 19.11 20. Sexa 1326 1.34 .48 21. Years in Professionb 1135 2.57 1.47 22. Living Arrangementsc 1326 1.81 1.24 23. Graduate Educationd 1101 1.86 .34 24. Childrene 1141 1.29 .45 25. Agef 1311 2.38 1.12 Note: WIPL: Work Interference with Personal Life; PLIW: Personal Life Interference with Work; WEPL: Work Enhancement of Personal Life; PLEW: Personal Life Enhancement of Work. aSex: 1=male, 2=female. bYears in Profession: 1=Less than 5 years, 2=5-9.99 years, 3=10-14.99 years, 4=15-19.99 years, 5=20 years or more. cLeaving Arrangements: 1=Do not live in university property and commute less than 30 minutes, 2=Do not live in university property and commute more than 30 minutes, 3=Live in residence hall, 4=Live in a residence hall apartment, 5=Live in university house or apartment not located in a residence hall. dGraduate Education: 1=degree not typical in student affairs, 2=typical degree in student affairs. eChildren: 1=no children, 2=child(ren). fAge categories: 1=less than 30, 2=30-39, 3=40-49, 4=50-59, 5=more than 59.
86
Table 14. Correlations Among WNIE Facets, ITL, JE, JS, and Demographics
Tabl
e 14
. C
orre
latio
ns A
mon
g W
ork-
Non
wor
k In
terf
eren
ce a
nd E
nhan
cem
ent F
acet
s, V
olun
tary
Tur
nove
r In
tent
ions
, Job
Em
bedd
edne
ss, J
ob S
atis
fact
ion,
and
Dem
ogra
phic
s Co
rrel
atio
ns A
mon
g W
ork-
Nonw
ork
Inte
rfere
nce
and
Enha
ncem
ent F
acet
s, Vo
lunt
ary
Turn
over
Inte
ntio
ns, J
ob
Embe
dded
ness
, Job
Sat
isfac
tion,
and
Dem
ogra
phic
s
87
However, there was a significant relationship between Work Interference with Personal Life
(WIPL), Work Enhancement of Personal Life (WEPL), Personal Life Enhancement of Work
(PLEW) and the intention to leave one’s job (-.43 ≤ r ≤ .30, p < .01). Coefficients ranged from
r = -.43 for WEPL to r = .30 for WIPL. WIPL and PLEW were significant but demonstrated
only a small or weak relationship. WEPL had a significant moderate relationship with ITL.
Additional analyses were run to measure the magnitude of influence of each facet (WIPL,
WEPL, PLIW, and PLEW) on ITL. Bivariate regression analysis indicated that 20 percent of the
variance (Table 15) associated with ITL is explained by the overall WNIE (R2 = .20, p < .01).
Also, multiple regression analyses were run to measure the magnitude of influence of the
four facets of WNIE and three demographic variables (age by category, work-related living
arrangement, and years of service to current institution) on ITL using the stepwise method. For
the final model, the following results were reported: Adjusted R2 = .29; F860 = 7.07, p < .01. The
final model consisted of five predictor variables including: (a) WEPL: Work Enhancement of
Personal Life, (b) Age: age categories, (c) Work-related living arrangements (living on or off
university property), (d) WIPL: Work Interference with Personal Life and (e) Years of service to
current institution. Summaries for ITL statistical significance and F Change values are provided
in Table 15, and beta values are provided in Table 16. The remaining dimensions of the WNIE
(PLEW and PLIW) as well as the remaining demographic variables (sex, race, marital status,
children, adult care, highest level of education, student affairs related degree, type of institution,
basic classification of institution, and years of service to career or profession) were not
significant predictors in this model.
These results showed that student affairs professionals were committed to a model where
work enhances their personal lives. When student affairs professionals were in better moods at
88
home because of work, had more energy to pursue activities outside of work because of work,
and were better able to deal with personal and practice issues at home because of things they do
at work, they were less likely to leave their job. In addition, years of service to respondents’
institutions played a significant role in determining the likelihood of a respondent leaving his or
her job. The living arrangement of respondents also contributed to respondents’ intention to
leave. Respondents that lived within university property were more likely to leave their job. In
addition, respondents who experienced work interference with personal life were more likely to
turnover. As the respondents increased in age, their likelihood of leaving their job decreased.
The WNIE facet PLIW had no significant relationship to one’s intention to leave.
Moreover, PLEW, while significant, only showed a weak or small correlation with one’s
intention to leave. The aspects of personal life identified as part of WNIE do not moderately or
strongly support one’s intention to leave or stay in a job. However, aspects of work-life
identified in this study moderately support one’s intention to stay or leave a job.
Table 15. Regression Model Summary for Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference Enhancement and Demographic Variables as Predictors of Intention to Leave Regression Model Summary for Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Demographic Variables as Predictors of Intention to Leave
Std. error of the estimate
S Change statistics Model
R
R2
Adjusted R2
R2 Change
F Change
df1
df2
1 .442a .195 .194** 2.69 .195 209.53 1 865 2 .502b .252 .251** 2.59 .057 66.16 1 864 3 .522c .273 .270** 2.56 .020 24.05 1 863 4 .533d .284 .280** 2.54 .011 13.37 1 862 5 .538e .289 .285** 2.53 .006 7.07 1 861 aPredictors: (Constant), Work Enhancement of Personal Life bPredictors: (Constant), Work Enhancement of Personal Life, Years of service to current institution cPredictors: (Constant), Work Enhancement of Personal Life, Years of service to current institution, Work-related living arrangement dPredictors: (Constant), Work Enhancement of Personal Life, Years of service to current institution, Work-related living arrangement, Work Interference with Personal Life ePredictors: (Constant), Work Enhancement of Personal Life, Years of service to current institution, Work-related living arrangement, Work Interference with Personal Life, Age Category * p < .05. ** p < .01.
89
Table 16. Multiple Regression Results for Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Demographic Variables as Predictors of Voluntary Intention to Leave Multiple Regression Results for Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Demographic Variables as Predictors of Voluntary Intention to Leave Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
F B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 12.971** .309 41.993 209.534
WEPL -.535** .037 -.442 -14.475 2 (Constant) 13.763** .313 44.917 145.739
WEPL -.491** .036 -.405 -13.629 Service to institution -.642** .079 -.242 -8.134
3 (Constant) 12.235** .439 27.863 107.767
WEPL -.487** .036 -.402 -13.690 Service to institution -.534** .081 -.201 -6.592 Living arrangement 1.066** .217 .148 4.904
4 (Constant) 10.627** .619 17.164 85.327
WEPL -.425** .039 -.351 -10.850 Service to institution -.530** .080 -.200 -6.597 Living arrangement .892** .221 .124 4.035 WIPL .084** .023 .120 3.657
5 (Constant) 11.133** .646 17.243 70.157
WEPL -.419** .039 -.346 -10.726 Service to institution -.392** .096 -.148 -4.102 Living arrangement .739** .228 .103 3.250 WIPL .086** .023 .123 3.740 Age Category -.288** .108 -.098 -2.659
aDependent Variable: Intent to Leave * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Moderating Effect of Job Satisfaction and Job Embeddedness
The interaction between job satisfaction and job embeddedness (moderator variables)
with facets of work-nonwork interference and enhancement was tested to find whether this
90
interaction predicted a change of effect on intention to leave (outcome variable). Using the
method described by Gravetter and Wallnau (2007), linear regression analysis was used to test
for main effects of facets of work-nonwork interference and enhancement and the interaction
terms of job satisfaction and job embeddedness on voluntary turnover intention.
Research Question 2: Moderating Effects on Intention to Leave
The research question was: Do job satisfaction and job embeddedness moderate the
relationship between work-nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover
intentions? Regressional analyses was used to determine if job satisfaction and job
embeddedness moderate the relationship between facets of WNIE and ITL.
Regression analysis was conducted to answer the question whether job satisfaction (JS)
moderates the relationship between each facet of WNIE and intention to leave (ITL). Regression
results indicated that there is no significant moderating effects of job satisfaction between facets
of WNIE and intention to turnover. Therefore, there was no significant interactions. Results are
summarized in Table 17.
Regression analysis was also conducted to answer the questions whether job
embeddedness (JE) moderates the relationship between each facet of WNIE and ITL.
Regression results indicated that only one such relationship existed. Job embeddedness had a
significant moderating effect on the relationship between WEPL and ITL (R2 = .269, F 1, 1295 =
5.64, p < .05). The remaining facets of WNIE showed no significant interactions. Results are
summarized in Table 18.
91
Table 17. Moderating Effect of Job Satisfaction on the Relationship Between Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Intention to Leave Moderating Effect of Job Satisfaction on the Relationship Between Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Intention to Leave Step
IV
R2
∆R2
B (final)
F
F Change
df
1 WEPL a .196 -.442 271.780 1118
2 JS b .332 .137 -.460 277.670 228.303 1117
3 WEPL x JS c .333 .001 -.196 185.475 1.056 1116
1 WIPL d .098 .314 122.744 1126
2 JS e .317 .219 -.531 261.238 360.538 1125
3 WIPL x JS f .317 .000 -.031 174.035 .063 1124
1 PLEW g .046 -.215 54.795 1127
2 JS h .317 .270 -.546 260.802 445.211 1126
3 PLEW x JS i .317 .000 -.060 173.762 .099 1125 aPredictor: WEPL. bPredictor: WEPL, Job Satisfaction. cPredictor: WEPL, Job Satisfaction, WEPL and Job Satisfaction. dPredictor: WIPL. ePredictor: WIPL, Job Satisfaction. fPredictor: WIPL, Job Satisfaction, WIPL and Job Satisfaction. gPredictor: PLEW. hPredictor: PLEW, Job Satisfaction. iPredictor: PLEW, Job Satisfaction, PLEW and Job Satisfaction. *p < .05. **p < .01.
92
Table 18. Moderating Effect of Job Embeddedness on the Relationship Between Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Intention to Leave Moderating Effect of Job Embeddedness on the Relationship Between Facets of Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement and Intention to Leave Step
IV
R2
∆R2
B (final)
F
F Change
df
1 WEPL a .186 -.431 295.269 1291
2 JE b .328 .142 -.400 314.897 272.443 1290
3 WEPL x JE c .329 .001 -.286 211.064 2.611 1289
1 WIPL d .092 .304 132.123 1300
2 JE e .307 .215 -.467 287.608 402.307 1299
3 WIPL x JE f .308 .001 .210 192.405 1.691 1298
1 PLEW g .043 -.207 58.297 1297
2 JE h .266 .223 -.475 234.584 393.240 1296
3 PLEW x JE i .269 .003 -.446* 158.827 5.636 1295 aPredictor: WEPL. bPredictor: WEPL, Job Embeddedness. cPredictor: WEPL, Job Embeddedness, WEPL and Job Embeddedness. dPredictor: WIPL. ePredictor: WIPL, Job Embeddedness. fPredictor: WIPL, Job Embeddedness, WIPL and Job Embeddedness. gPredictor: PLEW. hPredictor: PLEW, Job Embeddedness. iPredictor: PLEW, Job Embeddedness, PLEW and Job Embeddedness. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Additional Information
Additional items were added to collect information from individuals who left the student
affairs profession and returned after a period of time. Out of 1332 respondents who completed
these items, 182 (14%) left the student affairs profession and later returned. They left for a large
variety of reasons as noted in Table 19. The length of time respondents left the profession was
93
also noted in Table 20. This information is shared because it provides insight into the attrition
phenomenon. This information was not included in the findings because the research questions
addressed intention to leave, not actual leaving.
Table 19. Summary of Reasons Respondents Left the Student Affairs Profession Summary of Reasons Respondents Left the Student Affairs Profession Reasons (n = 182) n % Tried a different career path 91 50
Better salary 41 23
To seek more work-life balance 33 18
Conflict with supervisor 27 15
To further education 22 12
Better benefits 16 9
Moved to another location 15 8
Started a family 9 5
Family needs 8 4
Health reasons 7 4
Table 20. Summary of the Length of Time Respondents Left the Student Affairs Profession Summary of the Length of Time Respondents Left the Student Affairs Profession Length of Time (n = 181) n %
Less than 1 year 43 24
1 year and less than 2 years 44 24
2 years and less than 3 years 34 19
3 years and less than 4 years 19 11
4 years and less than 5 years 18 10
5 years or more 23 13
94
Summary
This chapter provided analysis of student affairs professionals’ turnover intentions and
their corresponding ratings of the work-nonwork facets. As a result, the findings of this study
reflected the respondents’ perceptions of work-life balance and voluntary turnover intention.
Correlational matrix indicated significant relationships between work-nonwork interference and
enhancement and turnover intentions. However, regression analysis indicated only one
moderating effect of job embeddedness on the relationship between WNIE and voluntary
turnover intentions that was signifcant. Additional items were reported as informational only.
These items checked for themes related to leaving and returning to the student affairs profession.
95
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a relationship between voluntary
turnover intentions of student affairs professionals and the work-nonwork interface. In addition,
the study sought to determine if job satisfaction and job embeddedness moderated the
relationship between the work-nonwork interface and voluntary turnover intention. Special to
this study was the examination of personal life’s impact on work-life, a facet that has not been
studied in student affairs professionals. This study was conducted to identify factors that may
contribute to lowering the turnover intention of student affairs professionals and to recommend
possible interventions based on the findings. Research questions guiding this study were as
follows:
1. Is work-nonwork interference and enhancement related to voluntary turnover intentions
of student affairs professionals?
2. Do job satisfaction and job embeddedness moderate the relationship between work-
nonwork interference and enhancement and voluntary turnover intentions?
Introduction
Chapter Four provided a wealth of information to review. In this chapter I will present
and explain my conclusions. I have divided this chapter into four parts: (a) problem statement
and methodology; (b) conclusions; (c) recommendations for practitioners and researchers; and
suggestions for future research; and (d) limitations of the study.
96
Problem Statement and Methodology
While the retirement of baby boomers is understandable, the loss of entry-level
professionals in student affairs at high rates is problematic. Losing experienced professionals in
high-level positions and new professionals at the entry-level positions creates issues at all
organizational levels, including the mid-level positions because these employees will seek to
advance. Institution of higher education continue to discuss the high attrition rate of student
affairs professionals. Past reports on attrition indicated that over 60 percent of master’s trained
student affairs professionals are leaving the profession with six years of entering. Because the
loss of these professionals could be harmful to the profession, current research needed to be
conducted to determine if work-life balance was a factor and if job satisfaction and job
embeddedness contributed. Specifically, the output of this study was to identify turnover
intention factors among student affairs professionals and to make recommendations to improve
unwanted attrition.
Using survey research methods, this study tested a conceptual model of the correlation
between work-nonwork interference and enhancement (WNIE) and voluntary turnover intention
(ITL). It also tested the moderating effect of job embeddedness and job satisfaction. The sample
was taken from the two largest student affairs professional associations. The survey consisted of
validated and reliable instruments, including the Job Satisfaction Survey, Global Job
Embeddedness Survey, Work-Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Scale, and Voluntary
Turnover Intention Scale. A pilot study was performed using a state affiliate of one of the
professional associations. Feedback was collected to determine face validity, and reliability tests
were conducted. The final survey instrument, Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire
97
(SATIQ), consisting of 86 items was distributed by an online survey program. The survey was
distributed to 7,500 student affairs professionals in the U.S.
Conclusions
There were four conclusions reflected in that data collected in this study on student
affairs professionals.
1. Student affairs professionals with graduate degrees related to their profession are more
likely to leave their job compared to those without a profession-related graduate degree.
2. Student affairs professionals were less likely to leave if their work environments were
having positive impacts on their personal lives.
3. No matter what one’s level of job satisfaction, the preferences regarding facets of work-
nonwork interference and enhancement and intention to leave did not change.
4. No matter what an individuals’ level of job embeddedness, only the preferences
regarding the facet “personal life enhancement of work” and intention to leave produced
a change.
I will discuss each conclusion and expound upon each conclusion’s contribution to existing
research.
Conclusion One: Student affairs professionals with graduate degrees related to their profession
are more likely to leave their job compared to those without a profession-related graduate
degree.
The results indicated that student affairs professionals with graduate degrees related to
their profession were more likely to leave their job compared to those without a profession-
related graduate degree. This result indicated that having a degree related to student affairs
allowed for better career mobility.
98
The master’s degree is considered to be a minimal qualification for most entry-level
position in student affairs. The master’s degree in college student personnel is often preferred
but others are considered acceptable. Kretovics (2002) reported that employers placed a higher
value on the master’s in student personnel but also placed an above average level of importance
on “another master’s” degree. This study showed that those holding other degrees, not related to
student affairs, were not as likely to leave. This would suggest that student affairs professionals
with profession-related master’s degrees have more flexibility and can move more freely than
those without student affairs related master’s degrees. In addition, it has been long held that
student affairs professionals are mobile, meaning they change jobs often (Sagaria & Johnsrud,
1988). The frustration over limited opportunities for career growth and advancement
opportunities at a single institution promotes the need for student affairs professionals to move
often. Having the most preferred credential, a master degree in a student affairs related area,
provides better opportunities for career growth and advancement opportunities.
Conclusion Two: Student affairs professionals were less likely to leave if their work
environments were having positive impacts on their personal lives.
The findings of this study primarily supported Research Question 1. The correlations
between the facets of WNIE and voluntary turnover intention were significant, except for
“personal life interference with work.” Among themselves the facets of WNIE were correlated
except for WIPL and PLIW and for WEPL and PLIW. The largest correlation among these
facets was a negative, moderate relationship between WEPL and WIPL. The work related
outcome, intent to leave (ITL), was positively correlated with WIPL and was negatively
correlated with WEPL and PLEW. Examining ITL, Pearson coefficients of correlation scores
were highest for WEPL and lowest for PLIW. These results indicated that student affairs
99
professionals were less likely to leave if their work environments were having positive impacts
on their personal lives.
When work allows students affairs professionals to be in a better mood at home or it
helps them with personal or practical issues at home, they are less likely to leave. Also, when
student affairs professionals are energized by their work to pursue outside of work activities
important to them, they are less likely to leave. Restructuring work environments to allow for
more flexibility so that personal life needs can be met can increase the likelihood that student
affairs professionals stay in their jobs. Options such as flextime, part-time work, and job sharing
may provide student affairs professionals with more time to devote to personal life matters, such
as caring for children or aging parents (Anderson, et al., 2000), and in return increase their
likelihood of remaining in their job.
Conclusion Three: This study confirmed that no matter what one’s level of job satisfaction, the
preferences regarding facets of work-nonwork interference and enhancement and intention to
leave did not change.
This study did not support job satisfaction as a moderator as identified in Research
Question 2. The interactions between job satisfaction (moderator variable) with work-nonwork
facets were tested to determine if this interaction predicted a change on the intent to leave
(outcome variable). The regression results of the interaction revealed that regardless of the level
of job satisfaction (extent to which people like their jobs) a change was not produced in the
relationship between facets of WNIE and ITL. Therefore, this study confirmed that no matter
what one’s level of job satisfaction, the preferences regarding WNIE’s four facets and ITL did
not change. Spector (2000) showed that role conflict between work and nonwork was an
antecedent to job satisfaction. This finding means that the facets of WNIE and the facets of job
100
satisfaction are similarly correlated with ITL of student affairs professionals, meaning that very
little change would be expected.
Conclusion Four: No matter what an individuals’ level of job embeddedness, only the
preferences regarding the facet “personal life enhancement of work” and intention to leave
produced a change.
This study did not support job embeddedness as a moderator as identified in Research
Question 2, except for “personal life enhancement of work.” Job embeddedness includes (a) the
extent to which people have links to other people or activities; (b) the extent to which their job
and communities fit with other life space aspects; and (c) the ease with which links with job and
community can be broken. The interactions between job embeddedness (moderator variable)
with work-nonwork facets was tested to determine if this interaction predicted a change on the
intent to leave (outcome variable). The regression results of the interaction revealed that job
embeddedness produced a change in the relationship between one facet of WNIE (PLEW) and
ITL. Therefore, this study confirmed that no matter what an individuals’ level of job
embeddedness, only the preferences regarding the facet PLEW and ITL produced a change.
When student affairs professionals’ personal lives enhance their work and they are embedded at
their institution, they were less likely to leave. This conclusion supported that aspects of one’s
personal life spills over into their work-life (Madsen & Hammond, 2005). PLEW aligns with the
concept of positive spillover which entails positive satisfaction, energy, and happiness from
one’s personal life crossing over into a positive experience at work (Hill, et al., 1996). The
results supported that student affairs professionals who were globally embeddedness and
indicated that their personal life enhanced their work were less likely to leave their job.
101
Recommendations
As well as shedding light on the turnover phenomenon in general, this study has
implications for understanding turnover among student affairs professionals beyond just work-
life to include personal life. In addition, this research provided details about the relationship
between intention to turnover and the work-nonwork interface, job satisfaction, and job
embeddedness. The work-nonwork interface is a significant component in the decision of
employees to leave or remain with an employer. In general, the findings of this study showed
that the work-nonwork interface played a significant role in the decision of student affairs
professionals to remain or leave their position. Student affairs professionals who rated
enhancement facets of the work-nonwork interface higher indicated that they were less likely to
leave. Those who rated interference facets of the work-nonwork interface higher indicated a
greater likelihood of leaving, except for the facet of personal life interference with work. There
was no relationship between personal life interference with work and a person’s intention to
leave. Job satisfaction and job embeddedness served as moderators in this study. These
moderators showed minimal changed between their relationships with a person’s intention to
leave. The only significant relationship change presented was between “work enhancement of
personal life” and intention to leave when job embeddedness served as a moderator. Student
affairs professionals were less likely to leave their position when their work enhanced their
personal lives.
Recommendation for Practitioners
For practitioners, this research study provided empirical evidence useful to both student
affairs administrators and human resource managers. They should pay attention to the results of
this study and find strategies to improve the work-life balance of these employees. They should
102
use this information to justify examining aspects of their employees’ personal lives that
contribute to retention. Specifically, this study brought to light aspects of work-life and personal
life that impact a student affairs professionals’ intention to stay or leave their job.
In support of the recommendation to advance student affairs’ role in student learning as
published in NASPA and ACPA’s Learning Reconsidered (Fenske, 1980), Arminio, Roberts and
Bonfiglio (2009) recommended hiring authorities be more purposeful in selecting educators who
demonstrate a scholarship ethos. The call from student affairs’ largest professional associations
shed light on the need to monitor attrition of student affairs professionals in order to fully support
student learning. This study on the work-nonwork interface provided valuable information that
can aid recruitment and retention of qualified student affairs professionals, support the need for
organizational effectiveness, and enrichment of work cultures of student affairs professionals.
Recruitment and retention of qualified student affairs professionals is important to the
stability and viability of the profession (Fenske, 1980) and to institutional efficiencies and
stability (Bender, 1980; Holmes, et al., 1983). Using the empirical evidence in this study,
HROD (human resource and organizational development) professionals should acknowledge that
the number of student affairs professionals indicating they plan to leave the profession is 11
percent. The same professionals indicated a composite, high-level intention to leave (combines
leaving one’s position, institution, and profession together) of 17 percent. In effect the revolving
door has slowed and provides the opportunity to focus on recruiting professionals who will be
retained and will be dedicated to the scholarship ethos.
Most of the individuals indicating a high-level ITL were younger so attention to this
demographic is still needed. Lorden (1998) reported as part of a literature review that switching
occupations is common, and suggested that such may be true for student affairs professionals,
103
which signaled that student affairs may not be so different from other organizations. According
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2008 report, individuals held an average of 11 jobs from age 18
to age 44, with the majority of the jobs being held before age 27 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2010). Given these statistics and the fact that new student affairs professionals generally start
around age 24, the frequent changing of jobs should not be surprising. However, a high rate of
turnover is costly so identification of cost effective solutions for recruiting and maintaining
qualified student affairs professionals are needed. Student affairs administrators need to
understand how to recruit and retain student affairs professionals that subscribe to a scholarship
ethos. While recruiting and retaining student affairs professionals at one’s institution is
important, having student affairs professionals who are prepared to advance student learning is
new. Therefore, the results of this study on student affairs professionals’ intention to leave is not
only paramount to retention of these professionals but to establishing work environments that
help retain them for longer periods of time.
By having an explanation for turnover among student affairs professionals, HROD
professionals may be able to better manage the attrition of student affairs professionals and
improve organizational effectiveness. It has been long supported that voluntary turnover
negatively influences organizational effectiveness and the degree to which organizations
accomplish their goals (A. Tull & Freeman, 2008). This research provided HROD professionals
with a deeper understanding of those student affairs professionals who intend to leave. More
knowledge on reasons for potential turnover will better enable HROD professionals to take
actions that may minimize the cost of unwanted quitting, thereby making available the human
resources necessary to promote effectiveness. Lorden (1998) indicated that implementing
change could possibly help ensure that qualified people are attracted to the profession and could
104
assist in retaining them long-term. She indicated that possible changes include enhancing job
satisfaction, continuous professional development, and career advancement opportunities. This
study showed that only 42 percent of student affairs professionals indicated satisfaction with the
profession, a decrease in satisfaction of 24 percent from 66 percent (Bender, 1980). This study
showed that student affairs professionals are ambivalent (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied)
compared to being satisfied in the 1980’s. This information calls for student affairs
administrators to pay attention to the downward trend and to find ways to enhance job
satisfaction.
This research provided an assessment of perceptions among student affairs professionals
from both the work-nonwork interference and enhancement perspectives. It supported the
cultivation of a work environment within student affairs that embraces the importance of work
and personal life, particularly on how they might lower attrition and increase job satisfaction and
embeddedness. Because younger professionals are leaving institutions at higher rates, student
affairs administrators must invest in work environments that provide on-going learning
opportunities. Paul (2012) indicates that younger employees are better retained in work
environments that fulfil their needs for personal attention, mentoring, coaching, and training.
These opportunities provide interconnected and learning-friendly environments that foster
professional growth, not only for the younger employees but the more seasoned as well. If
student affairs administrators want to succeed at student learning beyond the classroom and at
retaining qualified student affairs professionals dedicated to the scholarship ethos, they will have
to embrace a work environment that supports learning, growing, and being valued in the job.
In summary, continuing to develop a knowledgebase on what influences these
professionals to leave gives higher education institutions the opportunity to address voluntary
105
turnover and/or to manage the turnover process more effectively. By understanding student
affairs professionals’ perceptions on why they intend to leave, higher education administrators
can develop policies and practices that address issues that matter most to these employees and in
turn reduce turnover of qualified employees.
Recommendations for Researchers
For researchers, this study contributes to the understanding of employee turnover
intention. It increases the knowledgebase by offering new insights into student affairs
professionals’ perceptions of balance as influenced by the spillover between work and personal
life. In addition, it provides researchers with a broader view of the work-nonwork interface,
beyond the work-family perspective. This study extends previous studies on student affairs
professionals’ work-life balance by using work-nonwork interference and enhancement scale
items that included the nonwork domain more holistically. It expands the conversation from the
dominant work-related focus to one that incorporated aspects of personal life (nonwork).
Specifically, it provides a bi-directional view, which includes the impact of personal life on
work. To the researcher’s knowledge, the examination of personal life enhancement and
interference on work has never been examined using student affairs professionals.
An important aim of this study was to undertake research on student affairs professionals
to identify variables that influence turnover intentions. This study supports gender, age, years of
career or professional experience, years of experience at current institution, and type of degree as
variables that further the understanding of voluntary turnover of student affairs professionals.
Beyond the demographic variables, a moderator variable was revealed that created a change in
the relationship between a facet of WNIE and ITL. Specifically, job embeddedness moderated
the relationship between “personal life enhancement of work” and intention to leave.
106
Suggestions for Future Research
Researchers examining the attrition of student affairs professionals should examine why
women indicated that they intend to leave at higher rates than men; what the long term effects
are on the profession as young, mobile professionals leave at high rates for advancement
opportunities; and why overall satisfaction among student affairs professionals has dropped from
satisfied to ambivalent.
The gender of respondents in this sample was not evenly distributed. Males accounted
for nearly one-third of the sample. This result indicates that females continue to make up the
largest portion of student affairs professionals. Moreover, they are assuming in larger numbers
the highest positions available in student affairs—vice president and dean of students. In this
study, 59 percent of the vice presidents and dean of students were women. The results suggest
that women have been able to advance within the student affairs profession.
The divorce rate among student affairs professionals has fallen over the last ten years, as
has the national rate (36%) (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Anecdotally, it
was thought that the divorce rate for student affairs professionals was similar to the national
average; however, Boehman (2006) reported that the divorce rate for student affairs
professionals was only four percent. This study showed that the divorce rate among student
affairs professionals, conducted seven years later, is still four percent. With the divorce rate
remaining consistently low for student affairs professionals, additional research should be
conducted to better understand this phenonemon. The work by Merriam and Clark (1991)
helped to provide a better understanding of the link between learning and development.
‘Significant learning from life events results in an expansion or a transformation, enlarging a
person’s capacity to work and to love’ (p. 227). Merriam and Clark’s model reflects a theme of
107
cycles of change and stability, which may help explain in part why student affairs professionals’
divorce rates remain low.
In addition, of the student affairs professional indicating a high-level intention to leave,
this study revealed that women intended to leave student affairs at higher rates than men—12
percent versus five percent, respectively. This result suggested that women experiences may
increase their intention to leave. Some reasons could be nonwork related reasons (child birth,
moving to be with significant other) or work-related (schedules that are not child care friendly).
Age demographic results indicated that 52 percent of respondents were between 23 and
36 years old. Twenty-three percent of respondents were under 30 years of age. The largest
percentage of respondents were between the ages of 30 and 39 years (37%). In terms of
professional or career experience, 26 percent of respondents had less than 5 years, and 50 percent
had less than 10 years of experience. The results confirmed a student affairs workforce that was
younger (in their twenties and thirties) and less experienced (less than 10 years of experience).
Examining service to one’s current institution, this study revealed that 55 percent of
respondents had been working at their current institution for 5 years or less, and 75 percent of
respondents had been working at their current institution for less than 10 years. Respondents that
had 5 years of less of experience at their current institution and were less than 40 years of age
accounted for 41 percent of respondents. Collectively, these results supported that these younger
student affairs professionals are mobile and only remain at one institution for short periods of
time. A deeper look should be taken to determine the impact that such high turnover rate may
have on the stability of the profession, especially in entry-level positions.
A thorough look into job satisfaction needs to be conducted to determine what changes
have taken place over the last 30 years to shift student affairs professionals’ perceived job
108
satisfaction from satisfied to ambivalent (neither unsatisfied nor satisfied). Specifically, further
study is needed on what facets of job satisfaction have decreased in order to determine if the
drop is a specific facet or an overall drop.
As the student affairs profession moves to embrace an ethos of scholarship, it is vital that
we understand the reasons for movement within an institution, among different institutions, and
in and out of the profession. Women indicating that they intend to leave at higher rates than men
along with a general decrease in overall satisfaction among these professionals is concerning. In
addition, the rapid turnover of new professionals creates an uncontrollable loss of talent and a
knowledge drain at a time when the profession needs to be more stable. It will take a reasonably
stable work force to fully establish a scholarship ethos within student affairs. We need to
examine student affairs’ organizational structures so they allow for career advancement
opportunities and to develop a reward system that encourages scholarly professionals to remain
at one institution for longer periods of time.
Myth Busting Findings
This study unraveled some long-standing beliefs held by student affairs professionals,
including the following: a) a high attrition rate among graduate with student affairs related
degrees, b) a divorce rate comparable to the national average, c) males dominating the highest
leadership positions in student affairs, and (d) student affairs professionals as highly satisfied
with their jobs. Table 21 provides a listing of current understandings within the student affairs
profession along side of products from this research study. Together they illuminate the myths
within the profession.
For 30 years the student affairs profession has accepted that a high turnover rate within
the profession prevailed. This study revealed that only 11% of student affairs professionals with
109
career-related graduate degrees intented to leave the profession. This is far below the 60%
attrition rate revealed in the 1980’s. The impact of such a drop needs to be examined further.
The anecdotal evidence that assumed student affairs professionals were experiencing
divorce at the same rate as the general population has been debunked. Two research studies,
including this one, revealed that the divorce rate was only four percent. These two studies were
conducted seven years apart. Further research is needed to better understand why this rate is
substantially lower then the national average (36%). Some contributing factors may be the level
of education of student affairs professionals and the number of domestic partnerships.
Table 21. Myths within the Student Affairs Profession Myths within the Student Affairs Profession
Myth Current Understanding Results of Study 1. Attrition of student affairs professionals with career-related graduate degrees
60%
11%
2. Divorce rate aligns with national average
36%
4%
3. Gender holding highest level leadership positions in Student Affairs
Women hold 45% of chief student affairs officer
positions
Women hold 59% of Vice President of Student Affairs or
Dean of Students positions
4. Job satisfaction level Satisfied Ambivalent
Tull and Freeman (2008) found that 45% of chief student affairs officers were women.
While men still held the highest percentage of these jobs in 2008, this study showed that women
held 59% of the positions titled vice president of student affairs or dean of students. This new
data may suggest that women, who make up a majority of the student affairs profession, are now
assuming the chief student affairs officer position in greater numbers. Additional research needs
110
to be conducted to determine this transition and to determine the future implications this change
may have on the profession.
Student affairs professionals’ satisfaction surveys were indicating these professionals
were satisfied with their jobs in the 1980’s (Bender, 1980; Nestor, 1988). This study showed
that these professionals were ambivalent, neither satisfied nor unsatified. Why is job satisfaction
in the student affairs profession lessening when the retention of these professionals is increasing?
More indepth research is needed to determine potential reasons for this change, particularly if job
satisfaction continue to spiral downward.
By raveling these myths and potentially changing the ways in which the student affairs
profession is viewed, unknown opportunities may be revealed that improve the work and
personal lives of these professionals. In addition improvements to the work environment,
including more stability within the profession, may support a setting where an ethos of
scholarship can be embraced. The future of the student affairs profession is very bright, but
more research is needed to ensure the development of a work environment, which supports the
future needs of the profession.
Limitations
This study was based on self-reported data, taking into consideration the perspectives of
student affairs practitioners only. Further research is needed to take into consideration the
perspectives of supervisors of student affairs professionals and professional associations to help
minimize the limitation of self-reported data. A study that could apply different methodologies,
such as longitudinal qualitative methods, case studies, and interpretive methods that focus on
personal in-depth interviews and observations would be beneficial to collecting more insightful
111
and contextual data. For example, attrition of student affairs professionals could be studied using
in depth, on-site interviews with leaders and managers to gain richer data.
For the last decade, unemployment in the U.S. has ranged from 6.0 percent (2003) to 9.3
percent (2009) to 7.9 percent (U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). This one factor may have
influenced the retention of student affairs professionals within the career of student affairs and
served as a reason for a decrease in turnover intention.
This study included two moderators, job satisfaction and job embeddedness, which both
had moderate, negative correlations with intention to leave. Job satisfaction produce no change
in the relationship between the work-nonwork interface and intention to leave, and job
embeddedness only produced a change in one facet of the work-nonwork interface (work
enhancement of personal life) and intention to leave. While these two moderators produced
useful information in and of themselves, their ability to modify the relationship between the
work-nonwork interface and intention to leave was nominal. Mitchell et al. (2001) indicated that
highly embedded people search less; however, Crossley et al. (2007) added that highly
embedded and highly satisfied people search less. This research study found that 78 percent of
student affairs professionals, who were highly embedded and highly satisfied, were less likely to
leave their jobs. In light of the demographic information, potentially more useful moderators
would have been learning organization culture, mentoring or coaching. These moderators may
shed light on the need for student affairs administrators to create a learning culture that supports
continuous learning, group learning, empowerment, and leadership development. Mentoring and
coaching would support the needs of young professionals who desire more personal interactions
as part of their work environment.
112
As a member of the student affairs profession, personal biases or pre-conceived ideas and
values on this topic of work-life balance and turnover intention could have interfered with the
interpretation of the results. I entered this conversation believing that attrition of student affairs
professionals was still high. However, this research demonstrated that the intention to leave, a
good representation of actual leaving, is much lower than expected.
Summary
This chapter provided a list of the research questions, a recapitulation of the problem
statement and methodology, conclusions, recommendations, and limitations of the study.
Specifically, four conclusions were listed that were taken directly from the results discussed in
Chapter Four. These conclusions included that student affairs professionals with profession-
related graduate degrees intended to leave at higher rates, the impact of work environment on
personal life and turnover intentions, job satisfaction does not have a moderating effect between
work-life balance and turnover intention, and job embeddedness has a moderating effect between
“personal life enhancement of work” and turnover intention. This section was followed by
recommendations for practitioners and researchers followed by suggestions for future research.
The last section addressed limitation of the study, including my own personal biases as a
practicing student affairs professional.
113
REFERENCES
Abassi, S. M., & Hollman, K. W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel Management,
2(3), 333-342.
ACPA. (2009). About ACPA. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://www2.myacpa.org/au/
Aldous, J. (1969). Occupational characteristics and males' role performance in the family. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 31, 707-712.
Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and
turnover? Journal of Management, 32(2), 237-256.
Anderson, J. E., F., G.-D., & Morrell, J. S. (2000). Factors that influence satisfaction for student affairs
administrators. New Direction for Institutional Research, 105, 99-110.
Andres, L., & Finlay, F. (2004). Student affairs: Experiencing higher education. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Appleton, J., Briggs, C., & Rhatigan, J. (1978). Pieces of eight: The rites, roles, and style of the dean by
eight who have been there. Portland, OR: NASPA.
Arminio, J., Roberts, D. C., & Bonfiglio, R. (2009). The professionalization of student learning practice:
An ethos of scholarship. About Campus, 14(1), 16-20.
Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic,
Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 124, 125-182.
Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2006). Role theory perspec- tives on work and family. In M. Pitt-
Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek & S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary
perspectives and approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barr, M. J., & Upcraft, M. L. (1990). New futures for student affairs: Building a vision for professional
leadership and practice (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
114
Belch, H., & Strange, C. C. (1995). Views from the bottleneck: Middle managers in student affairs.
NASPA Journal, 32(3), 208-222.
Bender, B. E. (1980). Job Satisfaction in Student Affairs. NASPA Journal, 18(2), 2-9.
Bender, B. E. (2009). Job Satisfaction in Student Affairs. NASPA Journal, 46(4), 553-565.
Berwick, K. R. (1992). Stress among student affairs administrators: The relationship of personal
characteristics and organizational variables to work-related stress. Journal of College Student
Development, 33(1), 11-19.
Best, M. F., & Thurston, N. (2004). Measuring nurse job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Administration,
34, 283-290.
Bird, J. (2003). Work-Life Balance Defined - What it really means! Retrieved September 8, 2010, from
http://www.worklifebalance.com/worklifebalancedefined.html
Bird, J. (2006). Work-life balance: Doing it right and avoiding the pitfalls. Employment Relations Today,
33(3), 21-30.
Blake, J. H. (2007). The crucial role of student affairs professionals in the learning process. New
Directions for Student Services, 117, 65-72.
Bloland, P. A., Stamatakos, L. C., & Rogers, R. R. (1994). Reform in Student Affairs: A critique of
student development. Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and Student Services Clearinghouse.
Blum, D. E. (1989, March 29). 24-Pct. turnover rate found for administrators: Some officials are surprised
by survey results. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A1, A14.
Boehman, J. (2006). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment among student affairs
professionals. Ed.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, United States -- North
Carolina. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I.(Publication No. AAT
3223112).
Boehman, J. (2006). Affective, continueance, and normative commitment among student affairs
professionals. Unpublished Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
115
Boehman, J. (2007). Affective commitment among student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 44(2),
307-326.
Boone, D. L. (2004). Job satisfaction and intent to turnover of mental health direct care professionals
working in residential settings. ProQuest Information & Learning, US.
Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. (2009). Work-family balance: Theoretical and empirical advancements.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 581-585.
Bryan, L. L., & Joyce, C. (2005). The 21st-century organization. Retrieved February 3, 2012, from
http://www.drkresearch.org/contact_us/ob_750/21st_century_organizations_2005.pdf
Buchwald, P. (2010). Test anxiety and performance in the framework of the conservation of resources
theory. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Intedisciplinary Journal, XIV(4), 283-293.
Burns, M. A. (1982). Who leaves the student affairs field? NASPA Journal, 20(2), 9-12.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013, February 19). National vital statistics system. National
marriage and divorce rate trends Retrieved May 20, 2013, from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm
Conley, V. M. (2001). Separation: An integral aspect of the staffing process. College Student Affairs
Journal, 21(1), 57-63.
Cook, A. (2009). Connecting work-family policies to supportive work environments. Group &
Organization Management, 34(2), 206-240.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work- role expectations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 252-260.
Cossley, C. D., Jex, S. M., Bennett, R. J., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global measure of
job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1031-1042.
Cotton, J., & Tuttle, J. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for
research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55-70.
116
Crossley, C. D., Jex, S. M., Bennett, R. J., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global measure of
job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1031-1042.
Crouter, A. (1984). Spillover from family to work: The neglected side of the work-family interface.
Human Relations, 37, 425-442.
Dalton, D. R., Krachkhardt, D. M., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Turnover overstated: The functional
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 7, 117-123.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1979). Turnover turned over: An expanded and positive perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 4, 225-235.
de Graaf, J. (2003). Take back your time: Fighting overwork and time poverty in America. San Francisco:
Berrett-Loehler Publishers, Inc.
Delworth, U., & Hanson, G. R. (1980). Student services: A handbook for the profession (1st ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dohm, A. (2000). Gauging the labor force effects of retiring baby-boomers. [Article]. Monthly Labor
Review, 123(7), 17.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research
in IO/ OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 124-197.
Ellickson, M. C. (2002). Determinants of job satisfaction of municipal government employees. Public
Personnel Management, 31(3), 343-358.
Evans, N. J. (1988). Attrition of student affairs professionals: A review of the literature. Journal of
College Student Development 29, 19-24.
Fenske, R. H. (1980). Historical foundations. In U. Delworth & G. R. Hanson (Eds.), Student service: A
handbook for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
117
Fenske, R. H. (1989). Evolution of the student services profession. In U. Delworth & G. Hanson (Eds.),
Student services: A handbook for the profession (2 ed., pp. 25-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A., & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond work and family: A measure of
work/nonwork interference and enhancement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4),
441-456.
Flowers, L., & Massie, R. (2006). Higher education and student affairs professional's survey preferences:
A research note. Student Affairs Online. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from
http://studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Winter_2006/HigherEducation.html
Foley, S., & Powell, G. N. (1997). Reconceptualizing work-family conflict for business/marriage
partners: a theoretical model. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(4), 36-47.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
745-774.
Foot, D. K. (1998). Boom, bust, and echo 2000: Profiting from the demographic shift in the new
millenium. Toronto, Canada: MacFarlane, Walter, and Ross.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2002). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of
occupational health psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (1989). Educational Research. A Guide for Preparing a Thesis or
Dissertation Proposal in Education (5th ed.).
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: The interactive
effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 318-325.
118
Grant, A., & Campbell, E. (2007). Doing good, doing harm, being well and burning out: The interactions
of perceived prosocial and antisocial impact in service work. Journal of occupational and
organizational psychology, 80, 665-691.
Grassmuck, K. (1991, August 14). Throughtout the 80s, colleges hired more non-teaching staff than other
employees. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 37(48), 22.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2007). Statistics for the Behaviorial Sciences (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family
enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing Work—Family Balance: Implications for
Practice and Research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(4), 455-471.
Guest, D. (2002). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science Information, 41(2), 255-
279.
Hamrick, F. A., Evans, N. J., & Schuh, J. H. (2002). Foundations of students affairs practice: How
philosophy, theory, and research strengthen educational outcomes (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Harrison, H. D., & Hargrove, M. J. (2006). Aging faculty: Workforce challenges and issues facing higher
education. Business Perspectives, 18(2). Retrieved from http://news-
business.vlex.com/vid/aging-faculty-workforce-challenges-facing-63426346
Hill, E. J., Allen, S., Jacob, J., Bair, A. F., Bikhazi, S. L., Langeveld, A. V., et al. (2007). Work—Family
Facilitation: Expanding Theoretical Understanding Through Qualitative Exploration. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 9(4), 507-526.
119
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., & Miller, B. C. (1996). Work and Family in the Virtual Office: Perceived
Influences of Mobile Telework. Family Relations, 45(3), 293-301.
Hirt, J. B. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different types of
institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Hirt, J. B., Collins, D., & Plummer, E. (2005). Where you work matters: Differences by institutional type
in the nature of professional life for student affairs professionals. Retrieved December 12, 2009,
from http://www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/article.cfm?id=1481
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture and community. New York: Plenum Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of occupational
and organizational psychology, 84(1), 116-122.
Holmes, D., Verrier, D., & Chisholm, P. (1983). Persistence in student affairs work: Attitudes and job
shifts among master's program graduates. Journal of College Student Development, 24(4), 483-
443.
Hsieh, Y.-C., Kline, S. F., & Pearson, T. E. (2008). Lodging manager's perceptions of work and personal
life: Balanced or imbalanced? International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration,
9(1), 18-35.
Huang, T.-C., Lawler, J., & Lei, C.-Y. (2007). The effects of quality of work life on commitment and
turnover intention. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(6), 735-750.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practises on turnover, productivity,
and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
Janosik, S. M. (2003). Supervising new professionals in student affairs: A guide for practitioners. New
York: Brunner-Routledge.
120
Johnsrud, L. K. (2002). Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative worklife: Implications for
college and university campuses. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 379-395.
Johnsrud, L. K., & Edwards, R. L. (2001). Mediating the intent to leave: The affective responses of
midlevel administrators to their work lives. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of
Higher Education (ASHE).
Johnsrud, L. K., Heck, R. H., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Morale matters: Midlevel administrators and their
intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 34-59.
Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (1997). Administrative staff turnover: Predicting the intentions of stayers
and leavers, Association for the Study of Higher Education (pp. 1-20). Albuquerque, NM.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress.
New York: Wiley.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research
and policy. New York: Russell Sage Founcation.
Kanter, R. M. (1997). Work and family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research
and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Keeling, R. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience.
Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College
Personnel Association.
Kelley Rodriguez, F. M. (2000). Job satisfaction among state human service workers and prediction of
intention to leave. ProQuest Information & Learning, US.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent
Research and Conceptualizations. New York.
121
Kinicki, A., McKee-Ryan, F., Schriesheim, C., & Carson, K. (2002). Assessing the construct validity of
the Job Descriptive Index (JDI): A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
14-32.
Kortegast, C. A., & Hamrick, F. A. (2009). Moving on: Voluntary staff departures at small colleges and
universities. NASPA Journal, 46(2), 183-207.
Kossek, E. E., & Hammer, L. B. (2008). Supervisor Work/Life Training Gets Results. Harvard Business
Review, 86(11), 36-36.
Kossek, E. E., & Lambert, S. J. (Eds.). (2005). Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and
individual perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Kraybill, K. (2003). Creating and maintaining a healthy work environment. Unpublished resource guide.
National Health Care for the Homeless Council.
Kretovics, M. (2002). Entry-level competencies: What student affairs administrators consider when
screening candidates. Journal of College Student Development, 43(6), 912-920.
Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates.
Journal of College Student Development, 37(135-148).
Lacey, T. A., & Wright, B. (2009). Occupational employment projections to 2018. [Article]. Monthly
Labor Review, 132(11), 82-123.
Landauer, J. (1997). Bottom-line benefits of work/life programs. HR Focus, 74(4), 3-4.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Leaptrott, J., & McDonald, J. M. (2009). The conflict between work and family roles: The effects on
managers' reliance on information sources in dealing with significant workplace events.
Unpublished article. Academic and Business Research Institute.
Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of
Steers and Mowday's model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 721-743.
Lorden, L. P. (1998). Attrition in the student affairs profession. NASPA Journal, 35(3), 207-216.
122
Madsen, S. R., & Hammond, S. C. (2005). The complexification of work-family conflict theory: A
critical analysis. TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 4(1/2), 151-
179.
Maertz, C. P., & Campion, R. (Eds.). (1998). 25 years of turnover research: A review and critique (Vol.
13). London: Wiley.
Manger, T., & Eikeland, O. (1990). Predicting staff's intention to leave the university. Higher Education,
19(3), 281-291.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment.
American Sociological Review, 42, 921-936.
McClellan, G., & Stringer, J. (2009). The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration (3 ed.). San
Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, 2009.
Merriam, S., & Clark, M. (1991). Lifelines: Patterns of work, love, and learning in adulthood. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best employees: Developing an
effective retention policy. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 96-108.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using
job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-
1121.
Mitra, A., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between
absence and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 11-17.
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(237-240).
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis
of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 493-522.
123
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414.
Montegomery, D. C., & Lewis, G. L. (Eds.). (1996) The NEA Almanac of Higher Education Washington,
DC: National Education Association.
Morris, M. L., & Madsen, S. R. (2007). Advancing work-life integration in individuals, organizations,
and communities. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(4), 439-454.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Lawton, G. W. (1984). Affective and cognitive factors in soliders' reenlistment
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 157-166.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
NASPA. (2009). About us. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://naspa.org/about/default.cfm
Nestor, D. A. (1988). Job satisfaction among student affairs professionals. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family
conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410.
Nidiffer, J., & Bashaw, C. (Eds.). (2001). Women administrators in higher education: historical and
contemporary perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Nobbe, J., & Manning, S. (1997). Issues for women in student affairs with children. NASPA Journal,
1997(34), 101-111.
O'Driscoll, M. (1996). The interface between job and off-job roles: Enhancement and conflict. In C.
Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 11, pp. 279-306). Chichester: John Wiley.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviours, role stressors and uncertainty as
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 141-
155.
124
Paul, A. M. (2012, April 10). This is the biggest reason talented young employees quit their jobs.
Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2010). Sex, gender, and the work-to-family interface: Exploring
negative and postive interdependencies. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 513-534.
Price, J. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of
Manpower, 22(7), 600-624.
Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover (1st ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Rhodes, M. (2009). Glossary. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from
http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/Glossary?browse=N&country=USA&searchStr=work-
life
Rogelberg, S. G., Luong, A., Sederburg, M. E., & Cristol, D. S. (2000). Employee attitude surveys:
Examining the attitudes of noncomplaint employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2), 284-
293.
Rosin, H., & Korabik, K. (1995). Organizational experiences and propensity to leave: A multivariate
investigation of men and women managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 1-16.
Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung professionals
in the academy. Higher Education, 48(3), 317-337.
Rosser, V. J., & Javinar, J. M. (2003). Midlevel student affairs leaders' intentions to leave: Examining the
quality of their professional and institutional work life. Journal of College Student Development,
44(6), 813-830.
Sagaria, M. D., & Johnsrud, L. K. (1988). Mobility within the student affairs profession: Career
advancement through position change. Journal of College Student Development,, 29(1), 30-40.
Sandeen, A. (2004). Educating the whole student: The growing academic importance of student affairs.
Change, 36(3), 28-33.
Secret, M. (2006). Integrating paid work and family work. Community, Work & Family, 9(4), 407-427.
Seyle, H. (1951). Annual report of stress. New York: McGraw-Hill.
125
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. J., & Lockhart, D. (2005). Turnover, social capital losses, and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 594-606.
Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578.
Smith, M., & Brough, P. (Eds.). (2003). Personnel recruitment and selection. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNalley.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the Job
Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713.
Spector, P. E. (1992a) Summated scales are a collection of related questions that measure underlying
constructs. Vol. 82. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newberry Park, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Spector, P. E. (2000). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Spector, P. E. (2007). Job satisfaction survey, JSS page. from
http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~spector/scales/jsspag.html
Spector, P. E. (Ed.). (1992b). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
SPSS. (2007). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 16.0.1) [Graduate Student Package].
Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Staines, G. L. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the relationship
between work and non-work. Human Relations, 33(2), 111-129.
126
Stamatakos, L. C. (1978). Unsolicited advice to new professionals. Journal of College Student
Development 29, 325-330.
Steel, R. P. (2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function. Academy of
Management Review, 27(3), 346-360.
Steel, R. P., & Ovale, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between
behavioural intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 673-686.
Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes.
In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 235-
281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes.
. In L. Cummings & B. Shaw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 3). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
SurveyMonkey.com. (1999). Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://www.surveymonkey.com/
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Torres, V., Walbert, J., Alley, K., Black, D., Cuyjet, M., Ester, J., et al. (2010). Envisioning the future of
student affairs. Washington, DC: ACPA - College Student Educators International & NASPA -
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.
Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/survey.php
Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervisioin, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new professionals
in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465-480.
Tull, A., & Freeman, J. P. (2008). Chief student affairs officer titles: Standardization of titles and
broadening of labels. NASPA Journal, 45(2), 265-281.
127
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Number of jobs held, labor market activity, and earnings growth
among the youngest baby boomers: Results from a longitudinal survey. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf.
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011a). 2009 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Current
Population Survey, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable5-2010.htm.
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011b). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition,
Educational Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos007.htm.
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition, Educational
Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos007.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Table MC-1: Married couples by labor force status of spouces: 1986 -
Present. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0600.pdf.
University of Connecticut and Rutgers University, John, C. f. S. R. a. A. a., & Development, J. H. C. f.
W. (1999). Work and family: How employers and workers can strike the balance: Storrs,
Connecticut & New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Van Patten, J. J. (1993). Understanding the many faces of the culture of higher education. Lewiston, NY,
USA: E. Mellen Press.
van Steenbergen, E. F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Is managing the work-family interface worthwhile?
Benefits for employee health and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 617-
642.
Ward, L. (1995). Role stress and propensity to leave among new student affairs professionals. NASPA
Journal, 33(1), 35-45.
Waumsley, J. A. (2005). Work-life balance: A psychological perspective. University of Kent, Canterbury.
128
Wheeler, A. R., Harris, K. J., & Harvey, P. (2010). Moderating and mediating the HRM Effectiveness -
intent to turnover relationship: The role of supervisors and job embeddedness. Journal of
Managerial Issues, XXII(2), 182-196.
Winston, R. B., & Creamer, D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in student affairs. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Winston, R. B., & Hirt, J. B. (2003). Activating synergistic supervision approaches: Practical suggestions.
In S. M. Janosik, D. G. Creamer, J. B. Hirt, R. B. Winston, S. A. Saunders & D. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Supervising new professionals in student affairs (pp. 43-83). New Yorik: Brunner-Routledge.
Wood, R. H. (1995). Human resource management (2nd ed.). Michigan: The Educational Institute of the
American Hotel and Motel Association.
Yao, X., Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Burton, J. P., & Sablynski, C. S. (2004). Job embeddedness: Current
research and future directions. In R. Griffeth & P. Hom (Eds.), Understanding employee retention
and turover. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Zeffane, R. M. (1994). Understanding employee turnover: The need for a contingency approach.
International Journal of Manpower, 15(9/10), 22-37.
129
APPENDIX A
Student Affairs Turnover Intention Questionnaire Consent Form 1. You are being invited to take part in a research study entitled Student Affairs Professionals: The Relationship Between Work-Life Balance and Turnover Intention. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information. This study examines the relationship between work-life balance and attrition of student affairs professionals. The aim of the study is to provide current information on attrition of student affairs professionals, particularly as it relates to work-life balance. The study will also look at job satisfaction among student affairs professionals along with job embeddedness of these professionals, which is an aspect that has not been examined in the literature. You will be asked to answer 86 questions on a survey. It will take about 10 minutes to complete the survey. Participates must be full-time professional staff members working for student affairs in a higher education setting in the United States. Your participation in this research is confidential. The survey does not ask for any information that would identify to whom the responses belong. Internet communications are insecure and there is a limit to the confidentiality that can be guaranteed due to the technology itself. However, once the materials are received by the researcher, standard confidentiality procedures will be employed. In the event of any publication or presentation resulting from the research, no personally identifiable information will be shared because your name is in no way linked to your responses. While there are no foreseeable risks, some respondents may be concerned about revealing dissatisfaction or intent to leave their job. All data will be reported in aggregate so that individual information related to current job dissatisfaction or intent to leave one's position is not revealed. This data may provide the student affairs profession with information that can aid in retention which you would otherwise be entitled. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer. You must be 18 years of age or older to take part in this research study. By clicking on the statement below and completing the survey, you are agreeing to participate in the above described research project. Please print a copy of this page for your records. Should you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact Thomas D. Miles at [email protected] or (478) 414-8045. Thomas D. Miles, Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Laura Bierema, Principal Investigator 190 Southern Walk Dr. 405 River’s Crossing Milledgeville, GA 31061 University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 (478) 414-8045; [email protected] (706) 542-6174; [email protected] ☐ I have read and understand this consent form.
130
Qualifications The following three questions will determine if you are qualified to participate in this survey. If you are not qualified, the survey will end. 2. Level of Employment In this survey, the following areas are considered within Student Affairs: Vice President / Dean of Students, Assistant/Associate VP or Assistant/Associate Dean, Housing/Residence Life, Multicultural Programs, Career Services, Student Activities, Student Organizations, Student Union Operations, Business Services for Students/Organizations, Event Management / Conference Services, Fraternity and Sorority Life, Community Service, Counseling Services, Women's Programs, Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Services, Recreational Programs, Wellness Programs, International Programs, Leadership Programs, Health Services, Commuter Services, Student Conduct, Student Support Services, Safety / Security / Police, Disability Services, Veteran Services, Parent and Family Programs, Academic Support Services, Transfer Student Services, Adult Student Services, Student Publications, Enrollment Management / Admissions, Alumni Relations, Campus Ministry, and Orientation / First Year Programs. ☐ Full-time Student Affairs Professional working in higher education (college or university) ☐ Part-time Student Affairs Professional working in higher education (college or university) ☐ Other (please specify) 3. Where is the location of the higher education institution that employs you?
☐ In the United States or U.S. Territories ☐ Outside of the United States or U.S. Territories 4. Age
☐ I am younger than 18 years of age. ☐ I am 18 years or older. Section 1: Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is the degree to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs. To what extent do you agree with the following aspects of your student affairs position. Answer Key: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 5. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 6. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 7. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 8. I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 9. When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. 10. Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. 11. Communications seem good within student affairs unit. 12. I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 13. I like the people I work with. 14. Raises are too few and far between. 15. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 16. My supervisor is unfair to me. 17. The benefits we receive are as good as most other universities/colleges offer.
131
18. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 19. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 20. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. 21. I like doing the things I do at work. 22. The goals within my university/college are not clear to me. 23. I feel unappreciated by my university/college when I think about what they pay me. 24. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 25. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 26. The benefit package we have is equitable. 27. There are few rewards for those who work here. 28. I have too much to do at work. 29. I enjoy my coworkers. 30. I often feel that I do not know what is going on within the university/college. 31. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 32. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 33. There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 34. I like my supervisor. 35. I have too much paperwork. 36. I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 37. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 38. There is too much conflict at work. 39. My job is enjoyable. 40. Work assignments are not fully explained. Section 2: Global Job Embeddedness Job embeddedness represents a broad set of influences on an employee's decision to remain on the job. After considering both work related factors (such as relationships, fit with job, benefits) and nonwork related factors (such as neighbors, hobbies, community perks), to what extend do you agree with the statements below. Answer key: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 41. I feel attached to this university/college. 42. It would be difficult for me to leave this university/college. 43. I’m too caught up in this university/college to leave. 44. I feel tied to this university/college. 45. I simply could not leave the university/college. 46. It would be easy for me to leave this university/college. 47. I am tightly connected to this university/college. Section 3: Work/Nonwork Interference and Enhancement Work/Nonwork Interference and Enhancement is the extent to which work interferes with personal life and personal life interferes with work, and the extent to which work enhances personal life and personal life enhances work. After considering your work-life and personal life, please indicate to what extend the interaction is an enhancement or interference. How often have you felt this way in the last 3 months: Answer key: Not at all Rarely Sometimes Often Almost all the time
132
48. I come home from work too tired to do things I would like to do. 49. My job makes it difficult to maintain the kind of personal life I would like. 50. I often neglect my personal needs because of the demands of my work. 51. My personal life suffers because of my work. 52. I have to miss out on important personal activities due to the amount of time I spend doing work. 53. My personal life drains me of the energy I need to do my job. 54. My work suffers because of everything going on in my personal life. 55. If it weren’t for everything going on in my personal life, I would devote more time to work. 56. Because of things I have going on in my personal life, I am too tired to be effective at work. 57. When I’m at work, I worry about things I need to do outside work. 58. I have difficulty getting my work done because I am preoccupied with personal matters at work. 59. My job gives me energy to pursue activities outside of work that are important to me. 60. Because of my job, I am in a better mood at home. 61. The things I do at work help me deal with personal and practical issues at home. 62. I am in a better mood at work because of everything I have going for me in my personal life. 63. My personal life gives me the energy to do my job. 64. My personal life helps me relax and feel ready for the next day’s work. Section 4: Voluntary Turnover Intention Voluntary turnover occurs when an employee makes the decision to leave on his/her own. Intention to leave one's job is highly related to actually leaving the job. Please indicate the likelihood of you voluntarily leaving your position, institution, or the student affairs career/profession? Answer key: Very Unlikely to Leave, Unlikely to Leave, Neither Unlikely nor Likely to Leave, Likely to Leave, Very Likely to Leave 65. Likelihood of leaving your position? 66. Likelihood of leaving your university/college? 67. Likelihood of leaving your career/profession? Section 5: Leaving and Returning to the Student Affairs Profession This section examines why student affairs professionals return to the profession. 68. Did you leave the Student Affairs profession at any point in your career?
☐ Yes ☐ No 69. Why did you leave the Student Affairs profession? Check all that apply.
☐ Better salary ☐ Better benefits ☐ Conflict with co-workers ☐ Conflict with supervisor ☐ Not satisfied working with college students ☐ To further my education ☐ Tried a different career path ☐ Seek more work-life balance ☐ For health reasons ☐ Other (please specify) 70. How long did you leave the Student Affairs profession?
☐ 1 year or less ☐ More than 1 year and less than 2 years
133
☐ More than 2 years and less than 3 years ☐ More than 3 years and less than 4 years ☐ More than 4 years and less than 5 years ☐ 5 years or more 71. Why did you return to the Student Affairs profession? Section 6: Demographics Please provide the following demographic information. 72. In what year were your born (4-digit year, 19XX)? 73. What is your gender? ☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ Transgender ☐ Other (please specify) 74. With what race do you identify? ☐ White ☐ Black or African-American ☐ Latino or Hispanic ☐ American Indian or Alaskan Native ☐ Asian ☐ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander ☐ From multiple races ☐ Other (please specify) 75. What is your marital status? ☐ Married ☐ Partnered ☐ Widowed ☐ Divorced ☐ Separated ☐ Never married ☐ Other (please specify) 76. How many children, by age, currently live in your household? ___ I do not have children (insert a zero "0" in this box). ___ 5 years old or younger ___ 6 - 12 years old ___ 13 - 17 years old ___ 18 years old or older ___ I have children but they do not live at home. 77. Are you responsible for the care of any adults (e.g., elder care)? ☐ No ☐ Yes. If yes, please explain. 78. What is the highest level of education you have completed ☐ Did not graduate high school ☐ Graduated from high school ☐ Some college (did not graduate) ☐ Graduated from college ☐ Some graduate school ☐ Completed a masters degree ☐ Completed an educational specialist degree ☐ Completed course work for doctoral degree (did not graduate, ABD, etc.) ☐ Completed a doctoral degree ☐ Other (please specify)
134
79. What type of completed graduate degree do you have related to the student affairs profession? Check all that apply. ☐ My graduate degree is not typically seen as related to the student affairs profession. ☐ College Student Personnel ☐ College Student Development ☐ College Administration ☐ College Community Leadership ☐ Educational Leadership ☐ Higher Education ☐ Student Affairs ☐ List other degree considered related to the student affairs profession. 80. Type of Institution (funding) ☐ Public ☐ Private ☐ Other (please specify) 81. Assigned work unit(s) at current institution (check all that apply) ☐ Vice President / Dean of Students ☐ Assistant/Associate VP or Assistant/Associate Dean ☐ Housing/Residence Life ☐ Multicultural Programs ☐ Career Services ☐ Student Activities ☐ Student Organizations ☐ Student Union Operations ☐ Business Services for Students/Organizations ☐ Event Management / Conference Services ☐ Fraternity and Sorority Life ☐ Community Service / Volunteer Services ☐ Counseling Services fec Women's Program ☐ GLBT Services ☐ Recreational Programs ☐ Wellness Programs ☐ International Student Programs ☐ Leadership Programs ☐ Health Services ☐ Commuter Services ☐ Student Conduct ☐ Student Support Services ☐ Safety / Security / Police ☐ Disability Services ☐ Veteran Services ☐ Parent and/or Family Programs ☐ Academic Support Services ☐ Transfer Student Services ☐ Alumni Relations ☐ Adult Student Services (non-traditional students) ☐ Enrollment Management / Admissions ☐ Campus Ministry ☐ Orientation / First Year Programs ☐ Other (please specify) 82. Level of Employment ☐ Full-time Student Affairs Professional working in higher education (college or university) ☐ Part-time Student Affairs Professional working in higher education (college or university) ☐ Other (please specify) 83. Years of full-time, professional service to current institution in whole numbers -- do not count graduate assistantship years. 84. Years of full-time, professional service in your career/profession in whole numbers -- do not count graduate assistantship years.
135
85. Work-related living arrangement ☐ I do not live in university property and commute less than 30 minutes. ☐ I do not live in university property and commute more than 30 minutes. ☐ I live in a university residence hall room. ☐ I live in a university apartment within a residence hall. ☐ I live in a university house or apartment (not located in a residence hall). ☐ Other (please specify) 86. Basic classification of your college or university ☐ Associate's college ☐ Baccalaureate college ☐ Master's college or university ☐ Doctorate-granting University ☐ Tribal College ☐ Special Focus Institution. Institution awarding baccalaureate or higher-level degrees where a high concentration of degrees (above 75%) is in a single field or set of related fields. Excludes Tribal Colleges. If Special Focus, please describe type ( e.g. seminary, medical, engineering).