Job Satisfaction

Faculty Leadership and Institutional Resilience: Indicators, Promising Practices, and Key Questions
Norman, B. (2019). Faculty Leadership and Institutional Resilience: Indicators, Promising Practices, and Key Questions. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 51 (4), 48-54. Publisher's VersionAbstract

There is renewed interest in shared governance in American higher education. This evidence-based, exploratory study of faculty leadership identifies indicators of health and promising practices for shared stewardship. It also provides follow up questions for senior leaders to assess the state of faculty leadership and shared governance on their own campuses. The findings are based on interviews with chief academic officers or faculty officers and chief elected faculty leaders at exemplar institutions of various types (baccalaureate, masters, research). These institutions were identified as exemplars through a national faculty satisfaction survey by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE). The author argues for an expansive view of faculty leadership as a key component of institutional resilience and the aim of shared stewardship.

International Faculty Perceptions of Departmental Climate and Workplace Satisfaction
Mamiseishvili, K., & Lee, D. (2018). International Faculty Perceptions of Departmental Climate and Workplace Satisfaction. Innovative Higher Education , 43 (5), 323–338. Publisher's VersionAbstract
For this study we used the 2011–2014 survey data collected by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) at the Harvard Graduate School of Education to examine the degree of international faculty members’ satisfaction with autonomy, interactions with colleagues, departmental climate, and recognition and the effect of these elements upon the overall workplace satisfaction of international faculty members relative to their U.S. citizen peers. This study helps identify factors that can enhance international faculty members’ satisfaction in order to aid institutions in their efforts not only to recruit the best talent but also to support and retain such talent.
Russell, B. C. (2013). The workplace satisfaction of newly-tenured faculty members at research universities. Harvard University. Publisher's VersionAbstract

If faculty are dissatisfied with their work, colleges and universities can experience educational and organizational repercussions that include contentious departmental climates and stagnant work productivity. Researchers have studied the workplace satisfaction of faculty during three traditional career stages: the tenure-track, middle-career, and late-career. However, a recently-proposed stage referred to as "newly-tenured" that falls after the tenure-track stage but before the middle-career stage, may be particularly important to the well-being of an institution. Newly-tenured faculty face unique transitional circumstances immediately following the award of tenure. Since they are typically beginning a long career at one institution, their dissatisfaction could have major negative consequences, including ineffective teaching and advising of students, apathetic service, stagnant research activity, and contentious interactions with faculty and staff.

In this dissertation, I use faculty survey data from the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) and employ ordinal logistic regression to estimate the strongest predictors of newly-tenured faculty workplace satisfaction at the institutional and departmental levels. I also interview 12 newly-tenured faculty members to provide deeper insight into my quantitative findings. My results indicate that, more so than other factors, newly-tenured faculty tend to be satisfied with their institutions when they have communicative senior leaders, fair and reasonable compensation, and a sense of belonging in their departments. At the departmental level and relative to other factors, newly-tenured faculty are more likely to be satisfied when norms and behaviors promote inclusion and diversity, colleagues are respectful, and departmental leaders are caring and supportive. I find weak evidence that the predictors of departmental satisfaction differ by race or gender, and further research is necessary to better understand these potentially important distinctions. The results of this study can stimulate thinking about new tailored policies and practices to maximize the satisfaction and performance of faculty during this transformative period in their careers.

Gender Differences in Faculty Member Job Satisfaction: Equity Forestalled?
Webber, K. L., & Rogers, S. M. (2018). Gender Differences in Faculty Member Job Satisfaction: Equity Forestalled? Research in Higher Education , 1-28. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Guided by Hagedorn’s (2000) theory of faculty job satisfaction, mindful of social and organizational structures of higher education, and acknowledging recent changes in the academic labor market, this study examines satisfaction for approximately 30,000 tenured and tenure-track faculty members in 100 US colleges and universities. Findings revealed similarity between female and male faculty members in some aspects of work satisfaction, but difference in other areas in which women reported lower satisfaction. Findings also revealed that perceptions of department fit, recognition, work role balance, and mentoring are more important to women faculty’s satisfaction than male peers. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
What do new scholars want?
Trower, C. (2006). What do new scholars want? In Faculty Career Paths: Multiple Routes to Academic Success and Satisfaction (ACE/Praeger Series on Higher Education) . Bataille, G., & Brown, B., Eds. Westport, CT: Praeger. Publisher's Version
Young Faculty and their Impact on Academe
Trower, C. (2008). Young Faculty and their Impact on Academe . In Generational Shockwaves and the Implications for Higher Education . Heller, D. & D'Ambrosio, M., Eds. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Cathy A. Trower Every generation blames the one before. And all of their frustrations come beating on your door. (Song lyrics “The Living Years,” 1988 Mike & The Mechanics) Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it. (George Orwell, author) Each generation must recreate liberty for its own times. (Florence E. Allen, Federal Judge) Each new generation is a fresh invasion of savages. (Hervey Allen, poet)* Whichever quote you prefer, there’s plenty here to make us stop and think about the generations: blame, imagined superiority, recreation of liberty, and savagery! This is juicy stuff and it is not just fodder for good songs and great quotes; these themes are playing themselves out right now in the hallowed halls of academe. Because I agree with C. Stone Brown (2005) who wrote, “it’s counterproductive to judge generational differences as a right way or a wrong way of doing tasks or learning, because there are differences in how generations feel about work, learn new tasks, and process information” (p. 30), the purpose of this chapter is threefold, to: (1) highlight the values that shaped the policies and practices composed by the Lost Generation (born 1883–1900), which worked well for the GI (1901–24), Silent (1925–42) and Baby Boom (1943–60) Generations, which do not work so well for the 13th Generation (referred to throughout this chapter as Generation X or Gen X (1961–811)...