STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

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



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

ii

© 2013

Thomas Dasher Miles

All rights reserved.

iii



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



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



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









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.


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.


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.


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









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.


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)


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


Section

Contents

Study Identifier


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


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


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


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:





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


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 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



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:





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 perspectives 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).

Documents

STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN