Volitional Autonomy and Relatedness: Mediators explaining Non Tenure Track Faculty Job. Satisfaction

Transcription

1 Autonomy and : Mediators explaining Non Tenure Track Faculty Job Satisfaction Non-tenure track (NTT) faculty are increasingly utilized in higher education and shoulder much of the teaching load within academic institutions. They are paid less, have less job security, and fewer benefits than their tenure-track counterparts (Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005). These stressors are likely going to impact their job. Nonetheless, most research examining faculty job has focused on tenure track faculty (e.g., Larson et al., 2017). Job of NTT faculty is critical given its known association with job performance (Judge, et al., 2011). Previous investigation into faculty has revealed that institutional leadership, perceptions of university climate and culture, as well as relationships with colleagues, students, and administrators can all dictate the degree to which faculty are satisfied in their positions (e.g., Eagan et al., 2015). While such research has been effective in identifying factors that foster or hinder faculty, they do not provide a conceptual frame to explain underlying mediators of this relationship. Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000; SDT) has shown promise for explaining the relationship between the campus environment and faculty. In this context, SDT posits that when NTT faculty are free to make their own choices (volitional ), perceive themselves as competent, and feel a sense of belonging or connectedness at work (relatedness), they will experience more job. Moreover, SDT asserts that the relationship between the campus environment and job will be fully mediated by volitional and relatedness. [Competence was not measured in this study.]

2 Only one study has used SDT s basic psychological needs as mediators between environmental variables and NTT faculty job (Seipel & Larson, 2018). However, the study was limited in that it utilized a small sample from a single institution. Researchers obtained a national faculty dataset of 3,527 full-time NTT faculty from 28 R1 institutions. The researchers hypothesized that volitional and competence would fully mediate the relationship between six environmental indices (i.e., upper level, chair, instrumental, contract renewal/, recognition, personal and family ) and two indices of job (teaching and global ). Structural equation modeling results confirmed that volitional and relatedness fully mediated the relationships between the six environmental factors and both indices of job as shown by fit indices in Figure 1. Bootstrap analyses resulted in significant indirect effects. Results highlight the importance of basic psychological needs in understanding the relationships between the environment and NTT faculty job. The model identifies volitional as a strong predictor of NTT faculty job which may suggest the ability to make one s own decisions holds particular importance for faculty primarily charged with teaching responsibilities. Further, chair had strong positive relationships with both volitional and relatedness, indicating that interactions with the department chair may be particularly impactful for NTT faculty. Also, recognition was a strong, positive predictor of relatedness which suggests that recognition for one s work enables NTT faculty to feel closer connections with the faculty at large.

3 Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Environmental Supports, Psychological Needs, and Indices of Faculty Well-Being Upper level - 2. Contract renewal & Chair Recognition Instrumental Personal & family Teaching & Mean Standard Deviation Notes. N = All variables are scored 1 to 5 on Likert scales, with higher scores indicating a greater degree of the construct. All correlations greater than.06 are significant at p < Items 1-6 are environmental factors, items 7-8 are psychological needs, and items 9-10 are indices of faculty well-being.

4 Table 2. Bootstrap Analysis of Magnitude and Statistical Significance of Indirect Effects of Environmental Supports on Faculty Well-being (Satisfaction) through the Psychological Needs 1a. Upper level Indirect Effects β and product (.21) X (.71) = Mean Indirect Effect (b) a SE of Mean a 95% BC CI Lower, Upper a ,.115* 1b. Chair (.42) X (.71) = ,.176* 1c. Instrumental (.23) X (.71) = , 2* 1d. Contract (.01) X (.71) = ,.015* 1e. Recognition (.12) X (.71) = ,.077* 1f. Personal and family (.21) X (.71) = ,.162* 2a. Upper level (.001) X (.03) = < ,.001 2b. Chair (.23) X (.03) =.007 <.01 < ,.011 2c. Instrumental (.12) X (.03) =.004 <.01 < ,.009 2d. Contract (.07) X (.03) =.002 <.01 < ,.003 2e. Recognition (.31) X (.03) = ,.019 2f. Personal and family () X (.03) =.005 <.01 < ,.012

5 3a. Upper level (.21) X (.72) = ,.191* 3b. Chair (.42) X (.72) = ,.298* 3c. Instrumental (.23) X (.72) = ,.256* 3d. Contract (.01) X (.72) = ,.026 3e. Recognition (.12) X (.72) = ,.129* 3f. Personal and family (.21) X (.72) = ,.271* 4a. Upper level (.001) X (.20) = < ,.008* 4b. Chair (.23) X (.20) = ,.055* 4c. Instrumental (.12) X (.20) = ,.049* 4d. Contract (.07) X (.20) = < ,.020* 4e. Recognition (.31) X (.20) = ,.093* 4f. Personal and family () X (.20) = ,.067* Note. N = BC CI = Bias-Corrected Confidence Interval. a These values are based on the unstandardized path coefficients. *95% Confidence interval does not include zero and therefore is significant at p <.05.

6 Figure 1. Fully mediate figure. Note. Correlations were specified among the exogenous variables, among the two mediators, and among the two outcome variables but are omitted for visual. Fit statistics: RMSEA =.06; SRMR =.04; CFI =.94.