Greener Grass on the Other Side of Promotion? Faculty Well-Being, Motivation, and Success Across Rank

• In Event: 34.074 - Faculty Development: Well-Being, Workplace Bullying, and Faculty Networks

Abstract

Despite research showing early-career assistant professors experience high stress (Stupnisky et al., 2015; Olsen & Sorcinelli, 1992), faculty persist with the hope that time, tenure, and promotion will yield improved job and life satisfaction. But does life really improve as faculty careers progress? Does well-being relate to faculty motivation and success in teaching and research? Although a rich literature exists on the importance of achievement goals (Elliot, 1999; Maehr, 1989), it has only recently been applied to faculty members’ teaching performance (Daumiller et al., 2018) with relations to well-being remaining unexplored. This study compared tenure-track professors based on career stage (assistant/associate/full, pretenure/tenure) in terms of well-being, job satisfaction, motivation, and perceived success.
In spring of 2013, 152 faculty members from a Midwestern USA research university completed an online survey (68 women, 84 men; Mage47.8 years, SD =11.2; 87.5% English first language). Participants represented 13 disciplines (mode = =26 Education), varying years of service (e =range=1-43, M =11.09, SD =8.8), and were employed as 30.3% assistant, 47.4% associate, and 21.1% full professors ((69.1% tenured). Participants reported average contractually expected efforts of 44.68% (SD =18.84) teaching, 32.24% (SD =19.79) research, and 19.00% (SD =16.68) service. Only service differed significantly by rank, F (2,142) = 13.53, p < .001, with assistant professors conducting less service than full professors (Figure 1).
Comparisons of professors by rank on well-being variables indicated that assistant professors, compared to associate and full professors, were reporting more anxiety regarding teaching and research, less job satisfaction and general life satisfaction, and poorer health (Table 1). In terms of motivation for teaching in the overall sample, correlations and regressions revealed mastery-approach goal orientation (desire to gain competence) positively predicted perceived and expected success, while performance-avoidance (desire to avoid demonstrating incompetence relative to others) negatively predicted perceived success, expected success, and annual teaching review levels (Table 2, 3). For research, performance-approach goals (desire to demonstrate competence relative to others) were the most important and positively predicted perceived success and annual research review levels. Performance avoidance goals were again negative predictors of perceived success in research. Pretenure faculty members, in comparison to those with tenure, were found to have significantly less of a mastery-approach goal orientation for teaching (Ms = 4.28 vs. 4.52; t (145 )=2.20, p <.05), but generally motivation levels were equivalent across ranks. Surprising, faculty goals were not significantly related to well-being, regardless of rank. Overall, well-being had small correlations with success (Table 4), with correlations being stronger for full and associate professors concerning teaching, but stronger for assistant professors with respect to research.
Overall, the results suggest that early-career faculty report lower well-being than senior faculty and that goals play an important role in faculty members’ motivation and success, operating differently in the domains of teaching and research. Although well-being was not related to faculty motivation, it was related to faculty success.

Author

• Robert H. Stupnisky, University of North Dakota