Examining the Relationship between Faculty Productivity and Job Satisfaction

In this study, we used the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty dataset to conceptualize and examine how faculty productivity in the areas of research, teaching, and service related to their job satisfaction at research universities. The theoretical rationale for productivity-job satisfaction relationship was grounded in expectancy-based and self-determination theories of motivation. The findings from this secondary data analysis, using structural equation modeling, indicated that increased undergraduate teaching and service productivity was significantly and negatively related to faculty job satisfaction. Higher education institutions need to rethink their reward structures, value systems, and expectations placed on faculty work in order to keep productive faculty satisfied with their jobs, and provide them with the workplace that is more appealing and attractive. Recent calls for faculty performance accountability and productivity have placed increasing demands on faculty work. Academics are expected to teach, conduct research, and be involved in service and administrative functions of their institutions and professions (e.g., Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Boyer, 1990; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; Jacobs & Winslow, 2004; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). There is a significant variation in faculty work across institutions and disciplines, but regardless of the environment, there are always too many Faculty Productivity and Job Satisfaction/Mamiseishvili and Rosser 101 responsibilities that are competing for faculty members’ time (e.g., Fairweather, 2002, 2005; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). The research on faculty productivity reveals that today’s academics face growing demands that make it harder for them to achieve the balance among various functions of their work (e.g., Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999; Fairweather, 1993, 2002; 2005; Fairweather & Beach, 2002; Fox, 1992; Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Houston, Meyer, & Paewai, 2006; Porter & Umbach, 2001). Faculty work long hours, but despite these long hours, they find it difficult to balance the increasing expectations of their work that are becoming “more demanding in terms of effort as well as time” (Jacobs & Winslow, 2004, p. 106). Increased expectations for faculty performance accountability raise questions about how these growing pressures affect faculty members’ job experiences and attitudes. What aspects of faculty work lead to job satisfaction? Are more productive faculty more satisfied with their jobs? Or as the pressures and demands to perform increase, do faculty feel less happy and satisfied? Productive and satisfied faculty is the most important resource for today’s universities (Gappa et al., 2007). Given the increased emphasis on faculty performance accountability and the concern for the well-being of the professoriate, it is important to understand the relationship between faculty members’ productivity and job satisfaction. The current study intended to address this question and examine how faculty members’ productivity affected their job satisfaction. More specifically, the purpose of the study was to conceptualize and measure faculty productivity and job satisfaction at research universities and to examine how faculty productivity in the areas of research, teaching, and service related to their job satisfaction. Theoretical Framework The relationship between job satisfaction and job productivity has been of continuous interest in organizational and social psychology literature (Judge, Bono, Thoresen, & Patton, 2001). Early studies were based on the assumption that individuals increased their productivity as a result of increased job satisfaction (Gruneberg, 1979; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). This direction of the relationship was attributed to human relations movement that assumed that higher morale and satisfaction would lead to improved productivity (Judge et al., 2001). This assumption was supported by most attitude researchers in social Journal of the Professoriate (5)2 102 psychology literature who believed that attitudes had behavioral consequences (Judge et al., 2001). They argued that attitudes, i.e., attitudes to the job, led to behaviors, i.e., performance on the job. Later, many researchers challenged the assumption that “the happy worker is the productive worker” (Locke, 1970, p. 484) and began questioning both the strength and the direction of the high satisfaction leading to high performance relationship. They reversed the hypothesized causality and suggested that performance led to satisfaction (Judge et al., 2001). They argued that people who were better able to do their jobs and performed well had higher job satisfaction (Spector, 1997). Contrary to satisfaction leading to productivity approach, this reversed direction of the relationship was based on the assumption that attitudes followed behavior (Judge et al., 2001). The theoretical rationale for performance leading to satisfaction relationship was grounded in expectancy-based and self-determination theories of motivation in social psychology literature (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagner & Deci, 2005; Judge et al., 2001; Lawler & Porter, 1967; Locke, 1970; Vroom, 1964). Broadly speaking, these theories suggested that performance led to valued outcomes that were satisfying to individuals (Judge et al., 2001). For example, building on Vroom’s expectancy theory of motivation, Lawler and Porter (1967) proposed a model in which successful performance of a task led to satisfaction. According to Lawler and Porter’s model, performance was related to satisfaction, and this relationship was moderated by the rewards for performance and the perceived equity of these rewards. Lawler and Porter (1967) stated that “good performance may lead to rewards, which in turn lead to satisfaction” (p. 23). According to the model, job performance led to satisfaction if the employees believed that they would be fairly rewarded for their jobs. Locke (1970) also suggested that satisfaction was primarily a result of performance. He hypothesized that performance was satisfying to the extent that it led to important work values. If job satisfaction was achieved from the fulfillment of one’s needs, Locke argued that by performing at a higher level, individuals could better fulfill their needs, and thus, would become more satisfied. Faculty Productivity and Job Satisfaction/Mamiseishvili and Rosser 103 Deci and Ryan’s (1984) self-determination theory also argued that satisfaction followed from the rewards that resulted from behavior. Further, self-determination theorists believed that when people performed effectively on the job, they experienced satisfaction of the basic psychological needs and had positive attitudes towards their jobs (Gagner & Deci, 2005). However, they suggested that if individuals were controlled in their motivation, for example, when they were “prompted by external or introjected contingencies,” effective performance was less likely to result in high levels of job satisfaction (Gagner & Deci, 2005, p. 353). Despite the significant interest in productivity leading to satisfaction relationship in organizational psychology, there have been fewer studies in higher education literature that investigated this direction of the relationship. Traditionally, higher education researchers have favored attitude leading to behavior approach and have typically examined to what extent faculty members’ attitudes affected their behavior, such as productivity or performance (Johnsrud, 2002). For example, one of the earliest studies that looked at the relationship between job satisfaction and publication rates was conducted by McNeece (1981). The study examined scholarly productivity, tenure and job satisfaction of graduate social work faculty. Based on the analysis of data from the sample of 97 social work educators, using Pearson product-moment correlations, McNeece (1981) found little effect of job satisfaction on publication rates. Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) in their model of faculty productivity also examined the effect of satisfaction and morale on faculty productivity. In their model, job satisfaction and morale were included in the construct of self-knowledge, together with personal interest, commitment, efficacy, and psychological characteristics. The model of faculty productivity proposed by Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, and Staples (2005) is also noteworthy here. They suggested that the interaction between the motivation at the individual level and equitable rewards for research performance offered by the institution together with other institutional characteristics resulted in more productive faculty. All these studies (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Bland et al., 2005; McNeece, 1981) assumed an attitude (i.e., job satisfaction) leading to behavior (i.e., productivity) approach in their analyses of faculty productivity and satisfaction. There have been only a couple of other Journal of the Professoriate (5)2 104 studies that were implicitly grounded in the assumption that attitudes followed behavior (e.g., Jacobs & Winslow, 2004; Terpstra, Olson, & Lockeman, 1982). For example, the study by Terpstra, Olson, and Lockeman (1982) from Organizational Studies literature examined how faculty work attitudes and their job performance were affected by MBO, or management by objectives, which is an approach to management that aims at increasing performance by aligning organizational goals with employee objectives. The data were gathered from survey responses of 23 faculty members in the College of Business and Economics, interviews with department heads, and archival resources. The researchers concluded that performance increased as a result of the MBO, while satisfaction declined, indirectly suggesting that increased productivity resulted in depressed satisfaction. A more recent study by Jacobs and Winslow (2004) is also noteworthy because it discussed the effects of time pressures and length of the