Addressing the Adjunct Underclass: Fit and Employment Outcomes in Part-Time Faculty
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•162 views
This document summarizes a study that examined the relationship between person-environment fit and employment outcomes for part-time adjunct faculty. The study hypothesized that higher person-environment fit would positively correlate with job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Survey data were collected from adjunct faculty across three time periods. Results supported the hypotheses that higher fit correlates with better job performance and job satisfaction, but not organizational commitment. Most demographic variables did not significantly impact outcomes. The findings suggest improving fit through targeted recruitment, selection, and retention strategies could benefit adjuncts' employment experiences.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Addressing the Adjunct Underclass: Fit and Employment Outcomes in Part-Time Faculty
Similar to Addressing the Adjunct Underclass: Fit and Employment Outcomes in Part-Time Faculty (20)
More from Jeremy Anderson
More from Jeremy Anderson (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Addressing the Adjunct Underclass: Fit and Employment Outcomes in Part-Time Faculty
- 2. Jeremy Anderson My background is in teaching & learning, technology, and their intersection. I've taught at both the secondary and higher education level, designed distance programming, managed a wide variety of traditional technology implementations, and led teams. I pursue a personal mission of expanding access to high quality education. Welcome
- 4. Institutions increasingly rely on adjuncts Adjuncts often experience negative outcomes Little research on improving adjuncts’ outcomes ProblemStatement (Akroyd & Engle, 2014; Levin & Hernandez, 2014; National Center for Education Statistics, 2018; Umbach, 2007)
- 5. Populationof Part-Time Faculty,1970-2017 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 Part-Time Adjuncts, Count Part-Time Adjuncts, Proportion of All Faculty (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018)
- 6. Lower instructional costs Short-term section offering flexibility Long-term contract flexibility Institutional Benefits (Baldwin & Wawryznski, 2011)
- 7. Isolation Lack of support Desire full-time position Live below poverty line Hidden Costs for Adjuncts (American Federation of Teachers, 2010; Hoeller, 2014; Levin & Hernandez, 2014) typographyimages, pixabay
- 8. To measure part-time adjuncts’: • Person-environment (PE) fit (IV) • Employment outcomes (DVs) ─ Job performance ─ Job satisfaction (motivator and hygiene) ─ Organizational commitment To determine correlation between IV and DVs Purpose ofthe Study
- 9. To inform an evidence-based solution for improving employment outcomes in adjunct faculty By elevating PE fit through Aim of the Study Attraction Selection Retention
- 10. To what extent does person-environment (PE) fit correlate with job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in part-time adjunct faculty members? ResearchQuestion
- 11. (1) PE fit correlates positively with adjunct job performance (2) PE fit correlates positively with motivator and hygiene factors of job satisfaction in adjunct faculty (3) PE fit correlates positively with organizational commitment in adjunct faculty (4) Personal characteristics and demographic variables do not have significant relationships with adjuncts’ employment outcomes Hypotheses
- 13. Literature mixed, many operationalizations, not validated / tested for reliability AdjunctEmployment Outcomes Performance • Higher • Lower Cha and Carrier (2016); Umbach (2009) Commitment • Higher • Lower • No difference Akroyd and Engle (2014); Borchers and Teahen (2001); Cha and Carrier (2016) Satisfaction • Lower facet • Higher global Antony and Hayden (2011)
- 14. PE fit relates positively with employment outcomes in this study Subdomains of fit have varying impacts on different employment outcomes Possible to test correlation of holistic fit and subdomains with employment outcomes Person-EnvironmentFit (Chuang, Shen, & Judge, 2016; Edwards & Billsberry, 2010; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005)
- 15. PE fit increases through attraction, selection, attrition (Schneider, 1987) Attraction-Selection-AttritionFramework Selection • Interviews • Presentations • Skills tests • Dispositional tests Attrition • Training • Development • Socialization • Communication • Job redesign Attraction • Job descriptions • Job postings • Job fairs • Networking
- 17. Methodology
- 18. Quantitative correlational Surveys • Self-report: PE fit, demographics, job satisfaction, organizational commitment • Supervisor report: job performance ResearchDesign
- 19. Non-probability convenience sample Two email solicitations to part-time adjuncts at the institution Two email solicitations to program directors who supervised participants RecruitmentStrategy
- 20. Informed Consent • Mitigated power distance between investigator and participants • Limited potential for feelings of coercion Participant Coding & Records Security • Stored data in password-protected survey system • Anonymized data to prevent use for negative employment decisions by the organization Ethical Considerations
- 21. Stage 1 3 weeks PE Fit Demographics Stage 2 3 weeks Satisfaction, Commitment Stage 3 4 weeks Job Performance Academic Session 9 weeks Instructor preview period through incomplete period DataCollectionProcedures
- 22. Data CollectionTools(IV & CVs) PE Fit Perceived Person-Environment Fit Scale (Chuang, Shen, & Judge, 2016) • Person-organization fit • Person-supervisor fit • Person-job fit • Person-group fit Demographics National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (select questions) • Age • Employment duration • Gender • Race & ethnicity • Desire for full-time job
- 23. Job Performance In-role behavior items from Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (Williams & Anderson, 1991) Job Satisfaction Dimensions of Part-Time Faculty Job Satisfaction scale (Hoyt, 2012) Organizational Commitment Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990) DataCollectionTools(DVs)
- 24. Phase 1 Sept-Nov 98 44 42 32 32 87 46 43 35 37 Total Adjuncts Actively teaching in session Opted In Submitted PPEFS & NSOPF Completed Stage 1 PE Fit and Demographics Completed Stage 2 Satisfaction & Commitment Completed Stage 3 Job Performance Phase 2 Jan-Mar
- 25. Phase 1 Sept-Nov 98 44 42 32 32 87 46 43 35 37 Total Adjuncts Actively teaching in session Opted In Submitted PPEFS & NSOPF Completed Stage 1 PE Fit and Demographics Completed Stage 2 Satisfaction & Commitment Completed Stage 3 Job Performance Phase 2 Jan-Mar
- 26. Demographics • Gender • Race and ethnicity • Age Academic background • Highest degree attained • Principle teaching field ParticipantsReflectedPopulation
- 27. Homoscedasticity Levene’s test Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Shapiro-Wilk test Linearity Scatter plots Testing ModelAssumptions
- 28. Hypotheses 1, 2a, 2b, 3 • Continuous: Kendall’s τ Hypothesis 4 • Continuous: Pearson’s r, Kendall’s τ • Dichotomous: t-test, Mann-Whitney U • Categorical: Kruskal-Wallis H Testing Hypothesesby VariableTypes
- 29. Testing ControlVariables Job Performance Satisfaction Motivator Satisfaction Hygiene Organizational Commitment Age Kendall Ď„ Pearson r Pearson r Pearson r Employment Duration Kendall Ď„ Kendall Ď„ Kendall Ď„ Kendall Ď„ Gender Mann-Whitney U t t t Race Kruskal-Wallis H Kruskal-Wallis H Kruskal-Wallis H Kruskal-Wallis H Desire Full-Time Mann-Whitney U t t t Highest Degree Kruskal-Wallis H Kruskal-Wallis H Kruskal-Wallis H Kruskal-Wallis H
- 30. Findings
- 31. Data AnalysisProcedure Preparation Excel • Summed scale scores by participant • Matched participants’ responses across instruments Analysis SPSS • Tested model assumptions • Tested experimental hypotheses • Tested control hypothesis
- 32. Hypothesis1: Fit& performance Ď„= .17 95% BCa CI [.001, .344] p = .048
- 33. Hypothesis2a: Fit& motivators Ď„= .35 95% BCa CI [.166, .508] p < .001
- 34. Hypothesis2b: Fit& hygiene factors Ď„= .36 95% BCa CI [.182, .513] p < .001
- 35. Hypothesis3: Fit& commitment Ď„= .11 95% BCa CI [-.069, .299] p = .195
- 36. Hypothesis 4: Controls Job Performance Satisfaction Motivator Satisfaction Hygiene Organizational Commitment Age Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Employment Duration Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Gender Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Race Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Desire Full-Time Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Highest Degree Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
- 37. Hypothesis Variable Type Variable(s) Result 1 IV DV PE fit Job performance Supported 2a IV DV PE fit Motivator factors of job satisfaction Supported 2b IV DV PE fit Hygiene factors of job satisfaction Supported 3 IV DV PE fit Organizational commitment Not Supported 4 CVs DVs Personal characteristics, demographics Employment outcomes Mostly Supported (22 of 24 tests) Summary ofFindings
- 38. Conclusions
- 39. Logic Model If PE fit correlates with employment outcomes, And attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) relates to increased PE fit, Then ASA also should correlate with improved employment outcomes
- 40. Attraction methods • Revise adjunct job description Selection methods • Administer Organizational Culture Profile • Administer job profile instrument Retention methods • Add values and role requirements to training • Collect ongoing evidence of fit and outcomes ProposedSolution
- 41. ChangeTheory and Leadership Schein (1987) Evaluate Unfreeze ChangeRefreeze
- 42. Change sponsor Project manager Implementation team ChangeLeaders Young (2016)
- 43. Stakeholders Core Part-time adjuncts Academic administrators Faculty professional development staff Full-time faculty Support Human resources Information technology External groups
- 44. Create ASA interventions to increase adjuncts’ PE fit Promote positive employment outcomes for adjuncts Develop instructional competency Reduce time spent on hiring, providing corrective feedback Implicationsfor Practice
- 45. Addressed gaps • Extended PE fit research into adjunct population • Standardized operationalizations of employment outcomes Need for additional study • Organizational commitment • Age, employment duration, and job satisfaction • Test the proposed solution • Verify findings across wider population Implicationsfor Research
- 46. Psychological basis for leadership (Haslam, 2011) • Generate stronger group identity (fit) • Champion whole group by including adjuncts Transformational leadership (Bass, 1990) • Vision creation: positive future state for adjuncts • Individualized consideration: match socialization to needs Implicationsfor Leadership
- 47. Questions?
- 48. Akroyd, D., & Engle, D. (2014). An examination of the levels and differences in organizational commitment of full and part time community college faculty. Journal of Modern Education Review, 4(10), 742–49. https://doi.org/10.15341/jmer(2155-7993)/10.04.2014/002 Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x American Federation of Teachers. (2010). A national survey of part-time/adjunct faculty. American Academic, 2, 1-15. Antony, J. S., & Hayden, R. A. (2011). Job satisfaction of American part-time college faculty: Results from a national study a decade later. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(9), 689-709. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920801949513 References
- 49. Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know; What we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485-1509. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0002764211409194 Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090- 2616(90)90061-S Borchers, A. S., & Teahen, J. (2001, December). Organizational commitment of part-time and distance faculty. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA. Cha, M. Y., & Carrier, C. A. (2016). Contingent faculty perceptions of organization support, workplace attitudes, and teaching evaluations at a public research university. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 1, 121-151. https://doi.org/10.28945/3429
- 50. Chuang, A., Shen C.-T., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Development of a multidimensional instrument of person-environment fit: The Perceived Person-Environment Fit Scale (PPEFS). Applied Psychology, 65(1), 66-98. doi:10.1111/apps.12036 Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Edwards, J. A., & Billsberry, J. (2010). Testing a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 4(12), 476-493. Feldman, D. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2001). A field study of adjunct faculty: The impact of career stage on reaction to non-tenure-track jobs. Journal of Career Development, 28(10), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484530102800101 Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
- 51. Hoeller, K. (2014). The academic labor system of faculty apartheid. In K. Hoeller (Ed.), Equality for contingent faculty: Overcoming the two-tier system (pp. 116-155). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Hornug, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top-down and bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 187–215. doi:10.1002/job.625 Hoyt, J. E. (2012). Predicting the satisfaction and loyalty of adjunct faculty. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(3), 132-142. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.722417 Levin, J. S., & Hernandez, V. M. (2014). Divided identity: Part-time faculty in public colleges and universities. The Review of Higher Education, 37(4), 531-557. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2014.0033
- 52. National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Number of faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by employment status, sex, control, and level of institution: Selected years, fall 1970 through fall 2017. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_315.10.asp Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. Kulik, J. A. (2001). Student Ratings: Validity, Utility, and Controversy. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(109), 9–25. doi:10.1002/ir.1 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. doi:10.1016/1053- 4822(91)90011-Z.
- 53. Meyer, K. A., & Murrell, V. S. (2014). A national study of training content and activities for faculty development for online teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i1.355 Monks, J. (2009). Who are the part-time faculty? Academe, 95(4), 33-37. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Schein, E. H. (1987). Process consultation: Vol. 2. Its role in organization development (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x Sekiguchi, T., & Huber, V. L. (2011). The use of person–organization fit and person–job fit information in making selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.04.001
- 54. Stevens, & Szmerekovsky (2010). Attraction to employment advertisements: Advertisement wording and personality characteristics. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 107-126. Townsend, R. B., & Hauss, M. E. (2002, October). The 2002 AHA-OAH survey of part-time and adjunct faculty. Perspectives on History, 1-8. Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91-123. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0080 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 Young, T. L. (2016). Successful project management (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: KoganPage.
Editor's Notes
- My experience at four institutions of higher education has brought me into contact with many adjuncts. I have taught as an adjunct, delivered professional development to adjuncts, and worked with adjuncts in designing and teaching courses
- Through these interactions, many of my part-time colleagues have expressed a tension in serving in their roles This is what drove my interest in exploring this population
- Increasing reliance both in absolute numbers and as proportion of instructional faculty Define employment outcomes and list the ones in the study individual-level results, categorized as behaviors and perceptions or attitudes that an employee experiences when carrying out a job (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012) for example – job performance and job satisfaction, both of which have been demonstrated to be lower in adjuncts Most research to date has been on understanding who part-timers are and what they share in common
- ~600,000 more adjuncts ~30% increase in share of instructors 46.8% of all instructors in 2017
- Institutions likely will continue these employment trends and negative outcomes will persist unless solutions are provided Roughly 30% live at or near poverty line
- Definitions Person-environment fit: the complementary and supplementary compatibility between an individual and a work environment. Subdomains include the fit between a person and her job, her supervisor, her organization, and her work group……Decades of organizational behavior research indicate PE fit relates to positive outcomes for employees and organizations. Job performance: the assessment of an individual’s execution of the duties and responsibilities specific to his or her job that contribute directly to an organization’s core purpose (Barksdale & Werner, 2001; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) Job satisfaction: an employee’s positive emotional state upon appraising his or her job experiences with factors related to the work of the job (Herzberg et al., 1966) Organizational commitment: the level at which an individual feels an emotional attachment to an organization, acknowledges the cost of leaving an organization, and feels a social obligation to continue employment at the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991)
- This is a framework proposed by Schneider (1987) and since validated by many fit studies.
- Of the various employment outcomes, this study looked at Job performance Job satisfaction Organizational commitment
- Hypothesis 4 is a control to ensure that PE fit is the primary relationship being measured.
- In terms of job performance, Kulik (2001), for example, summarized that institutions tend to use four methods to evaluate faculty: student learning, student ratings, alumni ratings, and formal evaluation observations. The variety of operationalizations has been reflected in the current literature, so there are conflicting reports of positive, negative, and neutral outcomes for adjuncts. Antony and Hayden (2011) when looking at the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty arrived at the paradoxical conclusion that adjuncts are more globally satisfied with their jobs, but that they experience lower levels of facet satisfaction. Smaller scale studies like Townsend and Hauss (2002) have found poor levels of satisfaction, which further confuses current understandings. Studies on organizational commitment among adjuncts are marked by more rigor in applying standard operationalizations and measurement instruments. However, findings have been contradictory and may depend on the sample drawn by the researchers. More research is needed and it should follow standard operationalizations wherever possible to increase replicability in other settings.
- Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005) found PE fit correlates with positive employment outcomes, including the variables in the proposed study. PJ fit = job satisfaction PO fit = organizational commitment Edwards and Billsberry (2010) and Chuang (schwan), Shen, and Judge (2016) confirmed these effects while considering PE fit holistically and by subdomain.
- Schneider’s (1987) ASA model is widely used in fit literature to explain how fit is established in organizations Stevens and Szmerekovsky SMEAR A KOVSKY (2010) showed job descriptions can attract for fit Sekigucki and Huber (2011) demonstrated hiring managers can select well for various subdomains of fit Cable and Parsons (2001) and Hornug et al. (2010) found that organizations can increase fit with employees through post-hire socialization tactics and job redesign, respectively.
- Bass’s transformational leadership model inspired and informs this study. Idea is to motivate followers with a mission and vision to transcend individual benefits and to work for group benefits. Inspirational motiv: envision way to engage part-time adjuncts to improve their outcomes Intellect stim: problem solve with stakeholders to improve without more cost Individ consid: consider adjuncts as valuable partners Idealized influence: set the standard for ethical treatment
- Creswell (2009) indicated that quantitative studies are appropriate when the relationships between variables are well-established In this case, decades of research have shown that PE fit relates with outcomes (Kristof-Brown, et al, 2005; Chuang et al., 2016), but untested in the target pop adjuncts Babbie (2014) suggested that a correlational design would be appropriate - variables under study are continuous Surveys were efficient and effective: prospective participants were many and geographically dispersed Instruments have been validated and found to be reliable for measuring variables over many studies
- Chose a non-prob convenience sample because: adjuncts very dispersed Adjuncts hard to track as active since short-term contracts Choosing a site where I had a relationship allowed Working with registrar to define the population of “actively teaching” easier contact with adjuncts Tapping support of academic administrators to promote particip Trade offs: Smaller pop since only looking at institution – this is a limitation for future study Those joining sample may not be rep of pop at instit – needed to test
- Consideration Power distance between me and participations – I’m a leader of org, my team trains and supports them; could feel evaluated Use the informed consent letter to opt into the study and allay those fears Records security These data could be used for employment decisions. All source info will be kept in a password-protected system. Aggregated data will remove identifying info prior to analysis
- Stage 1 and Stage 2 spread out to avoid common methods bias for reporting attitudinal outcomes (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) Stage 3 after adjuncts done teaching so PDs could get full picture but late enough to avoid feelings of possible retribution
- PPEFS is a holistic measure of fit that is broken down into four subdomains – PO, PJ, PS, PG – with several questions each. Leads to domain fit scores and an overall fit score. Cronbach’s a all .84 or higher Positive outcomes on discriminant validity (age and gender) and criterion-related validity (satisfaction, e.g.) NSPOF is a large-scale survey that is sent to all adjuncts by the USDE. Selected questions relating to demographics will be used in this study.
- Job performance will be measured by the in-role behavior items from Williams and Anderson’s overall organizational citizenship behavior instrument Job satisfaction will come from Hoyt’s instrument that is based on Herzberg’s two-factor model of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The items have been targeted specifically to the target population. Hygiene – pay, hours, etc. – absence leads to dissatisfaction, presence does not mean satisfaction Motivators – actual work, recognition – presence leads to satisfaction, absence does not mean dissatisfaction Org commitment drawn from Allen and Meyer’s three-part model of commitment Affective – emotional attachment Normative – “I’m supposed to stay” Continuance – it would be too much of a burden to leave All of these tools were found to be reliable and valid during original construction Subsequent studies have confirmed these findings, especially for Williams and Anderson and Allen and Meyer which each have been used in dozens of studies
- Population was 185 90 opted in, with 85 completing and serving as sample 45.9% participation rate
- Retention rates into stages 2 and 3 were good 78.8% of the sample completed the attitudinal outcomes survey for 67 total adjuncts 81.1% of the sample had performance evaluations from program directors for 69 total adjuncts
- To limit sampling bias in convenience samples, Cochran (1977) indicated the sample and population should be compared on key variables Sample data captured in the first survey Population data available in the SIS and an annual survey of all faculty in the fall for accreditation
- Correlation analysis and comparison of means are most sensitive to assumptions of linearity and normality, though equal variance also important in some tests (Field, 2013) Assumption of equal variance and linearity upheld, but normality was not in many cases Hypotheses 1, 2, 3: PE fit was non-normal as a result of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test Non-parametric correlation – Kendall t – was necessary Hypothesis 4 Outcomes - Job perf was non-normal; rest were normal Age – normal Employment duration – non-normal Gender – normal Race – non-normal Desire – normal Highest degree – non-normal
- Chose Kendall’s t because Howell (2010) found it to be better than Spearman’s rho for predicting the corresponding correlation in the population Hypothesis 4 Three types of Ivs: continuous, dichotomous, categorical with more than two categories Results of tests for assumptions meant need for parametric and non-parametric tests Parametric: pearson’s r, t-test Non-parametric: Kendall’s t, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis H
- Highlight job perf – non-parametric all the way down Employment duration, race, highest degree – non-parametric all the way across
- Excel will be used for preliminary work Adding scores on instruments Matching participants’ responses across instruments Then load the data into SPSS Simple correlation analysis for each DV Regression analysis between the controls – demographics – and IV and DVs Dummy code the demographic categories: ex – Male 0, Female 1
- Scatterplot of job performance and person-environment fit with line of best fit Test statistic showed a positive relationship with small effect size Significance was upheld by p value and the fact that the bootstrap confidence interval did not cross zero
- Scatterplot of motivator factors of satisfaction and person-environment fit with line of best fit Test statistic showed a positive relationship with small-to-medium effect size Significance was upheld by p value and the fact that the bootstrap confidence interval did not cross zero
- Scatterplot of hygiene factors of satisfaction and person-environment fit with line of best fit Test statistic showed a positive relationship with small-to-medium effect size Significance was upheld by p value and the fact that the bootstrap confidence interval did not cross zero
- Scatterplot of organizational commitment and person-environment fit with line of best fit Test statistic showed a very small positive relationship, but significance was not upheld
- Only age (r = .25, p = .042) and employment duration (Ď„ = .21, p = .021) had significant relationships with motivator factors of satisfaction. Effect sizes were small in both cases Consistent with Feldman and Turnley (2001) who found relationship between overall job satisfaction in adjuncts across career stages
- The findings for hypotheses 1, 2a, 2b, and 4 reflect the prior research, especially Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis and subsequent studies for developing holistic PE fit measures such as Edwards and Billsbury (2010) and Chuang et al. (2016) Hypothesis 3 was the one to buck the trends. An explanation could be that adjunct-institutions are built on short-term contracts, so there may not be enough time to build commitment (Meyer, Bobocel, Allen, 1991) Re-testing is necessary to see if this is stable
- The scope of this study was to test if the first premise was correct for adjuncts. It is applicable in many fields The second premise and the conclusion are informed by past research from Schneider & on but have not been tested in adjuncts. They form the basis for the proposed solution, which was outside of the scope of this study
- Train administrative staff on PE fit. Sekiguchi and Huber found that they can use this knowledge to attract and select better candidates Attract with job desc – Stevens and Smerekovsky OCP – Cable and Judge Retain through socialization – Cable and Parsons (training, comms)
- Unfreeze – motivate and prepare for change create urgency with research Present a vision of + outcomes for adjuncts & inst Commun widely, train folks Change – design the actual implementation projects Explain relationships between components Set goals and timelines Collect feedback Address resistance Refreeze – implement the projects in regular practice Engage other stakeholders to formalize (HR, IT, e.g.) Provide ongoing support Evaluate success of change Leadership roles based on Cawsey, Deszca, and Ingols (2012)
- Sponsor should be executive who can tap resources, remove barriers, impart a charge. Chief Academic Officer Project manager Would run the day-to-day, set timeline, establish goals, monitor progress, etc. Implementation team Would carry out the actual work, communicate/collect feedback from stakeholder groups Cross disc team from stakeholder groups Roles from Young (2016)
- Part-time adjuncts participate throughout attraction, selection, retention/socialization Acad admins attract, hire, develop adjuncts Fac prof dev staff socialize adjuncts through trainings, webinars, communications, and feedback (Meyer & Murrell, 2014) -------------------------------- HR support implementation team from the perspective of employment process and laws IT support implementation through technology systems for surveys and databases + reporting External groups – unions, accreditors, e.g. want better outcomes and integration for adjuncts
- Standard ops will allow replication of study by other researchers Org commitment – test relationship to other variables Age + employment duration relationship not in Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), but suggested by Feldman and Turnley (2001) Out of scope to test the ASA solutions The sample, while rep of the institution’s adjunct pop, was not rep of wider adjunct pop (Monks, 2009)
- Considered also servant leadership. Leader’s core purpose is to provide support and resources to followers so they are empowered. Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? The challenge with servant leadership is that it is very localized to the context and individuals of an organization. Harder to generalize in the same way as a designed intervention that transformative leaders are willing and able to implement.