AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION AMIDST ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

i
AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY JOB
SATISFACTION AMIDST ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
by
Melynda Conner
Copyright 2019
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Higher Education Administration
University of Phoenix

ProQuest Number:

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest

Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
27540179
27540179
2019

iii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the current qualitative instrumental case study was to explore how full-
time community college general education faculty members’ social exchange experiences
of systemwide organizational change relate to faculty job satisfaction. Data sources
included 12 semi-structured interviews with faculty, three semi-structured interviews
with administrators, and seven publicly available organizational documents. Analysis
revealed six distinct yet interconnected themes. Due to the statewide implementation of
the Drive to 55 collegiate completion initiatives and the two-year free-tuition last-dollar
TN Promise and TN Reconnect scholarship programs, Middle Tennessee community
college faculty experienced shifting and intensifying work expectations related to
autonomy, recognition, campus collegiality, and administrative trustworthiness. These
shifts exacerbated communication challenges between faculty and administrators which
in turn led faculty to experience additional frustration with an already full work load.
This study adds to the literature concerning faculty job satisfaction, social exchange, and
organizational change. It is essential that policymakers, administrators, and change agents
gain a better understanding of the implications of the faculty experience of free-tuition
Promise programs for heightened organizational and academic success for all.

iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to Dr. Kaye Warren, the person who first and
forevermore made me believe a PhD degree was waiting for me.

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks go to my family for their loving support and encouragement
throughout the past five years of long days and late nights; to my friends and coworkers
who provided understanding and cheerleading; to Dr. Debbie Ritter-Williams for all of
her patience, guidance, help, and support; and to my committee members, Dr. Kristopher
Bradley and Dr. Marsha Mims-Word, without whom this dissertation would not be
complete.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
List of Tables ......................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem......................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study........................................................................................ 7
Significance of the Study................................................................................. 8
Framework................................................................................................….11
Nature of the Study………………………………………………………...13
Data Collection…………………………………………………………15
Case and Participant Sample…………………….……………………...16
Research Questions........................................................................................ 17
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 18
Assumptions….……………………….……………….…………………………19
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations..................................................................... 21
Limitations…………………………….…………….………………….22
Delimitations…………………………..………………...……………...24
Chapter Summary......................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2: Literature Review.................................................................................29
Community Colleges…………………………………………..………………....30
Community Colleges as Organizations ...................................................…...32
Community College Faculty…………………………...……………………33
Tennessee Community Colleges…………………………………………….34

vii
Changes in Tennessee Community Colleges…......................................………....36
Public Good and Free Tuition………………………………………….…37
Organizational Change... ........................................................................................ ...38
Organizational Change Management ....................................................... 39
Developing Successful Organizational Change Processes...………41
Organizational Change and Social Exchange Theory…..…….………...42
Organizational Change in Community Colleges ..................................... 44
First- and Second-Order Organizational Change………….………...….45
Organizational Change and Faculty……………………..……..……….47
Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................................... 49
Faculty Job Satisfaction............................................................................ 50
Administrative Trustworthiness ...................................................... 51
Faculty Autonomy ........................................................................... 52
Faculty Recognition………...……….……………………...…….54
Campus Collegiality……………….………………………..……55
Effects of Low Faculty Job Satisfaction................................................... 57
Framework................................................................................................................. 60
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 3: Methodology............................................................................................ 64
Appropriateness of Research Method....................................................................... 65
Appropriateness of Research Design ........................................................................ 67
Population and Sample.............................................................................................. 70
Case Selection ........................................................................................... 70
Selection Criteria for Data Sources within the Case................................ 71

viii
Participant Selection................................................................................... 74
Participant Sample Size and Saturation............................................ 74
Document Selection and Sample Size……….…...….…………….75
Geographic Location………………………………..……………..76
Data Collection………………………………………..……………………….…77
Documentary Evidence………………..…….……………………...…..78
Interviews……………………………………………………..………...79
Confidentiality and Data Management………………………..………...80
Instrumentation……………………………………………………………………82
Interview Protocols……………………………………………...……..84
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………..…85
Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………………...88
Credibility……………………………………………………..……….89
.Transferability………………………………………………..………..90
Dependability………………………………………………….………90
Confirmability………………………………………………..………..91
Role of Researcher……………………………..………………………92
Chapter Summary…………………………………………………………………94
Chapter 4: Analysis and Findings…………………………………………………97
Research Questions………………………………………………………………..98
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………….99
Pilot Study Verification……………………………………………..…100
Sample Demographics and Saturation…………………………………101

ix
Overview of Data Collection Process……………………………..…106
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………...…..108
Themes…………………………………………………….…………110
Theme 1………………………………………………………….113
Theme 2………………………………………………………….116
Faculty Voice…………………………………………..…..117
Administrative Support………………………………….…119
Theme 3…………………………………………………………..123
Larger Class Sizes………………………………………….125
Overloads…………………………………………………..126
Advising……………………………………………………127
Theme 4…………………………………………………………..129
Student Preparation………………………………………...130
Student Motivation…………………………………………132
Classroom Dynamic………………………………………..134
Theme 5…………………………………...……………………...137
Compensation………………………………………………138
Recognition…………………………………………………139
Theme 6………………...…………………………………………144
Chapter Summary…………………………………………………………………147
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations…………………… …………….150
Research Questions………………………………………………..………………153
Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………….153

x
Research Question 1…………………….…………………………...154
Theme 1………………….………………………………………154
Research Question 2…………………………………………………156
Theme 2………………………………………………………….156
Theme 3………………………………………………………….160
Theme 4………………………………………………………….162
Theme 5………………………………………………………….167
Theme 6………………………………………………………….170
Limitations…………………………………………………………………..…...174
Recommendations to Leaders and Practitioners……………………………..…..176
Recommendations for Future Work………………………………..…………….181
Chapter Summary…………………………………………………..…………….183
References………………………………………………………..………………187

xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participant Invitations and Responses .......................................................…103
Table 2: Participant Self-Reported Demographics .......................................................106
Table 3: Alignment of Research Questions, Resulting Themes Initial Coding........111
Table 4: Progression from Codes to Categories to Theme: One Example ...................113

1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Success is not certain in organizational change due to the complexity of the
processes involved (Storey Richard, 2015). In fact, on average only 30 percent of
organizational change initiatives succeed (Vardaman, Amis, Dyson, Wright, Randolph,
2012). Experts suggest this low success rate may be due to the toll change takes on
employees (Wisse Sleebos, 2016). Research shows that how employees perceive the
uncertainties and ambiguities present during change initiatives has significant influence
on success (Vardaman et al., 2012). Thus, successful organizational change requires a
focus on employees in order to be sustainable (Ellett, Demir, Monsaas, 2015).
In general, as organizations experience rapid changes, feelings of uncertainty arise
within personnel, and these feelings often lead to a disconcerting lack of clarity about the
employees’ future with the organization (Yeo, Bennett, McNichol, Merkley, 2015).
According to Oreg, Vakola, and Armenakis (2011), the employees directly involved are
primarily concerned with any direct personal effects the organizational change might
have and tend to be resistant when the perceived personal impacts are negative. This
resistance is often due to a lack of clarity about both the purposes behind, and the
processes involved with the change, and can be mitigated if employees are provided
opportunities to participate in decision-making and are given a modicum of control over
personal environments (Oreg et al., 2011). However, when employees feel a lack of
control within the change process, intended results and overall goals of the reform
initiative may be derailed due to behaviors such as disengagement, avoidance, or
procrastination (Vardaman et al., 2012). Unfortunately, change agents and administrators

2
often are unaware of the powerful effects organizational change has on employees, and
neglect to attend to employees’ experiences amidst organizational change (Oreg et al.,
2011). This administrative neglect of employees’ experiences is found in all types of
organizations, including community colleges where organizational change is ever-present
due to the pressing demands of society and the workforce (Levin, Kater, Wagoner,
2006). Therefore, a current qualitative instrumental case study was undertaken to gather
the experiences of full-time community college faculty undergoing systemwide
organizational change in the interest of examining the effectiveness of change
management processes in higher education.
Background of the Problem
Higher education in the 21st
century is faced with ongoing and increasing
technological, political, societal, and economic challenges that require constant reaction,
flexibility, and reform (Ford, 2005). These challenges often lead to organizational change
that affects a multitude of stakeholders, including faculty (Ford, 2005). Maintaining
strong faculty bodies, especially during times of change, is a fundamental concern of
collegiate administrators (Dee, 2002). Therefore, understanding how faculty experience
and respond to organizational change during periods of postsecondary reform is an
important research concern in helping maintain faculty job satisfaction while facilitating
success of the change process (Ellett et al., 2015).
The National Center for Educational Statistics (2018) asserted that research aimed
at understanding who faculty are, what faculty do, and the changes they may be
experiencing is essential to ensuring the quality of the processes within, and the outcomes
of, postsecondary education. Neglecting to gather empirical knowledge about faculty job

3
satisfaction during organizational change creates a general problem where the academy
must then solely rely on conventional wisdom (which may or may not be accurate) during
decision-making processes concerning the professoriate, possibly resulting in serious
negative impacts on faculty morale, engagement, and retention, and ultimately on the
institution itself (Fleischman, Stephenson, Walker, Cook, 2017). For, “without quality
faculty, a college cannot survive” (Kleim Takeda-Tinker, 2009, p. 2).
To effectively foster an academic environment that supports sustained or
increased job satisfaction for faculty throughout organizational change processes, the
academy would benefit from a better understanding of what drives faculty job
satisfaction, not just in higher education in general, but more specifically, within
individual institutions (Ambrose, Huston, Norman, 2005). Following a review of more
than 70 job satisfaction studies published over a 60-year period, Oreg et al. (2011)
posited that a better understanding of job satisfaction is gained by evaluating employees’
affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses to the change. Particularly important is
examining the experiences of established, full-time faculty during significant transition
events due to the important and influential roles and responsibilities they have within the
institution (Yeo et al., 2015). Describing the experiences of full-time community college
faculty brings about a richer understanding of faculty job satisfaction amidst systemwide
organizational change processes.
Expanding organizational change and faculty job satisfaction research to include
community college faculty, who are often considered to be a less prestigious segment of
the professoriate, reduces the potential for oversimplification and distortion of faculty job
satisfaction issues within the literature regarding the academic profession which has

4
historically primarily focused on faculty in four-year institutions (Gumport, 2007).
Continuous monitoring of community college faculty members’ job satisfaction is
extremely important because the information gathered serves to strengthen institutional
improvement efforts, the quality of education, and overall health of the community
college (Arnold, 2017). Thus, monitoring full-time community college faculty job
satisfaction in the context of systemwide organizational change can help inform the
efforts of stakeholders, change agents, and administrators towards implementation and
enactment of successful change transitions.
The current study described herein was designed to expand the current base of
research and knowledge by exploring how full-time community college general education
faculty members’ experiences of systemwide organizational change relate to faculty job
satisfaction. The current qualitative research study was situated in a theoretical
framework of social exchange that evaluates positive and negative communication
interactions of community college faculty and administrators during times of systemwide
organizational change implementation. The current study of how faculty experience job-
satisfaction-related social exchanges in the context of systemwide organizational change
may benefit scholars, as well as institutional administrators as communications to faculty
regarding change initiatives are crafted and carried out with faculty amidst the change
processes.
Statement of the Problem
The face of the American community college is rapidly morphing (Littlepage,
Clark, Wilson, Stout, 2017). The enactment of collegiate completion initiatives that
include free tuition, such as Promise scholarships, represents an organizational change for

5
community colleges in the United States (Littlepage et al., 2017). Promise scholarships
had local beginnings in Philadelphia, the District of Columbia, and Harper College, as
well as a few in other individual colleges across the country (Littlepage et al., 2017).
However, the higher education landscape changed in 2014 with Tennessee’s Drive to 55
collegiate completion agenda that included two-year free-tuition last-dollar Tennessee
Promise (TN Promise) scholarships to all high school graduates statewide (Smith
Bowyer, 2016). The Drive to 55 was enacted by Governor Bill Haslam and the state
legislature to facilitate continued economic and workforce stability by challenging adult
Tennesseans to go back to school and raise the number of citizens with postsecondary
education from 32 percent to 55 percent by 2025 (Smith Bowyer, 2016).
Many legislative acts have been passed to aid the goal’s attainment, including
most significantly, the TN Promise scholarship program which in the first year of
implementation directly and immediately increased enrollment of first-time freshmen in
the state’s 13 community colleges by an average of 25 percent (Tennessee Higher
Education Commission, 2017). The initial success of Tennessee’s initiatives prompted a
nationwide movement toward the implementation of free-tuition Promise scholarship
programs which today exist nationwide in 200 communities and 43 states, with 16 of
those states developing their own systemwide initiatives (Hiestand, 2018). Thus,
community colleges nationwide are experiencing significant and often systemwide
organizational change (Roddy, 2016). One example of this change is the dramatic
increase in enrollment and the subsequent student support requirements brought about by
the Drive to 55 collegiate completion initiatives in Tennessee, which have challenged the

6
state’s community colleges by swelling classrooms, altering advising processes, and
necessitating institutional change (Roddy, 2016).
Understanding how to successfully manage change in an organizational context is
a fundamental challenge for both practitioners and researchers in all fields (Straatmann,
Kohnke, Hattrup, Mueller, 2016). Frisby, Goodboy, and Buckner (2015) called for
more research regarding aspects of organizational change that affect positive job
satisfaction outcomes for faculty. Similarly, Gumport (2007) has lamented the “woefully
incomplete” (p. 124) and insufficient understanding of the experiences and working
conditions of full-time community college faculty members within changing higher
education systems due to a lack of case studies. Although many research studies and
descriptions of postsecondary faculty job satisfaction have been published in the 21st
century (Frisby et al., 2015), the majority of them have analyzed faculty at four-year
colleges or universities (Levin et al., 2006), and only a handful have evaluated faculty job
satisfaction within the context of organizational change (Ellett et al., 2015; Mulà et al.,
2017; Storey Richard, 2015; Yeo et al., 2015). The current study is the first to focus
specifically on faculty job satisfaction within a community college environment
undergoing organizational change.
If not well-managed, organizational change in higher education can undermine
faculty retention, and negatively impact institutional health (Ambrose et al., 2005). Ford
(2005) warned that when implementing change in higher education, relationships and
people critical to the success of the change often go unseen due to a focused approach on
the content of the change. Kleim and Takeda-Tinker (2009) discovered that faculty in
public two-year institutions who are not satisfied with their jobs most often leave.

7
Therefore, understanding and maintaining faculty job satisfaction in community colleges
undergoing systemwide organizational change is of vital importance to change agents and
administrators who must continually work to combat turnover (Kleim Takeda-Tinker,
2009). Unless researchers, change agents, and administrators monitor faculty experiences
of job satisfaction in community colleges amidst systemwide organizational change
processes, no empirical knowledge will be available to effectively support success of the
change (Fleischman et al., 2017). Thus, the general problem is that organizational
change can lead to faculty job dissatisfaction and attrition (Ambrose et al., 2005), reduce
positive student-faculty interactions such as classroom instruction, negatively impact
student retention (Dee, 2002; Kleim Takeda-Tinker, 2009), and inhibit the success of
organizational change; thus, preventing systemwide goal success (Arnold, 2017; Bateh
Heyliger, 2014; Ellett et al., 2015; Wisse Sleebos, 2016).
Purpose Statement
The purpose of the current qualitative instrumental case study was to explore how
full-time community college general education faculty members’ social exchange
experiences of systemwide organizational change relate to faculty job satisfaction.
Therefore, the current study spans the research gaps concerning community college
faculty within both organizational change and faculty job satisfaction literature. Using the
selected community college as a case study, the research examined the experiences of
full-time general education faculty members during year four of a ten-year change
process by gathering documentary evidence in addition to interview responses from
faculty and administrators concerning faculty job satisfaction amidst systemwide
organizational change. The current study was then used to assess the reported experiences

8
of faculty in the context of the organizational change processes as those experiences
relate to faculty job satisfaction. Achieving the purpose of the current case study
broadened understanding about faculty job satisfaction and organizational change in
higher education. Administrators and change agents may utilize the more informed
understanding gained from the research results to facilitate success in future systemwide
organizational change implementation efforts in community colleges both in Tennessee
and across America.
Faculty work and its significance is not widely observed, understood, or
appreciated (Rosser, 2005). Historically, most studies on faculty satisfaction and
dissatisfaction have been conducted using quantitative methods and relied heavily on
survey data (Oreg et al., 2011; Ramos, Pontes, Costa e Silva, 2015). While data may be
more easily tabulated and ranked using quantitative analysis, the range of possible
participant responses is limited and may not capture the complete context, detail,
chronology, or interactions of events within faculty professional experience that may
impact satisfaction like qualitative methods can (Vogt, 2007). Therefore, the current
qualitative instrumental case study supplemented documentary evidence with detailed
personal experiences of full-time general education faculty and related administrators
collected through semi-structured interviews.
Through a qualitative analysis of documentary evidence and interviews, the
current research had the capacity to examine elements often overlooked in quantitative
studies including, but not limited to, the meanings participants ascribe to experiences, the
contexts in which participant experiences take place, and any spontaneous participant
realizations that may come about during the interview process (Ambrose et al., 2005).

9
Since qualitative research allows for deeper insight into participant perceptions (Merriam,
2009), a qualitative methodology was most appropriate for the current study given the
need to collect personal experiences from full-time faculty regarding systemwide
organizational change within the community college. Analysis of participant responses
revealed patterns and themes regarding how social exchange experiences of full-time
general education community college faculty members amidst organizational change
relate to faculty job satisfaction, thus building an underlying structure for the current
study.
Significance of the Study
The current qualitative instrumental case study adds to the body of knowledge
regarding a topic about which there is little research, and little understanding, namely
full-time community college faculty job satisfaction in the context of systemwide
organizational change. The research helps to identify circumstances and aspects of
organizational change in higher education that relate to faculty job satisfaction, and thus
lead to actions within institutions that encourage the enhancement of faculty job
satisfaction and create an environment more conducive to the ideals of academic life
(Fleischman et al., 2017). Administrators and change agents can benefit from
understanding more about how building trust in administrators, providing faculty
autonomy, celebrating faculty accomplishments, and fostering collegial relationships
relate to faculty job satisfaction, and subsequently to organizational change initiative
success.
The current exploration of how full-time community college general education
faculty members’ experiences of systemwide organizational change during year four of

10
Tennessee’s ten-year Drive to 55 collegiate completion initiative relate to faculty job
satisfaction, adds to the bodies of literature for both organizational change theory and
faculty job satisfaction. Moreover, the understandings gained also inform higher
education administrators and change agents in both the selected community college, and
in other changing institutions, regarding ways to improve faculty job satisfaction and
organizational change success. The underlying assumption is that gaining an
understanding of faculty experiences of systemwide organizational change that relate to
faculty job satisfaction provides insight into beneficial organizational social exchange
processes; thus, increasing the likelihood of organizational change success (Arnold, 2017;
Ellett et al., 2015).
The findings may also help prompt institutional considerations of changes in
infrastructure, human resource processes, institutional communication, and faculty
professional development opportunities to ameliorate factors that reduce faculty job
satisfaction. The current qualitative instrumental case study of systemwide organizational
change in a selected community college and the resulting effects on collegiate
stakeholders was warranted in order to provide administrators and change agents in the
Tennessee Board of Regents College System (TBR System) a frame of reference for
enacting and implementing future systemwide organizational changes. Furthermore, the
current qualitative instrumental case study was intended to add a community college
perspective to the literature on faculty job satisfaction, as well as on collegiate
completion initiatives such as Promise scholarship program enactment as a type of
organizational change.

11
Framework
Within the current qualitative research study, the construct of faculty job
satisfaction was broadly defined by four interrelated dimensions as identified by Rosser
(2005). These four significant areas of faculty members’ job satisfaction have been found
by multiple research studies to directly and significantly impact faculty attrition and
retention: (1) rewards and salary, (2) work and career satisfaction, (3) relationships with
students, colleagues, and administrators, and (4) benefits and job security (Rosser, 2005).
These extracted dimensions of faculty job satisfaction are not the only dimensions that
could be defined and evaluated, as there is little agreement on what comprises faculty job
satisfaction; however, the majority of research investigations of faculty job satisfaction
focus on one or more of these four areas (Rosser, 2005).
To focus the aforementioned broad dimensions of faculty job satisfaction for the
current research study, social exchange theory for use in group settings as described by
Thibaut and Kelley (1959) served as the theoretical framework. Social exchange theory
was originally developed to explain ways interpersonal relationships are developed and
maintained, but more recently has also been applied to relationships between
organizations and employees (Aryee, Walumbwa, Mondejar, Chu, 2015). While,
organizational employment relationships can be characterized as both economic and
social exchanges between management and employees, economic exchanges are
governed by contractual agreements and are legally enforceable, unlike social exchanges
which conversely involve voluntary action by each party within the exchange who
determine reciprocity by personal discernment and perceived obligation (Gould-Williams
Davies, 2005). Attitudes and behaviors govern organizational social exchanges as each

12
party makes decisions concerning reciprocity based on perceptions of resulting costs and
rewards to the employment relationship (Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005). Thus, employee
attitudes and discretionary behaviors play an important role in organizational success, as
well as in organizational change success, and positive social exchanges generally result in
reciprocal positive responses between parties, even amidst organizational change (Gould-
Williams Davies, 2005). Gould-Williams and Davies’ (2005) research determined four
types of social exchanges within organizations that impact employee job satisfaction
during systemwide organizational change processes: (1) trust in management, (2)
intimate exchanges within teams, (3) worker empowerment and involvement, and (4) fair
rewards for workers.
Translating and synthesizing specifically for the purposes of the current
qualitative instrumental case study, the four types of social exchanges within a higher
education context that impact faculty job satisfaction amidst systemwide organizational
change become: (1) administrative trustworthiness, (2) campus collegiality, (3) faculty
autonomy, and (4) faculty recognition. These four social exchange categories within the
context of higher education amidst organizational change align with Rosser’s (2005)
identified areas of faculty job satisfaction and Gould-Williams and Davies (2005) social
exchange types related to employee job satisfaction amidst organizational change.
Faculty recognition encompasses both Rosser’s (2005) rewards and salary, and benefits
and job security, as well as Gould-Williams and Davies’s (2005) fair rewards.
Administrative trustworthiness derives directly from Gould-Williams and Davies’s
(2005) trust in management, and faculty autonomy derives from empowerment and
involvement. Both of these components are in line with Rosser’s (2005) work and career

13
satisfaction. Finally, campus collegiality aligns with Rosser’s (2005) relationships with
students, colleagues, and administrators and Gould-Williams and Davies’s (2005)
intimate exchanges with team members. Therefore, pairing Rosser’s (2005) four
dimensions of faculty job satisfaction with Gould-Williams and Davies’ (2005) four
types of influential social exchanges within organizations that affect employee job
satisfaction during systemwide organizational change processes creates the translated
model of faculty job-satisfaction-related social exchanges within a changing higher
education context.
Therefore, in the current exploration of full-time community college general
education faculty members’ experiences of job satisfaction amidst systemwide
organizational change, the construct of faculty job satisfaction was framed conceptually
by the four social exchange aspects of administrative trustworthiness, campus
collegiality, faculty autonomy, and faculty recognition. Faculty experience of these four
components were viewed and analyzed through the lens of social exchange theory and
the essentially paired theoretical concepts of socioemotional exchange and reciprocity.
Inevitably, the researcher’s subjectivity is also part of the current study’s framework and
may have been essential when analyzing data and understanding the case since the
researcher did her best to remain disciplined and adhere to self-monitoring (Simons,
2009).
Nature of the Study
Qualitative studies are distinct from quantitative studies since the goal of a
qualitative study is to seek to illuminate personal experiences of phenomena in a specific
context and at a particular time and examine those experiences to gain a holistic

14
understanding (Merriam, 2009). The purpose of the current qualitative instrumental case
study was to explore how full-time community college general education faculty
members’ social exchange experiences of systemwide organizational change relate to
faculty job satisfaction. Therefore, qualitative methods were the most appropriate
research approach to fulfill the objective of the study because qualitative studies capture
an individual participant’s point of view, evaluate constraints of everyday life, and secure
rich descriptions of experiences (Harrison et al., 2017). Utilizing a qualitative research
methodology for the study allowed for the development of a rich, in-depth description of
faculty lived experiences at the selected community college and provided a deeper
understanding of the central phenomenon.
Due to the bounded system and the educational nature of the central phenomenon
of the current research study, a case study design was recommended as most appropriate
(Merriam, 1998). A strength of the qualitative case study design is the open nature, which
provides the researcher flexibility to shift focus as the study progresses in response to
unanticipated events towards a more developed understanding of the case or a redirection
by participants (Simons, 2009). Thus, the case study design allowed the researcher to
examine the faculty experiences organizational change brought about through
implementation of the state’s free-tuition program and the resulting impact on faculty job
satisfaction both in detail and to great depth.
The facts that the real-world organizational and social environments in which the
phenomenon of faculty job satisfaction occurs are ever-changing, and that the boundaries
between the context of the case and the phenomenon itself are not quite clear, provide
further support for the appropriateness of the case study design (Yin, 2013). Ultimately,

15
case studies serve as responsive evaluation tools for stakeholder-identified issues,
providing impartial information to support public decision-making and debate (Simons,
2009). For these reasons, an examination of participant experiences through a qualitative
instrumental case study was appropriate and beneficial to empirically study how
organizational communication, namely social exchanges at the selected public
community college, relate to faculty job satisfaction amidst systemwide organizational
change brought about by collegiate completion legislation.
Data Collection
The current qualitative instrumental case study included the researcher as a data
collection instrument conducting interviews with both full-time faculty and
administrators, as well as conducting qualitative content analysis of documentary
evidence. The researcher field tested the interview protocols to determine if the interview
questions were clearly understood by participants and to determine if the interview
questions yielded the information needed to answer the research questions. No revisions
were made to the interview protocol based on field test results.
The review of documentary evidence allowed the researcher to evaluate
passages, excerpts, and quotations within documents and records, and to extract selected
items of relevance for the study. The emergent nature of qualitative research allowed the
researcher to add more data sources during the data collection process when those
sources were found to be important to gaining a richer, more in-depth and complete
understanding of the case. Analysis of the data collected was performed to answer the
research questions.

16
Case and Population Sample
Participants in the current qualitative instrumental case study were full-time
general education faculty and administrators of a selected Middle Tennessee community
college undergoing systemwide organizational change. All participants provided
information indicating at least two consecutive semesters of full-time employment at a
Tennessee community college since 2015. In addition, the participants indicated general
education courses taught, and role within the community college (faculty or
administrator) for distinction during data collection and application of themes. Five full-
time faculty members from three specific general education departments (Humanities
Fine Arts, Social Behavioral Sciences, and Natural Sciences) for a total of 15 faculty
members were initially invited to participate in the study along with five related academic
administrators. The online directory listed 93 full-time faculty, 44 of whom were working
within the relevant academic departments chosen for the selected case. Thus, a sample
size of at least 15 participants was sufficient and achievable for the current qualitative
instrumental case study.
Documentary evidence for the proposed study was obtained through a thorough
inspection of records regarding system requirements for community college general
education and curricular structure, systemwide academic initiatives, and institutional
documents including departmental meeting minutes, faculty council meeting minutes,
institutional effectiveness reports, faculty handbooks, and institutional employee
satisfaction surveys. At minimum, seven documents, all of which were publicly available
via the institutional website, were reviewed including the institutional fact book. All
records used were public access documents that needed no special permissions to view.

17
Research Questions
The central phenomenon of the current study was faculty job satisfaction as
evidenced within full-time general education community college faculty social exchange
experiences during systemwide organizational change. The central research question for
the current study was: How do full-time community college general education faculty
members’ experiences of social exchanges within the community college environment
during the Drive to 55 systemwide organizational change initiatives relate to faculty job
satisfaction? The central research question was explored through the current qualitative
instrumental case study of a select community college in the Middle Tennessee Grand
Region by interviewing full-time general education faculty and administrators, and by
analyzing documentary evidence such as departmental meeting minutes and faculty
council meeting minutes during year four of a ten-year systemwide organizational change
process. Answers to the following research questions achieved the purpose of the current
study by exploring faculty job satisfaction through a social exchange lens. The questions
focused on full-time community college general education faculty experiences of
administrative trustworthiness, faculty autonomy, faculty recognition, and institutional
collegiality in the context of systemwide organizational change:
RQ1. How do full-time community college general education faculty members’
experiences of social exchanges within the community college environment
during the Drive to 55 systemwide organizational change initiatives relate to
faculty job satisfaction?
RQ2. How do experiences of administrative trustworthiness during systemwide
organizational change relate to faculty job satisfaction?

18
RQ3. How do experiences of workplace autonomy during systemwide
RQ4. How do experiences of workplace recognition during systemwide
RQ5. How do experiences of institutional collegiality during systemwide
In researching and presenting findings from the current study, the primary goal is to
provide empirical evidence that can be used by community college administrators and
change agents to craft successful organizational change processes through social
exchanges, especially when considering or planning the introduction of free-tuition
Promise scholarship programs.
Definition of Terms
Collegiality-- a faculty member’s sense of fit among colleagues, personal interactions
with colleagues, collegial help with work-related tasks when needed, and collegial
support for creating a reasonable work/life balance (COACHE, 2014)
Community college—a two-year postsecondary institution “usually supported by the
government offering one- and two-year courses and awarding certificates or two-year
degrees” (Arnold, 2017, p. 20)
Full-time faculty—faculty employed by the community college who teach a full
course load, have advising responsibilities, and serve on committees (Smith, 2011)
Faculty autonomy—the “ability to structure and influence assigned responsibilities in
teaching, research, and service” (Yeo et al., 2015, p. 285)

19
Faculty job satisfaction—an instructor’s “affect toward their profession and their
students” (Frisby et al., 2015, p. 71)
General education courses—courses fundamental to the baccalaureate degree and
essential to completion of all majors and minors (Tennessee Board of Regents, 2002)
Job satisfaction—the condition of contentment with one’s work and its environment”
(Arnold, 2017, p. 20)
Organizational change—the “alteration of organizational purposes and processes”
(McKinney Morris, 2010, p. 190)
Social exchanges— communication interactions which are “based on long-term
unspecified exchanges of tangible and intangible resources…done voluntarily in
accordance with the norm of reciprocity” (Aryee et al., 2015, p. 233).
Assumptions
The current study had a few underlying assumptions. Philosophically grounding
the current qualitative instrumental case study was the interpretive perspective that
individuals have unique experiences and interpretations of experiences. Therefore, a
foundational assumption that multiple realities existed within the case required
triangulation of data sources to fully share participant perspectives in a rich, in-depth
description of the phenomenon (Yin, 2013). In the current qualitative instrumental case
study, multiple perspectives of full-time general education community college faculty
and related administrators were collected through semi-structured interviews with faculty,
semi-structured interviews with administrators, and a content analysis of documentary
evidence to construct a rich, in-depth description of faculty job satisfaction in the context
of organizational change.

20
Another assumption was that the chosen research design was appropriate for
exploring the research questions and resulted in desirable outcomes for addressing the
problem as identified within the study (Merriam, 2009). The research question was how
full-time community college general education faculty members’ experiences of social
exchanges during the implementation of Drive to 55 systemwide organizational change
initiatives relate to faculty job satisfaction. Yin (2013) asserted that case studies are
preferred when researchers ask “how” or “why” questions, when the researcher is not
controlling events, and when the phenomenon of interest is current and relevant to real
life. Stake (1995) described instrumental case studies as those in which the primary
objective is to gain understanding of a specific phenomenon. Therefore, the qualitative
instrumental case study was assumed to be an appropriate research design for the current
study.
A third assumption was that the problem as identified in the current study is an
actual problem that exists in the research literature and related knowledge base. A review
of the literature emphasized that organizational change is rarely sustainable without a
focus on employees (Ellett et al., 2015). The literature review also revealed a gap in the
understanding of the experiences of community college faculty (Gumport, 2007), a gap in
the knowledge base of faculty job satisfaction for community college faculty (Levin et
al., 2006), and a gap in the empirical understanding of faculty job satisfaction during
organizational change that might aid in success of the change processes (Fleischman et
al., 2017). Since faculty job satisfaction is a crucial element of successful, sustainable
systemwide organizational change in higher education, a clearer understanding of how
faculty members experience social exchanges that support job satisfaction during change

21
processes within the selected case may improve administrative understanding of
successful change management approaches for current and future cases beyond the
current study herein.
Further assumptions were that participants of the current study, who are faculty
and staff of the selected Middle Tennessee community college, would provide the
necessary information throughout the interview process. The assumptions associated with
the current qualitative instrumental case study method are: (a) full-time faculty and
administrators who have worked at a Tennessee community college would participate in
the study; (b) all participants would provide open and honest responses to the interview
and survey questions; and (c) a participant’s gender or generational affiliation would not
significantly affect perceptions. Participants most likely provided honest responses to the
researcher’s interview questions because the participants volunteered to participate in the
current study. Additionally, participants were assured confidentiality regarding
participation in the current study which may have helped limit any concerns participants
had about answering questions honestly even when discussing administrators, coworkers,
or the systemwide organizational change process.
Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations
The participants in the current qualitative instrumental case study were full-time
faculty and administrators of a selected Middle Tennessee community college undergoing
systemwide organizational change. All participants provided information indicating at
least two consecutive semesters of full-time employment at a Tennessee community
college since 2015. All faculty participants also had taught at least two general education
courses since 2015. In addition to the qualifying criteria above, for distinction during data

22
collection and application of themes, the participants indicated general education courses
taught, and their role within the community college (faculty or administrator). Five full-
time faculty members from three general education departments (Humanities Fine
Arts, Social Behavioral Sciences, and Natural Sciences) for a total of 15 faculty
members were initially invited to participate in the current study along with five related
academic administrators.
Data for the current study was obtained from three primary sources. First, the
researcher conducted a thorough inspection of documentary evidence regarding system
requirements for community college general education and curricular structure,
systemwide academic initiatives, and institutional documents including departmental
meeting minutes, faculty council meeting minutes, institutional effectiveness reports, and
institutional employee satisfaction surveys. Second, face-to-face semi-structured open-
ended interviews were conducted with faculty regarding personal experiences of job
satisfaction during organizational change. Finally, face-to-face semi-structured open-
ended interviews were conducted with related administrators regarding faculty job
responsibilities and any measures taken to maintain or build faculty job satisfaction
during organizational change. By triangulating the data obtained from the three primary
sources of faculty interviews, administrator interviews, and documentary evidence, a
richer, more in-depth and complete understanding of faculty job satisfaction amidst
systemwide organizational change resulted.
Limitations
Limitations may affect the results of the current study by placing restrictions on
the methodology and findings that are beyond the control of the researcher (Simons,

23
2009). Limitations point out threats to the trustworthiness of the study results and
acknowledge potential weaknesses regarding credibility and dependability (Yin, 2013).
There are limitations outside of the researcher’s control that may impact the
trustworthiness of the current qualitative instrumental case study.
A lack of voluntary participation or willingness to divulge sensitive information
could have both been limitations associated with the instrumental case study method
(Simons, 2009), and could have skewed results of the current study. A small sample size
of participating faculty and administrators may not have provided sufficient data about
faculty job satisfaction in the context of systemwide organizational change. However,
every effort was made by the researcher to maximize the number of participants involved
and to meet the minimum sampling expectations for qualitative studies, particularly for
the case study design (Hennick, Kaiser, Marconi, 2017). Likewise, the researcher took
measures to ensure adequate saturation of data was reached (van Rijnsoever, 2017).
Due to the time-bound nature of case studies, research results may have distorted
the reality of study participants in that perceptions and emotions are ever-changing, and
the data revealed may no longer accurately represent the present (Simons, 2009). The
resulting concern then, is that the findings may no longer be valid or useful for informing
policy decisions now that the study is complete (Simons, 2009). However, since the
systemwide organizational change process within the current study is only in year four of
a ten-year process, and since similar organizational change processes are just beginning
in community colleges around the country, the results of the current study may still prove
useful for the improvement of organizational change process success both for the selected
case as well as for similar cases elsewhere.

24
Case study research has potential limitations regarding data collection and
processing. As advised by Yin (1984), the interviews used for the current qualitative
instrumental case study were considered and treated only as verbal reports due to the
potential limitations of inaccurate recall and inadequate articulation. When conducting
the interviews, the researcher established rapport, but refrained from providing
information to the respondents or answering respondent questions to avoid any
interference with the gathering of objective data (Simons, 2009).
A final limitation of the current study may have been the subjectivity of the
researcher due to the way inferences may have been drawn from the instrumental case
study data and the way the resulting data are presented to readers (Simons, 2009). While
interviews were conducted with faculty within the system in which the researcher is
employed, the threat of biased responses by the participants was minimized since only
faculty with whom the researcher does not have a direct relationship participated.
Additionally, as a process of member checking (Baxter Jack, 2008; Carlson, 2010),
participants were allowed to review a brief summary of the main points and themes
derived from the interview and were provided time to reflect on the answers provided to
ensure accuracy and that thoughts and experiences were correctly communicated. This
measure increased the accurate representation of participant experiences.
Delimitations
Delimitations are parameters established by the researcher on the methodology
and findings of the study (Simons, 2009). Delimitations narrow a study’s scope,
explaining what the current study does not entail, and establishing clear boundaries both
for the current qualitative instrumental case study and the findings. These boundaries

25
help to determine if the findings resulting from the selected case may be transferable to
other cases or populations which exhibit similar characteristics (Yin, 2013).
Geographically, the current research study was confined to one community
college in Middle Tennessee. The current qualitative instrumental case study focused on
obtaining interviews with at least 15 participants: 12 general education faculty members,
and three related administrators. The participants described experiences of social
exchanges within the community college environment during year four of Tennessee’s
ten-year Drive to 55 systemwide collegiate completion initiatives. The four job-
satisfaction-related social exchanges explored within the current study were
administrative trustworthiness, faculty autonomy, faculty recognition, and campus
collegiality.
One delimitation of the current study was the use of full-time general education
faculty as opposed to part-time contingent or adjunct faculty. A difference in the use of
part-time contingent or adjunct faculty may have produced different results in terms of
faculty members’ lived experiences of social exchanges on campus. A similar
delimitation was the use of full-time general education faculty as opposed to faculty in a
specific discipline. Using faculty from one discipline likewise may have resulted in
different social exchange experiences for participants but may have also limited the
transferability of results.
A third delimitation for the current study was the focused context in which faculty
job satisfaction was explored. Few, if any, empirical measurements of faculty job
satisfaction within community colleges undergoing systemwide organizational change
exist and determining the aspects of organizational change that influence job satisfaction

26
has proven challenging (Frisby et al., 2015). The current study did not quantitatively
explore aspects of organizational change that influence job satisfaction in the community
college setting. Instead, the primary focus of the current qualitative instrumental case
study was how faculty job satisfaction is socially constructed during systemwide
organizational change processes by social exchanges on the community college campus,
specifically by faculty experiences of administrative trustworthiness, faculty autonomy,
faculty recognition, and campus collegiality. While these extracted dimensions of faculty
job satisfaction were not the only dimensions that could be defined and evaluated, and the
issues that comprise the construct of faculty job satisfaction are diverse, the current study
was limited in scope to those aspects most directly impacted by organizational change.
Therefore, the current study did not examine the overall context of faculty job satisfaction
in a community college undergoing systemwide organizational change, but rather
explored only the social exchange aspects of the context. The semi-structured interview
questions were designed to focus the respondents on the four specific social exchanges of
administrative trustworthiness, faculty autonomy, faculty recognition, and campus
collegiality.
The nonprobabilistic, purposive, typical sampling strategy paired with the small
sample size of the target population of the current study is another delimitation that
restricts transferability of findings. However, some transferability of results may occur to
institutions with analogous characteristics and change processes from qualitative
instrumental case studies that examine a specific phenomenon within a bounded case
(Stake, 1995). Also, depending upon the equivalence of relevant theoretical principles,
case study findings may be extended in certain situations to other cases with similar

27
characteristics (Yin, 2013). Thus, the findings of the current qualitative instrumental case
study may not be generalizable to other institutions but may contribute to further
understanding of the importance of faculty job satisfaction to the success of systemwide
organizational change at other two-year institutions.
Further delimitations impacting the completion of the current study were the time
and resources available to the one researcher. Because the current study only examined
one case, the findings are limited to the selected case and the participants who met the
selection criteria and volunteered to respond. Ideally, the current research study would
have included exploration of all 13 of Tennessee’s community colleges in a multi-case
study employing cross-case analysis to generate a richer, fuller description and
understanding of faculty job satisfaction in the context of systemwide organizational
change. Such a study may have allowed for greater transferability of the findings.
However, Yin (2013) warned that while larger, more in-depth case study research may be
desirable, the time, cost, and resources needed for such an undertaking may be
prohibitive and impractical. Furthermore, faculty job satisfaction is shaped by the
particular features and specific contexts of each institution in which faculty members live
and work including college size, locale, culture, mission, funding, administrators, and
student body (Ambrose et al., 2005). Thus, it benefits each school to evaluate and
understand just how institutional features influence faculty experiences and impact
faculty job satisfaction in order to identify strengths, target challenges, and implement
improvements specific to that organization (Ambrose et al., 2005; Kleim Takeda-
Tinker, 2009).

28
Chapter Summary
Organizational change impacts employees. Although significant research exists
examining how job satisfaction is affected by organizational change, further exploration
of how full-time general education faculty experience social exchanges on community
college campuses undergoing systemwide organizational change is needed to more fully
understand how those experiences relate to job satisfaction. A qualitative instrumental
case study method was suggested for the current research study due to the rich, in-depth
understanding of faculty job satisfaction that can be derived, as well as for the insight that
can potentially be provided regarding the relationship of organizational change to faculty
job satisfaction.
Change is happening in community colleges across the United States. The goal of
the current study was to explore the relationship of systemwide organizational change to
full-time general education faculty job satisfaction as evidenced by social exchanges in a
selected Middle Tennessee community college. Administrators and change agents would
benefit from a better understanding of faculty experiences of systemwide organizational
change and how those experiences relate to change initiative success. A review, analysis,
and synthesis of the literature focusing on community colleges, organizational change,
and faculty job satisfaction is provided in Chapter 2. Specifically, the chapter situates the
current study within the context of conceptual and theoretical frameworks related to
organizational change, faculty job satisfaction, and social exchange that supported the
current study.

29
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter serves as a thematic review of the literature and consists of three
topics that are central to the current study. First, an examination is presented of the
American community college and its importance to the nation’s economic health given
the recent incorporation of Promise scholarship programs, with a focus on Tennessee
community colleges, since the state served as the setting for the current study. Next,
attention is given to organizational change, particularly within higher education, and
social exchange theory is discussed in relation to organizational communication and
organizational change. Finally, this chapter concludes with attention to employee and
faculty job satisfaction, how employee and faculty experiences of change are influenced
by organizational change processes, and how employee and faculty job satisfaction relate
to organizational change initiative success.
The community college is explored as a distinct form of higher education
institution with an equally distinct faculty population and approach to organizational
change initiatives. An examination of the specific attributes of systemwide organizational
change in two-year community colleges, social exchange theory, and community college
faculty job satisfaction provides a framework for understanding how the research areas
may be related, specifically how faculty perceptions of social exchanges and experiences
of organizational change may affect faculty job satisfaction, and how faculty job
satisfaction may, in turn, affect the success of organizational change initiatives within
higher education.

30
The literature compiled for this review was obtained through online database
searches of the University of Phoenix online library and Google Scholar. The specific
databases accessed within the University of Phoenix online library’s resources included
ProQuest, Emerald, EBSCOhost, ERIC, SAGE, and Dissertations Theses at University
of Phoenix. This review examined scholarly literature that has contributed to the
knowledge bases related to the topics of faculty job satisfaction, community colleges,
collegiate completion initiatives, social exchange theory, and organizational change.
Thus, the search for literature began with keywords such as: job satisfaction, faculty job
satisfaction, community colleges, community college faculty, Tennessee higher
education, Promise scholarships, organizational change, organizational change in higher
education, and social exchange theory. Additionally, references cited within relevant
journal articles were reviewed to assess applicability. The review conducted was
exhaustive and resulted in nearly 200 sources for review. However, vetting the sources
and narrowing the search to primarily peer-reviewed journal articles as well as
government websites and documents from 2005 to the present yielded a feasible number
of sources appropriate for the current research topic and study design. A historical
perspective was provided by literature dating prior to 2005.
Community Colleges
America’s community colleges were created after World War II to fill the need of
the nation for a more broadly educated populace who could adequately support the
country’s booming industrial productivity and increasing military strength (Mellow
Heelan, 2015). Since that time, community colleges have become known as the most
innovative sector of higher education (Dee, 2002), edging ahead of traditional four-year

31
colleges and universities in providing higher education access to more students,
partnering more closely with local communities, and advancing more lives and lifestyles
of low-income adults (Mellow Heelan, 2015). Community colleges have historically
embraced societal challenges such as racism and unemployment more quickly than four-
year institutions because they do not have large alumni bases to answer to, nor do they
have deeply-held traditions to defend (Kleim Takeda-Tinker, 2009).
Of all postsecondary institutional types, community colleges have the most varied
purposes and student bodies (Levin et al., 2006). Today, nearly half of all college
students in the United States are educated by more than 1,100 community colleges (Latz
Rediger, 2015). These institutions confer Associates degrees, prepare students for
transfer to universities, and provide career and technical education, workforce
development, and community education (Latz Rediger, 2015). With open enrollment,
community colleges welcome individuals who have varying academic proficiencies
(Smith, 2011), and may not otherwise have access to higher education, thus creating
diverse student populations (Latz Rediger, 2015). Both communities and families are
strengthened when community college graduates obtain employment within the local area
(West, Henderson, Peterson, Barrows, 2018). Because community colleges play such a
vital role within communities, ensuring the quality educational output of these institutions
is of primary importance to today’s society (Arnold, 2017).
In recent years, the benefits of a community college education have become a part
of the nation’s public political conversations as local employers look to hire new
Associates degree holders in their home communities, thereby strengthening both family
ties and local social organizations by preventing an outmigration of graduates (West et

32
al., 2018). At the federal level, the Obama administrators acknowledged the relevance of
two-year institutions by funding the Community College and Career Training Initiative
and hosting a White House Summit on Community Colleges (Hirschy, Bremer,
Castellano, 2011). However, although community colleges today are recognized
nationwide as the primary institutions for preparing students for the workforce with
licensures, certifications, and training for a myriad of occupations (Hirschy et al., 2011),
this influential sector of higher education lacks consistent descriptive empirical
evaluation (Gumport, 2007), creating a gap in the research literature and skewing the
current understanding of higher education towards four-year institutions.
Community Colleges as Organizations
The community college is ultimately both an “instrument of the state, as well as a
servant of business and industry [addressing] the educational needs of a broad spectrum
of students” (Levin et al., 2006, p. 42). With the 21st
century emphasis of supplying local
occupational demand, today’s community colleges have begun to operate more like
industry than academic institutions (Gumport, 2007). Increasingly driven by economic
emphases, today’s community colleges are often considered bureaucratic organizations in
which administrative leadership controls decision-making from the top down,
emphasizing the importance of administrative trustworthiness (Levin et al., 2006).
Those community colleges that fail to provide maximum opportunities for faculty
to participate in governance and significant institutional decision-making, reduce faculty
to no more than managed professionals, (Dee, 2002; Kim, Twombly, Wolf-Wendel,
2008), and potentially negatively impact faculty job satisfaction. In response, many
community college faculty bodies have established faculty senates or unionized to create

33
a more participatory governance structure (Kim et al., 2008). This recent adjustment in
the level of faculty involvement within academic governance structures of community
colleges across America warrants investigation regarding how such organizational
changes may relate to administrative trustworthiness and faculty job satisfaction.
Community College Faculty
From governance to histories to demographics, community colleges, as well as
community college faculty, have characteristics distinct from traditional four-year
institutions (Smith, 2011). Each community college is an individual entity with program
offerings customized for local economic needs and specific student bodies, making any
generalizations about community colleges or their faculty challenging (Levin et al.,
2006). As a discrete type of higher education institution, the community college therefore
requires specific research efforts (Smith, 2011), as do the subgroups within community
colleges (Yeo et al., 2015). Departments, disciplines, faculty bodies, and other smaller
units within community colleges are where organizational collegiate culture is
constructed (Yeo et al., 2015). Thus, when attempting to ascertain how organizational
collegiate culture is affected by outside influences such as organizational change,
research involving these smaller units such as faculty bodies is warranted.
Researchers who have extensively examined community colleges agree that a
community college’s most significant attribute is its faculty (Arnold, 2017). However,
because the community college is often negatively perceived by the general public,
employment as a community college faculty member is considered by most academics to
be a less attractive option than employment at a four-year institution (Levin et al., 2006).
Faculty at community colleges carry larger teaching loads than do university faculty and

34
still have similar research and institutional service responsibilities (Mellow Heelan,
2015). Many community college faculty members in the baby-boomer generation are
retiring and new faculty hires are predominantly contingent or adjunct (Bok, 2013), but
with the push for more educated citizens, student enrollments continue to increase
(Stuart, 2017). These changes mandate that full-time community college faculty
increasingly must do more with less (Latz Rediger, 2015). Therefore, gaining a better
understanding of the experiences of full-time community college faculty members that
relate to faculty job satisfaction may inform a broader view of the attractiveness of the
job within the whole scope of academic professions.
Tennessee Community Colleges
As a nation, America has a democratic and economic stake in increasing the
numbers of citizens completing college (Hirschy et al., 2011). In 2009, President Obama
made postsecondary graduation a national priority (David et al., 2015). Since then, state
governments have joined federal and non-profit efforts to increase collegiate completion
and maintain successful workforce effectiveness in the coming decade (Littlepage et al.,
2017), combating declining graduation rates, inflated tuition, and rising student debt
(American Association of Community Colleges, 2012).
In alignment with the national higher education agenda, Tennessee Governor Phil
Bredesen introduced the Complete College Tennessee Act in 2010 which initiated the
development of a statewide higher education master plan, revised the state’s outcomes-
based funding, created transfer pathways, introduced co-remediation, and positioned the
system’s public community colleges as the primary delivery institutions for Associates
degrees and technical certifications (Smith Bowyer, 2016). Shortly thereafter,

35
continuing the state focus on higher education, Governor Bill Haslam and the Tennessee
legislature established the Drive to 55 collegiate completion initiative in 2014 as a key
state policy objective to build an educated, workforce-ready citizenry and secure the
state’s future economic development by increasing the number of Tennesseans with
postsecondary degrees or certificates from 33 percent to 55 percent by 2025 (TN Office
of the Governor, 2015).
To achieve this goal, over $40 million dollars of lottery endowment monies were
invested in student support programs including the TN Promise, a last-dollar tuition
scholarship and mentoring program initiated in the 2015-2016 academic year to provide
state high school graduates with two free years of community college or technical school
(University of Tennessee, 2014). The investment has been successful in increasing the
state’s college-going rate and created an overall 24.7 percent enrollment increase for
first-time freshmen in the state’s community colleges (Tennessee Higher Education
Commission, 2017). In tandem with TN Promise and begun in the Fall 2018 semester, a
two-year last-dollar scholarship program called Tennessee Reconnect (TN Reconnect)
now provides the 900,000 adult Tennesseans who have earned some college credits but
no degree, the opportunity to enroll in an Associate’s degree program tuition- and fee-
free at any of the state’s community colleges, making access to a college education
available to more Tennesseans than ever before (TN Achieves, 2017). These systemwide
organizational changes have significantly impacted administrators, faculty, and staff of
Tennessee’s postsecondary institutions, especially the four community colleges located in
the Middle Tennessee Grand Region in particular, which experienced the largest

36
increases in first-time full-time freshman enrollment averaging 50.5 percent within the
first year of TN Promise (Tennessee Higher Education Commission, 2017).
Change in Tennessee Community Colleges. The Drive to 55 collegiate
completion initiative implementation has necessitated that state community colleges
undergo systemwide organizational changes, as well as organizational change at the
institutional level (Littlepage et al., 2017). Community colleges have had to quickly
accommodate increased enrollment of first-time degree-seeking students, first-time full-
time students, and recent high school graduates (Smith Bowyer, 2016). These
institutions have remained in a state of continuous change during the first year of TN
Promise implementation (Littlepage et al., 2017).
As the TN Promise program was first implemented on campuses across the state,
administrators were surprised by the increased need for instructors to teach remediation
courses, classroom space to support the added course sections, and tutors for summer
programs (Littlepage et al., 2017). In academic accommodations alone, Tennessee
community colleges hired new faculty, tutors, and student success coaches, created
summer orientation programs, revised academic schedules, increased faculty advising
loads, and added college success courses to support the influx of TN Promise recipients
(Smith Bowyer, 2016). “A successful Tennessee Promise program was and is
personnel intensive” (Smith Bowyer, 2016, p. 189).
Magnifying the impact of the systemwide organizational change brought about by
the launch of the TN Promise program were additional organizational changes happening
at many of the community colleges, including implementation of co-requisite learning
support courses and dual enrollment partnerships with high schools, new software roll-

37
outs, administrative changes, and institutionally-specific program developments (Smith
Bowyer, 2016). As the TN Promise program continues into year four with the TN
Reconnect program which began in Fall 2018 bringing a new returning student
population, Tennessee’s community colleges will continue to experience enrollment
increases, and the accompanying needs for more physical space, qualified tutors, and
remedial course instructors (Littlepage et al., 2017). Currently, for Tennessee community
colleges, organizational change management is a matter of survival due to the continuous
variation of the prospective student pool (Littlepage et al., 2017). As this process of
enacting collegiate completion initiatives proceeds, the knowledge base related to
organizational change within community colleges would benefit from an informed
understanding of the faculty experience amidst implementation.
Public Good and Free Tuition
Lawmakers in the State of Tennessee have been working toward the public good,
which is defined as a decision-making rationale grounded in obtaining the greater good
for as many people as possible (Mellow Heelan, 2015). Over the past decade, state
legislators have established policies and continue to take legislative action to improve the
state’s present and future economic development in an effort to create a higher quality of
life for all Tennesseans through higher education (TN Office of the Governor, 2014).
Accepting the moral responsibility of providing every citizen with access to college,
Tennessee was the first state in the nation to present citizens without a postsecondary
credential two years of free community or technical college (Littlepage et al., 2017).
This new development of free-tuition in higher education has not only brought
about organizational and institutional change but has also provided scholars opportunities

38
for empirical investigation. Since the passage of the Drive to 55 legislation and the
enactment of the TN Promise scholarship program, researchers have studied many facets
of the initiative including: the funding and financial aid aspect (Norwood, 2016; Watson,
2014), effects on enrollment at both two- and four-year institutions (Clark, 2017; Stuart,
2017), related policies and transfer agreements with universities (Buchanan, 2017), and
implementation of the program from the perspective of two community college
presidents (Smith Boyer, 2016). One multi-site qualitative case study evaluated the
effect of the organizational change process related to TN Promise enactment on
community college student support administrators during the orientation process
(Littlepage et al., 2017). However, prior to the current research, there had been no study
of Tennessee’s collegiate completion initiatives conducted regarding aspects of the
organizational change that relate to faculty, their perspectives on the initiatives, their
experiences of the changes, or how the systemwide organizational change has impacted
their professional satisfaction.
Organizational Change
Change is necessary for organizations to remain competitive and adjust to rapidly
changing internal and external pressures, but is rarely entirely successful (Straatmann et
al., 2016; Vardaman et al., 2012). Reports indicate that nearly 70 percent of all
organizational change initiatives fail (Vardaman et al., 2012). Researchers agree that
most often these failures are considered to be a direct result of personnel issues and
employee characteristics rather than process or technical challenges (Straatmann et al.,
2016; Vardaman et al., 2012; Wisse and Sleebos, 2016).

39
The primary purpose of organizational change is to alter key institutional
variables that modify multiple organizational outcomes and enable institutions to reach
specified goals (Jimmieson et al., 2004). These organizational modifications directly
affect employees and may impact work-related behaviors in unanticipated ways,
transforming organizational change into a critical life event for employees, bringing
about stress and other negative personal consequences, and potentially resulting in a
variety of unexpected alterations to the intended organizational outcomes (Jimmieson et
al., 2004; Vardaman et al., 2012). The more levels of change that exist within an
organization, the higher the self-reported stress for employees and the more important
effective change management becomes (Wisse Sleebos, 2016; Asera et al., 2014).
Organizational Change Management
When widespread change is mandated across an organization, change
management must be designed at scale for initiative implementation within each
dimension: individual, organizational, and system (Asera et al., 2014; Elmore, 2006).
Within educational institutions, implementation at the individual level reaches all faculty
members; at the organizational level, reaches all departments within an institution; and at
the system level, reaches all institutions throughout a system (Asera et al., 2014; Elmore,
2006). Management of the change at all three levels simultaneously is essential for
enacting large-scale improvements (Elmore, 2006).
In order for improvements to be successful and sustainable though, employees
must make individual adjustments which subsequently alter the existing organizational
culture (Ellett et al., 2015). Effectively preparing employees for and supporting
employees through making individual adjustments throughout organizational change

40
processes positively impacts the success of change initiatives (Straatmann et al., 2016).
However, when organizational changes bring about personnel issues that lead to poorly
managed or uncontrolled organizational change, the inadequate management becomes a
major source of stress for employees, has many disruptive effects, and contributes to the
low success rate of change initiatives (Wisse and Sleebos, 2016). If employees feel a lack
of control over the change, they are more likely to disengage from the change process,
procrastinate on required tasks, and avoid problem-solving measures necessary to create
success (Vardaman et al., 2012). Likewise, if employees regard organizational changes as
personally harmful, the success of the change initiative is negatively affected (Oreg et al.,
2011). While these employee reactions are known to be a main determinant of change
initiative success, little research in the field of organizational change has focused on the
employee factor; rather, most studies have followed the more popular historical tradition
of focusing on the organization and how entities prepare for, implement, or react to
change initiatives (Oreg et al., 2011).
Learning how best to prepare and support employees through organizational
change processes requires obtaining a heightened understanding of employees’ reactions
to change (Straatmann et al., 2016). Gaining this heightened understanding can be
difficult because employees do not all experience the same amounts of stress for the same
reasons (Wisse Sleebos, 2016). Thus, Wisse and Sleebos (2016) called for more
research related to how stress caused by organizational change can impact employees
and, as a result, impact the organizational change process so that more effective change
management systems can be created.

41
Developing successful organizational change processes. Though systematic
change assessments and rigorous diagnostic processes have become central to the art of
organizational change management (Oreg et al., 2011; Straatmann et al., 2016), any
evaluation of employee experiences amidst organizational change has most frequently
been accomplished only by informally gathering anecdotal information and personal
experiences (McFillen, O’Neil, Balzer, Varney, 2013). Going forward, utilizing more
formal theoretical and evidence-based approaches will be important to the development
of successful change management processes (McFillen et al., 2013). Otherwise,
administrators and change agents will be particularly challenged when attempting to
determine important factors to consider when running organizational change
implementation diagnostics or managing employees’ experiences of change from an
evidence-based perspective (Straatmann et al., 2016).
In the absence of such rigorous diagnostic evaluations and empirical findings,
McFillen et al. (2013) found that administrators and change agents tend to overlook the
actual problem affecting successful change within the organization and may choose to
enact interventions or solutions that do not address the central intervening issue at all,
completely missing the opportunity for informed adjustments and eventual change
success. While research shows that simply implementing systemwide organizational
change such as collegiate completion initiatives potentially creates a higher-stress
environment for faculty and may lead to negative faculty responses which could
undermine success of the change initiative, no research has yet been conducted related to
how systemwide organizational changes relate to community college faculty members’
job satisfaction. Therefore, the current qualitative instrumental case study provides both a

42
theoretical and evidence-based set of findings, as well as insight into factors important for
administrators and change agents to consider in creating higher success rates of
organizational change initiatives.
Organizational Change and Social Exchange Theory
During organizational change processes, employees become concerned with what
personal impact the change will have, weighing the perceived risks and costs, and then
resisting or supporting the change initiative based on the perceived personal outcome
(Oreg et al., 2011). This behavior falls right in line with the original 1959 social exchange
theory research of Thibaut and Kelley which argued that most behaviors and decisions
people make regarding interpersonal relationships are based upon perceptions of the
rewards as well as the costs of the choice options provided (Ribarsky, 2013). People most
often make choices and engage in behaviors that are believed to bring about the most
personal reward with the least amount of personal cost (Ribarsky, 2013). This concept is
more complex than it appears because individuals perceive the world in different ways,
and rewards for one, may be seen as costs for another; while a choice that seems to
provide a reward with little cost today, may appear to be quite costly on another day
(Ribarsky, 2013).
Social exchange theory is “among the most influential conceptual paradigms for
understanding workplace behavior” (Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005, p. 874). Social
exchange theory provides a theoretical framework for organizational employment
relationships using social exchanges between management and employees (Gould-
Williams Davies, 2005). These social exchanges are governed by attitudes and

43
behaviors as each party decides what communication to utilize or what actions to take
based on the perceived costs and resulting rewards (Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005).
A basic tenet of social exchange theory is that over time, interpersonal
relationships evolve through mutual trust and reciprocity into loyal, mutual commitments
(Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005). Therefore, because twenty-first century organizations
seek committed, high-performing employees with positive attitudes, low attrition, and
little absenteeism (Gould-Williams Davies, 2005), they must engage employees in
positive ways. To achieve their desired goals, according to social exchange theory,
organizations should provide evidence to employees that they are valued and cared about
by the organization. Then employees will feel obligated to reciprocate by demonstrating
positive work attitudes, loyalty, gratitude, and trust in the organization (Cropanzano
Mitchell, 2005; Gould-Williams Davies, 2005). That is, if employees view
administrators’ and change agents’ actions positively, employees will in turn display
behaviors and attitudes that are valued by the organization (Gould-Williams Davies,
2005). This interdependence, involving mutual and complementary reciprocity, is a
defining characteristic of social exchange that reduces personal risk and encourages
relational cooperation (Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005).
Positive social exchanges within the organization are an essential element of the
organizational social exchange relationship and benefit both the institution and the
employees (Gould-Williams Davies, 2005). Additionally, trust between the
administrators and the employees is another essential element for an effective
organizational social exchange relationship, in that the originator of the positive behavior
trusts that the recipient will respond in kind (Gould-Williams Davies, 2005). A lack of

44
trust between employees and management leads to decreased employee motivation and
lower levels of job satisfaction (Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005). Empowering and
involving employees in important decision-making processes that affect work is a third
essential element. The fourth and final essential component of an effective organizational
social exchange relationship involves rewarding personnel for individual contributions to
the institution and acknowledging employees as a valued part of the organization (Gould-
Williams Davies, 2005).
In summary, trust in management, intimate communication exchanges with team
members, worker empowerment and involvement, and fair rewards for workers are the
four components of successful social exchange relationships within any organization
(Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005; Gould-Williams Davies, 2005). While influential in
understanding workplace behavior (Gould-Williams Davies, 2005), social exchange
theory is not well-studied within organizational change research (Cropanzano Mitchell,
2005) because the social exchange process is complex (Ribarsky, 2013). Therefore,
researchers have called for further exploration of how social exchange impacts
organizational relationships in order to gain a better understanding of the theory within
organizational change research (Cropanzano Mitchell, 2005; Gould-Williams
Davies, 2005; Ribarsky, 2013).
Organizational Change in Community Colleges
American community colleges, in tandem with American society, have
experienced many changes over the past four decades (Castro, 2000). Organizational
change in United States higher education is currently driven by high demands from
policy makers and the public for institutional and faculty accountability, as employers

45
and students clamor for increased levels of training and education (McKinney Morris,
2010; Rosser, 2005). An increase in part-time faculty, decline of tenured faculty, ongoing
technological transformation, recent legislative reform initiatives, and changing student
bodies are all ongoing organizational changes that impact community colleges, including
the working conditions and professional lives of faculty and administrators (Castro,
2000).
Changes are ever-present for community colleges because institutional success
depends primarily on the ability and willingness of schools to meet the diverse and
changing needs of local communities (McKinney Morris, 2010). In America today, the
introduction of free-tuition programs in the form of Promise scholarships represents an
organizational change occurring within higher education predominantly at the community
college level (Littlepage, et al., 2017). Most often, decisions for this type of
organizational change are handed down to an institution from a legislative or governing
board and are therefore considered to be reactive changes according to Buller (2014).
Although reactive change is caused and required by external forces, institutions do have
some flexibility and control over how the organizational change actually occurs on
individual campuses (Littlepage et al., 2017). In Tennessee, the state legislature mandated
reactive change within all TBR System institutions by enacting support of the Governor’s
Drive to 55 Initiative and establishing two-year free-tuition scholarships for all
Tennesseans without a postsecondary degree (TN Office of the Governor, 2014). How
each institution individually responds to the mandated systemwide organizational change
in Tennessee is a phenomenon not yet fully investigated.

46
First- and Second-Order Organizational Change
Differing institutional responses to the same overarching organizational change
support Kezar’s (2013) warning to higher education administrators that not all change is
alike. Within Kezar’s (2013) ordered definition of change in higher education,
institutions experience both first-order and second-order change. First-order change
involves minor adjustments or improvements to existing systems, processes, or structures
(Kezar, 2013). Administrators and change agents have the most experience with these
more typical first-order changes (Kezar, 2013).
On the other hand, second-order change within higher education requires a greater
expenditure of time and processing on the part of stakeholders and is less familiar to
administrators and change agents than is first-order change (Kezar, 2013). The
establishment of free-tuition programs such as Promise scholarships falls into the
category of second-order change, defined by Kezar (2013) as change that involves
“underlying values, assumptions, structures, processes, and culture that need to be altered
to allow change to occur” (p. 49). Kezar (2013) recommended that higher education
administrators work to understand how second-order change happens and impacts faculty
at different levels including personally, departmentally, and institutionally, then to utilize
that more informed understanding to create support mechanisms as change occurs.
Policymakers and administrators in Tennessee may benefit from considering that
although the enrollment, success, and retention of students seem to be the primary needs
of institutions implementing the Drive to 55 Initiative and the TN Promise scholarship,
faculty also need to be assisted in making fundamental shifts in their thinking about

47
teaching and learning, their role within the change initiative, and their relationships with
students in order for the change to be successful.
Organizational Change and Faculty
Administrative support of faculty is crucial when a higher education system is
undergoing organizational change, because the experience of faculty is unusually
complex (Yeo et al., 2015). While the common conception of a college faculty member’s
job description consists simply of research, teaching, and service, faculty vary
considerably in the responsibilities and activities associated with each of those three
enterprises (Bozeman Gaughan, 2011). The college professor depicted in popular
American media has a low-pressure job with high autonomy, short working hours, a
healthy salary, and lifetime job security (Hagedorn, 2000). The reality of a higher
education faculty position, though, includes a great deal of stress, multiple job
responsibilities, long hours, high pressure, and elevated levels of uncertainty (Hagedorn,
2000). Community college instructors today must fulfill the roles of “lecturer, expert,
mentor, reflection facilitator, group discussion guide, intensive workshop leader,
consultant, leader of intensive problem-based experiential learning, software developer or
adapter or off-the-shelf software, and partner with co-curricular educators” (Mellow
Heelan, 2015, p. 136).
As a result of organizational change, faculty most frequently experience a
psychological state of uncertainty (Jimmieson et al., 2004). Organizational change may
also elicit within faculty feelings of vulnerability, disempowerment, and instability, as
well as a perceived lack of support from administrators (Storey and Richard, 2015; Ward
et al., 2015). These feelings are stress responses resulting from perceived threats to

AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION AMIDST ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION AMIDST ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION AMIDST ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Similar to AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION AMIDST ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE (20)

More from Sharon Collins

More from Sharon Collins (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AN INSTRUMENTAL CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY JOB SATISFACTION AMIDST ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE