Testing a Model of Pretenure Faculty Members' Teaching and ... [PDF]

Running head: PRETENURE FACULTY MEMBERS MOTIVATION

Testing a Model of Pretenure Faculty Members’ Teaching and Research Success: Motivation as a Mediator of Balance, Expectations, and Collegiality

Robert H. Stupnisky*, University of North Dakota Nathan C. Hall, McGill University Lia M. Daniels, University of Alberta Emmanuel Mensah, North Dakota Department of Public Instruction

To appear in The Journal of Higher Education [ DRAFT COPY – DO NOT QUOTE ]

* Corresponding author: Robert H. Stupnisky, Associate Professor, University of North Dakota, Department of Educational Foundations & Research, 231 Centennial Drive Stop 7189, Grand Forks, ND 58202, email: [email protected]

1

PRETENURE FACULTY MEMBERS MOTIVATION

2

Abstract With the aim of advancing the growing research literature on faculty development, a model of pretenure faculty success in teaching and research was proposed. Building from the early-career faculty literature and self-determination theory, it was hypothesized that the socialenvironmental factors of balance, clear expectations, and collegiality predict success by supporting the basic psychology needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness that, in turn, generates intrinsic motivation for teaching and research. The study sample included 105 pretenure faculty members from two research universities, with our mediational model evaluated using path analyses. With respect to teaching success, the benefits of collegiality were mediated by relatedness, whereas for research success, the advantages of balance were mediated by autonomy and competence. Satisfying these needs within their respective domains positively predicted intrinsic motivation that, in turn, led to greater perceived and expected success. These results have implications for the research literatures concerning both pretenure faculty development and achievement motivation, as well as institutional efforts to promote faculty development. Keywords: Faculty, pretenure, motivation, success, collegiality, balance, expectations, self-determination theory


3

Testing a Model of Pretenure Faculty Members’ Teaching and Research Success: Motivation as a Mediator of Balance, Expectations, and Collegiality Higher education recruitment websites such as HigherEdJobs.com, UniversityJobs.com, and The Chronicle of Higher Education annually advertise tens of thousands of tenure-track faculty positions. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) projects the number of jobs for postsecondary teachers to increase, specifically forecasting a rise in employment from 20142024 of over 13% (vs. 7% across occupations) yielding an anticipated 177,000 new jobs. These figures indicate that every year large numbers of faculty members begin jobs on the tenure track, striving to demonstrate competencies in teaching, research, and service in hopes of securing job stability and tenure. United States higher education institutions highly value the success of earlycareer professors also, as they have rated the recruitment of faculty members (96%) and retaining of current faculty (89%) as critically important priorities (Conley, 2007). The extant research literature on faculty development consistently identifies three key factors found to contribute to the teaching and research success of pretenure faculty members1, namely balance, clear expectations, and collegiality. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the present research was to expand upon this established literature in evaluating a conceptual model of pretenure faculty success that incorporates motivation research. Our conceptual model (see Figure 1) was derived from self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) and broadly posits that when pretenure faculty members’ social-environmental concerns are addressed, their basic psychosocial needs will be satisfied resulting in optimal motivation and greater reported success in teaching and research. We then evaluated this conceptual model among pretenure faculty at two research universities to determine empirical support for the proposed relationships. Finally, we discuss the implications of the model in terms of advancing research and theory in the area of pretenure faculty development. Social-Environmental Factors: Balance, Expectations, and Collegiality Three key social-environmental factors are commonly reported by pretenure faculty to support or hinder their success: (1) balance among one’s professional roles as well as between one’s professional and personal life, (2) clear expectations for tenure and promotion, and (3) collegiality among coworkers (for a review see Austin, 2010). The research has been so consistent that Trower and Gallagher (2008) reported “few surprises” (p. 2) after interviewing 19 pretenure faculty at six premier research universities on the issues affecting their satisfaction and success. Below is a summary of the qualitative findings on each of these three factors in pretenure faculty success. Synthesizing the empirical results, balance among pretenure faculty can be conceptualized as finding an equilibrium among competing demands for time and effort, which may occur in the professional (i.e., between teaching, research, and service) and/or personal domain (i.e., between work and home life). Stupnisky, Weaver-Hightower, and Kartoshkina (2015) interviewed 18 first- to third-year faculty members and found that they reported significant difficulty in finding a balance between teaching, research, and service responsibilities. O’Connor, Greene, Good, and Zang (2011) used open-ended survey data from 38 pretenure education faculty members to discover that the majority did not find balance as evidenced by working on weekends, writing during breaks and holidays, working 80 hours a week, sacrificing a personal life, and eliminating proper health choices and exercise (see also Greene et al., 2008). Trower and Gallagher (2008) noted pretenture faculty members reported quality of life as critical


4

to their success in terms of striking a balance between work and home, pointing specifically to issues regarding parenting, childcare, and spousal hiring. Due to issues stemming from “time stress” (Nir & Zilberstein-Levy, 2006, p. 543), establishing a manageable routine and effective work habits also is reported as crucial to pretenure faculty success (see also Eddy & GastonGayles, 2008; Trotman & Brown, 2005). Austin (2010) reviewed the literature and concluded that one of the most dominant concerns of early-career faculty members is career progression and the tenure process. In other words, pretenure faculty members “worry about the expectations they must meet” (p. 367). Studies have reported that pretenure faculty members typically look to their department’s tenure and promotion guidelines to explain the expectations in teaching, research, and service; however, the evaluation criteria are often ambiguous. For example, Eddy and Gaston-Gayles (2008) interviewed 12 new higher education administration faculty members and found many to report departmental expectations for tenure were poorly defined and lacking clarity. Trotman and Brown (2005) similarly found that faculty members described tenure standards as a “moving target” (p. 7) plagued by a lack of feedback and high reliance on alternative sources of information such as word of mouth. Results from other studies further reinforce the importance of transparent evaluation processes as beneficial to the success of early-career faculty (Nir & Zilberstein-Levy, 2006; Trower & Gallagher, 2008; Stupnisky et al., 2015). Although a unanimous definition of collegiality has been evasive, most descriptions suggest that a collegial environment is one in which “members of the department interact with and show respect for one another, work collaboratively in order to achieve common purposes, and assume equitable responsibilities for the good of the unit as a whole” (Cipriano & Buller, 2012, p. 46). Pifer and Baker (2013) analyzed the social networks of six assistant professors to find “intradepartmental networks are particularly crucial for early-career academics” (p. 335) in their inherent quest to earn tenure, and expelled the importance of behaviors such as political awareness and impression management. Stupnisky et al. (2015) also found collegiality to be an important issue among new faculty members, who also discussed challenges related to politics, trust, and “just being able to get along” (p. 376) with fellow professors in their department. Conversely, study participants described productive collaborations as rewarding and enjoyable, and frequently cited faculty mentoring as a particularly helpful process. Other studies have found faculty to report feelings of isolation, an atmosphere of competition, and distance from senior colleagues as challenges hindering their success (see also Trower & Gallagher, 2008; Trotman & Brown, 2005). Despite the consistency of qualitative research highlighting the importance of balance, clear expectations, and collegiality as predictors of pretenure faculty member success, quantitative studies have rarely focused on their impact. Many quantitative studies on pretenure faculty members have examined the importance demographic variables such as gender (COACHE 2008, 2010) and ethnicity (Ponjuan, Conley, & Trower, 2011), or faculty job characteristics such as career stage (Hill, 2009), academic disciple (COACHE 2010; Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi, 2002), and institution type (Perry et al., 2000). Qudais, AlOmari, and Smadi (2009) examined 363 Jordanian faculty members in their first four years to find their highest levels of concern were regarding collegiality; however, they did not analyze if collegiality was related to success. Furthermore, of the quantitative studies that examined at least one of the three qualitatively established factors highlighted above, the sizes of the predictive effects were small to moderate (Harrison & Kelly, 1996; Ponjuan et al., 2011; Stupnisky et al., 2015), or nonsignificant (Sax et al., 2002).


5

Although our understanding of these social-environmental factors among pretenure faculty has been well developed qualitatively, several gaps must be further explored quantitatively. First, as quantitative research evaluating the predictive power of these established factors found them to explain only a small to moderate amount of the variance in faculty development, other predictors of pretenure faculty success should be considered. This is not to say social-environmental factors should be omitted, but factors that predict success above and beyond those factors should be tested. Second, the mechanisms through which these socialenvironmental factors influence faculty success in teaching and research requires further investigation. Clear guidelines for tenure and promotion, positive relationships with colleagues, and/or faculty members spending quality time with friends and family are not likely to directly result in more frequent publications or improved student learning; however, it is logical that these established variables indirectly influence faculty achievement via mediating variables. Third, the three social-environmental factors are rarely evaluated simultaneously in a single quantitative study to assess their shared effects, nor are they typically examined with respect to both teaching and research activities in a given sample (for an exception see Stupnisky et al., 2015). To address these gaps and build understanding of pretenure faculty success, the current study tested an exploratory model in which faculty motivation, rooted in self-determination theory, mediates the relationships between balance, clear expectations, and collegiality on success. Motivation in Pretenure Faculty Members Motivation research has a rich theoretical background (Murphy & Alexander, 2000) and has been established as a critical predictor of achievement in post-secondary education, most frequently among college students. Motivational variables, in fact, have consistently been found to predict students’ performance over and above the effects of established predictors such as socioeconomic status, standardized achievement, and high school grades (Robbins et al., 2004). One of the most influential motivation perspectives over the past three decades has been selfdetermination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT has been linked conceptually (Bess, 1997; Deci, Kasser, & Ryan, 1997; Lechuga & Lechuga, 2012) as well as empirically to faculty success (Hardré, Beesley, Miller, & Pace, 2011; Lechuga, 2012), although this research area is still developing. According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985), human motivation operates on a continuum with the optimal state being intrinsic motivation, which is characterized by inherent satisfaction in performing a given activity (i.e., doing a task simply because you enjoy doing it). Intrinsic motivation is hypothesized to occur when the social context allows three individual psychological needs to be satisfied: autonomy (providing choice, being self-governing, not externally regulated), competence (perceived capability to complete required tasks), and relatedness (feeling connected with others). If these needs are not fully met, the individual may nonetheless be motivated but by extrinsic factors, which are related to but distinguishable from the activity itself. Extrinsic motivation can be divided into four categories ranging from internally- to externally-regulated in nature: integrated motivation (the behavior is considered synonymous with internal needs and values), identified motivation (achievement aligns with one’s personal goals), introjected motivation (task performance prevents feelings of guilt or anxiety), and external motivation (the behavior results in rewards or avoids punishment). At the far end of the extrinsic motivation continuum, amotivation represents behavior that is without intent, or is essentially the absent of motivation.


6

SDT has been conceptually applied to the professoriate on several occasions (Deci et al., 1997; Lechuga & Lechuga, 2012), which is perhaps not surprising given the overlap between the social-environmental factors identified above and the three psychological needs of SDT. According to Lechuga (2012), SDT seeks to understand how faculty are able to feel that they possess the skills and abilities to fulfill their various work responsibilities; experience a sense of connectedness to colleagues in their department and university; and maintain a sense of freedom, emanating from the self, to engage in their work activities. (p. 109) Olsen (1993) further suggested that having these needs met is particularly important for newly appointed faculty to bolster intrinsic rewards, job satisfaction, and productivity. In their study of faculty performance standards across 60 academic departments of research universities, Hardré and Kollman (2012) similarly noted that the misalignment of faculty and institutional goals/values can result in feeling externally pressured resulting in low quality performance, dissatisfaction, and a greater likelihood of quitting. SDT has been empirically supported as a meaningful framework with which to examine faculty development, although not exclusively among pretenure faculty. For instance, qualitative research by Bouwma-Gearhart (2012) found motivation to engage in teaching professional development among faculty in STEM programs to be largely based upon their desire to “(1) to interact with others interested in improving their teaching, (2) to increase their teaching competence, and (3) to increase their autonomy with respect to their teaching and teaching identities” (p. 563). Interviews by Lechuga (2012) with 15 Latino faculty members in STEM disciplines similarly found negotiating competence, locating relatedness, and establishing autonomy as critical for research productivity. Findings from Frenet, Guay, and Senecal (2004) also found self-determined motivation to be a significant negative predictor of burnout in faculty, over and above the effects of job demands and control. Finally, research by Hardré et al. (2011) with 781 faculty members of various ranks at research-extensive universities utilized path analyses to show intrinsic motivation for research to have a significant positive effect on perceived value of conducting research that, in turn, predicted research effort and ultimately research productivity. To date, among pretenure faculty members SDT motivational variables have not been explicitly hypothesized nor empirically tested as mediators of the effects of balance, expectations, and collegiality on the success in teaching and research – both of these were achieved in the current study. Defining Pretenure Faculty Member Success The complexity of operationally defining the concept of “success” for pretenure professors is evidenced by the idiosyncratic nature of tenure and promotion guidelines across institutions, disciplines, and even between departments within a given university. Thus, a major challenge for researchers is to identify the critical elements of pretenure faculty success in order to study it empirically. To this end, research success has consistently been quantified as the total number of peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations (e.g., over a three-year period; Hardré et al., 2011). This practice is subject to criticism given the varying standards and definitions of research success across disciplines. In the social sciences, for example, higher numbers of peer-reviewed journal publications are typically seen as ideal, with authorship order, journal impact factor, and citation counts evaluated as additional quality indicators. In contrast, research impact for humanities professors is more likely to be evaluated as single-authored books, for engineering faculty as patents, and for fine arts scholars as directing a well-reviewed


7

artistic showcase. Accordingly, determining a universal standard against which faculty research can be evaluated as productive or impactful is a prerequisite for research on critical antecedents. With respect to faculty success in teaching, researchers often rely upon student evaluations of teaching (e.g., Marsh & Hattie, 2002). Student assessments of teaching quality, however, are also subject to various validity confounds (Pounder, 2007) in that they do not incorporate other sources (e.g., peer review, document analysis) and may fail to capture teaching activities outside the classroom setting (e.g., student advising). Disciplinary differences are also common in student evaluations of teaching, with instructors of post-secondary humanities courses typically receiving higher ratings than those of social science courses who, in turn, are typically rated more highly than instructors of math and science courses (Feldman, 1978; for a review see Benton & Cashin, 2011). As an alternative to the empirical quantification of research and teaching effectiveness, some researchers have instead focused on psychological variables such as stress levels (Hill, 2009; Lease, 1999), job satisfaction (COACHE 2010, 2008), and career commitment (Bland, Center, Findstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006; Harrison & Kelly, 1996). Although we acknowledge these to be important outcomes for pretenure faculty members, we argue they are better conceptualized as indirect correlates of teaching and research success outcomes targeted in the current study. As a result of the pervasively inconsistent criteria for faculty member success across academic departments, institutions, and research studies, the present study adopted a more global, phenomenological perspective to measure success. Specifically, we asked faculty members about their perceptions of teaching and research success with respect to their personal standards, departmental standards, and in comparison to other faculty members (see Measures section). These benchmarks align with recent efforts to assess teacher motivation in relation to the self (intraindividual), one’s task, and in comparison to others (interindividual; Mascret, Elliot, & Cury, 2015). Precedent for self-report success measures is provided by studies showing positive concurrent validity checks among students (e.g., r = .78, Hall, Perry, Chipperfield, Clifton, & Haynes, 2006; r = .70, Ruthig, Haynes, Perry, & Chipperfield, 2007) and older adults (Menec, Chipperfield, & Perry, 1999). We additionally asked faculty how successful they expected to be based on their own self-standard to further triangulate our results, and further assessed success in research and teaching separately to allow for comparisons across domains. The Current Study: An Exploratory Test of the Pretenure Success Model To summarize, we proposed a model suggesting that when pretenure faculty members’ social-environmental concerns are resolved (balance, clear expectations, collegiality), their basic psychosocial needs will be satisfied (autonomy, competence, relatedness), resulting in optimal motivation (intrinsic), and yielding greater reported success in teaching and research endeavors. Conceptual support for our model comes from a review of SDT research in which Lechuga and Lechuga (2012) provided several practical examples of need satisfaction among faculty, which are connected below to social-environmental preditors of pretenure faculty success. Specifically, Lechuga and Lechuga evaluated relatedness with respect to becoming involved in a research community and “creating relationships and/or collaborations with senior researchers” (i.e., collegiality; p. 71). Autonomy was operationalized as managing one’s work time and the freedom to choose research topics (i.e., balance). And competence building was examined with respect to “writing for publication in a top tier journal; applying for large research grants as a new scholar” (i.e., meeting departmental expectations).


8

Deci and Ryan (1985) contended when the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied, the optimal state of intrinsic motivation will be experienced. Pretenure faculty members are believed to be no exception as those who are selfdetermined in their teaching and research are hypothesized to report being more successful now and expecting more success in the future. Beyond explaining the proposed model, an exploratory test of the assumed linkages is called for. Support for the model will allow researchers, faculty development officers, university administrators, and faculty members themselves to more fully understand the ideal pathway to success, and perhaps lead to better understanding of how to assist those who are falling short. Thus, with the current study we next sought to test the hypothesis model of pretenure faculty members’ success. Method Participants and Procedure Participants included 105 faculty members from two geographically proximal, midwestern U.S. universities of approximately equivalent enrollment (~15,000 students). Both are public, doctoral universities and are either a state flagship or land-grant institution. Both universities are classified as R2 Higher Research Activity (Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2016). Participants were recruited via email near the end of the academic year (March) to complete an online survey lasting a median time of 18 min. In exchange for participation, faculty had their names entered into 15 draws for $50 and were provided a summary of the study findings. The sample included 61 women and 44 men with an average age of 38.5 years (SD= 7.25). The majority of participants were Caucasian (83.8%) and spoke English as their first language (83.7%). Average years of service at their current institution was 2.95 (SD= 1.94). All participants were assistant professors and none had previously received tenure. Faculty participants represented 14 disciplines and had average contractually-expected efforts of 50.04% teaching (SD= 17.51), 34.87% research (SD= 17.96), and 14.66% service (SD= 10.37). The high faculty member teaching load paired with considerable research demands is reflective of both institutions experiencing “upward drift” (Aldersley, 1995), which is when institutions strive for a higher Carnegie Classification to gain prestige that can result in imbalanced faculty workloads (Greene et al., 2008; O’Connor et al., 2011). Measures Social-environmental. Four constructs established in existing qualitative and quantitative research as important predictors of success in pretenure faculty members were measured. Based on Stupnisky et al. (2015), each construct was assessed with four items (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree): personal balance (e.g., “I have been able to balance my work and home/personal life”), professional balance (“I have been able to balance my teaching, research, and service duties”), clear expectations (“I have come to understand what the expectations are for me at work.”), and collegiality (“There is a colleague in my department whom I can ask for advice and guidance”; see Appendix A for study items). An exploratory factor analysis on all items indicated expectations and collegiality to be unique factors, with the personal and professional balance scales loading onto a single factor and therefore combined to represent “balance” in subsequent analyses. SDT basic psychological needs. An adapted version of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale (W-BNS) from Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, and Lens


9

(2010) was used to assess faculty members’ perceived level of need satisfaction with respect to their teaching as well as research. Twelve items were evenly distributed among three subscales (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) and answered explicitly for both teaching and research (24 responses total): autonomy (e.g., “In my [teaching/research], I feel a sense of choice and freedom.”), competence (“I feel confident that I can do things well on my [teaching/research].”), and relatedness (“I feel supported by the people whom I care about when [teaching/conducting research”). Motivation. Items from Frenet et al. (2004) were adapted to measure intrinsic, introjected, and external motivation for teaching and research (1 = Does not correspond at all, 7 = Corresponds completely). The scale asked faculty members to “Indicate the extent to which the following statements correspond with why you engage in teaching and research activities”. Each scale was comprised of three items, example items were “Because it is pleasant to carry out this task” (intrinsic), “Because I would feel guilty not doing it” (introjected), and “Because I am paid to do it” (external). Success. Following from Stupnisky et al. (2015), perceived success over the past academic year was evaluated with respect to both teaching and research using three items (1 = Very unsuccessful, 10 = Very successful) in relation to: “Your own self standard,” “The tenure and promotion expectations of your department,” and “In comparison to other faculty with your rank in your department.” The items were highly correlated, internally consistent, and consequently combined to evaluate perceived success as two separate three-item scales assessing teaching success and research success. Expected success over the next five years for teaching and research was measured with the single item relating to “Your own self standard” on the same 10-point scale. Results Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics for the study measures are presented in Table 1. When averaged across the items, the scales all showed sufficiently normal distributions (i.e., skewness less than 2.3, Lei & Lomax, 2005; kurtosis less than 7.0, Byrne, 2010) and acceptable Cronbach’s alpha reliability levels (i.e., adequate > .70, good > .80; Warner, 2013). Mean Differences Paired samples t-tests were conducted to compare SDT motivation and success variables across the domains of teaching and research. Significant differences showed faculty members in the domain of teaching, compared to research, to report higher levels of competence t(101) = 2.55, p ≤ .01, perceived success t(102) = 4.04, p ≤ .001, and expected success t(104) = 3.16, p ≤ .01. Alternatively, a moderately significant difference was found whereby faculty reported slightly more autonomy for research compared to teaching t(101) = -1.79, p = .08. Correlations Significant correlations revealed support for SDT, including moderate to large positive intercorrelations among autonomy, competence, relatedness, and intrinsic motivation in both teaching and research domains (Table 2). These motivation variables also demonstrated significant positive correlations with perceived and expected success in both domains. The intercorrelations among the social-environmental variables of balance, expectations, and collegiality were similarly large and positive. An interesting domain difference was that


10

collegiality showed significant positive correlations with motivation variables with respect to teaching, whereas balance instead showed many significant positive correlations with motivation variables in the research domain. Surprisingly, introjected and external motivation had very few correlations with the basic needs or success variables, despite positive correlations being found between clear expectations and introjected motivation. Accordingly, the results of the path analyses involving the extrinsic motivation measures are not presented. Path Analyses Path analyses were conducted using the AMOS 22 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) program to test the proposed model of pretenure faculty members’ success. Path analyses were assessed instead of structural equation models with latent variables due to the limited sample size of the current study. Four path analyses were conducted that differed based on domain (teaching, research) and success (perceived, expected). The models generally had good fit to the data (see figure notes for exact values in each model): nonsignificant χ2 (p > .05), SRMR < .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), CFI > .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and RMSEA < .10 (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). A more liberal cutoff for both RMSEA levels and significance levels of path parameters was adopted to minimize Type II error given the smaller sample size and the exploratory nature of the study. Teaching domain. In the domain of teaching (Figures 2 and 3), collegiality was found to strongly, positively predict relatedness and autonomy, and moderately predict competence. Relatedness was the only SDT variable observed to significantly predict intrinsic motivation of teaching. Intrinsic motivation, in turn, had a positive effect on perceived and expected success over and above the effects of the social-environmental predictors even though balance continued to exert a direct positive effect on perceived success. Furthermore, modification indexes suggested that autonomy be specified as a direct predictor of expected success, which was included and found to be a significant positive predictor. Significant indirect effects based on 5000 bootstrap samples (Iacobucci, Saldanha, & Deng, 2007) were found for collegiality on intrinsic motivation, and for collegiality on perceived success and expected success. These significant mediational effects provide empirical support for our proposed model of pretenure faculty success in the domain of teaching. Squared multiple correlations showed the study variables to predict a small proportion of variance in perceived success (R2 = .09) but a moderate degree of variance for expected success (R2 = .30). Research domain. In the domain of research (Figures 4 and 5), balance positively predicted autonomy and competence. Collegiality again predicted relatedness but to a lesser extent than in the domain of teaching. Competence was a strong positive predictor and autonomy moderately predicted intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation, in turn, had a positive predictive effect on perceived and expected success beyond the effects of the social-environmental factors even though balance and expectations continued to predict perceived success, and balance predicted expected success. Again, modification indexes suggested that autonomy be specified as a direct predictor of expected success, which had a significant positive effect. Significant indirect effects were found for balance on intrinsic motivation, and for balance on perceived success and expected success. These significant mediational effects once again provide critical support for the proposed model of pretenure faculty success, specifically with respect to faculty research. Squared multiple correlations showed the study variables to explain a moderate level of variance for perceived success (R2 = .31) and large proportion of variance in expected success (R2 = .56).


11

Discussion Each year, a new cohort of faculty members is hired and expected to demonstrate success in teaching and research with the goal of achieving tenure. Universities are therefore invested in supporting and retaining pretenure professors so as to stabilize the faculty body and defer the high costs of hiring (Conley, 2007). In an effort to contribute to growing research identifying balance, clear expectations, and collegiality as critical to supporting pretenure faculty, the current study proposed and evaluated a mediational model of pretenure faculty success integrating faculty development and motivation research. Overall, the proposed model of pretenure faculty success was supported by the study data, with the following discussion outlining the implications of four motivational paths addressed in this model: (1) from social-environmental factors to psychological needs, (2) from psychological needs to intrinsic motivation, (3) from motivation to teaching and research success, and (4) the meditational mechanisms that explain these relationships. First, many hypothesized relationships were observed between the social-environmental factors and the basic psychological needs (Deci et al., 1997; Lechuga & Lechuga, 2012). The strongest pathway in our model was the connection between collegiality and relatedness, particularly in the domain of teaching. Collegiality was also positively related to perceptions of autonomy and competence in teaching, highlighting the critical nature of this socialenvironmental factor to teaching-related motivation. This effect is not surprising as teaching can be highly collaborative as faculty members within departments work together on curriculum development, exchanging materials, and assessment. Furthermore, because pretenure faculty typically have limited training in teaching upon starting their position (Austin, 2002), they regularly require support from colleagues to be successful. In contrast, in the research domain perceived balance was instead found to be most strongly related to autonomy and competence. Establishing a good routine and finding time for research appears to be most important for research motivation. Clear expectations were not significantly related to the basic psychological needs or intrinsic motivation of pretenure faculty in either the teaching or research domain. Clear expectations were, however, correlated with extrinsic motivation in both domains, possibly due to faculty expectations (e.g., for tenure consideration) typically being “externally” set by university administrators, thus aligning more closely with introjected and external motivation. An unexpected significant path was the negative relationship between clear expectations and perceived success in research. This finding suggests that for some faculty members, a clearer understanding of the criteria for research success may be somewhat demotivating in contributing to consistent feelings of lack of accomplishment following from a persistent focus on not yet having achieved the expectations for tenure. Further research on the relationship of clear expectations with motivation could contribute to our understanding of pretenure faculty success. Second, in support of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985), pretenure faculty who perceived their basic psychological needs as being satisfied also tended to report higher levels of intrinsic motivation. Nonetheless, important domain differences were again observed with relatedness being the sole predictor of intrinsic motivation for teaching, and perceptions of autonomy and competence more strongly predicting intrinsic motivation for research. This finding is consistent with existing research supporting the applicability of SDT to understanding faculty motivation (e.g., Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012). We acknowledge that, due to the institutions studied required on average faculty workload to consist of 50%teaching and 35% research, these relationships are likely to differ for faculty at institutions in which greater relative emphasis is placed on research


12

activities. Regardless, the current study is one of the first to provide empirical support for the application of SDT theory specifically for pretenure faculty and further, to examine these relations independently with respect to teaching and research responsibilities. Third, significant direct effects of intrinsic motivation on perceived and expected success in both the teaching and research domains were found. That is, pretenure faculty members who reported engaging in teaching and research because they found it enjoyable or interesting also tended to say they felt more successful and also expected to be successful in the future. Importantly, these effects were observed over and above the effects of the social-environmental factors of balance, clear expectations, and collegiality. This findings is consistent with previous research showing intrinsic motivation to correspond with better faculty outcomes (e.g., low faculty burnout, Frenet et al., 2004; perceived value of conducting research, Hardré et al., 2011) and expands this research in demonstrating these relations specifically among pretenure faculty with respect to both teaching and research obligations. It is also noteworthy that extrinsic motivation, specifically introjected and external types, were not significantly related to pretenure faculty success. Given that professors are not known for entering academia based on external pressures or to achieve a high salary, this finding is not surprising. Thus, our findings suggest that intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic types of motivation are optimal for promoting teaching and research success among pretenure faculty members. Autonomy was also found to directly predict higher levels of expected success with respect to both teaching and research activities (post-hoc path added due to modification indexes). From a conceptual perspective, these results suggest that pretenure faculty are likely to benefit from being provided opportunities to make their own choices in their work and from less intrusive forms of external regulation. For example, instances in which pretenure faculty are required to teach specific courses at specific times of day with minimal flexibility concerning the curriculum would be expected to correspond with lower levels of teaching-related motivation. Similarly, efforts to control or micromanage the research activities of pretenure faculty are likely to be detrimental to their motivation and achievement striving, with greater freedom concerning research topics and objectives instead expected to result in greater research motivation. Finally, perhaps the strongest overall support for the proposed model came from the significant mediation paths indirectly linking the social-environmental and SDT variables to perceived and expected success. Within the teaching domain, the effects of collegiality on perceived and expected success were found to be significantly mediated by perceptions of relatedness and intrinsic motivation. These effects suggest that connectedness, communication, and support for pretenure faculty members fosters an enjoyment of teaching that translates into both present and future feelings of teaching-related success. Concerning the research domain, the effects of balance on success was instead mediated by perceptions of competence and intrinsic motivation. Given that research activities are typically conducted on a more independent basis than teaching tasks, it is not unexpected that pretenure faculty would rely heavily on their own self-regulatory capabilities in this domain (e.g., time management, etc.). The significant indirect pathways observed from socio-environmental factors to perceived and expected success via motivational variables represents an important conceptual improvement that helps to better account for perceived and expected success in pretenure faculty. Consistent with previous studies, the social-environmental factors were found to be nonsignificant (Sax et al., 2002), small, or moderate predictors (Harrison & Kelly, 1996; Ponjuan et al., 2011; Stupnisky et al., 2015) of self-reported success in pretenure faculty. Given extensive qualitative findings that underscore the importance of these variables, it is surprising that


13

quantitative studies tend not to find strong relationships. One explanation is that faculty may more readily report observable, salient factors that affect their success when discussing success in qualitative interviews (e.g., relationships with colleagues, unclear evaluation guidelines, busy schedules), and are less immediately cognizant of more complex psychosocial variables (e.g., autonomy, competence, relatedness, or intrinsic motivation). Identifying and explaining mediational relationships as explanations for their success is thus an important contribution of the study warranting further investigation using other samples and methodologies in future studies. Implications and Limitations Our results contribute to the research literatures on both early-career faculty development and achievement motivation. From a conceptual perspective, the present findings provide empirical support for multiple psychological constructs outlined in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) as key mediators of the well-documented effects of perceived balance, expectations, and collegiality on faculty success (Austin et al., 2007). Whereas prior research provides critical insight regarding the applicability of SDT to faculty development (Lechuga & Lechuga, 2012), our study is the first to empirically evaluate the correspondence between these related literatures. Furthermore, although other empirical studies of SDT variables in faculty have been conducted (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Frenet et al., 2004; Hardré et al., 2011; Lechuga, 2012), this project is the first to examine the effects of these variables specifically among pretenure faculty; a unique population particularly at-risk of leaving their institution (Amey, 1996; Rosser, 2004; Zhou & Volkwein, 2004). Practically speaking, the proposed model and findings have implications for institutional efforts to promote pretenure faculty development. In this respect, our results suggest that university administrators (e.g., department chairs, deans, directors) could promote teaching effectiveness in pretenure faculty by fostering supportive relationships among departmental colleagues that, in turn, contribute to perceptions of relatedness, teaching-related enjoyment, and reports of greater success. For example, pretenure faculty members could be assigned a teaching mentor willing to share existing course materials, review course syllabi, discuss textbook options, or observe them in class. Alternatively, our findings suggest that efforts to promote pretenure faculty research should ideally encourage autonomy as well as a balance (teaching/research and work/life) through provisions such as teaching releases for research purposes, gym memberships for health promotion, or designated periods when faculty need not respond to email (e.g., weekends). Such initiatives would be expected to contribute to sustained faculty interest in research, and in turn, greater research-related success. The results of this study should be considered in the context of the following limitations. As the present sample was notably homogeneous in being recruited from two universities from a common geographic location with the same Carnegie classification, our findings may not generalize to faculty at other types of post-secondary institutions (e.g., 2-year colleges, other Carnegie classifications) or institutions in other locations (e.g., European universities not utilizing the tenure process). Although we are confident that the general patterns observed for our overall model would be replicated, it is possible that the observed strength of the specific links between the socio-environmental, motivational, and success variables may change as a function of differing academic responsibilities (e.g., teaching vs. research emphasis). Accordingly, although institutional and disciplinary differences were not examined in the current study, such analyses are warranted in future research in this domain.


14

Given that our conceptual model was exploratory in nature, further larger-scale quantitative research is recommended to replicate these findings and ascertain the extent to which the results observed can indeed be generalized to new faculty across institutions, disciplines, and countries. The present findings underscore the importance of examining not only traditional social-environmental predictors of pretenure faculty success with respect to balance, clear expectations, and collegiality, but also motivational constructs as informed by selfdetermination theory concerning perceptions of autonomy, competence, as well as relatedness. It is thus anticipated that continued research aimed at bridging the gap between structural and psychosocial predictors of faculty development can help to provide a more well-rounded perspective on how to best promote well-being as well as teaching and research effectiveness specifically in pretenure faculty. Footnote The current study uses the term “pretenure faculty members” to refer to professors on the tenure track, but not yet granted tenure, who typically have been employed in an academic position for one to six years. In most cases, the term pretenure faculty is synonymous with earlycareer faculty or assistant professors. Other studies have used the term “new faculty,” although Boice (1992) reported that after three years faculty typically dislike being referred to as new, and “junior faculty”, although this terms is less popular as it does not reflect the varied ages of faculty members (Austin, 2010). 1

References Aldersley, S. F. (1995). “Upward drift” is alive and well: Research/doctoral model still attractive to institutions. Change, 27(5), 50-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.9936448 Amey, M. J. (1996). The institutional marketplace and faculty attrition. Thought and Action, 12(1), 23-35. Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122. Austin, A. E. (2010). Supporting faculty members across their careers. In Gillespie, K. J., Robertson, D. L., and associates (Eds.) A Guides to Faculty Development (pp. 363-378). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Austin, A. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & McDaniels, M. (2007). Understanding new faculty: Background, aspirations, challenges, and growth. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 39-89). The Netherlands: Springer. Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2012). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature. IDEA Paper No. 50. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. Retrieved from http://ideaedu.org/research-andpapers/idea-papers/idea-paper-no-50/ Bess, J. L. (1997). Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Findstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. (2006). The impact of appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89-123. Boice, R. 1992. The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research university STEM faculty members’ motivation to engage in teaching professional development: Building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego. Journal of Science Education Technology, 21, 558-570. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). About Carnegie Classification. Retrieved (March 8, 2016) from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/. Cipriano, R. E., & Buller, J. L. (2012). Rating faculty collegiality. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 44(2), 45-48.


15

Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education [COACHE] (2008). COACHE highlights report 2008. Cambridge, MA: COACHE. Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education [COACHE] (2010). The experience of tenure-track faculty at research universities: Analysis of COACHE Survey Results by Academic Area and Gender. Cambridge, MA: COACHE. Conley, V. M. (2007). Report on the 2007 survey of faculty retirement policies. Washington, D.C: American Association of University Professors. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/36818073-DDAE-4CFC-B15841A1524D62E3/0/AAUP2007RetirementReport.pdf Deci, E. L., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Self-determined teaching: Opportunities and obstacles. In J. L. Bess (Ed.), Teaching well and liking it: Motivating faculty to teach effectively (pp. 57-71). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Eddy, P. L., & Gaston-Gayles, J. L. (2008). New faculty on the block: Issues of stress and support. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17, 89-106. Feldman, K. A. (1978). Course characteristics and college students’ ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Research in Higher Education, 9, 199-242. Frenet, C., Guay, F., & Senecal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 39-56. Greene, H. C., O’Connor, K. A., Good, A. J., Ledford, C. C., Peel, B. B., & Zhang, G. (2008). Building a support system toward tenure: Challenges and needs of tenure-track faculty in colleges of education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 16(4), 429-447. Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A. D., Miller, R. L., & Pace, T. M (2011). Faculty motivation to do research: Across disciplines in research-extensive universities. The Journal of the Professoriate, 5(1), 35-69. Hardré, P. L., & Kollman, S. L. (2012). Motivational implications of faculty performance standards. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. 40(6), 724-751. Hall, N. C., Perry, R. P., Chipperfield, J. G., Clifton, R. A., & Haynes, T. L. (2006). Enhancing primary and secondary control in achievement settings through writing-based attributional retraining. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 361–391. Harrison, A. L., & Kelly, D. G. (1996). Career satisfaction of physical therapy faculty during their pretenure years. Physical Therapy, 76(11), 1202-1218. Hill, N. R. (2009). An empirical exploration of the occupational satisfaction of counselor educators: The influence of gender, tenure status, and minority status. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 55-61. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A mediation on mediation: Evidence that structural equation models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 140-154. Lease, S. H. (1999). Occupational role stressors, coping, support, and hardiness as predictors of strain in academic faculty: An emphasis on new and female faculty. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 285-307. Lechuga, V. M. (2012). Latino faculty in STEM disciplines: Motivation to engage in research activities. Journal of Latinos and Education, 11, 107-123. Lechuga, V. M., & Lechuga, D. C. (2012). Faculty motivation and scholarly work: Self-determination and selfregulation perspectives. The Journal of the Professoriate, 6(2), 59-97. Lei, M., & Lomax, R. G. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structure Equation Modeling, 12, 1-17. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness; Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603641. Mascret, N., Elliot, A. J., & Cury, F. (2015). The 3 x 2 achievement goal questionnaire for teachers. Educational Psychology. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1096324 Menec, V. H., Chipperfield, J. G., & Perry, R. P. (1999). Self-perceptions of health: A prospective analysis of mortality, control, and health. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 54B, P85–P93.


16

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-11, 28‐53. Nir, A. E., & Zilberstein-Levy, R. (2006). Planning for academic excellence: Tenure and promotion considerations. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 537-554. Olsen, D. (1993). Work satisfaction and stress in the first and third year of academic appointment. Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), 453-471. O’Connor, K., Green, H. C., Good, A. J., & Zang, G. (2011). Finding balance: A challenge for untenured faculty. International Education Studies, 4(4), 3-12. Perry, R. P., Clifton, R. A., Menec, V. H., Struthers, C. W., & Menges, R. J. (2000). Faculty in transition: A longitudinal analysis of perceived control and type of institution in the research productivity of newly hired faculty. Research in Higher Education, 41(2), 165-194. Pifer, M. J., & Baker, V. L. (2013). Managing the process: The intradepartmental networks of early-career academics. Innovative Higher Education, 38, 323-337. doi: 10.1007/s10755-012-9243-y

Ponjuan, L., Conley, V. M., & Trower, C. (2011). Career stage differences in pre-tenure track faculty perceptions of professional and personal relationships with colleagues. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(3), 319-346. Pounder, J. S. (2007). Is student evaluation of teaching worthwhile? An analytic framework for answering the question. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(2), 178-191. Qudais, M. A., Al-Omari, A., & Smadi, R. (2009). The new faculty members’ concerns: The case of Jordanian Universities. Journal of Institutional Research, 14(2), 45-59. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288. Rosser, V. J. (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45, 285–309. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. Ruthig, J. C., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2007). Domain-specific optimistic bias: Implications for college students’ achievement and well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 115–137. Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F. A. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423-446. Stupnisky, R. H., Weaver-Hightower, M., & Kartoshkina, Y. (2015). Exploring and testing predictors of new faculty success: A mixed method study. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 368-390. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.842220 Trotman, C. A., & Brown, B. E. (2005). Faculty recruitment and retention: Concerns of early and mid-career faculty. TIAA-CREF Institute Research Dialogue, 86, 1-11. Trower, C. A., & Gallagher, A. S. (2008). Perspectives on what pre-tenure faculty want and what six research universities provide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016-17 Edition: Postsecondary Teachers, http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/postsecondary-teachers.htm (visited January 14, 2016) Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981-1002. doi: 10.1348/096317909X481382 Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied Statistics: From Bivariate Through Multivariate Techniques (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Zhou, Y., & Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure intentions: A comparison of tenured versus nontenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education, 45, 139–176.


17

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Variable Established Predictors Balance Expectations Collegiality Teaching Autonomy Competence Relatedness Intrinsic motivation Introject motivation External motivation Perceived success Expected success Research Autonomy Competence Relatedness Intrinsic motivation Introject motivation External motivation Perceived success Expected success

Range

M (SD)

Skewness

Kurtosis

Cronbach’s α Reliability

1-5 1-5 1-5

3.04(.97) 3.71(1.02) 4.01(.94)

-.17 -.80 -.99

-.35 .02 .61

.93 .92 .84

1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-10 1-10

3.90(.83) 4.21(.65) 3.67(.89) 4.05(.84) 2.95(1.23) 3.73(1.16) 7.91(1.25) 8.34(1.40)

-1.22 -1.29 -1.08 -.92 -.07 -.66 -.55 -1.64

2.17 4.71 1.28 .40 -1.13 -.41 -.32 6.26

.85 .88 .88 .86 .86 .86 .73 -

1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-10 1-10

4.09(.88) 3.98(.83) 3.61(1.04) 4.06(.81) 2.97(1.24) 3.63(1.10) 7.19(1.68) 7.76(1.63)

-.98 -.68 -.59 -1.06 -.14 -.63 -.31 -.80

.34 .05 -.35 1.50 -1.10 -.36 -.84 .70

.91 .94 .94 .85 .83 .82 .82 -


18

Table 2 Correlations for Teaching (below diagonal) and Research (above diagonal) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

-

.32**

.47**

.42**

.37**

.21*

.18

.03

-.05

.43**

.38**

2. Expectancy

.32**

-

.53**

.13

.14

.12

.03

.37**

.18

-.02

.07

3. Collegiality

.47**

.53**

-

.23*

.10

.25*

-.10

.19*

.03

.04

.08

4. Autonomy

.10

.18

.40**

-

.77**

.66**

.58**

.00

-.11

.34**

.69**

5. Competence

.15

.06

.20*

.74**

-

.54**

.68**

-.07

-.12

.40**

.66**

6. Relatedness

.14

.12

.41**

.69**

.63**

-

.30**

.08

-.10

.17

.45**

7. Intrinsic motivation

.04

.02

.21*

.42**

.35**

.63**

-

.00

-.22*

.30**

.52**

8. Introject motivation

.01

.34**

.19

.17

.20*

.11

.02

-

.52**

-.12

-.01

9. External motivation

.03

.21*

.00

.08

.14

-.10

-.26**

.57**

-

-.13

-.16

10. Perceived success

.22*

.15

.16

.31**

.38**

.28**

.20

.08

.17

-

.43**

11. Expected success

.04

.14

.24*

.53**

.45**

.36**

.32**

.09

.01

.51**

-

1. Balance

* p < .05, ** p < .01


19

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Pretenure Faculty Members’ Success Social-environmental Factors

SDT Basic Needs

Balance

Autonomy

Clear Expectations

Competence

Collegiality

Relatedness

SDT Motivation

Motivation

Success

Perceived/Expected Success


20

Figure 2 Path Analysis on Perceived Success: Teaching Domain

Note. Model goodness of fit: χ2(6) = 12.73, p = .048, SRMR = .07, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .11. Regression paths at p ≤ .05 are in solid circles and paths at p ≤ .11 are in dashed circles. Indirect effects based on 5000 bootstrap samples were found for collegiality on intrinsic motivation (β = .31, p ≤ .001) and for collegiality on perceived success (β = .08, p ≤ .10). Squared multiple correlations (R2) appear on top right corner of endogenous variables.


21

Figure 3 Path Analysis on Expected Success: Teaching Domain

Note. Model goodness of fit: χ2(5) = 3.62, p = .606, SRMR = .02, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. Regression paths at p ≤ .05 are in solid circles and paths at p ≤ .10 are in dashed circles. Indirect effects based on 5000 bootstrap samples were found for collegiality on intrinsic motivation (β = .31, p ≤ .001) and for collegiality on expected success (β = .44, p ≤ .001). Squared multiple correlations (R2) appear on top right corner of endogenous variables.


22

Figure 4 Path Analysis on Perceived Success: Research Domain

Note. Model goodness of fit: χ2(6) = 10.51, p = .11, SRMR = .04, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .09. Regression paths at p ≤ .05 are in solid circles and paths at p ≤ .10 are in dashed circles. Indirect effects based on 5000 bootstrap samples were found for balance on intrinsic motivation (β = .24, p ≤ .001) and for balance on perceived success (β = .11, p ≤ .01). Squared multiple correlations (R2) appear on top right corner of endogenous variables.


23

Figure 5 Path Analysis on Expected Success: Research Domain

Note. Model goodness of fit: χ2(5) = 9.77, p = .082, SRMR = .03, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .10. Regression paths at p ≤ .05 are in solid circles and paths at p ≤ .10 in dashed circles. Indirect effects based on 5000 bootstrap samples were found for balance on intrinsic motivation (β = .24, p ≤ .01) and for balance on expected success (β = .45, p ≤ .001). Squared multiple correlations (R2) appear on top right corner of endogenous variables.


24

Appendix: Study Scales Established Predictors of Pretenure Faculty Success Based on your experiences in your current position this academic year, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: (1 = Strongly disagree, 2, 3, 4, 5 = Strongly agree) Personal Balance I have been able to balance my work and home/personal life. I have found time to have fun outside of work. I live a healthy lifestyle while working at this job. Expectations at my job do not interfere with my home/personal life. Professional Balance I have been able to balance my teaching, research, and service duties. I have figured out how to effectively manage my work schedule. I have sufficient time at work to do a good job on teaching, research, and service. I have established a good routine at my job. Clear Expectations I have come to understand what the expectations are for me at work. I know exactly what I need to do to get tenure and promotion. I received sufficient feedback on my progress towards tenure and promotion. The standards for success at my work are clear. Collegiality My department is very supportive. There is a colleague in my department whom I can ask for advice and guidance. I have a supportive department chair. I have developed friendships in my department. Note. An exploratory factor analysis on all items indicated expectations and collegiality to be unique factors, whereas the personal and professional balance scales loaded onto a single factor and were thus combined to represent “balance” in all further analyses.

Basic Psychological Needs In terms of TEACHING/RESEARCH, please indicate how true each of the following statement is for you this academic year: (1 = Strongly disagree, 2, 3, 4, 5 = Strongly agree)

Autonomy Satisfaction In my [teaching/research], I feel a sense of choice and freedom. I feel that my decisions regarding [teaching/research] reflect what I really want. My choices on my [teaching/research] express who I really am. I feel I have been doing what really interests me in my [teaching/research]. Competence Satisfaction I feel confident that I can do things well on my [teaching/research]. In my [teaching/research], I feel capable at what I do. When I am [teaching/conducting research], I feel competent to achieve my goals. In my [teaching/research], I feel I can successfully complete difficult tasks. Relatedness Satisfaction I feel that the people I care about when I [teach/conduct research] also care about me. I feel supported by the people whom I care about when [teaching/conducting research]. When [teaching/conducting research], I feel close with people who are important to me. I experience a warm feeling with the people I spend time with when [teaching/conducting research].

Motivation Please indicate the extent to which each of the following statements correspond with WHY you engage in teaching and research activities this academic year: (1 = Does not correspond at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 = Corresponds completely) Intrinsic Motivation Because it is pleasant to carry out this task. Because I find this task interesting to do. Because I like doing this task. Introjected Motivation Because if I don’t carry out this task I will feel bad. Because I would feel guilty not doing it. Because I do not want to feel bad if I do not do it. External Motivation Because my work demands it. Because the school obliges me to do it. Because I am paid to do it.