Table 1. Differences in Intention to Quit Items Across Participants from Three Job Categories, Percentage Agree or Stron

1. While institutional research’s (IR’s) role in helping to meet may needs in academe is increasingly important, experienced IR professionals are difficult to find and developing expertise involves a long period of training (Leimer and Terkla, 2009) in part because there is no formal educational route that specifically prepares IR professionals aside from a small number of recently developed certificate programs. Even seasoned professionals require time to learn the idiosyncrasies of institutions to which they are recruited. When IR professionals leave their jobs, the cost to the institution is high in terms of recruiting, retraining, and productivity. Compounding these issues is the projected labor shortage overall in the United States in the years ahead, especially among employees in knowledge-driven industries (Albright & Cluff, 2005; Stevens, 2006), and the upcoming retirements of large numbers of employees from the baby boom generation (Frank, Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004; “Turning Boomers,” 2006). Knight and Leimer (2010) drew upon the IR effectiveness literature as well as the voluntary job turnover literature in the field of Industrial-Organizational Psychology to develop and test a model of voluntary job turnover among institutional researchers. Their results (see Figure 1) indicated that perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, job embeddedness, and job satisfaction had moderate negative relationships with intention to quit one’s IR job among a national sample of Association for Institutional members. There is evidence that influences upon voluntary job turnover among institutional researchers are not constant across levels of longevity or job categories. Delaney (2001, June) found that minimal opportunity to use one’s intelligence, job monotony or lack of variety, and pressure to lower one’s standards were highest among research analysts and associates. Rosser (2004) found that mid-level administrators in higher education have developed a tolerance for working conditions that include excessive workload and job stress such that they did not influence mid-level administrators’ intention to stay or leave. Rosser (2004) found that for mid-level administrators, the more positive the relationships with campus and external constituencies, the more satisfied they are likely to be with their work and the less likely they are to leave. Given this evidence as well as the increased presence of institutional researchers in two-year and for-profit institutions, this study was designed to extend the work of Knight and Leimer (2010) by exploring differences across job categories and institutional sectors in effects on intention to quit. Method The study population was comprised of all institutional research professionals from the United States and Canada appearing in the Association for Institutional Research (AIR) member database as of September 10, 2008. Email addresses of were supplied by AIR. A 36% response rate was obtained. There were no significant differences between the participants and the AIR member population with respect to sex, race/ethnicity, institutional control, or institutional highest degree level. Data were collected by means of a web-based survey developed for the study. Survey items included variables shown in previous literature to significantly relate to employees decisions to voluntarily leave their jobs. These were comprised of demographic items as well as 12 scales that were determined in the literature to show a high degree of construct validity within the job turnover theories noted above. This study used a structural equation modeling approach. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the distinctiveness of the scales. Data were screened for missing data, multivariate outliers, linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity using procedures suggested by Mertler and Vannatta (2005). All variables used in the research models have fewer than 5% of missing cases except for Perceived Organizational Support, which had 6.6% missing cases. After 27 cases were identified as multivariate outliers, they were deleted, resulting in a final sample size of 1,143. Knight and Leimer’s research model (see Figure 1) was tested against the data obtained from the survey across job category and institutional sector groups using the AMOS 7.0 program. Job category groups were based upon survey responses, and included “Director or Higher” (n=684), Assistant or Associate Director” (n=144), and “IR Analyst, Coordinator, or Equivalent Position” (n=293). Data were excluded for the 47 participants who listed their job category as “Other.” Institutional sector groups were also based on survey responses, and included “Two-Year Public” (n=268), “Four-Year Public” (n=436), “Four-Year Private” (n=394), and “Four-Year For-Profit” (n=24). Due to small group sizes, data were excluded from participants who listed their institutional sector as “Less Than Two-Year Public” (n=5), “Two-Year Private” (n=6), and “I do not work on a campus” (n=28). Chi square analyses were used to explore significant differences between groups on the five items that comprise the Intention to Quit scale. The appropriateness of the models across job category and institutional sector groups was tested using procedures described by Arbuckle (n.d.). All measures were treated as observed variables. Critical ratios (the ratios of unstandardized regression weights to their respective standard errors) were used at the ρ < .05 significance level to determine whether paths in the model remained significant within each group. For paths that remained significant for all groups, significant differences in the sizes of the regression weights were examined by constraining the weights to be equal across groups in a series of research models whose Chi square and regression results were compared to those of a baseline model where weights were free to vary. Results Differences in Intention to Quit Scale Items by Group Tables 1 and 2 provide results for the percentage of participants within each group who agreed or strongly agreed with each of the five statements that comprise the Intention to Quit scale. Analysts and Coordinators were slightly more likely to indicate that they planned to leave their jobs, although the difference was significantly only for one statement: “I plan to leave this organization in a little while.” Responses were significantly different by institutional sector for each of the five statements. Participants from four-year, for-profit institutions were more likely to agree that “I plan to leave this organization in a little while” and “I plan to leave this organization before too long,” while those from two-year public colleges were more likely to agree that “I do not plan on leaving this organization soon” and those from four-year private institutions were least likely to agree that “I intend to leave this organization soon” and “I will quit this organization as soon as possible.” Differences in Effects On Intention to Quit Across Job Categories For participants who were Directors or in higher positions, the path between Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor and Job Stress 1 and between Job Satisfaction and Intention to Quit were found to be non-significant. This caused Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor to drop out of the model. See Figure 2 for details. Four paths were found to be non-significant for participants who were Assistant or Associate Directors: Job Satisfaction to Organizational Commitment, Perceived Organizational Support to Job Stress 1, Job Satisfaction to Intention to Quit, and Intention to Search 2 to Intention to Quit. This caused Intention to Search 2 to drop out of the model, which is shown in Figure 3. For participants who were IR Analysts, Coordinators, or the equivalent, the path between Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor and Job Stress 1 was found to not be significant, as was the path from Intention to Search 2 to Intention to Quit. These results caused Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor and Intention to Search 2 to drop out of the model, which is seen in Figure 4. Among remaining paths that remained in place for models for the three job category groups, none of their sizes, or regression weights, were found to be significantly different, as shown in Table 3. Differences in Effects On Intention to Quit Across Institutional Sectors For participants from two-year public institutions, the following paths were not significant: Job Satisfaction to Organizational Commitment, Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor to Job Stress 1, Job Satisfaction to Intention to Quit, and Intention to Search 2 to Intention to Quit. These results caused Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor and Intention to Search 2 to drop out of the model, which is seen in Figure 5. Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor to Job Stress 1, Fairness of Rewards and Recognition Compared to Other Units to Intention to Search 2, and Job Satisfaction to Intention to Quit were the three paths that were not significant for participants from four-year public institutions. This caused Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor to drop out of the model. See Figure 6 for details. Among participants from four-year private institutions, the path from Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor to Job Stress 1was found to not be significant. This caused Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor to drop out of the model, as shown in Figure 7. For participants from four-year for-profit institutions, the following paths were not significant: a) Participation in Decision-Making to Perceived Organizational Support, b) Job Satisfaction to Organizational Commitment, c) Perceived Job Alternatives to Intention to Search 2, d) Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor to Job Stress 1, e) Role Conflict as a Job Stressor to Job Stress 1, f) Perceived Job Growth Opportunities to Intention to Search 2, g) Intent to Search 1 to Intention to Quit, h) Job Satisfaction to Intention to Quit, i) Job Stress 1 to Intention to Quit, and j) Job Embeddedness to Intention to Quit. This caused the following variables to drop out of the model since they no longer had direct or indirect effects upon Intention to Quit: a) Participation in Decision-Making, b) Role Ambiguity as a Job Stressor, c) Role Conflict as a Job Stressor, d) Intent to Search 1, e) Perceived Job Alternatives, f) Job Satisfaction, g) (Job Stress 1, h) Work Overload as a Job Stressor, i) Work-Family Conflict as a Job Stressor, and j) Job Embeddedness. See Figure 8 for details. Among remaining paths that remained in place for models for the three job category groups, none of their sizes, or regression weights, were found to be significantly different, as shown in Table 4. Discussion The finding that Analysts and Coordinators were slightly more likely to indicate that they planned to leave their jobs supports the results of (Delaney’s 2001, June) study. This may be due to the fact that more senior IR professionals are experiencing job embeddedness (Knight & Leimer, 2010) or it may be a disturbing sign that our junior colleagues are not having the types of positive experiences that will cause them to stay in their jobs. Methods for mitigating turnover among analysts and Coordinators may include providing them with intellectual challenge and opportunities to improve professional skills, developing strong mentoring relationships, and promoting active involvement in professional associations in order to strengthen professional networks. Younger professionals may be planning to leave because it is the only way for them to advance in their professions. More research, perhaps of a qualitative nature, is necessary for better understanding why participants from four-year, for-profit institutions were more likely to agree that “I plan to leave this organization in a little while” and “I plan to leave this organization before too long,” while those from two-year public colleges were more likely to agree that “I do not plan on leaving this organization soon” and those from four-year private institutions were least likely to agree that “I intend to leave this organization soon” and “I will quit this organization as soon as possible.” It is interesting to ponder what it is about IR employment in the four-year, for-profit sector that may be causing our colleagues there to be more likely to consider leaving their jobs. Unfortunately, lack of access for researchers to study workplace experiences of employees in the for-profit sector hinders greater understanding. It may be that role ambiguity as a job stressor is only important for assistant and associate directors because of the “betwixt and between” nature of such positions. Assistant and associate directors may have more responsibility and status and greater compensation that analysts and coordinators, but not as much so as directors of institutional research. They may find themselves pushed into activities that are more typical of the higher or lower roles as the office strives to cope with workload. This role ambiguity may cause them to be uncomfortable and to consider leaving their current jobs for situations where roles are better defined. Perhaps job satisfaction has a direct effect on intention to quit for analysts and coordinators but not for directors and assistant or associate directors because those with greater longevity in the profession are more aware of the complex and shifting array of factors that affect job satisfaction, such as perceived organizational support, advancement opportunities, job embeddedness, and available job alternatives. A typical piece of advice from longstanding IR professionals who have remained effective in their work when dealing with institutional politics and personalities is to be tenacious, to recognize how much one supervisor or leader in the institution can affect the job experiences of institutional researchers, and to realize that “this too shall pass” (Knight, 2010). Why might the “Intention to Search 2” scale remain a significant predictor of intention to quit for directors by not for institutional researchers at lower levels? The items within the scale included “Read the help wanted/classified ads in a newspaper, journal, or professional association communication.”, “Read a book or article about getting a job or changing jobs.”, “Talked to friends or relatives about possible job leads.”, “Spoke with previous employers or business acquaintances about their knowing of potential job leads.”, “Used current colleagues to generate potential job leads.” Might the last two items suggest that Directors have a better-cultivated professional network? Another question arising from these results is why job satisfaction affected intention to quit only indirectly through “Intent to Search 1” for participants from two-year public colleges, and indirectly through “Intent to Search 1” and organizational commitment for participants from four-year public institutions, but not also directly as it does for participants from four-year private institutions. Perhaps the answer lies in greater job embeddedness for colleagues who are members of state retirement systems or greater influence of the job market on the part of public sector colleagues during this economic downturn. Why might perceived fairness of rewards and recognition not contribute to predicting intention to quit for participants from four-year public institutions, while it was significant for participants from other institutional sectors? Is it because rewards and recognition are perceived as more universally fair (or unfair) for institutional researchers at four-year publics than at other types of institutions? This is another area for further study. Perhaps most interestingly, why did so many factors fail to significantly predict intention to quit for participants from four-year, for-profit institutions? Unlike the situation for participants from other sectors, participation in decision-making; role conflict, work overload, and work-family conflict as job stressors; perceived job alternatives; job satisfaction; “Job Stress 1”; job embeddedness; and “Intent to Search 1” were not significant predictors of intention to quit for this group. Is there some other overarching experience that influences the decisions of institutional research in this sector to remain at or to leave their jobs? While this group was relatively small (n=24), these findings remain intriguing. As noted earlier, however, lack of access for researchers to study workplace experiences of employees in the for-profit sector hinders greater understanding. References Albright, W., & Cluff, G. (2005). Ahead of the curve: How MITRE recruits and retains Older workers. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 24(2), 53-63. Arbuckle, J. L. (n.d.). AMOS 7.0 users guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc. Delaney, A. M. (2001, June). Institutional researchers: Challenges, resources, and opportunities. Paper presented at the 41st annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA. Frank, F. D. Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27, 12-25. Knight, W. E.  (2010).  In their own words: Effectiveness in institutional research. AIR professional File, 115. Knight, W. E. & Leimer, C. (2010). Will IR staff stick? An exploration of institutional researchers’ intention to remain in or leave their jobs. Research in Higher Education,51(2), 109-131. Leimer, C. and Terkla, D. G. (2009). Laying the foundation: IR office organization, staffing, and career development.In Leimer, C. (ed.), Imagining the future of institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mertler, A. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced multivariate statistical methods (3rded.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung professionals in the academy. Higher Education, 48: 317–337. Stevens, R. (2006, April 19). Social engineering. Wall Street Journal, p. A12. Turning boomers into boomerangs. (2006, February 18-24). The Economist, p. 65-67 Table 1. Differences in Intention to Quit Items Across Participants from Three Job Categories, Percentage Agree or Strongly Agree Assistant/ Analyst/ Item DirectorsAssociateCoordinator ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I intend to leave this organization soon. 8% 7% 9% I plan to leave this organization in a little while.* 21% 21% 25% I will quit this organization as soon as possible. 5% 6% 8% I do not plan on leaving this organization soon. (R) 21% 21% 26% I may leave this organization before too long. 29% 31% 35% ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * Ρ < .05. Figure 8. Research Model for Effects Upon Intention to Quit for Participants at Four-Year For-Profit Institutions Testing Models of Voluntary Job Turnover in Institutional Research: Differences by Job Category and Institutional SectorWilliam E. KnightBowling Green State University Table 2. Differences in Intention to Quit Items Across Participants from Four Institutional Sectors, Percentage Agree or Strongly Agree Two-Year Four-Year Four-Year Four-Year Item PublicPublicPrivateFor –Profit _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I intend to leave this organization soon.*** 8% 8% 7% 8% I plan to leave this organization in a little while.** 23% 24% 17% 29% I will quit this organization as soon as possible.* 6% 7% 4% 4% I do not plan on leaving this organization soon.(R)* 24% 22% 19% 21% I may leave this organization before too long.* 34% 32% 26% 50% _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * Ρ < .05, P < .01. Figure 7. Research Model for Effects Upon Intention to Quit for Participants at Four-Year Private Institutions Figure 1. Model of Effects Upon Intention to Quit From Knight and Leimer (2010) Figure 6. Research Model for Effects Upon Intention to Quit for Participants at Four-Year Public Institutions Table 3. Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Tests of Equality of Regression Weights for Differences by Job Category Model χ2df Δ χ2 Δ dfρ Baseline Model (combined groups) 737 186 Path from Intent to Search 1 to Intent to Quit Invariant 740 188 3 2 n.s. Path from Organizational Commitment to Intent to Quit Invariant 741 188 4 2 n.s. Path from Job Stress 1 to Intent to Quit Invariant 738 188 1 2 n.s. Path from Job Satisfaction to Intent to Search 1 Invariant 739 188 2 2 n.s. Path from Perceived Job Alternatives to Intent to Search 1 Invariant 739 188 2 2 n.s. Path from Job Stress from Role Conflict to Job Stress 1 Invariant 738 188 1 2 n.s. Path From Job Stress from Work Overload to Job Stress 1 Invariant 737 188 0 2 n.s. Path From Job Stress from Work-Family Conflict To Job Stress 1 Invariant 737 188 0 2 n.s. Path From Perceived Organizational Support to Job Satisfaction Invariant 737 188 0 2 n.s. Path From Perceived Organizational Support to Organizational Commitment Invariant 739 188 2 2 n.s. Path From Participation in Decision Making to Perceived Organizational Support Invariant 737 188 0 2 n.s. Path From Fairness of Rewards and recognition as Compared to Other Units to Perceived Organizational Support Invariant 742 188 5 2 n.s. Path From Job Growth Opportunities to Perceived Organizational Support Invariant 737 188 0 2 n.s. Figure 2. Research Model for Effects Upon Intention to Quit for IR Directors Figure 3. Research Model for Effects Upon Intention to Quit for Assistant and Associate Directors Figure 4. Research Model for Effects Upon Intention to Quit for Analysts, Coordinators, and Equivalent Positions Figure 5. Research Model for Effects Upon Intention to Quit for Participants at Two-Year Public Colleges Table 4 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Tests of Equality of Regression Weights for Differences by Job Category Model χ2df Δ χ2 Δ dfρ Baseline Model (combined groups) 884 248 Path From Organizational Commitment to Intent to Quit 888 251 4 3 n.s. Path From Job Embeddedness to Organizational Commitment 885 251 1 3 n.s. Path From Perceived Organizational Support to Organizational Commitment 885 251 1 3 n.s. Path From Fairness of Rewards and Recognition Compared with Other Units to Perceived Organizational Support 886 251 2 3 n.s. Path From Job Growth Opportunities to Perceived Organizational Support 885 251 7 3 n.s.