(a) job satisfaction (F (1, 553) = 3.01, p = .08, η2 = .005), (b) turnover intentions (F (1, 553) = 3.41, p = .07, η2 = .006), (c) burnout (F (1, 553) = .43, p = .51, η2 = .001), or (d)
psychological well-being (F (1, 553) = 1.30, p = .26, η2 = .002).
Further, I conducted a MANOVA with all three tenure clock extensions statuses included (extended, considered, and did not extend). Means for those who considered extended the tenure clock are included in Table D-6. The interaction of sex, STEM status, and TCES had a significant effect on turnover intentions (F (1, 613) = 3.19, p < .05, η2 = .010), but no effect on job satisfaction, burnout, or psychological well-being, as shown in Figures C-4 and C-5. However, the Tukey HSD post hoc test results showed
that the TCES groups were not different for turnover intentions. This Tukey HSD result is likely due to the unequal number of respondents in each group (Ns for each group are shown on the Table D-6). Thus, in answer to research question 1, the “considered” group appeared no different than the other two tenure clock extension status groups.
Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis 7 proposed that working in a family-supportive work environment moderates the effects of extending the tenure clock on outcomes. To test this hypothesis, I conducted a series of multiple regressions. Hypothesis 7 was not supported, as shown on Table D-7. The relationships between tenure clock extension status (TCES) and (a)
job satisfaction, (b) turnover intentions, (c) burnout, and (d) psychological symptoms, were not moderated by family-supportive organizational perceptions (FSOP).
SUMMARY
The purpose of this study was to examine the unique and joint effects of tenure clock extension status, sex, and STEM status on job outcomes and psychological well- being of tenure-track faculty. Faculty who extended the tenure clock had significantly more psychological symptoms, and thus less psychological well-being, than those who did not extend. FSOP did not moderate the relationships between TCES and job satisfaction, turnover intentions, burnout, or psychological symptoms. Whereas female faculty members reported significantly lower job satisfaction, higher turnover intentions, more burnout, and lower psychological well-being compared to male faculty members, there were no significant differences between men and women who extended the tenure clock on any of the four outcomes examined. STEM faculty had higher turnover
intentions than nonSTEM, but the interaction of STEM status and sex did not have significant effect on any of the outcomes, nor did the interaction of STEM status, sex, and TCES. In response to my research question regarding faculty members who only considered extended the clock, this group was not found to be significantly different from either the “did not consider” or “extended” groups for any of the hypotheses. Extending the Clock Does Not Reduce Stress, Regardless of FSOP
This study contributes to the literature by identifying a problem that many perceive to already be resolved by the existence of a tenure clock extension policy: despite the widespread development of flexible tenure clock policies, those who cannot proceed on the traditional tenure clock are still disadvantaged, having lower
Tenure clock extensions are granted for events that are generally stressful, such as illness, new child, or problems with lab construction. Assuming that people did feel stress from these events (which was unmeasured in this study), the results of this study indicate that extending the tenure clock either has no effect on the stress associated with the reasons for extending the tenure clock or has the unintended effect of increasing stress. It is possible that the stress associated with the events is too great to be remedied by an extra year on the tenure clock, or that the stress and flexibility stigma associated with extending the tenure clock add much more stress. This added stress likely
counteracts any slight reduction in stress provided by having the extra year to achieve tenure.
Results indicate that the negative effect associated with extending the tenure clock is a problem that is not remedied by working in a family-supportive work environment. It is possible that the stress associated with extending the tenure clock is not remedied by working in a family-supportive environment because the stress stems from having doubts about achieving tenure. The policy and requirements for tenure remain unchanged regardless of whether or not the faculty member works with colleagues that respect family responsibilities, and these requirements are likely more daunting for a faculty member that has extended the clock.
Women Have More Negative Outcomes
Faculty women consistently had worse outcomes than faculty men, regardless of STEM status or tenure clock extension status. This is not surprising, as many studies have found that the climate for women in academia is poor (e.g., Settles, Cortina,
Stewart, & Malley, 2007). However, contrary to the literature on women in STEM, women in STEM did not have significantly more negative outcomes than other combinations of sex and STEM status. Regardless of discipline, women have more negative outcomes than men, which suggests that this is not a discipline-specific problem but rather a problem that is persistent across all of academia—and likely all of the
workforce. Society still subscribes to traditional gender roles which claim that a woman’s place is in the home (Eagly, 1987). Women with the same qualifications are still deemed to be less competent and less hireable than their male peers when applying for jobs (Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman 2012). Implicit bias still controls our mental models of employees in certain occupations (Fiske, 2002). These issues are pervasive and make being a woman in academia a difficult challenge,
regardless of field of study.
STEM Has Higher Turnover Intentions
Although faculty working in STEM did not have lower job satisfaction, higher burnout, and less psychological well-being compared to those in nonSTEM, STEM faculty reported higher turnover intentions. It is possible that STEM faculty are happy in their positions but intend to turnover for a position either in an academic setting or in industry that is preferable due to tangential reasons (e.g. location). These other possible reasons for turnover intentions are beyond the scope of this paper and the survey from which it was derived, but future researchers interested in the STEM pipeline in academia should consider these issues to explain why STEM graduates either do not enter
Limitations and Future Directions
This study is hampered by its cross-sectional nature, small sample, and self-report measures. A longitudinal study is necessary to establish that extending the tenure clock leads to lower psychological well-being. Without longitudinal data, there is room for the possibility that faculty with lower psychological well-being (whether in general, or following the precipitating event) are more likely to extend the tenure clock compared to those with higher psychological well-being (i.e., reverse causality). Thus, we are unable to determine whether there is change in well-being within person, and if there is, whether that change happens following the precipitating event or the tenure clock extension.
The small sample size in this study meant that there was insufficient power to detect even large effects for some of the hypotheses. In particular, Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 5, and 6 make comparisons among several groups, resulting in even smaller group sizes after dividing up the small number of participants who reported extending the tenure clock (N = 92). There are trends in the data that suggest that these hypotheses are worth future research attention. Future research should replicate this work in larger samples, as well as longitudinally, in order to obtain sufficient power to adequately test these
hypotheses. Further, much larger samples would allow for the examination of additional factors, such as the specific events that precipitated the tenure clock extension.
Another limitation of the present study was the inability to identify why faculty members intended to turnover. While most measures of turnover intentions presume
voluntary turnover, it might be that the faculty member intends to turnover in
university.Notably, the specific university examined has a 3rd-year review policy
whereby faculty members are given formal feedback regarding progress toward tenure. It is possible that faculty members who extended the clock prior to their 3-year review were given reason to believe that they would not receive tenure at the end of their
probationary period and thus intend to leave the university before they are denied tenure. The present study would have benefitted from the inclusion of a productivity assessment as a control variable. Although a self-report measure of productivity was included in the survey instrument, I chose not to include it because it is a self-report measure. Further, if the person recently extended the tenure clock, they likely are less productive than others at the moment, but this may not be related to their productivity or career success long term. For these reasons, a more long-term and objective measure of productivity should be examined as an outcome in the future, especially given the mixed results of Manchester et al. (2013).
Conclusion
While it is not clear whether the extension itself or the reasons for extending lead to lower psychological well-being, these findings suggest that universities should
acknowledge that instituting a tenure clock extension policy is not a cure-all for productive faculty who need additional time to achieve tenure. Tenure committee practices for faculty who have taken a tenure clock extension have been shown to be highly subjective (Thornton, 2005), which likely contributes to the problem of biases towards women in academia. This study highlights the need for changes in academia to ensure that female faculty will experience the same success for the same effort as male
faculty. Further, this work echoes Thornton’s (2005) claim that academia needs restructuring so that success as a full-time faculty member and having a family life are compatible goals. We hope that this study provides additional insight into academia and demonstrates that academic leadership needs to find other ways than tenure clock extensions to resolve these problems.
REFERENCES
Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences
associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.
Bianchi, S. M. (2011). Changing families, changing workplaces. The Future of Children,
21, 15-26.
Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American
family life. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?
Gender and Education, 17, 369-386.
Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual, work, and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher
Education, 82, 154-186.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, Jr, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler, P.H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.) Assessing Organizational Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 679-704.
academic scientists and engineers. Work and Occupations, 41, 86-110.
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 209-222.
Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory:
Administration, Scoring, and Procedure Manual I. Baltimore: Clinical
Psychometric Research.
Drago, R., & Williams, J. (2000). A half-time tenure track proposal. Change, 47-51. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980- 2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-297.
Fiske, S. T. (2002). What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123-128. Glass, C., & Minnotte, K. L. (2010). Recruiting and hiring women in STEM fields.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 218-229.
Glass, J. L., Sassler, S., Levitte, Y., Michelmore, K. M. (2013). What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional
occupations. Social Forces, 92, 723-756.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work-engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141, 415-424.
Hochschild, A. R. (1975). Inside the clockwork of male careers. In F. Howe (Ed.),
Women and the Power to Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Avon Books. Hollenshead, C. S., Sullivan, B., Smith, G. C., August L., & Hamilton S. (2005).
Work/family policies in higher education: Survey data and case studies of policy implementation. New Directions for Higher Education, 130, 41–65.
Holmes T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses’ perceptions of family-work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 939-957.
Hurtado, S. & DeAngelo, L. (2009). Keeping senior women at your college. Academe,
95, 18-20.
Jex, S. M., & Crossley, C. D. (2004). Organizational consequences. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & Frone, M. R. (Eds.), Handbook of work and stress (pp. 575-600). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnsrud, L. K., & Heck, R. H. (1994). A university’s faculty: Predicting those who will stay and those who leave. Journal of Higher Education Management, 10, 71-84. Jones, E., Chonko, L., Rangarajan, D., & Roberts, J. (2007). The role of overload on job
attitudes, turnover intentions, and salesperson performance. Journal of Business
Research, 60, 663-671.
Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction- job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic books. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the
three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133. Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of
employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51-89.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5-36. Mark, G., & Smith, A. P. (2012). Effects of occupational stress, job characteristics,
coping, and attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 25, 63-78.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99-113.
Manchester, C. F., Leslie, L. M., & Kramer, A. (2010). Stop the clock policies and career success in academia. American Economic Review, 100, 219-223.
Manchester, C. F., Leslie, L. M., & Kramer, A. (2013). Is the clock still ticking? An evaluation of the consequences of stopping the tenure clock. ILR Review, 66, 3- 31.
Mitchell, S. M., & Hesli, V. L. (2013). Women don’t ask? Women don’t say no? Bargaining and service in the political science profession. Political Science &
Politics, 46, 355-369.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS, 109, 16474-16479.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974. Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work
count? The Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46-84.
Peiro, J. M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., Tordera, N., & Manas, M. A. (2001). Does role stress predict burnout over time among health care professionals? Psychology &
Health, 16, 511-525.
Press, J. E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives’ and husbands’ housework reporting: Gender, class, and social desirability. Gender and Society, 12, 188-218.
Pribbenow, C. M., Sheridan, J., Winchell, J., Benting, D., Handelsman, J., & Carnes, M. (2010). The tenure process and extending the tenure clock: The experience of faculty at one university. Higher Education Policy, 23, 17-38.
Journal about Women in Higher Education, 3(1), 182-206.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations.
Journal of Management, 19, 97-111.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957.
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69, 322-340.
Sallee, M.W. (2012). The ideal worker or the ideal father: Organizational structures and culture in the gendered university. Research in Higher Education, 53, 782-802.
Sansom, R. (2003). Constraining the adaptionism debate. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 493-512. Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. D. (2005). Stress and health: Psychological,
behavioral, and biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 607- 628.
Scully, J. A., Tosi, H., & Banning, K. (2000). Life events checklists: Revisiting the social readjustment rating scale after 30 years. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
60, 864-876.
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Stewart, A. J., & Malley, J. (2007). Voice matters:
Buffering the impact of a negative climate for women in science. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 31, 270-281.
Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology,
22, 299-322.
Education, 31, 405-424.
Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2012). Stress in organizations. In I.B. Weiner, N.W. Schmitt, & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 12, p. 560-592). New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Steinpres, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national
empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509-528.
Thornton, S. (2005). Implementing flexible tenure clock policies. New Directions for Higher
Education, (130), 81-90.
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. The MIT Press.
Vandello, J. A., Hettinger, V. E., Bosson, J. K., & Siddiqi, J. (2013). When equal isn’t really equal: The masculine dilemma of seeking work flexibility. Journal of
Social Issues, 69, 303-321.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Nelson, J. B. (1999) Disaggregating the motives underlying turnover intentions: When do intentions predict turnover behavior? Human Relations, 52, 1313- 1336.
Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341-343. Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do
about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & McGrath, A. L. (2004). Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: Test of a
model of healthy work organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
APPENDIX A
CLIMATE SURVEY QUESTIONS RELATED TO TENURE CLOCK