Effects of met expectations, trust, job satisfaction, and commitment on faculty turnover intentions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Abstract

Using data from 249 faculty members working at 26 different universities in the UAE, this paper examines the effects of met expectations, trust, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and availability of job opportunities on faculty intent to stay with their current employers. Results reveal that a substantial percentage of faculty members perceive that their employers are not meeting their expectations regarding voice in general decision-making process (58%), research support (53%), participation in major academic decisions (53%), and salary (47%). Results from path analysis show that met expectations have direct positive effects on employees’ trust, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The results also demonstrate that each of trust, commitment, and job satisfaction simultaneously mediates the effects of met expectations on faculty intent to stay. Practically, these findings suggest that by meeting faculty expectations, universities can enhance faculty perceptions of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and trust, which in turn reduce faculty turnover intentions. Further practical and theoretical implications are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.

Keywords:

• Faculty turnover
• met expectations
• trust
• job satisfaction
• commitment
• self-initiated expatriates
• United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Acknowledgment

The author is thankful to Emma Parry and two anonymous reviewers whose supportive and insightful suggestions helped me to improve this article. The author is also thankful to Rick Hackett, Mohamed Al Waqfi, and Nazmi Jarrar for their comments on an earlier version of this article.

Notes

1. Although there are similarities between the perception of met expectations and the perception of psychological contract breach/fulfillment, the two concepts are distinct from each other. For example, Robinson (1996) noted that although both of these perceptions emanate from expectations, psychological contract breach/fulfillment is based on the belief/perception that there is a contractual obligation between the employee and the employer (important to note here that the psychological contract is inherently perceptual: an employee's understanding of the contract may not be shared by the employer). On the other hand, perceptions of met/unmet expectations are based on general beliefs held by employees about what they will find in their job and organization. Perceptions of met/unmet expectations can emanate from contractual obligations and from non-contractual obligation (general expectations). Researchers also noted that although both met/unmet expectations and psychological contract breach/fulfillment have similar organizational outcomes, the relationships between psychological contract breach/fulfillment and organizational outcomes (e.g. organizational commitment, job satisfaction) are stronger than the relationships between met/unmet expectations and similar organizational outcomes (Robinson, 1996; and Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). For more discussion on the distinction between the perception of met expectations and the perception of psychological contract, see the arguments and the empirical findings presented by Rousseau (1990), Robinson and Rousseau (1994), and Robinson (1996).