Mid-career change in academia: The decision to become an administrator

Journal of Vocational Behavior 13, 229-241 (1978)

Mid-Career Change in Academia: The Decision to Become an Administrator

ROBERT A. SNYDER

University of Alabama

ANNHOWARD

American Telephone and Telegraph Company

AND

TOVE HELLAND HAMMER

Cornell University

This study explored the reasons why professors would leave their teaching/ research occupations to begin new careers as administrators. Valence- Instrumentality-Expectancy theory of occupational preference and choice was used as a framework to examine mid-career change among professors and department chairmen at a major university. Data showed that professors’ intentions to change careers and become administrators could be explained by the theory. Analyses of job characteristics demonstrated that professors who want a mid- career change are primarily attracted by the power and formal authority vested in the administrative position, while professors who prefer to remain in their career paths do so because of the autonomy it offers.

The scope of career planning and development research has broadened remarkably during the past several years. Although the study of tra-

This research was partially supported by the Personnel and Training Research Programs, Psychological Services Division, Office of Naval Research under Contract No. NOOOl4-67- 0239-0025, Contract Authority Identification Number NR 151-350. Benjamin Schneider and H. Peter Dachler, Principal Investigators. The computer Science Centers of the University of Maryland, the University of Alabama, and the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations partially supported the required data analyses. The authors thank Benjamin Schneider, H. Peter Dachler, Gene Hoffman, Glen Goldmark. Robert Hannan, N. S. Bruning, and Pamela Kline for their assistance. The authors contributed equally to the research reported in this paper. They should be considered as joint authors. Requests for reprints should be sent to Tove Helland Hammer. 387 Ives Hall, NYSSILR, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

229

OOOl-8791/78/0132-0229$02.00/O Copyright 0 1978 by Academic Press. Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form resewed.

230 SNYDER, HOWARD, AND HAMMER

ditional topics such as vocational preference and initial job choice con- tinues (cf. Holland, 1976), the spectrum of research efforts has expanded to include people’s career experiences throughout their entire working lives (Dyer, 1976). Of the many “new” issues of concern, one which is generating considerable attention is the concept of mid-career change (Hall, 1976; Sarason, 1977). Recent evidence seems to indicate that it is becoming increasingly common for people who have reached the mid- career stage to seek redefinition of their present statuses, the development of new skills, and the attainment of new job assignments or experiences (Hall, 1976). Such aspirations often lead, however, to psychological di- lemmas for the people involved. While time may still be available for change, there are often strong motivational forces which mitigate against leaving an established career for another, and evidence shows that the number of people who would prefer a mid-career change far outnumber the ones who actively seek and achieve it (Sarason, 1977).

The present study examines the psychological process which underlies mid-career change motivations in a particularly interesting population: university professors. Academicians have long years of training behind them before they are allowed to enter their chosen profession. Yet, once they obtain a teaching/research job, the available career-ladder is limited in the sense that it usually only provides two upward steps to the final rank of full professor-often without any dramatic change in job duties or responsibilities. Professors who, in mid-career, react to this situation by aspiring to an alternative job assignment (such as, in the present study, the administrative position of department chairman) may find that the time and effort spent gaining entry into their profession (Aronson & Mills, 1959), as well as peer pressure (Sarason, 1977), operate as strong forces toward remaining in the traditional career channel. An exploration of the factors that might influence professors to overcome such sources of resis- tance and opt to change careers was the subject of this research.

A Framework for Studying Career Intentions

One of the most complete theoretical frameworks which attempts to explain occupational preference and choice has been presented by Vroom (1964) and applied to the job preference and choice situation in particular by Lawler (1973; Lawler, Kuleck, Rhode, & Sorensen, 1975). Valence- Instrumentality-Expectancy (VIE) theory, or expectancy theory, postulates that the attractiveness of a job is a function of the probability that it will lead to valued outcomes. Actual job choice, however, depends both on an individual’s attraction to the job and his belief that efforts to enter the job will be successful. Empirical data supporting the expectancy model of job preference and choice have been found among a variety of subjects in different occupations (Englander, 1960; Holmstrom & Beach, 1973; Lawler et al., 1975; Mitchell & Albright, 1972; Mitchell & Knudsen,

MID-CAREER CHANGES IN ACADEMIA 231

1973; Schneider, 1976; Sheard, 1970; Sheridan, Richards, & Slocum, 1975; Vroom, 1966; Wanous, 1972).

Although expectancy theory has not been used specifically for the purpose of examining the dynamics of mid-career change, it is clearly an appropriate framework for investigating such a choice process. Applying the theory to the mid-career context, one would hypothesize that a preference for a new career will occur when the attractiveness of this career is greater than the attractiveness of the present one. However, actual mid- career change will only take place when the motivational force-toward the new career (its attractiveness x the expectancy of successfully entering it) exceeds the force to remain in the present career. Expectancy theory also postulates that the satisfaction one will experience with a given job or occupation is a function of the attractiveness of that job or occupation (Vroom, 1964). In the present study we wanted to examine the utility of expectancy theory for explaining the mid-career change decision. There- fore, the following hypotheses about career attractiveness, career satisfaction, and mid-career change in academia were generated based on the tenets of the theory presented above:

(1) The satisfaction of both professors and department chairmen with their present jobs will be positively related to the attractiveness of those respective jobs.

(2) Professors’ anticipated satisfaction with the administrative job of department chairman will be positively related to the attractiveness of that job, while the department chairmen’s past satisfaction with the job of professor will be positively related to the attractiveness of that job.

(3) The intention of professors to accept the job of administrator will be positively related to the attractiveness of the administrator job and their expectancy of successfully entering it.

The Salient Characteristics of Academic Jobs

In general, expectancy theory research on job preference and choice has concentrated on the testing of the validity of the theoretical model as an explanation of individual intentions and choices. This research has lacked a detailed examination of how specific job characteristics may affect perceptions of attractiveness and force and, ultimately, the choice process itself. The present study was designed to expand this line of research by investigating the relative impact of some of the specific characteristics of academic jobs within the broader framework of the expectancy theory model.

Although a taxonomy of the important characteristics of teaching/ research jobs and managerial/administrative positions does not exist, the literature suggests a number of factors which may be of consequence for each type of job. For example, the writings on the careers of research scientists indicate an increased interest in legitimate or organizational


based authority at the mid-career stage (Kornhauser, 1963; Mansfield, 1973), a concern for status and social esteem (Slocum, 1%6), a commit- ment to professional autonomy and the freedom to make one’s own decisions about research topics and methods (Kornhauser, 1963), and consideration for family demands (Sofer, 1970). Somewhat similar concerns seem to be expressed by people who occupy managerial or administrative positions. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) and Porter (1964) report that managers view opportunities to exercise power, chances to fulfill achievement needs, advancement possibilities, and status/monetary incentives as desirable job properties. What the literature does not tell us, however, is which job characteristics would affect a choice between a teaching/research job and an administrative job.

From among the characteristics mentioned, seven factors which may influence a mid-career change among academicians were examined in the present study: power or authority vested in a position; feelings of achievement from the job itself; job security and freedom from financial worries; autonomy in the job; social support and friendships; esteem or status derived from the job; and family concerns. Specific hypotheses about the relative contributions of these seven job characteristics to academic career decisions could not be postulated because the theoretical and empirical bases for such hypotheses are lacking.

In summary, the present research examined mid-career change decisions among academicians within an expectancy theory framework. In addition to investigating the psychological processes underlying mid- career change, this study explored the role of seven job characteristics as possible determinants of career change decisions.

Sample METHOD

Participation in the study was solicited by sending anonymous questionnaires to all male professors and department chairmen in a large university in the Northeastern United States. Usable information was returned from 55% of the professor sample (N = 268) and 45% of the chairman sample (N = 4.5).

The department chairmen were elected to their administrative positions by the university, often from the existing population of professors. The administrative assignment was permanent (not rotational among faculty members) and was potentially an entry position into the administrative hierarchy. Thus if a professor left his teaching/research position to become a department chairman, he would make a mid-career change.

Measures

Two questionnaires were developed, one for professors and one for department chairmen. The questionnaires were identical except that the


wording and presentation acknowledged that the department chairmen had made a career change and were in a different occupational role from the professors.

The main body of the questionnaire consisted of 49 statements of outcomes or events which might accompany a job. The statements were drawn from the professional literature on career issues among research scientists and administrators and represented the seven categories dis- cussed earlier. The items were phrased to represent both positive and negative outcomes and were presented in random order to avoid a possible response bias. Some representative items of each of the seven categories are listed in Table 1.

The operational definitions of the expectancy model components closely resembled those developed by Lawler et al. (1975). Subjects were asked to rate each statement three separate times, each time on 5-point scales. They first rated the valence, or the desirability, of each outcome for them personally. These ratings were scored from -2 (“very undesir- able”) to +2 (“very desirable”). Participants then indicated the extent to

TABLE 1 Representative Questionnaire Items

Job No. of items characteristic in scale

Sample items

Power

Achievement

Security

Autonomy

Social factors

Esteem

Family concerns

9 Directing other people’s activities; assuming the responsibility for the work of others.

10 Challenging work; making meaningful use of my skills and abilities.

8 Earning enough to meet my tinan- cial needs; working under stress (scored negatively).

6 Freedom to do what I want in my job; freedom from organizational constraints (such as committee meetings, time schedules, specified hours of work).

6 Support from my peer group against criticism and attack; congenial interpersonal relations with co-workers.

5 Esteem from those in lower-level positions; prestige among friends and neighbors.

5 Spending time regularly with my family; satisfaction of my spouse with my work.


which their presenf job would lead to the attainment of each of the 49 outcomes and the extent to which the other job would lead to outcome attainment (professors rated the job of chairman while chairmen rated the job of professor). Response alternatives ranged from 0 (“the minimum extent possible”) to 4 (“the maximum extent possible”). This corre- sponds to Lawler’s P + 0, or Performance + Outcome, expectancy (Lawler, 1973).

The expectancy of successfully entering the other job (Lawler’s E + P, or Effort + Performance, expectancy) was measured two ways. The E + P expectancy component in the occupational choice model refers to the prospective candidate’s expectancy that he will be able to attain the job (Lawler, 1973; Lawler et al., 1975). When someone is contemplating a change from an established career to another, however, it was felt that one determinant of such a change would be the likelihood of succeeding in the new career. One may see the likelihood of job attainment to be high, but the chances of success small, in which case the motivation to make a mid-career change should be low (cf. Atkinson, 1964). Subjects were therefore first asked to state how likely they were to achieve success in each job on a 5-point scale from “highly unlikely” (1) to “highly likely” (5). Then the professors were asked about their expectancy of attaining a chairman’s job, using the same 5-point scale. Because it was assumed that a chairman could regain a professor’s job should he wish to abandon his administrative career, this question was not asked of the chairman sample.

Satisfaction with the professor and chairman jobs and mid-career change intentions were measured by single questionnaire items. Job satisfaction was measured on 5-point scales indicating agreement with the statement “Generally speaking I am very satisfied with my job.” Re- sponse alternatives ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Both groups were asked about satisfaction with their present jobs, while satisfaction with the other job was measured by having chairmen rate past satisfaction with the professor’s job and professors rate anticipated satisfaction with the chairman’s job. The intention of professors to change careers was measured by having them state whether or not they would accept a chairmanship if it were offered.

RESULTS

Mid-Career Change and Expectancy Theory Predictions

In the first part of this study, the utility of expectancy theory as a framework for understanding mid-career change decisions was tested before the theory was used to further explore the relative importance of different job characteristics to such a change decision. Correlations between expectancy theory components and satisfaction and career change intentions are presented in Table 2. The boxed numbers are the results of

TABL

E 2

Cor

rela

tions

of

Exp

ecta

ncy

Theo

ry

Com

pone

nts

with

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n an

d In

tent

ion

to C

hang

e C

aree

rs

Expe

ctan

cy

theo

ry c

ompo

nent

Pres

ent

satis

- fa

ctio

n as

pr

ofes

sor

(N =

268

)

Pro

fess

ors

Antic

ipat

ed

satis

fact

ion

as c

hairm

an

(N =

268

)

Inte

ntio

n to

ch

oose

job

as c

hairm

an

(N =

244

)”

Cha

irmen

Pres

ent

Past

sat

is-

satis

fact

ion

fact

ion

as

as c

hairm

an

prof

esso

r (N

= 4

5)

(N =

45)

Occ

upat

iona

l at

tract

iven

ess:

P

rofe

ssor

’s jo

b [.4

2***

1 .2

3**

.13*

.1

9 1.

43**

3 C

hairm

an’s

job

.0

8 [.5

3***

] .4

4***

[.4

1*]

.31*

Ex

pect

ancy

of

suc

cess

in

: P

rofe

ssor

’s jo

b .3

0***

.1

5*

.05

.13

.5t3

***

ii C

hairm

an’s

job

.0

7 .6

3***

,3

6***

,4

8***

.3

4*

Forc

e to

ent

er t

he o

ccup

atio

n (e

xpec

tanc

y of

suc

cess

X

attra

ctiv

enes

s):

Pro

fess

or’s

job

Cha

irman

’s j

ob

Expe

ctan

cy

of a

ttain

ing

a ch

airm

an’s

job

:

.43*

*+

.24*

**

.11

.ll

.66*

**

1.47

***1

.18*

* .3

5***

.2

1***

.19

.48*

**

.45*

* .2

0

Forc

e lo

ent

er c

hairm

an’s

jo

b (e

xpec

tanc

y of

atra

inm

enr

X at

tract

iven

ess)

: .1

8**

0 24

sub

ject

s di

d no

t st

ate

thei

r be

havi

oral

in

tent

ion.

*

p <

.05.

**

p <

.O

l. **

* p

< ,0

01.

.53*

**

[.40*

**]


the hypothesis tests relating job satisfaction to occupational attractiveness (Hypotheses 1 and 2) and career change intentions to motivational force (Hypothesis 3).

In accordance with the expectancy model of occupational preference, attractiveness scores for both the job of professor and the job of chairman were computed for each subject by multiplying the desirability rating of each of the 49 outcomes by its respective P + 0 expectancy rating and summing these scores across outcomes: C& [(P --, 0)~’ (V)ij]. Table 2 shows that the attractiveness of one’s present occupation and job satisfaction correlate .42 (p < .OOl) and .41 (p < .0.5) among professors and chairmen, respectively, thus supporting Hypothesis 1. It can also be noted that satisfaction with the present job does not correlate significantly with the attractiveness of the other occupation, which demonstrates the ability of the expectancy formula of occupational attraction to target the right job.

Among professors there was a substantial correlation between the attractiveness of the administrative job and the anticipated satisfaction with this job, in support of Hypothesis 2 (Y = S3, p < .OOl). This relationship is significantly stronger (at the p < .OOl level according to a z-test for differences between dependent correlations) than is the relationship between the attractiveness of their current job of professor and the anticipated satisfaction of the administrator job (Y = .23, p < .OO l), which further contributes to our confidence in the theory’s ability to predict satisfaction with the appropriate job.

The same pattern of results occurred for the chairmen. Their past satisfaction with the professor job correlated significantly with the attractiveness of this job (r = .43, p < .OOl), also supporting Hypothesis 2. The correlation exceeded that between satisfaction with the professor job and attractiveness of their present job (r = .3 1, p < .05), although the difference between the two correlations did not reach statistical significance.

The data relating the motivational force to enter an occupation and intention to choose this occupation also support expectancy theory predictions. Force towards an occupation (or occupational choice) is calculated in the expectancy model by combining occupational attractiveness multiplicatively with the expectancy of successfully entering the job (E + P expectancy). Because the E + P expectancy was defined in two ways in the present study, two motivational force indices were calculated. The two E + P expectancy measures correlated only .52 (p < .OOl) which suggested that they should be treated as separate measures. As shown in the third column of Table 2, the intention on the part of professors to accept the administrative job correlated .47 (p < .OOl) with the motivational force toward the job when expectancy of being successful in it was taken into account and .40 (p < .OOl) when the expectancy of attaining the job entered into the choice decision, thus supporting Hypothesis 3.


Since Hypothesis 3 was concerned with the choice between two jobs or careers, the data were also analyzed ipsatively, or within persons, as is recommended in such cases by expectancy theorists (Mitchell, 1974). For each professor, comparisons were made between the motivational force score for each job using expectancy of success as the expectancy term. The job with the greater motivational choice score was taken as the predicted choice for each individual. Predicted choice was then compared to reported choice (as measured by the behavioral intention question) and a fourfold table was constructed to enter the frequencies of correct and incorrect predictions for each job. A phi coefficient relating predicted and reported choice was .39 (p < .OOl), still highly significant though somewhat smaller in size than the across subjects correlation of .47. By either type of analysis, then, expectancy theory successfully predicted an in- tended mid-career change.

Mid-Career Change and Job Characteristics

The role which specific job characteristics play in the mid-career change decisions of university professors was examined by comparing those who had already made the change (chairmen) with professors who indicated an intention to change (career-changers) and those who had no intention of leaving their teaching/research positions (career-stayers). It was expected that professors interested in an administrative role would hold opinions about and perceptions of that role which would be closer to the views of the existing administrators than to the views of the professors who preferred to remain in their occupation. Sixty-seven professors indicated an intention to accept an administrative position if one was offered.

For each category of job characteristics, a scale score was computed for each subject by summing the scores of individual items measuring the characteristic and dividing by the number of items. These calculations were made separately for outcome desirability and the P + 0 expectancy ratings for the administrative job and the teaching/research job. The median interitem reliability estimate for the seven job characteristics scales across the three sets of ratings was .68.

The mean ratings of the desirability of the seven outcome categories and the extent to which the chairmanship leads to the attainment of these outcomes are presented for the three groups in Table 3. T-tests for independent samples were calculated to examine group mean differences and the most significant results (differences significant at p < .OOl) are noted in the table.

The mean ratings of outcome desirability are an indication of individual differences in values. It can be seen that achievement was considered the most important outcome to the academic sample studied here, followed closely by security. These values did not sharply differentiate the three career groups, however. The most marked difference in outcome desira-


TABLE 3 Ratings of Outcome Desirability and P+O Expectancy of the

Administrative Job for Categories of Job Characteristics

Job characteristics Chairmen (N = 45)

Career-changing professors (N = 67)

Career-staying professors (N = 177)

Outcome desirability: Power Achievement Security Autonomy Social factors Esteem Family concerns

P-+0 expectancy of the administrative job:

Power Achievement Security Autonomy Social factors Esteem Family concerns

x SD x SD x .76 (.44) .73 (.45) .29

1.31 (.31) I .39 (.30) 1.26 1.15 (.29) 1.28 C.28) 1.27 .77 (.41) .87 (.42) 1.02 .74 (.35) .76 (.37) .78 .93 (.42) .84 (.40) .80 .93 (.4l) 1.05 (.56) .92

2.55 (.47) 2.98 (.45)(’ 2.91 2.50 (.4l) 2.59 (.43) 2.18 2.05 (.39) 2.17 (.W 2.02 1.86 (.39) I .40 (.50)” 1.03 2.50 (.36) 2.11 (.46)” 1.83 2.33 (.43) 2.55 (.58) 2.52 2.13 (.67) 2.45 (.54) 2.33

SD (.47)“sb (.37) (.37) (.5l)fl C.42) (.44) (.44)

(.44)0 ( .48)“sb (.43) (.45)“.b (.50)“,b (.54) (.58)

0 Significant differences between chairmen and any of the two professor groups (p < .OOl).

* Significant differences between career-changing and career-staying professors @ < .OOl).

bility ratings was on the power scale. Chairmen and career-changers expressed a similar desire for formal authority and power which was considerably higher than that expressed by professors who did not want an administrative position. The opposite result held for autonomy. The professors opting to stay in their present positions placed a much higher value on autonomy than did either the career-changing professors or the presiding chairmen.

The three groups of academicians also differed in their beliefs about the probability of the administrative job leading to various types of outcomes. Table 3 shows that the chairmen and the career-changers were more positive about the utility of the administrative role than were the career- stayers, as might be expected. This was true for the attainment of achievement, autonomy, and social outcomes. But it is interesting to note that both groups of professors saw the administrative job as leading to more power than did the actual job holders.

Analyses were also done within each of the three groups to examine the extent to which the respondents differentiated the utility of the two types of jobs. T-tests for correlated samples were used to compare P -+ 0


expectancy ratings for the professor and the chairman jobs. The career- stayers made the broadest distinction between the two roles, indicating that the administrative job would lead to greater power and esteem but less autonomy, achievement, social benefits, and security (all differences are significant at p < .OO 1). The career-leavers agreed that the administrative role would lead to more power and esteem and less autonomy (differences significant at p < .OOl), but they did not acknowledge the disadvantages of the chairmanship for the attainment of achievement or security outcomes. Chairmen described the administrative job as leading to more power and less autonomy and security (differences significant at p < .OO 1) but did not indicate that their own jobs carried any greater esteem than the professors’.

When perceptions of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the administrative job are combined with the individual difference information for the three groups, it is apparent that the teaching/research job appealed to those with strong needs for autonomy, while those desiring power were influenced toward a mid-career change to the administrative role. Not only did the values which the three groups of academicians held parallel this predilection but there was general agreement among them that the professor job led to greater autonomy and the chairman job to greater power.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated that expectancy theory, which has been shown to predict occupational preferences and initial job choices, could also be used to predict and explain mid-career change decisions, as well as the relative satisfaction people experience (or anticipate experiencing) with different careers. The purpose of the present study was not to test the validity of expectancy theory per se. Rather, the expectancy model was used as a theoretical framework for the examination of the factors which enter into a mid-career change decision.

Some comments on the predictive utility of the model are still in order, however. It can be noted from this research, as from previous research (cf. Mitchell, 1974) that the data did not support the precise mathematical formulation of the model. The superiority of the entire model over single model components in explaining variance in satisfaction or change intentions was not found. For example, professors’ anticipated satisfaction with the administrative job was as highly related to their expectancy of success in this job, or to the full motivational force towards change, as to the occupational attractiveness index. Similar results were found for the chairmen’s past satisfaction with the teaching/research job. Nor was present job satisfaction or career change intentions uniquely explained by the combinations of components specified by the model.

This kind of imprecision does not detract significantly from the useful-


ness of the expectancy framework for a study such as the present one where information was sought on how job characteristics influence job choice, however. The important advantage of expectancy theory for the study of job choice is that it describes the decision making process and identifies its components. In the present case it was not a concern that the exact mathematical combination of components specified by the theory was superior to any other possible combinations of components. As long as these components correctly predicted the appropriate job choice, the model could justifiably be used to examine aspects of particular interest to this choice, which in the present case was the relative importance of different job characteristics to the decision to make a mid-career change.

A predominant finding in this study was that the attraction of an administrative career for a professor was most attributable to its promise of increased power and authority. In contrast the professorial career had greater appeal because of its relative autonomy and freedom from organizational demands. By expanding the traditional expectancy theory paradigm through the analysis of job characteristics important to a particular population it was possible to isolate the most salient factors in the decision to remain in an initial career or to leave it for another.

In line with the observation about the infrequency of actual mid-career change (Sarason, 1977), it is worth noting that the career-staying professors outnumbered the career-changers 4 to 1. The present data suggest that the relatively low concern for power and formal authority together with the higher values placed on security and autonomy (which the professor job was seen to provide to a much larger extent than the administrative job) may partially explain the general lack of motivation to change careers.

This exploration into the motives underlying mid-career change was greatly helped by studying members of two different career paths where each subject had knowledge of both occupations. The professors, because of their proximity to the administrative role, had a reasonably realistic preview of this job and could base their reactions to it on this foresight. The chairmen had come from the professorial ranks and were therefore able to provide both a picture of their present occupation and the hindsight which came from once having been a professor. This foresight and hindsight into the characteristics of the teaching/research and administrative roles added important information to the study of mid-career change in academia. Theories of decision making, such as expectancy theory, assume that choices are made based on a certain amount of accurate information. When accurate information is lacking, these theories lose their utility in explaining and predicting choice (March & Simon, 1958). By studying individuals who have the requisite information, we should be able to gain a clearer understanding of the psychological dynamics underlying the mid-career change decision.


REFERENCES

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. The effects of the severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 177-181. Atkinson, J. W. An introduction to motivation. D. Van Nostrand, 1964. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., III, & Weick, K., Jr. Managerial

behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Dyer, L. (Ed.) Careers in organizations: Individual planning and organizational develop-

ment. Ithaca, NY: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 1976.

Englander, M. E. A psychological analysis of vocational choice: Teaching. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 1960, 7, 257-264. Hall, D. T. Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Com-

pany, 1976. Holland, J. L. Vocational preferences. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook ofindustrial and

organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Pp. 521-570. Holmstrom, V. L., & Beach, L. R. Subjective expected utility and career preferences.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 201-207. Kornhauser, W. Scientists in industry: Conflict And accommodation. Berkeley, CA: Uni-

versity of California Press, 1963. Lawler, E. E., III. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1973. Lawler, E. E., III, Kuleck, W. J., Jr., Rhode, J. G., & Sorenson, J. E. Job choice and

post-decision dissonance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975,13, 133-145.

Mansfield, R. Career and individual strategies. In J. Child (Ed.), Man and organization: The

search for explanation and social relevance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973. March, J. G., & Simon, H. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. Mitchell, T. R. Expectancy models ofjob satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A

theoretical, methodological and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 1053-1077.

Mitchell, T. R., & Albright, D. W. Expectancy theory predictions of the satisfaction, effort, performance, and retention of naval aviation officers. Organizationnl Behhvior and Human Performance, 1972, 8, I-20.

Mitchell, T. R., & Knudsen, B. W. Instrumentality theory predictions of students’ attitudes towards business and their choice of business as an occupation. Academy of Munage-

ment Journal, 1973, 16, 41-52. Porter, L. W. Organizationalpatterns and mnnagerialjob attitudes. New York: Foundation

for Management Research, 1964. Sarason, S. B. Work, aging, and social change. New York: The Free Press, 1977. Sheard, J. L. Intrasubject predictions of preferences for organizational types. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 248-252. Sheridan, J. E., Richards, M. D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. Comparative analysis of expectancy

and heuristic models of decision making. Journal of Applied Psycho/ogy. 1975, 60, 361-368.

Schneider, J. The “greener grass” phenomenon: Differential aspects of a work context alternative on organizational participation and withdrawal intentions. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 16, 308-333. Slocum, W. L. Occupational careers. Chicago: Aldine, l%6. Sofer, C. Men in mid-career. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Vroom, V. H.. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Vroom, V. H. Organizational choice: A study of pre- and post-decision processes. Organi-

zational Behavior and Human Performance, 1966, 1, 212-225. Wanous, J. P. Occupational preferences: Perceptions of valence and instrumentality and

objective data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 152-155.

Received: February 6, 1978

Mid-career change in academia: The decision to become an administrator

Documents

Transcript of Mid-career change in academia: The decision to become an administrator