The retention problems that have plagued higher ed for years show no sign of subsiding, according to new data from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. More than half of staff members who responded to CUPA-HR’s “Higher-Education Employee Retention Survey” this spring said they were at least somewhat likely to look for a new job in the coming year, a figure that remains unchanged from the group’s survey last year. A third of respondents said they were likely or very likely to do so.
Those results, taken from a survey of 4,782 higher-ed employees from 529 institutions, conducted in April, point to a sense of instability that’s pervaded the higher-ed work force since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. A higher salary was the top reason staff members gave for considering jumping ship, followed by the desire for remote work, career advancement, and a more flexible schedule. Employees in student affairs, enrollment management, academic affairs, and facilities management and operations — often high-turnover, burnout-prone areas — had the most tenuous ties to their work, with more than 35 percent of respondents in each of these fields saying they were likely or very likely to look for another job. Meanwhile, information-technology, human-resources and fiscal- and business-affairs staff members indicated greater job satisfaction. Employees under the age of 45, men, and people of color were the populations most likely to consider a new job.
Those still-high proportions of employees eyeing the exits worry Jacqueline Bichsel, CUPA-HR’s director of research and an author of the research brief detailing the survey’s results. “In some respects, I think you would expect the retention crisis to abate somewhat,” Bichsel said. “Post-pandemic, you would expect perhaps some lessons would be learned.”
But that’s not the case, Bichsel said the survey data shows. While pay was the top cause of dissatisfaction reported by survey respondents, other, more nuanced forms of discontent also emerged. Nearly a quarter of employees said they didn’t feel they were recognized for their contributions, while about 40 percent didn’t feel they could bring up problems or tough issues at work, or that they belonged. A new question on this year’s survey asked whether staff members had received “retention incentives,” such as a bonus, professional- development training, or better benefits. The most common perks were regular verbal recognition (which 59 percent of respondents reported getting) and a raise (53 percent).
Praise for a job well done, a salary bump here and there, a sense of belonging — those are basic tenets of job satisfaction and retention that higher-ed administrators are failing to provide, Bichsel said. “The fact that higher-ed leadership continues to ignore this low-hanging fruit, I think, is the real story here. That from last year to this year, they really have not implemented what they need to in order to mitigate” the retention crisis, she added.
Another common refrain was the continued tension between employees’ preferred and actual work arrangements. The authors of the CUPA-HR brief cite the “two-thirds rule": Two-thirds of higher-ed employees believe most of their work can be performed remotely, and two-thirds prefer hybrid or remote work arrangements, yet two-thirds are required to work mostly or completely on site. Institutional-research and information-technology staff members were most likely to work partially or completely remotely, while employees in facilities and materials management and operations, student affairs, and the library were least likely. Bichsel’s team suggests that, while wholesale changes in flexible-work policies may not be possible, incremental measures like reducing summer hours and adding one work-from-home day per week, could be helpful, particularly for employees under age 45, for whom retention is a particular concern.
Though overall job satisfaction dropped slightly from last year — from 62 percent to 58 percent — about 80 percent of staff members said they had a good relationship with their supervisor and that they felt their work had purpose. And, while supervisor-employee relations were strong, managers said they didn’t have the power to advocate for their teams, or the resources and training to do their own jobs. Combined with their tendency to take on the extra work created by vacant jobs, that makes supervisors particularly vulnerable to leaving, Bichsel said.
More than three-quarters of supervisors said they found managing staff workload, maintaining morale, and filling empty positions at least somewhat challenging. But each of those problems has eased since last year: Filling empty positions was the top concern in both the 2022 and 2023 CUPA-HR surveys, but while about 91 percent of supervisors identified it as challenging or very challenging in 2022, about 83 percent said the same in 2023.
A bit of good news: While half of the respondents reported working more hours than was expected of full-time employees at their institution, that proportion was down from two-thirds in 2022. About 20 percent of respondents said they worked between one and five extra hours each week, and a similar share reported logging between six and 10 extra hours. Student-affairs, human-resources, and financial-aid employees were most likely to put in extra work, and supervisors were significantly more likely to do so than non-supervisors.
But staff members who are contemplating career changes also said they hadn’t soured entirely on higher ed. About 70 percent said they planned to look for a new job at another institution, with 44 percent saying they’d consider a new job at their current employer. That means deliberate retention efforts — some of which may not require huge financial investment — have a chance of paying off, write the authors of the research brief.
