Tertiary Education and Management

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 83–99 | Cite as

Empowering satisfaction: analyzing the relationship between empowerment, work conditions, and job satisfaction for international center managers

  • Jon McNaughtanEmail author
  • Hugo A. García
  • Tiberio Garza
  • Yvonne R. Harwood
Original Paper


The rising cost of higher education has driven researchers and practitioners alike to identify areas of waste and search for practices associated with increasing efficiency. One area commonly targeted is human resources, where the dominant narrative focuses on the role of downsizing as a way to decrease cost. In contrast to workforce reduction, institutions could reduce inefficiencies by finding effective ways to avoid premature departure and strengthen the current workforce in higher education. In this study, we analyze employees’ perception of their work conditions and sense of empowerment, in relation to job satisfaction, which has been found to increase productivity and reduce turnover. To illustrate and model key variables, we utilize structural equation modeling to analyze the relationship between our key latent constructs. We find empowerment is positively related to job satisfaction, while working conditions are not.


Midlevel staff Empowerment Job satisfaction Structural equation modeling 



The authors would like to thank Katie Yeaton, Sarah Louis, Tricia Ryan, Ian Lertora, and Alexis Croffie for their insights and efforts on our overarching project focused on International Center Managers.


  1. Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 274–290.Google Scholar
  2. Aydogdu, S., & Asikgil, B. (2011). An empirical study of the relationship among job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. International Review of Management and Marketing, 1(3), 43–53.Google Scholar
  3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117. Scholar
  5. Bentley, P. J., Coates, H., Dobson, I. R., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (2012). Job satisfaction around the academic world (7). Springer Science & Business Media.
  6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Scholar
  7. Boomsma, A. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirection observation: Causality, structure, prediction (part I) (pp. 149–173). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika, 50(2), 229–242. Scholar
  9. Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing employees. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from Retrieved on April 1, 2018.
  10. Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
  11. Cantwell, B. (2015). Are international students cash cows? Examining the relationship between new international undergraduate enrollments and institutional revenue at public colleges and universities in the US. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 512–525.Google Scholar
  12. Capelleras, J. L. (2005). Attitudes of academic staff towards their job and organization: an empirical assessment. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(2), 147–166. Scholar
  13. Desrochers, D. M., & Kirshstein, R. (2014). Labor intensive or labor expensive? Changing staffing and compensation patterns in higher education. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  14. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 56–83. Scholar
  15. Filan, G. L., & Seagren, A. T. (2003). Six critical issues for midlevel leadership in postsecondary settings. New Directions for Higher Education, 2003(124), 21–31.Google Scholar
  16. García, H. A., & Villarreal, M. L. (2014). The “redirecting” of international students: American higher education policy hindrances and implications. Journal of International Students, 4(2), 126–135.Google Scholar
  17. García, H. A., Nehls, K., & Florence, K. (2017). Reconceptualizing campus shared governance and leadership in higher education: The role of early and mid-level administrators. In C. Rogers, K. Lomotey, & A. A. Hilton (Eds.), Innovative approaches to educational leadership: Selected cases (pp. 211–228). New York: Peter Lang Publication.Google Scholar
  18. Greene, J. P., Kisida, B., & Mills, J. (2010). Administrative bloat at American universities: the real reason for high costs in higher education. Phoenix: Goldwater Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Hagedorn, L. S. (2002). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: components, theories, and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 5–20. Scholar
  20. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. Scholar
  22. Institute of International Education [IIE]. (2007). International student totals by place of origin, 2005/06–2006/07. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from Retrieved on April 1, 2018.
  23. Institute of International Education [IIE]. (2016). International student totals by place of origin, 2014/15–2015/16. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from Retrieved on April 1, 2018.
  24. Jo, V. H. (2008). Voluntary turnover and women administrators in higher education. Higher Education, 56(5), 565–582. Scholar
  25. Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (1999). College and university midlevel administrators: explaining and improving their morale. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 121–141.Google Scholar
  26. Johnsrud, L. K., Heck, R. H., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Morale matters: midlevel administrators and their intent to leave. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 34–59. Scholar
  27. Johnstone, D. (2011). Financing higher education: Who should pay? In P. Altbach, P. Gumport, & R. Berndahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jung, J., & Shin, J. C. (2015). Administrative staff members’ job competency and their job satisfaction in a Korean research university. Studies in Higher Education, 40(5), 881–901. Scholar
  29. Kezar, A. (2012). Bottom-up/top-down leadership: contradiction or hidden phenomenon. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 725–760.Google Scholar
  30. Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution of research on leadership: ASHE higher education report. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Kher, N., Juneau, G., & Molstad, S. (2003). From the southern hemisphere to the rural south: a Mauritian student's version of “coming to America”. College Student Journal, 37(4), 564–569.Google Scholar
  32. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Krücken, G., Blümel, A., & Kloke, K. (2013). The managerial turn in higher education? On the interplay of organizational and occupational change in German academia. Minerva, 51(4), 417–442.Google Scholar
  34. Lacy, F. J., & Sheehan, B. A. (1997). Job satisfaction among academic staff: an international perspective. Higher Education, 34(3), 305–322. Scholar
  35. Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. (2005). Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: a strategy for addressing the nursing shortage. Nursing Economics, 23(1), 6–13.Google Scholar
  36. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. Scholar
  37. Machado-Taylor, M., Meira Soares, V., Brites, R., Brites Ferreira, J., Farhangmehr, M., Gouveia, O. M. R., & Peterson, M. (2016). Academic job satisfaction and motivation: findings from a nationwide study in Portuguese higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 541–559. Scholar
  38. McNaughtan, J., García, H. A., Letora, I., Louis, S., Croffie, A., Li, X., & McNaughtan, E. D. (2018). Contentious dialogue: college presidential responses to the 2016 election. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(6), 533–549. Scholar
  39. Mercer, W.M. (2001). Staff retention and recruitment issues. Report conducted by William M. Mercer Inc. retrieved from: senate/2000_2001/reports/SenD5158_slides.pdf.
  40. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(4), 599–620. Scholar
  41. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Psoinos, A., & Smithson, S. (2002). Employee empowerment in manufacturing: a study of organisations in the UK. New Technology, Work and Employment, 17(2), 132–148. Scholar
  43. Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 37–49. Scholar
  44. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Scholar
  45. Rosseel, Y., Oberski, D., Byrnes, J., Vanbrabant, L., & Savalei, V. (2013). lavaan: Latent variable analysis [Software]. Retrieved from
  46. Rosser, V. J. (2000). Midlevel administrators: what we know. New Directions for Higher Education, 2000(111), 5–13. Scholar
  47. Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: the unsung professionals in the academy. Higher Education, 48(3), 317–337. Scholar
  48. Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation and academic staff in higher education. Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 4(3), 11–16. Scholar
  49. Ryan, T., McNaughtan, J., García, H. A., & Lértora, I. (2018). Why are we here and what do we do? Motivations for careers in international higher education and primary work responsibilities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
  50. Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8(1), 3–15. Scholar
  51. Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtwright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. Scholar
  52. Smerek, R. E., & Peterson, M. (2007). Examining Herzberg’s theory: improving job satisfaction among non-academic employees at a university. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 229–250. Scholar
  53. Smith, D. G., Tovar, E., & García, H. A. Where are they? A multilens examination of the distribution of full-time faculty by institutional type, race/ethnicity, gender, and citizenship. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2012, 2012(155), 5–26.Google Scholar
  54. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.Google Scholar
  55. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically based test for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the psychometric society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  56. Sumptor, D. M., Gibson, C. B., & Porath, C. (2017). Act expediently, with autonomy: vicarious learning, empowered behaviors, and performance. Journal of Business Psychology, 32, 131–145. Scholar
  57. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. Scholar
  58. Volkwein, J. F., & Zhou, Y. (2003). Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 149–171. Scholar
  59. Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing management skills (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc..Google Scholar
  60. Wolf, E., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. Scholar
  61. Wu, H. P., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment to college. Education Research International, 2015, 1–9. Scholar

Copyright information

© EAIR - The European Higher Education Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon McNaughtan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hugo A. García
    • 1
  • Tiberio Garza
    • 2
  • Yvonne R. Harwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.University of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations