In today’s era of higher education systems, faculty retention is becoming a serious administrative concern.

While most institutions still focus on traditional indicators like salary, job security, and institutional policies, they are constantly overlooking the most important dimension, which is “psychological ownership”.

A deeper issue lies within, how connected faculty members feel to their institutions. Do they actually feel valued? Do they feel they truly belong here or are getting valued? (Pierce et al., 2001).  In the context of the Indian higher education system, where increased attrition remains a serious concern, shifting from transactional to relational engagement models can offer a more transformative solution.

Beyond attrition: Understanding the emotional disconnect

When we discuss faculty attrition, the highly attributed indicators include low pay, limited career growth, and overburdened workload (Ingersoll, 2001). However, the real reason most of the time fails to capture the real reason, emotional and psychological disconnection between educators and institutions. Nowadays, faculty members have perceived themselves as just employees rather than contributors, which eventually translates into increased faculty turnover (Kahn,1990).

This disconnect is particularly visible in institutions where they are not actively involved in decision-making, slowly they start to disengage.  This lack of autonomy and recognition makes faculty feel undervalued, which eventually pushes them to look for better opportunities (Deci & Ryan,2000).

Psychological ownership: A missing link in faculty retention strategies

Psychological ownership means when the employee starts to have the feeling “that this is my organisation” (Perce et al., 2001). This sense of feeling does not come merely from salary- it is fostered through institutional recognition, meaningful participation, etc. When we talk about academic settings, this feeling can be encouraged by involving faculty in designing the curriculum, research planning and the decision-making process in institutional governance.

According to Avey et al. (2009), when faculty are given equal opportunities within institutions, they develop a sense of responsibility and a feeling of belongingness. This feeling not only increases retention but also enhances performance and collaboration.

Creating a culture where faculty feel Belong

Organisational culture plays a pivotal role in fostering or hindering psychological ownership. A culture characterised by trust, transparency, and inclusivity encourages faculty to engage more deeply with their roles (Schein, 2010). Conversely, rigid hierarchies and a lack of communication create alienation.

A very important indicator that plays a pivotal role in shaping or hindering psychological ownership is Organizational culture.  This culture is based on trust, mutual respect and inclusivity that encourages a faculty to engage more in their respective roles (Schein, 2010). However, a lot of institutions still follow rigid hierarchies and a lack of communication, which translates into distance between management and faculty.

If a firm follows very simple steps like open forums, peer recognition plans and collaborative decision-making, it can significantly increase the sense of belongingness among the faculty (Cable & Judge, 1997).

The role of leadership in faculty retention

Leadership is central to building psychological ownership. Institutional leaders must transition from being administrators to enablers. This involves mentoring faculty, supporting their professional aspirations, and creating an environment where innovation is encouraged (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

The role of leadership plays a crucial role in building psychological ownership. Leaders need to go beyond their administrative duties to act as mentors to their faculty. Which means ensuring a constant mentoring of the faculty, providing support to their professional goals and most importantly creating an environment where new creative ideas are encouraged (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Work-life balance: More important than ever

After the COVID-19 pandemic era, work-life balance has become the most discussed topic around the world. Deery (2008), also found that faculty members who feel supported in balancing their personal and professional l responsibilities are more likely to develop loyalty towards their institution. Therefore, it has been advocated that HR should consider this as an important factor of psychological ownership.

To promote work-life balance, institutions should be more flexible towards work arrangements, providing mental health support and reducing their workload will create balance. Not only does incorporating these policies help the faculties, but it also enhances the reputation of institutions that care about their faculties.

From retention to engagement: A strategic shift

The institute should be more focused on faculty engagement rather than only focusing on the reduction of attrition. The more engaged faculties have a lower probability of leaving the institution, as they contribute actively and enthusiastically (Kahn, 1990).

These engagements can be increased by continuous development of faculties, opportunities to grow and more importantly, a sense of support. Additionally, institutions should also be focused on creating academic communities where faculty members freely express their new ideas, learn from each other and grow together.  When we shift our focus from “retaining employees” to “engaging educators”, institutions can actually create a more dynamic workforce.

Conclusion

In the Indian higher education system, there is a dire need to shift from transactional employment relationships to more impactful engagement strategies for restricting faculty retention. For this, we need to focus on Psychological ownership, which offers a framework where we can understand the root cause of attrition.

By creating a culture of trust, by promoting empowerment of faculty participation, which also aligns with the institutional goals and individual goals, educational institutions can build a more resilient and effective academic workforce.  Ultimately, in the future, higher education is not just based on attracting talent, but also creating a safe and healthy environment where individuals want to stay, contribute and thrive.

References

• Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions. Journal of Organisational Behaviour.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.
• Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Applicant personality and organisational culture. Personnel Psychology.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry.
• Deery, M. (2008). Talent management and work-life balance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
• Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages. American Educational Research Journal.
• Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement. Academy of Management Journal.Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership. Academy of Management Review.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organisational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Sahil Nayyar is an Assistant Professor at Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, email: sahilnayyar89@yahoo.com. Phone number:7011399257.

For additional insights, announcements and perspectives on faculty retention, visit the conversation on Business Education.