JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION

2020, VOL. 60, NO. 6, 579–599

https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1748425

Contributory Factors to Academic Librarian Turnover:

A Mixed-Methods Study
Christina Headya , Amy F. Fynb , Amanda Foster Kaufmanc, Allison Hosierd,
and Millicent Webere
a
Coordinator of Instruction, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA; bCoordinator of Library
Instruction, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, USA; cLearning and Instructional Services Librarian,
Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; dInformation Literacy Librarian, University at Albany,
SUNY, Albany, NY, USA; eApplied Psychology Doctoral Student and Associate, Applied Research
Consultants, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Motivation: Research has shown that high employee turnover is cor- Academic libraries; turnover;
related with negative overall performance and increased costs. job satisfaction;
Problem: While employee turnover has been a significant area of burnout; retention
study in organizational psychology and human resources manage-
ment, there are few recent studies related to employee turnover in
academic libraries.
Approach: This study examined the reasons librarians identified for
leaving one academic institution for another within a five-year
period via an online survey.
Results: Results indicate that turnover within academic libraries is
influenced by several factors related to work environment, compen-
sation and benefits, job duties and personal needs.
Conclusion: Understanding why librarians leave their positions is the
first step toward improving employee retention in academic libraries.

Introduction
It is a natural progression for professionals to transition into new positions as their
careers progress. Some may view high employee turnover in a positive light, making the
argument that it brings regular waves of fresh talent and new ideas. However, research
has shown that high employee turnover is correlated with negative overall organiza-
tional performance and increased costs (Allen et al., 2010; Hancock et al., 2013). In aca-
demic libraries, one study showed that 91% of librarians change positions at least once
within their first seven years in the profession, while 65% who have been in the field
for at least five years have changed positions more than twice (Markgren et al., 2007).
As Cottrell (2011) points out, “Library managers and their supervisors do not benefit
from new librarians every two years as much as they benefit from librarians that believe
in their institution and stay with it” (p. 190). There are other means of implementing
new ideas in libraries, and only longevity in a position can cultivate meaningful engage-
ment with and loyalty to an institution’s missions and goals. The primary objective of

CONTACT Christina Heady cheady@siu.edu Coordinator of Instruction, Southern Illinois University, 1263 Lincoln
Drive, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA.
ß 2020 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
580 C. HEADY ET AL.

this study is to examine the contributing factors to academic librarian turnover and
begin a conversation about retaining 21st century library professionals.

Literature review
Causes of employee turnover
Employee turnover has been a significant area of study in organizational psychology
and human resources management. Several major studies conducted in those fields
identify the most common factors that lead to professional employee turnover. One
early literature review (Porter & Steers, 1973) in the field of organizational psychology
identified 17 commonly studied factors related to turnover and organized them into
four main categories: organization-wide factors, immediate work environment factors,
job related factors, and personal factors. A later meta-analysis identified the 26 most
commonly found factors related to turnover and categorized them into three major cat-
egories: external factors, work-related factors, and personal factors (Cotton & Tuttle,
1986). The research indicates that these contextual factors shape employee attitudes in a
way that influences their intention to quit (Hom et al., 2012). Additional reviews affirm
what has been published and the conversation has progressed to predicting employee
turnover, intentions to quit, and the influence of job market factors (Griffeth et al.,
2000; Steel & Lounsbury, 2009).

Employee turnover in academic libraries

Several studies have examined common reasons for librarian turnover in academic
libraries. One of the earliest studies on turnover in academic libraries (Allison &
Sartori, 1988) investigated librarians’ decision to stay or leave their positions at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Of the 28 factors studied, relationship with supervisor,
career goals, and compensation were the most influential. Within five years after the
Association of College & Research Libraries Ad Hoc Task Force on Recruitment and
Retention Issues (2002) identified specific pressing problems related to recruitment,
education, and retention of librarians, several articles were published examining
employee turnover in U.S. academic libraries. Colding (2006) surveyed academic librar-
ians and determined that career goals outside of academic librarianship was the most
consistent factor contributing to academic librarian turnover, followed by overall job
satisfaction, and satisfaction with future salary prospects. Markgren et al. (2007) exam-
ined the likelihood that new librarians would switch jobs in their first five years as a
professional and found that 69% of new librarians changed positions due to limited
opportunities for growth or advancement, financial reasons, and not being challenged
in their position. Luzius and Ard (2006) researched why former librarians left the field
entirely and found the top reasons to be unpleasant working environments, unhappiness
with administration, concerns over salary and benefits, negative image of the profession,
and librarianship as a poor career fit.
More recently, examining factors leading to employee turnover in academic libraries
has been of special interest to librarians and researchers outside of the United States. In
a survey of academic librarians in Ethiopia, Ergado and Gojeh (2015) found a number
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 581

of factors that impact turnover, including poor incentives, feeling a lack of challenge,
perceived unfair or unequal treatment, poor supervision, unsatisfactory salary, a lack of
professional development or continuing education, and a lack of opportunities for pro-
motion, among others. Nyamubarwa (2011) had similar findings for academic librarians
in Zimbabwe while also finding that younger survey participants were more likely to
switch jobs than older, more established employees. Meanwhile, Olusegun (2013) found
that a lack of job satisfaction leads to lethargy and reduced organizational commitment.
These factors largely echo what is found in employee turnover literature in the
United States.

Job satisfaction and burnout in academic libraries

Though extensive research on job satisfaction among academic librarians has taken
place outside the United States, recent research in U.S. academic libraries has been lim-
ited to specific units within the library. Leysen and Boydston (2009) surveyed catalogers
at ARL libraries and found that the issues most important to them were benefits, cow-
orkers, and professional growth. Lim’s (2008) study of library IT workers found that
sense of belonging, job autonomy, and salary were all positively related to job satisfac-
tion. Peng (2014) linked academic librarian intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction to
increased job performance, meaning that libraries will likely function better if librarians
are satisfied with their workplaces.
Other studies looked at inclusion and equity related issues with regards to job satis-
faction. One Canadian study by Oud (2018) found that librarians with disabilities main-
tained a high level of job satisfaction but were less satisfied with job factors related to
stress, workplace flexibility, and the climate toward diversity and accessibility in their
library. Another study by Thornton (2000) on African Americans working in ARL libra-
ries found areas of dissatisfaction around salary, communication, and opportunities for
advancement.
Several studies have also examined the impact that faculty status and tenure options
have on academic librarian job satisfaction. Becher (2019) found that among librarians
with faculty status, tenured librarians have the highest levels of job satisfaction.
Meanwhile, non-tenured librarians reported lower overall job satisfaction, particularly
among those not on the tenure-track but who work alongside tenure track librarians.
Galbraith et al. (2016) found that among librarians with faculty status, women were
more likely to report high levels of stress and poor work/life balance than their male
counterparts. These differences were not as pronounced at institutions that did not offer
faculty status.
In recent years, the concept of job burnout has become more prevalent in the library
literature. One of the primary causes of burnout is work overload. Christian (2015)
observed that budget cuts often required library employees to do more with less and
wear multiple hats at once, thus turning the role of librarian into one “of a multitask-
ing, boundless expert” (p. 3). This role ambiguity often leads to librarian stress and
burnout. Several articles have explored how role-related stress and role ambiguity nega-
tively impact both mental and physical wellbeing. (Farrell et al., 2017; Kendrick, 2017;
Nardine, 2019; Shupe et al., 2015). Shupe et al. (2015) found that higher levels of role
582 C. HEADY ET AL.

ambiguity and work overload were high predictors of turnover, correlating these factors
with higher levels of burnout, lower levels of job satisfaction, and decreased job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment.

Materials and methods

A simplified version of these methods and preliminary results were published in the
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) 2019 contributed paper “Why We
Leave: Exploring Academic Librarian Turnover and Retention Strategies” (Fyn et al.,
2019). The authors designed a survey to explore the primary factors that contribute to
turnover in academic libraries in the United States. For the purposes of this study, aca-
demic librarians are defined as any professional holding a Master’s degree in Library
Science and currently working in an academic setting.
In order to meet inclusion criteria, participants had to be currently employed as an
academic librarian within the United States and have voluntarily left an academic librar-
ian position within the last five years. The survey was designed and administered using
Qualtrics survey software, and then disseminated through fifteen general and specialized
listservs for two weeks in the fall of 2018.
The instrument was modeled from the fields of librarianship, human resources man-
agement, and organizational psychology and behavior. A list of 20 leading factors found
to contribute to librarian and white-collar employee turnover was generated from the
literature and grouped into four major categories: work environment, compensation
and benefits, job duties, and personal factors (Association of College & Research
Libraries Ad Hoc Task Force on Recruitment & Retention Issues, 2002; Allison &
Sartori, 1988; Colding, 2006; Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom et al., 2012; Porter &
Steers, 1973).
Participants were asked to rank their dissatisfaction with each factor as it related to
their previous position. Responses were measured on a four-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree).
An open-ended question was included at the end of each category which asked par-
ticipants to describe any other factors that influenced their decision to leave. The
authors themed and coded four open-ended, qualitative survey questions which assessed
additional issues regarding participants’ work environment, job duties, compensation
and benefits, and personal factors that influenced their decision to leave. The authors
reviewed every response until 100% agreement was reached on which theme(s) matched
each response. Upon completion of the analysis, the top themes and the frequency with
which each was mentioned was determined.
Participants’ demographic information was collected at the conclusion of the survey,
using items assessing various aspects related to their previous and current positions.
One-way ANOVAs were conducted to assess whether the type of position previously
held by participants (i.e., Access Services, Archivist and/or Special Collections, Library
Management, Reference, Instruction, and/or Outreach, Technical Services and
Cataloging Librarian, Web and Electronic Services, or Other) differentially impacted
participants’ level of dissatisfaction with their work environment, job duties, compensa-
tion and benefits, and personal factors related to their job. Relationships between mean
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 583

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for demographic information.

Category Response Frequency Percent
Age 25–30 years 30 10.9
31–35 years 74 27.0
36–40 years 50 18.2
41–45 years 39 14.2
46–50 years 38 13.9
51–55 years 22 8.0
56–60 years 13 4.7
61–65 years 5 1.8
Over 65 years 0 0.0
Prefer not to answer 3 1.1
Length of Time as an Academic Librarian 0–2 years 5 1.8
3–5 years 60 22.1
6–10 years 98 36.0
11–15 years 51 18.8
16–20 years 33 12.1
21–25 years 13 4.8
26 or more years 8 2.9
Prefer not to answer 4 1.5
Length of Time at Previous Position 0–2 years 83 30.2
3–5 years 121 44.0
6–10 years 45 16.4
11–15 years 19 6.9
16–20 years 6 2.2
21–25 years 1 0.4
26 or more years 0 0.0
Prefer not to answer 0 0.0
N ¼ 274 for Age, N ¼ 272 for Length of Time as an Academic Librarian, and N ¼ 275 for Length of Time at Previous
Institution.

scores on the four categories and demographic variables regarding participants’ previous
positions were analyzed using Pearson correlations.

Results
Demographics
There were 275 participants who met the inclusion criteria, completed the survey, and
were included in data analysis. The results indicated that the majority of participants
were mid-career and typically left their previous positions within 5 years. Of the 275
participants, the majority (27.0%; n ¼ 74) were between the ages of 31–35 and had been
an academic librarian for 6–10 years (36.0%; n ¼ 98). Additionally, the majority of par-
ticipants had been at their previous position for either 3–5 years (44.0%; n ¼ 121) or
0–2 years (30.2%; n ¼ 83). Table 1 provides full details of the current age of participants,
length of time as a librarian, and length of time at their previous position.

Faculty status & tenure

Comparing participants’ previous positions with their current positions, there was a
5.8% increase in faculty status and a 6.9% increase in librarians who were able to earn
tenure at their current institutions (see Table 2). Just under half of the participants
reported having faculty status at their previous institution (49.8%; n ¼ 137), but over
half of the participants reported having faculty status at their current institution (55.6%;
584 C. HEADY ET AL.

Table 2. Faculty status & tenure.

Previous institution Current institution
Status/Tenure eligibility Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Faculty status 137 49.8 153 55.6
Non-faculty status 138 50.2 122 44.4
Eligible to earn tenure 77 28.0 96 34.9
Not eligible to earn tenure 198 72.0 179 65.1
N ¼ 275 for both Previous Institution and Current Institution.

Table 3. Type of previous position.

Previous position Current position
Position type Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Reference, instruction, and/or outreach 141 51.3 121 44.2
Archivist and/or special collections 28 10.2 25 9.1
Library management 27 9.8 57 20.8
Technical services and cataloging 26 9.5 24 8.8
Other 25 9.1 22 8.0
Web and electronic services 19 6.9 21 7.6
Access services 9 3.3 4 1.5
N ¼ 275 for Previous Position and N ¼ 274 for Current Position.

n ¼ 153). However, the majority of participants reported being ineligible to earn tenure
at both their previous (72.0%; n ¼ 198) and current (65.1%; n ¼ 179) institutions.
The greatest number of participants were previously in positions as reference, instruc-
tion, and/or outreach librarians (51.3%; n ¼ 141), followed by archivist and/or special
collections librarians (10.2%; n ¼ 28), and library management (9.8%; n ¼ 27). Likewise,
the greatest number of participants’ current positions are as reference, instruction, and/
or outreach librarians (44.2%; n ¼ 121), followed by library management (20.8%;
n ¼ 57), and archivist and/or special collections librarians (9.1%; n ¼ 25). The number
of librarians in management positions more than doubled from previous (9.8%; n ¼ 27)
to current (20.8%; n ¼ 57) institutions. See Table 3 for complete data on participants’
previous and current positions.
There was a 5% increase in participants working in public institutions and an 8.4%
increase in those who worked in institutions with an enrollment of greater than 20,000
students. Regarding the institution participants were previously employed at, the major-
ity had worked at a public college or university (54.0%; n ¼ 147) with student enroll-
ment between 1–5,000 students (29.6%; n ¼ 81), however a student enrollment of 20,001
or more students was reported nearly as frequently by participants (27.0%; n ¼ 74). The
majority of participants are still working at a public college or university (59.0%;
n ¼ 161), however the majority are now working at institutions with student enroll-
ments of 20,001 or more students (35.4%; n ¼ 97), with the second most frequently
reported student enrollment as 1–5,000 students (27.0%; n ¼ 74). Tables 4 and 5 show
the type of institution and the size of the student body for participants’ previous and
current institutions.

Leading factors contributing to academic librarian turnover

Based on the four categories included in the survey, academic librarians were most dis-
satisfied with aspects related to their work environment (M ¼ 2.52, SD ¼ 0.66), followed
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 585

Table 4. Type of institution.

Previous institution Current institution
Institution type Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Public college or University 147 54.0 161 59.0
Private college or University 107 39.3 97 35.5
Community or Technical college 18 6.6 15 5.5
N ¼ 272 for both Previous Institution and Current Institution.

Table 5. Enrollment size of institutions.

Previous institution Current institution
Enrollment size Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
1–5,000 students 81 29.6 74 27.0
5,001–10,000 students 46 16.8 43 15.7
10,001–20,000 students 61 22.3 51 18.6
20,001 or more students 74 27.0 97 35.4
Not sure 12 4.4 9 3.3
N ¼ 274 for both Previous Institution and Current Institution.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for the four categories influencing academic

librarian turnover.
Categories Mean SD
Work environment 2.52 0.66
Job duties 2.37 0.74
Compensation and benefits 2.38 0.79
Personal factors 2.06 0.69
Scores ranged from 1–4. Higher numbers indicate higher dissatisfaction.

by their compensation and benefits (M ¼ 2.38, SD ¼ 0.79), job duties (M ¼ 2.37,

SD ¼ 0.74), and, finally, personal factors (M ¼ 2.38, SD ¼ 0.69) (Table 6). The section
below will detail responses for each of these categories.

Work environment
Quantitative data showed that participants were most dissatisfied with the morale in
their library (M ¼ 3.17, SD ¼ 1.01), followed by the library administration (M ¼ 3.04,
SD ¼ 1.15), and the culture of the library (M ¼ 2.93, SD ¼ 1.02) The complete list of fac-
tors related to Work Environment and their means and standard deviations are shown
in Table 7.
Within the open-ended responses, the three most frequently reported additional
issues related to participants’ work environments were ineffective library management/
administration (e.g., micromanaging, poor decisions, biased or unethical behavior,
unsupportive of employees, etc.) (N ¼ 50), institution/university administration issues
(e.g., unsupportive of library, poor leadership of the institution/university, declining
enrollment, etc.) (N ¼ 34), and lack of growth opportunities (e.g., lack of promotions,
advancement, professional development, etc.) (N ¼ 25). Table 8 lists the themes that
participants identified as additional factors that influenced their decision to leave.
586 C. HEADY ET AL.

Table 7. Items and descriptive statistics for work environment factors.

Item N Mean SD
I was not satisfied with the morale in the library 273 3.17 1.01
I was not satisfied with library administration 272 3.04 1.15
I was not satisfied with the culture of the library 272 2.93 1.02
I was not satisfied with my direct supervisor(s) 274 2.85 1.20
I was not satisfied with the level of inclusivity 270 2.34 1.02
I was not satisfied with my coworkers 271 2.26 1.04
I was not satisfied with librarian status or rank (e.g., faculty/non-faculty status, tenure track) 271 2.17 1.16
I was not satisfied with the library’s reputation 271 1.93 0.96
I was not satisfied with the university’s local or national reputation 272 1.90 1.00
Scores ranged from 1–4. Higher numbers indicate higher dissatisfaction.

Table 8. Other factors related to work environment that influenced decision to leave.
Theme Frequency
Ineffective library management/administration 50
Institution/university administration issues (e.g., unsupportive of library, biased priorities, 34
ineffective leadership, etc.)
Lack of growth opportunities (e.g., lack of promotions, advancement, professional development) 25
Dissatisfaction with supervisor(s) (including direct supervisors or higher-up supervisors) 23
Budget/funding issues 20
Toxic/dysfunctional library culture/environment 19
Favoritism, discrimination, and/or diversity-related issues 17
Dissatisfaction with coworkers/colleagues 16
Rank/Status-related issues (e.g., staff vs. faculty responsibility mismatches, artificially imposed 15
division among librarians, differential treatment based on rank/status)
Workload/productivity issues (e.g., unequal workload distribution among librarians, nonproductive 15
environment, work overload due to turnover/under-staffing, etc.)
Staffing issues (e.g., understaffing, low retention rate, unexpected turnover) 15
Workplace bullying 13
Low morale 11
Resistance to change 9
Physical issues (e.g., library layout, poor upkeep, outdated resources, etc.) 5
No (No other factors related to the work environment influenced my decision to leave) 5
Other 3
Total 295
N ¼ 159. However, respondents were allowed to write multiple responses, therefore the total frequency count exceeds
the N-size.

Compensation and benefits

Quantitative data showed that participants were most dissatisfied with their future salary
prospects (M ¼ 2.89, SD ¼ 1.07), followed by their current salary (M ¼ 2.73, SD ¼ 1.08),
and other benefits (e.g., retirement package and health insurance; M ¼ 2.05, SD ¼ 1.01).
See Table 9 for a complete accounting of the factors related to compensation
and benefits.
Within the open-ended responses, the three most frequently reported additional
issues related to participants’ compensation and benefits were a lack of pay/salary raises
(N ¼ 25), unfair or inequitable pay/salaries (e.g., wage compression, racial and/or gender
discriminatory pay rates, unequal faculty vs staff pay rates, lack of appropriate compen-
sation for overtime, etc.) (N ¼ 25), and low pay/salary (e.g., pay/salary not matching the
amount of duties/responsibilities, etc.) (N ¼ 23). Table 10 shows the additional compen-
sation and benefits themes that participants identified as contributing to their decision
to leave.
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 587

Table 9. Items and descriptive statistics for compensation and benefits factors.
Item N Mean SD
I was not satisfied with my future salary prospects 275 2.89 1.07
I was not satisfied with my salary 275 2.73 1.08
I was not satisfied with the other benefits (e.g., retirement package, health insurance, 275 2.05 1.01
educational assistance) available to me
I was not satisfied with the amount of paid leave available to me 274 1.83 1.01
Scores ranged from 1–4. Higher numbers indicate higher dissatisfaction.

Table 10. Other factors related to compensation or benefits that influenced decision to leave.
Theme Frequency
Lack of pay/salary raises 25
Unfair or inequitable pay/salaries (e.g., wage compression, racial and/or gender discriminatory pay 25
rates, unequal faculty vs. staff pay rates, not getting paid appropriately for overtime, etc.)
Low pay/salary (e.g., pay/salary not matching the amount of duties/responsibilities, etc.) 23
No (No factors related to my compensation and benefits influenced my decision to leave) 22
Pay/salaries didn’t keep up with cost of living 14
Lack of any benefits, or insufficient benefits aside from healthcare and retirement (e.g., vacation and 10
sick leave, maternity leave, faculty/staff housing, etc.)
Poor healthcare coverage/insurance 7
Poor retirement benefits 6
Institutional and/or state budget stifled compensation and benefits 6
Lack of promotions 4
Lack of professional development funding 4
Other 3
Total 149
N ¼ 105. However, respondents were allowed to write multiple responses, therefore the total frequency count exceeds
the N-size.

Job duties
Quantitative data showed that participants were most dissatisfied with their potential
for advancement or promotion (M ¼ 2.96, SD ¼ 1.09), followed by opportunities for
professional development or training (M ¼ 32.28, SD ¼ 1.06), and their job tasks
(M ¼ 2.16, SD ¼ 0.96). See Table 11 for a full accounting of factors relating to dissatis-
faction with job duties.
Within the open-ended responses, the three most frequently reported additional
issues related to participants’ job duties were library administration issues that affected
job duties (e.g., change in administration led to job duty changes, lack of direction by
administration, unsupportive administration, etc.) (N ¼ 27), lack of growth opportunities
(e.g., lack of promotions, advancement, professional development, etc.) (N ¼ 26), and
work overload (e.g., too many job duties given time/resources/ability, doing the work of
two or more people, etc.) (N ¼ 24). Participants identified several additional issues
related to job duties, as reported in Table 12.

Personal factors
Quantitative data showed that participants were most dissatisfied with the geographic
location of the library (M ¼ 2.37, SD ¼ 1.14), followed by their work-life balance
(M ¼ 2.29, SD ¼ 1.08), and the degree to which their personalities matched their job
(M ¼ 1.53, SD ¼ 0.71). (See Table 13).
588 C. HEADY ET AL.

Table 11. Items and descriptive statistics for job duties factors.
Item N Mean SD
I was not satisfied with my potential for advancement or promotion within the library 275 2.96 1.09
I was not satisfied with my opportunities for professional development or training 274 2.28 1.06
I was not satisfied with my job tasks 274 2.16 0.96
The job was a mismatch with my long-term professional interests 275 2.06 1.01
Scores ranged from 1–4. Higher numbers indicate higher dissatisfaction.

Table 12. Other factors related to job duties that influenced decision to leave.
Theme Frequency
Library administration issues that affected job duties (e.g., change in administration led 27
to job duty changes, lack of direction by administration, unsupportive
administration, etc.)
Lack of growth opportunities (e.g., lack of promotions, advancement, professional 26
development)
Work overload (e.g., too many job duties given their time/resources/ability, doing the 24
work of 2 or more people, etc.)
Lack of necessary support/resources/budget to perform job duties effectively 22
No factors related to job duties influenced my decision to leave 16
General dissatisfaction with job duties 12
Job duties didn’t match job title/description 9
Lack of acknowledgement/appreciation for one’s contributions 7
Poorly defined job duties (i.e., lack of clarity) 7
Performance obstruction from coworkers or supervisors 7
Reprimanded/criticized for seeking out new opportunities or doing too much work 4
Other 1
Total 162
N ¼ 119. However, respondents were allowed to write multiple responses, therefore the total frequency count exceeds
the N-size.

Table 13. Items and descriptive statistics for personal factors.

Item N Mean SD
I was not satisfied with the geographic location 273 2.37 1.14
The job expectations did not provide me with a satisfactory work-life balance 273 2.29 1.08
The job was a mismatch with my personality (e.g., introvert working outreach or public services) 273 1.53 0.71
Scores ranged from 1–4. Higher numbers indicate higher dissatisfaction.

Within the open-ended responses, the three most frequently reported personal factors
for leaving one’s previous position were family-related reasons (e.g., wanted to be closer
to family, live in the same town/city as spouse, more opportunities for spouse/children,
take care of a sick family member, etc.) (N ¼ 35), unfavorable geographic location (e.g.,
climate/weather, rural vs urban, culture of the area, etc.) (N ¼ 28), and a general dissat-
isfaction with the previous job (e.g., the job was just not a good fit, did not feel valued/
appreciated, did not like the required hours, etc.) (N ¼ 17). Table 14 identifies the add-
itional personal factors that contributed toward an individual’s decision to leave one
position for another.

Correlational analyses
Table 15 shows the relationships between mean scores on the four criteria and demo-
graphic variables regarding participants' previous positions. Results indicated that if aca-
demic librarians were dissatisfied with one of the four categories related to their
workplace, they were likely also dissatisfied with another category. Specifically, academic
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 589

Table 14. Other personal factors that influenced decision to leave.

Theme Frequency
Family-related reasons (e.g., wanted to be closer to family, live in same town/city as spouse, more 35
opportunities for spouse/kids, take care of a sick family member, etc.)
Unfavorable geographic location (e.g., climate/weather, rural vs urban, culture of the area, etc.) 28
General dissatisfaction with previous job (e.g., the job was just not a good fit, did not feel valued/ 17
appreciated, did not like the required hours, etc.)
Unfair, unethical, or unsafe work environment (e.g., unfair expectations, unfair practices, forced to 12
use vacation/sick days to do work, religious discrimination, disability discrimination, unsafe to
work after nightfall, etc.)
Wanted more professional growth opportunities (including wanting a full-time job instead of just a 12
temporary/adjunct position)
Commute was too long 7
Difficult to build a social life (e.g., the area lacked any social atmosphere/nightlife, etc.) 6
Health-related issues (e.g., physical illness, mental health issues, stress, depression, etc.) 6
No (No other personal factors influenced my decision to leave) 6
Poor work-life balance 5
Cost of living was too high 5
Disliked the type of institution (e.g., too small, private vs public, etc.) 3
Other 3
Total 145
N ¼ 103. However, respondents were allowed to write multiple responses, therefore the total frequency count exceeds
the N-size.

Table 15. Correlations among the four categories and demographic variables related to participants’
previous positions.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Avg. work environment –
2. Avg. job duties .43 –
3. Avg. compensation and benefits .24 .44 –
4. Avg. personal factors .33 .25 .11 –
5. Age .02 .09 .15 .15 –
6. Length of time as academic librarian .05 .06 .10 .11 .71 –
7. Time at previous position .04 .05 .01 .13 .42 .56 –
8. Enrollment size of previous institution .01 .16 .25 .07 .03 .02 .08 –
9. Faculty status at prev. position .03 .17 .15 .01 .03 .14 .10 .08 –
10. Eligible to earn tenure at prev. institution .04 .15 .27 .03 .15 .20 .14 .20 .55 –
Avg.: Average. Prev.: Previous.
Avg. Work Environment, Avg. Job Duties, Avg. Compensation and Benefits, and Avg. Personal Factors were measured as
continuous variables.
p  .05.
p  .01.

librarians who were significantly dissatisfied with their work environment were also sig-
nificantly dissatisfied with their compensation and benefits, job duties, and personal fac-
tors (r’s  .24, p’s < .001). Additionally, academic librarians who were significantly
dissatisfied with their job duties were also significantly dissatisfied with their compensa-
tion and benefits and personal factors (r’s  .25, p’s < .001).
Younger academic librarians were more dissatisfied with their compensation and ben-
efits and various personal factors related to their work than older participants. Age was
significantly, negatively associated with dissatisfaction with previous compensation and
benefits (r(269) ¼ .15, p ¼ .012) and dissatisfaction with personal factors (r(267) ¼
.15, p ¼ .016). Academic librarians’ age affected how dissatisfied they were with their
compensation and benefits and personal factors at their previous position. Age was
590 C. HEADY ET AL.

negatively associated with both of these factors (r’s ¼ .15, p’s  .016), meaning that
younger librarians were more dissatisfied with their compensation and benefits and per-
sonal factors than older librarians. Additionally, how long academic librarians had been
at their previous job affected how dissatisfied they were with personal factors. Length of
time at previous position was negatively associated with personal factors (r ¼ .13, p ¼
.034), meaning that the less time librarians had been at their previous position, the
more dissatisfied they were with personal factors related to their work.
Enrollment size of previous institution was negatively associated with dissatisfaction
with previous job duties and dissatisfaction with previous compensation and benefits
(r’s  .16, p’s  .010). This means that academic librarians who previously worked at
smaller institutions (in terms of enrollment) were more dissatisfied with aspects related
to their job duties and compensation and benefits than academic librarians who worked
at larger institutions.
Faculty status was related to academic librarian dissatisfaction with their job duties
and compensation and benefits. Faculty status was negatively associated with both of
these factors (r’s  .15, p’s  .014), meaning that librarians who did not have faculty
status were more dissatisfied with their job duties and compensation and benefits than
librarians who had faculty status. Additionally, faculty status was also related to the
length of time participants have been academic librarians and participants’ eligibility to
earn tenure at their previous position. Faculty status was positively associated with both
of these aspects (r’s  .14, p’s < .001), meaning that librarians who had faculty status at
their previous positions were more likely to have been at their previous positions for a
longer period of time and have also been eligible to earn tenure compared to librarians
who did not have faculty status.
Eligibility to earn tenure was related to how dissatisfied academic librarians were
with their job duties and compensation and benefits. Eligibility to earn tenure was nega-
tively associated with both of these factors (r’s  .15, p’s  .013), meaning that librar-
ians who were not eligible to earn tenure in their previous position (e.g., non-tenure
track faculty, staff, etc.) were more dissatisfied with their job duties and compensation
and benefits than librarians who were eligible to earn tenure. Additionally, eligibility to
earn tenure was related to the length of time participants have been academic librarians,
length of time they were at their previous position, and the size of their previous insti-
tution. Eligibility to earn tenure was positively associated with all of these aspects (r’s 
.14, p’s  .023), meaning that librarians who were eligible to earn tenure were more
likely to have been a librarian for longer, remained at their previous position for a lon-
ger time, and worked at a larger institution than those who were not eligible to
earn tenure.

Tests for differences between means

One-Way ANOVAs. The results of the one-way ANOVAs were not significant (p’s >
.20). Academic librarians, regardless of their type of position, were similarly dissatisfied
with factors related to their work environment, compensation and benefits, job duties,
and work-related personal factors. Level of dissatisfaction with one’s work environment
did not significantly differ among the different types of positions participants previously
held (F(6, 56) ¼ .211, p ¼ .972). Level of dissatisfaction with job duties did not
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 591

significantly differ among the different types of positions participants previously held
(F(6, 21) ¼ .864, p ¼ .537). Level of dissatisfaction with compensation and benefits did
not significantly differ among the different types of positions participants previously
held (F(6, 21) ¼ .753, p ¼ .614). Level of dissatisfaction with personal factors related to
participants’ work did not significantly differ among the different types of positions par-
ticipants previously held (F(6, 14) ¼ .314, p ¼ .919).

Discussion
Reasons for leaving are highly individual, but overall the data in this study showed that
librarians who left one position for another were most dissatisfied with aspects related
to their work environment, followed by compensation and benefits, job duties, and per-
sonal factors.

Work environment
Results from the study indicate that employees are not fleeing their positions, they are
fleeing work environments they feel are toxic. Quantitative data revealed that library
morale, culture, administration, and direct supervisors—albeit not in that order—were
the top factors in their decisions to leave.
Open-ended responses described library leadership as lacking the proper training to
run an academic library, resulting in work environments that were described as dys-
functional and inefficient. The focus on library leadership becomes increasingly interest-
ing when demographic data are taken into consideration. The majority of participants
were between the ages of 31–35 and had been an academic librarian for 6–10 years.
This mid-career participant profile aligns with the doubling of librarians in management
positions from their previous (9.8%; n ¼ 27) to current (20.8%; n ¼ 57) institutions.
While some participants left to escape their library leadership, perhaps some individuals
also took this as an opportunity to become the managers they wish they had at their
previous institutions.
Low morale (M ¼ 3.17, SD ¼ 1.01) was the area of highest dissatisfaction and was often
tied to library leadership and culture within the open-ended responses. Direct supervisors
were a frequently cited source of conflict due to bullying, neglect, or biased behavior. These
behaviors were exhibited by the supervisors themselves, but also between colleagues and
departments. Personal accounts alluded to the bystander effect, leading to feelings of betrayal
and isolation. Librarians expressed confusion and frustration regarding who to contact to
address such issues and, when they did give voice to their concerns, felt they were over-
looked. Overall, the findings support those of Freedman and Vreven (2016) and Kendrick
(2017). Freedman and Vreven explored workplace incivility and bullying using the Negative
Acts Questionnaire, and their study pinpointed a discrepancy in bullying perceptions
between librarians and library administrators. They also found that 53% of participants had
witnessed others being bullied and 40% experienced bullying themselves. Kendrick’s phe-
nomenological study indicated that the most frequent triggers of low morale were incompe-
tent leadership and bullying. The results show that bullying and toxic work environments
592 C. HEADY ET AL.

are ongoing concerns in academic libraries and, while outside the scope of the present study,
warrant additional research.
Questions related to faculty status and librarianship revealed several issues related to
employee turnover. Results indicated that librarians without faculty status were more
likely to be dissatisfied with their compensation and benefits and job duties than librar-
ians with faculty status. Further, librarians who were not eligible to earn tenure in their
previous position (either as staff or non-tenure track faculty) were more dissatisfied
with their job duties and compensation and benefits than librarians who were eligible to
earn tenure. In the open-ended portion of the survey, participants reported that being
classified as staff meant having less conference and travel funding and feeling less
respected by colleagues within the university. The survey found a trend in librarians
moving from positions without faculty status (49.8%; n ¼ 137) to positions with faculty
status (55.6%; n ¼ 153), suggesting that librarians may be more likely to leave a staff
library position for one with faculty status.
In the open-ended portion of the survey, there was clear dissatisfaction among partic-
ipants in libraries where some librarians were faculty and some librarians were staff.
The results of this study support Becher’s (2019) finding that non-tenure track librar-
ians who work alongside tenure-track librarians suffer from decreased job satisfaction.
Data revealed that—in institutions where all librarians were faculty, but only some were
tenure-track—participants felt there was little to distinguish their job duties apart from
one another. Comments detailed how these divisions led to exclusion from meetings
and social gatherings, and how overlapping duties between faculty and staff librarians
caused confusion as to why certain librarians had benefits that others did not.

Compensation and benefits

Of the factors related to compensation and benefits, quantitative data revealed that
future salary prospects and current salary were the areas with the greatest levels of dis-
satisfaction. In the open-ended portion of the survey, one of the top complaints was a
complete lack of salary increase, followed closely by a dissatisfaction with overall salary.
The most commonly cited reasons for stagnant wage growth were library budget cuts
and library-wide salary freezes. Several librarians reported going years without a raise,
while others reported that if they did get a salary increase, it was insignificant.
Unfair or inequitable salary or pay increases was one of the top two complaints in
the open-ended portion of the survey (N ¼ 25). This factor encompassed several issues
including salary compression and unclear or inequitable policies related to salaries and
raises. A study on ARL salaries in 2005 found that as many as one third of mid-career
and senior librarians were experiencing salary compression (Seaman, 2005). This was
echoed in open-ended responses, with more senior librarians reporting that their sal-
aries were barely above the starting salaries for newer librarians. However, despite
reported cases of salary compression, quantitative data showed that younger academic
librarians were more dissatisfied with their compensation and benefits than older librar-
ians. Meanwhile, other librarians who self-reported as highly productive reported dissat-
isfaction with salaries that were equal to or lower than other librarians who they viewed
as low performing. Related to this sentiment were unclear policies on how salary
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 593

increases were distributed. In some situations, not having clear guidelines on how raises
were distributed left raises up to the discretion of the library director. In these situa-
tions, there was a feeling of unfairness and that the library director was playing favor-
ites. Other librarians reported that newly hired librarians in instruction or technical
services were offered lower salaries than new librarians that worked in digital fields.
Finally, there was also a sense of inequity among librarian salaries across institutions.
With many state institutions having public salary data, several librarians reported know-
ing their library and/or their position was among the lowest compensated in the state.
These librarians expressed that they knew they could get paid more for doing the same
job elsewhere.

Job duties
In the job duties category, lack of growth opportunities was the highest ranked quanti-
tative factor related to librarian turnover. This issue also ranked second in the open-
ended portion of the survey. Many librarians reported that the only way to advance or
be promoted was to move to another institution, primarily because they would have to
wait for their own supervisor to retire or be promoted. This issue led many participants
to move to new positions where they could advance their careers.
Though library administration was not an option on the quantitative portion of the
survey, this emerged as the largest theme in the open-ended portion of the survey.
Here, participants connected issues with library administration to dissatisfaction with
their job duties. For example, some librarians cited transitions to new library leadership
which resulted in shifts in priorities and changes in job responsibilities further down
the chain of command. Also, a familiar managerial dilemma arose from the responses
in this area. While some participants felt a lack of strategic vision or direction from
library administration contributed to frustration with job duties and assigned tasks,
others connected their overly controlling administration to lack of job autonomy and
stifled creativity.
Though dissatisfaction with professional development or training opportunities
ranked second in the quantitative data on job duty-related turnover, it did not appear
frequently in the open-ended responses. However, the open-ended portion of the survey
revealed many areas of dissatisfaction related to job duties that were not explicitly
included in the quantitative section. These problems included burnout, work overload,
not enough time to perform primary job duties, and increased pressure due to budget
cuts, all of which have been tied to feelings of role ambiguity and job stress (Christian,
2015; Farrell et al., 2017; Flashpohler, 2009; Kendrick, 2017; Nardine, 2019; Shupe et al.,
2015). Participants reported that work overload was often a result of understaffing, often
attributed to institutional budget cuts or ineffective library administration. Participants
described situations in which their colleagues would quit or retire, but their positions
were left vacant. This led to their work duties being shifted around to other librarians,
who had to take on these additional responsibilities on top of their already demanding
workload. Budgetary constraints were used to justify adding responsibilities without a
salary increase, resulting in decreased morale and burnout. The burden of “wearing
many hats,” as one participant noted, may explain the findings that academic librarians
594 C. HEADY ET AL.

who previously worked at smaller institutions were more dissatisfied with aspects
related to their job duties than academic librarians at larger, and presumably better
resourced institutions, where librarians may have more clearly defined job roles.

Personal factors
Personal factors contributed the least to academic librarian turnover. This is contrary to
the findings of Luzius and Ard (2006), who found that 27.8% of participants (N ¼ 5)
left the field entirely due to personal/other reasons. While their study had a small sam-
ple size, it is noteworthy that academic librarians who choose to stay in librarianship
but take positions elsewhere do not usually do so for personal reasons.
Unfortunately, most of the personal reasons for departure—such as wanting to be geo-
graphically closer to family or to increase opportunities for spouse or children—do not
have solutions that can be addressed within the library. For example, quite a few partici-
pants revealed that they left due to displeasure with the weather or lack of culture in the
area. However, while libraries cannot control the weather (if only) or their geographic loca-
tion, one possible solution is honesty during the recruitment phase about the surrounding
area in order for candidates to make informed decisions about whether it will be a
good fit.
Yet there are some areas of dissatisfaction that can be addressed by supervisors and
administrators. Individuals who did not feel their position was a good fit for their per-
sonality expressed feeling undervalued or underappreciated, or consumed by their work-
loads. Often these problems fed into one another creating a cycle of unhealthy habits
that wore participants down over time. Age was a determining factor: younger librarians
were more dissatisfied with personal factors relating to their positions. Newer librarians,
and especially those who were new faculty members, felt overwhelmed by their respon-
sibilities and the number of hours they needed to work in order to complete projects.
These respondents labeled themselves as workaholics and completionists but expressed
that their extra efforts were often met with punitive action. As reflected in burnout lit-
erature, librarians exceed what is considered a typical work week to fit in their service
and scholarship elements on top of their work tasks (Fox, 2007; Kane, 2018). Yet
Flashpohler (2009) found that while about half of academic librarians are eligible for
sabbatical, less than a third take advantage of the privilege (p. 157). While concrete sol-
utions are in short supply, library leadership can assist these individuals by assigning
sustainable workloads and assigning release time for research. Ultimately, librarians—
especially new librarians—are desirous to please, and will work diligently to do so, often
to their own detriment.

Recommendations
Once an understanding of why librarians leave their jobs is formed, the next question is
how to retain them. Retaining employees is especially important because while waves of
new employees can bring with them waves of new ideas, longtime employees identify
more closely with and have more loyalty to their institution’s mission (Cottrell, 2011).
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 595

Past research by the ACRL Ad Hoc Task Force on Recruitment and Retention Issues
(2002) has suggested that pay, work environment, work enrichment and education are
factors used to retain academic librarians in their positions. Several research studies
conducted after the Task Force issued its report examined the retention issue further
and identified additional or more detailed factors. Strothmann and Ohler (2011) sur-
veyed librarians to determine which retention methods were in current use and found
that professional development opportunities were most commonly employed in libraries
as a retention tool, while other recommended methods such as counteroffers and formal
mentoring opportunities were less frequently available. The researchers found that, of
the existing retention initiatives offered by their workplace, librarians were most satis-
fied by flexible working hours, support for professional service and development oppor-
tunities, and faculty status.
Unfortunately, a library’s ability to offer the benefits identified by researchers such as
Strothmann & Ohler may be determined by factors outside of the library’s control, such
as institutional budget. However, library leadership can still take a proactive role in
helping librarians receive the necessary training, support, and resources to perform their
duties and alleviate dissatisfaction by improving clarity around responsibilities, duties,
and benefits, particularly with regard to differences between those in faculty and
staff roles.
Retention strategies should begin at the start of a librarian’s time at an institution,
not when they are already thinking about leaving. To engage new hires, libraries may
reevaluate their hiring and orientation process. Chapman (2009) suggested that libraries
mine human resources literature on orientation and socialization to improve employee
retention. Continuing to support new hires beyond the initial push to successfully
recruit them may increase the likelihood of librarians staying. Academic libraries could
require leadership training and hold supervisors and managers more accountable for
the success and growth of their subordinates.
One commonly recommended retention strategy well within a library’s control is
mentoring, whether formal or informal. Formal mentoring may be a routine part of a
library’s onboarding process or an opt-in program sponsored by a professional organ-
ization, while informal mentoring is more commonly mutually entered into and can last
well into a librarian’s career. The effects of mentoring can be long-lasting. Results of a
survey conducted by Olivas and Ma (2009) indicated that minority librarians who were
mentored in the early stages of their careers had higher levels of job satisfaction than
those who did not have mentoring relationships. Mentoring can also go both ways.
Edge and Green (2011) suggested that two-way mentoring, in which new librarians and
experienced librarians exchange technology skills and interpersonal and management
skills, may help transfer institutional knowledge.
Recruiting and retaining librarians of color has become an area of special focus in the
retention literature, though it was not a focus of this study. Brown et al. (2018) called
for including critical theory in LIS recruitment practices and curricula to better reflect
the population that libraries serve. Brown et al. also noted the role mentoring has in
decreasing isolation and providing a supportive network for marginalized librarians.
Research on academic library residency programs by Boyd et al. (2017) also emphasized
the importance of mentoring relationships to assist in socializing residents into the
596 C. HEADY ET AL.

culture of an organization and academia more generally. Recruiting and retaining librar-
ians of color is particularly problematic in environments that do not protect employees
from racial microaggressions, isolation, invalidations and microinsults, as Alabi (2015)
found evidence of within academic librarians.
Sometimes a librarian’s decision to leave a position may be due to factors that cannot
be influenced by any retention strategy. However, focusing on retaining librarians from
the beginning of their time at an institution through methods such as mentoring while
paying special attention to issues that may affect librarians of color more strongly will
help increase the chances of building satisfaction and loyalty.

Limitations and further research

Research in this study was limited to members of the listservs through which the survey
was distributed, and further limited to those who fit the criteria of working in the
United States and had left one position for another within the past five years while
remaining within the field of academic librarianship. A large number of respondents
identified themselves as reference and instruction librarians (44.2%; n ¼ 121). Additional
research in librarian turnover might focus more specifically on other positions within
academic libraries.
The current study also did not include librarians who left the profession entirely, but
the authors received nearly a dozen personal communications from librarians indicating
that this would be an area of interest for future research. Luzius and Ard (2006)
attempted such a study of academic librarians who left the profession and found that
administration, image, and salary were primary contributors to this type of turnover.
Although they had a low response rate, their study was sound and warrants replication
with a larger sample.
While there is no standard instrument to test turnover, the factors have been estab-
lished and proven over time. The authors recommend that future research use existing
measures to explore occupational commitment and intentions to quit. More studies into
turnover intentions are needed, such as those used by Weng and McElroy (2012);
Griffeth et al. (2000); and Strothmann and Ohler (2011). International studies are pav-
ing the way on this research, particularly the study conducted by Omeluzor (2018)
which focused on turnover intentions in connection with training, promotion,
and salaries.
Additional research is also needed into specific populations at risk for turnover, prob-
lems with inclusion and diversity in the workplace, the efficacy of mentoring and career
development, the importance of socialization in the workplace, the correlation between
turnover and leadership styles, and even place attachment. Understanding current reten-
tion strategies and librarians’ attitudes toward them should help library administrators
to plan future retention efforts in a more deliberate way.

Conclusion
Turnover within academic libraries is influenced by work environment, compensation
and benefits, job duties, and personal factors. Individual libraries, colleges and
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 597

universities, and professional librarian organizations all have a role to play in improving
these factors. The qualitative and quantitative responses to this study reinforced previ-
ous research into the primary factors that influence librarian departure. Furthermore,
the responses suggest that recommendations for retaining academic librarians, such as
those outlined by the 2002 ACRL Ad hoc Task Force, may not be in widespread prac-
tice within the profession. For example, mentoring programs were only provided within
20% of libraries nearly ten years after the white paper was released (Strothmann &
Ohler, 2011). Improving the most problematic factors identified within this study will
aid efforts to retain academic librarians, increasing the possibility that they will choose
to grow with and contribute to their organizations.

ORCID
Christina Heady http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5375-7045
Amy F. Fyn http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6724-4793
Millicent Weber http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8622-7502

References
Alabi, J. (2015). “This actually happened”: An analysis of librarians’ responses to a survey about
racial microaggressions. Journal of Library Administration, 55(3), 179–191. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1034040
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions
with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48–64. https://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.51827775
Allison, D. A., & Sartori, E. (1988). Professional staff turnover in academic libraries: A case study.
College & Research Libraries, 49(2), 141–148. https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl_49_02_141
Association of College & Research Libraries Ad Hoc Task Force on Recruitment & Retention
Issues. (2002). Recruitment, retention & restructuring: Human resources in academic libraries:
A white paper. Association of College & Research Libraries.
Becher, M. (2019). Understanding the experience of full-time nontenure-track library faculty:
Numbers, treatment, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(3),
213–219. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.015
Boyd, A., Blue, Y., & Im, S. (2017). Evaluation of academic library residency programs in the
United States for librarians of color. College & Research Libraries, 78(4), 472–511. https://
dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.4.472
Brown, J., Ferretti, J. A., Leung, S., & Mendez-Brady, M. (2018). We here: Speaking our truth.
Library Trends, 67(1), 163–181. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0031
Chapman, C. (2009). Retention begins before day one: Orientation and socialization in libraries.
New Library World, 110(3/4), 122–135. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03074800910941329
Christian, L. A. (2015). A passion deficit: Occupational burnout and the new librarian: A recom-
mendation report. The Southeastern Librarian, 62(4), 2–11. https://digitalcommons.kenne-
saw.edu/seln/vol62/iss4/2
Colding, L. (2006). Will they stay or will they go? Predictors of academic librarian turnover. In
E. Garten, D. Williams, & J. Nyce (Eds.), Advances in library administration and organiza-
tion (Vol. 23, pp. 263–280). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0732-0671(05)23007-9
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with impli-
cations for research. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 55–70. https://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/258331
598 C. HEADY ET AL.

Cottrell, T. (2011). Moving on: Salaries and managing turnover. The Bottom Line, 24(3),
187–191. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08880451111186044
Edge, J., & Green, R. (2011). The graying of academic librarians: Crisis or revolution? Journal of
Access Services, 8(3), 97–106. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2011.566517
Ergado, A. A., & Gojeh, L. A. (2015). Contributory factors to library staff turnover pattern and
retention in academic libraries of public and private universities in Ethiopia. International
Journal of Library Science, 4(4), 81–90. 10.5923/j.library.20150404.03
Farrell, B., Alabi, J., Whaley, P., & Jenda, C. (2017). Addressing psychosocial factors with library
mentoring. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 51–69. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.
2017.0004
Flashpohler, M. R. (2009). Librarian sabbatical leaves: Do we need to get out more? Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 35(2), 152–161. 10.1016/j.acalib.2009.01.009
Fox, D. (2007). Finding time for scholarship: A survey of Canadian research university librarians.
Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(4), 451–462. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2007.0041
Freedman, S., & Vreven, D. (2016). Workplace incivility and bullying in the library: Perception
or reality? College & Research Libraries, 77(6), 727–748. https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.6.
727
Fyn, A., Heady, C., Kaufman-Foster, A., Hosier, A. (2019). Why they leave: Exploring academic
librarian turnover and retention strategies. Proceedings of the ACRL 2019 Conference (pp.
139–148), Cleveland, OH. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/
confsandpreconfs/2019/WhyWeLeave.pdf
Galbraith, Q., Fry, L., & Garrison, M. (2016). The impact of faculty status and gender on
employee well-being in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 77(1), 71–86.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.71
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates
of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next mil-
lennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-
2063(00)00043-X
Hancock, J. I., Allen, D. G., Bosco, F. A., McDaniel, K. R., & Pierce, C. A. (2013). Meta-analytic
review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance. Journal of Management,
39(3), 573–603. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311424943
Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Reviewing employee turnover:
Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin,
138(5), 831–858. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027983
Kane, J. (2018). Rising like a glorious turkey from the ashes of burnout. College & Undergraduate
Libraries, 25(3), 205–210. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1499265
Kendrick, K. D. (2017). The low morale experience of academic librarians: A phenomenological
study. Journal of Library Administration, 57(8), 846–878. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01930826.2017.1368325
Leysen, J. M., & Boydston, J. M. K. (2009). Job satisfaction among academic cataloger librarians.
College & Research Libraries, 70(3), 273–297. https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.70.3.273
Lim, S. (2008). Job satisfaction of information technology workers in academic libraries. Library
& Information Science Research, 30(2), 115–121. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.10.002
Luzius, J., & Ard, A. (2006). Leaving the academic library. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 32(6), 593–598. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2006.06.004
Markgren, S., Dickinson, T., Leonard, A., & Vassiliadis, K. (2007). The five-year itch: Are librar-
ians losing their most valuable resources? Library Administration & Management, 21(2),
70–76. http://search.proquest.com/docview/216635347/
Nardine, J. (2019). The state of academic liaison librarian burnout in ARL libraries in the United
States. College & Research Libraries, 80(4), 508–523. https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.4.508
Nyamubarwa, W. (2011). “I am considering leaving soon”: Turnover intentions of academic
librarians in Zimbabwe. Journal of Business Administration and Education, 4(1), 76–90.
 CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN TURNOVER 599

Olivas, A., & Ma, R. (2009). Increasing retention rates in minority librarians through mentoring.
Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 10(3), 1–5. http://search.proquest.
com/docview/822521083/
Olusegun, O. S. (2013). Influence of job satisfaction on turnover intentions of library personnel
in selected universities in South West Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice. http://digital-
commons.unl.edu/libphilprac/914
Omeluzor, S. U. (2018). Organizational culture variables as factors influencing librarians’ turn-
over intentions in university libraries in South-South and South-East of Nigeria. Library
Philosophy & Practice, 1–16. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1693/
Oud, J. (2018). Academic librarians with disabilities: Job perceptions and factors influencing posi-
tive workplace experiences. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information
Practice and Research, 13(1), 1–30. https://dx.doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v13i1.4090
Peng, Y. (2014). Job satisfaction and job performance of university librarians: A disaggregated
examination. Library & Information Science Research, 36(1), 74–82. https://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.lisr.2013.02.006
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee
turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151–176. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0034829
Seaman, S. (2005). Salary compression in the Association of Research Libraries. Portal: Libraries
and the Academy, 5(1), 77–91. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2005.0009
Shupe, E. I., Wambaugh, S. K., & Bramble, R. J. (2015). Role-related stress experienced by aca-
demic librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 264–269. https://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.016
Steel, R. P., & Lounsbury, J. W. (2009). Turnover process models: Review and synthesis of a con-
ceptual literature. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 271–282. https://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.002
Strothmann, M., & Ohler, L. A. (2011). Retaining academic librarians: By chance or by design?
Library Management, 32(3), 191–208. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435121111112907
Thornton, J. (2000). Job satisfaction of librarians of African descent employed in the Association
of Research Libraries academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 61(3), 217–232.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.61.3.217
Weng, Q., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). Organizational career growth, affective occupational commit-
ment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 256–265. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.014
Copyright of Journal of Library Administration is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.