CC BY-NC-ND
21
Subjective Well-Being of Russian Faculty
An empirical study
L. Klimenko, L. Skachkova
Received in Liudmila Klimenko
April 2020 Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Associate Professor, Professor, Higher School of Business, Southern Federal University. Address: 43 23rd Line St, 344006 Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation. Email: lucl@yandex.ru Ljudmila Skachkova Candidate of Sciences in Economics, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Human Resource Management, Southern Federal University. Address: 88 Gorkogo St, 344002 Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation. Email: lskachkova@gmail.com
Abstract. Drawing upon findings of applied research, this article explores the indicators of subjective well-being (SWB) among faculty of Russia's leading universities. Methodological design of the study discriminates between subjective and objective measures of SWB,
examines the affective and cognitive components of well-being, makes allowance for sets of SWB determinants when analyzing the occupational factors, and uses time-tested scales for better measurement validity. Using empirical data, we demonstrate the priority of interesting work, freedom and fulfillment over income in the sample of faculty members. Correlations are found between SWB and the age and qualifications of teaching faculty. A negative impact of modern education reforms on occupational well-being of faculty is observed. Along with faculty retention and motivation strategies, universities should develop and implement employee well-being initiatives.
Keywords: subjective well-being, faculty, happiness, hedonism, eudaimon-ism, life quality, occupational well-being.
DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2020-4-37-63
This study was sponsored by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant No. 18-010-00952 A "Examining the Subjective Well-being of Russian Faculty: Factors and Dynamics." Translated from Russian by I. Zhuchkova.
Academic careers, on the one hand, may be unattractive due to relatively low salaries, excessive paperwork and administrative reporting, job cuts, and high levels of psycho-emotional stress. On the other hand, academia remains a relatively closed and self-sufficient system, as evidenced by the high level of inbreeding and low staff turnover in Russian universities. [Mikhalkina, Skachkova 2018]. What keeps faculty members in their jobs? Obviously, it cannot be pragmatic considerations alone. There must be those who feel that they belong in this profession, which is an important argument to start examining the factors of subjective well-being of academic personnel. Hopefully, this will explain the paradoxical attractiveness of jobs in academia for many—but not all—faculty members.
Furthermore, the new development strategies of Russian universities require that faculty members should be fully involved in implementing the university development programs. Working in academia is not limited to teaching and the normal working hours. Of course, employees under such conditions need stronger incentives and a more responsive attitude from the administration. One more question is therefore raised: what should be done to stimulate genuine involvement of the faculty in university development? The idea of studying the indicators, components and group-specific aspects of faculty subjective well-being thus becomes important for designing employee motivation programs as well.
Subjective well-being (SWB) is topical in economics, positive psychology, medicine, sociology, and other sciences. The first studies on SWB in academia and other spheres of life appeared in the 1960s [Diener 1984]. Today, a new interdisciplinary domain of research is emerging: science of well-being [Alexandrova 2017]. Institutionalization of this field of study was also marked by establishing the Journal of Happiness Studies, which publishes findings of theoretical and empirical research on SWB. The present-day scientific discourse features three important aspects associated with well-being research strategies: (1) defining the conceptual framework; (2) applying objective and/or subjective measures; (3) identifying the structural components and determinants of SWB.
In research literature, the concept of SWB is most commonly and fairly consistently associated with that of happiness1. In 1974, Richard A. Easterlin found the rate of human welfare enhancement to be almost independent of the rate of national income growth [Easterlin 1974]. This phenomenon was named "the Easterlin paradox". Later on, it was revealed that the impact of monetary saturation on life satisfaction started decreasing beyond a certain threshold [Inglehart, Welzel 2010]. It became obvious that life quality and well-being could not be measured using the objective metrics alone2. Furthermore, the subjective approach works best for self-reported well-being [Khashchen-
1 In this article, subjective well-being is also treated as synonymous to happiness.
2 There are now a lot of indices to assess and quantify well-being: the Happy Planet Index, the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, the OECD Better Life Index, the UN's Human Development Index, various indices of subjective economic well-being, etc. Those indices measure both objective and subjective parameters of well-being. For example, different countries use large arrays of objective statistical data on income, health and life expectancy, i. e. objective measures of well-being. The Happy Planet Index combines subjective life satisfaction (based on sociological surveys) as well as objective measures such as life expectancy at birth and ecological footprint per capita.
1. Subjective Well-Being: Approaches and Measurement
ko 2011]. Therefore, a new subjective metric of individual quality of life emerges to measure the factors that make people feel good in every aspect of their life [Angner 2010].
Most often, researchers discriminate between the affective (momentary affective states) and cognitive (judgments about happiness) components of SWB. The affective component is described as emotional responses to the current events in life that can be positive as well as negative [Diener 1984], as emotional experiences related to past, present or future [Seligman 2002], as mental state at the moment [Parfit 1984], as affective responses to positive and negative events or situations [Andrews, Withey 1974], or as emotional quality of an individual's everyday experience—joy, sadness, anger, etc. [Kahneman, Deaton 2010]. Meanwhile, SWB does not imply an absence of negative emotions but a balance between negative and positive affect [Bradburn 1969].
The cognitive component of SWB implies, first of all, comparison with the socially accepted, culture-specific standard of a happy life as well as assessment of one's quality of life according to one's own chosen criteria [Diener 1984]. Researchers analyze how people perceive their lives in general and focus on the associations among emotional state, perceived life quality, demographic and other variables (religion, leisure, marital status, health, etc.) [Kahneman, Deaton 2010]. Two levels of cognitive evaluation of SWB are identified: satisfaction of one's own preferences (accounts of desire-satisfaction) and compliance with some universally accepted criteria (objective-list accounts) which are believed to be unquestionable indicators of happiness (e. g. starting a family and being a good parent, meeting the moral standards and orientations, developing one's skills, etc.) [Parfit 1984].
Another important distinction is between "hedonic" (enjoyment of life) and "eudaimonic" (meaning, fulfillment, and commitment to socially shared values) happiness [Kainulainen, Saari, Veenhoven 2018]. These two components are combined in the concepts of "happiness minimum" and "happiness maximum" [Leontyev 2020]. "Happiness minimum" is achieved by the quality of life that allows satisfaction of the most basic needs, so it can be reached by improving one's economic well-being. However, other factors come into play beyond a certain minimum level of happiness, a conventional point of monetary saturation. The maximum level of happiness is achieved through individual strategies and purposes, and that is where joy can be experienced.
The determinants of SWB have been established empirically. Religion is a significant factor: involvement in the life of a parish community correlates positively with life satisfaction [Melkumyan 2020]. Arguments have been provided to support the hypothesis of sociocultural impacts in explaining SWB, which states that perceived happiness depends not only (and not so much) on the current living conditions but also on social norms, traditions, and the fundamental worldviews
shared across generations [Andreenkova 2020]. A number of studies have shown that people in countries with an individualist culture have higher levels of happiness than those in a collectivist culture [Antipina 2017; Ye, Ng, Lian 2015]. There are also intergenerational differences in happiness: the older generation enjoys much higher levels of SWB than Generations Y and Z, the latter being much more often dissatisfied with their social status and embittered by their expectations from life never coming true [Sibirev, Golovin 2020].
Enjoyment of work, or job satisfaction, is another variable of SWB [Sousa-Poza, Sousa-Poza 2000; Georgellis, Lange 2012]. A positive relationship between job satisfaction and SWB has been reported in Russian literature, the effect differing across social groups [Soboleva 2020]. Employees with higher levels of identity and loyalty to their work organization demonstrate improved productivity even when monetary incentives are weak. Otherwise speaking, identity and monetary incentives are substitutes [Akerlof, Kranton 2005].
There are few studies examining SBW in specific occupational groups. SWB of physicians and nurses in Chinese hospitals was found to be higher when there was a collaborative relationship among employees in an organization [Fan et al. 2014]. Positive professional identity is a critical factor of life satisfaction for social workers in Canada [Graham, Shier 2010]. Affect is the most central dimension in the structure of Dutch teachers' SWB [Horn et al. 2004]. Implementing a culture of support increased the level of SWB among employees of public institutions of higher education in Portugal [Santos, Goncalves, Gomes 2013]. In Russia, it is mostly social psychologists who analyze SWB in specific occupational groups, such as the students and professors of South Ural State University's Faculty of Journalism [Yashchenko 2012], the teaching staff of vocational schools in Samara Oblast [Vinogradova 2010], helping professionals (teachers, psychologists and social workers) in Orenburg Oblast [Molokostova, Yakimanskaya 2015], etc.
The literature analyzed provides a conceptual and methodological framework for studying SWB of faculty members in modern universities. Furthermore, the positive correlation between job satisfaction and labor productivity revealed in a number of studies allows for an assumption that assessment of faculty SWB may be helpful in designing effective tools for faculty performance management and for a more successful implementation of modern university development strategies.
2. Hypotheses, Methodology, and Empirical Basis of Research
The aim of this study is to analyze the structural components, group-specific characteristics and determinants of SWB among faculty members. Based on the review of available literature, the following hypotheses were formulated: (1) interesting work, freedom and fulfillment are prioritized over income in the hierarchy of personal core values of faculty as an occupational group; (2) SWB is contingent on the
Table 1. Empirical indicators of faculty SWB
Affective component
• Balance of negative and positive affect • Perceived happiness
Cognitive component
Value and meaning orientations • Personal core values • Sense of agency in one's life strategies • Perceived freedom
Perceived life quality • Economic well-being (housing, clothing, nutrition, income) • Opportunity for refreshment (recreation, leisure, time with friends) • Private sphere (family, health, personal safety)
Occupational well-being • Status of the profession • Job satisfaction • Career risks
age and qualifications of teaching faculty3; 3) in the context of labor precarization, the modern reforms in Russian education have negative effects on faculty SWB.
The methodology of assessing SWB of Russian faculty is based on (1) discriminating between the subjective and objective dimensions of well-being; (2) identifying two major components of SWB, affective (the balance of negative and positive emotions at the moment; momentary happiness) and cognitive (judgments of SWB); (3) making allowance for sets of SWB determinants when analyzing the occupational factors (Table 1); and (4) using time-tested measurement methods and scales: Bradburn's Scale of Psychological Well-Being (the Affect Balance Scale), Cantril's Self-Anchoring Striving Scale (the Cantril Ladder), and the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale used in the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Additionally, the sociological toolkit included items from the European Social Survey4 (perceived happiness and life values) and the Russian Public Opinion Research Center's Index of Social Moods5 (self-reported financial situation). The use of standardized scales allows comparing the results of assessing different aspects of SWB in a sample of faculty mem-
3 The focus of analysis on the SWB indicators of faculty subgroups differing in age and qualifications is explained by the young talent attraction and retention policy in higher education as well as the search for effective ways of motivating and involving various groups of faculty in university strategy implementation.
4 ESS-2019: http://www.ess-ru.ru
5 WCIOM (2019) Social Well-being of Russians: A Monitoring Study. Press release No. 3979. Available at: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=9746
bers to those obtained for teachers and Russian population in general, thus improving the accuracy of interpretations. Findings from a variety of studies are used because none of them contains all the aspects of well-being that we would like to compare.
Results of a standardized online survey of faculty members in Russian federal universities were used as empirical basis of research. The 2019 survey involved 356 employees in ten universities6, male respondents accounting for 32% of the sample. The percentage of respondents aged 25-34 was 21%, those aged 35-44 accounted for 29%, 45-54 for 18%, 55-64 for 21%, and those above 64, for 11%. The profile of the respondents in terms of position and academic degree is given in Appendix 1.
Score calculation using Norman M. Bradburn's Affect Balance Scale (ABS) [Bradburn 1969]) involves the following: (1) the Positive Affect Scale value is estimated as the number of positive answers to five questions associated with positive emotions; (2) the Negative Affect Scale value is estimated based on the answers to five other questions7; 3) the difference between the positive and negative affect reflects the affect balance, which can take values from -5 to 5.
Bradburn's methodology is designed for measuring emotions experienced in the recent past. Item formulations prevent focusing on any specific events to avoid reflection. Validity of Bradburn's scale was confirmed in an assessment of emotional well-being across 40 nations [Diener, Suh 1999] and tested on a sample of Russian scientists [Tro-shikhina, Manukyan 2017].
In most faculty members, positive emotions prevailed over negative ones (ABS scores from 1 to 5 for 76% of the respondents). However, most respondents scored low on the ABS (1-3 scores, 64%). The percentage of positive ABS values increases from the subgroup of people aged 25-34 to those aged 35-44 (70 and 80%, respectively), drops noticeably in the subgroup of those aged 45-54 (67%), and then increases again between the age of 55-64 to the oldest generation (75 and 95%, respectively). The share of respondents scoring 3 to 5 or higher on the ABS is greater among Doctors of Sciences compared to Candidates of Sciences and non-degreed faculty members (42% compared to 30 and 29%, respectively^ (Table 2).
6 Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (8%), Far Eastern Federal University (15%), Kazan Federal University (6%), V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University (4%), Northern Arctic Federal University (17%), Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University (7%), North-Caucasus Federal University (11%), Siberian Federal University (8%), Southern Federal University (16%), Ural Federal University (8%).
7 See Appendix 2 for a complete list of questions.
8 In the subgroup of faculty members aged 25-34, 56% had no academic degree and 44% were Candidates of Sciences; among those aged 35-44, 77%
3. Affective Component of Subjective Well-Being
Table 2. The affective component of faculty SWB measured on the ABS, %
Emotional well-being index (ABS=PAS-NAS) Mean ABS in the sample ABS by age subgroups ABS by academic degree subgroups
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 > 64 No degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
5 3 - 6 - 6 - 2 5 -
4 9 6 8 15 9 11 9 7 16
3 20 19 24 11 21 21 18 18 26
2 25 31 20 37 18 26 28 28 17
1 19 14 22 4 21 37 18 19 19
0 12 19 10 11 15 - 13 13 9
-1 6 3 4 15 6 5 8 5 7
-2 2 3 2 4 3 - - 3 4
-3 1 3 - - - - - 1 1
-4 2 3 2 4 - - 1 1 1
-5 1 - 2 - - - 3 - -
Table 3. Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are? (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "extremely unhappy" and 10 is "extremely happy"), mean scores
Russia, ESS9 (2018-2019) Faculty members of Russian federal universities, 2019
Mean Age Academic degree
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 > 64 No degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
6.5 7.0 7.2 6.6 6.7 7.5 6.9 6.4 7.0 7.3
Bradburn revealed a strong positive correlation between SWB (happiness) and the ABS score. In this study, changes in faculty's perceived happiness were measured using the European Social Survey (ESS) scale. A comparison between measurements shows that the teaching staff of Russian federal universities is on average happier than the national average. In the 9th round of the ESS, Russia's
were Candidates of Sciences, 10% were Doctors of Sciences, and the rest had no academic degree; among those aged 45-54, 61% were Candidates of Sciences and 19% were Doctors of Sciences; among those aged 5564, 51% were Candidates of Sciences and 46% were Doctors of Sciences; among those aged 65+, 40% were Candidates of Sciences and 45% were Doctors of Sciences.
average score was 6.5 out of 109 (one of the lowest among all the 23 participating countries and virtually unchanged since 2012), compared to 7 among the teaching faculty (which is close to the results of many Western European countries)10. Among the subgroups, the highest level of happiness was observed among Doctors of Sciences and the respondents aged 55-64 (Table 3).
Correlations between the values on the integrative scale measuring happiness, on the one hand, and the variables "Age" and "Academic degree", on the other, are statistically significant".
4. The Cognitive Research on the SWB of Russian teaching faculty also involved anal-Component of SWB ysis of value and meaning orientations, perceived life quality, and job satisfaction.
4.1. Value and The values ranked by the respondents as the most important included meaning orientations having found one's vocation (the cumulative percentage for the first two response options = 86%), getting respect from others (79%), making one's own decisions about what one does (76%), showing one's abilities (68%), and being creative (60%). Building a career (41%) and being rich (25%) were ranked next to the last among personal core values, and having an influence on politics (18%) mattered the least (Table 4). At the level of Russian population, the significance of thinking up new ideas and being creative is 39%, showing one's abilities-37%, and getting respect from others-49% (ESS9).
The data obtained is aligned with the results of focus groups involving faculty members from five universities in the South of Russia, of which three were federal, which showed that income as a measure of economic well-being was valued less by faculty than freedom of choice and interesting work [Skachkova, Shchetinina, Kryachko 2018].
Most faculty members are oriented toward the sense of agency in their life strategies, 63% of the respondents being convinced that success in life depends on their own effort. Such orientations are most likely to be found among respondents aged 35-54. In addition, the level of agency increases from non-degreed faculty members to Doctors of Sciences (Table 5). According to the World Values Survey, people in economically advanced societies with strong democratic institutions are very likely to feel that they have control over the way their life turns out [Inglehart, Welzel 2005].
9 ESS-2019: http://www.ess-ru.ru
10 In 2018-2019, the ESS score was 7.4 in France, 7.1 in Italy, 7.7 in Spain, 7.8 in Germany, 7.1 in Czech Republic, and 7.3 in Estonia.
11 The correlation between "Happiness" and "Age" is characterized by Pearson's chi-square of 71.865 (p=0.001), Cramér's V of 0.227 (p=0.001) and the Phi coefficient of 0.453 (p=0.001). The correlation between "Happiness" and "Academic degree" is also strong enough, with Pearson's chi-square of 46.507 (p=0.001), Cramér's V of 0.258 (p=0.001), and the Phi of 0.365 (p=0.001).
Table 4. Please indicate how much each description is or is not like you, %
e e
m m al
e ek e m at
"cC CD e E e E s o
u m e m wh e le e e n
yr e om tlit ■g ■g 'n
e V _1 CO < o
Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him/her 30 31 23 8 7 1 1
It is important to him/her to be rich 5 20 24 14 28 8 1
It's important to him/her to show his/her abilities 26 42 14 7 7 2 -
It is important to him/her to build a career 11 30 25 10 18 5 1
It is important to him/her to make his/her own decisions about what he/she does 39 37 13 6 3 1 1
It is important to him/her to get respect from others 48 32 11 5 3 2 1
It is important to him/her to find his/her vocation and place in life 53 33 8 3 2 1 1
It is important to him/her to have an influence on politics 6 12 17 15 27 23 1
Table 5. Do you think success in life depends more on your own effort or the circumstances beyond your control?, %
Age Academic degree
Mean 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >64 ! Candidate No degree ; of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
My own effort 63 54 71 61 56 54 57 i 61 72
Circumstances beyond my control 22 22 19 19 25 22 16 I 23 22
Don't know 16 24 10 19 19 24 27 1 16 6
Degree of freedom is rated lower than happiness, on average 6.3 on a ten-point scale. Having found one's place in life was rated on average 7.3 out of 10. The two variables demonstrate higher values among faculty members with academic degrees and those aged 54 or older (Figure 1).
4.2. Perceived Economic well-being was assessed using the scale and index meth-life quality odology of the nationwide surveys administered by Russian Public Opinion Research Center (WCIOM)12. Faculty members were found to
12 The index is obtained by adding the positive and neutral scores ("Very good/ Good" and "Average") and finding the difference between the sum and the negative scores ("Bad/Very bad").
Figure 1.
To what extent would you say you feel independent? (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "extremely dependent" and 10 is "extremely independent" mean scores
To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following: "I have found my vocation and my place in life" (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "strongly disagree" and 10 is "strongly agree"), mean scores
All
Aged 25-34 Aged 35-44 Aged 45-54 Aged 55-64 Aged 65+ No academic degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
rate their financial situation above the national average (80 vs 50). The highest indices were obtained for respondents aged 55-64 and Doctors of Sciences, and the lowest for those aged 25-34 and 64+ as well as non-degreed teachers (Table 6).
Respondents are satisfied with their family relationships, nutrition, what they wear and where they live. Financial situation and opportunities for leisure and recreation were found to be the least satisfying of all parameters. The highest level of satisfaction in different domains of life is observed among faculty members aged 55-64, and the lowest one among those aged 25-34. The lowest levels of financial and leisure satisfaction were shown in the group of non-degreed respondents, and the lowest level of health satisfaction was demonstrated by Doctors of Sciences (Table 7). Therefore, most faculty members are not satisfied with their financial situation, describing it as average.
As respondents report, their level of income does not allow them to satisfy their basic needs of freedom and independence, economic well-being, fulfillment and personal safety (none of these parameters was given more than 5.9 scores out of 10 across the sample). The level of satisfaction is somewhat higher among respondents aged 55-64 and somewhat lower among those aged 35-44 (Table 8). About one
Table 6. How would you describe your current financial situation?, %
Faculty members of federal universities, 2019 Russia, 2019*
Mean Age Academic degree
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >64 No degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
Very good / Good 27 32 26 13 32 32 14 29 36 14
Average 63 49 67 71 66 49 60 64 61 61
Bad / Very bad 10 19 8 13 3 19 24 7 3 25
Don't know 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0
Index 80 62 84 71 94 62 49 86 94 50
* WCIOM (2019) Social Well-Being of Russians: A Monitoring Study. Press release No. 3979. Available at: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=9746
Table 7. How satisfied are you with the following domains of your life? (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "extremely dissatisfied" and 10 is "extremely satisfied"), mean scores
Mean Age Academic degree
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >64 No degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
Family relationships 8.1 8.0 7.5 8.4 8.4 8.5 7.9 8.1 8.2
Nutrition 7.9 7.4 7.6 8.0 8.7 7.7 6.9 8.2 8.1
Clothing and footwear 7.4 6.7 7.4 7.3 7.9 7.4 6.2 7.6 7.7
Living conditions 7.1 5.8 7.4 5.9 8.0 8.5 5.9 7.2 7.9
Place, region of residence 7.0 6.4 7.1 6.7 7.6 6.9 5.9 7.4 6.9
Social status 7.0 6.3 7.1 6.4 7.8 7.6 5.8 7.3 7.3
Personal safety 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.3 6.9 6.4 7.1 6.7
Socializing with friends 6.8 6.9 6.5 6.7 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.7
Recreation opportunities 6.3 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.8 6.7 5.6 6.6 6.4
Health 6.3 6.5 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.5 5.8
Leisure opportunities 5.8 5.2 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.9 4.9 6.1 6.1
Financial situation 5.8 5.4 5.9 5.0 6.5 5.9 4.3 6.0 6.5
Table 8. To what extent would you say your income satisfies the following needs? (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "extremely dissatisfied" and 10 is "extremely satisfied"), mean scores
Mean Age Academic degree
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >64 No degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
Independence and freedom 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.0 6.0 6.0 4.8 5.9 6.0
Economic well-being 5.4 5.3 5.5 4.6 6.1 5.5 4.3 5.6 5.9
Fulfillment 5.6 5.5 5.4 4.8 6.2 6.2 4.5 5.8 6.2
Personal safety 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.2 6.4 6.2 5.2 6.0 5.9
third of faculty members in federal universities (34%) believe their salaries to be below the regional average, 31% perceiving their level of pay as just about the regional average, and only 28% thinking that their salaries are above the regional average.
4.3. Job Findings from focus groups with faculty members indicate that job-re-satisfaction lated factors play a significant role as determinants of SWB among the teaching faculty [Skachkova, Shchetinina, Kryachko 2018].
Job satisfaction was assessed using an adaptation of the TALIS scale13. Faculty members agree that the advantages of their profession outweigh the downsides with an average score of 6.5 on a ten-point scale. Satisfaction with career advancement opportunities in the workplace is lower, being the highest among teachers aged 5564 and those with academic degrees. Loyalty to university is moderate, with the average score of 6 out of 10 for willingness to change the institution, higher levels of commitment among respondents aged 45-54 and 65+ and lower levels among non-degreed faculty members (Table 9).
Getting respect from colleagues and students is rated on average 7.8 out of 10 and never goes below 8.3 in the older age subgroups. Having an opportunity to think up new ideas and be creative (7.5) and show their abilities (7.5) is what faculty members value the most in their job. These parameters were rated the highest in the subgroups of respondents aged 54 and older as well as teachers with academic degrees (from 7.9 to 8.2). Ability to make one's own decisions about what one does received a lower rating (6.3), the oldest age subgroup
13 National Research University Higher School of Economics, Federal Institute for Evaluation of Education Quality (2015) Report on the Works Completed (Services Provided) under Public Contract No. F-25-ks-2015 "Analysis of the Results of the Teaching and Learning International Survey in the Russian Federation (TALIS-2013) of November 30, 2015.
Table 9. To what extent would you agree with the following? (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "strongly disagree" and 10 is "strongly agree"), mean scores
Mean Age Academic degree
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 >64 No degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
The benefits of my profession clearly outweigh the downsides 6.5 6.2 6.6 5.8 6.8 7.0 5.4 6.8 6.7
I am satisfied with the career advancement opportunities in my current place of work 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.0 6.5 5.5 4.3 5.9 6.0
I would prefer changing the university if an opportunity came up 6.0 6.5 6.3 5.1 6.8 4.7 6.8 5.8 6.0
I get respect from my colleagues and students 7.8 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.5 8.3 7.6 7.9 7.9
My profession allows me to think up new ideas and be creative 7.5 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.9 8.2 7.0 7.6 7.5
My job allows me to show my abilities 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.0 8.2 7.9 6.6 7.7 7.7
My job allows me to make my own decisions about what I do 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.6 5.9 5.6 6.5 6.6
The government is effective at solving the socioeconomic problems of academic personnel 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.9 2.9 3.1 4.1 3.5
All things considered, I am satisfied with my job 7.0 6.4 7.1 6.6 7.8 7.2 5.8 7.3 7.4
being the most critical about it. Faculty members do not agree that the government is effective at solving the socioeconomic problems of academic personnel—this parameter did not receive more than 4 scores in any subgroup. Nevertheless, the majority of respondents are satisfied with their job, all things considered (7 scores on average, the highest values being observed in the subgroup of those aged 5564) (Table 9).
Faculty members of federal universities do not consider their profession as highly prestigious. Only one tenth of the respondents regard working in academia as definitely prestigious, while a quarter of them perceive their occupation as non-prestigious, the majority keeping neutral. At the same time, teachers in higher education are rath-
Figure 2. Do you think the academic/teaching/medical profession is prestigious?, %
Faculty members, 2019
Teachers, 2017 Doctors, 2017
Yes, it is quite prestigious
This is a regular profession, not too prestigious but not non-prestigious either
This profession definitely has low prestige nowadays
Don't know
5
59
13
er satisfied with their social status. A comparison between the results of this study and job satisfaction self-reports obtained from teachers and physicians [Klimenko et al. 2018] shows that physicians perceive their profession as more prestigious than teachers, while teachers are more likely than other professional groups to be critical in their assessments (Figure 2).
Among the factors of loyalty to academia, the most significant ones are enjoyment in teaching and doing research (75%), flexible working hours (65%), engagement with young, interesting and creative people (65%), knowledge transfer (44%), and long vacations (37%). As for the factors of withdrawal, the most frequently mentioned ones include the ever growing amount of paperwork and administrative reports (75%), the ongoing job cuts in higher education (66%), low salaries for academic staff (61%), working outside the normal working hours (evenings, nights, weekends and vacations) (57%), and low involvement of students in learning (31%).
Reformation of public (educational, healthcare) institutions in Russia is fraught with bureaucratization, orientation toward formalized performance indicators, unstable professional trajectories, and precarization of academic labor [Volchik, Klimenko, Posukhova 2018]. The findings of this study indicate that 83% of federal university teachers are concerned about the risks of increased workload and no raise. Over 60% of the respondents worry about losing their job and/or having to work part-time (Figure 3). Data obtained from teachers and physicians employed in public institutions also reveals a high level of concerns about the increasing workload and risks of losing the job (from 62 to 84%) [Volchik, Klimenko, Posukhova 2018; Klimenko, Posukhova 2018]. In other words, a significant level of anxiety caused by employment and income insecurity and uncertainty about the future is observed among faculty members just as among other public sector employees.
Figure 3. How concerned are you about the following nowadays?, %
37
Losing the job Increased workload, no raise Having to work part-time
Pay cuts or delays in payment
Highly concerned
Rather concerned
Rather unconcerned
Unconcerned
55
Overall life satisfaction was measured using Cantril's Self-Anchoring Striving Scale. The average level of life satisfaction among faculty members is relatively low: 6.6 scores. However, this is still slightly higher than Russia's national score of 5.8 in the latest round of ESS. In Western European countries, this index varies between 6.2 and 8.214.
The coefficients of correlation between the Cantril Ladder value and the variables "Age" and "Academic degree" indicate a statistically significant relationship between life satisfaction and the age and qualifications of faculty members.15 The highest level of life satisfaction is observed among the respondents aged 45-64 and those with academic degrees (Table 10).
Analysis of ESS findings from previous years shows that levels of happiness in European countries are on average higher than those of life satisfaction [Khavenson, Orel 2014]. In 2018, according to ESS data, happiness was slightly higher than life satisfaction in Russia, too (6.5 vs 5.8, respectively). In the present study of faculty SWB, the values on these two scales are virtually identical (6.5 and 6.6), which indicates, along with the other indicators described, a more balanced ratio of the affective and cognitive components of SWB among faculty members.
14 ESS9 (2019): http://www.ess-ru.ru
15 The calculated coefficients have high confidence intervals. For the correlation between "Life satisfaction" and "Age", Pearson's chi-square is 75.368 (p = 0.001), Cramer's V is 0.233 (p = 0.001), and Phi is 0.465 (p = 0.001). For the correlation between "Life satisfaction" and "Academic degree", Pearson's chi-square is 51.672 (p = 0.000), Cramer's V is 0.272 (p = 0.000), and Phi is 0.385 (p=0.000).
Table 10. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays? (scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "extremely dissatisfied" and 10 is "extremely satisfied"), mean scores
Russia, ESS9 (2018-2019) Faculty members of federal universities, 2019
Mean Age Academic degree
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 > 64 No degree Candidate of Sciences Doctor of Sciences
5.8 6.6 6.7 6.8 7.4 7.0 6.1 6.1 7.0 7.3
5. Conclusion Factors of SWB among faculty members were analyzed with a view to find effective means of employee retention and motivation in higher education. The findings obtained allow for the following inferences:
1. At the level of the affective component, the occupational group of faculty members demonstrate, along with a contextual "surplus" of positive affect, higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction compared to Russia's national average. At the level of the cognitive component, however, the respondents gave quite critical assessments of their financial situation (although better than the national average), working conditions and prestige of the profession. Meanwhile, income was found to be valued less than interesting work, fulfillment, creativity, and recognition. Obviously, being part of the academic profession is what makes this occupational group subjectively happier.
2. The study confirms the hypothesis that SWB is contingent on the age and qualifications of faculty members, being on average higher in older age subgroups (54+) and highly qualified respondents (Doctors of Sciences). The lowest levels of satisfaction among loyal faculty members were observed for young employees and those with no academic degree.
3. Modern education reforms may have negative effects on occupational well-being of faculty members, as transformations are fraught with increased workload, a growing amount of administrative reporting, job cuts, and the introduction of part-time contracts and employee ranking systems. Findings reveal a significant level of anxiety among faculty members caused by employment and income insecurity and uncertainty about the future.
In the recent years, faculty members have been required to be fully involved in implementing the university's key development strategies, which implies engagement in activities untypical of the traditional academia. In this situation, employee motivation strategies should become more elaborated and extend beyond administrative and financial incentives. A more extensive motivation system should involve effective social responsibility towards the academic staff, including the de-
velopment and implementation of employee well-being initiatives16. Then, perhaps, it will be possible to start moving from the "happiness minimum" to the "happiness maximum".
References Akerlof G., Kranton R. (2005) Identity and the Economics of Organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 19, no 1, pp. 9-32.
Alexandrova A. (2017) A Philosophy for the Science of Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University.
Andreenkova A. (2020) Mezhstranovye razlichiya v urovne schastya v postsovet-skikh stranakh—sravnitelny analiz [Cross-National Differences in Level of Happiness in the Post-Soviet Countries: A Comparative Analysis]. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no 1, pp. 316-339.
Andrews F. M., Withey S. B. (1976) Social Indicators of Well-Being: America's Perception of Life Quality. New York: Plenum.
Andrews F. M., Withey S. B. (1974) Developing Measures of Perceived Life Quality: Results from Several National Surveys. Social Indicators Research, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 1-26.
Angner E. (2010) Subjective Well-Being. The Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 39, no 3, pp. 361-368.
Antipina O. (2017) Ekonomika, kultura i schastye: est li vzaimosvyaz? [Economy, Culture and Happiness: Is There Interconnection?]. Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya / World Eсonomy and International Relations, vol. 61, no 7, pp. 35-44.
Bradburn N. M. (1969) The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Chicago: Al-dine.
Cantril H. (1965) The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Diener E. (1984) Subjective Well-Being. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 95, no 3, pp. 542-575.
Diener E., Suh E. M. (1999) National Differences in Subjective Well-Being. Well-Being. The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (eds D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwarz), New York: Russell Sage, pp. 434-450.
Easterlin R. E. (1974) Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence. Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz (eds P. A. David, M. W. Reder), New York: Academic Press, pp. 89-125.
Fan D., Cui L., Zhang M.M, Zhu C. J., Härtel C. E.J., Nyland C. (2014) Influence of High Performance Work Systems on Employee Subjective Well-Being and Job Burnout: Empirical Evidence from the Chinese Healthcare Sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 25, no 7, pp. 931-950.
Georgellis Y., Lange T. (2012) Traditional vs. Secular Values and the Job—Life Satisfaction Relationship across Europe. British Journal of Management, vol. 23, no 4, pp. 437-454.
Graham J., Shier M. (2010) Social Work Practitioners and Subjective Well-Being: Personal Factors that Contribute to High Levels of Subjective Well-Being. International Social Work, vol. 53, iss. 6, pp. 757-772.
16 For instance, the University of Cambridge has been implementing its Well-Being Strategy for a few years now: https://www.well-being.admin.cam.ac.uk/ files/report.pdf
Horn J. E.V., Taris T. W., Schaufeli W. B., Schreus P. J.G. (2004) The Structure of Occupational Well-being: A Study among Dutch Teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 77, no 3, pp. 365-375.
Inglehart R. F., Welzel C. (2010) Agency, Values, and Well-Being: A Human Development Model. Social Indicators Research, vol. 97, no 1, pp. 43-63.
Inglehart R., Welzel C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Kahneman D., Deaton A. (2010) High Income Improves Evaluation of Life but not Emotional Well-Being. PNAS, vol. 107, no 38, pp. 16489-16493.
Kainulainen S., Saari J., Veenhoven R. (2018) Life-Satisfaction Is More a Matter of Feeling-Well than Having-What-You-Want. Tests of Veenhoven's Theory. International Journal of Happiness and Development, vol. 4, no 3, pp. 209-235.
Khashchenko V. (2011) Subjektivnoe ekonomicheskoe blagopoluchie i ego iz-merenie: postroenie oprosnika i ego validizatsiya [Subjective Economic Well-Being and Its Measurement: Constructing and Validating a Questionnaire]. Experimental Psychology, vol. 4, no 1, pp. 106-127.
Khavenson T., Orel E. (2014) Subjektivnoe blagopoluchie i udovletvorennost institutami: struktura i otsenka stepeni geterogennosti otvetov v evropejskikh stranakh [Subjective Well-Being and Satisfaction with Institutions: Structure and Assessment of Heterogeneity of Responses in European Countries]. XIVAprelskaya mezhdunarodnaya nauchnaya konferentsiya po problemam razvitiya ekonomiki i obshchestva: v 4-kh knigakh. Kniga 4 [XIV April International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development: In 4 Books. Book 4] (ed. E. G. Yasin), Moscow: HSE, pp. 540-553.
Klimenko L., Mosienko O., Nor-Arevyan O., Posukhova O. (2018) Professional-naya identichnost predstaviteley sotsialno orientirovannykh professiy v us-loviyakh prekariatizatsii rossiyskogo obshchestva [Professional Identity of Representatives of Socially Oriented Professions in the Conditions of Pre-cariatization of Russian Society]. Rostov-on-Don: Foundation for Science and Education.
Klimenko L., Posukhova O. (2018) Professionalnaya identichnost shkolnykh uchiteley v usloviyakh prekariatizatsii sotsialno-trudovykh otnosheniy v krupnykh gorodakh Rossii [School Teachers' Professional Identity in the Context ofthe Precariatization of Social and Labor Relations in Large Russian Cities]. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, no 3, pp. 36-67. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2018-3-36-67
Leontiev D. A. (2020) Schastye i subjektivnoe blagopoluchie: k konstruirovaniyu ponyatijnogo polya [Happiness and Well-Being: Toward the Construction of the Conceptual Field]. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no 1, pp. 14-37.
Melkumyan E. (2020) Religioznost i udovletvorennost zhiznju: opros pravo-slavnykh prikhodov [Religiosity and Life Satisfaction: A Survey of Orthodox Parishes]. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no 1, pp. 225-249.
Mikhalkina E., Skachkova L. (2018) Pochemu vypuskniki aspirantury ne vybirayut rabotu v universitetakh? [Why Do Not PhD Students Choose Job in Universities?]. Terra Economicus, vol. 16, no 4, pp. 122-123.
Molokostova A., Yakimanskaya I. (2015) Sotsialno-psikhologicheskie aspekty be-zopasnosti obrazovatelnoy sredy i subjektivnoe blagopoluchie spetsialistov pomogayushchikh professiy [Socio-Psychological Aspects of the Safety of the Educational Environment and the Subjective Well-Being of Specialists in Helping Professions]. Vestnik Orenburgskogo Gosudarstvennogo Univer-siteta, vol. 177, no 2, pp. 189-193.
Parfit D. (1984) Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon.
Santos J., Goncalves S., Gomes А. (2013) Organizational Culture and Subjective and Work Well-Being. The Case of Employees of Portuguese Universities. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, vol. 1, iss. 3, pp. 153-161.
Seligman M. E.P. (2002) Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. New York: The Free Press.
Sibirev V., Golovin N. (2020) Mezhpokolencheskie razlichiya v udovletvorennos-ti zhiznyu i chuvstve schastya v Rossii (na materialakh Evropejskogo sot-sialnogo issledovaniya) [Intergenerational Differences in Life Satisfaction and a Feeling of Happiness in Russia (Based on the European Social Survey Data)]. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no 1, pp. 296-315.
Skachkova L., Shetinina D., Kriachko V. (2018) Faktory subjektivnogo blagopo-luchiya nauchno-pedagogicheskikh rabotnikov: rezultaty focus-grupp [Factors of Subjective Well-Being of Scientific and Pedagogical Workers: Results of Focus-Groups]. State and Municipal Management. Scholar Notes, no 4, pp. 138-146.
Soboleva N. (2020) Faktory, vliyayushchie na vklad udovletvorennosti rabotoj v udovletvorennost zhiznyu v Rossii [Determinants and the Interrelationship Between Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction in Russia]. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no 1, pp. 368-390.
Sousa-Poza A., Sousa-Poza A.A. (2000) Well-Being at Work: A Cross-National Analysis of the Levels and Determinants of Job Satisfaction. Journal of So-cio-Economics, vol. 29, no 6, pp. 517-538.
Troshikhina E., Manukyan V. (2017) Trevozhnost i ustojchivye emotsionalnye sos-toyaniya v structure psikhoemotsionalnogo blagopoluchiya [Anxiety and Stable Emotional States in the Structure of Psycho-Emotional Wellbeing]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, vol. 7, iss. 3, pp. 211-223.
Vinogradova G. (2010) Klimat v pedagogicheskom kollektive i subjektivnoe bla-gopoluchie Lichnosti pedagoga [Climate in the Teaching Staff and Subjective Well-Being of the Teacher's Personality]. Tolyatti: TSU.
Volchik V., Klimenko L., Posukhova O. (2018) Socio-Economic Sustainable Development and the Precariat: A Case Study of Three Russian Cities. Entre-preneurship and Sustainability Issues, vol. 6, no 1, pp. 411-428.
Yashchenko E. (2012) Samoaktualizatsiya i subjektivnoe blagopoluchie kak sot-sialno-psikhologicheskie problem professionalnogo obrazovaniya: student i prepodavateli universiteta [Self-Actualization and Subjective Wellbeing as Socially-Psychological Problems of Professional Education: University Students and Lecturers]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Psikhologiya, no 31, pp. 56-63.
Ye D., Ng Y.-K., Lian Y. (2015) Culture and Happiness. Social Indicators Research, vol. 123, iss. 2, pp. 519-547.
Appendix 1.
Structure of the Sample, %
Position No. of federal universities No. of respondents
Dean / Director of school 2 3
Head of department 5 8
Professor 12 12
Associate Professor 50 54
Senior Lecturer 20 14
Lecturer 3 3
Teaching Assistant 8 5
Based on the statistics of higher education institutions (Form VPO-1, Russia 2018) provided by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation.
Academic degree No. of federal universities No. of respondents
Doctor of Sciences 14 21
Candidate of Sciences 56 58
No degree 30 21
Appendix 2.
Bradburn's Affect Balance Scale [Bradburn 1969:56]
During the past few weeks, did you ever feel—
Yes No
1. Pleased about having accomplished something? 1 2
2. That things were going your way? 1 2
3. Proud because someone complimented you on something you had done? 1 2
4. Particularly excited or interested in something? 1 2
5. On top of the world? 1 2
6. So restless that you couldn't sit long in a chair? 1 2
7. Bored? 1 2
8. Depressed or very unhappy? 1 2
9. Very lonely or remote from other people? 1 2
10. Upset because someone criticized you? 1 2
