See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271721909

Factors Influencing Teachers’ Performance and Retention

Article  in  Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences · January 2015

DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p233

CITATIONS READS
10 24,462

2 authors:

Shehnaz Tehseen Noor Ul Hadi

Sunway University Business School, Sunway University, Malaysia Foundation University
45 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Determinants of Future Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Intention View project

Entrepreneurship Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shehnaz Tehseen on 24 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

Factors Influencing Teachers’ Performance and Retention

Shehnaz Tehseen
PhD Candidate, Universiti Kuala Lumpur Business School (UNIKL BIS), BangunanYayasan Selangor,
Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kg Baru, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
Email: Shehnaz_teh@yahoo.com

Noor Ul Hadi
PhD Candidate, Universiti Kuala Lumpur Business School (UNIKL BIS), BangunanYayasan Selangor,
Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kg Baru, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
Email: n_hadi1@yahoo.com

Doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p233

Abstract

It is critical to retain high quality and qualified teachers to provide high quality education in schools. Turnover intentions of
teachers in schools have a negative impact on student satisfaction and on their educational development as well. The retention
and performance of school teachers is possible through their job satisfaction to which reduces their turnover intentions and lead
to their higher performance. Therefore, it is vital to consider all possible factors that impact on the teacher’s performance and
on their turnover intentions. Thus, due to the importance of teacher’s turnover issue, the purpose of this paper is to review the
literature relevant to teacher’s performance and factors that reduce teacher’s turnover intentions from schools. This study also
aims to review the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors to assess teacher’s performance and their staying
intentions. Dimension for intrinsic motivation is the satisfaction derived from teaching, recognition, enjoying teaching, career
development, the challenging and competitive nature of teaching, teaching as one goal in life and control over others. On the
other hand, extrinsic motivation mainly includes the award applied externally as a salary or wages, free accommodation,
educational progress in paying premiums, meals, additional payments in case of financial problems, paid leave and free
medical assistance. The existing literature has identified major influential factors such as working conditions, administrative
support and student behavior impacting teacher’s performance and their retention. This study also provides some directions for
future research in this regard as well.

Keywords: Performance, Job satisfaction, Motivation, Retention, Individual Characteristics, School Contextual Factors.

1. Introduction

After home, the school is the most important place for students to learn and develop their educational and social
competencies. Teachers play a pivotal role in providing education to the students. Every school strives to recruit good
and qualified teaching staff that can deliver quality education to its students. Only highly qualified and committed teaching
staff or teachers can produce effective results by producing good quality of students, who contribute to their country in
future. Therefore, it is crucial for schools to keep the talented or key teaching staff. Because only qualified teachers can
give best education to the students. Thus, for the quality of education the quality of teachers matter a lot. But if the
qualified teachers are having leaving intentions from the school or teaching field, then it will have negative impact on
students and school’s performance as well. Thus, it is very essential to keep the highly qualified teachers to deliver good
quality of education. The teachers can be retained successfully only if they are satisfied with their jobs. The job
satisfaction leads to their superior performance and retention as well. Therefore, the motivation is a mechanism through
which the teacher’s can be loyal to the schools. Only motivated teachers perform well and produce good results by
delivering the quality education to students. Teachers are the creators of future leaders. Thus, there is truly need indeed
to keep teachers satisfy from their jobs and careers. They will not only produce good quality leaders of future but also will
contribute in the development of any country by education the future generation.

1.1 Study Background

The teacher turnover rate in education sector is higher than for any other sectors (Liu & Meyer, 2005). Ingersoll and

233
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

Smith in (2003) stated that between 40% and 50% of all beginning teachers usually leave this profession after five years
of teaching. The consistent teacher’s turnover result into teacher shortage for increased student populations. Many
studies of the West have provided evidence of teachers shortage issues in schools of various countries, i.e, U.S, (Edgar
& Pair, 2005; Ingersoll, 2003; Liu & Meyer, 2005), Netherlands (Tigchelaar, Brouwer, & Korthagen, 2008), and Hong
Kong (Choi &Tang, 2009). Many researchers of other countries like Australia have also highlighted this issue in schools
(Goddard, O’Brien, & Goddard, 2006). Across the US, nearly half a million teachers leave their schools each year (Boyd
et al., 2011; Alliance for Excellent Education, 2008). Many researchers investigated the factors that impact turnover of
permanent and temporary teaching staff in the context of U.S (DeAngelis & Presley, 2007; Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson,
2005). According to (Boyd et al., 2011), the teacher retention research can be done by exploring the relationship between
teacher turnover and teachers’ own characteristics, student body characteristics, and school characteristics. However,
the research on teacher attrition and turnover is based on two separate aspects. One perspective emphasizes on teacher
demographics, individual characteristics, and salary (Boe, Bobbitt, Cook, Whitener, &Weber, 1997; Shen, 1997;
Stinbrickner, 1998). While the other aspect of research focuses on school characteristics, governance and working
conditions (Liu, 2007). The above factors should be considered seriously to avoid the turnover issues of teachers.
Because these factors lead to job teachers job satisfaction which results to superior performance and retention of school
teachers in the long run. Also it is very important to motivate teachers to perform well. According to Mary (2010), both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation leads to teacher’s superior performance. These motivational factors such as allowances,
salary and recognition etc impact positively on their satisfaction which results into their effective performance as well.
Thus, this paper aims to highlight the important factors by reviewing the western literature that impact teacher’s job
satisfaction, performance and reduces their turnover intentions.

1.2 Study Objectives

By considering the importance of qualified teachers and their retention in schools. The purpose of this study is to review
some of important literature regarding the factors that impact on teachers’ performance and retention.

1.3 Problem Statement

Teachers are having low performance due to the insufficient motivational factors that lead to their high turnover intentions
as well. This bad or poor performance impacts the student’s education as well. The poor performance of teachers is a
global phenomenon that cannot be ignored in Western as well as Eastern context. The poor teacher’s performance lead
to several problems for schools such as low students satisfaction from their schools, students turnover intentions, hiring
cost of new staff, delay in delivery of education. All such poor performances of teachers lead to poor quality of students
that become useless for their societies. And may become a burden on their country in future. Also the leaving intentions
of teachers destroy the good reputations of a school as well. Due to turnover issues, the students’ education and time
suffers a lot that lead to their dissatisfaction from their studies and school as well. Both poor teachers’ performance and
high turnover issues impact on school performance as well.

1.4 Research Question

Based on the objectives of this study, the paper aims to answer the following question,
What are the influential factors that lead to teacher’s good performance and their retention in schools?

1.5 Study Significance

This study will highlight some important motivational factors and other factors as well that may contribute to teachers’
good performance and will impact on their retentions as well. By identifying the factors from the review of literature the
administration of school can make policies and develop strategies for retention and good performance of teachers. This
study of literature review will show the importance of motivational and other factors towards teacher’s job satisfaction and
retention.

2. Literature Review

The paper will first review some literature relevant to teacher’s job satisfaction and will then discuss some of the important

234
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

factors that results into teacher’s job satisfaction and their performance and retention as well in school.

2.1 Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

Job dissatisfaction causes stress and burnout for teachers (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005). In addition, Shann (1998)
highlighted the importance of teacher job satisfaction for a successful educational reform. Thus, reduction in teacher
turnover and reform in education can be facilitated by identifying variables that impact teachers’ job satisfaction (Tickle,
Chang, & Kim, 2011). Perie, Baker, and American Institutes for Research (1997) investigated the relationship of
characteristics of teachers’ backgrounds, teachers’ school, teachers’ compensation, working conditions with teachers’ job
satisfaction. And found a significant relationship between favorable working conditions (administrative support and
leadership, school atmosphere, student behavior, and teacher autonomy) and teacher job satisfaction. Woods and
Weasmer (2004) stated that when teachers show their interest in moving and achieving towards organizational goals then
their job commitment and satisfaction increases. Shann (1998) argued that teacher job satisfaction is the predictor of
teacher retention and a determinant of teacher commitment which contributes to the school effectiveness. Liu and Meyer
(2005) found a direct association between teachers’ job satisfaction and teacher turnover and further found that, teachers
have different perceptions regarding job satisfaction which impact on their intention to stay in teaching or school.

2.2 Motivation

According to (Okumbe, 1998) motivation is an intellectual or mental deficiency that triggers the behavior, a drive that
came to a goal or incentive. Oxford dictionary defines the concept as the physiological function that arouses an organism
to action to achieve a desired objective. In contrast motivation is defined by Hornby (2000) as incitement to act or move.

2.3 Extrinsic Motivation

According to Sansone & Harackiewicz (2000), the most common outcome from the achievement of externally
administered compensation (extrinsic motivation) includes salary/wages/fees, prestige, material possessions and a
positive assessment by others. According to Mary 2010 extrinsic motivation of teachers include, externally rewards like
salary/wages/fees, free accommodation, compensation for free medical care, free meals, leave and prepaid payments in
case of financial problems, as well as extra teaching allowances. For the purpose of this study extrinsic motivation of
teachers includes; allowances, salary, leave, material possession, prepaid payments.

2.4 Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is obtained within the person or activity and positively affects behavior, performance, and well being (a
contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous). Unlike the prevailing, intrinsic motivation is said to exist
when the behavior is performed for its own sake, not for social or material intensifies. According to Mary (2010) intrinsic
motivation of teachers includes profession satisfaction, pleasure in the field, recognition, controls over others, the
challenging and competitive nature of teaching, career development, and teaching as the primary goal in life. For the
purpose of this study intrinsic motivation includes; satisfaction and pleasure in teaching, recognition and teaching as the
primary goal in life.

2.5 Motivation and Performance

According to Mary (2010), there are a variety of views on the motivation of teachers in Africa and South Asia. She adds
that the majority of teachers working in schools in developing countries are not well motivated by a combination of
declining in morality, satisfaction in the workplace, lack of controls, inadequate incentives. For example, Bennel 2(004)
reports the 2000 EFA country Assessment for Pakistan underlined that bad teacher motivation is a major problem, which
make more intense by political interference. The global development report (2004) has carefully summarized these
concerns about teachers: ‘Cases of misconduct among the teachers at the moment are located in many settings:
teachers seem drunk and physically abused, or just doing nothing. This low quality education is not at all education.
(World Bank, 2004: 43).

235
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

2.6 Effect of Intrinsic Motivation on Performance

Intrinsic rewards lead to great performance. These embedded rewards made role models and communicate standards as
well. Bennel (2004) pointed out that an important sector of the private education and their recognition improved the
diverse faculty. He also argues that teachers from the private sector may often be seen by parents and the public in a
more positive light, because it more hard and generally less well paid work, but achieve better learning outcomes.
Therefore, this sector is developed under great public acclaim. Torrington et al. (2002) has shown that poor HRM effect
seriously employees satisfaction. Effective management, training of head teachers are therefore required to make
significant improvements in teacher behavior and performance.
According to Maicibi (2003), increasing workload, class of large sizes, other topics and programs, and changing
curricula are major demotivator factors in many countries. In addition he argues that the size of classes and heavy load
make teachers to become resistant against new teaching methodologies and other innovations in the field.

2.7 Effect of Extrinsic Motivation on Performance

Dungu (2000) pointed out that head teachers live far away from school and spending a lot of time while traveling to
school which also affect their performance. According to (Wayne, 1998) reward in form of money has a stronger influence
on performance of employees. While, Armstrong (1996) emphasizes the importance of extrinsic motivation when he said
that money offered the possibility of carrying out a number of different purposes. Maicibi (2003), in accordance with the
above opinion emphasized that the money is strong job satisfier for junior than that of senior non teaching and academic
staff. When teachers are motivated, their performance will be increased at work at high level.
Although both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors impacts teacher’s satisfaction and performance. The
literature has also highlighted some other important factors that also impact the teacher’s performance by demotivating
them or by developing the intentions to leave the school or teaching field. Thus, such factors that impact positively on
retention or staying intentions of teacher’s are equally important to consider for teacher’s satisfaction.

2.8 Factors Influencing on Retention of School Teachers:

The literature of teachers’ retention has identified following of the major factors that impact on school teacher’s turnover
intentions.

2.8.1 Teacher Characteristics

Studies have found that teacher background characteristics and work experience influence turnover (Boyd et al., 2011).
For instance, young and old teachers most likely to quit their jobs than the middle-aged ones (Allensworth, Ponisciak, &
Mazzeo, 2009; Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006; Johnson et al., 2005). Studies have also have linked teacher quality
measures to turnover intentions. For instance, teachers with high qualifications which they measure by their own degree
scores have more intentions to leave teaching (Boyd et al., 2005). However, teachers who focus more for being effective
teachers by measuring the test score gains of the classroom students are less intended towards job turnover (Boyd,
Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, in press; Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Ronfeldt, & Wyckoff, 2005; Goldhaber, Gross, &
Player, 2007; Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, & Rivkin, 2005). On the other hand, many researchers found no significant
relationship between teacher gender, race, or ethnicity to turnover (Allensworth et al., 2009; Guarino et al., 2006;
Johnson et al., 2005).

2.8.2 Student Body Characteristics

Several researches have examined the relationship between student body characteristics and turnover intentions of
teachers by utilizing large-scale, longitudinal data sets. These studies found that schools with more low-income
background or with low-achievement potentials experience high teacher turnover (Boyd et al., 2005; Carroll, Reichardt,
Guarino, & Mejia, 2000; Hanushek et al., 2004; Scafidi et al., 2005). For instance, according to a study conducted in
NewYork there was 15% and 27% teacher’s turnover in the low performing schools and high performing schools
respectively (Boyd et al., 2005). Some other studies found that teachers are most likely to stay at schools with high
achieving students (Scafidi et al., 2005; Hanushek et al.,2004).

236
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

2.8.3 Teachers’ Satisfaction With Their Salary

Teachers’ salaries contribute in their retention. Researchers found the low salary as the main predictor of teacher attrition
and turnover (Murnane & Olsen, 1989; Shen, 1997; Stinbrickner, 1998; Theobald, 1990). Good or increase in teacher’s
compensation may reduce turnover intentions of teachers, since many studies have found that low salaries were the main
predictor of teacher turnover behaviors’ (Liu, 2007; Loeb et al., 2005). Other studies have recommended high teacher
salary as an effective strategy to reduce the turnover issues of teachers (Ingersoll and Smith, 2003; Kelly, 2004). Studies
also found positive relationship between salary and job satisfaction of teachers. For instance, Perie et al. (1997) found a
positive relationship between salary and teachers’ job satisfaction. Similarly, Shann (1998) stated that low salaries cause
teachers’ job dissatisfaction. The study conducted by Liu and Meyer (2005) found that low teacher compensation was the
major factor for teachers’ dissatisfaction with their job. Unfortunately, very little research has focused on the relationship
between teachers’ satisfaction with their salary and administrative support (Boyd et al., 2011).

2.8.4 Working Conditions

Ingersoll and Smith (2003) found that more teachers leave their jobs due to working conditions ( that include lack of
school administrative support, student discipline problems, poor student motivation and lack of decentralization in
decision making process regarding classroom by the teachers) than that of other reasons such as salaries. Tickle,
Chang, & Kim in (2011) also observed that working conditions have emerged as the main source of teacher job
dissatisfaction and teacher turnover. Similarly Marvel et al. (2007) showed importance of working conditions in retention
of school teachers.

2.8.5 Teaching Experience

Turnover issues of teachers are more commonly occur during the first few years of teaching (Ingersoll & Smitha, 2003).
According to Liu (2007) first-year teachers are intended more towards leaving the teaching profession than experienced
teachers, and mostly the beginning teachers leave teaching profession in their first five years of service. Luekens (2004)
also indicated that teachers with one to three years of experience were more likely to leave the profession then more
experienced teachers. Ingersoll and Smith (2003) found that two-thirds of former first-year teachers described that the
teaching dissatisfaction was main reason for leaving the teaching profession. Stockard and Lehman (2004) indicated that
social support and school management were major factors that significantly impact satisfaction and turnover issues of
new teachers. In contrast, Perie et al. (1997) found that more experienced teachers reported lower levels of job
satisfaction than the less experienced teachers, and that administrative support had influence on great teachers’ job
satisfaction than years of teaching experience.

2.8.6 The Principal Leadership

Many studies have revealed the impact of leadership behaviors on organizational outcomes (Bryman 1992; Leithwood
1994; Maehr and Midgley 1996; Ogawa and Bossert 1995; Oldham and Cummings1996; Spreitzer 1995). According to
Pierce and Fenwick (2002), the contemporary principal must behave like a instructional leader to develop teachers.
Buckingham and Coffman (1999) found that the quality of the relationship between staff and their supervisors or
principals has significant impact on staff productivity and loyalty. The principal of school is the main leader who not only
handles the schools’ operations but is also responsible for the growth of teachers’ career as well. According to studies a
successful school principal is the leader of school and impacts a lot on teachers’ intention to stay in teaching profession
because he influences the behaviors of teachers towards the teaching (Minarik, Thornton, & Perreault, 2003).

2.9 School Contextual Factors and Teacher Turnover

According to many studies school contextual factors i.e teacher influence, safety, administrative support, student
behavior, staff relations, facilities have a significant relationship with the turnover intentions of teachers (Darling-
Hammond, 2003; Glaser, 2003; Hirsch & Emerick, 2007; Loeb et al., 2005). However, most of the previous studies relied
on survey of teachers and were based on their perceptions and produce less accurate models (Boyd et al., 2011).

237
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

2.9.1 Teacher Influence

Teacher influence indicates teachers’ autonomy in their classrooms and to their ability to influence on school practices
and policies. Teachers with greater autonomy appear to be more satisfied from their work and have intentions to stay in
teaching in long run as well (Johnson, 2006). According to Boyd et al. (2011) and Allensworth et al. (2009), teachers who
are given an opportunity to contribute in decision making and planning process regarding school matters, show great
interest in teaching and usually have more intentions to stay in school.

2.9.2 Administrative Support

According to Borman and Dowling (2008), administrative support is the school’s effectiveness in assisting or supporting
teachers regarding student discipline, curriculum, instructional methods and adjustment to the school environment.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) stated that effective administrative support plays a vital role in school leadership practices
and includes its four dimensions i.e, building vision of school, development of specific goals and priorities, offering
individualized Support and development of a collaborative school culture. Loeb et al. (2005) revealed through survey data
that lack of administrative support leads to turnover issues of teachers. In consistent with this agreement, Luekens (2004)
also found that nearly 40% of teachers left teaching profession due to lack of administrative support. Moreover, Weiss
(1999) highlighted administrative support as one of the most significant predictors of staying intentions of the teachers.
Boyd, Grossman, Ing, Lankford, and Wyckoff (2009) investigated the impact of school contexts in public schools of New
York and found administrative support as a critical factor for teacher’s retention. Another qualitative study identified huge
impact of administrative support on leaving intentions of teachers (Worthy, 2005). Liu and Meyer (2005) suggested school
leadership as a significant contributor to teachers’ job satisfaction and intention to stay in teaching. Similarly many other
studies have found positive impact of administrative support on teachers’ job satisfaction and their staying or leaving
intentions in teaching (Ingersoll and Smith, 2003; Perie et al. 1997; Ladd, 2009). The study of Choi and Tang (2009)
described the potential benefit of administrative support to reduce turnover intentions of teachers in an international
context. Similarly, Shann (1998) concluded that the school administrators are responsible toward teacher job satisfaction.
Administrative support refers to the involvement of principals and other school leaders in supporting teachers’ tasks and
helping them in improvement of their teaching. Administrative support plays an important role in providing professional
development opportunities to school teachers (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007). Multiple studies have related administrative
support to staying intentions of teachers (Ladd, 2009). Additionally, many studies have described the impact of leadership
and school working conditions on teacher retention decisions. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) found through meta-
analysis of 70 empirical studies that school leadership impacts on student achievement as well as on performance of
school teachers . Similarly Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) and Hallinger (2005) conducted literature
reviews regarding school leadership and concluded that leaderships have strong influence on student learning through
their impact on school teachers and structures. Other study suggests that administrative support also impacts on the
working conditions of school, such as the school safety and teacher influence (Johnson, 2006).

2.9.3 Student Behavior

Kelly (2004) mentioned the importance of schools’ behavioral climate for teacher turnover intentions and stated that
student behavior is one of the main factors that cause them to leave the teaching profession. Harrell and Jackson (2004)
also found that student behavior was one of major factor for teacher’s turnover. Many studies have revealed the high
association of student behavior to teachers’ job satisfaction (Ingersoll and Smith, 2003; Perie et al., 1997). Similarly, Liu
and Meyer (2005) also found that student behavior is significant as teacher’s income with their dissatisfaction level. Also
Liu (2007) stated that student behavior and classroom management impact more on first-year teachers’ intention to leave
and job satisfaction. The student characteristics, such as student behavior also influence teacher retention. In many
studies the teachers has cited lack of student discipline and motivation as main reasons of leaving school (Elam, 1989;
MacDonald, 1999; Tye & O’Brien, 2002). Haberman and Rickards (1990) found through survey of teachers that they
perceived student discipline as a main problem before starting and leaving.

2.9.4 Staff Relations

Staff relations refer to social land professional relationship of teachers with other teaching staff (Boyd et al., 2011).
According to Allensworth et al. (2009), when the teachers feel a collective responsibility towards improvement of school

238
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

and enhancing students learning, then they show more intention to stay in that school. Many other studies found that
positive relationship of teachers with their colleagues also impact on their staying intentions in school (Darling-Hammond,
2003; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Glaser, 2003).

2.9.5 Facilities

According to (Boyd et al., 2011), facilities refer to the physical work places of teachers and the available resources to
them. According to many studies, facilities have been associated to teacher career paths (Corcoran, Walker, & White,
1988; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Steuteville-Brodinsky, Burbank, & Harrison, 1989). Many studies have found through
teachers survey that physical features of schools are reported as main predictor of turnover of school teachers (Loeb et
al., (2005); Buckley, Schneider,& Shang, 2005; Johnson, 1990). According to them teachers who perceive enough
resources and facilities of schools, are more likely to stay in school for long run.

2.9.6 Safety

School safety means the school conditions that impact the psychological and physical well-being of teachers and
students. Many factors indicate safety such as classroom misconduct and violence (Dinkes, Kemp, & Baum, 2009; Mayer
& Furlong, 2010) or measurement of the perceptions of parents, students and teachers through surveys regarding safety
in school climate (Anderson, 1982; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009; Cornell & Loper, 1998). According to
some studies, for instance (Duke, 2002), schools with less safety concerns are more able to provide a good working
environment for teachers. On the other hand, the schools that struggle more to maintain a safe environment have usually
difficulty in retaining teachers. (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Ronfeldt, & Wyckoff, 2010).

3. Theoretical Framework

According to Mary (2010), school teachers’ performance is contingent upon intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, if there is
management of good personnel, good infrastructure and culture climate, teaching materials, and good supervision.
Authors have been described motivation as intrinsic and extrinsic in nature and both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
affects teachers performance if the intervening effects are available. The teacher performance can be measured by
supervision of school activities, regular and early reporting at school, adequate teaching preparation, general punctuality
among others and participating in extra-curricular activities. The teachers’ satisfaction from job and performance leads to
their retention in teaching field and schools as well. Many factors contribute positively to improve the retention of
teachers. For example, factors such teacher’s characteristics (Boyd et al., 2011), student body characteristics (Scafidi et
al., 2005) and school contextual factors (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007), also impact on teachers retention.
The dependent variable is teacher’s performance and retention which is variable of primary interest. We attempt to
explain the variance in dependent variable by four independent variable of (1) Motivation, (2) teachers characteristics, (3)
student body characteristics, (4) school contextual factors and moderating effect. The less motivated the teachers are;
the greater is the probability of ineffective performance and retention since very little satisfaction among them. Teachers
performance and retention may affect by motivational factor if there is no good personal management, good infrastructure
and culture climate, inadequate teaching material, and poor supervision. We can also hypothesize that; there is a
relationship between teachers and student characteristics and contextual school body. The Figure. 3.0 shows the
proposed relationship among these variables.

239
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

4. Conceptual Framework

Source: Mary, 2010; Boyd et al., 2011; Hirsch & Emerick, 2007; Scafidi et al., 2005

5. Recommendations for Future Studies

From above literature review, the following recommendations can be suggested to improve their performance,
satisfaction and to reduce teacher’s turnover issues from schools.
(1) This paper suggests to further investigate the factors that keep teachers motivate to perform well by
considering both intrinsic as well as extrinsic factors. Thus, it is crucial to investigate the most influential
motivational factors that lead to teachers’ superior performance. Further studies should examine other types of
extrinsic and intrinsic factors for teachers’ motivation in different countries. Because this paper argues that
different cultures of countries impact on individual behaviors and their intentions differently, thus it may not
necessary that factors impacting teachers’ performance in one country might impact on teachers’ performance
in other countries as well. Also the factors identified in the context of western countries may not lead to motive
teachers in Eastern countries.
(2) It is very essential to satisfy the teachers for their teaching job as it leads to their retentions. Thus, as it is clear
from above review of literature that different studies have identified different factors that impact on teacher’s
job satisfaction and their turnover intentions. Thus, a proper teacher’s survey is needed in every school
regarding teacher’s job satisfaction to avoid turnover issues.
(3) From above Western literature, it seems that working conditions and administrative support plays contribute
more towards teacher’s job satisfaction and retention than teacher’s salary or compensation, thus this paper
recommends to investigate more deeply the impact of working conditions, administrative support and salary in
this regard either by cross-sectional study or longitudinal study in different context of countries to generalize
the impact of these factors.
(4) It is also recommended to conduct studies regarding factors impacting teacher’s retention and performance in
both private and public schools separately and then a comparative study should be done as well in this regard.
(5) A longitudinal study will be effective to see the trends of influencing various factors over time on teacher’s
performance and retentions.

240
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

(6) Also comparative study of investigating the above matter across different countries will also reveal the role of
country’s culture in teacher’s behaviors towards their job.
(7) Also a comparative study between Western and Eastern countries will show the different influential factors
regarding teacher’s performance and retention.

6. Practical Implications

(1) By identifying various factors impacting teachers’ motivation, performance, satisfaction and retention, the
performance of schools and students can be improved as well.
(2) Key teachers and their job satisfaction ultimately results into their superior performance and retention. The
retention of talented teachers serve as valuable assets for the school that contribute in achieving school goals
as well.
(3) Only motivated and satisfied teachers can actually contribute in students’ superior performance in academic
field. Thus, the students’ satisfaction from their performance leads to their retention as well. This leads to
parent’s satisfaction and loyalty to school as well.
(4) The good performance of teachers actually reveals the best performance of schools as well by keeping
talented teachers who perform well in achieving schools’ objectives.
(5) The long term retention of teachers in schools impact on the reputation of schools positively as well. The good
reputed schools with low teacher’s turnover rates are usually preferred by students and their parents to peruse
education.

7. Limitations of Study

Although this paper has highlighted various important factors that influence the performance, satisfaction, retention and
motivation of teachers. But there are some limitations of this study as well. For instance,
(1) This study is based only on review of western literature relevant to job satisfaction and turnover issues of
school teachers. Thus, the factors identified in Western literature may not necessarily contribute to teacher’s
job satisfaction and turnover intentions in the East.
(2) Also, this paper reviews some of the literature only relevant to teacher’s job satisfaction and turnover issues.
(3) The factors contributing in specific sectors of school such as government and private are not described in
detail.
(4) No statistical evidence is given in this study regarding the most influential factors that influence teachers’
performance and their retention as well.

8. Conclusion

The contribution of teachers towards producing good quality of students cannot be ignored. Thus, its vital for every school
to keep its qualified teaching staff. And identifies all those possible motivational and other factors that lead to teacher’s
job satisfaction and good performance. And also strive to investigate the factors influencing their retention in school. The
Western literature has identified various factors influencing job satisfaction and turnover of school teachers, among them,
working conditions, administrative support and student behavior are considered as the most influential factors. However,
these factors may not consider important by school teachers in other countries. Therefore, this paper suggests to explore
in detail the most influential factors to retain the school teachers in different countries.

References

Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago:
Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/CCSR_
Teacher_Mobility.pdf.
Armstrong. M. (1996). A hand book of Human Resource Management practice London, Kogan.
Bennel, P. S., J. Harding and S. Rogers- Wright (2004). PSRP Education Sector Review in Sierra Leone. Ministry of Education. Science
and Technology, Freetown.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2008). What keeps good teachers in the classroom? Understanding and reducing teacher turnover.
Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 368–420.

241
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: a meta analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 78(3), 367-409.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention
decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333.
Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma and leadership in organizutions. London: Sage.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (in press). Who leaves? Teacher attrition and student achievement.
Economics of Education Review.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (2010). The effect of school neighborhoods on teacher retention decisions
(Working paper). Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://www.stanford.edu/~sloeb/papers/ Neighborhoods%2006Jan2010.pdf
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (in press). The role of teacher quality in retention and hiring: Using
applications-to-transfer to uncover preferences of teachers and schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-
performing students. American Economic Review, 95, 166–171.
Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2005). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington,
D.C. Teachers College Record, 107, 1107–1123.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher
retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 303-333
Choi, P. L., & Tang, S. Y. F. (2009). Teacher commitment trends: cases of Hong Kong teachers from 1997 to 2007. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 25(5), 767-777.
Carroll, S. J., Reichardt, R. E., Guarino, C. M., & Mejia, A. (2000). The distribution of teachers among California’s school districts and
schools (No. MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education.
Teachers College Record, 111, 180–213.
Corcoran, T. B., Walker, L. J., & White, J. L. (1988). Working in urban schools. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 86, 42–51.
DeAngelis, K. J., & Presley, J. B. (2007). Leaving schools or leaving the profession: Setting Illinois’ record straight on teacher attrition
(IERC 2007-1). Edwardsville: Illinois Education Research Council.
Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2009 (NCES No. 2010-012/NCJ No. 228478).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Dungu, L. (2000). Accommodation and job performance of primary school teacher in Rakai district. Unpublished (Master of education)
dissertation Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Hornby, A., S. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Reston, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
Duke, D. L. (2002). Creating safe schools for all children. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Edgar, E., & Pair, A. (2005). Special education teacher attrition: it all depends on where you are standing. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 28(3-4), 163-170.
Elam, S. M. (1989). The second Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers’ attitudes toward public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 785–798.
Goddard, R., O’Brien, P., & Goddard, M. (2006). Work environment predictors of beginning teacher burnout. British Educational
Research Journal, 32(6), 857-874.
Glaser, K. W. (2003). Four ways to sustain all teachers. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Keeping good teachers (pp. 153–158). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Curriculum and Development.
Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2007). Are public schools really losing their ‘‘best’’? Assessing the career transitions of teachers
and their implication for the quality of the teacher workforce (Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research,
Working Paper No. 12). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 173–208.
Harrell, P. E., & Jackson, J. K. (2004). Redefining teacher quality: myths of No Child Left Behind. Teacher Education and Practice, 17(2),
131-145.
Haberman, M., & Rickards, W. H. (1990). Urban teachers who quit: Why they leave and what they do. Urban Education, 25, 297–303.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 4(3), 1–20.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., O’Brien, D., & Rivkin, S. (2005). The market for teacher quality (Technical report). Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326–354.
Hirsch, E., & Emerick, S. (with Church, K., & Fuller, E.). (2007). Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions: A report on
the 2006 North Carolina teacher working conditions survey. Hillsborough, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved July 10,
2010, from http://ncteachingconditions.org/sites/ default/files/attachments/twcnc2006.pdf
Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). The teacher shortage: myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81(3), 146-152.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-34.

242
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

Johnson, S. M. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention and effectiveness. Washington DC: National Education
Association. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED495822.pdf.
Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Kelly, S. (2004). An event history analysis of teacher attrition: salary, teacher tracking, and socially disadvantaged schools. Journal of
Experimental Education, 72(3), 195-220.
Liu, X. S. (2007). The effect of teacher influence at school on first-year teacher attrition: a multilevel analysis of the schools and staffing
survey for 1999-2000. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(1), 1-16.
Leithwood, K. 1994. Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly 30:498-518.
Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes. National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research working paper 33. Washington, DC: CALDER.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for largescale reform: effects on students, teachers, and their
classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201e227.
Liu, X. S. (2007). The effect of teacher influence at school on first-year teacher attrition: a multilevel analysis of the schools and staffing
survey for 1999-2000. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(1), 1-16.
Liu, X. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their jobs: a multilevel analysis of the teacher follow-up survey for 1994-95.
Teachers College Record, 107(5), 985-1003.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody
Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70.
Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of policy-relevant outcomes (National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working Paper No. 33). Washington, DC: CALDER
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody
Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70.
Luekens, M. T. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the teacher follow up survey. 2000-01. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. E.D. Tabs.
Marvel, J., Lyter, D. M., Peltola, P., Strizek, G. A., Morton, B. A., Rowland, R., et al. (2007). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from
the 2004e05 teacher follow up survey. NCES 2007-307: National Center for Education Statistics.
Murnane, R. J., & Olsen, R. J. (1989). The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from North
Carolina. Journal of Human Resources, 25, 106 – 124.
Murphy, J., Yff, J., & Shipman, N. (2000). Implementation of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(1), 17-39.
MacDonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 839–848.
Mayer, M. J., & Furlong, M. J. (2010). How safe are our schools? Educational Researcher, 39, 16–26.
Maicibi N.A (2003). Pertinent issues in employees management: human resource and educational management. Kampala. Net Media
Monitor Publishers.
Marry, A. (2010). Motivation and the performance of primary school teachers in Uganda:A case of Kimaanya-Kyabankuza division,
Madaka Disrict. unpublished (Maser of arts) dissertation Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Maehr, M., and C. Midgley. 1996. Transforming school cultures. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Minarik, M. M., Thornton, B., & Perreault, G. (2003). Systems thinking can improve teacher retention. The Clearing House, 76(5), 230-
234.
Ogawa, R., and S. Bossert. 1995. Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly 31 :224-43.
Oldham G., and A. Cummings. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal,
39, 607-34
Okumbe, J.A (1998). Educational management theory and practice. Nairobi University press, Nairobi, Kenya.
Pierce, M., and L. Fenwick. 2002. Principal leadership: Maybe less is more. Principal, 82( 1), 31.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and
professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
Perie, M., Baker, D. P., & , American Institutes for Research. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s teachers: Effects of workplace
conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation (NCES Publication No. 97471). Washington.
Spreitzer, G. 1995. Psychological empowerment at the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 1442-465.
Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. The Journal of Educational
Research, 92(2), 67-73.
Sansone, C., and Harackiewicz, J.M. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 81 – 88.
Stinbrickner, T. R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 17, 127 – 136.
Stockard, J., & Lehman, M. B. (2004). Influences on the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year teachers: the importance of effective
school management. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 742-771.
Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D. L., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2005). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility (Research Paper Series No. 06-51).

243
 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 1
ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2015

Atlanta: Georgia State University, Andrew Young School of Policy

Studies.Steuteville-Brodinsky, M., Burbank, M. R., & Harrison, C. (1989). Selecting, recruiting and keeping excellent teachers. Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Tigchelaar, A., Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2008). Crossing horizons: continuity and change during second-career teachers’ entry into
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1530-1550.
Theobald, N. D. (1990). An examination of personal, professional, and school district characteristics on public school teacher retention.
Economics of Education Review, 9, 241 –250.
Tickle, B. R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on US public school teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 27(2), 342-349.
Tye, B. B., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 24–32.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned retention:
a secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 861-879.
Woods, A. M., & Weasmer, J. (2004). Maintaining job satisfaction: engaging professionals as active participants. Clearing House, 77(3),
186-189.
Worthy, J. (2005). “It didn’t have to be so hard”: the first years of teaching in an urban school. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, 18(3), 379-398.
Wayne F. C. (1998). Managing Human Resources: Productivity Quality of work life and profit. New York, Mc Grain Hill. (5 th Ed.)
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership
on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

244

View publication stats