How Studying Faculty Departures Can Improve Retention

How Studying Faculty Departures Can Improve Retention 

Amid financial pressures, enrollment declines, and growing competition from the private sector, colleges and universities are spending millions each year recruiting and onboarding new faculty. Yet in this volatile climate, too many overlook a simple but critical question: why do faculty leave – and why do they stay? The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) has been studying this issue for more than a decade, and the Faculty Retention and Exit Survey, spanning data from more than 50 institutions from the last 10 years, provides insights that higher education leaders can no longer afford to ignore. 

The first finding is clear: Money talks — but it’s not the full story. As budgets tighten, it’s tempting for institutions to assume salary is the only lever they can pull. And yes, more than half of departing faculty cited compensation as their top reason for leaving. But faculty also stay because of the quality of their colleagues, departmental culture, and institutional reputation. In fact, “quality of colleagues” was the most frequently cited reason to stay. In an era when pay gaps between academia and industry are widening, universities cannot rely on salary alone to keep their talent – they must also invest in community and professional climate. 
 
Second, well-equipped chairs are a key asset in faculty retention. Department chairs are often handed enormous responsibility for retaining faculty but little training in how to do so. Yet 70% of faculty reported telling their chair first when considering leaving. In today’s competitive labor market, where rival institutions and even corporate employers are actively recruiting top faculty, empowering chairs with clear policies and negotiation tools is not optional – it’s essential. 

Third, ambiguous renegotiation policies push faculty out the door. At a time when uncertainty already defines higher education, unclear policies make matters worse. Too often, faculty believe (and are sometime explicitly told) that only an outside job offer will trigger a serious counteroffer. This practice forces scholars to test the market, and more than half of faculty who only seek an outside offer to renegotiate their existing positions end up leaving altogether. By requiring external offers, institutions unintentionally accelerate the very attrition they seek to avoid. 

Fourth, an ounce of engagement is worth a pound of retention. Faculty departures are rarely impulsive. One in four faculty surveyed had considered leaving for at least two years, and one in 10 had been actively searching that long. In a sector already facing declining enrollment and fewer resources, colleges cannot afford to ignore these warning signs. Proactive engagement, mentorship, recognition, development, costs far less than the price of a replacement search. 

Finally, retention is not “one and done.” Nearly half of faculty who were successfully retained with a counteroffer still reported being open to new opportunities within a year. In today’s higher education landscape, where trust in institutions is fragile and faculty burnout is real, retention must be viewed as an ongoing commitment, not a single transaction. 

The message is urgent: retention is not about reacting when faculty threaten to leave. It’s about building clarity, community, and consistency into the everyday faculty experience. Higher education leaders who take these lessons seriously will save money, strengthen departments, and build the kind of institutions where faculty don’t just come to work– they choose to stay.