What Retains Academics in Underfunded Systems? A Multivariable Analysis of Compensation and Staff Retention in Ugandan Public Universities

What Retains Academics in Underfunded Systems? A Multivariable Analysis of Compensation and Staff Retention in Ugandan Public Universities | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article What Retains Academics in Underfunded Systems? A Multivariable Analysis of Compensation and Staff Retention in Ugandan Public Universities OPIO PATRICK, SHAMSIR SINGH DHILLON, Bagonza Godfrey This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8728702/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigated the influence of compensation factors on retention intentions among academic staff in Uganda's public universities. Quantitative data were collected from 316 academic staff members at five public universities, while qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews with top university administrators, including the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC), Human Resource officers (HR), and Academic Staff Union Association (AUSA) representatives. The predictor variables demonstrated moderate to strong intercorrelation, with the strongest being between Promotion and Recognition (r = .662). Each of the five job factors was significantly correlated with retention, with recognition (r = .547) and Security (r = .534) showing the strongest bivariate relationships. According to the multiple regression analysis, recognition, promotion prospects, and job stability all predicted intentions for retention, which accounted for 39.6% of the variation. Moderation results showed that designation of staff did not significantly influence the relationship between compensation dimensions and retention. The findings challenge salary-centric compensation models and underscore the importance of non-financial and structural incentives in resource-constrained contexts. Therefore, this study concludes that improvements in job security, promotion, and recognition mechanisms in institutions may offer more sustainable retention strategies for academic staff than salary increments alone in Ugandan public universities. Academic Staff Retention Compensation University Uganda 1. Introduction For public universities in countries with low or middle incomes, sustaining academic staff is a crucial institutional challenge, particularly when there is ongoing insufficient funding and increasing enrollment (Evans & Acosta, 2023 ; Moshtari & Safarpour, 2024 ; Schendel & McCowan, 2016 ; Witter et al., 2020 ). According to Alexander, 2020 ), Altbach et al. ( 2019 ), Oliveira et al. ( 2025 ), and Tomlinson & Watermeyer ( 2022 ), these academic institutions operate in the face of intersecting pressures, notably mass enrollment, monetary constraints, increasing faculty duties, and increased regional competition for highly qualified educators that have significantly altered academic labor markets. According to Akkad ( 2025 ), Berg and Seeber ( 2025 ), Leisyte and Dee ( 2012 ), Shin and Jung ( 2014 ), the loss of seasoned academic staff undermines institutional memory, decreases research output, and weakens mentorship and teaching. In order to compensate for inadequate institutional rewards, academic staff in public universities in Uganda, which operate within a rapidly growing but financially constrained higher education framework, increasingly turn to personal alternatives like moonlighting, consultancy, and internal brain drain (Bisaso, 2017 ; Bryant, 2019 ; Cloete et al., 2018 ; Mngomezulu & Maposa, 2017 ; Moghri et al., 2016 ; Odiagbe, 2012 ). Although compensation is widely recognized as a critical factor influencing employee retention (Khalid & Nawab, 2018 ; Shakeel & But, 2015 ), a large portion of the research that is currently available takes an aggregated or reductive conceptualization, frequently focusing on basic salary while ignoring the complex makeup of academic rewards (Gerhart & Rynes, 2003 ; Holtom et al., 2008 ; Jaiswal et al., 2023 ). Increasing research indicates that pay in higher education encompasses benefits, performance incentives, job stability, career advancement opportunities, and professional recognition, in addition to monthly salaries (Berman, 2015 ; Mabaso & Dlamini, 2021 ; Raine, 2022 ). According to total rewards frameworks, these factors interact to influence career choices, especially in environments with limited resources when organizations are unable to compete only on income (Cafaro, 2021 ; Kulikowski & Sedlak, 2023 ). However, there is still a shortage of empirical research that systematically breaks down compensation and evaluates the corresponding effects of its various dimensions on academic retention, particularly in sub-Saharan African contexts where higher education systems function under unique political-economic and cultural circumstances (Aina, 2010 ; Bingab et al., 2018 ; Shrivastava & Shrivastava, 2014 ; Tabulawa, 2013 ). Guided by Herzberg two factor theory (Herzberg, 1968 ) which emphasize that employees needs are divided into Hygiene factors and motivation factors, the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ) focuses on relational and symbolic rewards, such as recognition, Equity theory (Adams, 1965 ) suggest that Equity theory posits that employees assess fairness by comparing the ratio of their work inputs to received outcomes with those of relevant others, and perceived inequity leads to dissatisfaction and behavioral adjustment. Despite these insights, few studies have tested these propositions empirically in underfunded public university systems, leaving a significant gap in both theory and practice. Much of the previous research on faculty retention has addressed issues such as academic staff members' motivation, productivity, and behavior (Barkhuizen et al., 2020 ; Bernard, 2012 ; Korantwi-Barimah, 2017 ; Ng’ethe et al., 2012 ; Sadagheyani et al., 2022 ; Szromek & Wolniak, 2020 ; Tehseen & Ul Hadi, 2015 ), salary and rewards (Alemayehu & Woldemariam, 2020 ; Al-Qarshoubi, 2020 ; Mabaso & Dlamini, 2021 ; Selesho & Naile, 2014 ), designations and promotions (Bittner & Bechtel, 2017 ; Grissom, 2011 , 2011 ; Rasheed et al., 2016 ). These important compensation issues have also been perceived as relevant to the retention and turnover of faculty members in public universities (Ashraf, 2019 ; Daly & Dee, 2006 ; Hoyos & Serna, 2021 ; Rathakrishnan 1 et al., 2016; Theron et al., 2014 ). Several studies on compensation and academic staff retention originate from Western countries (Adil et al., 2020 ; Altbach et al., 2019 ; Bernard, 2012 ; Ng’ethe et al., 2012 ; Selesho & Naile, 2014 ), where salaries, benefits, and better welfare are assumed to be prevalent. In contrast, public universities in Uganda are constrained in many ways, which affects the operations of academic staff (Kyaligonza & Kamagara, 2017 ; Mushemeza, 2016 ; Nambi Karuhanga & Werner, 2013 ). Ugandan academics frequently report dissatisfaction with salaries and benefits, yet many remain employed in Ugandan public universities, suggesting that motivation factors may mitigate turnover intentions. However, no study has quantitatively examined the relative weights of these factors in a multivariate model. The institutional context of Ugandan academic staff, characterized by high unemployment among educated professionals, views job security as a key motivation factor, as this is an economy with scarce formal employment opportunities. Alternatively, recognition, which is a motivational factor, may be especially salient in academic cultures that value prestige. Empirical studies on demographic variables, such as designation, gender, salary level, and years of service, and their interaction with compensation factors in a multivariate model are limited. Whereas junior staff may prioritize promotion opportunities, senior staff may value pension security or institutional recognition. Moreover, failing to analyze this disparity risks the implementation of staff retention policies being ineffective. Ugandan public universities face a persistent retention crisis, with annual attrition rates estimated at 15–20% among academic staff (Etomaru et al., 2022 ). This brain drain undermines institutional stability, teaching quality, and research output (Khan, 2021 ; Siekierski et al., 2018 ). Most academic staff who receive study opportunities in Western countries fail to return to their positions in the university (Austin et al., 2014 ; Cheung & Xu, 2015 ). Those who have not been promoted often leave the university to join other sectors that appear to offer better pay. The Government of Uganda has attempted to equalize the salaries for academic staff in all public universities; however, Professors have a higher salary scale than their lower-ranking colleagues. Although compensation is widely cited as a key factor, university administrators and policymakers lack guidance on which specific compensation elements most strongly influence retention intentions. The government has promised academic staff a salary increment. However, scarce funds may be invested in raising salaries, while more impactful interventions are neglected. Consequently, this problem is exacerbated by the lack of studies that model compensation as a multidimensional construct and account for the moderating roles of individual and institutional factors. Therefore, this study filled the gap by investigating factors leading to retention of academic staff in underfunded systems using a multivariable analysis of compensation factors and staff retention in Ugandan Public Universities. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Review of Theory This study is grounded in three theoretical perspectives: Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, 1959), Equity Theory (Adams, 1963), and Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964 ), which aim to explain how compensation dimensions influence the retention of academic staff in public universities in Uganda. 2.1.1. Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory Herzberg Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, 1959) states that Hygiene factors, such as salary, benefits, and job security, do not necessarily motivate employees when present but can cause dissatisfaction when absent or inadequate. Motivators, on the other hand, include recognition, achievement, responsibility, promotion, and meaningful work, which actively enhance job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Because hygiene factors are often insufficient in the university context, academic staffs are often dissatisfied. 2.1.2. Equity Theory Equity Theory posits that employees assess fairness by comparing the ratio of their inputs to outcomes against those of relevant referent others (Adams, 1963). When employees perceive inequity, they experience psychological distress that can lead to underperformance, withdrawal, or departure from the organization. 2.1.3. Social Exchange Theory (SET) Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964 ) posits that when employees perceive that the university values their contributions, they feel an obligation to reciprocate through loyalty and performance in various ways. Where financial rewards are limited, non-monetary forms of organizational support, such as transparent promotion processes, access to research opportunities, and professional development, become particularly significant when staff become dissatisfied. These theories altogether offer multiple perspectives on understanding why academics remain in or leave public universities. 2.2. Operationalization of terms 2.2.1. Compensation Factors in Public Universities A compensation package is a construct that extends beyond the base salary to include benefits, job security, and intrinsic motivators, such as opportunities for promotion and recognition (Kuuyelleh et al., 2022). Based on Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, salary, benefits, and job security, which function as hygiene factors preventing dissatisfaction, while its intrinsic factors are: promotion and recognition, which act as motivators for job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1968 ; Michael Galanakis & Giannis Peramatzis, 2022). Compensation packages in HEIs traditionally include both extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Extrinsic compensation encompasses both direct financial payments such as salary, benefits and job security and indirect rewards such as promotion and recognitions (Aljumah, 2023 ). Intrinsic compensation encompasses job security, promotional opportunities, and recognition of employees' work performance (Aljumah, 2023 ; Mabaso & Dlamini, 2021 ; Ndungu, 2017 ; Reddy, 2020 ). Compensation schemes in African higher education reflect recent neoliberal reforms, structural adjustment programs, and the colonial policies for operations in HEIs (Mathebula & Banda, 2022 ; Ochwa-Echel, 2013 ; Torres & Schugurensky, 2002 ). Public universities in Uganda operate systems where allowances, benefits, and salaries of staff are consolidated (Amutuhaire, 2022 ; Rwothumio et al., 2020 ; Whyte & Whyte, 2015 ). This results in compensation systems where legally binding rules can differ from actual experiences, particularly when it comes to budget limitations and implementation inefficiencies in these institutions (Mbabazi, 2022). Uganda's public university sector has expanded rapidly, growing from one institution at independence (1962) to twelve universities currently, with academic staff numbers increasing from under 500 to approximately 8,000 (Kakooza, 2022; Mohamedbhai, 2008). This expansion has strained human resource systems (Makerere University, 2021). Compensation is assessed by people using benefit fragmentation, salary compression resulting from rapid budgetary increases, and promotion inadequacy (Lucky Uko, 2024). Furthermore, Ugandan academic incomes are 20–30% lower than those of their regional colleagues in Kenya and South Africa due to foreign migration (Adepoju, 2019; Darvas et al., 2017; Hailu et al., 2023; Nabawanuka, 2011). In this study, compensation is defined as the amount given to academic staff, whether monetary or non-monetary, to pay for the time spent working in a public university in Uganda. 2.2.2. Academic Staff Retention Academic staff retention refers to the organizational efforts aimed at preventing voluntary turnover among faculty by creating conditions that make them more likely to remain employed in the institution over time (Bernard, 2012 ). Retention research highlights a range of factors influencing employee decisions to stay with or leave an organization, which can be broadly categorized as push or pull factors (Haldorai et al., 2019; Mutanga et al., 2021; Nair et al., 2016). Push factors are internal organizational elements that drive employees away, such as dissatisfaction with compensation, poor work environments, or limited career growth opportunities. Pull factors originate outside the organization and attract employees to alternative opportunities, including competitive salary packages, better benefits, or more appealing job roles offered outside their institutions (Haldorai et al., 2019; Maylett & Wride, 2017; Taylor, 2018). Therefore, public institutions especially HEIs must strike a balance between internal compensation fairness and awareness of external market conditions to retain key employees like academic staff more effectively. This balance is essential not only for minimizing voluntary turnover but also for sustaining academic staff motivation and engagement over time within the university. Meta-analyses indicate that compensation explains the variance in turnover intentions across different sectors, although effect sizes vary by disciplines (Forner et al., 2024; Guzeller & Celiker, 2020; Rubenstein et al., 2018; Zaza et al., 2023). In the HEI context, the importance of compensation appears to be moderated by the types of disciplines, designations, and prestige of the institution (Gonzales & Terosky, 2016; Kraimer et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2012). Research in developing contexts suggests that non-monetary factors may gain prominence when basic needs are met, although the evidence remains contradictory (Akerele, 2023; Corduneanu, 2020). Academic staff retention remains one of the most pressing human resource challenges in higher education systems across Africa. In Uganda, public universities continue to experience high turnover, limited attraction of qualified academics, and ongoing dissatisfaction with working conditions. 2.2.3. Designation The significance of compensation packages and academic staff retention is moderated by rank or designation. Based on Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964 ), rank of academic staff as a moderator is perceived to influence the perceptions of academic staff of external opportunities, their expectations of what is rightfully theirs, and the significance of pay within the broader socio-emotional exchange. Therefore, whether or not compensation affects staff commitment and retention is a question. Objectives of the study To determine the relative influence of compensation dimensions on the retention intentions of academic staff within Uganda's public universities. To assess the relative explanatory power of hygiene factors versus motivation factors in predicting retention within an underfunded higher education context. To examine the moderating effects of demographic factors on the relationship between compensation packages and retention intentions. 2.4 Research questions Which compensation dimensions demonstrate the strongest associations with retention intentions among academic staff in Ugandan public universities? To what extent do hygiene factors and motivation factors differ in their explanatory power regarding retention intentions within Uganda's underfunded public university context? How do demographic factors, specifically academic rank, gender, and years of service, moderate the relationships between compensation dimensions and retention intentions among Ugandan academic staff? 2.5. Hypotheses development This study highlights that compensation packages as vital to influence retention of academic staff (Bibi et al., 2017 ; Mabaso & Dlamini, 2021 ; Sari Fitri, 2024 ). Compensation is imperative for employees, as it offers a sense of security, autonomy, and improved self-worth, which can lead to increased employee commitment and productivity (Gardner et al., 2015 ; Mustafa et al., 2022 ; Sharma & Syal, 2022 ). According to Herzberg's theory of motivation, employee motivation is associated with a psychological process of an individual (Herzberg, 1968 , 2015 ; Michael Galanakis & Giannis Peramatzis, 2022) Compensation packages play a significant role in determining employees' job satisfaction. Several studies found that job security and promotion opportunities demonstrate significantly stronger positive associations with retention intentions than salary and benefits among academic staff (Herzberg, 2015 ; Sakarya University (Turkey) & Ozsoy, 2019 ; Singh & Loncar, 2010 ). Based on the above research arguments, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H 1 Motivation factors demonstrate significantly stronger positive associations with retention intentions than hygiene factors among academic staff in Ugandan public universities, when compensation dimensions are modeled simultaneously. Studies also show that in institutions, motivation elements significantly explain more unique variance in retention intentions than hygiene factors (Ahmad, 2018 ; Bryant, 2019 ; Holston-Okae & Mushi, 2018 ; Iqbal & Asghar, 2020 ). Based on the above research arguments, this study proposes the following hypothesis: H 2 Motivation factors will explain significantly more unique variance in retention intentions than hygiene factors after controlling for demographic variables. Several studies found no significant influence of salary or rank on academic staff retention (Al-Emadi et al., 2015 ; Chiekezie et al., 2017 ; Iddrisu, 2023 ; Lee et al., 2025 ). A study in Ugandan HEIs by Kyaligonza and Kamagara ( 2017 ) found that salary level did not predict retention in Ugandan universities. (Khan, 2021 ) reported that biographic factors such as designations did not significantly influence retention in Pakistani universities. However, studies by (Adams et al., 2006 ; Kundu & Gahlawat, 2016 ; Trapmann et al., 2007 ). Therefore, the following null hypothesis is proposed: H 3 Designation significantly moderates the relationship between compensation dimensions and retention intentions of academic staff in public universities in Uganda. 3. Research Methodology 3.1. Research Design The philosophical underpinning of this study was a pragmatic worldview (Creswell, 2009 ). A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell, 2009 ; Moeller et al., 2016 ) was employed, comprising quantitative and qualitative components. A combination of qualitative methodology, based on the phenomenological strategy, and quantitative methodology, based on a cross-sectional survey strategy, was adopted. A qualitative interview was conducted with top management from selected public universities in Uganda, and a quantitative survey was conducted on a larger population from the five public universities in Uganda (Creswell, 2009 ). Hence, in addition to the literature reviewed, individuals' views had to be relied upon through semi-structured interviews to obtain the opinions of participants. The target population for the survey included full-time academic staff from five public universities in Uganda. These were selected using a stratified random sampling technique, as universities varied in the number of academic staff; however, it was necessary to ensure fair representation of each stratum. Based on Raosoft Sampling techniques, 345 academic staff members were sampled as respondents, and this sample was representative of the study population (Rudolph et al., 2023 ). Out of the 345 questionnaires distributed to respondents, 325 were returned, representing a 94 percent response rate. Only 316 questionnaires was considered suitable for this study, as nine other questionnaires were excluded because they were not fully answered (Woolf & Edwards, 2021 ). 3.2. Measurements of Instruments 3.2.1. Compensation Dimensions This study operationalized six key variables: the five constitutive dimensions of compensation packages and the dependent variable, academic staff retention. The construct of compensation packages was measured in terms of academic staff satisfaction, using a modified instrument from Spector ( 1997 , 2022 ) methodological framework. The 46-item scale was initially assessed and refined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), resulting in a final 40-item instrument, which was captured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Spector ( 1997 ), reported a Cronbach's alpha (α) of 0.91, indicating excellent internal consistency. 3.2.2. Retention Intentions Measured using a 5-item scale (α = .85), eleven items were adapted from the instrument developed by Kyndt et al. ( 2009 ) to measure employee retention, which includes the dimensions of intention to leave and intention to stay, such as "I plan to work at this university for more than five years." The original eleven items were subjected to EFA, resulting in a five item scale. Adaptation involved contextual modification and validation through pilot testing (n = 35), confirming content validity and reliability. 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS 4.1. Frequency distribution- Demographic As part of the presentation, frequency analysis was used to organize and compile information related to the biographical details of the respondents. Researchers frequently utilize frequency distributions as a data analysis technique because they offer a helpful summary of the data (Ott & Longnecker, 2010 ; Sutton & Austin, 2015 ). This method provides the researcher with precise values for specific variables of interest (Mertler et al., 2021 ; Pandey & Pandey, 2015 ; Rassel et al., 2020 ). Pie charts, bar charts, histograms, and cross-tabulations are valuable tools for evaluating and analyzing respondents' personal data. The bulk of academic staff, according to the results, are between the ages of 41 and 50 (114, 36.1%), followed by those between the ages of 31 and 40 (83, 26.3%). The majority of academic staff (27.2%) had served for six to ten years, followed by those who had worked for eleven to fifteen years (20.6%), and those who had served for twenty-one years or more (14.9%). The majority of participants in this study were lecturers (139; 44.0%). In fact, 159 participants, or 50.3%, have a PhD. As a result, almost 67% of the study's participants make less than 7,500,000 Uganda shillings. Insert Table 1 here Table 1 Demographics and Biographical characteristics of participants (N = 316) Item Category Participants Frequency Percentage Gender Male 205 64.9 Female 111 35.1 Age 21–30 26 8.2 31–40 83 26.3 41–50 114 36.1 51–60 77 24.4 61 and above 16 5.1 Lengths of service Less than 5 years 54 17.1 6–10 years 86 27.2 11–15 years 65 20.6 16–20 years 64 20.3 21 and above 47 14.9 Academic qualification Bachelor 19 6.0 Master 132 41.8 PhD 159 50.3 Post Doc 5 1.6 Others 1 0.3 Gross salary Less than 5,000,000 80 25.3 Between 5,000.000 and 6,500,000 101 32.0 Between 6,500,000 and 7,500,000 32 10.1 Between 7,500,000 and 8,500,000 55 17.4 Between 8,500,000 and 9,500,000 30 9.5 9,500,000 and above 18 5.7 4.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Descriptive statistics and intercorrelation for all study variables are presented in Table 2 . Job Security received the highest mean rating (M = 30.79), while Retention and Recognition received the lowest. All variables were significantly positively correlated at the p < .01 level. Notably, the predictor variables demonstrated moderate to strong intercorrelation, with the strongest being between Promotion and Recognition (r = .662). Each of the five job factors was significantly correlated with Retention, with Recognition (r = .547) and Security (r = .534) showing the strongest bivariate relationships. Therefore, the hypothesis which stated, “ Motivation factors demonstrate significantly stronger positive associations with retention intentions than hygiene factors among academic staff in Ugandan public universities, when compensation dimensions are modeled simultaneously” was accepted not rejected. Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelation of variables Variable Mean Std. Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Salary 25.15 5.806 — 2. Benefits 26.09 6.931 .509 ** — 3. Security 30.79 5.607 .527 ** .593 ** — 4. Promotion 25.64 6.397 .406 ** .438 ** .561 ** — 5. Recognition 22.14 4.824 .441 ** .462 ** .647 ** .662 ** — 6. Retention 16.98 4.617 .451 ** .451 ** .534 ** .512 ** .547 ** — Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), N = 316 , Insert Table 2 here Multiple Regression Analysis A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which five predictors (Salary, Benefits, Job Security, Promotion Opportunities, and Recognition) jointly and individually predict Employee Retention. The results are presented in Table 3 .The overall regression model was statistically significant, F (5, 310) = 42.30, p < .001, indicating that the combination of these five factors reliably predicts retention. The model explains a substantial portion of the variance in Retention, with an R² of 0.41. After adjusting for the number of predictors, approximately 39.6% of the variance in Retention (Adjusted R² = .396) is accounted for by the model. An examination of the individual predictors reveals distinct contributions: Recognition emerged as the strongest unique predictor (β = .22, p = .001), followed by Promotion Opportunities (β = .18, p = .004). Job Security (β = .15, p = .021) and Salary (β = .15, p = .007) were also significant positive predictors, with similar standardized effect sizes. Table 3 Multiple Regression Analysis Predictor R 2 Adjusted R B Std Error β t F- value df1 df2 Sig. p Constant 0.42 1.20 0.35 5 310 .000 b 0.73 Salary .41 .396 0.12 0.04 0.15 2.74 42.30 0.007 Benefits 0.07 0.04 0.11 1.89 0.06 Job security 0.13 0.05 0.15 2.32 0.021 Promotion 0.13 0.04 0.18 2.90 0.004 Recognition 0.21 0.06 0.22 3.29 0.001 a. Dependent Variable: Retention Benefits did not reach statistical significance at the conventional alpha level of .05 (β = .11, p = .06), suggesting its unique contribution to retention is marginal when the effects of the other four factors are controlled for. Therefore the hypothesis which stated, “Motivation factors explain significantly more unique variance in retention intentions than hygiene factors after controlling for demographic variables” was accepted not rejected. Insert Table 3 here 4.3. Qualitative Findings Five different themes emerged from semi structured interview data explaining that recognition, job security and promotion outweighed benefits and salaries. One participant stressed the need to have strategic advocacy for salary increment stating; I hope we continue to advocate for increased salaries to the government and actively seek to improve our lobbying efforts by benchmarking against other institutions with similar qualifications. We should adopt effective human resource policies from local universities and compare our compensation packages with those of international, world-class institutions (R5). Participants demonstrated the urgency for universities to revisit their current salary structures to ensure academic staff earnings reflect real monetary value, looking at the ongoing financial predicament. One respondent stated, "I feel that as a heart for brilliance in research, the regime needs to recognize and adjust salaries to match the cost of living. What we receive now should at least sufficiently feed our families" (R8). Participants brought attention to discrepancies in the allocation of salaries, pointing out that money was used more for hiring new instructors than for elevating competent senior academic staffs to associate professors. "There is a gap between senior lecturers and associate professors, but the money is used to recruit new lecturers," said one participant (R7). For instance, even though some of us are demanding advancements, the government recently gave this university $ 6 billion for recruitment. Consequently, associate professors who are not promoted here are drawn to newer universities. When it came to benefits, employees said they wanted packages that focused on overall well-being. "We need good pay and medical care, along with a clear retirement plan" (R25) was stressed by one participant; requests to formally establish fringe benefits, such as insurance and welfare programs (R37 & R38), reinforce this statement. At the same time, there was a significant push for more secure jobs. One participant argued, "I suggest that the university place all academic staff on permanent employment terms to enhance job security and foster long-term university commitment" (R15). Collectively, these findings position competitive benefits and secure tenure as foundational elements for a satisfied and dedicated academic workforce. Participants underscored the significance of promoting fairness in recognition practices. One participant asserted, "Public Universities in Uganda should prioritize justice or fairness in recognition of staff members to ensure equitable treatment for everyone" (R18). 4.4. Interaction Effects of Designation on Compensation packages and retention The moderation analysis investigated the impact of compensation packages and designation on the retention of academic staff and whether designation moderates the relationship between compensation packages and staff retention (Table 4 ). The initial regression model, which incorporated the centered independent variables (salary, benefits, job security, promotion, and recognition) alongside the centered moderator (designation), accounted for 40.6% of the variance in retention, R² = 0.406, F (5, 310) = 42.302, mean square = 544.679, p < 0.001. This model assessed the direct effects of salary, benefits, job security, promotion, and recognition on retention. Table 4 Interaction Effects of Designation Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics Durbin-Watson R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .64 a .406 .396 3.59 .406 42.3 5 310 .000 2 .64 b .410 .391 3.60 .005 .48 5 305 .788 1.98 a. Predictors: (Constant), Recognition_C, Salary_C, Benefits_C, Promotion_C, Job_security_C b. Predictors: (Constant), Recognition, Salary_C, Benefits_C, Promotion_C, Job_security_C, Salary_CXDesignation_C, Recognition_CXDesignation_C, Benefits_CXDesignation_C, Promotion_CXDesignation_C, Job_security_CXDesignation_C c. Dependent Variable: Retention P- Value < 0.05, P- Value < 0.01 Insert Table 4 here The second regression model, which included the interaction between the independent variables (compensation packages) and the centered moderator (Designation), explained 41% of the variance in retention, R² = 0.410, F(5, 305) = 21.217, p < 0.001. The findings indicate that the interaction term Salary_CXDesignation_C and retention is characterized by a coefficient (β) of 0.041 with a p-value of 0.459. The model explains 41% of the variance (R² = 0.41). The degrees of freedom are (5, 305), and the F change equals to 0.788. These findings mean no statistically significant relationship between compensation packages, designation, and staff retention. 5. Discussion The explanatory power of the model (Adjusted R² = 0.40) emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive retention strategy. In line with Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, which emphasizes the importance of psychological fulfillment in addition to pecuniary advantages, recognition was a significant predictor. This suggests that employees place a high importance on receiving recognition for their accomplishments and promote emotional dedication. The importance of perceived career growth and possibilities within an organization is highlighted by the prominent role of Promotion possibilities. Plans for talent development must include retention since workers are more likely to stick around when they see a clear and attainable route to success. Although salary was a major predictor, it was not the most powerful, casting doubt on the over generalized idea that salary is the main factor driving retention. Its significance, paired with the non-significant trend for Benefits, indicates that direct monetary compensation (Salary) is a critical hygiene factor, but comprehensive benefits packages may be expected as a baseline; their value, however, is mediated by other factors. The significance of Job Security reflects a foundational need, especially in uncertain economic climates; employees must feel a baseline of stability to engage in the long term. Higher Education Institutions seeking to enhance employee retention should adopt an integrated approach to their strategies. Competitive salaries and secure employment should therefore be augmented by robust systems for regular Recognition and transparent promotional opportunities for academic staff members. 6. Theoretical and Practical Implications Our results show that factors such as recognition, promotional opportunities, and job security are non-financial and take precedence in academic staff retention, challenging universalistic assumptions in compensation theory. This is consistent with the Equity hypothesis, which holds that procedural and distributive justice in advancement systems should be considered alongside monetary comparisons in assessing fairness. Contrary to Western results, which generally indicate significant retention effects, the benefits-retention link is poor (Rynes et al., 2004). This could be due to administrative delays in Ugandan public universities' formal benefit schemes. Alternatively, benefits may function as hygiene factors whose absence causes dissatisfaction, but their availability provides only limited motivation for employees (Herzberg, 1966). Accordingly, Uganda's public universities should place a high priority on maintaining job security, guaranteeing transparent promotion processes, increasing salary competitiveness in relation to sectoral and regional benchmarks, streamlined benefits administration to enhance assumed significance, implementing policy reforms that recognize the variety of compensation, and avoiding exclusive focus on salary increments while neglecting structural elements like promotion equity and security guarantees. 7. Limitations and Future Research Study limitations include single-country focus, cross-sectional design preventing causal inferences, and self-report measures potentially affected by social desirability. Future research should examine longitudinal effects, incorporate objective retention measures, and conduct comparative studies across African higher education systems. Particularly valuable would be research exploring how compensation preferences evolve across career stages, disciplines, and institutional types, informing differentiated retention strategies rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. 8. Conclusion This study provides empirical evidence that among Ugandan academic staff, job security and promotion opportunities outweigh salary and benefits in predicting retention intentions. These findings challenge conventional compensation models emphasizing monetary elements and support context-sensitive human resource approaches in higher education. As African universities navigate competing pressures massification, underfunding, international competition understanding which compensation elements truly matter for retention becomes increasingly critical. Our results suggest that preserving employment stability and ensuring equitable advancement may represent more cost-effective retention strategies than salary increments alone, particularly in resource-constrained environments. Ultimately, effective academic compensation requires balancing economic realities with psychological contracts, institutional constraints with individual aspirations, and global models with local specificities. This study contributes to that balancing act by clarifying which compensation elements tilt the scales toward retention in one significant developing higher education system. Declarations Conflicts of interest: We have no conflicts of interest Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Statement about Ethical Clearance This study adhered to the ethical principles expected for studies in Higher Education. I obtained REC approval from Uganda Christian University Research Ethics Committee (Reference No: UCUREC-2024-978) and Uganda National Council for Science and Technology Ref No. SS3122ES. The informed consent, which the REC approved, was shared with the participants before data collection. Participants were provided with detailed information about the purpose of the study, its procedures, and the values for participants, including their rights and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Confidentiality was maintained through anonymization of all data, with identifying information removed during transcription and analysis. References Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 2. Elsevier, pp 267–299 Adams K, Hean S, Sturgis P, Clark JM (2006) Investigating the factors influencing professional identity of first-year health and social care students. Learn Health Social Care 5(2):55–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00119.x Adil H, Rao C, Ayaz MQ, Shinwari A (2020) Effect of compensation packages on job satisfaction and employees retention: A case of Jalalabad-based Private Universities of Afghanistan. Asia Pac J Multidisciplinary Res 8(2):26–35 Ahmad A (2018) The relationship among job characteristics organizational commitment and employee turnover intentions: A reciprocation perspective. J Work-Applied Manage 10(1):74–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-09-2017-0027 Aina TA (2010) Beyond reforms: The politics of higher education transformation in Africa. Afr Stud Rev 53(1):21–40 Akkad A (2025) Displaced academics’ mobility and translocational positionalities:‘academic poverty’,‘academic death’, and ‘academic re-existence.’ Higher Education , 1–18 Al-Emadi AAQ, Schwabenland C, Wei Q (2015) The vital role of employee retention in human resource management: A literature review. IUP J Organizational Behav 14(3):7 Alemayehu BZ, Woldemariam GK (2020) Academic staff flight from Ethiopian public universities: Causes and possible solutions. High Educ Q 74(4):497–515 Alexander B (2020) Academia next: The futures of higher education. Johns Hopkins University Aljumah A (2023) The impact of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction: The mediating role of transactional leadership. Cogent Bus Manage 10(3):2270813. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2270813 Al-Qarshoubi A (2020) Academic staff retention at Higher Education Institutions in the Sultanate of Oman: The impact of incentives Altbach PG, Reisberg L, Rumbley LE (2019) Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution (Vol. 22). Brill Amutuhaire T (2022) Financing Higher Education: Who Pays, Who Benefits, and Who Should Pay for University Education in Uganda. East Afr J Educ Stud 5(1):182–194 Ashraf MA (2019) Influences of working condition and faculty retention on quality education in private universities in Bangladesh: An analysis using SEM. Int J Educational Manage 33(1):149–165 Austin AE, Chapman DW, Farah S, Wilson E, Ridge N (2014) Expatriate academic staff in the United Arab Emirates: The nature of their work experiences in higher education institutions. High Educ 68(4):541–557 Barkhuizen N, Lesenyeho D, Schutte N (2020) Talent retention of academic staff in South African higher education institutions. Int J Bus Manage Stud 12(1):191–207 Berg M, Seeber BK (2025) The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto Berman EM (2015) HRM in development: Lessons and frontiers. Public Adm Dev 35(2):113–127 Bernard B (2012) Factors that determine academic staff retention and commitment in private tertiary institutions in Botswana: Empirical review. Global Adv Res J Manage Bus Stud 1(9):278–299 Bibi P, Pangil F, Johari J, Ahmad A (2017) The impact of compensation and promotional opportunities on employee retention in academic institutions: The moderating role of work environment. J Economic Manage Perspect 11(1):378–391 Bingab BBB, Forson JA, Abotsi AK, Baah-Ennumh TY (2018) Strengthening university governance in sub-Sahara Africa: The Ghanaian perspective. Int J Educational Manage 32(4):606–624 Bisaso R (2017) Makerere University as a flagship institution: Sustaining the quest for relevance. Flagship universities in Africa. Springer, pp 425–466 Bittner NP, Bechtel CF (2017) Identifying and Describing Nurse Faculty Workload Issues: A Looming Faculty Shortage. Nurs Educ Perspect 38(4):171–176. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000178 Blau PM (1964) Justice in social exchange. Sociol Inq, 34 (2) Bryant K (2019) Storying the rhetorical and institutional: Academics’ experiences with research and writing at the University of Botawana. McGill University (Canada) Cafaro D (2021) The WorldatWork handbook of total rewards: A comprehensive guide to compensation, benefits, HR & employee engagement. Wiley Cheung ACK, Xu L (2015) To return or not to return: Examining the return intentions of mainland Chinese students studying at elite universities in the United States. Stud High Educ 40(9):1605–1624. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.899337 Chiekezie OM, Emejulu G, Nwanneka A (2017) Compensation Management And Employee Retention Of Selected Commercial Banks In Anambra State, Nigeria. Archives Bus Res 5(3). https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.53.2758 Cloete N, Bunting I, Van Schalkwyk F (2018) Research universities in Africa. African Minds Creswell JW (2009) Editorial: Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. J Mixed Methods Res 3(2):95–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808330883 Daly CJ, Dee JR (2006) Greener Pastures: Faculty Turnover Intent in Urban Public Universities. J High Educ 77(5):776–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778944 Etomaru I, Bisaso R, Nakayiwa-Mayega F (2022) Fostering knowledge translation in Africa’s flagship universities: A case of Makerere University. High Educ Res Dev 41(4):1060–1074. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1887093 Evans DK, Acosta AM (2023) How to recruit teachers for hard-to-staff schools: A systematic review of evidence from low-and middle-income countries. Econ Educ Rev 95:102430 Gardner DG, Huang G, Niu X, Pierce JL, Lee C (2015) Organization-Based Self‐Esteem, Psychological Contract Fulfillment, and Perceived Employment Opportunities: A Test of Self‐Regulatory Theory. Hum Resour Manag 54(6):933–953. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21648 Gerhart B, Rynes S (2003) Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Sage Grissom JA (2011) Can Good Principals Keep Teachers in Disadvantaged Schools? Linking Principal Effectiveness to Teacher Satisfaction and Turnover in Hard-to-Staff Environments. Teachers Coll Record: Voice Scholarsh Educ 113(11):2552–2585. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111301102 Herzberg F (1968) One more time: How do you motivate employees, vol 65. Harvard Business Review Boston, MA Herzberg F (2015) Motivation-hygiene theory. Organizational Behav 1:61–74 Holston-Okae BL, Mushi RJ (2018) Employee turnover in the hospitality industry using Herzberg’s two-factor motivation-hygiene theory. Int J Acad Res Bus Social Sci 8(1):218–248 Holtom BC, Mitchell TR, Lee TW, Eberly MB (2008) 5 turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. Acad Manage Annals 2(1):231–274 Hoyos CA, Serna CA (2021) Rewards and faculty turnover: An individual differences approach. Cogent Educ 8(1):1863170. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1863170 Iddrisu I (2023) Influence of staff performance on public university operations: Examining motivation and retention factors. Social Sci Humanit Open 8(1):100744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100744 Iqbal J, Asghar A (2020) Effect of University Administrative and Academic Processes on Student Engagement: An Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. UMT Educ Rev 3(2):85–109. https://doi.org/10.32350/uer.32.05 Jaiswal R, Gupta S, Tiwari AK (2023) Dissecting the compensation conundrum: A machine learning-based prognostication of key determinants in a complex labor market. Manag Decis 61(8):2322–2353 Khalid K, Nawab S (2018) Employee participation and employee retention in view of compensation. Sage Open 8(4):2158244018810067 Khan J (2021) European academic brain drain: A meta-synthesis. Eur J Educ 56(2):265–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12449 Korantwi-Barimah JS (2017) Factors influencing the retention of academic staff in a Ghanaian technical university. Hum Resource Manage Res 7(3):111–119 Kulikowski K, Sedlak P (2023) Is there more to compensation than money? The empirical study of dimensionality of the total rewards model and its implications for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial Bus Econ Rev 11(3):77–91 Kundu SC, Gahlawat N (2016) Effects of employee retention practices on perceived firm and innovation performance. Int J Innov Learn 19(1):25. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2016.073287 Kyaligonza R, Kamagara E (2017) Staff turnover in public universities in Uganda. Makerere J High Educ 9(2):59–72 Kyndt E, Dochy F, Michielsen M, Moeyaert B (2009) Employee retention: Organisational and personal perspectives. Vocations Learn 2(3):195–215 Lee M, Oh K, Kim H (2025) Effects of Organizational Culture and Pay Levels on Employee Retention: Focused on Generational Difference. Administrative Sci 15(4):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040125 Leisyte L, Dee JR (2012) Understanding academic work in a changing institutional environment: Faculty autonomy, productivity, and identity in Europe and the United States. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 27. Springer, pp 123–206 Mabaso CM, Dlamini BI (2021) Recent study on the impact of compensation and benefits on job satisfaction. Insights into Econ Manage 7(1):55–68 Mathebula T, Banda T (2022) Adjustment Education Programme. Global Citizsh Educ Global South: Educators’ Perceptions Practices 21:265 Mertler CA, Vannatta RA, LaVenia KN (2021) Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Routledge Michael Galanakis & Giannis Peramatzis (2022) Herzberg’s Motivation Theory in Workplace. J Psychol Res 12(12). https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2022.12.009 Mngomezulu BR, Maposa MT (2017) The challenges facing academic scholarship in Africa. In Knowledge and Change in African Universities: Volume 2–Re-Imagining the Terrain (pp. 175–188). SensePublishers Rotterdam Moeller AK, Creswell JW, Saville N (eds) (2016) Second language assessment and mixed methods research. Cambridge University Press Moghri J, Mohammad A, Rashidian A, Sari AA (2016) Physician dual practice: A descriptive mapping review of literature. Iran J Public Health 45(3):278 Moshtari M, Safarpour A (2024) Challenges and strategies for the internationalization of higher education in low-income East African countries. High Educ 87(1):89–109 Mushemeza ED (2016) Opportunities and Challenges of Academic Staff in Higher Education in Africa. Int J High Educ 5(3):p236. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p236 Mustafa D, Ahsan SC, Aris M, Niswaty R, Arhas SH (2022) SERVICE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ON STUDENT SATISFACTION. Sosiohumaniora 24(3):335. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v24i3.40870 Nambi Karuhanga B, Werner A (2013) Challenges impacting performance management implementation in public universities: A case of Uganda. Afr J Economic Manage Stud 4(2):223–243 Ndungu DN (2017) The effects of rewards and recognition on employee performance in public educational institutions: A case of Kenyatta University, Kenya. Global J Manage Bus Res 17(1):42–68 Ng’ethe JM, Namusonge G, Iravo MA (2012) Influence of leadership style on academic staff retention in public universities in Kenya. Int J Bus Social Sci, 3 (21) Ochwa-Echel JR (2013) Neoliberalism and university education in Sub-Saharan Africa. SAGE Open 3(3):2158244013504933 Odiagbe SA (2012) Industrial conflict in Nigerian universities: A case study of the disputes between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) Oliveira T, Nada C, Magalhães A (2025) Navigating an academic career in marketized universities: Mapping the international literature. Rev Educ Res 95(2):255–292 Ott R, Longnecker M (2010) An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Cengage Learning Inc. Pandey P, Pandey MM (2015) Research methodology: Tools and techniques Raine OA (2022) The Influence of Low Wage Compensation on Employee Motivation in an Institution of Higher Education: A Qualitative Exploratory Case Study Rasheed MI, Humayon AA, Awan U, Ahmed A (2016) ud D. Factors affecting teachers’ motivation: An HRM challenge for public sector higher educational institutions of Pakistan (HEIs). International Journal of Educational Management , 30 (1), 101–114 Rassel G, Leland S, Mohr Z (2020) Research methods for public administrators. Routledge Rathakrishnan T, Imm NS, Kok TK (2016) Turnover intentions of lecturers in private universities in Malaysia. Social Sciences & Humanities , 24 , 129–146 Reddy VS (2020) Impact of compensation on employee performance. IOSR J Humanit Social Sci 25(9):17–22 Rudolph JE, Zhong Y, Duggal P, Mehta SH, Lau B (2023) Defining representativeness of study samples in medical and population health research. BMJ Med 2(1):e000399. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000399 Rwothumio J, Mbirithi DM, Itolondo W (2020) Role of financial rewards in enhancing academic staff performance in public universities in Uganda Sadagheyani HE, Ebrahimi M, Tatari F (2022) Investigating policies and factors affecting the faculty members’ retention. J Adv Pharm Educ Res 12(1):75 Sakarya University (Turkey), &, Ozsoy E (2019) An Empirical Test of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Motivation Theory. Mark Manage Innovations 11–20. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1-01 Sari Fitri (2024) Evaluation of Compensation Policies and Their Impact on Employee Retention in the Food Industry. Involv Int J Bus 1(1):43–59. https://doi.org/10.62569/iijb.v1i1.6 Schendel R, McCowan T (2016) Expanding higher education systems in low-and middle-income countries: The challenges of equity and quality. High Educ 72(4):407–411 Selesho JM, Naile I (2014) Academic Staff Retention As A Human Resource Factor: University Perspective. Int Bus Econ Res J (IBER) 13(2):295. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v13i2.8444 Shakeel N, But S (2015) Factors influencing employee retention: An integrated perspective. J Resour Dev Manage 6(1):32–49 Sharma G, Syal S (2022) A conceptual analysis of employee turnover intention: The causes of turnover intention in the faculties in higher educational institutions. Int J Res Finance Manage 5(2):283–289 Shin JC, Jung J (2014) Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. High Educ 67(5):603–620 Shrivastava M, Shrivastava S (2014) Political economy of higher education: Comparing South Africa to trends in the world. High Educ 67(6):809–822 Siekierski P, Lima MC, Borini FM (2018) International Mobility of Academics: Brain Drain and Brain Gain. Eur Manage Rev 15(3):329–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12170 Singh P, Loncar N (2010) Pay Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intent. Relations Industrielles 65(3):470–490. https://doi.org/10.7202/044892ar Spector PE (1997) Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences, vol 3. Sage Spector PE (2022) Job satisfaction: From assessment to intervention. Routledge Sutton J, Austin Z (2015) Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm 68(3):226 Szromek AR, Wolniak R (2020) Job satisfaction and problems among academic staff in higher education. Sustainability 12(12):4865 Tabulawa R (2013) Teaching and learning in context: Why pedagogical reforms fail in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Books Collective Tehseen S, Ul Hadi N (2015) Factors Influencing Teachers’ Performance and Retention. Mediterranean J Social Sci. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p233 Theron M, Barkhuizen N, Du Plessis Y (2014) Managing the academic talent void: Investigating factors in academic turnover and retention in South Africa. SA J Industrial Psychol 40(1):1–14 Tomlinson M, Watermeyer R (2022) When masses meet markets: Credentialism and commodification in twenty-first century Higher Education. Discourse: Stud Cult Politics Educ 43(2):173–187 Torres CA, Schugurensky D (2002) The political economy of higher education in the era of neoliberal globalization: Latin America in comparative perspective. High Educ 43(4):429–455 Trapmann S, Hell B, Hirn J-OW, Schuler H (2007) Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between the Big Five and Academic Success at University. Z Für Psychologie / J Psychol 215(2):132–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132 Whyte M, Whyte SR (2015) Dilemmas of knowledge production in Ugandan universities. Higher Education and Capacity Building in Africa. Routledge, pp 41–57 Witter S, Hamza MM, Alazemi N, Alluhidan M, Alghaith T, Herbst CH (2020) Human resources for health interventions in high-and middle-income countries: Findings of an evidence review. Hum Resour Health 18(1):43 Woolf B, Edwards P (2021) Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 21(1):265. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 05 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 19 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 18 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 18 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 03 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 03 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 29 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8728702","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":594755414,"identity":"85053e52-f295-4c74-84b7-6d9c14799f41","order_by":0,"name":"OPIO PATRICK","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Punjab","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"OPIO","middleName":"","lastName":"PATRICK","suffix":""},{"id":594755416,"identity":"6fd41743-805c-4c82-ab18-6882c50852f6","order_by":1,"name":"SHAMSIR SINGH DHILLON","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central University of Punjab","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"SHAMSIR","middleName":"SINGH","lastName":"DHILLON","suffix":""},{"id":594755417,"identity":"52f31b69-6d17-4c59-a666-74cc4712e81a","order_by":2,"name":"Bagonza Godfrey","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bagonza","middleName":"","lastName":"Godfrey","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-29 07:56:54","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8728702/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8728702/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103505384,"identity":"89a16689-d6eb-4391-8137-752e4eb63565","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 13:30:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1274201,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8728702/v1/e491678e-80ef-44e5-8558-45ee0e427196.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"What Retains Academics in Underfunded Systems? A Multivariable Analysis of Compensation and Staff Retention in Ugandan Public Universities","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFor public universities in countries with low or middle incomes, sustaining academic staff is a crucial institutional challenge, particularly when there is ongoing insufficient funding and increasing enrollment (Evans \u0026amp; Acosta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Moshtari \u0026amp; Safarpour, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Schendel \u0026amp; McCowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Witter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). According to Alexander, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Altbach et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Oliveira et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), and Tomlinson \u0026amp; Watermeyer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), these academic institutions operate in the face of intersecting pressures, notably mass enrollment, monetary constraints, increasing faculty duties, and increased regional competition for highly qualified educators that have significantly altered academic labor markets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Akkad (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), Berg and Seeber (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), Leisyte and Dee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), Shin and Jung (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), the loss of seasoned academic staff undermines institutional memory, decreases research output, and weakens mentorship and teaching. In order to compensate for inadequate institutional rewards, academic staff in public universities in Uganda, which operate within a rapidly growing but financially constrained higher education framework, increasingly turn to personal alternatives like moonlighting, consultancy, and internal brain drain (Bisaso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Bryant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Cloete et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Mngomezulu \u0026amp; Maposa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Moghri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Odiagbe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough compensation is widely recognized as a critical factor influencing employee retention (Khalid \u0026amp; Nawab, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Shakeel \u0026amp; But, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), a large portion of the research that is currently available takes an aggregated or reductive conceptualization, frequently focusing on basic salary while ignoring the complex makeup of academic rewards (Gerhart \u0026amp; Rynes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Holtom et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Jaiswal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Increasing research indicates that pay in higher education encompasses benefits, performance incentives, job stability, career advancement opportunities, and professional recognition, in addition to monthly salaries (Berman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Mabaso \u0026amp; Dlamini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Raine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). According to total rewards frameworks, these factors interact to influence career choices, especially in environments with limited resources when organizations are unable to compete only on income (Cafaro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kulikowski \u0026amp; Sedlak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, there is still a shortage of empirical research that systematically breaks down compensation and evaluates the corresponding effects of its various dimensions on academic retention, particularly in sub-Saharan African contexts where higher education systems function under unique political-economic and cultural circumstances (Aina, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Bingab et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Shrivastava \u0026amp; Shrivastava, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Tabulawa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuided by Herzberg two factor theory (Herzberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e) which emphasize that employees needs are divided into Hygiene factors and motivation factors, the social exchange theory (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e) focuses on relational and symbolic rewards, such as recognition, Equity theory (Adams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1965\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that Equity theory posits that employees assess fairness by comparing the ratio of their work inputs to received outcomes with those of relevant others, and perceived inequity leads to dissatisfaction and behavioral adjustment. Despite these insights, few studies have tested these propositions empirically in underfunded public university systems, leaving a significant gap in both theory and practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMuch of the previous research on faculty retention has addressed issues such as academic staff members' motivation, productivity, and behavior (Barkhuizen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bernard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Korantwi-Barimah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Ng\u0026rsquo;ethe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Sadagheyani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Szromek \u0026amp; Wolniak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Tehseen \u0026amp; Ul Hadi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR95\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), salary and rewards (Alemayehu \u0026amp; Woldemariam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Al-Qarshoubi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mabaso \u0026amp; Dlamini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Selesho \u0026amp; Naile, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), designations and promotions (Bittner \u0026amp; Bechtel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Grissom, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Rasheed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These important compensation issues have also been perceived as relevant to the retention and turnover of faculty members in public universities (Ashraf, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Daly \u0026amp; Dee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Hoyos \u0026amp; Serna, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Rathakrishnan\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e et al., 2016; Theron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Several studies on compensation and academic staff retention originate from Western countries (Adil et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Altbach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Bernard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Ng\u0026rsquo;ethe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Selesho \u0026amp; Naile, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), where salaries, benefits, and better welfare are assumed to be prevalent. In contrast, public universities in Uganda are constrained in many ways, which affects the operations of academic staff (Kyaligonza \u0026amp; Kamagara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mushemeza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Nambi Karuhanga \u0026amp; Werner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUgandan academics frequently report dissatisfaction with salaries and benefits, yet many remain employed in Ugandan public universities, suggesting that motivation factors may mitigate turnover intentions. However, no study has quantitatively examined the relative weights of these factors in a multivariate model. The institutional context of Ugandan academic staff, characterized by high unemployment among educated professionals, views job security as a key motivation factor, as this is an economy with scarce formal employment opportunities. Alternatively, recognition, which is a motivational factor, may be especially salient in academic cultures that value prestige. Empirical studies on demographic variables, such as designation, gender, salary level, and years of service, and their interaction with compensation factors in a multivariate model are limited. Whereas junior staff may prioritize promotion opportunities, senior staff may value pension security or institutional recognition. Moreover, failing to analyze this disparity risks the implementation of staff retention policies being ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUgandan public universities face a persistent retention crisis, with annual attrition rates estimated at 15\u0026ndash;20% among academic staff (Etomaru et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This brain drain undermines institutional stability, teaching quality, and research output (Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Siekierski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Most academic staff who receive study opportunities in Western countries fail to return to their positions in the university (Austin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Cheung \u0026amp; Xu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Those who have not been promoted often leave the university to join other sectors that appear to offer better pay. The Government of Uganda has attempted to equalize the salaries for academic staff in all public universities; however, Professors have a higher salary scale than their lower-ranking colleagues. Although compensation is widely cited as a key factor, university administrators and policymakers lack guidance on which specific compensation elements most strongly influence retention intentions. The government has promised academic staff a salary increment. However, scarce funds may be invested in raising salaries, while more impactful interventions are neglected. Consequently, this problem is exacerbated by the lack of studies that model compensation as a multidimensional construct and account for the moderating roles of individual and institutional factors. Therefore, this study filled the gap by investigating factors leading to retention of academic staff in underfunded systems using a multivariable analysis of compensation factors and staff retention in Ugandan Public Universities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Review of Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is grounded in three theoretical perspectives: \u003cb\u003eHerzberg's Two-Factor Theory\u003c/b\u003e (Herzberg, 1959), \u003cb\u003eEquity Theory\u003c/b\u003e (Adams, 1963), and \u003cb\u003eSocial Exchange Theory\u003c/b\u003e (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e), which aim to explain how compensation dimensions influence the retention of academic staff in public universities in Uganda.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1. Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHerzberg Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, 1959) states that Hygiene factors, such as salary, benefits, and job security, do not necessarily motivate employees when present but can cause dissatisfaction when absent or inadequate. Motivators, on the other hand, include recognition, achievement, responsibility, promotion, and meaningful work, which actively enhance job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Because hygiene factors are often insufficient in the university context, academic staffs are often dissatisfied.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2. Equity Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEquity Theory posits that employees assess fairness by comparing the ratio of their \u003cb\u003einputs\u003c/b\u003e to \u003cb\u003eoutcomes\u003c/b\u003e against those of relevant referent others (Adams, 1963). When employees perceive inequity, they experience psychological distress that can lead to underperformance, withdrawal, or departure from the organization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.3. Social Exchange Theory (SET)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Exchange Theory (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e) posits that when employees perceive that the university values their contributions, they feel an obligation to reciprocate through loyalty and performance in various ways. Where financial rewards are limited, non-monetary forms of organizational support, such as transparent promotion processes, access to research opportunities, and professional development, become particularly significant when staff become dissatisfied. These theories altogether offer multiple perspectives on understanding why academics remain in or leave public universities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Operationalization of terms\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1. Compensation Factors in Public Universities\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA compensation package is a construct that extends beyond the base salary to include benefits, job security, and intrinsic motivators, such as opportunities for promotion and recognition (Kuuyelleh et al., 2022). Based on Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, salary, benefits, and job security, which function as hygiene factors preventing dissatisfaction, while its intrinsic factors are: promotion and recognition, which act as motivators for job satisfaction (Herzberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e; Michael Galanakis \u0026amp; Giannis Peramatzis, 2022). Compensation packages in HEIs traditionally include both extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Extrinsic compensation encompasses both direct financial payments such as salary, benefits and job security and indirect rewards such as promotion and recognitions (Aljumah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Intrinsic compensation encompasses job security, promotional opportunities, and recognition of employees' work performance (Aljumah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mabaso \u0026amp; Dlamini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ndungu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Reddy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompensation schemes in African higher education reflect recent neoliberal reforms, structural adjustment programs, and the colonial policies for operations in HEIs (Mathebula \u0026amp; Banda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ochwa-Echel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Torres \u0026amp; Schugurensky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Public universities in Uganda operate systems where allowances, benefits, and salaries of staff are consolidated (Amutuhaire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Rwothumio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Whyte \u0026amp; Whyte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This results in compensation systems where legally binding rules can differ from actual experiences, particularly when it comes to budget limitations and implementation inefficiencies in these institutions (Mbabazi, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUganda's public university sector has expanded rapidly, growing from one institution at independence (1962) to twelve universities currently, with academic staff numbers increasing from under 500 to approximately 8,000 (Kakooza, 2022; Mohamedbhai, 2008). This expansion has strained human resource systems (Makerere University, 2021). Compensation is assessed by people using benefit fragmentation, salary compression resulting from rapid budgetary increases, and promotion inadequacy (Lucky Uko, 2024). Furthermore, Ugandan academic incomes are 20\u0026ndash;30% lower than those of their regional colleagues in Kenya and South Africa due to foreign migration (Adepoju, 2019; Darvas et al., 2017; Hailu et al., 2023; Nabawanuka, 2011). In this study, compensation is defined as the amount given to academic staff, whether monetary or non-monetary, to pay for the time spent working in a public university in Uganda.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2. Academic Staff Retention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic staff retention refers to the organizational efforts aimed at preventing voluntary turnover among faculty by creating conditions that make them more likely to remain employed in the institution over time (Bernard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Retention research highlights a range of factors influencing employee decisions to stay with or leave an organization, which can be broadly categorized as push or pull factors (Haldorai et al., 2019; Mutanga et al., 2021; Nair et al., 2016). Push factors are internal organizational elements that drive employees away, such as dissatisfaction with compensation, poor work environments, or limited career growth opportunities. Pull factors originate outside the organization and attract employees to alternative opportunities, including competitive salary packages, better benefits, or more appealing job roles offered outside their institutions (Haldorai et al., 2019; Maylett \u0026amp; Wride, 2017; Taylor, 2018). Therefore, public institutions especially HEIs must strike a balance between internal compensation fairness and awareness of external market conditions to retain key employees like academic staff more effectively. This balance is essential not only for minimizing voluntary turnover but also for sustaining academic staff motivation and engagement over time within the university.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeta-analyses indicate that compensation explains the variance in turnover intentions across different sectors, although effect sizes vary by disciplines (Forner et al., 2024; Guzeller \u0026amp; Celiker, 2020; Rubenstein et al., 2018; Zaza et al., 2023). In the HEI context, the importance of compensation appears to be moderated by the types of disciplines, designations, and prestige of the institution (Gonzales \u0026amp; Terosky, 2016; Kraimer et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2012). Research in developing contexts suggests that non-monetary factors may gain prominence when basic needs are met, although the evidence remains contradictory (Akerele, 2023; Corduneanu, 2020). Academic staff retention remains one of the most pressing human resource challenges in higher education systems across Africa. In Uganda, public universities continue to experience high turnover, limited attraction of qualified academics, and ongoing dissatisfaction with working conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3. Designation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significance of compensation packages and academic staff retention is moderated by rank or designation. Based on Social Exchange Theory (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e), rank of academic staff as a moderator is perceived to influence the perceptions of academic staff of external opportunities, their expectations of what is rightfully theirs, and the significance of pay within the broader socio-emotional exchange. Therefore, whether or not compensation affects staff commitment and retention is a question.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eObjectives of the study\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the relative influence of compensation dimensions on the retention intentions of academic staff within Uganda's public universities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the relative explanatory power of hygiene factors versus motivation factors in predicting retention within an underfunded higher education context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine the moderating effects of demographic factors on the relationship between compensation packages and retention intentions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.4 Research questions\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/span\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhich compensation dimensions demonstrate the strongest associations with retention intentions among academic staff in Ugandan public universities?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo what extent do hygiene factors and motivation factors differ in their explanatory power regarding retention intentions within Uganda's underfunded public university context?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do demographic factors, specifically academic rank, gender, and years of service, moderate the relationships between compensation dimensions and retention intentions among Ugandan academic staff?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Hypotheses development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study highlights that compensation packages as vital to influence retention of academic staff (Bibi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Mabaso \u0026amp; Dlamini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Sari Fitri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Compensation is imperative for employees, as it offers a sense of security, autonomy, and improved self-worth, which can lead to increased employee commitment and productivity (Gardner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Mustafa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sharma \u0026amp; Syal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). According to Herzberg's theory of motivation, employee motivation is associated with a psychological process of an individual (Herzberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1968\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Michael Galanakis \u0026amp; Giannis Peramatzis, 2022) Compensation packages play a significant role in determining employees' job satisfaction. Several studies found that job security and promotion opportunities demonstrate significantly stronger positive associations with retention intentions than salary and benefits among academic staff (Herzberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sakarya University (Turkey) \u0026amp; Ozsoy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Singh \u0026amp; Loncar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Based on the above research arguments, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMotivation factors demonstrate significantly stronger positive associations with retention intentions than hygiene factors among academic staff in Ugandan public universities, when compensation dimensions are modeled simultaneously.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies also show that in institutions, motivation elements significantly explain more unique variance in retention intentions than hygiene factors (Ahmad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Bryant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Holston-Okae \u0026amp; Mushi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Iqbal \u0026amp; Asghar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Based on the above research arguments, this study proposes the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMotivation factors will explain significantly more unique variance in retention intentions than hygiene factors after controlling for demographic variables.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies found no significant influence of salary or rank on academic staff retention (Al-Emadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Chiekezie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Iddrisu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). A study in Ugandan HEIs by Kyaligonza and Kamagara (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) found that salary level did not predict retention in Ugandan universities. (Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) reported that biographic factors such as designations did not significantly influence retention in Pakistani universities. However, studies by (Adams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Kundu \u0026amp; Gahlawat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Trapmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the following null hypothesis is proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDesignation significantly moderates the relationship between compensation dimensions and retention intentions of academic staff in public universities in Uganda.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe philosophical underpinning of this study was a pragmatic worldview (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Moeller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) was employed, comprising quantitative and qualitative components. A combination of qualitative methodology, based on the phenomenological strategy, and quantitative methodology, based on a cross-sectional survey strategy, was adopted. A qualitative interview was conducted with top management from selected public universities in Uganda, and a quantitative survey was conducted on a larger population from the five public universities in Uganda (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, in addition to the literature reviewed, individuals' views had to be relied upon through semi-structured interviews to obtain the opinions of participants. The target population for the survey included full-time academic staff from five public universities in Uganda. These were selected using a stratified random sampling technique, as universities varied in the number of academic staff; however, it was necessary to ensure fair representation of each stratum. Based on Raosoft Sampling techniques, 345 academic staff members were sampled as respondents, and this sample was representative of the study population (Rudolph et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Out of the 345 questionnaires distributed to respondents, 325 were returned, representing a 94 percent response rate. Only 316 questionnaires was considered suitable for this study, as nine other questionnaires were excluded because they were not fully answered (Woolf \u0026amp; Edwards, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Measurements of Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1. Compensation Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study operationalized six key variables: the five constitutive dimensions of compensation packages and the dependent variable, academic staff retention. The construct of compensation packages was measured in terms of academic staff satisfaction, using a modified instrument from Spector (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) methodological framework. The 46-item scale was initially assessed and refined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), resulting in a final 40-item instrument, which was captured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Spector (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), reported a Cronbach's alpha (α) of 0.91, indicating excellent internal consistency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2. Retention Intentions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasured using a 5-item scale (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85), eleven items were adapted from the instrument developed by Kyndt et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) to measure employee retention, which includes the dimensions of intention to leave and intention to stay, such as \"I plan to work at this university for more than five years.\" The original eleven items were subjected to EFA, resulting in a five item scale. Adaptation involved contextual modification and validation through pilot testing (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35), confirming content validity and reliability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Frequency distribution- Demographic\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs part of the presentation, frequency analysis was used to organize and compile information related to the biographical details of the respondents. Researchers frequently utilize frequency distributions as a data analysis technique because they offer a helpful summary of the data (Ott \u0026amp; Longnecker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Sutton \u0026amp; Austin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This method provides the researcher with precise values for specific variables of interest (Mertler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pandey \u0026amp; Pandey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Rassel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Pie charts, bar charts, histograms, and cross-tabulations are valuable tools for evaluating and analyzing respondents' personal data. The bulk of academic staff, according to the results, are between the ages of 41 and 50 (114, 36.1%), followed by those between the ages of 31 and 40 (83, 26.3%). The majority of academic staff (27.2%) had served for six to ten years, followed by those who had worked for eleven to fifteen years (20.6%), and those who had served for twenty-one years or more (14.9%). The majority of participants in this study were lecturers (139; 44.0%). In fact, 159 participants, or 50.3%, have a PhD. As a result, almost 67% of the study's participants make less than 7,500,000 Uganda shillings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInsert\u003c/b\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003ehere\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemographics and Biographical characteristics of participants (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;316)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e205\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e114\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61 and above\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLengths of service\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLess than 5 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;10 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;15 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u0026ndash;20 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21 and above\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAcademic qualification\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachelor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e132\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e159\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost Doc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGross salary\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLess than 5,000,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween 5,000.000 and 6,500,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween 6,500,000 and 7,500,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween 7,500,000 and 8,500,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween 8,500,000 and 9,500,000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9,500,000 and above\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and intercorrelation for all study variables are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Job Security received the highest mean rating (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.79), while Retention and Recognition received the lowest. All variables were significantly positively correlated at the p \u0026lt; .01 level. Notably, the predictor variables demonstrated moderate to strong intercorrelation, with the strongest being between Promotion and Recognition (r = .662). Each of the five job factors was significantly correlated with Retention, with Recognition (r = .547) and Security (r = .534) showing the strongest bivariate relationships. Therefore, the hypothesis which stated, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eMotivation factors demonstrate significantly stronger positive associations with retention intentions than hygiene factors among academic staff in Ugandan public universities, when compensation dimensions are modeled simultaneously\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003ewas accepted not rejected.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelation of variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Salary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.806\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Benefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.931\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.509\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Security\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.607\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.527\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.593\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Promotion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.397\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.406\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.438\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.561\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Recognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.824\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.441\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.462\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.647\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e**\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.662\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e**\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Retention\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.451\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.451\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.534\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.512\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.547\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e**\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;316\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInsert\u003c/b\u003e Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003ehere\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMultiple Regression Analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the extent to which five predictors (Salary, Benefits, Job Security, Promotion Opportunities, and Recognition) jointly and individually predict Employee Retention. The results are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.The overall regression model was statistically significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (5, 310)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42.30, p \u0026lt; .001, indicating that the combination of these five factors reliably predicts retention. The model explains a substantial portion of the variance in Retention, with an R\u0026sup2; of 0.41. After adjusting for the number of predictors, approximately 39.6% of the variance in Retention (Adjusted R\u0026sup2; = .396) is accounted for by the model. An examination of the individual predictors reveals distinct contributions: \u003cb\u003eRecognition\u003c/b\u003e emerged as the strongest unique predictor (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.22, p = .001), followed by \u003cb\u003ePromotion Opportunities\u003c/b\u003e (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.18, p = .004). \u003cb\u003eJob Security\u003c/b\u003e (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, p = .021) and \u003cb\u003eSalary\u003c/b\u003e (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, p = .007) were also significant positive predictors, with similar standardized effect sizes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple Regression Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"12\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd Error\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF- value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSalary\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.396\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.74\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenefits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob security\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePromotion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"12\"\u003ea. Dependent Variable: Retention\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBenefits\u003c/b\u003e did not reach statistical significance at the conventional alpha level of .05 (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11, p = .06), suggesting its unique contribution to retention is marginal when the effects of the other four factors are controlled for. Therefore the hypothesis which stated, \u0026ldquo;Motivation factors explain significantly more unique variance in retention intentions than hygiene factors after controlling for demographic variables\u0026rdquo; \u003cb\u003ewas accepted not rejected.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInsert\u003c/b\u003e Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003ehere\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Qualitative Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive different themes emerged from semi structured interview data explaining that recognition, job security and promotion outweighed benefits and salaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne participant stressed the need to have strategic advocacy for salary increment stating;\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI hope we continue to advocate for increased salaries to the government and actively seek to improve our lobbying efforts by benchmarking against other institutions with similar qualifications. We should adopt effective human resource policies from local universities and compare our compensation packages with those of international, world-class institutions (R5).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants demonstrated the urgency for universities to revisit their current salary structures to ensure academic staff earnings reflect real monetary value, looking at the ongoing financial predicament. One respondent stated, \"I feel that as a heart for brilliance in research, the regime needs to recognize and adjust salaries to match the cost of living. What we receive now should at least sufficiently feed our families\" (R8).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants brought attention to discrepancies in the allocation of salaries, pointing out that money was used more for hiring new instructors than for elevating competent senior academic staffs to associate professors. \"There is a gap between senior lecturers and associate professors, but the money is used to recruit new lecturers,\" said one participant (R7). For instance, even though some of us are demanding advancements, the government recently gave this university \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e6\u0026nbsp;billion for recruitment. Consequently, associate professors who are not promoted here are drawn to newer universities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen it came to benefits, employees said they wanted packages that focused on overall well-being. \"We need good pay and medical care, along with a clear retirement plan\" (R25) was stressed by one participant; requests to formally establish fringe benefits, such as insurance and welfare programs (R37 \u0026amp; R38), reinforce this statement. At the same time, there was a significant push for more secure jobs. One participant argued, \"I suggest that the university place all academic staff on permanent employment terms to enhance job security and foster long-term university commitment\" (R15). Collectively, these findings position competitive benefits and secure tenure as foundational elements for a satisfied and dedicated academic workforce.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants underscored the significance of promoting fairness in recognition practices. One participant asserted, \"Public Universities in Uganda should prioritize justice or fairness in recognition of staff members to ensure equitable treatment for everyone\" (R18).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Interaction Effects of Designation on Compensation packages and retention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe moderation analysis investigated the impact of compensation packages and designation on the retention of academic staff and whether designation moderates the relationship between compensation packages and staff retention (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The initial regression model, which incorporated the centered independent variables (salary, benefits, job security, promotion, and recognition) alongside the centered moderator (designation), accounted for 40.6% of the variance in retention, R\u0026sup2; = 0.406, F (5, 310)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42.302, mean square\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;544.679, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. This model assessed the direct effects of salary, benefits, job security, promotion, and recognition on retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteraction Effects of Designation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR Square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R Square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Error of the Estimate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChange Statistics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDurbin-Watson\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR Square Change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF Change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSig. F Change\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.64\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.406\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.396\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.406\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e310\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.64\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.410\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.391\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e305\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.788\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"11\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ea. Predictors: (Constant), Recognition_C, Salary_C, Benefits_C, Promotion_C, Job_security_C\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"11\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eb. Predictors: (Constant), Recognition, Salary_C, Benefits_C, Promotion_C, Job_security_C, Salary_CXDesignation_C, Recognition_CXDesignation_C, Benefits_CXDesignation_C, Promotion_CXDesignation_C, Job_security_CXDesignation_C\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"11\"\u003ec. Dependent Variable: Retention\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"11\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eP- Value\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, P- Value\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInsert\u003c/b\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003ehere\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second regression model, which included the interaction between the independent variables (compensation packages) and the centered moderator (Designation), explained 41% of the variance in retention, R\u0026sup2; = 0.410, F(5, 305)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.217, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. The findings indicate that the interaction term \u003cb\u003eSalary_CXDesignation_C\u003c/b\u003e and retention is characterized by a coefficient (β) of 0.041 with a p-value of 0.459. The model explains 41% of the variance (R\u0026sup2; = 0.41). The degrees of freedom are (5, 305), and the F change equals to 0.788. These findings mean no statistically significant relationship between compensation packages, designation, and staff retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe explanatory power of the model (Adjusted R\u0026sup2; = 0.40) emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive retention strategy. In line with Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, which emphasizes the importance of psychological fulfillment in addition to pecuniary advantages, recognition was a significant predictor. This suggests that employees place a high importance on receiving recognition for their accomplishments and promote emotional dedication. The importance of perceived career growth and possibilities within an organization is highlighted by the prominent role of Promotion possibilities. Plans for talent development must include retention since workers are more likely to stick around when they see a clear and attainable route to success. Although salary was a major predictor, it was not the most powerful, casting doubt on the over generalized idea that salary is the main factor driving retention. Its significance, paired with the non-significant trend for Benefits, indicates that direct monetary compensation (Salary) is a critical hygiene factor, but comprehensive benefits packages may be expected as a baseline; their value, however, is mediated by other factors. The significance of Job Security reflects a foundational need, especially in uncertain economic climates; employees must feel a baseline of stability to engage in the long term. Higher Education Institutions seeking to enhance employee retention should adopt an integrated approach to their strategies. Competitive salaries and secure employment should therefore be augmented by robust systems for regular Recognition and transparent promotional opportunities for academic staff members.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Theoretical and Practical Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results show that factors such as recognition, promotional opportunities, and job security are non-financial and take precedence in academic staff retention, challenging universalistic assumptions in compensation theory. This is consistent with the Equity hypothesis, which holds that procedural and distributive justice in advancement systems should be considered alongside monetary comparisons in assessing fairness. Contrary to Western results, which generally indicate significant retention effects, the benefits-retention link is poor (Rynes et al., 2004). This could be due to administrative delays in Ugandan public universities' formal benefit schemes. Alternatively, benefits may function as hygiene factors whose absence causes dissatisfaction, but their availability provides only limited motivation for employees (Herzberg, 1966). Accordingly, Uganda's public universities should place a high priority on maintaining job security, guaranteeing transparent promotion processes, increasing salary competitiveness in relation to sectoral and regional benchmarks, streamlined benefits administration to enhance assumed significance, implementing policy reforms that recognize the variety of compensation, and avoiding exclusive focus on salary increments while neglecting structural elements like promotion equity and security guarantees.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Limitations and Future Research","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy limitations include single-country focus, cross-sectional design preventing causal inferences, and self-report measures potentially affected by social desirability. Future research should examine longitudinal effects, incorporate objective retention measures, and conduct comparative studies across African higher education systems. Particularly valuable would be research exploring how compensation preferences evolve across career stages, disciplines, and institutional types, informing differentiated retention strategies rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides empirical evidence that among Ugandan academic staff, job security and promotion opportunities outweigh salary and benefits in predicting retention intentions. These findings challenge conventional compensation models emphasizing monetary elements and support context-sensitive human resource approaches in higher education. As African universities navigate competing pressures massification, underfunding, international competition understanding which compensation elements truly matter for retention becomes increasingly critical. Our results suggest that preserving employment stability and ensuring equitable advancement may represent more cost-effective retention strategies than salary increments alone, particularly in resource-constrained environments. Ultimately, effective academic compensation requires balancing economic realities with psychological contracts, institutional constraints with individual aspirations, and global models with local specificities. This study contributes to that balancing act by clarifying which compensation elements tilt the scales toward retention in one significant developing higher education system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of interest:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe have no conflicts of interest\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStatement about Ethical Clearance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study adhered to the ethical principles expected for studies in Higher Education. I obtained REC approval from Uganda Christian University Research Ethics Committee \u003cstrong\u003e(Reference No: UCUREC-2024-978)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand Uganda National Council for Science and Technology \u003cstrong\u003eRef No. SS3122ES.\u003c/strong\u003e The informed consent, which the REC approved, was shared with the participants before data collection. Participants were provided with detailed information about the purpose of the study, its procedures, and the values for participants, including their rights and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Confidentiality was maintained through anonymization of all data, with identifying information removed during transcription and analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 2. Elsevier, pp 267\u0026ndash;299\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams K, Hean S, Sturgis P, Clark JM (2006) Investigating the factors influencing professional identity of first-year health and social care students. Learn Health Social Care 5(2):55\u0026ndash;68. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00119.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00119.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdil H, Rao C, Ayaz MQ, Shinwari A (2020) Effect of compensation packages on job satisfaction and employees retention: A case of Jalalabad-based Private Universities of Afghanistan. Asia Pac J Multidisciplinary Res 8(2):26\u0026ndash;35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad A (2018) The relationship among job characteristics organizational commitment and employee turnover intentions: A reciprocation perspective. J Work-Applied Manage 10(1):74\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-09-2017-0027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JWAM-09-2017-0027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAina TA (2010) Beyond reforms: The politics of higher education transformation in Africa. Afr Stud Rev 53(1):21\u0026ndash;40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkkad A (2025) Displaced academics\u0026rsquo; mobility and translocational positionalities:\u0026lsquo;academic poverty\u0026rsquo;,\u0026lsquo;academic death\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;academic re-existence.\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eHigher Education\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Emadi AAQ, Schwabenland C, Wei Q (2015) The vital role of employee retention in human resource management: A literature review. IUP J Organizational Behav 14(3):7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlemayehu BZ, Woldemariam GK (2020) Academic staff flight from Ethiopian public universities: Causes and possible solutions. High Educ Q 74(4):497\u0026ndash;515\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlexander B (2020) Academia next: The futures of higher education. Johns Hopkins University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAljumah A (2023) The impact of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction: The mediating role of transactional leadership. Cogent Bus Manage 10(3):2270813. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2270813\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/23311975.2023.2270813\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Qarshoubi A (2020) \u003cem\u003eAcademic staff retention at Higher Education Institutions in the Sultanate of Oman: The impact of incentives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltbach PG, Reisberg L, Rumbley LE (2019) \u003cem\u003eTrends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 22). Brill\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmutuhaire T (2022) Financing Higher Education: Who Pays, Who Benefits, and Who Should Pay for University Education in Uganda. East Afr J Educ Stud 5(1):182\u0026ndash;194\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshraf MA (2019) Influences of working condition and faculty retention on quality education in private universities in Bangladesh: An analysis using SEM. Int J Educational Manage 33(1):149\u0026ndash;165\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAustin AE, Chapman DW, Farah S, Wilson E, Ridge N (2014) Expatriate academic staff in the United Arab Emirates: The nature of their work experiences in higher education institutions. High Educ 68(4):541\u0026ndash;557\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarkhuizen N, Lesenyeho D, Schutte N (2020) Talent retention of academic staff in South African higher education institutions. Int J Bus Manage Stud 12(1):191\u0026ndash;207\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerg M, Seeber BK (2025) The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerman EM (2015) HRM in development: Lessons and frontiers. Public Adm Dev 35(2):113\u0026ndash;127\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBernard B (2012) Factors that determine academic staff retention and commitment in private tertiary institutions in Botswana: Empirical review. Global Adv Res J Manage Bus Stud 1(9):278\u0026ndash;299\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBibi P, Pangil F, Johari J, Ahmad A (2017) The impact of compensation and promotional opportunities on employee retention in academic institutions: The moderating role of work environment. J Economic Manage Perspect 11(1):378\u0026ndash;391\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBingab BBB, Forson JA, Abotsi AK, Baah-Ennumh TY (2018) Strengthening university governance in sub-Sahara Africa: The Ghanaian perspective. Int J Educational Manage 32(4):606\u0026ndash;624\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBisaso R (2017) Makerere University as a flagship institution: Sustaining the quest for relevance. Flagship universities in Africa. Springer, pp 425\u0026ndash;466\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBittner NP, Bechtel CF (2017) Identifying and Describing Nurse Faculty Workload Issues: A Looming Faculty Shortage. Nurs Educ Perspect 38(4):171\u0026ndash;176. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000178\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000178\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlau PM (1964) Justice in social exchange. Sociol Inq, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBryant K (2019) Storying the rhetorical and institutional: Academics\u0026rsquo; experiences with research and writing at the University of Botawana. McGill University (Canada)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCafaro D (2021) The WorldatWork handbook of total rewards: A comprehensive guide to compensation, benefits, HR \u0026amp; employee engagement. Wiley\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheung ACK, Xu L (2015) To return or not to return: Examining the return intentions of mainland Chinese students studying at elite universities in the United States. Stud High Educ 40(9):1605\u0026ndash;1624. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.899337\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2014.899337\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiekezie OM, Emejulu G, Nwanneka A (2017) Compensation Management And Employee Retention Of Selected Commercial Banks In Anambra State, Nigeria. Archives Bus Res 5(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14738/abr.53.2758\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14738/abr.53.2758\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCloete N, Bunting I, Van Schalkwyk F (2018) Research universities in Africa. African Minds\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW (2009) Editorial: Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. J Mixed Methods Res 3(2):95\u0026ndash;108. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808330883\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1558689808330883\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaly CJ, Dee JR (2006) Greener Pastures: Faculty Turnover Intent in Urban Public Universities. J High Educ 77(5):776\u0026ndash;803. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778944\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00221546.2006.11778944\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEtomaru I, Bisaso R, Nakayiwa-Mayega F (2022) Fostering knowledge translation in Africa\u0026rsquo;s flagship universities: A case of Makerere University. High Educ Res Dev 41(4):1060\u0026ndash;1074. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1887093\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07294360.2021.1887093\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvans DK, Acosta AM (2023) How to recruit teachers for hard-to-staff schools: A systematic review of evidence from low-and middle-income countries. Econ Educ Rev 95:102430\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardner DG, Huang G, Niu X, Pierce JL, Lee C (2015) Organization-Based Self‐Esteem, Psychological Contract Fulfillment, and Perceived Employment Opportunities: A Test of Self‐Regulatory Theory. Hum Resour Manag 54(6):933\u0026ndash;953. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21648\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hrm.21648\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGerhart B, Rynes S (2003) Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrissom JA (2011) Can Good Principals Keep Teachers in Disadvantaged Schools? Linking Principal Effectiveness to Teacher Satisfaction and Turnover in Hard-to-Staff Environments. Teachers Coll Record: Voice Scholarsh Educ 113(11):2552\u0026ndash;2585. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111301102\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/016146811111301102\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerzberg F (1968) One more time: How do you motivate employees, vol 65. Harvard Business Review Boston, MA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerzberg F (2015) Motivation-hygiene theory. Organizational Behav 1:61\u0026ndash;74\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolston-Okae BL, Mushi RJ (2018) Employee turnover in the hospitality industry using Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s two-factor motivation-hygiene theory. Int J Acad Res Bus Social Sci 8(1):218\u0026ndash;248\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoltom BC, Mitchell TR, Lee TW, Eberly MB (2008) 5 turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. Acad Manage Annals 2(1):231\u0026ndash;274\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoyos CA, Serna CA (2021) Rewards and faculty turnover: An individual differences approach. Cogent Educ 8(1):1863170. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1863170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186X.2020.1863170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIddrisu I (2023) Influence of staff performance on public university operations: Examining motivation and retention factors. Social Sci Humanit Open 8(1):100744. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100744\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100744\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIqbal J, Asghar A (2020) Effect of University Administrative and Academic Processes on Student Engagement: An Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. UMT Educ Rev 3(2):85\u0026ndash;109. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32350/uer.32.05\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32350/uer.32.05\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaiswal R, Gupta S, Tiwari AK (2023) Dissecting the compensation conundrum: A machine learning-based prognostication of key determinants in a complex labor market. Manag Decis 61(8):2322\u0026ndash;2353\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhalid K, Nawab S (2018) Employee participation and employee retention in view of compensation. Sage Open 8(4):2158244018810067\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan J (2021) European academic brain drain: A meta-synthesis. Eur J Educ 56(2):265\u0026ndash;278. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12449\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ejed.12449\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKorantwi-Barimah JS (2017) Factors influencing the retention of academic staff in a Ghanaian technical university. Hum Resource Manage Res 7(3):111\u0026ndash;119\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKulikowski K, Sedlak P (2023) Is there more to compensation than money? The empirical study of dimensionality of the total rewards model and its implications for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial Bus Econ Rev 11(3):77\u0026ndash;91\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKundu SC, Gahlawat N (2016) Effects of employee retention practices on perceived firm and innovation performance. Int J Innov Learn 19(1):25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2016.073287\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1504/IJIL.2016.073287\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKyaligonza R, Kamagara E (2017) Staff turnover in public universities in Uganda. Makerere J High Educ 9(2):59\u0026ndash;72\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKyndt E, Dochy F, Michielsen M, Moeyaert B (2009) Employee retention: Organisational and personal perspectives. Vocations Learn 2(3):195\u0026ndash;215\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee M, Oh K, Kim H (2025) Effects of Organizational Culture and Pay Levels on Employee Retention: Focused on Generational Difference. Administrative Sci 15(4):125. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040125\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/admsci15040125\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeisyte L, Dee JR (2012) Understanding academic work in a changing institutional environment: Faculty autonomy, productivity, and identity in Europe and the United States. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 27. Springer, pp 123\u0026ndash;206\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMabaso CM, Dlamini BI (2021) Recent study on the impact of compensation and benefits on job satisfaction. Insights into Econ Manage 7(1):55\u0026ndash;68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMathebula T, Banda T (2022) Adjustment Education Programme. Global Citizsh Educ Global South: Educators\u0026rsquo; Perceptions Practices 21:265\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMertler CA, Vannatta RA, LaVenia KN (2021) Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichael Galanakis \u0026amp; Giannis Peramatzis (2022) Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Motivation Theory in Workplace. J Psychol Res 12(12). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2022.12.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17265/2159-5542/2022.12.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMngomezulu BR, Maposa MT (2017) The challenges facing academic scholarship in Africa. In \u003cem\u003eKnowledge and Change in African Universities: Volume 2\u0026ndash;Re-Imagining the Terrain\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 175\u0026ndash;188). SensePublishers Rotterdam\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoeller AK, Creswell JW, Saville N (eds) (2016) Second language assessment and mixed methods research. Cambridge University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoghri J, Mohammad A, Rashidian A, Sari AA (2016) Physician dual practice: A descriptive mapping review of literature. Iran J Public Health 45(3):278\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoshtari M, Safarpour A (2024) Challenges and strategies for the internationalization of higher education in low-income East African countries. High Educ 87(1):89\u0026ndash;109\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMushemeza ED (2016) Opportunities and Challenges of Academic Staff in Higher Education in Africa. Int J High Educ 5(3):p236. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p236\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p236\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMustafa D, Ahsan SC, Aris M, Niswaty R, Arhas SH (2022) SERVICE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ON STUDENT SATISFACTION. Sosiohumaniora 24(3):335. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v24i3.40870\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v24i3.40870\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNambi Karuhanga B, Werner A (2013) Challenges impacting performance management implementation in public universities: A case of Uganda. Afr J Economic Manage Stud 4(2):223\u0026ndash;243\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNdungu DN (2017) The effects of rewards and recognition on employee performance in public educational institutions: A case of Kenyatta University, Kenya. Global J Manage Bus Res 17(1):42\u0026ndash;68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNg\u0026rsquo;ethe JM, Namusonge G, Iravo MA (2012) Influence of leadership style on academic staff retention in public universities in Kenya. Int J Bus Social Sci, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(21)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOchwa-Echel JR (2013) Neoliberalism and university education in Sub-Saharan Africa. SAGE Open 3(3):2158244013504933\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOdiagbe SA (2012) \u003cem\u003eIndustrial conflict in Nigerian universities: A case study of the disputes between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOliveira T, Nada C, Magalh\u0026atilde;es A (2025) Navigating an academic career in marketized universities: Mapping the international literature. Rev Educ Res 95(2):255\u0026ndash;292\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOtt R, Longnecker M (2010) An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Cengage Learning Inc.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePandey P, Pandey MM (2015) \u003cem\u003eResearch methodology: Tools and techniques\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaine OA (2022) \u003cem\u003eThe Influence of Low Wage Compensation on Employee Motivation in an Institution of Higher Education: A Qualitative Exploratory Case Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRasheed MI, Humayon AA, Awan U, Ahmed A (2016) ud D. Factors affecting teachers\u0026rsquo; motivation: An HRM challenge for public sector higher educational institutions of Pakistan (HEIs). \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101\u0026ndash;114\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRassel G, Leland S, Mohr Z (2020) Research methods for public administrators. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRathakrishnan T, Imm NS, Kok TK (2016) Turnover intentions of lecturers in private universities in Malaysia. \u003cem\u003eSocial Sciences \u0026amp; Humanities\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e, 129\u0026ndash;146\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReddy VS (2020) Impact of compensation on employee performance. IOSR J Humanit Social Sci 25(9):17\u0026ndash;22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRudolph JE, Zhong Y, Duggal P, Mehta SH, Lau B (2023) Defining representativeness of study samples in medical and population health research. BMJ Med 2(1):e000399. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000399\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000399\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRwothumio J, Mbirithi DM, Itolondo W (2020) \u003cem\u003eRole of financial rewards in enhancing academic staff performance in public universities in Uganda\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadagheyani HE, Ebrahimi M, Tatari F (2022) Investigating policies and factors affecting the faculty members\u0026rsquo; retention. J Adv Pharm Educ Res 12(1):75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSakarya University (Turkey), \u0026amp;, Ozsoy E (2019) An Empirical Test of Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Motivation Theory. Mark Manage Innovations 11\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2019.1-01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21272/mmi.2019.1-01\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSari Fitri (2024) Evaluation of Compensation Policies and Their Impact on Employee Retention in the Food Industry. Involv Int J Bus 1(1):43\u0026ndash;59. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.62569/iijb.v1i1.6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.62569/iijb.v1i1.6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchendel R, McCowan T (2016) Expanding higher education systems in low-and middle-income countries: The challenges of equity and quality. High Educ 72(4):407\u0026ndash;411\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelesho JM, Naile I (2014) Academic Staff Retention As A Human Resource Factor: University Perspective. Int Bus Econ Res J (IBER) 13(2):295. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v13i2.8444\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.19030/iber.v13i2.8444\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShakeel N, But S (2015) Factors influencing employee retention: An integrated perspective. J Resour Dev Manage 6(1):32\u0026ndash;49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharma G, Syal S (2022) A conceptual analysis of employee turnover intention: The causes of turnover intention in the faculties in higher educational institutions. Int J Res Finance Manage 5(2):283\u0026ndash;289\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin JC, Jung J (2014) Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. High Educ 67(5):603\u0026ndash;620\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShrivastava M, Shrivastava S (2014) Political economy of higher education: Comparing South Africa to trends in the world. High Educ 67(6):809\u0026ndash;822\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiekierski P, Lima MC, Borini FM (2018) International Mobility of Academics: Brain Drain and Brain Gain. Eur Manage Rev 15(3):329\u0026ndash;339. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/emre.12170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh P, Loncar N (2010) Pay Satisfaction, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intent. Relations Industrielles 65(3):470\u0026ndash;490. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7202/044892ar\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7202/044892ar\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpector PE (1997) Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences, vol 3. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpector PE (2022) Job satisfaction: From assessment to intervention. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSutton J, Austin Z (2015) Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm 68(3):226\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSzromek AR, Wolniak R (2020) Job satisfaction and problems among academic staff in higher education. Sustainability 12(12):4865\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTabulawa R (2013) Teaching and learning in context: Why pedagogical reforms fail in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Books Collective\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTehseen S, Ul Hadi N (2015) Factors Influencing Teachers\u0026rsquo; Performance and Retention. Mediterranean J Social Sci. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p233\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p233\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTheron M, Barkhuizen N, Du Plessis Y (2014) Managing the academic talent void: Investigating factors in academic turnover and retention in South Africa. SA J Industrial Psychol 40(1):1\u0026ndash;14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTomlinson M, Watermeyer R (2022) When masses meet markets: Credentialism and commodification in twenty-first century Higher Education. Discourse: Stud Cult Politics Educ 43(2):173\u0026ndash;187\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorres CA, Schugurensky D (2002) The political economy of higher education in the era of neoliberal globalization: Latin America in comparative perspective. High Educ 43(4):429\u0026ndash;455\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrapmann S, Hell B, Hirn J-OW, Schuler H (2007) Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between the Big Five and Academic Success at University. Z F\u0026uuml;r Psychologie / J Psychol 215(2):132\u0026ndash;151. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhyte M, Whyte SR (2015) Dilemmas of knowledge production in Ugandan universities. Higher Education and Capacity Building in Africa. Routledge, pp 41\u0026ndash;57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWitter S, Hamza MM, Alazemi N, Alluhidan M, Alghaith T, Herbst CH (2020) Human resources for health interventions in high-and middle-income countries: Findings of an evidence review. Hum Resour Health 18(1):43\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWoolf B, Edwards P (2021) Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 21(1):265. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12874-021-01435-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"sn-social-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"SN Social Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"VoR Journals","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Academic Staff, Retention, Compensation, University, Uganda","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8728702/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8728702/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the influence of compensation factors on retention intentions among academic staff in Uganda's public universities. Quantitative data were collected from 316 academic staff members at five public universities, while qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews with top university administrators, including the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC), Human Resource officers (HR), and Academic Staff Union Association (AUSA) representatives. The predictor variables demonstrated moderate to strong intercorrelation, with the strongest being between Promotion and Recognition (r = .662). Each of the five job factors was significantly correlated with retention, with recognition (r = .547) and Security (r = .534) showing the strongest bivariate relationships. According to the multiple regression analysis, recognition, promotion prospects, and job stability all predicted intentions for retention, which accounted for 39.6% of the variation. Moderation results showed that designation of staff did not significantly influence the relationship between compensation dimensions and retention. The findings challenge salary-centric compensation models and underscore the importance of non-financial and structural incentives in resource-constrained contexts. Therefore, this study concludes that improvements in job security, promotion, and recognition mechanisms in institutions may offer more sustainable retention strategies for academic staff than salary increments alone in Ugandan public universities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"What Retains Academics in Underfunded Systems? A Multivariable Analysis of Compensation and Staff Retention in Ugandan Public Universities","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-23 08:27:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8728702/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-06T06:52:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-06T02:33:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"107067676651937490659674882007328902097","date":"2026-02-25T08:51:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"273194588627086530674873473580101069293","date":"2026-02-21T05:39:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-19T15:27:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"164570918320665913904559494195953443054","date":"2026-02-19T11:44:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"323752471911503314014066363883696344024","date":"2026-02-19T07:04:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"190599665891991482505432093356309161755","date":"2026-02-19T06:23:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"128475379201020183332552135015186416000","date":"2026-02-19T05:10:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-19T04:58:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-19T03:38:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-03T09:14:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-03T09:10:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"SN Social Sciences","date":"2026-01-29T07:33:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"sn-social-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"SN Social Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"VoR Journals","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4ac04ef1-dbe5-4c4f-8779-43d9d87ecad1","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 23rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-24T08:41:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-23 08:27:13","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8728702","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8728702","identity":"rs-8728702","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}