What matters to teachers? : motivators and demotivators in high and low committed schools -

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify the different commitment profiles of the teachers in Armenian private schools and to investigate the factors that act as motivators and demotivators in a Highly committed and a Less committed school. Many school organizations around the world are nowadays facing teacher shortage (UIS, 2012) particularly because of the increase in the flow of teachers leaving (Curtis, 2012). Many researchers established that there is a connection between turnover and organizational commitment and suggested that in order to enhance the latter the motivational factors that can enhance it need to be identified and understood (Gagne, Chemolli, Forest, and Koestner, 2008; Johnson, Chang, and Yang 2010). This case study follows an exploratory design. First, 6 Armenian private schools located in the Beirut area were selected based on their religious affiliations (Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical). Full-time teachers in each school were invited to voluntarily participate in the study by completing the 18 item Organizational Commitment Scale (OCS) (Meyer, Allen, and Smith, 1993). Results were calculated to identify the extreme cases; the school with highest commitment and the school with the lowest commitment. In the second phase of the study, teachers from these 2 selected schools were recruited for individual and group interviews. Through these interviews, the researcher was able to identify the motivators and the demotivators of teachers with different commitment levels. Data gathered from the Highly committed school revealed teachers’ motivators to be: (a) Teaching itself; (b) Making a contribution to their community; (c) Witnessing students’ engagement in learning and their progress; (d) Receiving appreciation from students; (e) Receiving appreciation from the administration; (f) Having a supportive school leadership; (g) Having a welcoming school climate. The demotivators were: (a) Students’ low achievement; (b) Non-pedagogically based accommodation of student demands; (c) La