Brain drain in higher education has emerged as a global sustainability challenge, necessitating nuanced talent retention strategies. This study defines high-level talents (HLTHE) in higher education as an operational dual construct: established academic professionals with doctoral degrees or associate senior professional titles, and emerging PhD candidates with outstanding research potential and demonstrated academic productivity (e.g., published papers in core journals or participation in provincial-level or above research projects). This cohort is distinguished from general skilled employees by its possession of domain-specific advanced human capital, irreplaceable academic research capabilities, and core roles in disciplinary construction and scientific innovation. Employing Kano’s Theory of Attractive Quality, combined with the theoretical underpinnings of Social Exchange Theory and Job Embeddedness Theory, we classify 36 retention-related attributes via 40 interviews and a survey of 203 professionals (supplemented by 102 PhD candidates for subgroup comparisons). Based on the professional subsample, this exploratory Kano analysis categorizes 19 attributes into Must-be, One-Dimensional, Attractive, and Indifferent types. The Total Satisfaction Index (TSI) identifies “flexible work arrangements” (0.42), “offering international academic exchange opportunities” (0.38), and “organizing high-level meetings” (0.36) as the most influential. One-Dimensional attributes exhibit higher average satisfaction coefficients (mean ASC = 0.57) than Attractive ones (mean ASC = 0.45). Subgroup analyses reveal career-stage moderation (e.g., scientific evaluation mechanism shifts from Attractive for professionals to Must-be for PhD candidates) and selective gender differences (e.g., interesting work appeals more to males, while cross-disciplinary platforms appeal more to females). These exploratory findings provide a classification-based perspective for understanding talent retention in central and western Chinese universities, contributing to context-specific strategy development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: