What matters to the contemporary business school faculty member? As illustrated in Table 1, easily the single best predictor of overall satisfaction for business school faculty members is "administration." This includes elements such as the (1) clear articulation of goals for the business school; (2) respect for the academic freedom of the faculty; (3) an allocation of resources consistent with the mission of the school; (4) clear vision for degree programs; (5) quality of faculty and administrative appointments; (6) external fund-raising; and, (7) effectiveness of negotiation for resources from university administration. Few will be surprised that activities like these are apparently of importance to school of business faculty. Even so, the prominence of these elements - the major predictor of faculty satisfaction - was unexpected.

The "culture" of business schools is another important factor in the overall satisfaction of faculty members. Included here is the degree to which the faculty share a common vision for the school. Mentorship activities by senior faculty are another important element. Lastly, relationships with fellow faculty members in their discipline, as well as the general collegiality within the school, are evidently highly valued. There are two other major predictors of faculty satisfaction - compensation/promotion and tenure policies and faculty support. Their inclusion in the list of important elements would seem unexceptional. What may be notable, however, is their position in third and fourth place behind the administrative policies and cultural dimensions, as have been described.

Faculty member attention to compensation and promotion and tenure issues is comprised of several elements. Satisfaction with their current salary is among them, as is the annual review process. Also included is the fairness of the promotion and tenure system. Faculty also are interested in the post-tenure review process.

Faculty support is the last entry in the "major" predictors of overall faculty satisfaction. As would be expected, this comprises several aspects. The availability of research and teaching assistants is important, as are grant programs for both teaching and research. Also, faculty members' satisfaction is affected by travel support and the availability of international opportunities.

There are two other factors relevant to faculty satisfaction, but it should be noted that their contribution is quite limited. The business faculty of public schools are less satisfied than their private school counterparts. Also, it is true that faculty members with more years of service are slightly more satisfied than their less senior colleagues. This relationship is for total years as a faculty member, not years at his or her current institution.

An Imposing List of Factors That Are Unrelated to Business School Faculty Satisfaction
Table 1 also illustrates those factors that have no impact on overall faculty satisfaction. While each element need not be reviewed in detail, there are several that may be surprising, and others a bit sobering.

Common faculty refrains in contemporary business schools include reservations, if not regrets, about class sizes and the press of departmental, school, university and professional service. Neither of these, however, is a factor in overall faculty satisfaction. Also, frustrations about the requirements and challenges of publishing are commonly recounted among faculty colleagues. Even so, the total number of publications, refereed and non-refereed, is not an issue in assessing faculty satisfaction. Perhaps as surprising as any of these results is the role, or lack thereof, for tenure status. Given the trials and tribulations of the tenure process and associated anxiety for many, one would think that having tenure would contribute to faculty members' overall satisfaction. Not so. A related finding is that academic rank (assistant, associate, full) is not a factor in overall satisfaction either.

Much also has been said about computer support, hardware and software, for faculty members. Most business schools also have made substantial investments in classroom technology. Neither of these is a factor in the assessment of overall faculty satisfaction.

It is fair to say that many, if not most, schools of business have increasing requirements for the quality of classroom teaching. Few would disagree that traditional weights for research, teaching and service have been reallocated, at least to some degree, with a greater emphasis on teaching. There also has been increasing attention to faculty "rights." Some of this focus may be in response to more discussion about the long-term viability of tenure, the increasing percentage of non-tenure track faculty, and a perceived shift in curricular initiatives more centralized in programs as compared to the departmental level. There also may be a concomitant shift to more centralized resource allocation, as well. In any case, these and other aspects of influence, whether flagging or otherwise, are not factors in business school faculty satisfaction.

Another set of factors that are unrelated to faculty satisfaction may be a bit sobering to many involved in the administration of schools of business. At the risk of some understatement, many schools have been increasingly involved in curricular innovation designed to increase the set of student "skills." Many schools highlight aspects of their programs providing improvement of students' oral and written communication/presentation skills. Computer skills, and application of technology more generally, often is an area of emphasis. Leadership, teamwork and global perspectives are emphasized, as well. Interestingly, none of these elements, many of which are arguably at the leading edge of business education, is a factor in the overall satisfaction of faculty members.

There may be yet another intriguing disconnect between the objectives of many business schools and those factors that drive the satisfaction of their faculty. The quality of teaching and curricula for the undergraduate and MBA program, for example, do not contribute to overall faculty satisfaction. Similar elements in doctoral pro-grams, too, are of no consequence. Relatedly, the quality and effectiveness of business placement services are unimportant in understanding overall faculty satisfaction. "

Among the most interesting results of the AACSB/EBI faculty satisfaction project is the apparent uncoupling between the major elements contributing to faculty satisfaction and program objectives," noted Dan R. Dalton, dean of the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, who is project research consultant. "Effective students' skills training and innovative programs will not be sustained unless faculty internalize these objectives," he said. "If the effectiveness of such initiatives is a matter of little concern to the faculty-at-large, we will not succeed. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to realign our incentive structures so that program objectives and faculty interests are more convergent."

Survey Methodology

Faculty members received a comprehensive questionnaire that included a variety of demographic questions (e.g., gender, ethnicity, academic rank, tenure status, years at current institution, years as a faculty member, academic discipline, number of refereed and non-refereed publications). There were 88 questions in a 1-7 scale format addressing a variety of areas associated with management education faculty satisfaction. Participating institutions, in addition to receiving extensive information about the satisfaction of their own faculty, received comparative information about six peer/competitor programs of their choice. A participating school is able to compare its faculty's satisfaction with, for example, research and teaching grants, with the average faculty satisfaction on the same element for the six peer institutions. While the individual school results are reported, the six schools are not labeled so the identity of a specific school is not revealed, protecting each school's anonymity. Results may not be used for marketing purposes or shared outside the university and are intended to support assessment and continuous improvement efforts at the school level.

Top of Page

Survey Questions & Areas

The fundamental question raised by the AACSB/EBI joint project is what are the elements associated with high levels of faculty satisfaction in schools of business. Consistent with that objective, the study relied on four questions to capture the "overall satisfaction" of faculty members.

Overall, how satisfied are you with your career choice?

Overall, how satisfied are you being a faculty member in this business school?

Based on your current level of satisfaction with the institution, how likely are you to choose to continue as a member of this faculty?

Based on your current level of satisfaction, how likely would you be to recommend that a friend accept a faculty position with your business school?

These four questions were combined into a psychometrically sound construct for overall faculty satisfaction. The survey also relied on a series of questions assessing general areas that may be relevant to the satisfaction of those on faculty at a business school:

Faculty Support (e.g., research and teaching assistants, research and teaching grants, travel, international activities)

Service (university, school, professional)

Computer Support (hardware, software)

Support for Faculty Development (e. g., teaching and research skills; global and multidisciplinary teaching and research)

Classroom Technology

Compensation/Promotion and Tenure (e. g., current salary, annual review process, P&T process, post-tenure review)

Teaching Work Load (e.g., credit hours taught, class size)

Teaching Evaluation (e.g., overall process, students' teaching evaluation)

Administration (e.g., articulation of goals and objectives, academic freedom, allocation of resources, quality of faculty and administrative appointments, fund-raising, campus relations)

Policies for Teaching Assignments and Schedules

Faculty Influence (e.g., tenure & promotion decisions, curriculum development, resource allocation)

Consulting Policies

Facilitation of Students' Skills Development (e.g., oral and presentation skills, computer skills, leadership, teamwork, global perspective, application of concepts)

Evaluation of MBA Program (e.g., curriculum, quality of teaching, quality of students)

Evaluation of Undergraduate Program (e.g., curriculum, quality of teaching, quality of students)

Evaluation of Doctoral Program (e.g., student recruitment, research methodology, interdisciplinary perspective, teaching and research preparation)

Student Placement

Culture (e.g., faculty share common vision, relationships with fellow faculty members within discipline, general collegiality, mentoring programs)

Faculty Diversity (e.g., women, minority, international faculty)

Top of Page