NEWSLINE - Fall 1999

AACSB/EBI Survey Findings Reveal Little Relationship of Gender, Status and Rank to Business Faculty Satisfaction

What do gender, status and rank have to do with business faculty member satisfaction? Very little, according to further analysis of the AACSB/EBI Survey to examine factors in the satisfaction of management education faculty members.

Gender and Faculty Satisfaction
It often has been suggested that there are aspects of the business faculty member experience that are different, sometimes unfavorably so, for women. Issues of compensation, promotion/tenure, faculty support, influence, and the general culture of business schools would likely be among these issues. While these factors and others often are areas of frustration and anxiety for many faculty members as they progress through their careers, recent survey findings show there is little evidence that these elements are gender-specific.

The survey found that there are in fact some areas in which women faculty are more satisfied than their male counterparts. These include administration (e.g., articulation of goals and objectives, academic freedom, allocation of resources, quality of faculty and administrative appointments, fund-raising, campus relations); teaching facilitation of students' skills (e.g., oral and presentation skills, computer skills, leadership, teamwork, global perspective, application of concepts); and evaluation of both undergraduate and MBA programs.

However, according to the survey, women on the faculty are "less" satisfied in the areas of consulting policies, faculty diversity, and the policies for teaching assignments and schedules. Interestingly, there are a number of potentially career-threatening factors for which women and men do not differ in their levels of satisfaction. These include faculty support, faculty development, compensation, promotion and tenure, faculty influence, and culture. Notably, also, women and men do not differ in their overall satisfaction.

Status (Tenured/ Untenured/ Non-tenure Track) and Faculty Satisfaction
"It often is discussed - sometimes whispered - that there are marked status differences in the contemporary business school, as in the university-at-large," said Dan R. Dalton, Indiana University business dean who serves as a research consultant to AACSB/EBI projects. "It might be reasonably anticipated that junior, un-tenured faculty members do not enjoy the same privileges as their more senior colleagues, or at least do not perceive that they do. Also, it probably is fair to suggest that many observers would attribute 'second-class' status to non-tenure track faculty members," he said.

Yet Table 1 provides a series of results that do not sustain those sentiments. "Notice, first, that there is no case in which tenured faculty members are more satisfied than their un-tenured and non-tenure track colleagues," said Dalton. "In several areas, un-tenured faculty members are, in fact, more satisfied than their tenured counterparts." These include faculty support, service, faculty development, the teaching evaluation process, administration, student placement, and the general culture of the school.

Table 1: Tenured, Non-Tenured Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track Faculty Satisfaction
Factors for Which Non-Tenure Track Faculty are More Satisfied Than Tenure Track (Tenured and Non-Tenured) Faculty	Factors for Which Non-Tenured Tenure Track Faculty are More Satisfied Than Tenured Faculty	Factors for Which Tenured Faculty are More Satisfied Than Un-Tenured and Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Faculty Support (e.g., research and teaching assistants, research and teaching grants, travel, international activities) Service (university, school, professional) Faculty Development (e.g., teaching and research skills; global and multidisciplinary teaching and research) Classroom Technology 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) 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) Student Placement Culture (e.g., faculty share common vision, relationships with fellow faculty members within discipline, general collegiality, mentoring programs) Overall Satisfaction	Faculty Support (e.g., research and teaching assistants, research and teaching grants, travel, international activities) Service (university, school, professional) Faculty Development (e.g., teaching and research skills; global and multidisciplinary teaching and research) 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) Evaluation of MBA program (e.g., curriculum, quality of teaching, quality of students) Student Placement Culture (e.g., faculty share common vision, relationships with fellow faculty members within discipline, general collegiality, mentoring programs)	NONE

The most surprising survey results are associated with non-tenure track faculty. "There is not a single factor in which either tenured or un-tenured faculty members are more satisfied than their non-tenure track colleagues," said Dalton. "Conversely, non-tenure track faculty members are more satisfied in 12 of 20 elements, and there is no difference in their satisfaction in the remaining factors."

For several of the factors, however, such a result may not be surprising. Dalton pointed out that non-tenure track faculty members, for example, probably do have less service obligations and presumably are satisfied with that state of affairs. "Perhaps teaching evaluation, too, is less an issue since there are fewer trade-offs between the teaching, research, service and outreach missions. There may be many other factors that have this character," he said. "Notice, however, that non-tenure track faculty members have higher overall satisfaction and higher satisfaction with faculty support and the general culture of the school. Also, they are no less satisfied with compensation." Given that many schools of business are increasingly dependent on non-tenure track faculty, Dalton said these general findings are worthy of further study.

Rank and Faculty Satisfaction
Table 2 provides a comparison of faculty satisfaction by traditional ranks-assistant professor, associate professor and full professor. It would be anticipated that as a person progresses through these ranks, there may be concomitant increases in privilege. "There may be," said Dalton, "but it clearly is not linear. Curiously, those with associate rank are, on average, the least satisfied members of the faculty." The survey showed there is no case in which associate professors are more satisfied than either their assistant professor of full professor counterparts. "It also is clear that those with full rank are, on average, the most satisfied," said Dalton. "This is apparent for compensation/promotion/tenure, policies for teaching assignments and schedules, faculty influence, consulting policies, and evaluation of doctoral programs."

Table 2: Satisfaction by Faculty Rank
Factors for Which Full Professors are More Satisfied Than Associate Professors	Factors for Which Assistant Professors are More Satisfied Than Associate and Full Professors	Factors for Which Associate Professors are More Satisfied Than Assistant and Full Professors
Faculty Support (e.g., research and teaching assistants, research and teaching grants, travel, international activities) Faculty Development (e.g., teaching and research skills; global and multidisciplinary teaching and research) Compensation/ Promotion and Tenure (e.g., current salary, annual review process, P&T process, post-tenure review) Policies for Teaching Assignments and Schedules Faculty Influence (e.g., tenure & promotion decisions, curriculum development, resource allocation) Consulting Policies Evaluation of Doctoral Program (e.g., student recruitment, research methodology, interdisciplinary perspective, teaching and research preparation) Culture (e.g., faculty share common vision, relationships with fellow faculty members within discipline, general collegiality, mentoring programs) Overall Satisfaction	Service (university, school, professional) Administration (e.g., articulation of goals and objectives, academic freedom, allocation of resources, quality of faculty and administrative appointments, fund-raising, campus relations) Culture (e.g., faculty share common vision, relationships with fellow faculty members within discipline, general collegiality, mentoring programs)	NONE

It could be that associate professors as a group truly are in the middle, not only in rank, but in support, Dalton said. Many schools provide three years or so of summer support for newly hired assistant professors. Schools also may provide additional support for travel and related research and teaching initiatives. "Also, I suspect that service obligations are, on average, far less for assistant professors," said Dalton. "Compensation for assistant professors also is likely to be more market- competitive. If it were not, then hiring at the assistant level would be very difficult. In balance, then, we could speculate that many of the advantages in differential support that accrue at the assistant level have been exhausted by the time faculty members become associate professors. At the same time, the differential advantages associated with full rank are not yet available either," he said.

Conclusion
While some of the survey results are provocative, they should be interpreted with some caution. "These results are the compilation of many faculty members in many institutions," said Dalton. "An individual school of business could have a very different experience. There could be, for example, serious gender issues or sobering disparities in satisfaction by status or rank. It also would be informative to compare a given school's indicators with a group of its peers."

Schools that have participated in the AACSB/EBI surveys (e.g., undergraduate, full-time and part-time MBA student satisfaction; faculty satisfaction) receive extensive information about their own students and faculty. In addition, participating schools select six peer/competitor institutions of their choice. Accordingly, the participating school can compare its results with the results of its select six group. In the interests of confidentiality, however, peer/competitor schools are not individually labeled in the results. Through this procedure, a school's results can be more fairly interpreted in an appropriate context.