Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 367 258 HE 027 226
AUTHOR Moore, Kathryn M.; Gardner, Philip D.TITLE Faculty in a Time of Change; Job Satisfaction and
Career Mobility.INSTITUTION Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Career
Development and Placement Services.; Michigan StateUniv., East Lansing. Collegiate Employment ResearchInst.
SPONS AGENCY Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Mich.PUB DATE [92]
NOTE 36p.AVAILABLE FROM Michigan State University, Career Development and
Placement Services, East Lansing, MI 48824-1113.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *College Faculty; Faculty College Relationship;
*Faculty Mobility; Faculty Workload; HigherEducation; *Job Satisfaction; Teacher Attitudes;Teacher Characteristics; Teacher Morale; TimeManagement
IDENTIFIERS *Michigan State University
ABSTRACT
A study was done of faculty job satisfaction andmobility at Michigan State University (MSU) by surveying allfull-time faculty and specialists there. A multiple-item survey wassent to each participant during February and March 1991. Responsestotaled 1,014, a 51 percent response rate. Most respondents hadtenure, were hired between 1967 and 1980, and their average age was49 years. On analysis of the data, several findings emerged,including the following: (1) most respondents spent 35 percent oftheir time teaching, 26 percent conducting research, and the rest onother activities; (2) mo.t would like to devote less time toteaching, service, and administrative activities; (3) jobsatisfaction was high with 73 percent "Eomewhat" to "very satisfied";(4) 23 percent were interested in leaving MSU, 21 percent wereuncertain about their intention, 11 percent planned to retire, and 23percent would resign for a similar position at another university;(5) of 44 possible reasons for leaving MSU the top 5 wereavailability of research funds, research opportunities, reputation ofthe department, departmental leadership, and salary; and (6) facultywere concerned about a proliferation of administrative positions thatisolated them from decision-making. Overall the study concludes thatthe faculty wants and needs a productive environment for qualityteaching, research, and service; a stronger voice in thedecision-making process; and while institutional loyalty remainsstrong, the temptation to exit only lies slightly submerged below thedaily activities of the faculty. (JB)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
'
U S DCPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Rematch and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
ID/this document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizahonoriginating it
0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality
Points of view Of opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOE RI position or pohcy
'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS:*3 MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Collegiate Employment
"MI '714 af's -
R- larch InstituteMich State Uniy
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERICI
FACULTY IN A TIME OF CHANGE:1. a
I; The excellenceof higher educationis a function ofthe kind of peopleit is able to enlistand retain on itsfaculties. 5 5
Z
0 '
,[C 0. N. 17",ittlif4::. 7;
"4:".1fifteisIge.5
FaceJobSigiiiifiiiabilifys'-.,$4.1tfighotts
s
''''st% Pitfile-%-:4....
,mg,......,..:,...-- --%.-----:.,::
--, ..:,.410ff04W$U4MNS
7-
Job Safgaclion
.0M,AgbIpparisons
13
Leave
Reasws 4aving
14AWttnefatian
: . The Patted Posillon?
f S I
1
Funding was provided by the CollegiateEmployment Research Institute and the
1 W.K. Kellogg Lifelong Education Grant.
3/Err
16Leverag0* Position
Instilutonal issues
Lading TOWard 1995
Minotities
21
Discussion
23:Ceindision
Bibliography:
"tsopendkes
Facer/MI.6 Challenges
Beginning in the mid1980s, several nation-al studies, most nota-
bly Bowen's and Schuster's AmericanProfessors: A National Resource Im-perilled, called attention to the erosionof faculty morale (p. v). Bowen andSchuster traced faculty anxiety to "thedownturn in the number of high schoolgraduates and the uncertainty aboutprospective financial support" (p. 7).Yet the pressures on faculty to be high-ly productive scholars, teachers, andknowledge extenders have not relent-ed. "In all, the changes pervadinghigher education have had profoundeffects upon the academic profession"(P.7).
Seldom in history have the num-ber and magnitude of issues pressingupon higher education caused as muchconcern and spurred searches for an-swers. Demographic projections of the1970s failed to materialize, rather thanshrinking enrollments, many schoolssaw enrollments stabilize or soar as"new students" (women, minorities,adults) enrolled in increasing numbers.Institutions who have primarily reliedon the traditional 18 to 22 year oldstudent may face declining enrollmentsthroughout the 1990s; however, manyinstitutions have adjusted their offer-ings to accommodate demographicshifts. Implementing these changeshave not been easy in the shifting quick-sand of financial support. Rapidlyrising tuition reflects the inability ofstate governments to provide continu-ally increasing support for public insti-tutions. Soothed by the economic re-covery of the mid-1980s and the gener-osity of government during this period,many institutions were unprepared forthe dramatic financial cuts that beganto appear by 1990, certainly 1991.
Hit on two sides by enrollmentchanges and financial instability, addi-tionil blows were struck by championsof educational reform. Reformers woremany masks: business and industryleaders who have been trying to re-structure their organizations to meet
the challenges of a global marketplace;those who strive for geater social di-versity; and champions of the tradi-tional basic precepts of Western educa-tion. These reforms have come aswrapped boxes which, when opened,have released conflict over values, at-titudes, and institutional mission. Nev-ertheless, campus administrations andfaculties have responded by examiningcurricular offerings anti programs inorder to better prepare their graduatesfor the future they face.
Michigan State University, by herlocation in a state undergoing signifi-cant economic realignment and by hertradition as a pioneering landgrant in-stitution, has encountered many oftheseissues early, prior to many other insti-tutions. University leaders have at-tempted to address many of the prob-lems head-on; while, at the same time,striving to incorporate changes thatwill have a positive long term impacton the institution. Curriculum reform,semester conversion, deepening finan-cial challenges, and a host of additionalalterations have placed Michigan StateUniversity at the leading edge of changeamong peer institutions.
As these changes unfold, the im-pact on the faculty may be far reaching.Faculty will do things differently. Theirtime will be reallocated as budget re-strictions continue, and their teachingresponsibilities may change. How fac-ulty will respond, collectively and in-dividually, is not known. Some willgrab onto these changes with gusto,while others will resist, often bitterly.The timing seems appropriate to takethe pulse of the faculty in a formal andsystematic way to capture how thefaculty view these changes and whatthey are thinking about in terms of theirown careers.
Clark Kerr once described the-modern university as "a series of indi-vidual faculty entrepreneurs held to-gether by a common grievance overparking" (Kerr, 1963, p.20). The qua-si-autonomous nature of the academicprofessor's career is never more obvi-ous than in a research university wherethe ability to advance in one's career iscontingent upon the ability to changejobs. Usually, the "pull" of job
opportunities elsewhere is counteredby the "pull" of job satisfactions at thecurrent institution. There is a level ofinertia that must be overcome to stim-ulate a faculty member to considerchanging jobs. At what point is theinertia to remain in a place overcome?When does the internal "pull" becomea "push" that causes the balance toshift? What are the thoughts of Mich-igan State University's faculty regard-ing the changes they see coming andhave experienced. How are thesechanges affecting their own sense ofsatisfaction and career progress?
This report provides a profile ofMichigan State University faculty at aparticular point in time: Spring, 1991.A benchmark is established with thisreport concerning faculty attitudes, sat-isfactions, and concerns. It serves as ameasure of the impact resulting fromthe many changes that are occurring atthis institution. No specific change hasbeen singled out for study; change, inthis text, refers to the totality of actionsbeing pursued across campus. By re-visiting the faculty in a few years, abetter determination of these impactscan be ascertained. This summaryhighlights the major findings and pointsof concern found in the benchmarkdata.
Both the National Cen-ter for Education Sta-tistics (1988) and
Astin, Korn and Dey (1991) examined,on a national level, the satisfactionfaculty members derive from their jobs.Overall, the majority of faculty weresatisfied with their employment. Somework dimensions could certainly beimproved: in particular, salary, rela-tionships between administrators andfaculty, and the quality of undergradu-ate students. Even though job satisfac-tion appeared to be high in the mid1980s, Bowen's and Schuster's (1986)detailed examination of aca deme founddisturbing signs of a deteriorating en-
vironment that was generally unhealthyin terms of morale, quality of life andfuture career promise.
Faculty members have entered in-stitutions motivated by the desire toachieve a certain level of success intheir field. The attainment of this goalwould be influenced by factors exter-nal to the campus (eg. family) andthose that are internal (eg. instructionalresources) which may require adjust-ments in one's definition of success.Job satisfaction reflects how well anorganizational member has adjustedcareer aspirations to internal factors. Asatisfied faculty member should be suc-cessful and the successful faculty mem-ber should be satisfied (Cytrynbaumand Crites, 1989). Low job satisfactioncan imply that a faculty member hasnot been able to meet institutional ex-pectations and is in the process ofdisaffiliating from the institution. How-ever, low job satisfaction can also sig-nal a "climate of neglect" that couldforce highly successful faculty mem-bers to pursue opportunities elsewhere(Nicholson and West, 1988).
In the process of courting and ac-cepting a posi-tion at an insti-tution, facultymembers, evenhighly success-ful ones, pro-vide no guaran-tee that theywill remain. Toencourage fac-ulty to stay, es-pecially theirstars, institu-tions can be generous in terms of sal-ary, research support, and teaching as-signments. Many institutions, howev-er, can only offer modest salary in-creases; instead they must provide anenvironment with adequate facilitiesand support for teaching and research.In return, institutions rely on the facul-ty's deep sense of loyalty to the institu-tion for stability. Yet, with tighteningfiscal resources, it is often the environ-ment that is the first to suffer.
Matier (1990) viewed faculty mo-bility from an eclectic position, bor-rowing from mobility and retention.
job satisfaction, organizational equi-librium and commitment frameworks.He utilized a push-pull metaphor toexplain how faculty exit from an insti-tution. Push-pull forces exert pres-sures that work against each other, asillustrated by the arrows in Figure 1.
A pull from another institution maybe higher salary while the push keepingone in the current location may becommunity and schools for the chil-dren. A push to leave from the currentinstitution may be lack of clerical andresearch support while the pull to staymay be the loss of autonomy in a newposition.
A number of factors come intoplay in order to overcome the inertia ofbeing in a place. It takes more than anoverpowering pull or a strenuous push;rather it is an accumulation of pushesand pulls, that build up, allowing afinal push or pull to cause movement
Matier found that assistant and fullprofessors, generally males, involvedin research were the most likely to seekoutside employment offers. With anoffer in hand, faculty members haveseveral options. They can dangle the
Forces Influencing Exiting an Institution
a.2 Push to Stay(i)
Push to Go--->
Pull to GoMI11)11111111
Pull to
=-CD^^4
Stay=r.
-
offer in front of administrators to lever-age for a better package. In thesesituations, Matier found faculty gainedsalary increases that ranged from 19%to 24%. If the faculty member accept-ed the offer, the gains were even largcr.29% to 44% salary increases and pro-motion in rank or administrative re-sponsibilities. But those who soughtno offers or elected not to act upon theoffers they received, salaries increasedonly 7% or 8%.
For Matier's faculty sample, workenvironment was a critical dimensionin the final deci- sion to leave.
5
The tangible benefits of a well-equipped, properly maintained facilitythat required little personal investmentbecame a major pull to stay or push toleave (Matier, 1990). The "climate ofneglect" became the driving force inthese decisions to leave. Intangiblefactors and non-work related dimen-sions also influenced decisions (Maher,1990).
The internal pushes build, becom-ing stronger; strong enough to over-come inertia. According to Schusterand Wheeler (1990), the pushes areincreasingly exerting more pressure onfaculty to leave their institutions, pos-sibly leaving academics all together.Eight major developments seem to bebehind the pressure to exit (Figure 2,from Schuster and Wheeler).
Leading Pressures to Exit1.
Deteriorating workingconditions
2.
Compensation3.
Weak labor markets4.
Conflicting expectations5.
Aging, tenured faculty6.
Shifting values7.
Compressed careerladders
8.
Faculty morale
Figur 2
In times of change, these factorsall come into play. The unansweredquestion: Will these pressures exert theforce necessary to overcome the facul-ty's inertia to remain in place and causethem to leave their institution.
Methods
articipants: A list oftenure-stream facultyand teaching special-
ists was provided by the Assistant Vice-President for Academic Human Re-sources. After paring the list for fac-ulty members unavailable during thesurvey period, the total sample popula-tion .:onsisted of 2051 faculty mem-bers and specialists. A faculty profilerevealed that the total population con-sisted of 54.1% full professors, 77.7%men, 89% Whites, 80.3% tenured fac-ulty and 39.2% with 20 or more yearsat the university.Procedures: A 100% sampling strate-gy was selected because of the highnumber oftenured, full professors. Anymethod of stratification would be com-plex if other characteristics were con-sidered. Department chairpersons wereappraised of the study's objectives pri-or to the surveys' distribution, and askedto promote the study among their fac-ulties and colleagues. A survey ac-companied by a cover letter and areturn envelope, was mailed to thefaculty in March, 1991. Shortly afterthe response deadline, all non-respon-dents received a second survey. A fewdays later a postcard was sent encour-aging faculty to participate. The col-lection of data was completed in June,1991.Instrumentation: A survey was de-signed that tapped into various dimen-sions that could influence a facultymember's decision to stay or leave theuniversity. Mobley's, et.al (1979)model, representing the primary vari-ables that influence employee turn-over, served as a guide for constructingthe questions. Specific questions weremodified from the National Center forEducation Statistics' Survey of Fac-ulty in Higher Education Institutions(1988) and Matier (1990). These ques-tions offered the opportunity to com-pare results from national samples.Questions on dual-career couples weredrawn from on-going work by the prin-cipal investigators.
The survey was pre-tested withtwelve faculty members who critiquedformat, wording, and construction.After several major revi8ions, the finalsurvey covered job sati :faction, timeallocation across work vtivities, rea-sons for leaving, intentions to leave,dual careers, and faculty issues within
the institution.
facullyProfile
esponses totaled 1014with an additional 23who elected not to
participate. The response rate was50.5%. In addition to comparing thcprofile of those who responded to theMSU faculty profile, additional com-parisons can be made with two nationalprofiles. The National Center for Edu-cation Statistics (NCES) project sur-veyed faculty at 480 institutions, in-cluding public research universities(NCES, 1988). In 1990 the HigherEducation Research Institute (HERI)interviewed faculty at 392 insfitutions,including public research institutions.Profiles for all four groups are pro-vided in Table 2 on page 5. Theinformation from this survey reflectsresponses from full-time fac-ulty.
Michigan State's facultydiffers from national norms inseveral significant ways. Themost striking difference is thehigh percentage of faculty atthe full professor rank (54%)and the low percentage at theassistant level (15%); comparedto national figures of 36% and26%, respectively.
The majority of full pro-fessors earned their current rankby being promoted throughouttheir tenure at MSU. Approxi-mately twelve percent (12%)came to MSU with the rank offull professor or were awardedthe rank upon appointment since1982.
With a high percentage offull professors, the number oftenured faculty is correspond-ingly high: 80% compared tonational figures between 61%to 70%. Likewise, the age dis-tribution ofthe faculty is skewedslightly toward the older end ( >55 years) with only 37% lessthan age 44.
aOn two charac-
6
teristics, Michigan State's facultytracked closely to the national profiles:nearly 90% of the faculty was whiteand 78% was male.
Ile survey response group com-pared closely with the university pop-ulation on all characteristics. Fifty-five percent (55%) were full profes-sors; 76% male; 90% white, 79% ten-ured; and 35% with 20 years or moreservice at the university. With thisprofile closely resembling the totalpopulation, generalizations to the en-tire campus community were possible.
Response rates did vary by col-lege. (Tablel.) The Colleges of Agri-culture and Natural Resources, Educa-tion, Communication Arts and Science,Human Ecology, Nursing, OsteopathicMedicine and Social Sciences re-sponded at a rate higher than the 50%average. Lowest rates were receivedfrom the College of Arts and Lettersand James Madison.
Respbnse RateAccording to college
College
Agriculture and Natural Resources 60
Arts and Letters 39
Business 43
Communication Arts and Sciences 59
Education 63
Engineering 42
Human Ecology 57
Human Medicine 46
James Madison 32
Natural Sciences 41
Nursing 54
Osteopathic Medicine 51
Social Sciences 50
Veterinary Medicine 51
Non-College 69
Others 44
Urban Affairs
Profile of Full-Time Faculty at Michigan State University andSurvey Group as Compared to WO National Studies ...(Percent.)
Academic RankProfessor
Associate
Assistant
Specialist
1
RaceWhite
African-American
Other
1
Age
Less Than 30
30 to 44
45 to 54
55 and Up
Years Hired ByCurrent Institution
Before 1967
1967 to 81
Since 1981
2
Tenured
GenderMen
Women
1 All Four-Year Institutions2 Public Four-Year Institutions3 Figures from Jan 1 1994
HERI
361
29
26
9
902
4
5
21
40
33
25
192
45
36
70
79
21
NCES
371
27
26
10
891
3
8
40
25
25
NA
NA
NA
611
751
25
5
MSU
54
27
15
4
89
4
7
32
41
36
22
16
42
42
80
78
22
MSU SurveyPopulation
55
25
17
4
90
3
7
1
37
30
30
21
42
37
81
76
24
Table 2
Profile Descriptors
Using the responsesfrom selected ques-tions, groups were
created that represented different fac-ulty cohorts. In some cases, responseswere collapsed to facilitate the analy-ses. These groupings are introducedand described here in order that thediscussions that follow proceed with-out further digressions.Time Allocation: Respondents re-viewed their work schedule during Fallterm 1990, and estimated the amountof time they spent on teaching, re-search, advising, professional devel-opment, service and extension, admin-istration and governance, and otheractivities. Respondents provided thepercentage of their time allocated tothese activities. According to Figure 3,faculty members typically spent theirtime teaching (35%) and in research(26%) with their remaining time dis-tributed among the other activities.
Men and women allocated theirtime somewhat differently, especiallyin time given to teaching and research.Women spent 38% of their time teach-ing compared to 34% for men. Thisadditional teaching time came fromresearch where women spent only 22%of their time while men spent 27%. Forboth activities the differences were sig-
Figure 3
Allocation of Timeto DifferentActivities
ProfessionalDev. 3%
nificant. Figure 4 illustrates the alloca-tion of time for men and women (aver-ages) among designated activities.
These figures reflect average ap-pointments for faculty members. How-ever, some individuals allocated moretime to one activity than others. Usinga time allocation of 50% to one activityas a criterion, a variable "GROUP" wascreated. GROUP sorted individuals byhow they allocated their time. Forexample, if someone spent 50% ormore of their time teaching, they wereclassified as primarily teaching. Simi-
lady,
research, extension/service and admin-istration were other subgroups. Ifsomeone's time did not exceed 50% inany functional area, they were includedin a "balanced" category. Thus,GROUP was comprised of five sub-groups: teaching (n = 308), research (n= 145), extension (n = 69), administra-tion (n = 108), and balanced (n = 386).Interest in Leaving: A question askedrespondents their interest in staying orleaving the University. The INTER-EST variable contains three groups:
Adv s ng 8%
Male
Other 1%
ProfessionalDev. 2%
Allocation of Time forMale & Female Faculty
Female
Other 1%
Professional Dev.3%
8
Extenfon/Sante.11%
Mws ng 8%
Research 22%
(1) those who expressed any interest inleaving; (2) those who were not surewhether they wanted to leave; and (3)those interested in staying at MichiganState.Dual Career: Approximately 63% ofall respondents reported that theirspouse or partner was working outsidethe home. Of those who indicated theywere in a committed relationship, 70%had working partners. Slightly over aquarter, 28%, of these partners wereworking at Michigan State. For thosepartners working in different locations,the distance between locations rangedfrom I to 9,990 miles with the medianbeing six miles. Some partners had toaccept living considerable distancesapart in order to be employed in theirfields.
Several differences between maleand female faculty are worth noting.Female faculty are much more likely tobe in a dual career relationship, 86%,compared to 69% of the men. It is alsomore likely that a female's partnerworked at Michigan State; (41% re-ported both worked at MSU where only25% of the men). However, for part-ners of women faculty, who worked ina different location the distance be-tween job locations was greater thanfor a male faculty's partner. In otherwords, a male faculty member's part-ner worked closer to campus than did afemale faculty's partner.College: Because sample sizes in sev-eral colleges were small, several col-leges were merged for statistical pur-poses. The Colleges of Human Medi-cine, Osteopathic Medicine and Nurs-ing comprised the Colleges of Medi-cine while James Madison and UrbanAffairs were included in the College ofSocial Science.
In the analysis, which producedthe results below, only tenure streamfaculty from the fifteen major collegeswere included. Specialists and thenon-college faculty were not used atthis stage of the analysis.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction wascaptured using one
Satisfaction
5 Very SatisfiedEmployment
. Figure 5
with Dimensions ofat MSU
3 Neither a
fki.)14
011;,-1):
0"
11
01...i0
;'ir.
AIk.2.
-...:
0
VIC°
,,k0
Ito
o..,
hi
.0;g
.0'4
%a)F.
.1.1
8,,ow
Haso
iri+3..gc%
0
o..-I
111°
0ill
,-,.-, .mFi(V
1 Very Dissatisfied0>
Percent dis-satisfied: 14% 40% 40% 40% 18% 18% 18%
item that measured overall job satisfac-tion and thirty items that measured vari-ous aspects of the faculty work environ-ment. Measured on a five point Likertscale (1=very dissatisfied to 5=very sat-isfied), respondents reported being some-what satisfied with their jobs at Michi-gan State University (mean = 3.10). Spe-cific aspects of the work environmentwhere faculty satisfaction was high in-cluded: job security, freedom to consult,benefits, authority to determine contentof classes and authority to make deci-sions on what courses to teach. Dimen-sions of the work environment wherefaculty expressed the most dissatisfac-tion included: time available for re-search and scholarship, quality of facultyleadership, quality of chief administra-tive officers, and the relationship be-tween faculty and administration.National Comparisons: Similar ques-tions appeared in the NCES and theHERI studies. A comparison was madebetween these studies, as found in Table3 on page 8. For several of the workdimensions, Michigan State Universi-ty's faculty displayed the same level ofsatisfaction as faculty elsewhere (eg. over-all job satisfaction, autonomy to decidecourse content and which courses to teach,quality of colleagues). On other dimen-sions, noticeable differences appeared.Commenting on several, fewer
Michigan State faculty expressed sat-isfaction with their research opportu-nities, support and facilities, and in-stitutional leadership. i-articularlystriking were the dissatisfaction withthe relationships between faculty andadministrators and research opportu-nities. Michigan State faculty weremore satisfied with their salary andthe quality of the students, both un-dergraduate and graduate (especiallyin comparison with the HERI sam-ple).
/Group Comparisons
Factor analysis of thetwenty-eight workenvironment items
resulted in five latent variables thatcaptured the broad dimensions of jobsatisfaction. Appendix A providesthe factor loadings for each variable,as well as Cronbach's Alpha for thescale items. Six items did not load orsplit their loadings and were excludedfrom the latent variables. Salary andbenefits with a correlation of r = .544(p = .00I) created a sixth dimension,compensation.
Results show (Figure 5) that fac-ulty were generally satisfied withtheir teaching/instructional condi-
Job. Satisfactio'h on.Selected Work .DimensionsFrom Selected Faculty Studies,
. (Percent who were .:somewhat". and
HEN
"very" satisfiNi
MSU
Overall Jab 66 73
Work toed: Ouertrii 73 56
Jab Security,,84 74 85
t , , ..
Advance:mew Opprownities
CoUrseeontenf
a:newest?, Teach
69
96 85
77
50
92,
78
Mon-ingtructionat As eta..%,::::::::::::,::::::::. . '''''''''''''''''' ::::::: :::.:: :,:::::::::::::::.:::::,...::::
76 69
Mix of Rosponsilaties 72 50
Tfryte Available to Advise 79 51
Swort Svorvim Mericat) 60 66 41
Equipment (Compumrs) 41
Teachin,g *sistaiwe 60 43
&gar/ 58 44 63
Denefits 76 58
Freedom ro Comsat 89 71
Institutional Reputation 78 55
inctilutional Passion 74 57
Department 69 55
Faculty 68 22*
Oriel Acltnht Offlcers 57 48
Cotieegue$: 85 65 70
Reigrieuchip1:40000001#1$ fatir 54 48 21
tillettigpOnie 63 41
0 000 70 69 52
*40,i4i*. 67 38 54
Graduate 70 72
. S I S I
. . . I '
0 9111
Cha
ract
eris
tics
^'
inst
itutio
n's
Rep
utat
ion
eons o
,,or
Wor
k A
ssig
nmen
t
.nv ronmen
Sup
port
Ser
vice
s
ompare.
e ec e.
Tea
chin
g in
stru
ctio
n
acu ty C aracter.l.stics (Mea
Car
eer
Out
look
Com
pens
atio
n
Ove
rall
(Mea
n)3.
103.
213.
163.
793.
723.
73
Ran
k:
Full
3.10
3.46
3.23
3.89
"3.
98*
3.76
Associate
3.08
2.87
*2.
94*
3.69
3.54
3.62
Assistant
3.11
2.93
3.26
3.57
3.49
3.80
Gen
der:
Male
3.07
*3.
363.
263.
823.
493.
74
Female
3.19
2.65
"2.
95"
3.67
3.81
*3.
69
GTOUp:
Teaching
3.00
2.99
2.99
*3.
793.
50*
353*
Research
2.10
"4.
013.
473.
804.
023.
76
Extension
3.27
3.02
3.03
3.72
3.56
*3.
98
Administration
3.35
2.99
3.32
3.89
3.91
3.99
Balance
3.08
3.18
3.14
3.76
3.75
3.77
Inte
rest
:
Seeking to Go
2.67
*2.
75*
2.75
*3.
493.
253.
36*
Not Sure
2.94
2.94
3.03
3.67
3.48
3.50
Staying
3.33
3.50
3.38
3.95
*4.
013.
97
Col
lege
:
Agriculture
3.30
3.38
3.29
3.95
3.98
3.98
Arts
&Letters
2.86*
2.95*
2.69
*3.
723.
613.
29*
Business
3.01
3.44
3.35
3.69
3.75
3.72
Ccmmunication Arts
3.18
3.35
3.54
3.96
3.86
3.47
*
Educat ion
3.26
3.42
3.35
3.91
3.73
3.70
Eng1neet ing
3.07
3.19
3.20
3.72
3.74
4.06
Human Ecc 1 :gy
3.57
2.77
*3.
073.
983.
733.
97
Medi cine
3.06
1.10
3.05
3.64
3.51
3.93
11.-itut al
fz,-1,n...-
3.01
3.35
3.35
1.70
3.78
3.69
:7..:-.71a1
S.:-
itm,:,
,..2.
91*
3.10
1.04
3.71
3.51
3.48
*
Voter 1 nar
yMtidlcinv
3 01
3.07
2.68
*3.
53*
3.20*
4.11
1111411111111011,11.1111k
...-----
tions, career outlook, and compensa-tion. Less than 20% of the respondentsreported being dissatisfied with thesedimensions. A much largzr number,40%, were dissatisfied with their over-all work assignment, support servicesavailable to them, and quality of theinstitution.
Comparisons among various fac-ulty cohorts using ANOVA proceduresrevealed differing levels of satisfactionbased on academic Rank, Gender,Group and Interest In Leaving. Aseparate ANOVA sought differencesby college where the faculty appoint-ment was held. Means and significantresults for these factors are found inTable 4 (previous page).Institutional Reputation: Significantdifferences were observed for Gender(F=6.062, .014), Group (F=2,891, .022),and Interest in Leaving (F=60.872,.000). Women, those with extensionand administrative appointments, andfaculty members who expressed nointerest in leaving the university weremore satisfied with the leadership andreputation of the institution. As onewould expect, respondents who weremore committed to leaving were themost dissatisfied with this dimensionof their work environment. AmongColleges (F=4.462, .000), faculty fromArts and Letters and Social Sciencesexpressed dissatisfaction with Institu-tional Reputation while Human Ecolo-gy, Agriculture and Education mem-bers were more satisfied. The remain-ing colleges clustered around the mid-point which represented no opinioneither way.Work Assignment: Dissatisfaction overthe work load, assignment mix, andtime available to conduct research wasstrongest among associate professors,women, members with primarily teach-ing and administrative roles and thosewishing to leave (Rank, F=14.425, .000;Gender, F=35.023, .000; GroupF=24.480, .000; and Interest F=41.094,.000). Those members with 50% ormore of their time allocated to researchwere highly satisfied with their WorkAssignment (mean=4.01). Among col-leges, Arts and Letters and HumanEcology respondents expressed themost dissatisfaction over their work
assignments while Business, NaturalScience, Communication Arts, Educa-tion, and Agriculture faculty memberswere the most satisfied. (F=2.782,.002).
A significant interaction effect wasfound between Rank and Group(F=2.185, .027). The Rank means in-dicated that associates were slightlymore dissatisfied than assistants. Forthose in teaching, research and admin-istration positions, associates wereslightly more satisfied with their workassignments (means, however, re-mained below 3.0), than assistants.Associate faculty in extension and bal-anced positions were more dissatisfiedthan assistant professors (particularlythose in extension) about their workassignments.Support Services: A similar patternemerged for the availability and levelof support faculty were givin. Associ-ate professors, women, those in teach-ing positions and those interested inleaving expressed the most dissatisfac-tion (Rank F--=4.524, .011; GenderF=4.394, .035; Position F=4.499, .001;Interest F=29.444, .000). A significantinteraction between Rank and Grouprevealed that associates from all posi-tion categories, except administration,expressed the most dissatisfaction aboutservices. Interestingly, among those inadministration, associates were the mostsatisfied. In most cases, assistant pro-fessors were the most satisfied withservices except for those in extensionand administration. Associates appearto be wedged between established fac-ulty who are able to maintain the levelof services they desire and new profes-sors who may have been recruited withpromises of ample support.
College comparisons found a widespectrum of satisfaction with regard tosupport services. Veterinary Medicineand Arts and Letters faculty were mod-erately to strongly dissatisfied with ser-vices. Colleges straddling the mid-point with faculty members holdingboth opinions included Social Science,Medicine and Human Ecology. Fac-ulty from Business, CommunicationArts, Education, and Natural Sciencesexpressed moderate to high satisfac-tion with their level of sup-NMI
I 3
port.Teaching/Instruction: Generally, ev-ery respondent expressed some satis-faction with their teaching assignmentincIrding level of assistance, quality ofstuaents and discretion to select cours-es and the content to be taught. Signif-icant differeuces revolved around thelevel of satisfaction, with full profes-sors (F=6.221, .022) and those facultywho will stay (F=27, 4.06, .000) beinghighly satisfied with their teaching ex-perience.
Those faculty with the highestteaching satisfaction included Agricul-ture, Communication Arts, and HumanEcology. Least satisfied were facultyfrom Veterinary Medicine.Career Outlook: Career outlook re-flects the faculty members' perceptionof their job security in tbe institution,opportunities for advancement, pro-fessional growth and development, anddiscretion available to determine thenon-instructional components of theirjob. Members who have already re-ceived tenure were expected to showhigher levels of satisfaction than thosewho are uncertain as to whether theywill be accepted as full members of theinstitution. This proved to be the case,as full professors expressed a higherlevel of satisfaction with the careeroutlook than others. Even junior facul-ty expressed moderate satisfaction withtheir career opportunities.
Other significant differences werefound for Gender (F=8.319, .004),Group (F=6.380, .000) and Interest(F=48.338, .000). Women, those inteaching and extension positions, andfaculty willing to leave were not. assatisfied with this dimension as others.
A significant interaction effect be-tween Rank and Group (F=2.507, .011)pointed out that associate faculty inresearch positions were the most satis-fied about their career than all othersexcept full professors in extension. Onthe other hand, associates in extensionwere less satisfied than full and assis-tant faculty in similar positions. Theonly group expressing dissatisfactionwith their careers was assistant profes-sors who held administrative positions.In fact, this group; though small, wasdissatisfied with just about everything.
The only college that stood outwas Veterinary Medicine whosemembers reported the lowestlevel of satisfaction over theiroutlook.Compensation: There was littledissatisfaction over the com-pensation (salary and benefits)received by faculty members.Differences between rank werenot siguificant though assistantprofessors had a slightly higherlevel of satisfaction than theother groups. Significant dif-ferences were found for Group(F=4.469, .001) and Interest(F=3.943, .000). Respondentsholding teaching positions andthose wishing to leave had lowersatisfaction ratings.
One significant interactionwas found between Group andInterest (F=2.091, .034). Thosein research positions who werewilling to leave and those inadministrative positions whowere not sure if they wanted toleave rated their satisfactionover compensation lower thanothers.
Among colleges, facultyfrom Arts and Letters, Commu-nication Arts and Social Sci-ence were the least satisfiedwith their salaries. Concernsabout career outlook aside,members of the VeterinaryMedicine faculty, along withEngineering and Agriculturewere highly satisfied with theircompensation. (Table 5 sum-marizes the satisfaction resultspresented in this section.)Career Stages and Job Satis-faction: In Cytrynbautn's andCrites' model of job satisfac-tion and life stages, satisfactionis highest at entry to the profes-sion, when initial expectationsare high. Satisfaction dropssharply as early barriers are en-countered; then satisfaction re-covers strongly as confidenceand success build; and in thefinal stage, satisfaction tapersoff after one's career becomes
established. By plotting over-
31. !tb
Institutional
More Satisfied
,Reputation ..k
,.
Lees Satisfied
Women
Extention Appointment
Administration Appointments
No Interest in Leaving
Men
Teaching PositionsI
Interest In Leaving I
I
1
Colleges: Colleges:
Human Ecology Arts and Letters
Agriculture Social Science
Education. .
-Work 'Assignment ...,1
More Satisfied Less Satisfied
Full Professors Associate Professors
Men Women
Research Appointments Teaching Positions
No Interest in Leaving Administrative Positions
Interest In Leavina
Colleges: Colleges:
Business
Natural Science
Communication Arts
Education
Agriculture
. Support
More Sat:sfied
Arts and Letters
Human Ecology,
Services .
Leos Satisfied!
Full Professors
Men
Research Positions
No Interest in leaving
Associate Professors I
1
Women
Teaching Position:,
Interested in Leaving
Colleges: Colleges:
Business
Communication Arts
Education
Natural Science
,
Arts and Letters
Vetrinary Medicine
..
' Table 5
14
*
Teaching Assignment
Wore Satisfied Loss Satisfied,
Full Professors
No Intesreat in Leaving
Moro Satisfied
CareerOutlook
Assistant Professors
Interest in Leaving
'.
Less Satisfied
Full Professors
Men
Research Positions
Nn :nterest in Leaving
Women
Teaching Positions
Interest in Leaving
College:
,
More Satisfied
Compeaation
Vet Medicine
. .
.
' ....-.
Loss Satisfied
Assistant Pr-.:fessors Teaching Positions
Interest in Leaving
Colleges: Colleges:
Veterinary Medicine
Engineerina
Agriculture
Arts and Letters
Communication Arts
Social Science
all job satisfaction against yearsat the university, a pattern thatapproximates the Cytrynbaumand Crites model emerges (Fig-ure 6).
A few interesting deviationsdo appear. Initial high satisfac-tion is expressed by those intheir positions for only one ortwo years. In the third year,satisfaction drops and contin-ues to fall until about the sev-enth year; approximaiely thetime assistant professors areawarded tenure. Satisfactionincreases from the seventh yearto the tenth year where a dipagain occurs about the time fullprofessorships are awarded.Satisfaction then levels off forseveral years. After about 15years of employment, satisfac-tion drops again. Up to thispoint, faculty job satisfactionapproximates the model. How-ever, after 20 years the level ofsatisfaction rises to highs simi-lar to levels after receiving fullprofessor stato.
The pattern found for womenwas slightly different. Thedown turns were sharper and
Figure 6
Index(Mean)
5
4
3
2
4
Academic CareerStages and Job Satisfaction
All Respondents
-4-- 44 1 4 4
1991 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59 57Year Employed by University
15
the high satisfac-tion plateau afterreaching full pro-fessor rank didnot last as long.For women withmore than 17years of service,satisfaction lev-els declined anddid not recover inthe same fashionas male faculty.As they nearedthe end of theirtenure at the Uni-versity, womenwere less satis-fied then men.
Not Sure21%
Figure 7a
Interest inLeaving MSU
1
During times of change,organizational mem-bers may consider
moving. Willingness to leave was in-troduced through several questions onretention. The question, representedby Interest, specifically sought the re-spondents' level of interest in leavingor remaining at the institution. Severalother questions probed the degree ofeffort an individual expected to expendin the job market over the next twoyears. By comparing for consistencyacross responses, the faculty's inten-tions on leaving came into focus.
An interest in leaving MSU wasexpressed by 23% of the faculty withanother 21% uncertain as to their inten-tion (Figure 7a). Switching the ques-tion to "what action would you likelytake within the next two years," 11%indicated they planned to retire, 23%would resign for a similar position atanother university, and after control-ling for these respondents, an addition-al 17% were interested in exploringother opportunities without expressinga strong commitment to leave (Figure7b). Regardless of how the question
was asked, 23% desired to leave; com-bined with the 11% who will retire,34% of the respondents could leave ifopportunities presented themselves.How many faculty will actually act ontheir intentions is not known. How-ever, the percentage of Michigan Statefaculty willing tochange far exceeds theturnover estimates ofBowen and Schuster(1986) which rangefrom 6% to 12%, de-pending on their esti-mates.
Who expressedan interest in leaving?Assistant and associ-ate professors, thosewhose employmentmay not be as secure,indicated a strongerinterest in leaving;women, at all ranks,were more likely tobe interested in leav-ing or were unde-cided; and those re-spondents whose po-sitions were primari-ly teaching or wereclassified as
balanced wanted to seek a differentposifion. The strongest commitment tostay at the university was made bythose with research and administrativeappointments.
Reasons for Leaving-
Matier's (1990) list ofpossible reasons forleaving the insti-
tution was modified and extended toinclude 44 possible reasons to lea.,,e.Each reason was rated on a Liken scalefrom 1= "not important" to 5= "ex-tremely important." Factors that stoodout as being more important in thedecision to leave were availability ofinternal research funds, departmentalleadership, salary, research opportuni-ties, and reputation of department.Similar factors, such as salary (overallincome potential), research opportuni-ties and departmental leadership, werefound by Matier to stimulate move-ment.
The reasons to leave were factoranalyzed, resulting in seven latent fac-tors. Factors identified were Influenceand Loyalty (8 items), Institutional
Figure 76
Faculty Labor Market ActionsIn the Next 2 Years
Retire11%
16
5 Most Important
FiguieB
Importance Given toReasons for Leaving MSU
(Mean)
4
3
2
1 Least ImportantReasons for Leaving
Reputation (5 items), Community Via-bility (6 items), Work Load (7 items),Compensation (3 items), Research Sup-.port (5 items) and Career Stability (5items). Factor loadings and reliabilitiesfor each factor can be found in Appen-dix B. Six items failed to load on anyof the latent factors and were not in-cluded in the analyses.
Institutional Reputation, Compen-sation, Research Support, and CareerStability were rated by more than 57%ofthe respondents as "fairly" to "veryimportant" reasons for leavingthe university. The means aredisplayed in Figure 8 wherehigher means indicate more im-portance placed on this factorwhen deciding to leave the insti-tution.
In comparisons by Rank,Gender, Group and Interest inLeaving, there were few signifi-cant differences. Rank(F=5.896, .003) and Interest(F=5.467, .004) appeared im-portant for Community Viabili-ty where assistant professors andthose most interested in leavingfound the community to be lack-ing. From young professors'comments related to this ques-
tion, the majorconcern wasavailability ofcomparable em-ployment for aspouse.
Assistantand associateprofessors alsolisted Work Loadas a more impor-tant reason toleave (RankF=5,534, .004).Concern overwork load and"doing morewith less" domi-nated commentsfound through-out the survey.
Compensa-tion, the salaryand benefits ex-tendedto acuity,
received similar ratings of importancefrom respondents. A significant andinteresting interaction was found be-tween Gender and Interest (F=4.331,.013). Men who were interested inleaving or were not sure, rated com-pensation higher than women in thesame groups. Women, however, whohad no interest in leaving (or couldn'tleave), felt compensation was a moreimportant reason for leaving than menwho had no interest in leaving.
Rank produced significant results
for both Research Support and CareerStability (F=4.969, .007; F=32.016,.000, respectively). Assistant profes-sors viewed availability of adequateresearch support as an important reten-tion issue. Both assistant and associateprofessors were concerned over theircareer opportunities, especially tenureReasons for leaving are summarized inTable 6.
I S
1:][11
he analysis ofthe roleofsalariesinretentionyielded inconsistent
results. On the one hand, faculty ap-peared to be satisfied with their salary .
yet, on the other, salary was a pnmar%motivation to leave. Additional infor-mation on faculty salary considerationswas solicited through three additionalquestions. Two questions asked re-spondents how their salaries comparedto peers in their field at MSU and %% ithpeers nationally. The rating scale forboth ranged from l="much lower thanaverage" to 5="much higher than a% er-age." Means are reported in Figure 9
Among institutional peers, respon-dents felt that their salaries fell justbelow average (mean=2.74). Thosewith research and administrative ap-pointments (Group F=11.153,.000) be-
Summary of Reasons far:leaving:,Who:CoAsiders.Them MOst Important
Community Viability: Assistant Professors
Interest In Leaving
Work Load: Assistant Professors
Associate Professors
Compensation: Everyone
Research Support: Assistant Professors
Career Stability: Assistant Professors
Associate Pro fessors
17
. Table 6
lieved their salaries to be average orabove. Those who felt their salariesfell substantially below their peers werethose in teaching positions. Interest inLeaving (F=6.777, .001) was also sig-nificant. Those who wished to leavewere "somewhat" below average insalary compared to the others. A sig-nificant Rank - Interest in Leavinginteraction (F=2.594, .035) revealedthat assistant professors who were in-terested in leaving felt their salary waslow compared to peers. While associ-ate and fill professors who were unde-cided felt their salaries were seriouslybelow average.
Comparing salaries to their peersacross the nation, all responaents, ii t-cluding those in research, believed the ir
"Should an opportunity present it-self, what level of additional salarywould have to be offered before youwould seriously consider leavingMSU?" This question produced someinteresting results that also matchedthe findings reported by Matier (1990).After removing those who obviouslyhave no interest in moving (100% in-crease) and those who would be willingto take a salary cut just to leave, theresponses ranged from 10% to 75°A inadditional salary. The most commcnanswers were 20% and 25%. In otherwords, to entice an assistant profes:,oraway, depending on field, another or-ganization would have to offer be-tween $5,000 and $12,000 more; for anassociate, $8,000 to $13,000 more; and
rienced faculty's salary levels. Com-pression can be further abetted by hir-ing experienced senior faculty at levelssubstantially above faculty with simi-lar experiences. MSU economistsByron Brown and Stephen Woodbury,in their 1991 preliminary examinationof faculty salary stnicture, support thecontention that compression has al-tered the salary range at Michigan State.As experienced faculty watch new hiresestablish new salary expectations, theperception that their salaries are belowaverage seems very real.
The Perfect Positibn?
Some people wish theyhad the opportunity torestructure their po-
sition, ridding themselvesof onerous tasks and gar-nering precious time to useon activities viewed asmore enjoyable, reward-ing or both. Respondentswere given the opportu-nity to indicate what ac-tivities they would wantmore of or less of in theirposition. It comes as nosurprise in a research-ori-ented university that fac-ulty want to do a little lessteaching and service and alot less administration inorder to devote more timeto research and profes-sional development (Table7). If a new position atanother institution wassought, the change in re-sponsibilities desired was
Figure
Much Higher 5than Average
4
Average 3
2
Much Lowerthan Average 1
Comparison of Salary to Peers at MSUand Peers Nationally (Means)
IlilliriG M*
M McU
salaries to be "somewhat lower thanaverage." (mean=2.41). Comparisonsfound important differences by Groups(F=3.271, .038). Those with teachingpositions and those expressing the stron-gest interest in leaving believed theirsalaries to be seriously below the na-tional average. Women, with the ex-ception of those undecided about leav-ing, felt their salaries were lower amongtheir national peers than men did. Un-decided women felt their salaries wereslightly better than did men in the samecategory.
full professors probably $10,000 plus.This evidence suggested that the fac-ulty were responsive to salary consid-erations and all other things being equal,could be bought away from the univer-sity.
The mixed signals regarding sal-ary could be generated by a number ofunderlying factors. One source, iden-tified through comments, is the percep-tion that salaries have become com-pressed. This situation arises whennew assistant professors are hired atsalaries that of- ten exceed expe-
18
similar to the restructured position atMichigan State University.
Numerous differences were foundamong certain descriptive variables.In four of six areas, women held stron-ger desires on what they wanted thanmen (Table 8).Teaching. Among Group (F-40.966,.000), Gender (F=25.041, .000) and theGroup-Rank interaction (F=2.357,.016) significant differences appeared.Those with primarily teaching posi-tions (mean = 2.37) and those withbalanced positions (mean = 2.78)
wished to do less teaching. Researchposition occupants felt they did notneed to change their teaching load.Those respondents in extension andadministration positions would liketo do a little more teaching.Research. Everyone would like tohave more time for their researchprogram. None more so than womenwhose mean on this item extendedtoward the "much more" end of thescale. Those individuals in teachingand administrative positions wantedmore time than researchers who weresatisfied with the amount of timethey already have (Group F=9.019,.000). Associate and full professorsexpressed a desire for more researchtime than assistants (Rank F=7.558,.001); and those who were interestedin leaving or were not sure whether tomove or not wanted more researchtime (Interest F=4.678, .000).Advising. Although changes in thetime devoted to advising did not varymuch in the restructuring, remainingat "the same amount," not everyonefelt that way. Women, in particular,wanted less advising responsibilities(mean = 2.83) as did those Interestedin Leaving (F=3.215, .041). Groupdifferences were also noted with ex-tension and administrative positionholders wishing for more advisingtime; everyone else felt they alreadyhad the right amount (Group F=2.590,.035).Professional Development. Profes-
..Desire for More or Less of Specific:'components in ,Position (MeanW
RestructurePosition
MSU Position New/POMO
Teaching 2.76 2.69
Research 3.87 3.85
Advising 2.99 2.88
Professional Development 3.64 3.62
Setvice 2.89 2.82
Administration 2.33 2.38
sional development, time to think throughcreative ideas, to learn new skills, and todevelop new materials, was in nearly asmuch demand as research. This wasparticularly true for those in teaching andextension positions (F=6.424, .000) whileresearchers were satisfied with their al-lotted time. Women wanted more pro-fessional time (Gender F=10.311, .000)as did those Interested in Leaving or notsure (Interest F=10.328, .000)Service. Less time allocated to serviceassignments would be desired by all,except possibly by those in administra-tive positions. Actually, only those withextension positions wanted to reduce theirservice hours significantly compared tothe other groups (Group F=6.582, .000).
Administra-tion. Mostwanted to giveit up! Every-one wished torid themselvesofburdensomeadministrativetasks. Thosein administra-tion, balanced.and teachingpositions(GroupF = 1 0 . 0 2 2 ,.000) desiredless than thosein research andextension. A
What Men and Women Faculty Menbers DesireMore or Less of 1416the Current Position (Means)
Men Women
Teaching 2.85 2.45
Research 3.80 4.14
Advising 3.03 2.83
Professional Development 3.59 3.84
Service 2.89 2.88
Administration 2.34 2.30
gc-.1: 1 .1 same , .
Table 8
16
significant interaction between Gen-der and Interest (F=3.523, .030) showedthat women who planned on staying orwere not sure of their intent would notreduce their administrative time asmuch as men; women who wanted toleave desired less administrative re-sponsibilities than men in this group.Of all respondents, women interestedin leaving expressed the strongest needto reduce their administrative respon-sibilities. A significant Rank and Inter-est interaction (F=2.615,.034) revealedthat assistant professors interested inleaving and associate professors whowere not sure of their intentions indi-cated they wanted less administrativeresponsibilities.
Leveraging One's Position.
Not all labor market ex-plorations are donewith the intention
of firiding a new position and leavingthe present institution. Job offers canbe dangled in front of department chairsand deans in order to strengthen one'sposition at the institution. The motivemay be to enhance salary, to acceleratea promotion, or to acquire additionalsupport rather than actually findingnew employment. How prevalent isthis type of activity among faculty?
, .
SaJaryEnhancoment.:Through job...Solicitation.
High Me of Job Solicitation Perceived'
Business 63%
Communication Arts 59%
Education 53%
MOderate Moe of Job Solicitation Perceived
Social Sciences 49%
Veterinary Medicine 47%
Arts and Letters 46%
Natural Sciences 40%
Agriculture 31%
Low Ulm of Job Solicitation Perceived
Engineering 18%
Medicine 18%
Human Ecology 15%
The answer depends on what the nego-tiator wants.Salary. Sixty (60) percent believed thatit was not a practice in their departmentfor a colleague to solicit a job offer forthe purpose of enhancing salary. Forty(40) percent did, however, and who theywere was interesting. More women be-lieved this practice occurred, 45%, thanmen, 38% (Gender F=3.891, .049). Themost striking differences were foundbetween colleges (College F=7.30, .000).Grouped by percent of college membersagseeing that this practice occurs, theColleges of Business, CommunicationArts, and Education faculties believedsolicitation of job offers was commonpractice. In the Colleges of Engineer-ing, Medicine(s), and Human Ecology,few believed this practice occurred (Table9).Promotion. Job solicitation is infre-quently used to accelerate or insure pro-motion according to respondents. Only29% indicated that solicitation was used.The percentages among colleges weresignificant (F=2.789, .002) with facultyfrom Veterinary Medicine (49%) and
. I
Business (43%) believing that promo-tions were enhanced by seeking alterna-tive job offers. A significant Rank andCollege interaction was observed(F=1.677, .032). Full professors in Busi-ness (73%), associate professors in Engi-neering (62%) and assistant professors inVeterinary Medicine (61%) firmly be-lieved that job offers aided individuals intheir promotion efforts (Table 9).Support. Individnals were perceived asless likely to use job solicitation to in-crease support, specifically for research.Only 33% of the respondents believedthis occurred. Again, Gender (F=4.730,.030) and College (F=4.442, .000) re-vealed significant differences. Womenwere more likely to think that peopleused job seeking as a means of leveragingsupport. Similarly, faculty in the Col-leges of Education (47%) and VeterinaryMedicine (49%) believed this type ofactivity occurred.
Not everyone can benefit from jobsolicitation to enhance his or her posi-tion. Anecdotal comments revealed thatonly those individuals who could back-up their intent by actually leaving could
Promot ion Accelerat fon'Through iob Solicitation
High'Ute of" JOb -Solicitation Perceived
Veterinary Medicines 49%
Education 47/0
Moderate Use of Job Solicitation Perceived
Business 42%
Communication Arts 42%
Natural Science 40%
Arts and Letters 34%
Social Sciences 32%
Agriculture 30%
Low rise of Job Solicitation Perceived
Medicine 16%
Human Ecology 15%
Engineering 12%
gain from this strategy. Thus, dualcareer couples were less likely to ben-efit from this approach, unless univer-sity officials did not know about thepartner. Women felt men could usethis strategy more effectively; men'sactions were less likely to be affectedby their partner.
Institutional Issues'
Aseries of questionssolicitedconcernsfre-quently voiced by
the faculty at Michigan State Universi-ty. Responses to questions on rewards,mission, women, and minorities cap-tured some of the prevailing thought onthese complex issues (Figure 10).Tenure and Rewards. The three mis-sions of the university, teaching, re-search and service, are viewed differ-ently when considered with respect totenure and promotion. Respondentsdisagreed with the statement that"teaching effectiveness should be theprimary criterion for promotion andtenure" (mean 2.48). While disagree-ment was also expressed for the posi-
tion that "research/publications shouldbe the primary criterion for promotionand tenure" (mean=2.87), more respon-dents neither disagreed nor agreed withthe statement (40%). There was con-siderable disagreement with "service/extension being an equivalent criterionwith teaching and research" and with"service/extension carrying moreweight" in tenure and promotion deci-sions. Agreement was expressed forthe position that "promotions shouldbe based in part on formal studentevaluations."
Rephrasing these statements to de-termine the weight that research shouldplay in the awards system as comparedto teaching and service, respondentindicated that research should be re-warded more than service but not nec-essarily more than teaching.
With each of these statements, dif-ferences occurred within the facultypopulation. The primary activity towhich faculty devoted time determinedthe strength of agreement or disagree-ment with these statements. Those inteaching and extension tended to take aneutral stance on the question ofwhether teaching should be the pri-mary criterion. Researchers stronglydisagreed with this statement (Group
F=15.6662, .000). Extension facultystrongly agreed that extension shouldbe an equivalent criteria in tenure andpromotion. The other groups, except-ing administrators, disagreed. Re-searchers agreed that research shouldbe the primary criterion, while exten-.sion faculty strongly disagreed.
The most interesting responseswere from administrators. Adminis-trators disagreed that teaching and re-search were the primary criterion andexpressed some agreement that serviceshould receive equivalent weight. Twosignificant Group - Rank interactionsfor Service (F=2.013, .042) and Re-search (F=2.420, .014) added an inter-esting angle. Assistant and associateprofessors in administrative positionstended to view service more equiva-lently by lessening the emphasis onresearch in rewarding faculty. How-ever, full professors in administrativepositions gave research a primary rolein determining awards. One additionalobservation, the Group - Rank interac-tion for "research being rewarded morethan teaching" showed full professorswith 50% or more of their time com-mitted to teaching agreed with thisstatement.
What emerged from the responses
Position Statements
Teaching-Primary
Research-PrimarySer/Ext Equivalent
Student Evaluations
Ser/Ext More Weight
Research>TeachingResearch>Service
Landgrant Unit
Landgrant UniversityWomen Treated Fairly
Minorities-FairlyTeaching-PrimaryParticipate-Govn.
Consulting
Admin.-Share Resp.
1 2 Disagree
Agreement with PositionStatements Regarding Issues Facing MSU (Mean)
3 4 Agree 5
to this set of questions was the sensethat faculty rewards, promotion andtenure are based on some combinedweighting of teaching and researchactivities. Service and extension con-tributes little except for those in exten-sion positions. Which should countmore, teaching or research, depends onwhere one sits. Senior faculty tend toplace more weight on research; but theevidence is not conclusive. Examina-tion of another set of questions shedsadditional light on this issue.
Respondents were asked to ratethe importance of five faculty respon-sibilities in decisions for tenure, pro-motion in rank and merit increases.The responsibilities included teaching,research/scholarship, advising, service/extension and administration/gover-nance. The scale used to rate theseresponsibilities ranged from 1 = "notvery important" to 5 = "extremely im-portant."Tenure. Teaching and research wereconsidered very important in the ten-ure decision. Service and extensionwas viewed as fairly important. Advis-ing and particularly administration/gov-ernance were only somewhat impor-tant to the decision. Teaching wasrated similarly across all characteris-tics, except College (F=4.882, .000).In the Colleges of Medicine(s), Veteri-nary Medicine and Business, teachingwas rated between "fairly" and "veryimportant" rather than between "very"and "extremely important."
Research was rated the most im-portant factor with a mean of 4.23.Associate professors scored slightlylower at 4.08 than the others (RankF=4.607, .010) and faculties from theColleges of Medicine(s) and Veteri-nary Medicine placed less importanceon research, means 3.97 and 3.83 re-spectively, than other faculties, par-ticularly Business (means 4.42) andCommunication Arts (means 4.42)(College F=3.893, .000).
A Rank by College interaction thatapproached significance (F=1.520,.067) revealed that associate and fullprofessors in Medicine(s) and Veteri-nary Medicine only viewed research asfairly important in the decision. Juniorfaculty in Business, Communication
Arts and Engineering and senior fac-ulty in Agriculture considered researchto be extremely important.
Service and extension receivedratings that placed them "fairly impor-tant" on the scale (mean = 2.92). Col-lege differences were significant(F=30.390, .000). The Colleges ofAgriculture, Veterinary Medicine andEducation considered service to be"very important." Service received itslowest rating from faculty in the Col-lege of Business who felt it was "some-what important," The Gender by Col-lege interaction (F=2.081, .024) re-vealed that in most colleges womenrated service and extension higher thantheir male counterparts. The excep-tions were in Communication Arts andSocial Sciences. In Arts and Letters,Education and Engineering, the impor-tance of service was viewed similarlyby both men and women.
Advising was considered "some-what" to "fairly important" (mean =2.71) by the respondents. The onlysignificant result was for College(F=19.114, .000) where faculty fromEducation and Human Ecology viewedadvising as "fairly" to "very impor-tant" while the Business faculty did notconsider advising "very important atall."
For tenure decisions, involvementin administration and governance wouldnot contribute much to the decision.The overall mean was 2.17 or "some-what important." Women, however,considered it to be slightly more im-portant than men (Gender F=5.405,.020) with means of 2.23 and 2.12,respectively. No matter how well ad-ministrative responsibilities werehandled in the Colleges of Business,Engineering and Social Sciences, fac-ulty would find them of little impor-tance in the tenure decision. Adminis-trative responsibilities were apt to countmore with the faculties in Educationand Agriculture.Promotion in Rank. The importanceratings for promotion were nearly iden-tical to the ratings for tenure. Even thedifferences found among descriptorsremained relatively the same. A com-mon belief about faculty is that oncetenure has been achieved the
reward system shifts toward teachingand service. These results failed tosubstantiate that belief. In fact, thesignificant difference for Rank(F=4.213, .015) on research responsi-bilities indicated that overall full pro-fessors placed more importance on tht -than junior faculty. Research appeared"extremely important" to full prole,sors in determining awards for hothtenure and promotion.Merit Increases. Research also vheld to be more important in men,consideration (mean-4.29) w it h 1e4. hing following second (mean=4 I.Assistant professors preferred that metbe based more on their research 114.u.i.F=4.159, .016) and less on tea..(Rank F=4.180, .016)and ice \m,.larly, those who expressed an inter,-in leaving wanted less consIderat I. 4given to teaching (Interest F- t.026), advising (Interest F=5.0h:t. oiand service (Interest F=4.219, .014 in
the allocation of merit. The only ernder differences was found for adm intration/governance (F=9.240. 01.:where women expressed their desire t.have this factor contribute more in thedecision than men. While set- ice appeared as only "fairly important: it
was more important to those who ha y cbeen at Michigan State University tot Anumber of years; and parn cul arty it t heperson was a male, full professor orheld an extension position.University Mission. The land grantmission is publicly articulated as thephilosophical foundation of MichiganState. The faculty tended to agree w iththe statement that "the land grant mi.sion is emphasized in their acaderni,unit's objectives." Members of thefaculty with extension and administrative positions (Group F=4.158, .0(12and those not interested in lea% ing Interest F=7.463, .001) expressed moreagreement with this statement than others.
Interestingly. respondents epressed mild disagreement with thestatement that "the land grant missionreceives appropriate emphasis in over-all university objectives." Extensionrespondents (Group F=3 .508_008 ) andthose with interests in leaving (InterestF=4.698, .009) were more likely to
perceive that the land grant missionfailed to provide direction for programsand activities at the university level.The philosophy has become more rheto-ric than action.Women and Minorities. Are womenand minorities treated fairly at the uni-versity? Overall, the faculty tended toagree that they were (mean 3.17 and3.37, respectively). Women, however,disagreed (mean 2.48) with the state-ment that "women are treated fairly"(Gender f=61.143, .000).
There existed stronger agreementthat "minorities are treated equally,"particularly among those with researchappointments. Women disagreed withthis statement (mean = 2.75) thoughnot as strongly as they did concerningthe fairness toward women statement.Men agreed strongly with this state-ment, however (mean = 3.53) (GenderF=44.297, .000). Also, faculty at theassistant and associate ranks tended toagee that minorities were treated morefairly than did full professors, withmeans of 3.56, 3.14, and 3.06 respec-tively (rank F=7.143, .001).Other Issues. Faculty agreed that theywere free to pursue any idea in classand that faculty participation wasneeded in university governance. Theydisagreed that consulting should berestricted .
The final issue that they stronglyagreed upon was that "the administra-tive function is taking an increasingheavy share of available resources."Comments pointed toward a percep-tion of the increasing proliferation ofadm inistrative positions throughout theuniversity. Institutional problem tendto be solved by "throwing a body at it,"rather than working through the issuewith existing faculty and administra-tors. There exists a perception thatadministrative tasks were becomingmore specialized, requiring more ad-ministrative staff to handle them.
Looking Toward 1995
Asked what they be-lieved the conditionof the university
would be by 1995 compared to today,respondents indicated that the univer-sity would be "much worse off." (mean= 1.53 from a scale of 1 = "much worseoff' to 5 = "much better off"). Differ-ences in scores between Rank ap-proached significance (F=2.718, .067)with assistant professors being morepessimistic than those at higher ranks.
Several significant differenceswere found among Colleges (F=1.954,.035). More pessimism reigned inVeterinary Medicine (mean = 1.31),Medicine(s) (mean = 1.44) and SocialSciences (mean = 1.43) than the othercolleges. The differences may be onlya matter of degree, as the highest rat-ing, approaching somewhat worse offwas from Education (mean of 1.72).
Those who were not interested inleaving had a significantly higher rat-ing, mean 1.64, than those wishing toleave or not sure, 1.35 and 1.45 respec-tively (Interest F=14.853, .000).
Finally, a significant interactioneffect was observed for Rank and Gen-der (F=3.237, .040). Women at theassistant rank were more optimisticthan men at the assistant rank, means1.68 and 1.46, respectively. Women atthe associate and full ranks, however,were more pessimistic than their malecounterparts, means of 1.53 for womenin both groups compared to 1.63 formen in both groups.
Until this point in thediscussion, race orethnic background
has not been included in the analyses.Because of the small number of minor-ity faculty in some colleges, the possi-bility of being identified existed giventhe type of methods used throughoutthe study. However, in order to provideinsights into how racial and ethnic mi-norities perceive their situation com-pared to Whites, selected comparisonsare offered in this section.Job Satisfaction. On the six satisfac-tion measures, minorities comparedclosely to Whites. Minorities weremost satisfied with their Teaching As-s i gn ments, imi Salary and Career
20
Outlook. Like Whites, they tended tobe less satisfied with their Work Load.
Two significant differences ap-peared in the ANOVA comparisons ofmeans for Reputation and Support. Inboth cases, minorities were more satis-fied with administrative leadership andthe level of support they received thanWhites. These higher levels of satis-faction may reflect the effort by uni-versity officials to identify and attractquality minority faculty. This requiresa commitment by the university to con-tinue to support them. Apparently, theuniversity has honored this commit-ment.Leaving. Minorities were more in-clined to be willing to leave MichiganState University than Whites. As TableI I indicates, 30% were interested inleaving and 24% were not sure. Over-all, 54% of the minority faculty wouldconsider alternative offers of employ-ment, compared to only 42% of theWhite faculty.Reasons for Leaving. Minorities werenot noticeably different from Whites intheir reasons for leaving. Compensa-tion, Research Support and Career Sta-bility were the major items aroundwhich a decision to leave would bemade. The comparison of means forCareer Stability produced a significantdifference. Minorities would be morelikely to leave if their work is notappreciated, department leadership fal-ters, and career advancement and pro-motion becomes limited.
The mean differences for compen-sation approached significance. Thismay suggest that minorities may bemore sensitive to salary and benefitissues. Minorities did consider theirsalaries to be lower than average bothwithin the institution and nationally.In comparison to how White's felt abouttheir salaries, minorities felt strongerthat their salaries were lower.Issues on Being Treated Fairly. A
comparison was made on the two ques-tions concerning the fair treatment ofwomen and minorities on the campus.No significant difference was found forthe treatment of women: White's meanwas 3.19 and minorities 2.99. Thedifference for minority fairness w.ssignificant (F=21.173, .000) with means
Mean Coppexisons of Whites -Minoritips
White All Minorities
3.27*
3.19
Job Satisfaction
3.08
3.24
Reputation
Work(
Support 3.14 3.44*
Teaching 3.81 3.72
Career 3.75 3.58
Salary 3.75 3.62
Reasons tor Leaving-
Influence 2.52 2.48
Reputation 3.06 3.17
Community Viability 2.53 2.48
Work Load 2.80 2.73
Renumeration 3.15 3.31
Research Support 3.00 3.18
Career Stability 3.13 3.42*
;Desiie to Leave
Interest in Leaving 21.50 30.30
Not Sure 20.40 24.00
Stay 58.10 45.80
*Significani at> .05
Table 11
of 3.43 and 2.84 for Whites and rninori-ties, respectively. From their perspec-tive, minorities do not agree with thebelief that they are being treated fairlywhile Whites do.
Knowing that women viewed theseissues differently than men, a compari-son was made between White males,minority males and all females on bothquestions of fairness. The results posea stark picture of how men and womenview each other on this campus. Re-_garding the treatment of women, bothWhite and minority males agree withthe statement that women are treated
fairly, means of 3.37 and 3.26, respec-tively. Women strongly disagree, how-ever, with a mean of 2.47 (a signifi-cant difference :F=43.180, .000).
White males strongly agreed thatminorities are treated fairly (mean3.60). Minority males were inclinedto neither agree nor disagree with thestatement (mean 2.97). Women, onthe other hand, disagreed, mean 2.76(F=47.2666, .000).
In both cases, women view thecampus environment much differentlythan men of all racial groups!
4'4
0
When forces, both inter-nal and external, gathersufficient strength to
overcome the inertia of staying in one'spresent position a faculty member islikely to move (Flowes and Hughes,1973). External pulls alone will gener-ally not supply the necessary benefits tochange one's position (Matier, 1990).Evidence from other research has indi-cated that as internal pushes strengthen,external pulls become attractive. Inter-nal factors found to exert the most pres-sure to leave were inadequate facilitiesand support, high personal costs to main-tain one's position, and other work envi-ronment issues (Matier, 1990; Blackburnand Aurand, 1972). In addition, non-work-related issues, such as communityviability and suitable employment forspouse/partner, contribute to the deci-sion to leave (Steckkin and Lathrop,1960 and Matier, 1990). An offer of asizeable salary increase, the one exter-nal pull, usually triggered the move.The majority of individuals, nonethe-less, report leaving positions because ofthe internal pushes rather than the exter-nal pulls (Caplow and McGee, 1958;Toombs and Marlier, 1981; and Matier,1990). This project has investigatedthose pushes and pulls influencingMichigan State faculty during a periodof extensive change.
Neglect of the work environmentappears to be the biggest contributor ofpressures for faculty to consider leav-ing. Dissatisfaction (internal pushes)center on the lack of support, both cleri-cal and research; the physical condi-tions of office, classroom and laborato-ries; the confrontational relationshipbetween faculty and administration; theinstitution's reputation; and the leader-ship style of senior administrators. In
many respect.s, MSU's faculty is nodifferent than faculty at other compa-rable institutions. It is simply a matterof the degree of dissatisfaction.
For some faculty at Michigan StateUniversity, the internal pushes havereached a critical level. Nearly 40%expressed an interest in exploring thelabor market over the next several years.
The willingness to exit the Universityis strong even in the face of a verydifficult labor market. Faculty do notexpect the institution's environment toimprove from now until 1995. Thus,the internal pushes are sufficient forexternal pulls to cause movement.
Who is likely to leave? Researchhas shown that males at the assistantand full professor ranks and thoseheavily involved in research are morelikely to leave. Our results partiallycoincided with this research. Men atthe assistant and full professor ranksshowed a higher interest in leavingthan others. The intent to leave wasalso strong among women at all ranks,minority faculty, and those faculty inteaching and balanced positions. Theexception to established patterns wasthose faculty members with a heavyresearch appointment (greater than 50%of one's time) who expressed a strongdesire to remain at the university.
Even in light of the strong interestin leaving, overall job satisfaction re-mains high. What can be done tocapitalize on this level of faculty satis-faction? Improvement in the climatesurrounding work can do much to en-hance the situation. Adequate supportservices, more time for personal devel-opment and research, and better main-tenance of facilities are more criticalthan salary enhancement. But the mostimportant aspect may be a larger fac-ulty voice in the decision process.
Restructuring, regardless of how itis done, asks organizational membersto pay a heavy price. Done poorly,restructuring creates an environmentthat reduces quality, innovation andmotivation. As morale plummets, cre-ativity decreases, a concern runningthrough many of the comments at-tached to the survey. Administrativeleadership received much of the criti-cism for efforts to restructure the Uni-versity. Lost was the vision behind thechanges; predominant was a manage-ment style which sought little input onimplementation or allowed units littlechoice in proceeding with the process.
Nevertheless, through their com-ments, faculty expressed a deep loyaltyto the institution. This loyalty, how-ever, was associated more closely to
the department or discipline than theuniversity at large. Job satisfaction ismolded and sustained at the depart-ment level by colleagues and the de-partment chair. The department servesas the focal point for faculty concerns.The department chairperson plays animportant role as mentor, champion fortenure and promotion, advocate forresearch support, assignee of work load,and catalyst for the collegial atmo-sphere among the faculty.
From faculty comments, there ap-pears to be a clash between the faculty'sexpectations for the chair and what thechair may be required to do by senioradministrators. Faculty want theirchairs to be involved on their behalf ininstitutional decision making. How-ever, the chair is often perceived a:, a"hatchet person" for top university ad-ministrators.
For the faculty to play a morepivotal role, communication betweencentral administrators, deans, and de-partments need to be opened. Depart-ments, left out of information loopsand decision making processes, feelthat they are often treated cavalierly.Legitimate input is ignored. Adminis-trators could start to improve the cli-mate by "really" listening to faculty atthe department level. To address ques-tions of voice, Boyett and Conn (1991),among others, advocate a managementstyle that replaces top-down hierar-chies with basic unit decision making.The basic units, in this case the depart-ments, are empowered to make deci-sions necessary to survive. This ap-proach requires cooperation amongdepartments and colleges rather thanthe competitive motif that prevails intop-down management. As leadershipand management styles change to matchthe operational, personnel, and fiscalconditions of the 1990's and beyond,central administration may want to re-examine its approach to handlingchange with the intention of directlyinteracting with and involving faculty.
Salary compression, a sore pointwith faculty who have served the Uni-versity for many years, may be anintractable issue. New faculty in somedisciplines can command salaries abovesenior ranked im faculty. Bidding
22
wars for new faculty seem counterpro-ductive in times of constraints whenfaculty are not receiving the raises theybelieve they deserve.
The heavy emphasis on researchinvades all facets of faculty life. Withthe tenure and promotion systemheavily influenced by research produc-tivity, faculty want more of their timeallocated to research activities. Thosewith primarily teaching positions fmdthemselves locked in a two tier systemwhich research dominates. Amongthose with extension appointments con-cerns surfaced as to how they fit into asystem where outreach was not stronglysupported in the institution's rewardsystem.
The pressure to do research is ex-acerbated by departmental needs. De-partmental survival often hinges on theavailability ofresearch funds for gradu-ate student stipends, supplies, equip-ment and secretarial support. Facultyspend increasing time seeking grantsand the pressure to obtain them is in-tensifying. Yet, commenters raisedconcerns about the university's abilityto carry out its land grant mission, thequality of instruction students receive,and the dead-end careers of those stuckin teaching in the face of the clear needto increase research support.
Nothing rattled faculty more thanthe cry of the 1980's: "do more withless." Faculty were particularly frus-trated by what they perceived as theinability of senior administrators toimprove the financial resources of theinstitution. "Doing more with less" isa hollow cliche; everyone feels thatthey have been pushed to the limit.Even those who are successful in theirendeavors stated that they have beenpushed to the limit, if not their breakingpoint. Reemphasizing an earlier con-cern, creativity and motivation are at alow ebb. The key phrase is "loss ofcreativity." Many faculty revealed thatthey had no time to reflect on theirworld in order to product creative re-search ideas or to develop new teach-ing materials. Faculty want to capturetime, which is quickly fleeing to otheractivities (for example, administrativeassigiments), for their personal devel-opment. The loss of creativity contaib-
utes further to the loss of energy whichfurther lowers morale and decreasesmotivf-tion.
The life cycle model, used to tackjob satisfaction by length of service,illustrates critical times when job satis-faction drops sharply. It is aroundthese points that faculty are most likelyto consider leaving. The times prior tothe tenure decision and to promotion tofull professor can be anticipated. Whatdeserves attention is the rapid declineof job satisfaction among new faculty.The pressures to attain tenure, plus allthe other obligations thrust upon themby the institution, makes junior facultyparticularly vulnerable to pulls fromoutside the university.
Apparently, the satisfaction ofreaching full professor is short-lived.For several years, job satisfaction re-mains high before dropping: a patternsimilar to the path predicted byCytrynbaum and Crites. To insure thathistorical events at the university didn'tattenuate job satisfaction, several fac-ulty were queried about events fifteento twenty years ago. Nothing unusualwas found. A more plausible explana-tion suggests that the harder a facultymember strives to remain at the cuttingedge o f research and also excel in teach-ing and service, all against a back dropof decreasing support, the job becomesless appealing. This may also be thetime many faculty recognize they areunlikely to make any further careermoves.
The dramatic increase in job satis-faction during the latter stages of ones'career which runs counter to the pre-dictive model prompts further inquiryinto faculty life. The sample popula-tion in these later stages become small,making prescriptions difficult. How-ever, the path suggests that older fac-ulty may give up being "all things to allpeople," relinquishing their jugglingact. They seek a niche that fits theirinterests and talents and concentratetheir energies within that niche. Asmore faculty Pxtend their time in ser-vice, postponing retirement, their ca-reer dynamics change. To better uti-lize these resources, further career re-search on these faculty appears timely.
Two separate worlds exist at M i chi-
gan State University; one for womenand one for men. Men and womenview their positions in the institutiondifferently. (This finding is consistentwith results from several other studiesrecently completed on campus.)Women believe the system works infavor of men, particularly in work as-signments, where women are likely tohave more teaching and administrativeresponsibilities, and less time for re-search. The informal system also ben-efits men who, for example, are betterpositioned to use job offers to leveragetheir position. Men choose to ignorethese practices, probably because theywork to their advantage. Many womencan not use this strategy because, ifrequired to act upon their decision, it isunlikely that their partner could easilymove. While this contention is basedon anecdotal comments from severalwomen, the dynamics of dual-careercouples certainly exacerbates women'slabor market participation. Both therole of women in the institution and theinfluence of dual-career couples needto be examined further to better under-stand their relationship to job satisfac-tion.
Conclusion.:
This project profiledMichigan State Uni-versity's faculty at a
particular point in time. This bench-mark of faculty perceptions, beliefsand concerns, amid a time of structuralchange and fiscal limitations allowsfuture comparisons, as the re-engineer-ing becomes complete. The resultsserve as timely reminders of facultywants and needs: a productive envi-ronment for quality teaching, researchand service. It's clear that this facultydesires a stronger voice in the decisionprocess. While institutional loyaltyremains strong, the temptation to exitonly lies slightly submerged below thedaily :Activities of the faculty.
23
9 6
Astin, A.W., W.S. Korn and E.L. Dey. 1991. The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 1989-90HERI Faculty Survey. Higher Education Research Institute. Los Angeles: University of California.
Bayett, J.H. and H.P. Conn. 1991. Workplace 2000: The Revolution Reshaping American Business.
Blackburn, RT. and C.H. l'..-arand. 1973. "Career Patterns and Job Mobility of College and University MusicFaculty." Journal of Research in Music Education. Vol. 21(2):161-68.
Bowen, H.R. and J.H. Schuster. 1986. American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New York:Oxford University Press. New York, NY: Dutton.
Caplow, T. and R.J. McGee. 1958. The Academic Marketplace. New York: Basic Books.
Cytrynbaum, S. and J.O. Crites. 1988. "The Utility of Adult Development Theory in Understanding CareerAdjustment Process," in M.B. Arthur, D.T. Hope and B.S. Lawrence. Handbook of Career Theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 66-88.
Flowers, V.S. and C.L. Hughes. 1973. "Why Employees Stay." Harvard Business Review. 4 (July/Aug):49-60
Kerr, C. 1963. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Matier, M.W. 1990. "Retaining Faculty: A Tale of Two Campuses." Research in Higher Education. 31(1):39-60
Mobley, W.H., R.W. Griffeth, H.H. Hand, and B.M. Meglind. 1979. "Review and Conceptual Analysis ofthe Employee Turnover Process." Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 86(3):493-522.
National Center for Educational Statistics. 1988. Faculty in Higher Education, 1988. Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.: National Centerfor Educational Statistics.
Nicholson, N. and M. West. 1988. "Transitions, Work Histories, and Careers," in M.B. Arthur, D.T. Hall andB.S. Lawrence. Handbook of Career Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 181-201.
Schuster, J.H. and D.W. Wheeler. 1990. Enhancing Faculty Careers. Strategies for Development and Renewal.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Steckkin, J.F. and R.L. Lathrop. 1960. Faculty Attraction and Retention: Factors Affecting Faculty Mobility atthe University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, Minnesota: The University of Minnesota.
Toombs, W.E. and J. Marlier. 1981. Career Change Among Academics: Dimensions of Decision. Center forthe Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State University.
App
endi
Fac
tor
*Loa
ding
s fo
r La
tent
Cha
rate
ristic
s of
Job
Sat
isfa
cti
a
% V
aria
nce
Exp
lain
ed
Rep
utat
ion
of M
SUIn
stitu
tiona
l Mis
sion
Chi
ef A
dmin
istr
ativ
e O
ffic
ers
Facu
hy L
eade
rshi
pFa
culty
-Adm
inis
trat
ion
Rel
atio
nsFa
culty
Coo
pera
tior
Cro
nbac
h's
Alp
ha =
.787
Inst
itutio
nal
Qua
lity
Wor
k
Ass
ignm
ent
Supp
ort
Serv
ices
Tea
chin
g/In
stru
ctio
nC
aree
rO
utlo
ok
26.2
.599
4.6
282
.700
5.6
584
.766
3.5
842
8.1
7.1
5.2
4.8
Wor
k L
oad:
Gen
eral
.721
8T
ime
for
Res
earc
h/Sc
hola
rshi
p.8
100
Mix
of
Dut
ies
(Ins
truc
tion,
Res
ecrc
h,A
dmin
istr
atio
n an
d Se
rvic
e).7
315
Tim
e to
Wor
k w
ith S
tude
nts
.625
8C
ronb
ach'
s A
lpha
= .8
08
Ava
ilabi
lity
of S
uppo
rt S
ervi
ces
.621
0
Ava
ilabi
lity
of E
quip
men
t.6
395
Res
earc
h A
ssis
tanc
e.6
025
Coo
pera
tion
of S
uppo
rt S
taff
.544
6Q
ualit
y of
Res
earc
h Fa
cilit
ies
.623
9C
ronb
ach'
s A
lpha
- .6
96
2829
App
endi
xAC
ontin
ued
Con
tent
of
Cla
sses
Abi
lity
to S
elec
t Cla
sses
to T
each
Tea
chin
g A
ssis
tanc
eQ
ualit
y of
Gra
duat
e St
uden
tsQ
ualit
y of
Und
ergr
adua
te S
tude
nts
Cro
nbac
h's
Alp
ha =
.690
Job
Secu
rity
Abi
lity
to M
ake
Non
-Ins
truc
tiona
lD
ecis
ion
Abo
ut th
e Jo
bA
dvan
cem
ent O
ppor
tuni
tyO
ppor
tuni
ties
for
Prof
essi
onal
Gro
wth
Dep
artm
enta
l Lea
ders
hip
Cro
nbac
h's
Alp
ha =
.661
30
Inst
itutio
nal
Wor
kSu
ppor
tT
each
ing/
Car
eer
Oua
lity
Ass
ignm
ent
Serv
ices
Inst
ruct
ion
Out
look
.770
0.7
107
.591
7.6
022
.496
0
31
.542
7
.593
9.5
439
.497
0.6
000
App
endi
x B
Fac
tor
Load
ings
for
Late
nt C
hara
cter
istic
s of
Rea
sons
to L
eave
the
Uni
vers
ity
32
Inst
itutio
nal
Com
mitm
ent
Inst
itutio
nal
Com
mun
ityW
ork
Com
pen-
Res
earc
hR
eput
atio
nA
ttrac
tion
Lad
% V
aria
nce
Exp
lain
ed36
.06.
47.
2
Rap
port
with
Uni
v. L
eade
rshi
p.7
2589
Infl
uenc
e in
Col
lege
.680
51R
appo
rt w
ith C
olle
ge L
eade
rs.7
9385
Infl
uenc
e in
Ins
titut
ion
.735
80L
oyal
ty.5
4714
Inst
itutio
nal M
issi
on.5
2290
Infl
uenc
e in
Dep
t..5
4447
Cro
nbac
h's
Alp
ha =
.862
0
Rep
utat
ion
of M
SII
.750
85R
eput
atio
n of
Ass
ocia
tes
.686
47R
eput
atio
n of
Dep
artm
ent
.752
22C
ompe
tenc
e of
Col
leag
ues
.661
60C
onge
nial
ity o
f C
olle
ague
s.4
1963
Cro
nbac
h's
Alp
ha =
.870
1
3.5
2.9
3.4
Geo
grap
hic
Con
side
ratio
ns.8
7260
Cul
tura
l/Soc
ial O
ppor
tuni
ties
.815
08C
limat
e.8
1437
I lo
usin
g C
osts
.650
86Fa
mily
& F
rien
ds.5
3649
Spou
sal C
aree
r.5
0339
Cro
nhac
h's
Alp
ha.8
307
Car
eer
Out
look
4.3
33
Inst
itutio
nal
Inst
itutio
nal
Con
umm
ityW
ork
(-)m
pen-
Res
earc
hC
aree
r
Con
unitm
ent
Rep
utat
ion
Attr
actio
ttL
ind
5Atio
nN
uppo
rtO
utlo
ok
Serv
ice
Loa
d.6
1541
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Loa
d.6
8734
Publ
ishi
ng.4
4060
cach
ing
I oa
d/A
ssig
nmcn
t.5
7422
Res
earc
h L
oad
.541
08
Cro
nbac
h's
Alp
ha =
.749
8
Sala
ry.6
9629
I1en
elits
.404
81
Mer
it Pa
y.7
1847
('ron
bach
's A
lpha
= .7
905
Fxte
rnal
Fun
d A
vaila
bilit
yI.
ibra
ry F
acili
ties
Res
earc
h Fa
cilit
ies
Res
earc
h O
ppor
tuni
ties/
Inte
rnal
Fun
d A
vaila
bilit
yon
bach
's A
lpha
7936
Job
Secu
rity
(I
enur
e)1)
epar
tmen
tal l
eade
rshi
pPr
omot
ion
Car
eer
Adv
ance
men
tA
ppre
ciat
ion
fOr
Wor
kC
ronb
ach'
Alp
ha =
.833
8
I et
2EST
CO
PY A
CIV
.791
07.4
5078
.681
07
7584
9
.627
71
.538
89.7
9473
.698
14.5
7422
5
The Collegiate Employment Research Institute was established by Michigan's Legislature in1984. The Institute is charged with the task of examining issues on career development andemployment for college graduates. Various projects are underway, including the study coveredin this report, to provide information to educators and counselors for program development. Ifyou have any questions on this study or any Institute project, please contact the Institute directly.
Vernicka K. TysonActing Director
Career Development and Placement Services
L. Patrick Scheetz, Ph.D.Assistant Director, Career Development and Placement Services;
Director of the Institute
Philip D. Gardner, Ph.D.Assistant Director. Career Development and Placement Services;
Research Administrator of the Institute
Collegiate Employment Research InstituteCareer Dev,zlopment and Placement Services
Michiaan State UniversityE2st Lansing, MI 48824
MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
36 : 11 .1"."a
