Academic administrators' and faculty's perceptions of current and ideal reward systems

a multisite investigation

Michael S. Monaghan, Ann Ryan-Haddad, Noel E. Wilkin, Heidi Milia Anderson, Julie M. Koehler, Patricia A. Howard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: (1) To investigate academic leaders' and faculty members' perceptions of current faculty reward systems and whether these systems engage faculty in achieving institutional missions; (2) to identify what faculty and administrators in higher education perceive to be the ideal faculty reward system for the future. A secondary objective was to assess whether congruence exists between faculty and administrators' perceptions of reward systems (both current and ideal). Methods: The study was conducted at five institutions; subjects were university administrators and faculty. A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess what key factors are considered in the current reward system for faculty, what factors ideally should be part of the faculty reward system, and how motivated faculty are in advancing the mission of their respective institutions. Faculty and administrators' surveys were compared using t-tests. Data were further explored using personal interviews with university administrators. These data were evaluated for common themes. Results: Administrators perceived that current reward systems primarily consider classroom teaching, research, and student advising more importantly than do faculty. Administrators also perceive the ideal reward system should primarily consider research more importantly than do faculty. Based on interviews, salaries play a large role in current reward systems. An ideal reward structure would require appropriate funds to both engage and reward productive faculty. Conclusions: Some divergence exists between administrators' expectations and that of faculty. Administrators recognize the need to engage and reward productive faculty, but currently, limited financial resources restrict their ability to do so monetarily.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)71-78
Number of pages8
JournalCurrents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Administrative Personnel
Reward
Wages
Teaching
Education
Students
Interviews
Aptitude
Salaries and Fringe Benefits
Financial Management
Research
Cross-Sectional Studies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacy
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

Academic administrators' and faculty's perceptions of current and ideal reward systems : a multisite investigation. / Monaghan, Michael S.; Ryan-Haddad, Ann; Wilkin, Noel E.; Anderson, Heidi Milia; Koehler, Julie M.; Howard, Patricia A.

In: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, Vol. 1, No. 2, 12.2009, p. 71-78.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Monaghan, Michael S. ; Ryan-Haddad, Ann ; Wilkin, Noel E. ; Anderson, Heidi Milia ; Koehler, Julie M. ; Howard, Patricia A. / Academic administrators' and faculty's perceptions of current and ideal reward systems : a multisite investigation. In: Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2009 ; Vol. 1, No. 2. pp. 71-78.
@article{107c5f1ff0ae496eb4f7a526c753cb54,
title = "Academic administrators' and faculty's perceptions of current and ideal reward systems: a multisite investigation",
abstract = "Objectives: (1) To investigate academic leaders' and faculty members' perceptions of current faculty reward systems and whether these systems engage faculty in achieving institutional missions; (2) to identify what faculty and administrators in higher education perceive to be the ideal faculty reward system for the future. A secondary objective was to assess whether congruence exists between faculty and administrators' perceptions of reward systems (both current and ideal). Methods: The study was conducted at five institutions; subjects were university administrators and faculty. A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess what key factors are considered in the current reward system for faculty, what factors ideally should be part of the faculty reward system, and how motivated faculty are in advancing the mission of their respective institutions. Faculty and administrators' surveys were compared using t-tests. Data were further explored using personal interviews with university administrators. These data were evaluated for common themes. Results: Administrators perceived that current reward systems primarily consider classroom teaching, research, and student advising more importantly than do faculty. Administrators also perceive the ideal reward system should primarily consider research more importantly than do faculty. Based on interviews, salaries play a large role in current reward systems. An ideal reward structure would require appropriate funds to both engage and reward productive faculty. Conclusions: Some divergence exists between administrators' expectations and that of faculty. Administrators recognize the need to engage and reward productive faculty, but currently, limited financial resources restrict their ability to do so monetarily.",
author = "Monaghan, {Michael S.} and Ann Ryan-Haddad and Wilkin, {Noel E.} and Anderson, {Heidi Milia} and Koehler, {Julie M.} and Howard, {Patricia A.}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.cptl.2009.10.007",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "71--78",
journal = "Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning",
issn = "1877-1297",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Academic administrators' and faculty's perceptions of current and ideal reward systems

T2 - a multisite investigation

AU - Monaghan, Michael S.

AU - Ryan-Haddad, Ann

AU - Wilkin, Noel E.

AU - Anderson, Heidi Milia

AU - Koehler, Julie M.

AU - Howard, Patricia A.

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - Objectives: (1) To investigate academic leaders' and faculty members' perceptions of current faculty reward systems and whether these systems engage faculty in achieving institutional missions; (2) to identify what faculty and administrators in higher education perceive to be the ideal faculty reward system for the future. A secondary objective was to assess whether congruence exists between faculty and administrators' perceptions of reward systems (both current and ideal). Methods: The study was conducted at five institutions; subjects were university administrators and faculty. A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess what key factors are considered in the current reward system for faculty, what factors ideally should be part of the faculty reward system, and how motivated faculty are in advancing the mission of their respective institutions. Faculty and administrators' surveys were compared using t-tests. Data were further explored using personal interviews with university administrators. These data were evaluated for common themes. Results: Administrators perceived that current reward systems primarily consider classroom teaching, research, and student advising more importantly than do faculty. Administrators also perceive the ideal reward system should primarily consider research more importantly than do faculty. Based on interviews, salaries play a large role in current reward systems. An ideal reward structure would require appropriate funds to both engage and reward productive faculty. Conclusions: Some divergence exists between administrators' expectations and that of faculty. Administrators recognize the need to engage and reward productive faculty, but currently, limited financial resources restrict their ability to do so monetarily.

AB - Objectives: (1) To investigate academic leaders' and faculty members' perceptions of current faculty reward systems and whether these systems engage faculty in achieving institutional missions; (2) to identify what faculty and administrators in higher education perceive to be the ideal faculty reward system for the future. A secondary objective was to assess whether congruence exists between faculty and administrators' perceptions of reward systems (both current and ideal). Methods: The study was conducted at five institutions; subjects were university administrators and faculty. A cross-sectional survey design was used to assess what key factors are considered in the current reward system for faculty, what factors ideally should be part of the faculty reward system, and how motivated faculty are in advancing the mission of their respective institutions. Faculty and administrators' surveys were compared using t-tests. Data were further explored using personal interviews with university administrators. These data were evaluated for common themes. Results: Administrators perceived that current reward systems primarily consider classroom teaching, research, and student advising more importantly than do faculty. Administrators also perceive the ideal reward system should primarily consider research more importantly than do faculty. Based on interviews, salaries play a large role in current reward systems. An ideal reward structure would require appropriate funds to both engage and reward productive faculty. Conclusions: Some divergence exists between administrators' expectations and that of faculty. Administrators recognize the need to engage and reward productive faculty, but currently, limited financial resources restrict their ability to do so monetarily.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=72149133959&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=72149133959&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cptl.2009.10.007

DO - 10.1016/j.cptl.2009.10.007

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 71

EP - 78

JO - Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning

JF - Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning

SN - 1877-1297

IS - 2

ER -