Time to be grateful? Or pro-active?

Indeed, these are interesting times. Many say it’s a time to be grateful that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reduced its financial support by “only 18%” –as opposed to 54% that was originally proposed. Also, it’s time to be glad that the collective bargaining agreement that governs the employment relations between faculty and coaches has not been re-negotiated; what can we expect when the first move by the faculty negotiators was to offer –not even accept—a salary freeze for the next academic year! Time to be grateful that we have jobs, right? After all, unemployment has kept stubbornly above 9% in the past months! (For details, click here.)

But, before we accept this common wisdom, take whatever the Commonwealth and the union offer and resign ourselves to a new contract with salary raises that barely match inflation (if at all!), I suggest we check some of the assumptions behind all of this gratefulness we, faculty members should have.

First of all, while it’s true that national unemployment has remained at the highest level of the decade, I believe we should examine some evidence. Consider the graph in the following link (the Bureau of Labor Statistics will probably be changing it to the most current figures as time goes by):

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

This figure also clearly ties to us, as faculty, in a number of ways. First, it clearly shows that what we do as teachers has significant economic (as well as cultural and intellectual) value for our students and our state --and we need to remember that and remind others of it. Moreover, this figure demonstrates that, for individuals with faculty-level qualifications, the average unemployment rate in 2010 can be as low as 1.9% for doctoral degree holders or as high as 4.0 for colleagues with only a master’s. It turns out that all those years in school, student loans, etc. do pay off!

Now, before you conclude that I’m suggesting we should all pack up and find jobs in private universities –since our state government is evidently uninterested in continuing to support rural higher education—, I will acknowledge that faculty mobility is not high, especially once one has achieved tenure. Instead, we have to be proactive in these difficult times.

I believe we must start by looking after our own basic needs. Trying to do “more with less” –or even “the same!’’—may be not only insulting, but also dangerous to our health. I already see some colleagues taking on increased workloads as a result of frozen hiring, coupled with recent retirements, smaller budgets for temporary positions, student workers, etc. Burnout may be right around the corner if we don’t take appropriate measures (see Ms. Scholar's column for suggestions clicking here).

Next, our professional development and commitment to research cannot stop! Unless there is a sudden change of heart in Harrisburg, it is quite likely that this is only the first of four, perhaps eight years of reductions in state support for our schools. We must continue to grow professionally. We also need to continue using and honing the rarest and potentially most valuable of our skills, the ability to do research. Not only do publications improve our individual résumés and collective reputation, they might be one of the strongest ways in which we differentiate our university from organizations that charge lower fees but simply cannot offer students what we can when we stay current in our fields. If our skills and reputation take a hit in the next few years, we will be unable to convince the shrinking student population that our university is worth attending, or find alternate sources of employment, should the need arise.

I am sure there are other ways to be proactive in these difficult times. If we work together to be proactive, we can be grateful to each other. I hope we do inspire and help each other find ways in which we will not only survive but thrive during these interesting times.

Are the business disciplines unreliable?

Have you ever felt that your MBA gives you more questions than answers? Let me give you an example; I look forward to hearing from you if you would like to share other examples with your NSHMBA colleagues; I promise to give you full credit for your idea!

As MBAs, most of us have spent between 1.5 and four years of our lives -as well as several thousands of dollars- applying for, studying through, and transitioning from a graduate program into a better, brighter future. Clearly, we expend all of these resources because we believe there is a lot of value in studying an MBA -and, indeed, there are studies out there that show that people with graduate degrees earn more money, promotions, and similarly desirable work outcomes for themselves and for their families!

Of course, these outcomes do not come about just by showing a new piece of paper to an employer; I do not know many MBA's who have obtained salary raises or promotions when they graduate while working for a particular company in the private sector. For part-time MBA students, newer responsibilities come their way as they learn new tools while studying the different business disciplines. Full-time MBAs are more likely to experience a radical shift in their work before and after the degree, but I know that there are many variations along these lines.

Our MBA classes give us access to knowledge that would be difficult to find on our own, in addition to providing us with access to social capital -our professors and fellow MBA students- and ultimately to a diploma that signals proficiency in the disciplines required for managing organizations.

Yet, from time to time, those classes might give us more questions than answers, as in the topic about the importance of money in motivating employees. If you have read chapter five in Jeff Pfeffer and Bob Sutton's book Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense (2006, Harvard Business Press), you might be under the impression that using money as your main tool for motivating employees is extremely dangerous and very likely to lead you to disaster! Pfeffer and Sutton mount a very solid case against placing too much importance on money by reviewing studies and providing examples of companies that suggest that money (in particular pay-for-performance plans) should be used only under very limited conditions.

On the other hand, Sara Rynes and her colleagues state in a recent peer-reviewed article (Academy of Management Executive, 2002; 16(3): 92-102) that money is indeed a major source of motivation -perhaps the most important one that managers will have at their disposal to accomplish their job. They also marshal evidence from a variety of studies to support their thesis: money is the most important motivational incentive (page 100).

What gives? Obviously, the relationship between money and work motivation might be more complex than meets the eye. What do you think? What's your evidence that makes you think this way? How do you make sense of the fact that two highly respected sets of researchers seem to hold widely divergent views on the same--and extremely important issue! Clearly, this is not a trivial matter!

When asked about this dilemma, Regina Cuellar-Lee (President of the Indianapolis Chapter of NSHMBA) reflected on the fact that some jobs are so demanding on our personal lives that we expect higher pay than for other jobs that are more fulfilling. On the other hand, Mickey Quiñones (Associate Editor of NSHMBA's Business Journal of Hispanic Research) and I discussed how difficult it is for men to even think about a cut in pay -yet many women experience it frequently due to life events such as the arrival of children or the need to take care of relatives in difficult health conditions!

Maybe you have faced similar dilemmas in other business disciplines. I look forward to hearing from you via email, fax, snail mail or blog --the latter is preferred; just post a comment using the link below...