How are professors paid? Can the "best and brightest" be attracted to the academic profession? With universities facing international competition, which countries compensate their academics best, and ...which ones lag behind? "Paying the Professoriate" examines these questions and provides key insights and recommendations into the current state of the academic profession worldwide. "Paying the Professoriate" is the first comparative analysis of global faculty salaries, remuneration, and terms of employment. Offering an in-depth international comparison of academic salaries in 28 countries across public, private, research, and non-research universities, chapter authors shed light on the conditions and expectations that shape the modern academic profession. The top researchers on the academic profession worldwide analyze common themes, trends, and the impact of these matters on academic quality and research productivity. In a world where higher education capacity is a key driver of national innovation and prosperity, and nations seek to fast-track their economic growth through expansion of higher education systems, policy makers and administrators increasingly seek answers about what actions they should be taking. "Paying the Professoriate" provides a much needed resource, illuminating the key issues and offering recommendations. Contents of this book include: (1) Academic Remuneration and Contracts: Global Trends and Realities (Philip G. Altbach, Liz Reisberg, and Ivan F. Pacheco); (2) Quantitative Analysis: Looking for Commonalities in a Sea of Differences (Gregory Androushchak and Maria Yudkevich); (3) Labor Contracts and Economic Incentives for Argentine University Faculty (Ana Garcia de Fanelli); (4) The Academic Career in a Transition Economy: Case Study of the Republic of Armenia (Arevik Ohanyan); (5) Academic Salaries, Massification, and the Rise of an Underclass in Australia (Anthony Welch); (6) Brazil: The Widening Gap (Simon Schwartzman); (7) The Organization of Academic Work and Faculty Remuneration at Canadian Universities (Glen A. Jones and Julian Weinrib); (8) A Study on Academic Salary and Remunerations in China (Wanhua Ma and Jianbo Wen); (9) Academic Salaries in Colombia: The Data Tell Only a Small Part of the Story (Ivan F. Pacheco); (10) The Czech Republic: High Estimation for the Academic Profession (Helena Sebkova); (11) Salary and Incentive Structure in Ethiopian Higher Education (Elizabeth Ayalew); (12) Changing the Rules of the French Academic Market (Gaele Goastellec); (13) The Income Situation in the German System of Higher Education: A Rag Rug (Marius Herzog and Barbara M. Kehm); (14) Academic Salaries and Career Advancement: Tuning the Professoriate for a Knowledge Economy in India (Narayana Jayaram); (15) Israel: Academic Salaries and Remuneration (Sara Guri-Rosenblit); (16) Italy: From Bureaucratic Legacy to Reform of the Profession (Giliberto Capano and Gianfranco Rebora); (17) Working Conditions and Salaries of the Academic Profession in Japan (vKazunori Shima); (18) Academic Salaries in Kazakhstan: Current Status and Perspectives (Sholpan Kalanova); (19) The Academic Salary System: Conditions and Trends in Latvia (Tatjana Volkova); (20) Attractiveness of Salaries and Remunerations of Malaysian Academics (Muhamad Jantan); (21) Mexican Faculty Salaries Today: Once a Bagger, Always a Beggar? (Alma Maldonado-Maldonado); (22) Introducing Market Forces in Academic Remuneration: The Case of the Netherlands (Ben Jongbloed); (23) Nigeria: Toward an Open Market (Olufemi A. Bamiro); (24) Academic Salaries in Norway: Increasing Emphasis on Research Achievement (Svein Kyvik); (25) Russian Higher Education: Salaries and Contracts (Gregory Androushchak and Maria Yudkevich); (26) Faculty Salary and Remuneration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Mohammad Al-Ohali and Hamad Al-Mehrej); (27) The Unequal Playing Field: Academic Remuneration in South Africa (Chika Trevor Sehoole); (28) Remuneration of Academic Staff in Turkish Universities (Kemal Guruz); (29) Academic Salary in the United Kingdom: Marketization and National Policy Development (Fumi Kitagawa); (30) The Power of Institutional and Disciplinary Markets: Academic Salaries in the United States (Martin J. Finkelstein); and (31) Academic Community and Contracts: Modern Challenges and Responses (Yaroslav Kuzminov).
In the U.S., Asians are commonly viewed as the "model minority" because of their economic prosperity. We challenge this rosy view by revealing that certain Asian groups may be susceptible to lower ...starting salaries. In Study 1, we analyzed 19 class years of MBAs who accepted full-time job offers in the U.S. At first glance, Asians appeared to have starting salaries similarly high as Whites'. However, a striking gap emerged once we distinguished between East Asians (e.g., ethnic Chinese), Southeast Asians (e.g., ethnic Vietnamese), and South Asians (e.g., ethnic Indians): Whereas South Asians started with the highest salaries of all ethnicities, East/Southeast Asians were near the bottom. This salary gap was mediated by East/Southeast Asians' propensity to not negotiate due to higher relational concerns. Importantly, negotiation predicted higher salary for each of the three groups (East/Southeast Asians, South Asians, and Whites). In further support of negotiation propensity as a mechanism, we identified industry as a boundary condition: The salary gap was not observed for consulting jobs, where MBA starting salaries are typically standard and non-negotiable. The non-consulting salary gap between East/Southeast and South Asians was estimated to be $4,002/year, a sizable difference that can compound over career life. Study 2 found similar results in a non-MBA sample while further accounting for individuals' bargaining power (e.g., the number of alternative offers, the highest alternative offer). In revealing the differences between East/Southeast and South Asians, this research moves beyond the predominant West-versus-East paradigm and reveals a more complex reality underneath Asian prosperity.
Although research has examined the role of disability in the employment cycle, the compensation stage of this process has remained nascent. Drawing on the bias literature and expectancy violation ...theory, disability within the context of salary negotiation is examined across three consecutive studies. Study 1, a vignette experiment, found that fictitious job candidates with disabilities received similar initial salary offerings relative to fictitious job candidates without disabilities. Our finding of a pay similarity in the initial salary offering phase of the compensation process raises additional questions of whether those with disabilities ultimately receive lower wages than those without disabilities. To address this question, Study 2 used a computer-simulated negotiation to determine if pay differences among those with and without disabilities originate during the negotiation process. As expected, participants with disabilities negotiated lower salaries, and this effect was exacerbated when perceptions of disability discrimination were higher rather than lower. Finally, in an effort to better advise organizations and employees, Study 3 sought to understand if employees with disabilities experience different outcomes when negotiating salary. Using a vignette experimental design, we found that those with disabilities were offered lower final salaries than those without disabilities and that differences in both social and economic outcomes occur through a lower perceived likelihood that the job candidate will negotiate. Collectively, this research offers novel theoretical insights into the role of disability in the negotiation process and provides recommendations to those with disabilities and organizations on how to approach the compensation process.
To assess adherence to and individual or systematic deviations from predicted physician compensation by gender or race/ethnicity at a large academic medical center that uses a salary-only structured ...compensation model incorporating national benchmarks and clear standardized pay steps and increments.
All permanent staff physicians employed at Mayo Clinic medical practices in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida who served in clinical roles as of January 2017. Each physician's pay, demographics, specialty, full-time equivalent status, benchmark pay for the specialty, leadership role(s), and other factors that may influence compensation within the plan were collected and analyzed. For each individual, the natural log of pay was used to determine predicted pay and 95% CI based on the structured compensation plan, compared with their actual salary.
Among 2845 physicians (861 women, 722 nonwhites), pay equity was affirmed in 96% (n=2730). Of the 80 physicians (2.8%) with higher and 35 (1.2%) with lower than predicted pay, there was no interaction with gender or race/ethnicity. More men (31.4%; 623 of 1984) than women (15.9%; 137 of 861) held or had held a compensable leadership position. More men (34.7%; 688 of 1984) than women (20.5%; 177 of 861) were represented in the most highly compensated specialties.
A structured compensation model was successfully applied to all physicians at a multisite large academic medical system and resulted in pay equity. However, achieving overall gender pay equality will only be fully realized when women achieve parity in the ranks of the most highly compensated specialties and in leadership roles.
The vast majority of the pay inequality in organizations comes from differences in pay between employees and their bosses. But are employees aware of these pay disparities? Are employees demotivated ...by this inequality? To address these questions, we conducted a natural field experiment with a sample of 2,060 employees from a multibillion-dollar corporation in Southeast Asia. We document large misperceptions among employees about the salaries of their managers and smaller but still significant misperceptions of the salaries of their peers, and we show that these perceptions have a significant causal effect on the employees’ own behavior.
Despite a recent increase in women and racial/ethnic minorities in U.S. post-secondary education, doctoral recipients from these groups report lower salaries than male and majority peers. With a ...longitudinal sample of approximately 10,000 respondents from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, this study adds to the limited literature examining the effects of discipline, sector of employment, personal traits (e.g., marital status and number of children), and the interaction of gender and race on annual salary over the decade after degree completion, 1999–2008. Multilevel growth models reveal greater gaps in salary for women compared to men across all race/ethnic groups. The greatest rate of return was found for Asian respondents regardless of gender, and minority males had better returns than White male peers conditional on marriage. Implications for career choice, career paths, and the need for policies that address gender and race equity are discussed.
Business schools frequently utilize AACSB's Salary Survey (Staff Compensation and Demographic Survey, or the SCDS Report) to benchmark salaries being offered by other schools. While providing ...averages based on a national sample, the SCDS Report obscures differences that might exist in salary averages between masters-granting and doctoral-granting business schools. In this paper, we demonstrate how these differences inflate salary averages for masters-granting schools and present a step-by-step methodology that all participating AACSB-accredited schools that provide survey data can deploy to get salary data that are more peer-appropriate and reflective of market expectations.
PDF
