Comparing business faculty's salaries by rank and gender: does AACSB accreditation really make a difference?

Comparing business faculty's salaries by rank and gender: does AACSB accreditation really make a difference? INTRODUCTION Once collegiate business schools have achieved accreditationrecognition through the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools ofBusiness International (AACSB), there is the burden of proof formaintaining the more rigorous standards imposed on the academic programofferings. One of the hardest things for business school deans--andtheir department heads--to do is not dissatisfy their faculty members, afactor, arguably, that is directly related to the production ofintellectual contributions of a reasonable (measureable) quantity andquality. Frederick Herzberg was a psychologist whose writings popularized"enrichment theory." We know from Herzberg, Mausner andSnyderman (1959) and Herzberg (1964) that motivation and dissatisfactionare different factors. Herzberg (1964) included salary among the list ofhygiene factors, i.e., fringe benefits, status, job security, andsalary. These factors do not cause positive satisfaction, but theirabsence results in dissatisfaction. Herzberg used the term"hygiene" within the context of human motivation and jobenrichment. He surmised, correctly, that factors at work that motivatepeople are different and not simply the opposite of the factors thatdissatisfy people. Therefore, it is easy to construe from this theorythat a faculty member can be not "dissatisfied" with salarybut also not necessarily "motivated" or "satisfied"with the work he or she does in general. (1964) This is often the case with tenured faculty members (who alreadyhave job security and status hygiene) but whose ICs are so low that theycannot be classified as professionally qualified (PQ) or academicallyqualified (AQ) by even the most liberal standards. They seem perfectlysatisfied doing the mundane and, with very moderate, if any annual payincreases. Thus, it is possible to hypothesize that since AACSB isimposing higher standards, one of which is a financial commitment fromadministration, including university presidents, that AACSB accreditedbusiness schools should be more hygienic when it comes to salary, status(rank), and security (tenure). We can surmise in most cases that annualmerit pay increases, tenure appointments, and promotion through theranks will include considerations of a faculty member's researchproductivity, especially at AACSB accredited business schools. Anyone chairing a faculty development committee knows all about theproof required from faculty members on the tenure-track or those up forpost-tenure review; they must submit to the committee their dossiersincluding peer reviewed publications, peer-reviewed proceedings, peerreviewed paper presentations, and other intellectual contributions. Whatbusiness schools are doing to make continuous improvements on"closing the loop" on weaknesses in theirprograms--accomplishments consistent with the standards that must bedocumented year-to-year in annual maintenance reports--is essential tomaintaining AACSB accreditation. Faculty members' intellectual contributions are thejustification for graduate programs in many cases, even at businessschools whose missions are primarily teaching. Nonetheless, all-to-oftenschools of business have limited resources and a host of budgetconstraints that directly affect the salary hygiene factor that directlyimpact faculty members' intellectual contributions, i.e., money forconference travel, publication and pages fees reimbursed, sponsoringsymposiums, and special incentives for publishing in top-tier journals. Are these AACSB accredited business schools using salary andpromotion to quash dissatisfaction among the ranks and between genders?We wanted to know that since AACSB imposes more rigorous standards onthe business schools it accredits and whether these AACSB businessschools also provide more stable salary, security, and status as hygieneacross rank and gender. AACSB RELATED LITERATURE Studies abound about the need for research and publishing incolleges of business nationwide. This is most evident in schools whichare accredited or seeking initial accreditation as well as formaintenance of their accreditation status. AACSB states in its whitepaper that faculty should be "active scholars through theirresearch and other development activities that support the maintenanceof their intellectual capital in the teaching field." (2006, p.1)The Association further reports that faculty members who are activelyengaged in research are more likely to remain current in their teachingdiscipline and that, in turn, results in enhanced teaching effectivenessand student learning (AACSB, 2008). This result does not resonate withmost academicians. Although the idea that research enhances teaching ispopular, there is little empirical evidence to support this claim perGibbs (1995). Faculty members in teaching institutions who are pressuredto do research continually tend to put less emphasis on teaching. (Marsh& Hattie, 2002) They conclude that "time on research is relatedto research productivity but not teaching effectiveness, whereas time onteaching is not related to teaching effectiveness but may be negativelyrelated to research productivity." (p. 613). While a faculty member may feel unfavorable about conductingresearch in general, he or she would be motivated to do so nonethelessbecause it is the socially desirable and normatively appropriatebehavior within his or her department or college states (Stanton,Taylor, & Stanaland, 2009). With adequate resources available,graduate assistants or time off, to assist in research activities, thismay heighten perception of the required research activity. Researchinstitutions readily provide such resources to their faculty members,but this is rarely the case in teaching institutions. It is generallyknown that the more peer-reviewed publications a faculty member has, themore he or she is rewarded in merit increases, perks, or highersalaries. Hedrick, et.al (2010) stated that AACSB accreditation is a mark ofdistinction for academic programs. They reported that the goal ofaccreditation is to improve the quality of business programs, yet someskeptics contend that the aim is to increase business faculty salaries,perhaps at the expense of other academic programs. They found thatfaculty at accredited institutions earn more, teach less, and producemore research and that the research output is measured by refereedarticles. Supporting this aim is Levernier and Miles's (1992)finding that faculty members at AACSB-accredited institutions earnhigher salaries. The AACSB status tends to be a deciding factor in negotiating withhigher administration for facilities, talent maintenance, and talentacquisition. One might expect the "publish or perish"institutions to have the strongest subjective norms usually. Naturally,from an institutional point of view, the research productivity of theuniversity's faculty results in increasing status of theinstitution and in securing grant dollars. (Taylor & Stanton, 2009)Perhaps is may be more prudent to examine the relationship betweenfaculty members' attitudes toward research and its impact onteaching effectiveness. The role of publishing in academia has been historically to providea venue for academic discourse and the dissemination of newly createdknowledge. But due to the new paradigm in business schools that areAACSB accredited, seeking reaccreditation, as well as candidacy schoolsfor AACSB accreditation, AACSB Standards 10 and 2, define faculty as AQ(academically qualified) and PQ (professionally qualified), academicpublishing has been even more highly prioritized. The result is torequire a higher percentage of faculty members to actively engage inresearch and to publish their research in peer-reviewed journals. Thus,one can assume that this shift has resulted in a need to publish purelyfor the sake of publishing to get the merit increases and/or highersalaries. The findings of Taylor and Stanton's (2009) study offaculty members in AACSB accredited business schools revealed thatfaculty would spend less time in scholarly publication pursuits if itdid not have such a strong impact on their job security and thatsecuring a publication is often more important than providing acontribution to the advancement of their business discipline. Administrators also have increased publication expectations fortheir faculty members with a trend toward more weight on scholarlyactivities (Alshare, Wenger & Miller, 2007). It would appear thatteaching effectiveness has taken a back seat in administrators'quest to close the loop. According to Roberts, Johnson, and Groesbeck(2006), an increased emphasis on research and publications comes at theprice of placing less value on teaching. Their study found that newlyhired faculty at AACSB accredited institutions value research more thanestablished faculty members. A substantial body of literature exists which has analyzed,debated, and theorized about the research activity, teaching success,and effectiveness. Jenkins (2004) conducted a review of the literaturethrough 2004 and did not find persuasive evidence that research improvesteaching. Bennis and O'Toole (2005) have stated that businessschools are measuring themselves almost solely by the rigor of theirscientific research rather than on good teaching in the classroom by thefaculty member and student interaction or outcome. Corcoran (2006) reported that under AACSB "missiondriven" standards, three tiers of business programs have emerged,namely doctoral, master, and baccalaureate levels. These institutionaldifferences are large and varied, but faculty perceptions are quitesimilar, regardless of program tier. He stated that the common bind ofthese diverse programs is measured less in terms of resources and morein terms of a shared ethic of mission-driven excellence. One of the most visible consequences of AACSB accreditation hasbeen an increased focus on research. AACSB, Section 3 and Section 2states the following: The school's mission statement is appropriate to higher education for management and consonant with the mission of any institution of which the school is a part. The mission includes the production of intellectual contributions that advance the knowledge and practice of business and management. (p. 21) Thus, Standard 2 focuses on the body of IC (intellectualcontributions) that is produced by the school's faculty as a wholewith the goal of faculty maintaining currency in their respective fieldsby developing research and theory (AACSB International, 2008, p. 47).Herein are the terms used to justify maintenance of currency--AQ(faculty with a doctoral degree) or PQ (faculty with a master'sdegree and professional experience). With respect to IC expectations, itclearly indicates that they should be in writing, categorized, andprioritized (i.e., ranked) although they can be in many forms of output. In the study by Smith, Haight, and Rosenberg (2009) that sought toexamine AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectualcontributions and academic and professional qualification of faculty,they found that an overwhelming majority of schools ranked peer-reviewedjournal articles as the most significant form of output; they concludethat many schools are still applying antiquated standards in theirevaluation of faculty IC. IC is often translated as peer-reviewedjournal articles and that using this one-size-fits-all approach oftenstifles creativity and deployment of faculty members in a manner thatbest leverages their individual talents in support of the school'smission. One perceived consequence of AACSB accreditation is that thecharacter of the faculty changes in at least one respect: new hiresvalue research more. It is not clear whether or not this means they alsovalue teaching less. Faculty hired after accreditation do not believeso, but established faculty do (Roberts, Johnson, & Groesbeck,2004). Terpstra and Honoree (2009) argue that an institution's formalor public statement regarding the relative emphasis given to teachingversus research may actually differ markedly from the actual relativeemphasis. They purport that the actual emphasis may be better addressedby the reward structure in place. For example, an institution mayformally state that good teaching is of the utmost importance, yet theorganizational rewards (such as merit pay, tenure, promotion) may bebased primarily on research accomplishments. Their research on theeffects of different teaching, research, and service emphases onindividual and organizational outcomes in higher education institutionsrevealed that the most common faculty emphasis was one that stressedresearch. Larger institutions were more likely to emphasize research(52%) than teaching (4%), whereas private institutions were more likelyto emphasize teaching (21%) than research (14%). The most commonemphasis for private institutions was one in which research, teaching,and service was given equal weight (30%). Public institutions were morelikely to emphasize research (37%) than teaching (13%). (p. 171-172)Although AACSB faculty members publish more research than non-AACSB, aretheir salaries higher? Are they satisfied? AACSB FACULTY SALARIES, SATISFACTION Terpstra and Honoree (2004) concluded from their findings thatfaculty are most satisfied with their jobs and pay when research andteaching are given equal weight. Further, they found that institutionsthat primarily emphasize teaching fare poorly in terms of facultyteaching effectiveness, research performance, job and pay satisfaction,and recruitment and retention. Their findings suggest that statelegislatures, higher education boards, accrediting bodies, and academicadministrators may consider changes that would allow faculty to focusmore exclusively on teaching and research. Agarwal and Yochum (2000) suggested that, on average, there is a$14,000 salary premium for finance faculty in AACSB schools. Levernier,Miles, and White (1992) did an empirical assessment of AACSB'sAnnual Salary Surveys (AACSB 1985-1991) and found additional positivesupport for the accreditation premium. In addition, faculty perceivethat accreditation tends to be associated with a superior level ofresources that includes extensive library holdings and data-bases, lowerteaching loads, colleagues actively engaged in research, and greaterresearch funding. Faculty at AACSB accredited colleges and universitieshave become accustomed to the "accreditation premium," thecompensation premium for being affiliated with an AACSB accreditedschool of business. Likewise, administrators at such schools have alsobecome accustomed to the "accreditation premium" as reportedby White, Levernier, and Miles (2006). With accreditation, salary gaps between existing business facultyand newly hired academicians can be very large, and this can causeproblems with existing faculty and with university administrators. Notinsignificantly, faculty in other disciplines outside of business, whodo not like the salary gap as it is, may become even more upset whenmarket salaries for new AACSB-appropriate faculty starts to take place. In Heriot, Austin, and Franklin's (2009) study to identify thecosts for initial AACSB accreditation, they state that the benefitsinclude certification of standards of excellent, signaling quality tostudents, and higher faculty salaries (Pastore, 1989). At present, thereare 560 AACSB-accredited schools worldwide; however, there are more than2,000 schools or college of business in the United States alone, withthousands of more potential member schools worldwide (AACSBInternational, 2009). They report that with AACSB accreditation comes anannual increased operating cost, such as additional faculty,professional development, etc. These two areas alone result insignificant costs. It also provides an external validation of quality offaculty, current business curriculum, and continuous improvement. In today's global environment, the quality assurance thatAACSB provides is likely to be more valuable than ever. Given themultitude of business schools competing with each other around theworld, a well-established brand like AACSB is vital for schools todemonstrate quality and can be a source of competitive advantage.Lastly, AACSB accreditation is a framework and process that increasesthe likelihood of a school meeting the needs of students, faculty,employers, and other constituents. Nonetheless, AACSB accreditation isobviously not the sole contributor to a school's success. Nor doesaccreditation guarantee that a school will innovate all of its set goalsor satisfy all of its stakeholders according to Romero (2008). Comm and Mathaisel (2003) found that satisfied employees areimportant for organizational performance. They argue employeesatisfaction in higher education regarding workload, salary, andbenefits can be used to improve academic quality; nonetheless, theyreported that among faculty at a private college, most do not believethey are fairly compensated. Moreover, Crothers, Hughes, Schmitt, Theodore, Lipinski,Bloomquist, and Altman (2010) report a difference in the jobsatisfaction negotiation techniques of male and female faculty members.They report that female faculty members earn significantly less thanmale faculty members, even when they controlled for years of experience.Females also reported a negative attribute of failed negotiations thatthey associated with their gender and vice versa when negotiations weresuccessful. In one study, Balkin and Gomez-Meji (2002) found that when malemanagement professors received less pay raise than they expected, theytended to "quit" their institutions more so than their femalecolleagues. On the other hand, Hurtado and DeAngelo (2009) using"data from the U.S. Department of Education's 2005 Fall StaffSurvey," found that teaching load was a slightly stronger predictorthan salary when it comes to retention of senior women. Lee and Martin(1996) found that switching jobs can affect satisfaction, too. Whenfaculty members switched jobs from a high-tier institution to a low-tierinstitution, this can be a likely source of their pay dissatisfaction. On the other hand, when Pfeffer and Langton (1993) investigated theeffect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and workingcollaboratively, they found that the greater the degree of salarydispersion within a department, the lower is satisfaction and researchproductivity. They state that faculty members also will be less likelyto focus on collaborative research. The negative effects of wagedispersion on satisfaction can be reduced by experience and scholarlyproductivity in more developed fields. Li-Ping, Tang, Sutarso, and Tang (2004) asked "Does the loveof money moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfactionrelationship?" They answered yes! Faculty members who reported ahigh-love-of-money had low satisfaction when they earned less than$89,139.53 and more satisfaction when they earned more than $89,139.53.Despite the fact the literature seems to be saying that AACSB accreditedbusiness school faculty members produce more research and appearsatisfied with their salaries, this still leaves room for findinganswers to a few important questions. IMPORTANT RESEARCH QUESTIONS Are the faculty at business schools better off with AACSBaccreditation in terms of at least one of the hygiene factors--theirsalaries? Does the momentum of being promoted through the faculty ranks,regardless of AACSB accreditation, circumvent the need for a businessschools to pursue AACSB accreditation? Do professors rise to the rank offull professor more at AACSB accredited business schools? Does beingpromoted to full professor add as much salary hygiene as AACSBaccreditation? Does AACSB accreditation disrupt or strengthen paystructure? Or does AACSB accreditation interfere with salary dispersion? To answer these questions directly, a comparison of officiallyreported budgeted salaries of business faculty teaching at AACSBaccredited schools of business against those that do not was made. TheAACSB publishes a host of reports on business faculty salaries. In fact,each year there is an update on the national trends in business schoolfaculties' salaries. This self-report data comes from internationalsurveys administered by the AACSB that are completed by deans of memberand non-member institutions. But rarely is any outside organization ableto analyze this rich source of data for itself. The aforementionedliterature appears to support five null hypotheses in reference to theresearch questions posed. Research Hypotheses Comparing actual salary data of business faculty's affiliationwith AACSB accredited business schools, their gender, and rank wouldreveal a truer picture in business schools. The research objectives wereachieved by testing the following five null hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the relative frequency (orpercent) of Missouri collegiate school of business faculty members whentheir gender was compared to their ranks. Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the relative frequency (orpercent) of Missouri business school faculty members when their rank iscompared based on their teaching at an AACSB accredited business schoolsvis-a-vis not teaching at an AACSB business schools. Hypothesis 3: There is no difference between the means of businessschools accredited by the AACSB and those not accredited by the AACSBregarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning atthe ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. Hypothesis 4: There is no difference among the means ofinstructors, assistant professors, associate professors, and fullprofessors regarding the actual salaries business faculty members areearning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. Hypothesis 5: There is no difference between the means of males andfemales regarding the actual salaries business faculty members areearning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. METHODOLOGY Measurement of Variables Although some believe that in social science research ratio levelvariables are "nonexistent," the dependent variable in thisstudy was faculty's salaries, which is a ratio measure, the highestlevel of measure. Stanley Smith Stevens in 1946 in his article titled"On the Theory of Scales of Measurement" proposed a theorythat there are four scales of measure: nominal, ordinal, interval andratio. Salary is a variable in possession of a non-arbitrary zero value:there is such a thing as a faculty having "no" salary, evenamong faculty members working. Some visiting professors will teach forfree, just to get the experience, at some schools. Although in thisstudy we found no faculty member who was earning a zero salary, salaryin our measure could be zero and the zero value is not arbitrary. Sample, Data Collection, and Descriptive Statistics The Secretary of State of Missouri provides access to all Missouriemployees' salaries, free of charge, on its website.(http://www.sos.mo.gov/bluebook/2009-2010/default.asp) The 2009-2010Official Manual is a comprehensive report on all the budgeted salariesfor Missouri State employees, which includes faculties' salaries.Those persons who worked in a teaching or in a teaching-administrativecapacity for any of the State funded Missouri universities for 2009-2010were listed. Once the entire list of salaries for the ten universities wasprinted out, the websites for each business schools was visited.Business faculty members listed on the websites had bios and in mostcases photos of themselves. It was easy to code for gender based onphotos and references to themselves as he or she. Although collectingand coding demographic and salary data this way took several days, itproved to be a very rich source of data. Presented in Table 1 arefrequencies and percents of faculty members and administrators of theten universities with business programs selected for this study.Sixty-four percent of the faculty members were male. Nearly 38 percent of the faculty members were Full Professors, and74.6 percent taught at an AACSB accredited business school or college ofbusiness. Five collegiate schools of business selected for this studywere AACSB accredited and five were not AACSB accredited. Among the tenschools of business sampled in this study, there were 311 total businessfaculty--232 from AACSB accredited schools and 79 from non-AACSBaccredited schools of business. Additional demographic variables arepresented in Table 1. RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY Faculty members' demographic information was tallied by therespective university in which they worked. Data were analyzed usingSPSS 15.0. The sample was deemed normally distributed because the sampleexceeded 100 observations (Henry, 1990). Of the observed variables, 311were counted: 275 teaching faculty non-administrative and 36 hadadministrative duties (directors, department heads or department chairs,or deans) across all ranks and disciplines. After assessing thedescriptive data, the five null hypotheses were tested. Hypotheses Testing Hypothesis 1 There is a difference in the relative frequency (or percent) ofMissouri collegiate school of business faculty members when their genderwas compared to their ranks. A Chi-Square (p = .014) test shows theobserved frequency is not the same when gender was compared to rank,with a critical value of 10.587 exceeding the 7.815 critical value foundin the Chi-Square Table, with df = 3 and p= .05. Goodman and Kruskal tau=.034 when gender represented the dependent variable, assuming a nullhypothesis. See Chi-Square findings in Table 2. As can be seen in Tables 2, rank is better at predicting genderfrequency than gender is at predicting rank. In fact, rank explainsnearly 3.4 percent of the error in the gender variable. Therefore, rankreduced the prediction error by 3.4 percent when gender is the dependentvariable. Double asterisks indicate cell counts with five or more abovethe expected count. This evidence appears to confirm what is alreadysuspected to be true, that is, male and female business faculty membersare treated significantly different in the hierarchical structure ofsalary in Missouri State funded institutions within the businessschools. Notice that male faculty members are significantly morefrequent as full professors and females are significantly more frequentas instructors. Hypothesis 2 There is a difference in the relative frequency (or percent) ofMissouri business school faculty members when their rank is comparedbased on their teaching at an AACSB accredited business schoolsvis-a-vis not teaching at an AACSB business schools. A Chi-Square (p =.016) test shows the observed frequency is not the same when facultyranks were compared to AACSB accreditation vis-a-vis non-AACSB schools,with a critical value of 10.323 exceeding the 7.815 critical value foundin the Chi-Square Table, with df = 3 and p= .05. Goodman and Kruskal tau=.033 when AACSB/non-AACSB represented the dependent variable, assuminga null hypothesis. Chi-Square findings are in Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, rank is better at predicting AACSBfrequency than AACSB is at predicting rank. In fact, rank explainsnearly 3.3 percent of the error in the AACBS variable. Therefore, rankreduced the prediction error by 3.3 percent when AACSB is the dependentvariable. Double asterisks indicate cell counts with five or more abovethe expected count. This evidence appears to demonstrate businessfaculty members are more frequently promoted up the levels in theacademic hierarchy when the school of business is AACSB accredited. Notice that full professors at AACSB accredited schools aresignificantly more frequent than their counter parts at non-AACSBschools. In fact, the non-AACSB full professor observed cell count of 18is much below its expected cell count of 29.7. Faculty members atnon-AACSB schools appear to be stymied at the associate professor levelin the hierarchy as they are far less frequent in the full professorexpected count. Hypothesis 3 There is a significant difference between the means of businessschools accredited by the AACSB and those not accredited by the AACSBregarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning atthe ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. One-Way ANOVAresults are shown in Table 4. The Eta Squared of .092 shows a moderateeffect. Hypothesis 4 There is a significant difference among the means of instructors,assistant professors, associate professors, and full professorsregarding the actual salaries business faculty members are earning atthe ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled. One-Way ANOVAresults are shown in Tables 5a, 5b, and 5c. The three Tukey's HSDpost-hoc comparisons showed all pair-wise comparison to be significantlydifferent at p. <.001. This makes sense because salary increases withrank in all cases in a stair-step hierarchy. The Eta Squared for each ofthe three ANOVA tests was .611., .635, and .633; each shows a verystrong effect. Hypothesis 5: There is a significant difference between the means of males andfemales regarding the actual salaries business faculty members areearning at the ten Missouri collegiate schools of business sampled.One-Way ANOVA results are shown in Tables 6a, 6b, and 6c. DISCUSSION Among administrators, the highest paid person was a dean earning$191,872. The lowest paid administrator was an instructor serving as achair earning $45,658. Excluding the 36 administrators, the lowestsalary was an instructor earning $31,887; the highest salary was a fullprofessor earning $134,896. The highest modal earning was for four fullprofessors earning $110,000 each--all at AACSB accredited businessschools. Among the 206 faculty members teaching at an AACSB accreditedbusiness schools, 76 were female with a mean salary of $72,820 and 130were male with a mean salary of $84,807, a difference of $11,987. Amongthe 69 faculty members teaching at non-AACSB accredited businessschools, 24 were female with a mean salary of $57,353 and 45 were malewith a mean salary of $68,696, a difference of $11,343. Male facultymembers at AACSB accredited business schools made an average earning of$16,111 more than male faculty members at non-AACSB accredited businessschools; female faculty members at AACSB accredited business schoolsearned $15,467 more than female faculty members at non-AACSB accreditedbusiness schools. Male faculty members at AACSB accredited businessschools earned an average of $27,454 more than female faculty members atnon-AACSB accredited business schools; female faculty members at AACSBaccredited business schools earned an average of $4,124 more than malefaculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools. Female faculty members are earning significantly less than malefaculty members in general; however, female faculty members at AACSBaccredited business schools earn $4,124 more than male faculty membersat non-AACSB accredited business schools and $15,467 more than femalefaculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools. Male facultymembers are promoted to full professor significantly more frequentlythan female faculty members; however, faculty members are morefrequently represented at the higher ranks at the AACSB accreditedbusiness schools. At non-AACSB accredited business schools, facultymembers are significantly concentrated at the instructor's level. Salary among the faculty ranks at AACSB accredited business schoolsis significantly higher. Salary at AACSB accredited business schools ismuch higher between the genders and among ranks. It appears AACSBaccredited business schools are more hygienic than non-AACSB accreditedbusiness schools when it comes to the salary, status, and securityhygiene factors. Therefore, the lack of full professors at the non-AACSBaccredited schools of business seems consistent with a weak or faultyevaluation process directly affecting pay structure among the ranks atthese schools. It is difficult to determine just why non-AACSB businessschools seem to stifle the promotion to full professor. We can surmisethat since non-AACSB accredited business schools offer less of thesalary hygiene, job security hygiene, and status hygiene among the ranksand between genders, they are more likely to have faculty who aredissatisfied than faculty working for AACSB accredited business schools. CONCLUSIONS We can now provide answers to the aforementioned researchquestions: 1. Are the faculty at a business schools better off with AACSBaccreditation in terms of at least one of the hygiene factors--theirsalaries? Yes! Faculty members working for business schools accredited by theAACSB are better off than faculty members working for business schoolsnot accredited by the AACSB in terms of their salaries. Moreover, the 69faculty members at non-AACSB accredited business schools (both male andfemale) earned an average of $64,751; the 206 faculty members at AACSBaccredited business schools (both male and female) earned an average of$80,394 or $15,593 more than faculty members at non-AACSB accreditedbusiness schools which suggests an "accreditation premium."These thousand dollar differences can translate into more than a milliondollars over an academic career. Furthermore, job status (rank) and jobsecurity (tenure) hygiene were more prevalent at the AACSB accreditedschools; rarely is a faculty member promoted to full professors and heor she does not have tenure. 2. Does the momentum of being promoted through the faculty ranks,regardless of AACSB accreditation, circumvent the need for a businessschools to pursue AACSB accreditation? Do professors rise to the rank offull professor more at AACSB accredited business schools? No! And, yes! Women are not being promoted as fast in the businessschools. Female faculty members were clustered in the instructor rank,with a significant Chi-Square of p = .014. The expected count of 19.8was exceeded by the observed count of 28 for instructors; however, theexpected count for male faculty members at the full professor level was74.9 and the observed count was 86. For female faculty members, theexpected count for full professor was 42.1 and the observed count was31. On the other hand, when a Chi-Square was run on AACSB accreditedbusiness schools versus non-AACSB accredited business schools on rank,the AACSB accredited business schools had a very high significantfrequency of full professors. In fact, the expected count was 87.3 andthe observed count was 99, with a p = .016. At the non-AACSB accreditedbusiness schools, the expected count for full professors was 29.7, butthe observed count was only 18. This is pretty strong evidence thatAACSB accreditation is having a very strong influence on theorganization structure of the business schools, which includesdocumentation of intellectual contributions of its faculty members, acritical component of any tenure appointment and promotion in rank. 3. Does being promoted to full professor add as much salary hygieneas AACSB accreditation? Yes! The full professor average salary was $94,055 at AACSBaccredited business schools. At non-AACSB accredited business schools,the full professor average salary was $88,898, which is more than theAACSB accredited business schools' overall salary average of$80,394. It seems that if a faculty member can rise through the ranks tofull professor status; this promotion trumps AACSB accreditation status.The problem is that it is much more difficult to become a full professorat the non-AACSB accredited business schools. This is possibly due tothe fact that non-AACSB accredited business schools lack the impositionof the AACSB standards that force these types of standardized evaluationmechanisms into place. 4. Finally, does AACSB accreditation disrupt or strengthen paystructure or does it interfere with salary dispersion? AACSB accreditation strengthens pay structure and improves salarydispersion among the ranks! This accreditation apparently contributes toa more stable pay structure and improves the salary hygiene across theranks. For all rank comparisons, the pay structure was obviouslystair-step (large salary increases as a faculty member moves up inrank). This is why the Tukey's post-hoc comparisons were p< .001on all paired comparisons. Associate professors at the AACSB accreditedbusiness schools earn 91 cents to every dollar full professors earn;however, at the non-AACSB accredited business schools, associateprofessors earn only 79 cents to every dollar full professors earn. Although female faculty at the AACSB accredited business schoolsearn 85 cents to every dollar of what their male counterparts earn, theystill out earn on average what both male faculty and female faculty earnat the non-AACSB accredited business schools. At the non-AACSBaccredited business schools, female faculty earn 83% of what their malecounterparts earn. Female faculty at AACSB accredited business schoolsearn $15,467 more than female faculty at non-AACSB accredited businessschools. Female faculty at AACSB accredited business schools earned anaverage of $4,124 more than male faculty at non-AACSB accreditedbusiness schools. Although the interpretations of the findings in this study arelimited to the ten publicly funded Missouri institutions sampled, thefindings confirm much of the puffery surrounding seeking and receivingAACSB accreditation. Spending the resources to apply for and eventuallyreceive AACSB accreditation is apparently good for faculty across ranksand gender. Even though female faculty earn 15% less than their malecounterparts at the AACSB accredited business schools, on average theyfare better than both male and female faculty at the non-AACSBaccredited business schools regarding the salary hygiene. AACSB accreditation means that faculty will earn more money onaverage, experience less dispersion in salary among the ranks, have amuch greater opportunity to be promoted to full professor, and thebusiness schools will be more hygienic when it comes to salary, status,and job security. Over a career, especially for new faculty members justbeginning their careers, these annual salary differences can translateinto a million or more dollars in accumulated wealth, includingcontributions to savings and retirement savings. Therefore, AACSBaccreditation really does make a big difference. REFERENCES AACSB International. (2006). Deploying academically qualifiedfaculty: An interpretation of AACSB standards.http://www.aacsb.eEdu/accreditation/papers/AQ-statuspaper.pdf. AACSB International. (2008). Eligibility procedures and standardsfor business accreditation. (Rev. ed). Tampa, FL: Author. Alshare, K. A., Wenger, J., & Miller, D. (2007). The role ofteaching, scholarly activities, and service on tenure, promotion, andmerit pay decisions: Deans' perspectives. The Academy ofEducational Leadership Journal, 11 (1), 53-68. Agarwal, V., & Yochum, G.R. (2000). The academic labor marketfor new PhDs in business disciplines. Journal of Business & EconomicStudies 6 (2), 1-21. Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Meji, L. (2002). Explaining the gendereffects on faculty pay increases: Do the squeaky wheels get the grease?Group & Organization Management, 27(3), 352-373. Bennis, W.G., & O'Toole, J. (May 1, 2005). How businessschools lost their way. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Press. Comm, C.L., & Mathaisel, D.F.X. (2003). A case study of theimplications of faculty workload and compensation for improving academicquality. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(4/5),200-210. Corcoran, P. (2006). AACSB accredited business programs:Differences and similarities, Journal of Business & EconomicsResearch, 4 (8), 41-48. Crothers, L., Hughes, T., Schmitt, A., Theodore, L., Lipinski, J.,Bloomquist, A., & Altman, C. (2010). Has equity been achieved?Salary and promotion negotiation practices of a national sample ofschool psychology university faculty. The Psychological--ManagerJournal, 13(1), 40-59. Gibbs, G. (1995). The relationship between quality in research andquality in teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 1 (2), 147-157. Hedrick, D.W., Henson, S.E., Krieg, J.M., & Wassell, Jr., C.S.(2010). The effects of AACSB accreditation on faculty salaries andproductivity, Journal of Education for Business, 85, 284-291. Henry, G.T. (1990). Practical sampling: Applied social researchmethods series, volume 21. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Heriot, K., Austin, W., & Franklin, G. (2009). Applying forinitial AACSB accreditation: An exploratory study to identify costs.Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 283-289. Herzberg, F. (1964, January-February). The motivation-hygieneconcept and problems of manpower, Personnel Administration, 27, 3-7. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B. (1959). Themotivation to work. New York: John Wiley. Hurtado, S., & DeAngelo, L. (2009). Keeping senior women atyour college. Academe, 95(5), 18-20. Jenkins, A. (2004). A Guide to the Research Evidence onTeaching-research Relations. Heslington, England: The Higher EducationAcademy, Lee, R.T., & Martin, J.E. (1996). When a gain comes at a price:Pay attitudes after changing tier status. Industrial Relations, 35(2),218-226. Levernier, W., & Miles, M.P. (1992). Effects of AACSBaccreditation on academic salaries, Journal of Education for Business,68, 55-61. Li-Ping, T., Tang, R.L., Sutarso, T., & Tang, D.S. (2004). Doesthe love of money moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfactionrelationship? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1/2), 111-135. Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relationship betweenresearch productivity and teaching effectiveness. The Journal of higherEducation, 73 (5), 603-641. Pastore, J.M., Jr. (1989). Developing an academic accreditationprocess relevant to the accounting profession. CPA Journal, 159 (5),18-26). Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. (1993). The effect of wagedispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively:Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 38(3), 382-407. Roberts, W.A. Jr., Johnson, R., & Groesbeck, J. (2004). Thefaculty perspective on the impact of AACSB accreditation. Academy ofEducational Leadership Journal, 8 (1), 111-125. Roberts, W.A. Jr., Johnson, R., & Groesbeck, J. (2006). Theperspective of faculty hired after AACSB accreditation onaccreditation's impact and importance. Academy of EducationalLeadership Journal, 10 (3), 59-71. Romero, E. (2008). AACSB accreditation: Addressing facultyconcerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2), 245-255. Smith, K., Haight, G., & Rosenberg, D. (2009). An examinationof AACSB member school processes for evaluating intellectualcontributions and academic and professional qualifications of faculty.Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 219-227. Stanton, A., Taylor, R., & Stanaland, A. (2009). An examinationof the relationship between research attitudes and behaviors of businessschool faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3), 37-49. Stevens, S.S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement.Science 103 (2684): 677-680. Taylor, R. L., & Stanton, A.D. (2009). Academic publishing andteaching effectiveness: An attitudinal study of AACSB accreditedbusiness school faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(2), 93-98. Terpstra, D.E., & Honoree, A.L. (2009). The effects ofdifferent teaching, research, and service emphases on individual andorganizational outcomes in higher education institutions. Journal ofEducation for Business, 84 (3), 169-176. Terpstra, D.E., & Honoree, A.L. (2004). Job satisfaction andpay satisfaction levels of university faculty by discipline type and bygeographic region. Education, 124(3), 528-539. White, J.B., Levernier, W., & Miles, M.P. (2006). Theunintended effects of AACSB's 2003 accreditation standards, TheCoastal Business Journal, 4 (1), 43-50. Reginald L. Bell, Prairie View A&M University Marguerite P. Joyce, Belhaven UniversityTable 1: Descriptive Statistics on Institutions with Frequenciesand Percents Faculty's FrequencyInstitutions * Lincoln University = No 12 Linn State Technical College = No 5 Truman State University = Yes 24 University of Central Missouri = Yes 47 Northwest Missouri State University = No 25 Southeast Missouri State University = Yes 41 Missouri State University = Yes 101 Harris-Stowe State University = No 13 Missouri Southern State University = No 24 Missouri Western State University = Yes 19 Total 311AACSB vs. Non-AACSB Accredited Schools 79Non-AACSB AACSB Accredited Schools 232 Total 311Gender Male 199 Female 112 Total 311Faculty's Instructor 55Academic Rank Assistant Professor 66 Associate Professor 73 Full Professor 117 Total 311Administrators Non-Administrators 275 Administrators 36 Total 311 PercentInstitutions * Lincoln University = No 3.9 Linn State Technical College = No 1.6 Truman State University = Yes 7.7 University of Central Missouri = Yes 15.1 Northwest Missouri State University = No 8.0 Southeast Missouri State University = Yes 13.2 Missouri State University = Yes 32.5 Harris-Stowe State University = No 4.2 Missouri Southern State University = No 7.7 Missouri Western State University = Yes 6.1 Total 100.0AACSB vs. Non-AACSB Accredited Schools 25.4Non-AACSB AACSB Accredited Schools 74.6 Total 100.0Gender Male 64.0 Female 36.0 Total 100.0Faculty's Instructor 17.7Academic Rank Assistant Professor 21.2 Associate Professor 23.5 Full Professor 37.6 Total 100.0Administrators Non-Administrators 88.4 Administrators 11.6 Total 100.0Institutions * Lincoln University = No 3.9 Linn State Technical College = No 5.5 Truman State University = Yes 13.2 University of Central Missouri = Yes 28.3 Northwest Missouri State University = No 36.3 Southeast Missouri State University = Yes 49.5 Missouri State University = Yes 82.0 Harris-Stowe State University = No 86.2 Missouri Southern State University = No 93.9 Missouri Western State University = Yes 100.0 TotalAACSB vs. Non-AACSB Accredited Schools 25.4Non-AACSB AACSB Accredited Schools 100.0 TotalGender Male 64.0 Female 100.0 TotalFaculty's Instructor 17.7Academic Rank Assistant Professor 38.9 Associate Professor 62.4 Full Professor 100.0 TotalAdministrators Non-Administrators 88.4 Administrators 100.0 Total* No = not AACSB accredited; and Yes = AACSB accredited.Table 2: Chi-Square Analysis of Gender * Rank Crosstabulationwith Directional Measures Rank Instructor Asst. Prof.Gender Male Count 27 39 Expected Count 35.2 42.2 % of Total 8.7% 12.5% Female Count 28 ** 27 Expected Count 19.8 23.8 % of Total 9.0% 8.7%Total Count 55 66 Expected Count 55.0 66.0 % of Total 17.7% 21.2% Rank Total Assoc. Prof. Full Prof. AllGender Male Count 47 86 ** 199 Expected Count 46.7 74.9 199.0 % of Total 15.1% 27.7% 64.0% Female Count 26 31 112 Expected Count 26.3 42.1 112.0 % of Total 8.4% 10.0% 36.0%Total Count 73 117 311 Expected Count 73.0 117.0 311.0 % of Total 23.5% 37.6% 100.0%Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 10.587 (a) 3 .014Likelihood Ratio 10.577 3 .014Linear-by-Linear Association 10.441 1 .001N of Valid Cases 311(a) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The minimum expected count is 19.81.Directional Measures Asymp. Std. Value Error(a)Nominal Lambda Symmetric .003 .024by Gender Dependent .009 .066Nominal Rank Dependent .000 .000 Goodman and Gender Dependent .034 .021 Kruskal tau Rank Dependent .012 .008 Uncertainty Symmetric .017 .010 Coefficient Gender Dependent .026 .016 Rank Dependent .013 .008Directional Measures Approx. Approx. T(b) Sig.Nominal Lambda Symmetric .135 .893by Gender Dependent .135 .893Nominal Rank Dependent .(c) . (c) Goodman and Gender Dependent .014 (d) Kruskal tau Rank Dependent .009 (d) Uncertainty Symmetric 1.638 .014 (e) Coefficient Gender Dependent 1.638 .014 (e) Rank Dependent 1.638 .014 (e)(a) Not assuming the null hypothesis.(b) Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the nullhypothesis.(c) Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard errorequals zero.(d) Based on chi-square approximation.(e) Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.Table 3: Chi-Square Analysis of AACSB * Rank Crosstabulationwith Directional Measures Faculty's Academic Rank Instructor Asst. Prof. Assoc. Prof.AACSB No Count 19 ** 20 22 Expected Count 14.0 16.8 18.5 % of Total 6.1% 6.4% 7.1% Yes Count 36 46 51 Expected Count 41.0 49.2 54.5 % of Total 11.6% 14.8% 16.4%Total Count 55 66 73 Expected Count 55.0 66.0 73.0 % of Total 17.7% 21.2% 23.5% Faculty's Academic Rank Total Full Prof. AllAACSB No Count 18 79 Expected Count 29.7 79.0 % of Total 5.8% 25.4% Yes Count 99 ** 232 Expected Count 87.3 232.0 % of Total 31.8% 74.6%Total Count 117 311 Expected Count 117.0 311.0 % of Total 37.6% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 10.323 (a) 3 .016Likelihood Ratio 10.801 3 .013Linear-by-Linear Association 8.400 1 .004N of Valid Cases 311(a) 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than5. The minimum expected count is 13.97Directional Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error (a)Nominal Lambda Symmetric .015 .023by AACSB Dependent .000 .000Nominal Rank Dependent .021 .032 Goodman and AACSB Dependent .033 .019 Kruskal tau Rank Dependent .014 .008 Uncertainty Symmetric .018 .011 Coefficient AACSB Dependent .031 .018 Rank Dependent .013 .008 Approx. Approx. T (b) Sig.Nominal Lambda Symmetric .633 .527by AACSB Dependent . (c) . (c)Nominal Rank Dependent .633 .527 Goodman and AACSB Dependent .016 (d) Kruskal tau Rank Dependent .005 (d) Uncertainty Symmetric 1.698 .013 (e) Coefficient AACSB Dependent 1.698 .013 (e) Rank Dependent 1.698 .013 (e)(a) Not assuming the null hypothesis.(b) Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the nullhypothesis.(c) Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standarderror equals zero.(d) Based on chi-square approximation.(e) Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.Table 4: One-Way ANOVA Test on AACSB Vis-a-Vis Non AACSB* Salary#AACSB Vis-a-Vis Non AACSB Sum of Squares dfSalary * All Between Groups 12,632,823,576.690 1BUSINESS Within Groups 124,711,839,733.907 273SCHOOLs Total 137,344,663,310.597 274AACSB Vis-a-Vis Non AACSB Mean Square F Sig.Salary * All Between Groups 12,632,823,576.690 27.654 .000BUSINESS Within Groups 456,819,925.765SCHOOLs TotalAnalysis excluded all 36 faculty members with administrativeduties: deans, department heads, directors, etc. Eta Eta SquaredSalary * AllBUSINESS SCHOOLs .303 .092AACSB Mean N Std. DeviationNo $64,751 69 $18,562Yes * $80,384 206 $22,227Total $76,462 275 $22,388* AACSB accredited BUSINESS SCHOOLs faculty's salary meanis 19.45% above non-AACSB business schools salary meanTable 5a: One-Way ANOVA Test on All Business Schoolson Rank * SalaryAll Business Schools Sum of Squares dfSalary * Between Groups 83,951,078,559.460 3Rank Within Groups 53,393,584,751.136 271 Total 137,344,663,310.596 274All Business Schools Mean Square F Sig.Salary * Between Groups 27,983,692,853.153 142.032 .000Rank Within Groups 197,024,297.975 Total Eta Eta SquaredSalary * Rank .782 .611Rank Mean N Std. DeviationInstructor $44,042 52 $9,574Assistant Professor * $72,999 64 $18,624Associate Professor ** $81,198 64 $15,182Full Professor $93,349 95 $11,458Total $76,462 275 $22,388* Assistant professors earn 89.90% of the salaries of associateprofessors at all business schools combined.** Associate professors earn 86.98% of the salaries of fullprofessors at all business schools combined.Table 5b: One-Way ANOVA Test on AACSB Accredited BusinessSchools Only on Rank * SalaryAACSB AccreditedBusiness Schools Sum of Squares dfSalary * Between Groups 64,279,880,905.962 3Rank Within Groups 37,000,520,689.654 202 Total 101,280,401,595.616 205AACSB AccreditedBusiness Schools Mean Square F Sig.Salary * Between Groups 21,426,626,968.654 116.976 .000Rank Within Groups 183,170,894.503 Total Eta Eta SquaredSalary * Rank .782 .611Rank Mean N Std. DeviationInstructor $43,051 34 $11,257Assistant Professor * $78,198 45 $17,964Associate Professor ** $85,866 45 $14,098Full Professor $94,055 82 $11,040Total $80,384 206 $22,227* Assistant professors earn 90.06% of the salaries of associateprofessors at AACSB accredited business schools.** Associate professors earn 91.29% of the salaries of fullprofessors at AACSB accredited business schools.Table 5c: One-Way ANOVA on AACSB non-Accredited BusinessSchools Only on Rank * SalaryAACSB Accredited BusinessSchools Sum of Squares df Mean SquareSalary * Between Groups 14,833,926,823.638 3 4944642274.546Rank Within Groups 8,597,511,314.652 65 132269404.841 Total 23,431,438,138.290 68AACSB Accredited BusinessSchools F Sig.Salary * Between Groups 37.383 .000Rank Within Groups TotalSalary * Rank .782 .611Rank Mean N Std. DeviationInstructor $45,912 18 $4,830Assistant Professor * $60,686 19 $14,056Associate Professor ** $70,141 19 $11,721Full Professor $88,898 13 $13,450Total $64,751 69 $18,562* Assistant professors earn 86.52% of the salaries of associateprofessors at non-AACSB accredited business schools.** Associate professors earn 78.90% of the salaries of fullprofessors at non-AACSB accredited business schools.Table 6a: One-Way ANOVA Test on All Business Schools on Gender* SalaryAll Business Schoolson Gender Sum of Squares dfSalary * Between Groups 8,499,217,424.029 1Gender Within Groups 128,845,445,886.567 273 Total 137,344,663,310.596 274All Business Schoolson Gender Mean Square F Sig.Salary * Between Groups 8,499,217,424.029 18.008 .000Gender Within Groups 471,961,340.244 Total Eta Eta SquaredSalary * Gender .249 .062Gender Mean N Std. DeviationMale $80,664 175 20744.28887Female * $69,107 100 23348.22149Total $76,462 275 22388.78950* Females earn 85.67% of the salaries of males at allthe business schools combined.Table 6b: One-Way ANOVA Test on AACSB Accredited Business Schoolson Gender * SalaryAll Business Schoolson Gender Sum of Squares df Mean SquareSalary * Between Groups 6892006427.928 1 6892006427.928Gender Within Groups 94388395167.689 204 462688211.606 Total 101280401595.616 205All Business Schoolson Gender F Sig.Salary * Between Groups 14.896 .000Gender Within Groups Total Eta Eta SquaredSalary * Gender .261 .068Gender Mean N Std. DeviationMale $84,807 130 19593.17331Female * $72,819 76 24458.47375Total $80,384 206 22227.25218* Females earn 85.86% of the salaries of males at the AACSBaccredited business schoolsTable 6c: One-Way ANOVA Test on Non-Accredited AACSB BusinessSchools Only on Gender * SalaryNon-AACSB BusinessSchools on Gender Sum of Squares df Mean SquareSalary * Between Groups 2,014,091,690.420 1 2014091690.420Gender Within Groups 21,417,346,447.869 67 319661887.282 Total 23,431,438,138.290 68Non-AACSB BusinessSchools on Gender F Sig.Salary * Between Groups 6.301 .014Gender Within Groups Total Eta Eta SquaredSalary * Gender .293 .086Gender Mean N Std. DeviationMale $68,696 45 19469.18018Female * $57,353 24 14354.50462Total $64,751 69 18562.86542* Females earn 83.48% of the salaries of men at the non-AACSBaccredited business schools.