![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Whether a first entrant into the academic job market or a seasoned professional, career outcomes for marketing educators depend heavily on the evaluation process used at their institutions. This research explores the periodic performance evaluation process for marketing faculty members using data collected from a national sample of marketing department chairpersons. Several aspects of the evaluation and its potential outcomes are explored, including teaching and research expectations. The results indicate that regular and frequent performance evaluations are a routine part of life for marketing faculty, whatever their institutional affiliation. Furthermore, these evaluations tend to play a role in promotion, tenure, compensation, and retention decisions. Several interesting conclusions emerge when the results from doctoral-granting and non-doctoral-granting universities are compared, including that doctoral-granting universities tend to have a more restrictive view of what constitutes acceptable research. Additionally, teaching and service were found to play a more important role in the tenure decision at non-doctoral-granting universities, whereas research was found to play a larger role at doctoral-granting universities. These and other results offer a unique look at the policies and procedures used in the periodic performance evaluation of marketing faculty members.
|
Alstete, J.W. (2000). Post-tenure faculty development: Building a system for faculty improvement and appreciation (AHSE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series, 27[4]). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar | |
|
Baez, B. , & Centra, J.A. (1995). Tenure, promotion, and reappointment: Legal and administrative implications (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1). Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. Google Scholar | |
|
Beltramini, R.F. , Schlacter, J.L. , & Kelley, C. (1985). Marketing faculty promotion and tenure policies and practices. Journal of Marketing Education, 7(2), 74-80. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Bennis, W.G. , & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96-104. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI | |
|
Bohrer, P. , & Dolphin, R., Jr. (1985). Expectations and support for scholarly activity in schools of business. Journal of Education for Business, 61(3), 101-105. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Boya, U.O. , & Robicheaux, R.A. (1992). Teaching, research, service, and external compensation activities: Expected versus actual work-styles among marketing professors. Journal of Marketing Education, 14(2), 68-81. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Burnett, J.J. , Amason, R.D. , & Cunningham, P. (1989). What makes marketing academicians successful? An assessment of teaching, publishing, and service. Journal of Marketing Education, 11(3), 7-11. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Clement, R.W. , & Stevens, G.E. (1989). Performance appraisal in higher education: Comparing departments of management with other business units. Public Personnel Management, 18(3), 263-278. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Coe, R.K. , & Weinstock, I. (1983). Evaluating journal publications of marketing professors: A second look. Journal of Marketing Education, 5(1), 37-42. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Davis, G.B. (1980). A systematic evaluation of publications for promotion of MIS academics. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 206-216). Philadelphia : n.p. Google Scholar | |
| D'Onofrio, M.J. , Slama, M.E. , & Tashchian, A. (1988). Faculty evaluation perspectives in colleges of business: How marketing department heads' evaluations differ from those of department heads in other business disciplines. Journal of Marketing Education, 10(2), 21-28. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Ehie, I.C. , & Karathanos, D. (1994). Business faculty performance evaluation based on the new AACSB accreditation standards. Journal of Education for Business, 69(5), 257-262. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Fry, E.H. , Walters, C.G. , & Scheuermann, L.E. (1985). Perceived quality of fifty selected journals: Academicians and practitioners. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13(2), 352-361. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Holley, W., Jr. , Halpin, G. , & Johnson, G. (1982). Assessment of faculty performance appraisal. Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 33(1), 14-18. Google Scholar | |
|
Hult, G.T.M. , Neese, W.T. , & Bashaw, R.E. (1997). Faculty perceptions of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(1), 37-52. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Kelly, R. (2005, October 18). College costs going nowhere but up . CNNMoney.com. Retrieved September 8, 2008 , from http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/17/pf/college/college_costs/index.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Mason, J.B. , & Sims, J.T. (1982, Fall). Tenure is a million dollar decision over 25 to 30 years. Marketing Educator, 1, 3. Google Scholar | |
|
McDermott, D.R. , Urban, D.J. , & Wayland, J.P. (1994). Formalizing evaluation procedures for marketing faculty research performance. Journal of Education for Business , 70(1), 48-53. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Meyer, H.H. (1991). A solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma. Academy of Management Executive, 5(1), 68-76. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Mills, M. , & Hyle, A.E. (1999), Faculty evaluation: A prickly pair. Higher Education, 38(3), 351-371. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Moxley, J.M. (1992). Publish, don't perish: The scholar's guide to academic writing and publishing. Westport, CT: Praeger. Google Scholar | |
|
Nicklin, J.L. (2000). Court finds bias at Kent State U. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(5), A14-15. Google Scholar | |
|
Ormond, J.E. (1986). Predictors of faculty dissatisfaction with an annual performance evaluation. Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 37(3), 13-17. Google Scholar | |
|
Pierce, B. , & Garven, G. (1995). Publishing international business research: A survey of leading journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1), 69-89. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Polonsky, M.J. , & Whitelaw, P. (2006). A multi-dimensional examination of marketing journal rankings by North American academics. Marketing Education Review, 16(3), 59-72. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Schaffner, M. , & MacKinnon, F.J.D. (2002, April 1-5). A standards-driven approach to faculty evaluation: The conflict of change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467600) Google Scholar | |
|
Schermerhorn, J.R., Jr. , Hunt, J.G. , & Osborn R.N. (2008). Organizational behavior. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Google Scholar | |
|
Seldin, P. (1984). Changing practices in faculty evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar | |
|
Trower, C.A. , Austin, A.E. , & Sorcinelli, M.D. (2001). Paradise lost: How the academy converts enthusiastic recruits into early-career doubters. AAHE Bulletin, 53(9), 3-6. Google Scholar | |
|
Wilson, R. (2001). A higher bar for earning tenure: Junior faculty members find that they must publish more and publish quickly. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(17), A12. Google Scholar |
