Printer Friendly

Sixth Logistics Faculty Salary Survey.

Abstract

As Supply Chain Management has evolved, doctoral programs have struggled to produce enough new people with doctorate degrees to keep up with demand and to replace tenure-track faculty who leave for various reasons. Accurate salary data is required by both potential candidates and recruiting institutions. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International conducts an annual survey of faculty and administrative salaries for member schools. Each school self-reports salary figures. This reporting is subjective to how each reporting university defines faculty residency Many reported salaries for Transportation, Logistics, and Supply Chain Management (SCM) are co-mingled with "Management," "Marketing," or "Operations" faculty and are not included under the correct classification. To address the limitations of the AACSB salary report, the authors developed a survey to collect data on SCM/Logistics and Transportation. Faculty salaries focused on the US-based faculty for public, private, AACSB-accredited and non-AACSB-accredited institutions. This article examines the impact of factors such as faculty rank, primary field of practice, years in the present rank, work allocation, and accreditation on academic salaries in the fields of SCM/Logistics and Transportation. This information is of immense use for both career and hiring decisions.

Keywords

Transportation, logistics, supply chain management, faculty salary, survey, hiring, doctoral programs

**********

Most colleges and universities in the United States require a terminal degree or a doctorate as a minimum qualification for a tenure-track faculty position in business. For more than 50 years, logistics-related degree programs have been growing in number and enrollment (Lancioni, Forman, and Smith 2001; Golicic et al. 2004). For the same period of time, staffing the increasing number of programs with qualified faculty has been a continuing problem (Tyworth and Grenoble 1985; Rutner, Kent, and Gibson 1996; Golicic et al. 2004; Farris, Pohlen, and Wilson 2006). In 2019 there were 409 business schools/colleges accredited in the United States by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International; 196 (47.9%) offered doctoral programs (AACSB International 2020). Overall, logistics-related degree programs continue to grow, which increases the demand for qualified academics.

Demand far exceeds the supply. Economically, when demand exceeds supply, it is reflected in the price. We began by considering the Logistics Academic Hiring Survey, which was conducted annually at the Ohio State University until 2016, to illustrate the continuing gap between available faculty positions in logistics and the annual supply of new doctoral graduates in the field. In the 2006-2007 recruiting season, 30 universities responding to the survey had 62 open positions, and 29 new doctoral graduates were available. Four years later, the 2010 survey reflected a 42 percent increase, identifying 82 available positions (and an additional eight postdoctoral, clinical, and lecturer positions), with only an additional six graduates projected to be available (Cooper, Santosa, and Farris 2010).

In 2011 analysis of AACSB International Logistics Doctoral Faculty demand (Manuj, Yazdanparast, and Farris 2011) confirmed the gap. That analysis reported 151 institutions had Logistics programs, and at these institutions, 309 out of 330 faculty positions were filled with doctoral-qualified personnel, and the remaining were filled with nondoctoral (e.g., adjunct, clinical) personnel. There were 45 unfilled positions, and an additional 19 new full-time doctoral positions were planned for the next academic year.

A total of 46 available positions were identified in the 2014 Logistics Academic Hiring Survey (Donovan, Manuj, and Farris 2014). The survey showed that out of the 46 positions available plus two open postdoctoral and four open lecturer positions for the 2013-14 academic year, with only 17 graduates projected to be available. Note that the survey for this article includes only Logistics doctoral-granting universities, indicating that the real gap between the supply of qualified new faculty and open positions across all AACSB-member schools maybe much greater than that suggested by the quoted survey results. A summary for the years the authors were able to obtain historical information for the annual Logistics Academic Hiring survey is presented in table 1 (Cooper, Santosa, and Adams 2016). Unfortunately, this annual survey ended in 2016. We speculate that many of these positions have been filled by tangential doctorates coming from other fields such as Industrial Engineering.

When our survey was initiated in 2006, Logistics, Transportation, and Supply Chain Management (SCM) salaries were included in the AACSB report in the "Other" category, which included faculty salaries from General Business, Health Services and Hospital Administration, Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism, Public Administration, Supply Chain, Transportation, Logistics, and "Other not classified." For this reason, the authors decided to initiate a periodic Logistics Faculty Salary Survey in order to provide discipline-specific information for use to both faculty looking for positions and administrators seeking to fill them.

AACSB now allows its members to report in a category titled "Supply Chain/Transport/Logistics"; however, this is subject to how universities classify their faculty. Each school self-reports salary figures, which results in many reported faculty salaries co-mingled as "Management," "Marketing," or "Operations" faculty and are not included in the AACSB data for Supply Chain, Transportation, and Logistics. In our own institution, in the data provided to AACSB, we discovered that administration included salaries of only 5 out of a total of 14 active faculty members.

Flawed as it is, many schools utilize the AACSB report as a means to benchmark salaries. As the initial step, it is important to know what these numbers are and understand the inaccuracy in the collection of the data. The 2018-19 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey represented the 51st annual AACSB survey of 30,799 business faculty staff (AACSB International 2019). Data was based on 475 participating institutions from 27 total countries and territories represented in the survey responses. Salaries were stated as nine- or ten-month equivalents to allow direct comparability. Salary data was collected by AACSB in 35 business fields of specialization, including Management, Marketing, Logistics and Supply Chain, and Production and Operations Management (as shown in table 2).

Accurate data is required to appropriately assess salaries so programs may be competitive in the market. The authors developed the latest survey to collect data on SCM/Logistics and Transportation salaries, particularly focused on US-based faculty, which includes non-AACSB-accredited institutions and includes compensation across different ranks, types of institutions, and workload.

This article examines factors such as institutional control (public vs. private), accreditation, experience, research focus, and other variables that impact academic SCM/Logistics and Transportation salaries in the United States. The objective is to compile information to assist (a) doctoral students in SCM/Logistics and Transportation in understanding what to expect as a starting salary; (b) current faculty to assess if they are adequately compensated and what to expect if they are considering moving to a different institution or pursuing a promotion; (c) administrators to be competitive for a SCM/Logistics and Transportation salaries; and (d) to understand the impact of changing economic conditions on faculty salaries.

Survey Methodology

An initial contact list was compiled from the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) membership list based on the criteria "Education/Academic" under the Business Environment field. The list was reviewed to remove duplicates, correct employment status, and remove faculty members whose primary field was not in SCM/Logistics and Transportation. The list was supplemented with several other sources. First, the authors explored the websites of the schools of faculty members listed by CSCMP to corroborate and update contact information and affiliation. Second, we explored the websites of schools offering SCM/Logistics and Transportation programs and included them on the list if they previously listed faculty members affiliated under SCM/Logistics and Transportation discipline. Third, since the authors are or have been active members in several associations, including the Institute for Supply Management (ISM), American Society of Transportation and Logistics (AST&L), and Decision Science Institute (DSI), and are familiar with the membership of these associations, they scoured the membership lists to add the names of relevant faculty members known to them but not included in the contact list.

The survey methodology was designed around anonymity, simplicity, ease of response, and confidentiality of respondents. The survey instrument is shown in the appendix. The instrument implementation included an introductory email and two follow-up emails, which were sent three and five weeks later.

The research employed a process to create an aggregate dataset while maintaining the confidentiality of the respondents. Respondents completed an anonymous online questionnaire via Qualtrics (an online survey tool) controlled by an email address assigned to the University of North Texas Center for Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Completed initial surveys, which could contain identifying marks such as email addresses or computer IP addresses, were isolated from the authors. The anonymized dataset was forwarded to the authors for analysis. Out of 465 surveys sent out, 60 responded to the questionnaire and six responses were removed due to incomplete answers. The final sample consisted of 54 respondents representing a response rate of 11.6 percent.

Analysis of Results

Demographics

For the first time, our study includes clinical professor positions, recognizing what we perceive as a trend to utilize non-tenure-track clinical professors (also called "professors of practice") as a means to fill the need for qualified classroom instructors. The results are shown in table 3. We asked respondents to indicate if they were "clinical" or "instructors."

Since the sample is composed exclusively of US faculty in SCM/Logistics and Transportation and related areas on self-reported primary field of practice, it allows the report to differentiate pay and workload structures in greater detail for the discipline than the aggregate reports from the AACSB survey. Of the responses, faculty in SCM/Logistics and Transportation constituted 81.5%, Marketing 7.4%, and Operations Management and Decision Sciences 11.1%. Further, 75.5% identified as male, 18.4% as female, and 6.1% preferred not to answer gender identification. With this information, the authors are able to offer conclusions regarding comparisons between public and private universities, institution accreditation, type of programs, professor rank, primary field of practice, and workload allocation.

The demographics provide an interesting insight. In 2016 associate professors represented the highest percentage of respondents. In the 2020 survey the highest percentage of respondents were full professors. This supports the conclusion that the number of newly minted doctorates are not keeping up with vacancies from retirements and the inception of new programs.

Base Salary vs. Total Compensation

Survey respondents were asked to identify their nine-month base salary, not including summer pay, special stipends, professorships, chair positions, or other nonbase remuneration. They were also asked to identify their total compensation, which included all the additional incentives including summer pay, special stipends, professorships, chaired positions, administrative positions, and/or remuneration for other activities, with the exclusion of benefit packages in addition to the salary increase, decrease, or non-change over the previous year. Table 4 compares a nine-month base salary with total compensation salary.

Although the nine-month base salary provides a convenient benchmark of compensation, many programs and faculties use other income sources as a means to attract and retain qualified faculty and researchers. Key factors influencing total compensation include public and private institution, institutional accreditation, type of program, years of service, workload allocation, and merit pay increase. These factors provided a comparison for further analysis. Faculty employments are classified into ranks based on qualifications and achievement expected. Of respondents, 72.2% reported an increase in the base salary over the last year, whereas 27.8% expressed nonchanges in compensation. From those who reported an increase in base salary, 40.4% indicated an increase of more than $2,500, followed by 32.7% who indicated an increase between $1,000 and $2,500.

The addition of incentives to base salary represented a range from 9.5% of additional compensation at the instructor level to 19.1% at the full professor level. Results from previous surveys indicated a range from 16% at the assistant professor to 33% at the full professor level in 2010, from 19% to 27% in 2011, and 11% to 20% in 2016 (Manuj, Yazdanparast, and Farris 2010, 2011; Obaze, Manuj, and Farris 2016).

Premium for Research

Respondents were asked to allocate their workload based on teaching, research, service, and administrative duties. It was expected that tenure requirements would drive up the research allocation of untenured assistant professors. Similarly, full professors tend to shift more toward increasing administrative responsibilities. The allocations of workload reported by full professors were 36% teaching, 31% research, 14% service, and 19% administration. Half of the full professors reported administrative responsibilities. The allocation of workload reported by associate professors was 44% teaching, 32% research, 15% service, and 9% administration. Two associate professors reported very high allocations for administrative responsibilities. The workload allocation for assistant professors reported 49% teaching, 31% research, and 12% service. Finally, only one clinical professor reported research as part of their workload at 20%.

As displayed in table 5, salaries varied according to research allocations. Researchers are paid more. Faculty at all ranks with research workload above 35% received between 15% and 40% more than faculty with less than 35% research in base compensation.

Type of Program

Respondents were asked to identify the academic level of their respective institutional programs. The reported levels reflected whether their institution granted a Ph.D. in Logistics, granted a Ph.D. in other fields, or was a non-Ph.D.-granting institution. The results are shown in table 6. Programs awarding some academic degrees specifically in Logistics accounted for 89.8% of the sample respondents. Programs awarding a Ph.D. specifically in Logistics accounted for 37% of the respondents.

Faculty at Ph.D.-granting institutions face different expectations for research, teaching, and service, which warrant higher salaries, including serving as Ph.D. program coordinators, guiding doctoral candidates, engaging in funded research, and obtaining grants. However, non-PhD salaries are higher than other PhD-granting, and this is a counterintuitive result. Our speculation is that the increase in the number of new and the growth of existing SCM/Logistics and Transportation programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels is leading the non-Ph.D. institutions to hire SCM/Logistics and Transportation doctorates. Generally, the preference of new doctorates is to take on positions at Ph.D.-granting universities (whether Logistics or other) because of resources available for research. However, for candidates to choose to go to non-Ph. D. institutions, the salaries must exceed those offered at other Ph.D.-granting universities. The average compensation premium for working at an institution granting a Ph.D. in Logistics compared to a non-Ph.D.-granting institution was 52.9% for full professors, 4.4% for associate professors, and 23.3% for assistant professors' base in the nine-month base salary.

Public vs. Private Institutions

As shown in table 1 (above), 81.5% of the respondents are employed at public institutions and 18.5% at private institutions. Further analysis regarding differences in compensation between public and private institutions are shown in table 7.

AACSB-Accredited Institutions vs. Non-AACSB-Accredited Institutions

AACSB is an international accreditation for business schools that requires adherence to a rigorous process of teaching, research, and curricula standards to promote consistency and quality in business education. In the first salary survey of logistics and supply chain faculty, there was sufficient data to show a clear difference in compensation at all levels between AACSB-accredited and non-AACSB-accredited schools for both the base salary and the total compensation between AACSB-accredited and nonaccredited institutions reporting that base salaries were considerably lower at non-AACSB-accredited institutions.

In this study, Full and Associate categories for non-AACSB-accredited institutions do not have sufficient respondents to compare the differences. However, the sample size for assistant professors suggests there is up to a 24.3% average increase in nine-month base salary for AACSB-accredited institutions compared to non-AACSB-accredited institutions.

Years of Service

Respondents were asked to identify time in the current rank and total time in service since their last degree was granted. The sample includes an average of 6.0 years in the present rank with a minimum of 0.5 years and a maximum of 34.0 years of service in the current rank. Ranks requiring a Ph.D. or D.B.A. degree reported a mean of T3.0 years of service, with a minimum of 0.5 years and a maximum of 41.0 years.

Longer time in service reflected higher pay at full professor level (see fig. 1). At the associate level the overall data (see fig. 2a) suggests a decrease over time; however, after factoring out those who we do not think are pursuing promotion to full professor after more than 10 years in rank--the data (see fig. 2b) reflects a steady upward trend. Likewise, there was one outlier for assistant professor who reported serving nine years in rank (see fig. 3).

Additional Insights

Consistent with previous surveys, none of the respondents reported a decrease in compensation or salary. Of respondents, 72.2% reported an increase in base salary due to merit, change in job, or promotion.

Table 8 identifies the most common methods that SCM/Logistics and Transportation faculty employ to supplement their base salary. Some of these methods could potentially enhance their publication efforts. Of the sample, 25% combine activities such as teaching extra courses during summer and applying for research grants and research funding. "Other activities" included consulting, conducting corporate education seminars, and executive-MBA education, taking on administrative roles in research centers, teaching overloads during the regular semester, and adjunct teaching at another local university.

We asked for additional comments about salary changes during the present year. One respondent stated that there had not been an increase in salary in the last two years. For those who reported an increase, the range was between 1.594 and 3%, primarily due to merit and promotion. Other responses included standard increase across their respective institutions, not having clear performance measures, and the institution conducting a post-tenure review every five years and awarding a $4,500 increase if the faculty cleared the review.

Respondents recommended additional questions for future surveys including information on formal education, teaching load, and publication productivity. Some specific comments included:

"Where did you get your Ph.D.?"

"How many courses do you teach per year?"

"[What are your] actual salary levels?"

"What are new hires being hired in at your institution ... because right now we have a huge market gap--new assistants are coming in significantly higher than current assistants with several years' experience."

"[In] what country was [your] undergraduate degree granted?"

"How many courses do you teach per year?"

"List number of peer-reviewed publications (past three years)."

"[What is your] degree level?"

"Include associate degrees and community colleges in your survey responses"; and

"Have you increased the number of logistics faculty at your university?"

Survey Limitations

While this survey offers significant contributions to the research and practice in the field of SCM/logistics and transportation, there are limitations that could affect data collection and analysis.

* Self-reported data: The data come directly (e.g., self-reported) from the faculty members.

* Workload allocation: Respondents may classify some duties, such as student advising, as part of teaching, while others may classify such duties as part of service.

* Sampling error: Not all SCM/Logistics and Transportation faculty attend the CSCMP Academic Research Symposium (ARS) or are included in the membership roster. We made all efforts to accurately increase and confirm our sample size. The use of the convenience sample excludes some faculty from participation.

* Clustering in one category: The data collection and analysis considered instructor, non-Ph.D., and adjunct ranks as one cluster. Therefore, differences and insights within these faculty positions are absent in this study.

* Overlapping disciplines: The academic field of Logistics involves overlapping disciplines that may include faculty classified as SCM/Logistics and Transportation, Decision Sciences, Marketing, Management, Operations and Production, or Industrial Engineering.

* Low response rate: In spite of our efforts to ensure anonymity from the authors, due to the sensitive nature of the data collected, some potential respondents may have opted not to participate. It is hoped that, as recognition of this survey's value and importance, more faculty will participate in the future.

Summary, Conclusions, and Closing Commentary

As the field of SCM/Logistics and Transportation continues to grow and evolve, and it is important to offer career guidance for both new and current faculty members, doctorate candidates, as well as administrators seeking employment at US institutions. Salary represents one of the key criteria when our colleagues consider accepting a faculty position. We have tried to identify some of the key factors influencing salary. New career candidates seeking employment may find the highest compensation at AACSB-accredited public institutions granting Ph.D.s in logistics, as depicted in table 7. This is the first time the rank of clinical professor is considered in a SCM/Logistics and Transportation focus survey yielding significant insight into the future career path as a member of the field.

Consistent with previous findings, those seeking higher compensation should place primary emphasis on research, and then administrative activities to increase potential compensation. Caution should be taken when using a single overall average salary for a given academic rank. Readers should consider which variables best reflect their situation and interpret the data accordingly. Finally, the logistics faculty salary survey is regularly conducted and published in this journal. Longitudinal results not only may yield additional insight regarding specific salary figures for the field of SCM/Logistics and Transportation, but also offer a guideline for adequate compensation and advancement of the field.

Our finding that the number of newly minted doctorates are not keeping up with vacancies from retirements and the inception of new programs suggest the following opportunities:
   Current programs considering developing a doctoral program will
   find numerous placement positions for their graduates.
   Due to the shortage of faculty, it is likely the number of clinical
   professors (or "professors of practice") will likely increase to
   help fill the need for classroom instruction.


In keeping with the principles of supply and demand, salaries will continue to increase. Research will continue to carry a premium salary.

Finally, the Logistics Academic Hiring Survey was last completed in 2016 and is sorely missed. Reinstatement offers an opportunity for an up-and-coming program to offer a meaningful contribution to the field and receive recognition by peer-institutions. Likewise, the Marketing field offers an annual Who-Went-Where Survey report (DocSIG 2019) that identifies a plethora of information about doctoral students completing their degree, where they went, and details about their qualifications during their interview semester. This report offers great insight and our field has grown significantly to the point where replication of the effort specific to our field offers another opportunity for an up-and-coming program.

DOI: 10.5325/transportationj.60.3.0239

Appendix

Logistics Faculty Salary Survey Instrument

All of us are faced with the need for salary information when hiring for new positions or justifying adjustments to remain competitive in the market. The AACSB salary survey does not include a separate category for logistics faculty. We would appreciate your assistance by filling out this confidential survey and emailing (logistics.surveys@unt.edu) the survey back to us. The compiled results will be published in the Transportation Journal
Current Rank:
* Full
* Associate
* Assistant
* Visiting
* Clinical
* Instructor / Non-Ph.D. / Adjunct
* Other (please specify)
Current Field (primary):
* Logistics/Transportation/Supply
  Chain
* Marketing
* Operations Management/Decision
  Sciences
* Operations Research
* Industrial Engineering
* Other (please specify)


Years in the present rank: --

Total years in academic service since Ph.D./D.B.A. granted: --

My current institution is:

* Public

* Private

* AACSB-accredited

* Non-AACSB-accredited

My current employer is:

* Logistics, Transportation, Supply Chain Management. Ph.D.-granting institution.

* Other Ph.D.-granting institution--with undergraduate and graduate degrees in Logistics.

* Other Ph.D.-granting institution--no degrees offered in Logistics.

* Non-Ph.D.-granting institution--with undergraduate and graduate degrees in Logistics.

* Non-Ph.D.-granting institution--no degrees offered in Logistics.

* Other: --

Please provide the following information about your salary:

$--Base nine-month salary/wages (do not include summer pay, special stipends, professorships, chaired positions, or other nonbase remuneration).

$--Total wages/salary compensated (including summer pay, special stipends, professorships, chaired positions, or other remuneration)--do not include benefit packages.

My base salary--over the last year.

* Increased

* Decreased

* Did not change

Answer the following question only if your base salary INCREASED/DECREASED this year

The change in my nine-month base salary over the last year was:

* Less than $1,000

* Between $1,000-$2,500

* More than $2,500

* I don't know.

My base salary changed because

* There were pay or budget cuts at my university/college/institution.

* I changed my job.

* I received merit increase.

* I was promoted.

* Other reason: Please specify reason: --

I took advantage of the following to supplement my salary (check all that apply):

* Teaching extra courses during summer

* Applying for research grants / research funding

* Other: Please specify --

Any additional comments about salary changes this year: --

Present allocation of your workload as your performance is measured (should total 100%):

--% Teaching

--% Research

--% Service

--% Administration

What additional questions would you like to be asked in future studies?

Gender

* Female

* Male

* Prefer not to answer

Email to logistics.surveys@unt.edu

References

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. 2019. 2018-19 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey Executive Summary. https://aacsb.edu/.

Cooper, M. C., J. Santosa, and T. Farris. 2010. "Logistics Academic Hiring Survey." Ohio State University, Department of Marketing, Columbus, Ohio.

Cooper, M. C., J. Santosa, and F. Adams. 2016. "CSCMP/ The Ohio State University Logistics Academic Hiring Survey." The Ohio State University, Department of Marketing, Columbus, Ohio.

DocSIG. 2019. The 2019 Who Went Where? Survey Report. American Marketing Association.

Donovan, P.S., I. Manuj, and M. T. Farris II. 2014. "Logistics Academic Hiring Survey." University of North Texas, Department of Marketing and Logistics, Denton.

Farris, M. T., T. L. Pohlen, and J. Wilson. 2006. "2006 Logistics Faculty Salaries," Journal of Transportation Management 17 (2): 1-16.

Golicic, S. L., L. M. Bobbitt, R. Frankel, and S. R. Clinton. 2004. "And Who Will Teach Them? An Investigation of the Logistics Ph.D. Market." Journal of Education of Business 80 (1): 47-51.

Lancioni, R., H. Forman, and M. F. Smith. 2001. "Logistics and Supply Chain Education." International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 31 (9/10): 733-45.

Manuj, I., A. Yazdanparast, and M. T. Farris. 2010. "Third Annual Logistics Faculty Salary Survey." Transportation Journal 49 (4): 52-60.

Manuj, I., A. Yazdanparast, and M. T. Farris. 2011. "Fourth Annual Logistics Faculty Salary Survey." Transportation Journal 50 (4): 416-60.

Obaze, Y., I. Manuj, and M. T. Farris. 2016. "Fifth Annual Logistics Faculty Salaiy Survey." Transportation Journal 55 (2): 208-23.

Rutner, S. M., J. L. Kent, and B. J. Gibson. 1996. "Using a Computer in a Logistics Course to Enhance Collaborative Learning." On Proceedings of the 25th Annual Transportation and Logistics Educators Conference, Orlando, Florida, November.

Tyworth, J. E. and W. Grenoble. 1985. "Spreadsheet Modeling in Logistics: Advancing Today's Educational Tools." Journal of Business Logistics 12:1-26.

Janeth Gabaldon

Corresponding Author

University of North Texas

janeth.gabaldon@unt.edu

M.Theodore Farris II

University of North Texas

Ila Manuj

University of North Texas

Uchenna Ekezie

University of North Texas

Caption: Figure 1 Year in the present rank vs. compensation for full professor

Caption: Figure 2a Year in the present rank vs. compensation for associate professor

Caption: Figure 2b Year in the present rank for the first six years vs. compensation for associate professor

Caption: Figure 3 Year in the present rank vs. compensation for assistant professor
Table 1/Annual Logistics Academic Hiring Survey Data
                                  Available
Year    Responding Universities   Positions   Doctoral Graduates
2000              17                 16               3
2003              20                 18               4
2006              30                 62               29
2007              56                 104             n/a
2008              37                 68               73
2009              28                 49              n/a
2010              43                 82               6
2011              37                 68               35
2012              32                 62              n/a
2014              n/a                46               17
2015              50                 80              n/a
2016              113                61              n/a
Table 2/2018-2019 AACSB Median Salary Data
              Management    Marketing     Logistics/      Production/
Rank          (n = 3,296)   (n = 4,053)   Supply Chain    Operations
                                          (n = 526)       Management
                                                          (n = 1,226)
Instructor    $75,000       $79,000       $90,000         $86,300
Assistant     $108,600      $123,500      $126,700        $133,500
Associate     $117,300      $127,000      $129,700        $142,870
Professor     $133,800      $149,860      $157,600        $165,940
Note: Includes international salaries.
Source: 2018-19 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey (Executive
Summary) published by Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International (AACSB) 2018-2019.
Table 3/Demographics (2020)
University Type                   Responses
Public university                   81.5%
Private university                  18.5%
AACSB-accredited                    85.2%
Non-AACSB-accredited                14.8%
University Type                   Responses
Logistics, Transportation,          37.0%
and SCM Ph.D. granting
Other Ph.D. granting
With undergraduate and              27.8%
graduate degrees in logistics
fields
No degrees in logistics or          3.7%
related fields
Non-Ph.D. granting
With undergraduate and              25.0%
graduate degrees in logistics
No degrees in logistics fields      3.7%
Other: Community college            1.9%
University Type                  Rank                      Responses
Public university                Full                        37.0%
Private university               Associate                   33.3%
                                 Assistant                   18.5%
AACSB-accredited                 Clinical                    5.6%
Non-AACSB-accredited             Instructor / Non-Ph.D.      5.6%
                                 / Adjunct
University Type                  Primary Field of          Responses
                                 Practice
Logistics, Transportation,
and SCM Ph.D. granting
Other Ph.D. granting
With undergraduate and           Logistics/                  81.5%
graduate degrees in logistics    Transportation/Supply
fields                           Chain
No degrees in logistics or       Marketing                   7.4%
related fields
Non-Ph.D. granting
With undergraduate and           Operations /Decision        11.1%
graduate degrees in logistics    Sciences
No degrees in logistics fields
Other: Community college
Table 4/Nine-Month Base Salary vs. Total Compensation (2020)
             Nine-Month Base Salary
Rank         Min-Max    Mean       Std. Dev.
Full         $95,000-   $164,938   $13,562
             $320,000
Associate    $98,000-   $136,535   $6,281
             $160,000
Assistant    $71,000-   $111,688   $8,736
             $146,800
Clinical     $92,000-   $105,667   $9,938
             $125,000
Instructor   $66,000-   $87,833    $11,129
/Non-        $102,500
Ph.D. /
Adjunct
                                                Additional
             Total Compensation                 Incentives
Rank         Min-Max     Mean       Std. Dev.
Full         $95,000-    $196,394   $26,874     +19.1 %
             $372,000
Associate    $98,000-    $153,148   $8,703      +12.2 %
             $220,000
Assistant    $72,000-    $123,668   $12,425     +10.4 %
             $179,520
Clinical     --          --         --          --
Instructor   $66,000-    $96,166    $17,763     +9.5 %
/Non-        $127,500
Ph.D. /
Adjunct
Note: Additional incentives are calculated as follows: (Mean total
compensation--Mean nine-month base salary) -(Mean nine-month base
salary 100)
Table 5/Workload Allocation (2020)
                                Mean
Rank              Nine-Month Base       Total
                       Salary        Compensation
Full
< 35% research        $129,920         $132,421
35-60% research       $182,438         $215,701
Associate
< 35% research        $116,056         $129,627
35-60% research       $149,360         $161,030
Assistant
< 35% research        $105,313         $119,670
35-60% research       $121,250         $128,750
                               Research Premium
Rank              Relative to Mean (a)   < 35% vs. > 35% (b)
Full
< 35% research
35-60% research          +10.6%                +62.8%
Associate
< 35% research
35-60% research          +9.3%                 +24.2%
Assistant
< 35% research
35-60% research          +8.5%                  +7.6%
(a) Premium calculated based on mean salaries from table 4, nine-
month salaries for higher research workload categories. Faculty
reporting administrative workload allocation of 25% or higher have
been removed from the analysis.
(b) Premium calculated based on Mean Total Compensation.
Table 6/Salary Based on Type of Program (2020)
                            Mean Nine-Month    Mean Total
Rank                          Base Salary     Compensation   Premium
Full
Logistics Ph.D. granting       $204,963         $258,163     +52.9%
Other Ph.D. granting           $147,535         $161,410     +10.0%
Non-Ph.D. granting             $134,093         $134,093
Associate
Logistics Ph.D. granting       $151,500         $175,900      +4.4%
Other Ph.D. granting           $116,750         $121,750     -19.5%
Non-Ph.D. granting             $145,106         $164,538
Assistant
Logistics Ph.D. granting       $133,440         $149,760     +23.3%
Other Ph.D. granting           $104,250         $109,250      -3.7%
Non-Ph.D. granting             $108,250         $124,125
Note: Premium was calculated based on nine-month salary by comparing
non-Ph.D.-granting to logistics Ph.D.-granting institutions and other
Ph.D.-granting institutions respectively.
Table 7/Public vs. Private Institution Salaries (2020)
                        Mean Nine-Month    Mean Total
Rank                      Base Salary     Compensation   Premium
Full
Public                     $159,097         $177,160
Private                    $217,500         $250,000     +36.0%
Associate
Public                     $135,208         $154,625
Private                    $139,189         $150,194      +2.9%
Assistant
Public                     $112,360         $125,002
Private                    $109,000         $116,500      -3.0%
AACSB accredited           $123,776         $136,304
Non-AACSB accredited        $99,600         $110,300     +24.3%
Note: Premium was calculated based on nine-month salary by comparing
private institution to public institutions.
Table 8/Additional Supplements to Salary (2020)
Activities                                                   Response
Teaching extra courses during summer                          15.9%
Applying for research grants / research funding               18.6%
Teaching extra courses during summer / applying for           25.0%
research grants / research funding
Teaching extra courses during summer / other reason            4.5%
Other                                                         36.0%
COPYRIGHT 2021 American Society of Transportation and Logistics, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2021 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gabaldon, Janeth; Farris, M. Theodore, II; Manuj, Ila; Ekezie, Uchenna
Publication:Transportation Journal
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2021
Words:5094
Previous Article:Supply Chain Management Research Productivity and Growth: 2017-2019.
Next Article:Multimarket Contact and Capacity: Evidence from the US Airline Industry.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |