Printer Friendly

Third annual logistics faculty salary survey.

Abstract

While the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International conducts an annual survey of business school faculty and administrative salaries, the report does not specify salary, figures for logistics (and related areas such as supply chain management) faculty. Since the growth in the number of logistics faculty positions has continued to exceed the output of doctoral programs in the field for more than a decade, it is logical to assume that logistics faculty salaries, at all levels, are increasing. However, without factual data, questions such as what salary should a new logistics Ph.D. expect and what should an administrator budget for a logistics faculty position cannot be answered satisfactorily. Moreover, most people expect and want to be adequately compensated. However, for the specific discipline of logistics and supply chain management (SCM), the data on average compensation across different ranks, institutions, and other such factors are not available. To provide such factual data, the authors have developed a survey to annually collect data on logistics and supply chain faculty salaries. This year's survey was the third one in the past four years.

**********

For the reader unfamiliar with hiring practices in academia, a brief overview of the process will enhance the understanding of the purpose of this research. The typical business faculty position at most colleges and universities in the United States requires a terminal degree or doctorate as a minimum qualification. Of the 466 business schools/colleges accredited in the United States by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International, 203 (43.6 percent) offer doctoral programs. Of those business schools/colleges offering doctoral programs, only 53 (11.8 percent of the 466 accredited schools/colleges, 26.1 percent of the accredited doctoral granting institutions) offer doctoral programs in "logistics, transportation, and supply chain management" (Mondello 2009). The typical well-established business doctoral programs, including all functional areas (accounting, management, logistics, etc.) will enroll fewer than ten new students each academic year, with average time to degree completion in the range of three to five years (LeClair 2003; Swartz et al. 2007). The supply of new doctorates to fill all business faculty positions is decidedly small and fixed in the short to intermediate term.

For more than thirty years, logistics-related degree programs have been growing in number and enrollment (Lancioni et al. 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 1991; Rutner et al. 1996; Golicic et al. 2004). According to the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC), there were 1.4 openings per doctoral graduate at AACSB member schools in the 1998-1999 academic year, with the number rising to 2.1 in the following year (GMAC 2001).

Further, the Logistics Academic Hiring Survey conducted annually by Dr. Martha Cooper at The Ohio State University directly illustrates the continuing gap between available faculty positions in logistics and the annual supply of new doctoral graduates in the field. In the 2000 survey of 17 responding universities, there were 16 entry-level positions available and just three logistics Ph.D. graduates that year (Cooper 2000). In 2003, of 20 responding universities, there were 18 available positions, and only four graduates (Cooper 2003). In the 2006-2007 recruiting season, there were 43 available positions, and only 13 graduates available. The 2009 survey identifies 41 available positions (and an additional 12 post-doctoral positions) with 13 graduates projected to be available (Cooper et al. 2009). (Note that the Cooper article includes only logistics doctoral-granting universities, indicating that the real gap between supply of qualified new faculty and open positions across all AACSB member schools is much greater than that suggested by the quoted survey results.)

The preceding discussion leads directly to the need for and importance of the survey research conducted by the authors. Each year university logistics, transportation, and supply chain management programs are faced with the need for salary information when hiring for new and vacant positions, or for justifying salary adjustments for current faculty to remain competitive with other universities. Many fields of specialization use data from the annual study of U.S. faculty and administrative personnel salaries conducted by the AACSB International. In 2008, the AACSB conducted the 41st annual survey of 27,017 U.S. faculty and 5,086 administrative personnel salaries (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International 2008). Responses were received from 498 institutions. Salaries are stated as nine- or 10-month equivalents to allow direct comparability. Salary data were collected in 28 fields of specialization, including management, marketing, and production and operations management, as shown in Table 1. The category "other" received an average of 258 responses per rank (up from 31 per rank in 2006-2007) and includes general business, health services and hospital administration, hotel/restaurant/ tourism, public administration, supply chain management/transportation and logistics, and otherwise not classified.

The logistics and supply chain management discipline is composed of an amalgam of overlapping disciplines, creating a dilemma as to which category should be used to best reflect salaries in the logistics field. For this reason, in 2006 the authors decided to initiate an annual logistics faculty salary survey in order to provide discipline-specific information of use to both faculty looking for positions and administrators seeking to fill them.

The purpose of this article is to understand institutional, accreditation, experience-related, and other factors that affect academic logistics and supply chain salaries. The objective is to compile information that assists: (a) a new logistics Ph.D. in understanding what to expect as a starting salary; (b) a current logistics faculty member to assess his or her compensation and determine expected salary levels for promotion or job moves; and (c) an administrator to budget for a logistics faculty position. This article reflects the third year of data collection.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The survey methodology emphasized simplicity, ease of response, and confidentiality. The survey instrument is shown in Figure 1. An initial contact list was compiled from the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) annual Educators' Conference registration list. The list was reviewed to remove duplicates, adjust for known changes of employment, and remove faculty members whose primary field was not in logistics, transportation, or SCM. The CSCMP membership and registration list was supplemented with several other sources. First, the authors are and have been active in several associations, including the Institute for Supply Management, Decision Sciences Institute, and American Society of Transportation and Logistics, and are familiar with the memberships of these associations. Thus, the authors added the names of logistics faculty members known to the authors but not included in the CSCMP registration list. Second, we explored the Web sites of schools offering logistics and supply chain programs and looked up the faculty members listed as professors of logistics and/or SCM and included them on our list. After the initial survey was distributed, the list was corrected for any undeliverable addresses, and surveys were sent to the updated addresses. A follow-up survey was sent two weeks later.

The research employed a process to create an aggregate data set while maintaining the confidentiality of the respondents. Respondents had the option to either email completed surveys to a controlled email address assigned to the University of North Texas Center for Logistics Education and Research, to fax the completed one-page survey to the Center, or to complete an on-line Web surveyor questionnaire. A research assistant numbered each response (to allow for the ability to confirm or correct data input) and entered the response into a Microsoft Excel file. Original completed surveys, which could contain identifying marks such as email addresses or fax numbers, were isolated from the authors. The Microsoft Excel file was forwarded to the authors for analysis.

Out of 165 surveys sent out, usable responses were received from 44 faculty, representing a response rate of 26.6 percent.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The AACSB Salary Report serves as a common base to compare salaries. Table 1 reflects the problem of combining logistics and SCM salaries into the "Other" category in the AACSB Salary Report. The "Other" category has consistently lower salaries than those fields, such as marketing or operations management, typically associated with logistics and supply chain management. Perhaps blending logistics and SCM salaries with health services, hospital administration, hotel/restaurant/tourism, and public administration results in misinformation if this is used as a basis for determining logistics and SCM salaries.

Demographics

The demographics in Table 2 reflect a broad mixture of responses. The data allow the survey report to differentiate pay structures in greater detail than the aggregate reports from the AACSB survey. With this information, the authors were able to develop conclusions regarding compensation differences between public and private universities, institution accreditation, type of program, years of service, and workload allocation.

Base Salary vs. Total Compensation

Survey respondents were asked to identify their base nine-month salary, as well as the total compensation, which includes such additional incentives as summer pay, special stipends, professorships, chaired positions, administrative positions, or remuneration for other activities. Table 3 compares total compensation with base salary.

Many programs use other income sources as a means to attract and retain their faculty. The nine-month base salary, while providing a convenient benchmark of compensation, ignores the total compensation, thus providing an incomplete measure of compensation. The addition of incentives to the base salary represents a range from 16 percent of the total compensation at the assistant professor level to 33 percent at the full professor level.

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. The actual allocations of workload reported by assistant professors in the respondent group were 43 percent for research, 41 percent for teaching, and 15 percent for service and administration.

Research allocations varied at the associate and full professor levels, as shown in Table 4. Analysis reflects a clear compensation premium is paid for both the base salary and total compensation to senior faculty respondents who reported a higher allocation of their workload for research. Faculty at the rank of associate professor with a higher research allocation received 12 percent more in base compensation than the average respondents in the rank of associate professor. Faculty at the rank of professor with a higher research allocation received 4 percent more in total compensation than the average respondents in the rank of full professor and 16 percent more than those with less than a 35 percent research workload.

Average workload allocation differences between associate and full professors were somewhat obscured by the diverse mixture of activities, including administrative duties for full professors. Full professors reported 49 percent of their workload was administrative and service related.

Type of Program

Respondents were also 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 5. Programs awarding a Ph.D. specifically in logistics accounted for 46 percent of the respondents.

Faculty at Ph.D.-granting institutions may face different expectations for research and classroom instruction, as well as additional responsibilities, including guiding doctoral candidates, all of which warrant higher salaries. The average compensation premium for working at an institution granting a Ph.D. in logistics compared to a non-Ph.D.-granting institution was 7 percent for assistant professors, 54 percent for associate professors, and 33 percent for full professors.

Public vs. Private Institutions

Differences between public and private institutions are shown in Table 6. Eighty-six percent of respondents are employed at public institutions. There were no responses for associate professors at private institutions. In line with the AACSB data, logistics faculty compensation for private institutions is higher than that for public institutions.

Years of Service

Respondents were asked to identify time in rank and total time in service. Longer time in service results in higher pay and does not reflect salary compression except at the assistant professor level. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate compensation differences across academic rank and years of service.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Over time (Figure 4), associate salary growth degrades, possibly due to "associate purgatory," where some associate professors simply stop seeking to fulfill the research requirements for promotion to full professor, while others continue to actively pursue promotion through a sustained research agenda. As a result, additional incentives taper off.

SURVEY LIMITATIONS

This survey has several limitations that could affect the accuracy of the data collected and the analysis.

* Self-reported Data--The data come directly (e.g., self reported) from the faculty members. It is assumed that each respondent accurately reported his or her compensation.

* Definition of Task--Respondents may define some duties, such as student advising, as teaching, while others may consider it to be a service task.

* Sampling Error--Not all logistics, transportation, and SCM faculty attend the CSCMP Educators' Conference or are included in the CSCMP membership roster. The use of the convenience sample excludes some faculty from participation.

* Overlapping Disciplines--The academic field of logistics involves overlapping disciplines that may include faculty classified as logistics, transportation, SCM, marketing, management, operations and production, or industrial engineering. The population of all faculty in these fields is not known.

* Low Response Rate--Due to the confidential nature of the data collected, some potential respondents may have opted not to participate. It is hoped that as this survey is repeated annually and recognition of its value and importance increase, more faculty will participate.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The third annual logistics faculty salary survey offers career guidance for both new and current faculty members, as well as administrators. Salary represents one of the key criteria used in selecting faculty positions, and new career candidates seeking employment will find the highest compensation in accredited public institutions granting Ph.D.s in logistics, as depicted in Figure 5. Long-term career focus should emphasize research first and administration second to increase potential compensation levels.

Care 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 authors expect that as the logistics faculty salary survey continues to be conducted annually, and published in this journal, longitudinal results will yield additional insight.

REFERENCES

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. 2009. Salary Survey Report: 2008-2009. Tampa: AACSB.

Cooper, Martha C. 2000. "Logistics Academic Hiring Survey." Working paper, The Ohio State University, Department of Marketing, Columbus, Ohio.

Cooper, Martha C. 2003. "Logistics Academic Hiring Survey." Working paper, The Ohio State University, Department of Marketing, Columbus, Ohio.

Cooper, Martha C., John Santosa, and M. Theodore Farris II. 2009. "Logistics Academic Hiring Survey." Working paper, The Ohio State University, Department of Marketing, Columbus, Ohio.

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

Graduate Management Admission Council. 2001. Graduate Management Admission Test Data Summary, February.

Lancioni, Richard, Howard Forman, and Michael F. Smith. 2001. "Logistics and Supply Chain Education." International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 31 (9/10):733-745.

LeClair, Dan. 2004. "The Professor's Paycheck," BizEd March/April:58-60.

Mondello, Joe. 2009. E-mail message to Atefeh Yazdanparast, co-author, June 8, 2009.

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

Swartz, James E., Teresa A. Swartz, and Priscilla Liang. 2007. "Market Meltdown: Recruiting Qualified Business Faculty." Journal of Education for Business 82(6):337.

Tyworth, John E., and William Grenoble. 1991. "Spreadsheet Modeling in Logistics: Advancing Today's Educational Tools." Journal of Business Logistics 12(1):1-26.

Ms. Manuj is assistant professor of logistics, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76203; email lla.Manuj@unt.edu. Ms. Yazdanparast is a doctoral student in marketing, University of North Texas: email atefeh.yazdanparast@unt.edu. Mr. Farris, CTL, is associate professor of logistics, University of North Texas; email farris@unt.edu. Mr. Wilson, CTL, is professor of marketing and logistics at Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia 30458.
Table 1. 2008-2009 AACSB Salary Data (000's)

 AACSB Salary Data 2009
 Logistics
 Production/ Salary
 Operations Survey
Rank Management Marketing Management Other * Results

Assistant
- Private $100.5 $106.9 $116.9 $95.7 $111.9
- Public $93.3 $103.5 $103.0 $90.5 $106.5

Associate
- Private $108.5 $114.2 $121.8 $101.9 --
- Public $97.7 $104.8 $106.4 $98.8 $120.0

Full
- Private $133.0 $155.4 $145.4 $144.3 $183.0
- Public $116.9 $128.5 $128.5 $123.6 $138.3

* Includes an average of only 258 responses per rank (up from 31 per
rank in 2006-2007) covering General Business, Health Services/Hospital
Administration, Hotel/Restaurant/Tourism, Public Administration,
Supply Chain Management/Transportation/Logistics, and "Other not
classified"

Source: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
International, Salary Survey Report 2008-2009.

Table 2. Respondent Demographics (2009)

Responses Rank

38.6% Full professor
18.2% Associate
38.6% Assistant
4.5% Visiting/Other

Responses University Type

86.4% Public university
13.6% Private university

45.5% Logistics Ph.D. granting
40.9% Other Ph.D. granting
13.6% Non-Ph.D. granting

95.5% AACSB accredited
4.5% Not accredited

Table 3. Nine-Month Base Salary vs. Total Compensation (2009)

 Mean Mean Additional
 Nine-Month Total Incentives
 Base Salary Compensation

Assistant $107,806 $125,497 +16.4%
Associate $120,062 $136,414 +13.6%
Full $140,891 $186,676 +32.5%
Visiting $98,000 $98,000
Other $150,000 $150,000

* Additional incentives are calculated as follows:

(Mean Total Compensation--Mean Nine-month Base Salary)/Mean
Nine-month Base Salary x 100

Table 4. Workload Allocation

 Mean Mean
 Nine-Month Total
 Base Salary Compensation

Associate
Less than 35% research $106,500 $125,000
35% to 70% research $124,583 $140,218

Full
Less than 35% research $135,703 $184,808
35% to 80% research $157,750 $192,750

 Research Premium

 Relative Less Than 35%
 to Mean * vs. Over 35% **

Associate
Less than 35% research
35% to 70% research +4% +12%

Full
Less than 35% research
35% to 80% research +16% +4%

* Premium calculated based on mean salaries from Table 3, nine-month
salaries for higher research workload categories.

** Premium calculated based on Mean Total Compensation.

Table 5. Ph.D.-Granting Institutions

 Mean Mean
 Nine-Month Total
 Base Salary Compensation Premium *

Assistant
- Non-Ph.D. granting $105,944 $126,144
- Logistics Ph.D. granting $113,300 $129,490 +7%

Associate
- Non-Ph.D. granting $90,180 $102,000
- Other Ph.D. granting $112,807 $142,186 +25%
- Logistics Ph.D. granting $138,632 $150,735 +54%

Full
- Non-Ph.D. granting $117,750 $141,125
- Other Ph.D. granting $136,880 $161,333 +16%
- Logistics Ph.D. granting $156,778 $219,444 +33%

* Premium was calculated based on 9-month salary by comparing
non-Ph.D. granting to logistics Ph.D.-granting institutions and other
Ph.D.-granting institutions respectively.

Table 6. Public vs. Private Institutions

 Mean Mean
 Nine-Month Total Private
 Base Salary Compensation Premium *

Assistant
- Private $111,925 $131,250 +5%
- Public $106,538 $123,727

Full
- Private $183,000 $275,000 +32%
- Public $138,259 $181,156

* Premium was calculated based on nine-month salary by comparing
private institutions to public institutions.
COPYRIGHT 2010 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 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Manuj, Ila; Yazdanparast, Atefeh; Farris, M. Theodore, II; Wilson, Jerry W.
Publication:Transportation Journal
Date:Sep 22, 2010
Words:3262
Previous Article:The relationship between motor carrier financial performance and safety performance.
Next Article:Supply chain disruption by avian flu pandemic for U.S. companies: a case study.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters