If you’re going to write a book entitled How to Get Tenure, you are going to get a lot of comments about how tenure is ruining higher education. Even among faculty and certainly administrators, there is this sense that tenure is the cause of many of the problems facing higher education. While tenure is no doubt imperfect and I don’t need to rehash the criticisms here as they are well-known, there are numerous important aspects to tenure. In the excerpt below, I address these benefits and how they influence higher education.
The notion of protecting the creation of knowledge and the expression of ideas is at the heart of academic freedom. One of the most cited justifications for tenure is the increased protection it affords faculty. All aspects of faculty work are impacted by academic freedom including teaching, scholarship, service, and governance of the institution. In fact, in my own career, I have often found governance to be an area where academic freedom is most crucial. Whether in deciding the admission of a student from a wealthy family or disagreeing with an administrator over a policy matter, tenure gives me the protection to base my judgments on my own expertise without fearing reprisal.
Indeed, tenure has a major impact on the management, authority, and governance of higher education. While academic freedom gets much of the attention in debates over teaching and scholarship, the daily implications of tenure on the management of higher education are quite profound. In this context, tenure constrains the ability of administrators to make sweeping decisions, particularly those related to the academic mission of the university. Tenure does not give faculty absolute authority or power, but it does provide a balance against administrative decision making, or at least raises the costs of certain decisions (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999). Administrators simply cannot make decisions regarding faculty salaries, workloads, and termination without considering significant financial and political costs. These constraints on administrative authority change the behavior of both administrators and faculty. Administrators may decide the costs of a decision are not worth the price and instead focus on persuading faculty, or modifying a decision, to get faculty on board.
Tenured faculty can use their independence and voice to influence institutional decision making, which strengthens higher education (Link, Swann, & Bozeman, 2008). In addition, not only do faculty members constitute an institution’s primary intellectual capital, they are also one of its few appreciable assets (Gappa & Austin, 2010). As a result, tenure plays a critical role in attracting and retaining talented faculty members by providing a high level of job security. To be sure, tenured faculty can be dismissed and are not guaranteed a job for life. However, the causes of termination are clearly outlined and create a high bar to clear, including failing to perform duties, gross misconduct, and extreme financial problems with the institution. Only employees with very strong unions have the same level of job security as tenured faculty.
As you will no doubt discover if you have not already, tenure serves as a powerful motivator for influencing faculty behavior (Link et al., 2008; Ponjuan, Conley, & Trower, 2011). During the pre-tenure years, faculty feel consistent pressure to engage in activities that will be rewarded and evaluated as part of the tenure process (Baldwin, Dezure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008). Although elements of the tenure process can perversely incentivize and encourage faculty to engage in work they otherwise may not choose, there can be no doubt the tenure encourages faculty performance and increases productivity (Bess, 1998). Even one of the most common critiques of tenure (that the lifetime contract promotes laziness and limits productivity) implies that the process of seeking tenure actually motivates faculty productivity. Without a doubt, faculty work includes many privileges and flexibility that workers in many other circumstances do not enjoy. Yet, the motivation provided by tenure ensures faculty productivity in ways that canbenefit both the individual and institution.
While the pursuit of tenure certainly influences faculty behavior, the decision to award tenure has a profound financial impact on a college or university. Literally, granting someone tenure commits the institution to a multimillion dollar obligation. For example, after an assistant professor is promoted and tenured, they may reasonably be expected to work for the next 35 years. With a salary of $80,300, benefits at 35%, and a 3.5% annual increase, the financial commitment by an institution is $7.2 million in current dollars (Trower, 2012). During the pre-tenure years, it can be helpful to remember the implication of tenure for the institution. Simply as good stewards of the institution, we would all want our presidents and provosts to give careful consideration to the decision to spend more than $7 million worth of institutional resources. All of the hoops, stress, and requirements of the tenure process at a fundamental level are about ensuring that everyone involved in the decision to grant tenure has evaluated the tenure candidate, and also that they have thoroughly considered the fiduciary responsibility of making a sound investment.
At the same time, tenure provides a merit award for high levels of faculty productivity. This is one of the significant differences between tenure in higher education and tenure as it appears in other settings such as K-12 education. Tenure in higher education requires a level of productivity above satisfactory job performance and longevity. Regardless of whether tenure in a given situation is focused on scholarship or teaching, the tenure review process will ensure that pre-tenure faculty have achieved substantial performance and productivity to justify tenure. Thus, tenure serves as a major reward for sustained and significant merit during service as an assistant professor.
As you move along the path to tenure, remembering the various aspects of this unique career construct can provide helpful context for the process that you are undergoing. When you think about the commitment that the institution is making to you as well as the productivity that you will demonstrate during the pre-tenure years (McPherson & Winston, 1983), the overall process of going up for tenure hopefully makes a little more sense. The various stages of review; the expectations across scholarship, teaching, and service; and the required number of years of service all are justified by the rewards that stem from being granted tenure.
