An investigation of factors influencing the hiring of experienced accounting faculty.

Bitter, Michael E.

INTRODUCTION

College professors, like most other professionals, are highly mobile (Lichter 1982). Several factors could potentially contribute to an accounting professor's decision to change institutions. These factors include an imbalance in the supply of and demand for accounting academics (Schultz 1989), salary compression (Jacobs and Herring 1987; Schultz 1989), and the failure to receive tenure (Schultz 1989; Schultz, et al. 1989).

Experienced accounting professors contemplating re-entry into the job market could benefit by better understanding the variables considered by employers in the search and hiring process. The primary purpose of this study was to determine those variables that are most important. To do this, a two page survey was developed to solicit information from employer institutions that had recently undertaken a search. The survey contained three sections, the most important of which listed 39 variables that may be important to the hiring decision. Subjects were asked to rate the relative importance of each variable to their institution's search using a five point importance scale.

MOTIVATION FOR STUDY

The mobility of college professors can be attributable to their loyalty to their disciplines (as opposed to their employers) and the portability of their teaching and research skills (Brown 1967). Several factors could potentially contribute to an accounting professor's decision to move: an imbalance in the supply of and demand for accounting academics (Schultz 1989), salary compression (Jacobs and Herring 1987; Schultz 1989), the failure to receive tenure (Schultz 1989; Schultz, et al. 1989), and nonwork (personal) issues (Holland and Arrington 1987).

In recent years, the supply of new doctorates in accounting has declined dramatically. In fact, the number of doctoral degrees awarded in accounting fell 38 percent from 199 degrees in 1992 to 124 degrees in 1998 (Hasselback 2000). This decline, coupled with increasing market demand due to position backlog, the creation of new programs, turnover, and retirements, has resulted in a shortage of qualified accounting professors (AACSB 1998b).

For example, based upon a survey of its members, the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) found that for the 1997-98 academic year there were 1.7 openings per accounting doctoral graduate. A total of 250 positions remained unfilled that year, a vacancy rate of 7.5 percent (AACSB 1998a). If accounting programs cannot meet their needs by hiring new graduates, they may have little choice but to lure away experienced professors from other institutions with better offers (AACSB 1998b).

The heated market for new doctorates has pushed starting salaries ever higher and has made the reality of salary compression even harsher for experienced faculty. On average, new assistant professors hired in 1998 were paid $1,800 (2.6 percent) more than experienced assistants; those with new doctorates in accounting were paid, on average, $73,000 (AACSB 1999). As a reference point, the average associate and full professor earned $73,800 and $90,400, respectively, in 1998. Certainly, accounting faculty who have fallen victim to significant salary compression and have maintained the portability of their skills have incentive to change institutions.

Some accounting faculty have little choice but to change institutions when they are denied tenure or when they perceive their chances for tenure as unlikely. Schultz, et al. (1989) noted that success rates for those applying for tenure significantly declined between the early 1960s and the mid-1980s; this downward trend was expected to continue into the 1990s.

Salary and tenure issues are not the only reasons many faculty have chosen to move. Holland and Arrington (1987) found that family matters were the second most important variable in the decisions of accounting professors to relocate. Research opportunities and support, the reputation and quality of the new institution, and geography and quality of life were also important factors in the relocation decision (Holland and Arrington 1987).

Given the natural tendency of professors toward mobility as well as current conditions that encourage mobility among accounting professors, it is important for both experienced accounting professors and the institutions that hire them to understand the factors that are being considered in the selection of candidates to interview and hire. Employer institutions would be well served to determine where their recruitment criteria stand relative to their competitors and to evaluate how realistic these criteria are given their competitive position. Since faculty recruiting can be an expensive and time-consuming endeavor, employers would also do well to understand the factors that have previously led to unsuccessful searches by other institutions. Those accounting faculty contemplating a re-entry into the market in the near future (especially those who have been "out of the market" for several years) would do well to better understand the criteria by which they will be judged during the recruiting process.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The primary purpose of the study is to determine the variables that are most important in the selection of candidates to interview and hire for experienced accounting faculty positions. Secondary purposes are to determine the reasons for position openings, the teaching areas most in demand, the outcomes of searches undertaken, and the future hiring plans of schools that have recently conducted a search. While other authors have examined the variables that are important in the job selection or relocation decisions of accounting academics (Kida and Mannino 1980; Holland and Arrington 1987), I am unaware of any studies that have examined the variables deemed important by academic employers in the hiring process.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Subjects

A two page survey was sent to individuals at each college or university (Canadian and U.S. institutions only) having an opening for an experienced, tenure-track (or tenured) accounting faculty member during 1997. (1) The mailing list was compiled by reviewing placement ads in four quarterly issues of Accounting Horizons (beginning with the September, 1996 issue), in six quarterly issues of The Accounting Review (beginning in April, 1996), and in each weekly issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education (from July, 1996 to June 1997). To ensure that the mailing list was as complete as possible, a review was made of the 1998-1999 Accounting Faculty Directory to identify positions filled in 1997 that had not been advertised in any of the above publications.

When possible, the cover letter accompanying the survey was addressed to the individual identified in the position announcement, typically a search committee chair or department chair. In the other cases, the letter was addressed to the accounting department chair or the dean. The recipients were told that, to the extent possible, their responses should reflect the general attitudes and perceptions of those directly responsible for making the selection decision. Recipients were asked to forward the instrument if they believed someone else was better able to respond. To encourage response, subjects were provided with a postage-paid return envelope, guaranteed anonymity, and offered an executive summary of the results.

Research Instrument

The research instrument contained three sections. Prior to beginning the first section, subjects were asked to identify the rank of the faculty position advertised, the primary and secondary teaching specialties sought, and the reason for the position opening. The first section listed 39 variables that may be important in the selection of candidates for an experienced accounting faculty position. (2) These included various academic and professional qualifications as well as institutional, interpersonal, and personal variables.

Subjects were asked to indicate the relative importance of each variable to their search using a five point scale ranging from "1" (not important) to "5" (very important). They were also given the option of selecting "NA" (not applicable to this search). At the end of the first section, subjects were asked to identify, in order of importance, the four variables most important to their search.

Section two included questions about the results of the search, teaching loads for newly hired experienced faculty members, and the institution's intent to fill another tenure-track/tenured position within the next two years. Section three sought information regarding the institution, including geographic location, funding, enrollment, size of the accounting faculty, accounting-related degree programs offered, and AACSB accreditation.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Characteristics of Respondents

Surveys were mailed to 163 institutions. Usable responses were received from 59 of these, yielding a response rate of 36 percent. These institutions returned a total of 63 surveys. (3) The general profile of the respondents is as follows: a comprehensive (57 percent), teaching-oriented (56 percent), public institution (71 percent) from the Southeast (25 percent), Northeast (22 percent) or Midwest (19 percent). The vast majority of these institutions offer accounting-related bachelor degrees (94 percent) and masters degrees (65 percent). Thirteen percent of the institutions offer accounting-related doctoral degrees. Forty-nine percent of the respondents are AACSB accredited. See Table 1 at the end of the manuscript.

The enrollment for these institutions ranged from 750 to 45,000 students, with an average of 8,314 students. The average accounting faculty numbers nine full-time, tenured/tenure-track members, with the smallest numbering one and the largest 30. See Table 2.

Descriptive Results

To facilitate discussion, the 39 variables were judgmentally categorized into five groups: academic qualifications, professional qualifications, institutional variables, interpersonal variables, and personal variables. Mean responses are reported for the overall sample as well as for four subsamples: research-oriented (R-O) schools, teaching-oriented (T-O) schools, AACSB accredited (AACSB) institutions, and non-AACSB accredited (NONACC) institutions. Responses from R-O and T-O schools were expected to differ due to differing missions and faculty expectations. Responses from AACSB schools, which are subject to stringent faculty-related accreditation standards, were expected to differ from NONACC schools.

Academic Qualifications

Credentials. The most important academic credential was the terminal degree (mean response of 4.87), while completion of the terminal degree at the time of appointment (4.41) was also deemed very important. Several other variables rated as important on the rating scale (between three and four) including a candidate's references and recommendations, the quality of the candidate's doctoral program, the quality of the institutions of the candidate's previous academic appointments, whether the doctoral degree was granted by an AACSB accredited school, and CPA certification. See Table 3.

Teaching. The most important teaching variable, by far, was the ability of the candidate to teach effectively (4.75). Other important variables included the ability to teach a variety of courses (3.97), the ability to incorporate technology in teaching (3.89), previous full-time teaching experience (3.75), and the willingness of the candidate to teach graduate courses (3.50). See Table 3.

Research. Interestingly, only one of the research variables, the perceived ability of the candidate to public quality research in the future (4.07), was rated as "very important." Two other variables, however, were rated as important: the ability to publish in other academic journals (3.95) and the ability to publish in top-tier academic journals (3.29). See Table 3.

Service. The desire to contribute service both to the university (3.65) and the profession (3.49) were rated as important by respondents. See Table 3.

Professional Qualifications

Previous work experience in public accounting (3.00) was rated as marginally important by respondents, but not as highly as might have been expected based upon anecdotal evidence. See Table 4.

Institutional Factors

The most important institutional variable was the fit between the candidate's credentials and the mission of the department/college (4.48). The input of college/school administrators (3.51), other business faculty (3.21), and other university administrators (3.02) regarding the candidate was also deemed important. See Table 5.

Interpersonal Factors

Each of the three interpersonal variables was rated highly. The candidate's personal interview with the search committee and/or the accounting faculty (4.70) and the ability of the candidate to get along with future colleagues (4.54) were both very important. The candidate's ability to interact effectively with the business community was also perceived as important (3.57). See Table 6.

Personal Factors

All five of the personal variables were deemed important, with the candidate's perceived willingness to accept a salary within university constraints (4.16) rated the most important variable in this group. The candidate's ability to relocate to (3.76) and adjust to (3.44) the geographic location of the university as well as the candidate's ability to adjust to the university's culture (3.67) were all important. The perceived ability of the candidate to adjust to the local community's culture (3.19) was rated marginally important. See Table 7.

Most Important Hiring Variables

It was expected that many variables would be rated as important or very important by respondents. As such, in order to determine which variables were the most important to their search, respondents were asked to list the top four in order of importance. Frequencies were tallied and a rank score was calculated for each variable by awarding four points each time a variable was selected as most important, three points each time a variable was selected next most important, etc.

Rank scores indicate that a candidate's ability to teach effectively was the most important variable, scoring 107 points. The second most important variable was the candidate's possession of a terminal degree, which scored 85 points. Interestingly, 17 of the 63 respondents (27 percent) ranked this variable first compared to only 12 first place votes for the "teach effectively" factor. However, the "terminal degree" factor received very few second, third, and fourth place votes.

The perceived ability of the candidate to publish quality research in the future was a strong third, scoring 67 points. Following were the demonstrated ability of the candidate to publish in top-tier academic journals (36 points) and in other academic journals (34 points) and the perceived ability of the candidate to get along with future colleagues (36 points). See Table 8.

Additional analyses was performed to determine if the "most important variables" differed by type of institution--a T-O or an R-O institution and an AACSB or a NONACC school. The sample was subdivided by attribute and rank scores were again computed. See Table 9.

In each case, the ability to teach effectively and the perceived ability to publish quality research in the future were included among the three most important variables. T-O and NONACC institutions also valued candidates that have or will have a terminal degree, with T-O schools ranking this variable, in aggregate, as most important.

Both R-O and AACSB institutions favored the ability to publish in top-tier academic journals. Consistent with their focus, R-O schools ranked both research-related variables most highly. Consistent with AACSB accreditation standards (which emphasize both teaching effectiveness and intellectual contributions), the rankings of AACSB schools included both the "teach effectively" variables and the two research-related variables. Despite very high importance ratings, neither R-O schools (mean rating of 5.0) nor AACSB institutions (mean rating of 4.90) ranked the "terminal degree" variable among its top three. These types of schools likely view possession of a terminal degree as an absolute requirement for tenured/tenure-track faculty positions and therefore do not consider it a point of differentiation in choosing among candidates.

Analysis by Institutions Attributes

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the extent to which selected institutional variables impacted respondents' importance ratings.

R-O Institutions. R-O institutions tended to differentiate themselves from other institutions more by the variables they did not deem important. They did not place much importance on a candidate's certification (CPA or other) or on their previous non-academic work experience. R-O schools were also not concerned with a candidate's willingness to accept a heavy course or prep load or their ability to publish in practitioner journals. This is not surprising since R-O schools typically offer course reductions and release time for research purposes. Thus, heavy course or prep loads would not be an issue. Publication in practitioner journals is often lightly regarded by most R-O schools. These explanations are supported by the importance R-O schools placed on a candidate's ability to publish quality research in the future and to publish in top-tier academic journals relative to the other respondents.

R-O schools were not as concerned with a candidate's ability to accept a salary within university constraints as the other schools. This is likely because R-O schools tend to offer higher salaries and better support than do other schools, such that these issues have little impact on recruiting quality faculty.

T-O Institutions. There were few significant differences between the responses of T-O schools and other schools. Only professional certification and the willingness of a candidate to accept a heavy course load were rated as more important by T-O schools.

AACSB Schools. Respondents from AACSB schools were similar to those from R-O schools in that the variables they did not deem important primarily differentiated them from NONACC schools. AACSB schools did not rate accounting certification, the willingness to accept heavy course or prep loads, previous work experience in public accounting, or previous management experience as highly as NONACC schools. AACSB accreditation standards limit the ability of accredited schools to require heavy course or prep loads. Assuming candidates are "academically qualified" per accreditation standards, their professional qualifications (e.g., accounting certification, previous professional experience, etc.) probably would not be as important to AACSB schools.

Interestingly, AACSB schools were much less concerned than NONACC schools about a candidate's ability to adjust to the geographic location of the university, the local community's culture, and the university's culture. Perhaps AACSB schools believe that such issues are not important to candidates who apply for their positions or that the benefits of working at their institution (e.g., compensation, research incentives, etc.) more than offset these types of personal issues.

AACSB schools, however, placed much more importance on research criteria such as a candidate's publication record (in both top-tier and other academic journals) and their ability to publish quality research in the future. These high ratings are consistent with AACSB accreditation standards which require intellectual contributions from faculty.

Factor Analysis

Due to the redundancy inherent in a 39 item instrument and in the interest in providing a more meaningful set of factors with which to examine the hiring process, factor analyses were performed. The analyses employed a varimax rotation. A factor loading of .60 was used as a cutoff point for inclusion of a variable within a factor. Factors loadings are provided in Table 10. An eigenvalue cutoff of 1.0 yielded 11 factors for the overall sample, 10 factors for R-O, T-O, and NONACC schools, and 12 factors for AACSB schools. In the interest of parsimony, a scree test of the eigenvalues (as suggested by Catrell 1966) was used to reduce the number of factors. The remaining factors were descriptively labeled and are listed in Table 11.

Overall. The factor explaining the most variance (14 percent) in the data was Professional Credentials/Teaching Load. The variables in this factor were CPA and other accounting certifications, the willingness to accept heavy prep and course loads, previous accounting work experience or management experience, and the ability to publish in practitioner journals. The Adaptation Skills factor, accounting for 10 percent of the variance, included the ability to relocate and adjust to the geographic location of the university as well as to adjust to the community's and university's culture.

The third factor, Service Intentions, accounted for eight percent of the variance and included the candidate's desire to contribute service to the university and the community and the ability to interact effectively with the business community. Note that all three factors virtually ignored research-related variables and largely focused on variables related to teaching, service, and personal issues.

R-O Institutions. The Professional Credentials/Teaching Load factor, incorporating the same variables as the like-named factor for the overall sample, accounted for 21 percent of the variance. However, rather than including variables important to a search, this factor included the variables that R-O schools do not rate as overly important. The Flexibility/Service Factor, accounting for 16 percent of the variance, also includes variables that were not rated as very important (in comparison with other schools): the ability to teach a variety of courses and incorporate technology in teaching, the desire to contribute service to the university and community, the ability to interact with the business community, and the willingness to accept a salary within university constraints.

The third factor, Academic Credentials, did include variables of importance to R-O schools and were, as would be expected, research-related. The variables were possession of a doctoral degree from an AACSB school, the quality of the candidate's previous academic appointments, and the candidate's ability to publish in other academic journals.

T-O Institutions. The Adaptation Skills factor, which accounted for 14 percent of the variance, included the same variables as the like-named factor for the overall sample. Previous studies (e.g., Holland and Arrington 1987) have indicated that personal factors are very important in attracting and retaining faculty.

The Professional Credentials factor included CPA and other accounting certification, the ability to publish in practitioner journals, and previous public accounting or other accounting work experience. The importance placed on these variables by T-O schools is in stark contrast to the lack of importance placed on them by R-O schools. The third factor, Research Credentials, accounted for 10 percent of the variance and included the possession of a terminal degree, demonstrated ability to publish in other academic journals, and the ability to publish quality research in the future. This factor seems to confirm the increasing importance placed on research by T-O schools in recent years, especially for those schools maintaining or seeking accreditation.

AACSB Accreditation. The scree plot reduction technique yielded only two factors for AACSB schools--Professional Credentials/Teaching Load and Academic Experience. The variables in the Professional Credentials/Teaching Load factor were identical to those in the like-named factor for the overall sample and the R-O subsample. Most of these variables were rated as relatively unimportant by AACSB schools, although the ratings were generally higher than for the R-O subsample. As previously discussed, AACSB accreditation standards may well have some influence on these lower ratings.

The Academic Experience factor included the quality of the institutions of previous academic appointments and the rank of those appointments, previous full-time teaching experience, the willingness to teach graduate courses, and competitive grants and awards received. No reasonable explanation can be given as to why these variables, as a group, were particularly important to AACSB schools.

For NONACC schools, the factor explaining the most variance (14 percent) was Research Credentials and included the same variables as the liked-named factor for T-O schools. Hiring experienced faculty with proven ability to publish would be of particular importance to NONACC schools pursuing accreditation.

The Adaptation Skills II factor was very similar to the Adaptation Skills factor for T-O schools, except it also included the ability to teach a variety of courses. The final factor included the input of other business faculty, college administrators, and university administrators regarding the candidate, the ability to interact effectively with the business community, and the desire to contribute service to the profession. This factor was labeled "Interpersonal Skills" because a candidate would seemingly have to interact with people and communicate well in dealings with faculty members, administrators, the business community, and the accounting profession. Again, no reasonable explanation can be given as to why this set of variables was important to NONACC schools.

Other Variables

Respondents were given the opportunity to include any additional variables that had been important to their search. Seven responses were received. A publicly funded, comprehensive, R-O institution considered a candidate's technical competence. A privately funded, liberal arts school considered a candidate's presentation to its students. Another privately funded, liberal arts school considered candidates' teaching evaluations. A publicly funded, comprehensive, T-O and R-O institution evaluated candidates' ability to communicate effectively in English. A publicly funded, regionally focused, T-O school valued appropriate work experience. A privately funded, nationally focused, religious institution cited the importance of the candidate's religious faith. Finally, a publicly funded, comprehensive school considered a candidate's executive training potential.

Ranks of Position Openings

Many institutions (40 percent) advertised positions with the rank open. Of those that did specify a rank, experienced assistant professor (25 percent) and associate professor (30 percent) positions were most common. Very few advertised exclusively for full professors (3 percent) or endowed chairs/professorships (5 percent). See Table 12.

Teaching Areas Sought

The most popular primary teaching areas sought by employers were financial accounting (40 percent) and auditing (19 percent). Some demand was also evident for tax (13 percent) and cost/managerial (11 percent) faculty. The majority of the respondents also sought candidates with secondary areas of expertise. Financial accounting (13 percent) was once again the most popular choice. Accounting information systems (13 percent), cost/managerial (11 percent), and auditing (11 percent) were also areas of interest. The strong demand for financial accounting faculty is not surprising given the number of financial courses taught in most accounting programs. See Table 13.

Reasons for Position Opening

The majority of position openings were due to turnover (54 percent), while retirement (18 percent) and enrollment growth (21 percent) were also cited. See Table 14.

Results of Faculty Searches

The search process was successful for a majority of schools, with 74 percent of the searches resulting in a hire. Generally, AACSB accredited institutions had great success, securing a hire 81 percent of the time. T-O schools, with a success rate of 74 percent, fared better than R-O schools (61% success rate). This was surprising given that R-O schools tend to pay higher salaries, have more resources available to faculty members, and support reduced teaching loads. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that highly regarded R-O schools have recently become much more selective in hiring, opting to leave positions unfilled when "qualified" faculty could not be hired (AACSB 1998b).

On average, experienced new hires will be expected to teach five (six) classes per year (excluding summer school) for semester (quarter) system schools. On average, new faculty at both types of schools will have three preparations per year.

Respondents whose search did not result in a hire were asked the reasons why they believed their search was unsuccessful. The majority (56 percent) believed that they were unable to offer a competitive salary. Other reasons included a lack of qualified applicants (19 percent) and the inability to offer a competitive teaching load (13 percent) or adequate research support (13 percent). Another 13 percent of institutions had their positions frozen. See Table 15.

Expected Future Hiring

Eighty percent of those who just went through the search process expect to do so again within the next two years. Anticipated retirement(s) (34 percent), turnover (51 percent), and growth (26 percent) were all cited as reasons for anticipating another search. Thirty-eight percent expected to hire an entry level assistant professor, while another 32 percent said they were likely to hire an associate professor. See Table 16. Teaching-oriented schools (75 percent) are less likely to hire than research-oriented institutions (100 percent).

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to determine the variables that were most important to the faculty hiring process. To do this, a survey was developed and mailed to 163 institutions that had either advertised a position for or hired an experienced accounting professor in 1997. Fifty-nine institutions returned a total of 63 instruments.

Overall, there were a number of variables cited as important to the hiring decision. In fact, 30 of the 39 variables listed in the survey received a mean importance rating of three ("important") or higher and eight variables received a mean importance rating higher than four ("very important"). The three most important variables by far, based upon respondent rankings, were the ability to teach effectively, the possession of a terminal degree, and the ability to publish quality research in the future.

Further analyses indicated that the importance of several variables differed by type of institution. As might be expected, R-O schools emphasized academic credentials and research ability and were not as concerned with professional credentials and experience. T-O schools placed importance on teaching-related variables, but also valued academic and professional credentials and research ability (albeit not as highly as did R-O schools). AACSB schools differed from NONACC schools in many mays, placing more emphasis on research-related variables and less on professional credentials and experience and personal variables. Results of factor analyses for the sample and the four subsamples provided additional insight on the differences among varying institutions.

Overall, 74 percent of respondents reported that their search had resulted in a hire. Despite this, 80 percent expected to hire again within the next two years.

The findings of this study are subject to certain limitations. First, the mailing list was compiled using three well-known sources of placement ads as well as a comprehensive accounting faculty directory. However, the possibility remains that some searches may have been inadvertently omitted. Second, information provided on the survey was self-reported and may contain errors or omissions. Further, the importance ratings may reflect the views and opinions of the respondents rather than the collective opinion of those ultimately responsible for the hiring decision. Third, as with most survey research, the results may not be representative of the population due to nonresponse bias (e.g., perhaps those schools that had successfully completed a search were more motivated to respond that those that had not). Finally, the survey included only schools that advertised openings for the 1997 calendar year. Thus, it is impossible to know whether the findings will hold true in the future.

Future research could extend this study by surveying schools that have advertised for a department chair or a dean. The study could also be extended by examining whether the rank of advertised positions impacts variable importance ratings. Because 40 percent of the respondents in this study advertised "open rank" and few searched for full professors or an endowed chair/professorship, it was impossible to perform such an analysis.

Note: The author wishes to thank the Stetson University Business School Foundation for its financial support of this project and Jenny VanGemert for her assistance in data collection. Address all correspondence to Michael E. Bitter, Department of Accounting, School of Business Administration, Stetson University, 421 N. Woodland Blvd., Unit 8398, DeLand, FL 32720.

REFERENCES

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. (1998a). Demand for business Ph.D.s rises, reversing previous downward trend. Newsline (Spring).

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. (1998b). Is a real shortage looming? Doctoral faculty demand edges upward again. Newsline (Summer).

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. (1999). New faculty hiring up 30.0 percent; salaries up only slightly. Newsline (Winter).

Brown, D.G. (1967). The mobile professors. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Hasselback, J. R. (1998). Accounting faculty directory. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hasselback, J. R. (2000). Accounting faculty directory. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Holland, R. G. & C.E. Arrington. (1987). Issues influencing the decision of accounting faculty to relocate. Issues in Accounting Education (Spring): 57-71.

Jacobs, F.A. &H.C. Herring III. (1987). Salary compression in the academic marketplace: Some empirical evidence. Issues in Accounting Education (Fall): 237-250.

Kida, T. E. & R. C. Mannino. (1980). Job selection of accounting Ph.D. students and faculty members. The Accounting Review (July): 491-500.

Lichter, D.T. (1980). The migration of dual-worker families: Does the wife's job matter? Social Science Quarterly (63): 48-57.

Schultz, J. J., Jr. (1989). Reorienting accounting education: Reports on the environment, professoriate, and curriculum of accounting. Accounting education series, 10. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.

Schultz, J. J., Jr., J. A. Meade & I. Khurana. (1989). The changing roles of teaching, research, and service in the promotion and tenure decisions for accounting faculty. Issues in Accounting Education (Spring): 109-119

ENDNOTES

(1) Obtained from Hasselback's Accounting Faculty Database.

(2) This included positions for experienced assistant, associate, and full professors as well as endowed chairs/professorships. Searches for department chairs and entry level assistant professors were excluded because it is likely that very different criteria are used for such searches.

(3) Variables were included based upon the author's experience as a search committee member as well as the experiences of faculty colleagues who have served on search committees and/or as department chairs. This combined experience includes searches at all levels (entry level positions to endowed professorships) and at a variety of different institutions (small, large, public, private, AACSB- accredited, research-oriented, teaching-oriented, and doctoral granting). Review of placement ads in the development of the mailing list confirmed many of these variables as relevant to the search for experienced accounting faculty.

(4) Subjects were asked to complete a separate survey for each position opening if the criteria for the openings different.

Michael E. Bitter, Stetson University

TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

 Number Percentage

Number of Schools 59 36.2%
Number of Responses 63 NA
Geographic Location:
 Far West 9 14.3%
 Mid-Atlantic 3 4.8%
 Midwest 12 19.0%
 Northeast 14 22.2%
 Southeast 16 25.4%
 Southwest 6 9.5%
 Canada 3 4.8%
Source of Funding:
 Public 45 71.4%
 Private 18 28.6%
Institutional Description:
 Comprehensive 36 57.1%
 Liberal Arts Focus 16 25.4%
 National Focus 9 14.3%
 Regional Focus 19 30.2%
 Research-Oriented 13 20.6%
 Teaching-Oriented 35 55.6%
 Religiously Affiliated 9 14.3%
 Independent 3 4.8%
Accounting Degree Programs:
 Bachelor degree 59 93.7%
 Professional Masters Degree 39 61.9%
 Thesis Masters Degree 2 3.2%
 Doctoral Degree 8 12.7%
AACSB Accreditation:
 Accredited Business Program 31 49.2%
 Accredited Accounting Program 13 20.6%

TABLE 2
RESPONDENT ENROLLMENT AND FACULTY SIZE

University Enrollment:
 Average 9,937
 Largest 45,000
 Smallest 750
 Standard Deviation 8,314

Number of Full-Time Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty:
 Average 9
 Largest 30
 Smallest 1
 Standard Deviation 6

TABLE 3
IMPORTANCE OF ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS
TO HIRING DECISION MEAN RESPONSES

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS

Credentials Overall R-O T-O AACSB NONACC

Has (or will have) 4.87 5.00 4.89 4.90 4.84
terminal degree in field

Completed terminal degree 4.41 4.54 4.51 4.39 4.44
at time of appointment

References and 3.97 3.92 3.94 3.97 3.97
recommendations

Quality of doctoral 3.64 3.92 3.69 3.84 3.44
program

Quality of institutions 3.41 3.54 3.27 3.48 3.33
of previous academic
appointments

Doctoral degree from 3.24 2.69 3.27 3.32 3.16
AACSB accredited school

CPA certification 3.21 2.15 ** 3.54 *** 2.77 3.63 *

Rank of previous academic 2.87 3.15 2.77 3.16 2.57
appointments

Other accounting 2.53 1.85 * 2.91 ** 2.17 2.88 *
certification

Competitive grants and
awards received 2.29 2.85 *** 2.26 2.39 2.19

Teaching

Ability to teach 4.75 4.62 4.77 4.74 4.75
effectively

Ability to teach 3.97 3.54 4.14 3.87 4.06
a variety of courses

Ability to incorporate 3.89 3.46 3.97 3.84 3.94
technology in teaching

Previous full-time 3.75 3.62 3.77 3.77 3.72
teaching experience

Perceived willingness to 3.50 3.69 3.29 3.87 3.16
teach graduate courses

Perceived willingness to 2.95 1.92 ** 3.23 2.39 * 3.50
accept "heavy" prep load

Perceived willingness to 2.86 2.00 ** 3.31 *** 2.42 * 3.28
accept "heavy" course
load

Research

Perceived ability to 4.07 4.85 *** 3.97 4.45 * 3.67
publish quality research
in the future

Demonstrated ability 3.95 4.00 3.77 4.29 * 3.63
to publish in other
academic journals

Demonstrated ability to 3.29 4.54 *** 3.09 3.71 * 2.88
publish in top-tier
academic journals

Demonstrated ability to 2.95 1.92 ** 3.00 2.94 2.97
publish in practitioner
journals

Demonstrated ability to 2.13 2.15 1.94 2.10 2.16
publish in journals in
other fields

Service

Demonstrated desire to 3.65 3.31 3.69 3.68 3.63
contribute service to
the university

Demonstrated desire to 3.49 3.23 3.46 3.58 3.41
contribute service to
the profession

*--significant difference between mean responses of AACSB
accredited and non-AACSB accredited schools at the .05 level.

**--mean response significantly lower than that of all other
respondents at the .05 level.

***--mean response significantly higher than that of all other
respondents at the .05 level.

TABLE 4
IMPORTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
TO HIRING DECISION MEAN RESPONSES

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

 Overall R-O T-O AACSB NONACC

Previous work 3.00 2.31 ** 3.20 2.68 * 3.31
experience in
public accounting

Other previous 2.86 2.23 ** 3.03 2.63 3.06
full-time accounting
work experience

Previous management 2.26 1.69 ** 2.26 1.97 * 2.53
experience

*--significant difference between mean responses of AACSB
accredited and non-AACSB accredited schools at the .05 level.

**--mean response significantly lower than that of all other
respondents at the .05 level.

TABLE 5
IMPORTANCE OF INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS TO HIRING
DECISION MEANS AND FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS:

 Overall R-O T-O AACSB NONACC

Candidate's 4.48 4.46 4.34 4.65 4.31
credentials fit with
mission of
department/college

Input of 3.51 3.15 3.37 3.52 3.50
college/school
administrators
regarding candidate

Input of other 3.21 3.08 3.31 2.94 3.47
business faculty
regarding candidate

Input of other 3.02 2.69 2.94 3.00 3.03
university
administrators
regarding candidate

TABLE 6
IMPORTANCE OF INTERPERSONAL FACTORS
TO HIRING DECISION MEAN RESPONSES

INTERPERSONAL FACTORS

 Overall R-O T-O AACSB NONACC

Personal interview 4.70 4.62 4.66 4.65 4.75
with search
committee/accounting
faculty

Perceived ability to 4.54 4.39 4.60 4.55 4.53
get along with
future colleagues

Perceived ability to 3.57 3.23 3.51 3.65 3.50
interact effectively
with business
community

TABLE 7
IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL FACTORS
TO HIRING DECISION MEAN RESPONSES

PERSONAL FACTORS

 Overall R-O T-O AACSB NONACC

Perceived 4.16 3.46 ** 4.17 3.97 4.36
willingness to
accept salary within
university
constraints

Perceived ability to 3.76 3.62 3.74 3.45 4.06
relocate to
geographic area of
the university

Perceived ability to 3.67 3.15 3.71 3.23 * 4.09
adjust to the
university's culture

Perceived ability to 3.44 2.77 3.57 2.90 * 3.97
adjust to the
geographic location
of the university

Perceived ability to
adjust to the local 3.19 2.46 ** 3.29 2.71 * 3.66
community's culture

*--significant difference between mean responses
of AACSB accredited and non-AACSB accredited
schools at the .05 level.

**--mean response significantly lower than that
of all other respondents at the .05 level.

TABLE 8
TEN MOST IMPORTANT HIRING VARIABLES
RANK SCORE AND FREQUENCIES OF RESPONSES

 Rank Order of Importance
 Score (1)
 1 2 3 4

Ability to teach effectively 107 12 12 9 5

Has (or will have) terminal degree 85 17 4 1 3

Perceived ability to publish 67 4 11 9 0
quality research in the future

Demonstrated ability to publish 36 6 3 1 1
in top-tier journals

Perceived ability to get along 36 1 4 6 8
with future colleagues

Demonstrated ability to publish 34 3 1 7 5
in other academic journals

Completed terminal degree at time 27 5 2 0 1
of appointment

Personal interview with search 26 3 0 3 8
committee/accounting faculty

Previous full-time teaching 20 2 2 3 0
experience

Candidate's credentials fit with 17 1 1 1 8
mission of department/college

CPA certification 17 0 5 1 0

(1) For each variable, the rank score was calculated by
multiplying four points by the times the variable was selected as
most important, three points by the times the variable was
selected as second most important, etc.

TABLE 9
MOST IMPORTANT HIRING VARIABLES
SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS BY RANK SCORE (2)

 Overall T-O R-O AACSB NONACC

Ability to teach 107 63 25 58 49
effectively

Has (will have) 85 59 58
terminal degree

Perceived ability to 67 36 26 43 24
publish quality
research in the
future

Demonstrated ability 36 33
to publish in
top-tier academic
journals

(2) For each variable, the rank score was calculated by
multiplying four points by the times the variable was selected as
most important; three points by the times the variable was
selected as second most important, etc. Rank scores are shown for
the top three in each category.

TABLE 10
FACTOR GROUPINGS

 Overall R-O T-O AACSB NONACC

Terminal degree in 9 3 9 1
field

Completed terminal 6 7 9 5
degree at time of
appointment

References/ 9 6 7
recommendations

Quality of doctoral 6 5 5 8
program

Quality of 3 5 2
institutions of
previous academic
appointments

Doctoral degree from 8 3 8 8
AACSB accredited
school

CPA certification 1 1 2 1 4

Rank of previous 4 7 5 2 1
academic
appointments

Other accounting 1 1 2 1
certification

Competitive grants 4 7 5 2 1
and awards received

Ability to teach 10 9
effectively

Ability to teach a 2 2
variety of courses

Ability to 2
incorporate
technology in
teaching

Previous full-time 2
teaching experience

Perceived 6 8 2
willingness to teach
graduate courses

Perceived 1 1 1 5
willingness to
accept "heavy" prep
load

Perceived 1 1 1 5
willingness to
accept "heavy"
course load

Perceived ability to 5 3 7 1
publish quality
research in the
future

Demonstrated ability 3 3 11 1
to publish in other
academic journals

Demonstrated ability 4 5 5 1
to publish in top-
tier academic
journals

Demonstrated ability 1 1 2 1 1
to publish in
practitioner
journals

Demonstrated ability 11 6 10 10
to publish in
journals in other
fields

Demonstrated desire 3 2 6 3 6
to contribute
service to the
university

Demonstrated desire 3 2 6 3 3
to contribute
service to the
profession

Previous work 1 1 2 1 4
experience in public
accounting

Other previous full- 1 1 2 1 4
time accounting work
experience

Previous management 1 1 1 4
experience

Candidate's
credentials fit with 8 8 8 7 8
mission of
department/college

Input of college/ 5 4 5 3
school
administrators
regarding candidate

Input of other 5 4 5 3
business faculty
regarding candidate

Input of other 5 4 5 3
university
administrators
regarding candidate

Personal interview 10 2
with search
committee/accounting
faculty

Perceived ability to 7 9 4 6
get along with
future colleagues

Perceived ability to 3 2 3 3
interact effectively
with business
community

Perceived 10 2 12 10
willingness to
accept salary within
university
constraints

Perceived ability to 2 4 1 4 2
relocate to
geographic area of
the university

Perceived ability to 2 4 1 4 2
adjust to the
university's culture

Perceived ability to 2 4 1 4 2
adjust to the
geographic location
of the university

Perceived ability to 2 4 1 4 2
adjust to the local
community's culture

Total Variance 77% 98% 83% 87% 85%
Explained

TABLE 11
DESCRIPTIVE FACTOR LABELS

Factor Overall R-O

1 Professional Professional
 Credentials/ Credentials/
 Teaching Load 14% Teaching Load 21%

2 Adaptation Flexibility/
 Skills 10% Service 16%

3 Service Academic
 Intentions 8% Credentials 9%

Factor T-O

1 Adaptation
 Skills 14%

2 Professional
 Credentials 13%

3 Research
 Credentials 10%

Factor AACSB NONACC

1 Professional Research
 Credentials/ Credentials 14%
 Teaching Load 17%

2 Academic Adaptation
 Experience 10% Skills II 14%

3 Interpersonal
 Skills 11%

Note: The percentage following each descriptive label represents
the variance accounted for by that factor within each group.

TABLE 12
RANK OF POSITION ADVERTISED

 Number Percentage (3)

Experienced Assistant Professor 16 25.4%
Associate Professor 19 30.2%
Professor 2 3.2%
Endowed Chair/Professorship 3 4.8%
Rank Open 25 39.7%
No Response 4 6.4%

(3) Percentages add to more than 100% as respondents were
permitted to select more than one response.

TABLE 13: TEACHING AREAS SOUGHT

Primary Area: Number Percentage

 Accounting Information Systems 5 7.9%
 Auditing 12 19.0%
 Behavioral 2 3.2%
 Cost/Managerial 7 11.1%
 Financial 25 39.8%
 Governmental/Not-For-Profit 0 0.0%
 International 0 0.0%
 Taxation 8 12.7%
 No Response 4 6.3%
Secondary Area:
 Accounting Information Systems 8 12.7%
 Auditing 7 11.1%
 Behavioral 0 0.0%
 Cost/Managerial 7 11.1%
 Financial 8 12.7%
 Governmental/Not-for-Profit 1 1.6%
 International 2 3.2%
 Taxation 3 4.8%
 Other Discipline (Finance) 1 1.6%
 No Secondary Area Noted 22 34.9%
 No Response 4 6.3%
Primary/Secondary Pairings:
 Auditing/Financial 6 9.5%
 AIS/Cost/Managerial 6 9.5%
 Financial/Tax 6 9.5%
 AIS/Auditing 5 7.9%
 Cost/Managerial/Financial 5 7.9%
 Auditing/Taxation 3 4.8%
 Financial/International 2 3.2%
 AIS/Financial 1 1.6%
 Auditing/Cost/Managerial 1 1.6%
 Financial/Governmental/NFP 1 1.6%
 Financial/Other Discipline (Finance) 1 1.6%

TABLE 14
REASONS FOR POSITION OPENING

 Number Percentage (4)

Turnover 34 54.0%
Growth 13 20.6%
Retirement 11 17.5%
Death 2 3.2%
Upgrading Position 1 1.6%
Upgrading to
 doctoral faculty 1 1.6%
Other 1 1.6%

(4) Percentages do not add to 100% as respondents were
permitted to select more than one reason.

TABLE 15
RESULTS OF FACULTY SEARCHES

Search result in a hire?
 Yes 74%
 No 26%

Number of classes new hire will teach each year
(excluding summer):

 Semester Quarter
 System System

 Mean 5.48 6.11
 Maximum 8.00 8.00
 Minimum 2.00 1.00

Preparations new hire will teach each year (excluding summer):

 Semester Quarter
 System System

 Mean 2.97 2.67
 Maximum 8.00 4.00
 Minimum 2.00 1.00

For those searches that did not result in a hire, reasons the
school was unable to fill the position:

 Unable to offer competitive
 salary 56.3%
 Lack of qualified applicants 18.8%
 Unable to offer competitive
 teaching load 12.5%
 Unable to offer adequate
 research support 12.5%
 Position not funded 12.5%

 Position frozen 6.3%
 Location/size of the school 6.3%
 Search prematurely closed 6.3%
 Search still in progress 6.3%
 Selected candidate chose
 other offer 6.3%

TABLE 16
EXPECTED FUTURE HIRING

Do you anticipate hiring another tenure-track (tenured)
faculty member in the next two years?

 Yes 79.7%
 No 20.3%

Reasons cited for expected hiring:

 Anticipated retirement 34.0%
 Anticipated turnover 51.1%
 Anticipated growth 25.5%
 Currently understaffed 8.5%
 Increase number of full-time faculty 2.1%
 Increase number of PhD faculty 2.1%
 AACSB accreditation 2.1%

Rank(s) at which hiring is expected:

 Entry level assistant professor 38.3%
 Experienced assistant professor 21.3%
 Associate professor 31.9%
 Full professor 4.3%
 Rank open 27.7%
 Not sure 4.3%