A Realistic Alternative to Traditional Tenure

In the great tenure debate taking place in American universities, business schools, in particular, face a thorny question: How can organizations that educate new generations of managers, and conduct the research that will help shape the business practices of tomorrow, operate under a management system so at odds with the realities of the marketplace -- where day-to-day job security derives from performance, and lifetime job security is virtually non-existent?

Managers, legislators, the news media, and the public don't seem to buy the argument that academe must operate according to its own special rules. They see that, like most organizations, colleges and universities serve a public purpose and must satisfy the people who deal with them -- in this case, those who use the research and hire the graduates they produce.

In 1994, I asked a committee of tenured faculty members here at the Boston University School of Management to look critically at the appropriateness of a traditional tenure system in a contemporary business school. After considerable deliberation, they responded with two central recommendations. One, the rigorous academic standards associated with the attainment of tenure should not be compromised; two, guaranteed lifetime employment, however, was not critical if alternative long-term contracts could be offered at a salary high enough to help offset any perceived risk of forgoing lifetime job security.

A key argument in defense of traditional tenure is that the rigorous requirements for attaining it assure excellence in teaching, research, and service to the campus -- and the freedom to pursue new and innovative ideas without fear of being side-tracked by the whims of administrators. Opponents of lifetime tenure, on the other hand, argue that it can serve -- and indeed has served -- as a disincentive for productivity by faculty members.

Ultimately, the question is not which point of view is right, but how the real needs that underlie both points of view can be met. Unfortunately, in today's emotionally charged atmosphere, the issue is described in all-or-nothing terms. The University of Minnesota, for example, unsuccessfully tried to eliminate tenure by fiat in 1996-97.

The approach framed by our business school is to offer an alternative form of tenure. Under this plan, we continue the traditional six-year probationary period for incoming junior faculty members, set the same high standards for performance, and retain the same review process for all tenure-track faculty members. Those faculty members who survive the process will achieve either lifetime tenure or tenure with a 10-year renewable contract, depending on which form of contract they choose.

For those who opt for the 10-year alternative, a salary premium of 8 to 10 per cent is paid from the first day of employment, offsetting any perceived risk of forgoing a lifetime guarantee. The higher salary serves as a lifetime annuity, because fringe benefits and merit increases are calculated on the basis of that higher amount. A year before the 10 years is up, the faculty member is re-evaluated by tenured colleagues and the school's administration for a contract renewal.

The 10-year period gives the professor enough time to develop and carry out an effective research agenda, and to establish an academic reputation that could be marketable elsewhere. It is also a period longer than the average stay for administrators, thus allowing professors to avoid short-term pressures that may constrain their work. The university pays a salary premium in exchange for a measure of flexibility in contracts. We fully expect that the simple fact of real accountability will motivate faculty members to be productive. Consequently, they should be at little risk of not having their contracts renewed. Importantly, the net result of the tenure alternative should be an improvement in the overall quality of the school's research and teaching.

This approach is passing the test of the marketplace. In the last two years, we have offered the plan as an option to all eligible new faculty members. To date, half of them have chosen it. One senior professor who had lifetime tenure at another university also chose the 10-year plan on coming to Boston University.

In the slow-changing world of academe, this is nothing short of revolutionary. We expect that the acknowledged fairness and flexibility of the plan will attract increasing favor. In fact, the management school will consider the 10-year tenure option and higher salary for already-tenured faculty members who express an interest.

The problems that critics of lifetime tenure see are a natural result of the tenure system. There is no question that it is time for innovation in academe, particularly in professional schools of management, and it should come from within. The Boston University School of Management's 10-year tenure plan is a good-faith effort not only to introduce a realistic alternative to traditional lifetime tenure, but also to reinforce our commitment as a management school to practice what we teach.

Louis Lataif is the dean of the School of Management at Boston University.