The marketing market: A study of PhD supply, demand, hiring institutions, and job candidates
Abstract
The shortage of faculty is a critical problem facing business deans today. This shortage has important implications for teaching, research and academic governance. This study examines two explanations for this shortage – (1) disequilibrium between supply and demand and (2) the match between candidates and jobs – with an eye toward solving the shortage. Our study focuses on the field of marketing using several sources of data. Data suggest that both disequilibrium and mismatch are viable explanations. While it appears that an undersupply of PhDs is primarily responsible for the shortfall in faculty, there are several forces that may be limiting production. As a result, reducing mismatch may be the easier issue to address. The important implications for marketing and business are discussed including those around workload and faculty retention. Finally, implications that arise for business education, research, and faculty governance are discussed.
The Marketing Market:
A Study of PhD Supply, Jobs, Hiring Institutions, and Job Candidates
Michael D. Basil, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, CANADA
Faculty of Management
4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4 CANADA
phone: 403-329-2075; fax: 403-329-2038; email: michael.basil@uleth.ca
and
Debra Z. Basil, University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Management
4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, AB T1K 3M4 CANADA
phone: 403-329-2164; fax: 403-329-2038; email: debra.basil@uleth.ca
RUNNING HEAD: The Marketing Market
February 28, 2005
A previous version was presented to the 2002 American Marketing Association
Educators’ Winter Conference in Austin, TX.
Thanks to Richard Mueller and Alvin Roth for their comments on previous versions, and
to Craig Hollingshead and Teresa Flaherty for sharing the ASBA/SMA placement data.
Abstract
The shortage of faculty is a critical problem facing business deans today. We propose
two mechanisms that contribute to this shortage – (1) disequilibrium between supply and
demand and (2) the match between candidates and jobs. A study focused on the field of
marketing made use of several sources of data for this research. Examining
disequilibrium, the data show a decreasing number of PhDs between 1995 and 2003
while demand remained constant over this 8 year period. A study of hiring institutions
found that a majority were unable to hire while a survey of recent job candidates found a
majority of them accepted an offer. These results suggest that an undersupply of PhDs is
primarily responsible for the shortfall in faculty. With regard to matching, some
mismatch was found between job ads and candidates’ specialties, suggesting that
mismatch may also be responsible for some of the difficulty in filling positions.
The Marketing Market:
A Study of PhD Supply, Jobs, Hiring Institutions, and Job Candidates
One of the largest challenges facing universities today is the difficulty of hiring
sufficient business faculty. A report by the American Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB, 2002) documented not only the shortfall of faculty, but
reported that Deans saw the shortfall of faculty to be the most important issue facing
them today (p. 15).
The shortage of business faculty appears to also apply to the discipline of
marketing (Bisoux, 2002; Paustian, 2001). The evidence suggests that the shortage dates
back as far as the 1980s (Brophy, 1983; Fuller, 1983; Daniels, Shane & Wall, 1984;
McKenna & Sikula, 1981; Whalen, 1983a, 1983b). At this point, the shortage appears to
have become rather chronic.
Importantly, there are two factors that can determine a university's ability to hire.
The first is a potential disequilibrium between supply and demand -- how many qualified
applicants are available relative to the number of positions open (Jones, 1965). If there
are fewer candidates than jobs, this is a disequilibrium problem. However, a second
potential problem is the match between candidates and positions. Even with a sufficient
supply of candidates, if the candidates do not fit the positions being offered, there can be
an inability to hire (Roth, 1984). Both of these factors can affect the number of unfilled
positions.
This article will review previous research on business and marketing hiring,
explain the importance of the demand and matching issues, discuss our study of academic
hiring in marketing, and draw some theoretical and practical conclusions.
The Marketing Market, p. 2
BACKGROUND
Most fields of study in the academy are concerned about overproduction of Ph.D.s
(Brimelow, 1999). This does not seem to be the problem facing business schools
however, as business appears to face a shortage of Ph.D.s (Bisoux, 2002). There are three
main factors that may have contributed to a shortage of PhD business faculty. First,
despite an initial increase in doctorates in the 1980s (from 640 in 1980 to 1327 in 1995)
since the 1990s, there appears to be a decline in PhDs awarded in business disciplines (in
2000, only 1071; AACSB, 2003: Appendix B). Second, there appears to be a decline in
the percentage of doctorates taking a job in education (from 76% in 1990 to 61% in
2000); with many instead opting for jobs in private industry (from 10% in 1980 to 15% in
2000; AACSB, 2003: Appendix B). Third, there has been a marked decrease in the
percentage of doctorates awarded to US citizens (from 75% in 1980 to 63% in 2000;
AACSB, 2003: Appendix B). Thus, even though the production of PhDs picked up in the
1980s, there appears to be fewer PhDs available to U.S. universities.
The issue of the shortfall of Ph.D.s has seen quite a bit of previous discussion in
the field of marketing. Concern about this disequilibrium goes back as far as 1981
(McKenna & Sikula, 1981). A few years later the speculation on cause centered on
whether this was primarily due to a shortage of Ph.D. production (Fuller, 1983) or low
salaries driving people away from the profession (Brophy, 1983). However, some
subsequent evidence seemed to demonstrate that academic business salaries started to rise
precipitously in the early 1980s (Cebrzynski, 1985; Whalen, 1983a, 1984).
The Marketing Market, p. 3
Economists would likely see the hiring of marketing faculty as a functioning
“market” (Nightingale, 1978). Although perhaps somewhat short of “perfect”
competition, there does appear to be solid competition as well as awareness on the part of
participants of the nature of the exchange. Many economists have drawn upon game
theory to study such market situations (e.g., Roth, 2002).
Of course, when the demand for professors exceeds the supply of qualified PhDs,
we expect the fundamental principles of equilibrium economics to apply (Jones, 1965;
Hosios, 1990). In the short-term, universities may postpone hiring, hire more part-time
faculty, increase teaching loads, or increase class sizes. Over the long haul, however, in
an Adam Smith-like rational equilibrium market we would expect salaries to rise, and in
the long run we would expect more students to enter PhD programs, the demand would
be met, and salaries would stabilize.
At the time of the initial concern in the 1980s, some questions arose regarding how
to deal with the shortfall of qualified Ph.D.s that was starting to be felt in business
schools. One immediate suggestion was to “shift” qualified Ph.D.s from other fields such
as economics or psychology (Whalen, 1983b). The next year saw a discussion of several
approaches to increase faculty retention (Daniels, Shane & Wall 1984).
Despite increasing salaries, however, it appears that business schools have
insufficient production of PhDs, and appear to be reducing their production of them
precisely at the time when demand is highest (AACSB 2002, 2003; Policano 2002). We
now seem convinced that demand is outstripping supply, and as a result, starting salaries
are rising (Paustian 2003).
The Marketing Market, p. 4
Perhaps not surprisingly, a report by the AACSB (2002) reported that the shortfall
of faculty was the most important problem facing deans today (p. 15). As a result of
these factors, the AACSB predicts a shortfall of more than 1,000 faculty members by
2008 (AACSB 2003: 14). The AACSB is calling for an increase in the production of
management faculty (AACSB 2003). Only in the future will we know whether this call
will result in increased production. For the short term, however, it means difficulty in
hiring marketing faculty.
This is a perfect situation to apply basic economics. What happens when demand
for professors does not meet the supply of PhDs? We will make use of basic economic
theory to investigate this phenomenon.
Based on the shortage of candidates and literature reviewed, we predict the
following hypothesis:
H1: The shortfall of faculty will be evident through:
a. a decreasing supply of PhDs
b. an increasing number of jobs advertised,
c. increasing salaries
d. an inability to hire, and
e. higher rates of candidates being placed than schools being able to hire.
Given this shortfall, which schools will be better able to hire? Because higher-
rated schools are seen as higher status (Bedeian & Feild 1981), they should be in higher
demand. In addition, they could increase their hiring success by simply lowering their
The Marketing Market, p. 5
standard; lower rated schools, however, will be more likely to be passed over by
candidates.
Conversely, however, evidence suggests that top ranked schools are very
particular in hiring, usually selecting candidates from schools that are ranked better or at
least as good as their own (Bedeian & Feild 1981). Because a number of factors hinge on
hiring the right candidate, including publications, academic prestige, and research grants,
it is likely that higher ranked institutions will continue to be quite careful in their hiring.
Without a clear understanding of which force will operate, better ability to compete, or a
continuing focus on careful selection (sometimes seen more cynically as an incestuous
hiring pattern) we ask the following research question:
RQ: Will higher ranked schools be more successful in hiring than lower ranked
schools?
Another factor that relates to success in hiring operates in a more “micro” manner
than supply and demand. It is the issue of “matching” job applicants with particular
positions. Specifically, even if there is one job for every applicant, if there is a mismatch
between what applicants and schools are seeking, there may still be unemployed
applicants and unfilled positions. For example, if most schools were seeking someone in
marketing management, but most applicants specialized in consumer behavior, this would
bode poorly for their ability to match up.
Previous research into matching, including the general issue of the two-sided
matching problem is potentially useful here. Roth and colleagues, for example, have
examined how physicians are matched in the United States (Roth 1984) and in the United
Kingdom (Roth 1991). Other research has examined sorority rush as a two-sided
The Marketing Market, p. 6
matching problem (Mongell & Roth 1991). In general, matching research considers each
unfilled slot and each unemployed applicant a "failure."
In this scenario, it is important that the area specialties offered by candidates
match up with those desired by the hiring institutions. Although there may be some
flexibility in these areas on either the applicant or hiring side, likely neither candidate nor
institution is completely flexible in terms of their area, nor in the rank (new assistant,
associate, or full). Therefore, to the extent that the jobs do not match the candidates, we
may have a matching problem. Given the difficulty in hiring marketing faculty, we
propose that:
H2: A mismatch between the academic specialties that schools are seeking and the
specialties that candidates offer will be seen in:
a. significant differences between job ads and candidates’ specialties
b. lower rates of success for hiring institutions in high-demand areas, and
c. higher success rates for candidates specialized in high-demand areas.
METHODS
A number of data sources were combined for this study. These included
secondary research involving measures of supply and demand as well as primary survey
research with hiring institutions and job candidates. Each of these measures and their
source are described below.
Ph.D. supply. The National Science Foundation annual “Survey of Earned
Doctorates” is one estimate of the number of PhDs produced in US schools. For this
research we compared the results between 1995 and 2002. Another source of supply was
The Marketing Market, p. 7
derived from the number of students registering for the Academic Placement Service at
the Allied Southern Business Association between 1995 and 2002 (in 2000 it changed its
name from the Southern Marketing Association).
Jobs. Two measures of demand were used. First, the job ads distributed via
Elmar’s doctoral list between 1995 and 2003 were analyzed. Elmar, or the “Electronic
Listserver for Marketers,” is an email listserve for marketing academics. We made use of
the Elmar online archives to download every job ad that was distributed in each of these
years. Second, the number of employers registering for the Academic Placement Service
at the Allied Southern Business Association and Southern Marketing Association
between 1995 and 2002 was also used as a measure of demand. Each ad was coded
according to whether the ad was for a permanent tenure-track position or a temporary
position (e.g., lecturer, visitor), the rank (assistant, associate, full, combinations, or
unspecified), and specialty (e.g., advertising, consumer behavior, marketing
management) for each position. Only domestic (US) jobs were included in this study.
Salaries. Two measures of starting salaries were obtained. The first made use of
an annual survey conducted by the AACSB. The survey asked about salaries in various
business disciplines by rank. For the purpose of this study we used the starting salaries
for new PhDs in marketing. The second measure made use of data gathered by the
American Marketing Association’s Doctoral Students Special Interest Group (DOC Sig).
AMA’s Doc Sig conducts an annual online survey of marketing graduates. Candidates
self-report how many job interviews they received, whether or not they accepted a job, at
what university, their starting salary, teaching load, research to date, and tenure
expectations at the university. The self-reported salary data was used in this analysis.
The Marketing Market, p. 8
Survey of hiring institutions. The third source of data was a survey of institutions
that advertised a job in 1999 or 2000. The sample was drawn from about 200 hiring
institutions, both US and international. An email was sent to each institution, requesting
they fill out a web survey (link supplied in the email).
A total of 18 questions were asked. Ten of these were asked about rank, area,
screening interviews, campus visits, offers, and hiring. The relevant questions were:
What is the name of your institution? Did you have one or more positions open for
academic year 2000-2001? At what rank [for each opening]? In what area was/were the
position(s) [multiple responses possible]? With how many people did you conduct initial
screening interviews (e.g., at the American Marketing Association) for each position?
How many people came to campus for interviews? How many offers did you make? Did
you hire someone? If yes, how many? For any position for which you failed to hire,
please specify the reason(s). Eight additional open ended questions that were not
analyzed for this study were also included. (The full survey is provided in Appendix A.)
An incentive of a drawing to receive a one-year subscription to a marketing
journal was offered. The initial email and a follow-up email resulted in 49 responses (a
25% response rate). In order to improve the response rate, a hard copy of the survey was
mailed to the non-responding institutions with the same incentive offer. To the hard copy
we received 49 responses (a 25% response rate). Ultimately both methods resulted in 98
responses, a 49% response rate. Seven duplicate responses (from different times) were
included. In these cases, we retained the latest version. Therefore, the final sample was
91 schools.
The Marketing Market, p. 9
School ranking. After the responses were collected, information on the school
rankings was obtained. Five rankings were obtained. First was US News and World
Report’s (USNWR) rankings of business schools for 2003. Second was USNWR’s Top
Schools (Doctoral). Third was Business Week’s Business School 2002 Rankings. Fourth
was an online ranking of business schools by “Rateitall.” Most of these sources ranked
only the top 50 or 100 schools. However, correlations between these rankings were very
high (correlations range from .62 to .91, Cronbach’s alpha = .93). These ratings were
then combined into a single score. However, only 20 of the 91 institutions had been rated
in the list of top schools at least once. Therefore, the rest of the universities in this
sample (the majority) were “not rated.” For the purpose of this study the results were
dichotomized into “top-rated” versus “not-rated” (Ns = 20 and 71, respectively).
Survey of job candidates. A survey of recent academic job candidates who were
on the market in the 1999-2000 or 2000-2001 academic years was also conducted. An
email was sent to several listservers requesting candidates who had been on the job
market in either of those years to fill out a web survey (the link was supplied in the
email). An incentive of a drawing to receive a one-year subscription to a marketing
journal was offered. This resulted in 92 respondents from both US and international
degree-granting institutions.
The survey asked job candidates about their background, research areas and
teaching specialties, what they were looking for in a position, if they accepted an offer
how they thought the school rated, and several question about the interviewing process.
The questions asked were: “From what institution did you or are you getting your degree?
Which of these areas is your research specialty [multiple responses possible]? Which of
The Marketing Market, p. 10
these areas is your teaching specialty [multiple responses possible]? With how many
schools did you conduct an initial interview (e.g., at AMA)? How many institutions
invited you out for an on-campus interview? How many campuses did you actually visit?
How many institutions made you a job offer? Did you accept one of those offers?” (The
full survey is shown in Appendix B.)
RESULTS
Consistent with Hypothesis 1a, the annual “Survey of Earned Doctorates”
reported a slight decrease in the number of PhDs produced in business between 1995 and
2002 (t = 3.3, p = .017). If 20-25% of these PhDs were awarded in marketing, this
translates to only between 23 to 39 PhDs per year awarded in the United States. The next
measure of supply was the number of students registering for the Academic Placement
Service at the Allied Southern Business Association and Southern Marketing Association.
This also showed a decreasing trend (t = 3.0, p = .019). Reassuringly, both data sources
revealed a similar pattern and are consistent with Hypothesis 1a. Overall these results
suggest a slight downturn in the number of PhDs in marketing during this period. The
results are shown in Figure 1.
The Marketing Market, p. 11
FIGURE 1:
Estimates of Supply
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Survey of
Earned
Doctorates
ASBA-
Applicants
The content analysis of job advertisements identified a total of 638 ads for a total
of 875 jobs. This means demand for roughly 100 jobs per year. This is considerably
more than the 23-39 PhDs produced each year in the United States, even if most of those
jobs were filled with existing PhDs “changing” jobs. These results are shown in Figure 2.
The Marketing Market, p. 12
FIGURE 2:
Estimates of Demand
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
ELMAR -
Schools
ELMAR -
Jobs
ASBA-
Schools
In general it can be seen that the late 1990s were a period of high demand, with a
peak in 1998. However, contrary to Hypothesis 1b, there does not appears to be an
underlying increasing trend (t = .15, p = .88).
Schools advertising. Across the eight years, an average of 80 US schools per year
distributed a job ad over this period. This roughly translates into 1.4 positions per
advertisement. Here too, the number of schools advertising showed a peak in 1998.
These data also do not show any significant trend (t = .16, p = .88). These results are also
shown in Figure 2.
Schools registering at ASBA. The number of schools registering for the ASBA
placement service between 1995 and 2002 also shows no significant trend (t = .39, p =
.71).
The Marketing Market, p. 13
Rank. Of the jobs advertised, an average of 30% was for non-tenure-track
positions. Of the remaining positions, 55% were advertised at the assistant rank. No
significant trends were seen in the rank being advertised.
Hypothesis 1c predicted an increase in starting salaries over this period. Although
there was a slight difference in the means of the salary measures, both measures indicated
increasing salaries over this period. The AACSB data reported salaries of $58,500 in
1995 to $88,800 in 2002, a significant trend (t = 10.6, p < .001). Meanwhile, Doc Sig
reported salaries of $78,375 in 2000 to $90,925 in 2003, also a significant trend (t = 10.1,
p < .001). These results are shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3:
Starting Salaries
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
AACSB
AMA
DocSig
This result is an increase of 55%, or almost 7% per year, considerably above the inflation
rate. Adjusting for inflation, the $90,925 in 2003 represents $75,300 in 1995 dollars, so
2003 salaries were up 21% even after controlling for inflation.
The Marketing Market, p. 14
With regard to trends in hiring success, AMA’s Doctoral Students Special Interest
Group (DOC Sig) self-report data demonstrates that over this period, despite a declining
number of PhDs, more candidates reporting being hired – from 49 in 1997 to 75 in 2004.
With regard to the survey of hiring institutions, we had 99 responses. Of these, 9
reported that they did not have a position (most of these are likely to have occurred
because the position was terminated). Of the remaining 90 respondent institutions, 28
(31%) reported they were looking for one or more assistants, 10 (11%) reported looking
for an associate, 7 (8%) for full professors, and 6 (7%) reported that the rank was open.
Restricting this to the tenure track lines, this equates to 55% assistant, 20% associate,
14% full, and 12% open.
In the field of marketing, the principle event for screening interviews is the
Summer Marketing Educators’ Conference of the American Marketing Association
(AMA). On the search, hiring institutions reported, on average, 13.5 interviews at AMA,
inviting 4 candidates to campus, and making 2 offers. Consistent with Hypothesis 1d,
only 28 out of 90 (31%) reported successfully hiring someone, with 11 (12%) of the
remaining institutions reporting still being in process. Presumably, most of the remaining
institutions (51) did not hire. In support of that, the open ended responses revealed that 7
institutions were not able to hire their candidate or candidates of choice, and 6 couldn’t
find any acceptable candidate at all.
Next, the Research Question asked whether the higher ranked schools would be
less affected by the shortfall of faculty. To asses this, the success rates of ranked schools
was compared to those of unranked schools in whether or not they had hired. The results
did not find that higher ranked schools were more successful. Of the ranked schools,
The Marketing Market, p. 15
only 3 (15%) reported they were able to hire; of the unranked schools, 25 (35%) reported
being able to hire, this difference was not statistically significant (X2 [1] = 3.0, p = .10).
Therefore, ranked institutions were not more able to hire than unranked schools.
Specialty. Information on the specialty area was also examined. The largest
number of ads left the area of expertise non-specified (or “open” n = 247, 15%). The
largest requested areas were marketing management or strategy (n = 181, 11%) followed
by international marketing (n = 153, 9%), consumer behavior (n = 109, 7%) and e-
commerce (n = 105, 6%). Sales management, services marketing, and retailing, each
accounted for about 5% of the ads (n = 87, 85, and 80, respectively). Marketing
theory/principles and marketing communication came in with 4% each, followed by
promotions, advertising, and brand management with 3% each. Product development
accounted for 2% of the ads, followed by social marketing, global marketing, and
hospitality or tourism, with 1% each. These results serve as the baseline numbers for
Hypothesis 2a.
Turning to the survey of job candidates, we had 92 responses. Thirty-one
respondents (33%) reported being on the market in 1999 (to begin in AY 2000-2001) and
sixty-one (67%) in 2000 (to begin in AY 2001-2002).
Of these, 80 candidates reported accepting an offer, 8 did not (5 did not respond,
most likely still in process). Of the valid responses, then, 91% reported accepting an
offer, and only 9% reported not accepting one.
Hypothesis 1e predicted that the shortfall of faculty would be seen in higher rates
of candidates being placed than schools being able to hire. Consistent with Hypothesis
1e, a higher rate of candidates received an offer. While only 28 of 90 of institutions had
The Marketing Market, p. 16
hired, 80 of 88 candidates accepted a position, a significantly different rate -- X2 [1] =
67.9, p < .001.
Their research and teaching areas showed some match with the jobs advertised.
In research areas, the largest number reported specializing in consumer behavior (n = 49),
followed by e-commerce (33), advertising (23), “other” (22), international marketing
(21), and marketing management and strategy (20) [multiple responses possible]. A
similar pattern emerged in teaching. The largest number reported specializing in
consumer behavior (n = 50), followed by marketing research (41), marketing
management and strategy (34), e-commerce (30), marketing theory/principles and
international (25 each) and global marketing (20) [multiple responses possible].
Hypothesis 2a predicted that there would be significant differences between job ads
and candidates’ specialties. The results of this analysis do demonstrate some mismatch
with those found for hiring institutions. The results are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1:
TOP 4 AREAS: JOB ADS VERSUS CANDIDATES
AREA # OF JOBS % OF JOBS
# OF
CANDIDATES
% OF
CANDIDATES
Management/Strategy
181
33%
20
14%
International
153
9%
41
29%
Consumer Behavior 109
20%
49
34%
Electronic Commerce
105
6%
33
23%
The Marketing Market, p. 17
Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, 33% of jobs were seeking someone with a
Management/Strategy background, only 14% of candidates specialized in that area.
Conversely, only 20% of jobs were in the CB area, 34% of candidates offered that
specialty. A chi-square performed on the top 4 area showed a significant difference in
area needs of hiring institutions versus those of candidates’ specialties (X2 [7] = 24.7, p <
.001). So these results suggest that at least some of the inability to hire may be
attributable to a mismatch between hiring institution specialties and those offered by job
candidates.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that universities would have lower rates of success in
high-demand areas. We found the greatest undersupply in the area of marketing
management or strategy. To test the hypothesis, an analysis of the rates of success for
hiring institutions seeking marketing management/strategy candidates was compared to
that for the other areas. The results of this analysis found 6 universities reported trying to
hire someone in the marketing management area. These schools reported significantly
more screening interviews (18 in marketing management versus 12 in other areas), more
campus interviews (5.7 versus 3.8), and more offers made (3.0 versus 1.8). However,
contrary to Hypothesis 2b, hiring institutions had a significantly greater success in hiring
in marketing management and strategy (83% versus 27%). (All differences were
statistically significant.)
Hypothesis 2c predicted that the mismatch between the academic specialties that
schools are seeking and the specialties that candidates offer would be seen in higher
success for candidates specialized in high-demand areas. To test this hypothesis, an
analysis of the rates of success for marketing management/strategy candidates was
The Marketing Market, p. 18
compared to that for the other areas. The results of this analysis did not support the
hypothesis, with 89% of job candidates with a specialization in marketing
management/strategy accepting an offer compared to 90% of other candidates (X2 [1] =
24.7, p > .10). Given the high rates of success in general, these results may have been
constrained by a ceiling effect. To examine the viability of this interpretation, a
comparison of antecedent measures was conducted. In this case, candidates with a
specialty in marketing management/strategy received no more screening interviews (13.2
versus 13.9), invitations to campus (5.5 versus 5.0), campus visits (3.5 versus 3.7) or
offers (2.4 versus 2.2) than people with other specialties. Thus, these candidates were no
more successful than other candidates.
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrates a decreasing supply of PhDs in marketing with no
concurrent change in the number of jobs available appears to be resulting in an inability
to hire. Triangulation between data sources also demonstrates consistent results. We also
find a nice match between the content analysis of job ads and the survey of hiring
institutions. This suggests we can be confident in these findings.
Turning to the theoretical results, both explanations for the inability to hire were
supported. Specifically, both disequilibrium (probably undersupply) and mismatch
appear viable. We will consider these in turn.
Hypothesis 1 focused on disequilibrium predictions (Jones, 1965). Comparing the
supply and demand measures suggests a shortfall of PhD production. The results are
consistent with the trend predictions. The test of hypothesis 1a found a decreasing supply
The Marketing Market, p. 19
of PhDs in marketing between 1990 and 2002. However, the test of Hypothesis 1b did
not demonstrate any increase in the demand for marketing faculty over this period.
Meanwhile, Hypothesis 1c predicted that salaries would rise and this was found.
Hypothesis 1d predicted an inability to hire, which was also found. Hypothesis 1e
predicted that the shortfall of faculty would be seen in higher rates of candidates being
placed than schools being able to hire. Consistent with this hypothesis, a higher rate of
candidates found a match than did schools. These factors suggest that the disequilibrium
is more likely a result of an underproduction of PhDs than to increased demand. The
results are also consistent with the predictions expected to a rational market. That is, the
undersupply results in an inability to hire, a sellers market develops, and salaries increase
over these years, likely as a result of this undersupply. This increase in salaries is a
suggestion of equilibrium process at work, and is perhaps a better long-term prospect
than in the 1980s (Brophy, 1983; Cebrzynski, 1985)
The research question focused on the issue of competition -- a comparison of top
ranked schools with unranked schools. Specifically we expected that top ranked schools
would be more attractive to candidates, and therefore should be more sought after. In
addition, top rated schools, in a crowded market, could lower their standards to insure
that they had sufficient faculty. However, there are reasons that these ranked schools
would be more protective of their rankings. The results show that higher ranked schools
were no more able to hire than unranked institutions. At this point, ranked schools did
not appear to be willing to lower their standards to fill an open position. Whether they
will hold that line in the future remains to be seen.
The Marketing Market, p. 20
With regard to other forms of competition, previous research in these situations
has resulted in making earlier offers to candidates (Roth & Xing 1994). Therefore, we
should be watchful that universities do not engage in other competitive strategies such as
“jumping the gun.” In previous situations, enforcement of uniform dates and some
centralized market-clearing procedures have been imposed to help restrict these behaviors
(Roth & Xing 1994).
Hypothesis 2 focused on predictions from matching theory – that some of the
undersupply of faculty may result from the mismatch between hiring institutions' needs
and job candidates’ training and skills. These results are consistent with Hypothesis 2a,
demonstrating some mismatch between the areas needed by institutions and the areas that
were identified by candidates as their specialty. It appears there may be a larger
undersupply of professors in the area of marketing management/strategy and electronic
commerce. However, the results do not support Hypothesis 2b, that schools attempting to
hire in high-demand areas would be less successful. Instead, these schools invited a
larger number of candidates and made more offers, but ultimately were more successful
than schools trying to hire in other areas. The results also do not support Hypothesis 2c,
that candidates in areas of greater shortages would be more successful than those with
lesser shortages. Possible reasons for this lack of a “micro” effect include more
aggressive searching and greater flexibility in the part of hiring institutions. That is,
knowing that they were in a more difficult area, schools may have been more successful
in landing PhDs, preventing them from getting jobs outside academia. Or they may have
shifted current faculty to cover management and strategy and hired who was available, or
they may have hired people from other related areas (Hosios, 1990; Whalen, 1983b).
The Marketing Market, p. 21
The support of H2a but not H2b or H2c would appear to suggest that matching
appears to operate more at the aggregate level than with regard to specific specialties.
Perhaps hiring institutions or candidates were flexible in their research and teaching
areas. For example, hiring institutions that identified a strong candidate but without a
perfect match could have shifted existing faculty to cover their teaching needs.
Alternatively, candidates may have offered to learn some additional material to cover the
required courses.
Practically, the matching problem has seen considerable work in economics (e.g.,
Mongell & Roth 1991). One approach that has been instituted in the past is a centralized
matching process (Mongell & Roth 1991; Roth & Peranson 1999). In the short term, we
would expect the highest salaries to arise in the areas in which demand by universities
outstrips the supply of candidates.
What are the implications for business education? First, with regard to
disequilibrium of supply and demand, greater production of PhDs is warranted. This
finding is consistent with the AACSB reports (2002, 2003). This would reduce the
undersupply of professors and allow greater flexibility for undergraduate education in
areas such as hiring, class sizes and courses that could be offered. What forces are
preventing universities from producing a sufficient supply of Ph.D.s to fill their needs?
One factor is likely the number of students who pursued graduate degrees in the late
1990s has declined since the opportunities outside of academia were so good. There are
also institutional constraints in the supply of marketing and business PhDs in that the
production of PhDs is often seen as a costly venture (Policano, 2002).
The Marketing Market, p. 22
Second, with regard to the issue of matching, there are a number of options
available. One option is to allow time for the free market to operate, and students learn of
areas in high demand. A centralized matching process is another possibility (e.g.,
Mongell & Roth 1991; Roth & Peranson 1991). Coordination with the needs of hiring
institutions may also be possible. For example, solicitation of possible future faculty in
high demand areas may be possible where institutions may sponsor PhD candidates to
study in specific areas. Finally, there may be some mobility (Hosios, 1990) that can
allow candidates and hiring institutions to know where the jobs are to allow them to
repackage positions, hire PhDs with related degrees (Whalen, 1983b), and other means to
allow themselves to compete better in this tight labor market
Limitations and later research
The self-selected aspect of participating in the surveys is one possible source of
bias. For example, institutions that were not able to hire may have been more interested
in participating, thus inflating our estimates of the difficulty in hiring. Conversely,
candidates who were successful may have been more interested in participating, perhaps
to compare themselves to other candidates. We cannot dismiss this possibility; however,
the survey of earned doctorates as well as the AACSB reports on hiring in marketing
(2002, 2003) suggest that even if these estimates are not representative, they are at least
not without substance. Hiring is a large problem in marketing, and we hope that we have
shed some light on possible causes by comparing two possible mechanisms. In addition,
we were constrained by the focus on domestic candidates and jobs. Since the number of
PhDs awarded to non-US citizens has been increasing, it is possible that many of these
The Marketing Market, p. 23
have gone back to their home countries. While this is may a force that contributes to the
shortfall of candidates, it remains a real equilibrium issue that does not lend itself to easy
intervention without raising concerns about xenophobia.
Subsequent research may wish to examine supply and demand issues by comparing
PhD production, growth factors such as undergraduate business enrollment, and
shrinkage issues such as retirements and tenure success rates. Other research may wish to
examine which factors make candidates and hiring institutions successful such as what
factors, despite an apparent undersupply of PhDs specializing in marketing management,
allowed institutions to hire in this area. Still other research may wish to delve further into
the matching issue, such as how hiring institutions or job candidates may have made
themselves more flexible in teaching or research areas.
The Marketing Market, p. 24
REFERENCES
AACSB (2002). Management Education at Risk. Report of the Management Education
Task Force to the AACSB. St Louis: AACSB International. Available online at:
http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/metf/METFReportFinal-August02.pdf.
AACSB (2003). Sustaining Scholarship in Business Schools. Report of the Doctoral
Faculty Commission to the AACSB. St Louis: AACSB International.
Bedeian, Arthur G. & Field, Hubert S., 1981. Academic Stratification in Graduate
Management Programs: Departmental Prestige and Faculty Hiring Patterns,
Journal of Management, 6: 99-106.
Brimelow, Peter, 1999, May 31. Educators’ bad math. Forbes, 163 (11), 166-167.
Brophy, Roy T., 1983. The shortage of business faculty: View One – Are salaries to
blame? Business Forum, 8 (4): 16-19.
Cebrzynski, Gregg, 1985. Profs’ pay up 8.8%; Doctorate shortage persists. Marketing
News, 19 (15): 1-2.
Daniels, John P., Shane, Hugh M., & Wall, Jerry L., 1984. Faculty turnover within
academics: The case of business professors. Business Horizons, 27 (4), 70-75.
Fuller, Jack A., 1983. The shortage of business faculty: View Two – A degree-related
problem? Business Forum, 8 (4): 18-21.
Hosios, Arthur J. (1990). Factor market search and the structure of simple general
equilibrium models. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 325-355.
Jones, Ronald W., 1965. The structure of simple disequilibrium models. Journal of
Political Economy, 73, 557-572.
McKenna, Jack F. & Sikula, Andrew F., 1981. On the move through the groves of
academe: Mobility among business professors. Business Horizons, 24 (6): 70-76.
Mongell, Susan & Roth, Alvin E., 1991. Sorority rush as a two-sided matching
mechanism. American Economic Review, 81: 441-464.
Nightingale, John 1978. On the definition of ‘industry’ and ‘market.’ Journal of
Industrial Economics, 27, 31-40.
Paustian, Chuck. Newly-minted Ph.Ds can demand more. Marketing News, 35 (16), 12.
Policano, Andrew, 2002. Research at risk. Biz Ed, March/April, 18-19.
The Marketing Market, p. 25
Roth, Alvin E., 1984. The evolution of the labor market for medical interns and
residents: A case study in game theory. Journal of Political Economy, 92: 991-
1016.
Roth, Alvin E., 1991. A natural experiment in the organization of entry-level labor
markets for new physicians and surgeons in the United Kingdom. American
Economic Review, 81: 415-440.
Roth, Alvin E., 2002. The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and
computation as tools for design economics. Econometrica, 70: 1341-1378.
Roth, Alvin E. & Peranson, Elliott, 1999. The redesign of the matching market for
American physicians: Some engineering aspects of economic design. American
Economic Review, 89: 748-780.
Roth, Alvin E. & Xing, Xiaolin, 1994. Jumping the gun: Imperfections and institutions
related to the timing of market transactions. American Economic Review, 84:
992-1044.
Whalen, Bernie, 1983a, August 5. Marketing professors’ average salary is $38,700.
Marketing News, 17 (16), 1-3.
Whalen, Bernie, 1983b, August 5. Retooling: Can a history professor teach marketing?
Marketing News, 17 (16), 3-5.
Whalen, Bernie, 1984, July 20. New doctorates’ pay up 10.4%, professors’ salary hits
$40,000. Marketing News, 18 (15), 1-3.
The Marketing Market, p. 26
APPENDIX A:
Hiring Institution Survey
We are conducting a study of the academic job market. One part of that research
involves understanding the perspective of hiring institutions. (We also plan to interview
job candidates about which institution they chose and why). We hope you will complete
the following questionnaire for this research. This should take less than 10 minutes.
Your responses will remain confidential. They will only be disclosed in aggregated form
(i.e., category averages).
Our intention is to present these results (in aggregate form) at a marketing conference and
to publish them in a marketing journal. We can also provide you with a preliminary
report if you would like, as a thank-you for your participation (there is a place for your
name and address below). Since the publication process can take time, this will allow
you to receive the results significantly faster.
We are also offering an incentive for your participation. We will randomly draw
respondents’ names, and five lucky winners will receive a one-year subscription to the
academic marketing journal of their choice.
Best Regards,
Professors X and Y
University of Z
The Marketing Market, p. 27
Hiring Institution Survey
1. What is the name of your institution?
2. Did you have one or more positions open for academic year 2000-2001?
__ yes __ no [Skip to Q. 13]
3. At what rank? [fill in the number of positions at each level for which you had an
opening]
__ visiting
__ lecturer
__ senior lecturer
__ assistant
__ associate
__ full
__ open
4. In what area was/were the position(s) [check as many as apply]?
__ Advertising
__ Brand/Product Management/Development
__ Channel Management, Logistics
__ Consumer Behavior
__ E-Commerce
__ Global Marketing
__ High Technology Mkt, IS Mkt, IT Mkt, D-base Mkt
__ Hospitality and Tourism
__ International Marketing
__ Marketing Communication
__ Marketing Management and Strategy
__ Marketing Research
__ Marketing Theory, and Principles of Marketing
__ Promotion
__ Retailing
__ Sales Management
__ Services Marketing
5. With how many people did you conduct initial screening interviews (e.g., at AMA) for
each position?
______
6. How many people came to campus for interviews?
______
7. How many offers did you make?
_____
8. Did you hire someone?
___ yes ___ no [SKIP TO Q9]
9. If yes, how many? _____ .
10. For any position for which you failed to hire, please specify the reason(s).
The Marketing Market, p. 28
11. Please RANK ORDER the following in terms of how important they were to the
search committee in selecting a candidate(s). Place a ‘1’ next to the item that was most
important, a ‘2’ next to the second most important item, etc. Please do not give ‘ties’.
Rank of Average Importance Across All New Hires
______ academic training
______ work experience
______ teaching ability
______ research ability
______ fit with job
______ fit with colleagues
______ personality
______ increase faculty diversity
______ likely to accept offer
______ other (Specify)_______________________
12. What do you believe were your institution’s greatest strengths in recruiting the
candidate(s) of your choice?
________________________________________________________________________
13. What do you believe were your institution’s greatest weaknesses in recruiting the
candidate(s) of your choice?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
14. From your experience, what is the biggest mistake that candidates make in applying
for faculty positions?
14. From your experience, what is the biggest mistake that candidates make in
interviewing for faculty positions?
________________________________________________________________________
15. If doctoral programs could do one thing to better prepare students to become college
professors, what would it be?
________________________________________________________________________
16. What is the typical teaching requirement per year at your institution? __________
17. Is your institution on: _____semesters _____quarters _____other
The Marketing Market, p. 29
18. What incentives does your institution offer new hires? [Mark as many as apply]
__ non-teaching summer support (typical support level: _________)
__ reduced teaching load for the first year
__ start-up research funds
__ conference travel (limits? ______________________________)
__ research or teaching assistant (approx. hours per week ______)
__ teaching/course development funds
__ other (Specify: _____________________________________)
__ no incentives are offered
The Marketing Market, p. 30
APPENDIX B:
Job Candidate Survey
March 30, 2001
Dear Doctor xxx:
We saw in an ELMAR announcement that you recently accepted an academic position.
We are interested in researching the academic hiring process for marketing professors.
We believe that the academic market is changing. We hope to identify key trends in the
hiring process, and to identify factors that best predict the match-up between a candidate
and an institution. We believe this information will be useful to you by shedding insight
into the effectiveness of your own efforts, and that it will be useful to all institutions that
seek to hire new faculty.
Could you please take just a few minutes to respond to the enclosed survey for us? Your
responses are particularly important since we must limit our sample to individuals who
have recently been recruited. We would greatly appreciate your help.
In exchange for your participation, we will provide you with advance results of our
research. You will have the opportunity to see the results far before they ever make it
into a journal. Also, we will hold a drawing for three one-year subscriptions to the
academic marketing journal of your choice. Finally, you will be helping some fellow
academics with their research (and we will be very grateful for this!).
All responses will remain confidential. The final survey results will report overall
averages – individuals and institutions will not be identifiable.
Please take a moment right now to respond. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Professors X and Y
University of Z
The Marketing Market, p. 31
Job Candidate Survey
We are conducting a study of the academic job market. One part of that research
involves understanding the perspective of job candidates. (We have already surveyed
hiring institutions). We hope you will fill out the following questionnaire for this
research. This should take about 10 minutes.
Your responses will remain confidential. They will only be disclosed in aggregated form
(i.e. category averages).
Our intention is to present these results (in aggregate form) at a marketing conference and
to publish them in a marketing journal. We can also provide you with a preliminary
report if you would like, as a thank-you for your participation (there is a place for your
name and address below). Since the publication process can take time, this will allow
you to receive the results significantly faster.
We are also offering an incentive for your participation. We will randomly draw
respondents’ names, and three lucky winners will receive a one-year subscription to the
academic marketing journal of their choice.
The Marketing Market, p. 32
Job Candidate Survey
1. Were you on the job market for a position beginning academic year
__ 2001-2002
__ 2002-2003
(if neither, please disregard this survey)
2. From what institution did you or are you getting your degree?
____________________________________________________
3. Which of these areas is your research specialty [check as many as apply]?
__ Advertising
__ Brand/Product Management/Development
__ Channel Management, Logistics
__ Consumer Behavior
__ E-Commerce
__ Global Marketing
__ High Technology Mkt, IS Mkt, IT Mkt, D-base Mkt
__ Hospitality and Tourism
__ International Marketing
__ Marketing Communication
__ Marketing Management and Strategy
__ Marketing Research
__ Marketing Theory, and Principles of Marketing
__ Promotion
__ Retailing
__ Sales Management
__ Services Marketing
__ Other
(specify:_______________________________)
4. Which of these areas is your teaching specialty [check as many as apply]?
__ Advertising
__ Brand/Product
Management/Development
__ Channel Management, Logistics
__ Consumer Behavior
__ E-Commerce
__ Global Marketing
__ High Technology Mkt, IS Mkt, IT Mkt,
D-base Mkt
__ Hospitality and Tourism
__ International Marketing
__ Marketing Communication
__ Marketing Management and Strategy
__ Marketing Research
__ Marketing Theory, and Principles of
Marketing
__ Promotion
__ Retailing
__ Sales Management
__ Services Marketing
___Other
(specify:_____________________)
5. With how many schools did you conduct an initial interview (e.g., at AMA)? ____
6. How many institutions invited you out for an on-campus interview? ____
7. How many campuses did you actually visit? ____
The Marketing Market, p. 33
8. How many institutions made you a job offer? ___
9. Did you accept one of those offers? __ yes __ no
10. Rank order (from 1 to 14) how important the following factors were to you in seeking
a position (no ties please):
__ number of classes taught per year (teaching load)
__ number of class preparations (number of different classes taught per year)
__ research expectations
__ research support
__ conference/travel support
__ location of the school
__ colleagues
__ atmosphere
__ spousal considerations (e.g. job opportunities for spouse, etc.)
__ school reputation
__ salary
__ benefits
__cost of living
__ other (specify: _________________________________________________)
11. If you accepted a position, please rate the following for that school, using the scale
below.
1 2 3 4 5
very bad bad average good very good
__ number of classes taught per year (teaching load)
__ number of class preparations (number of different classes taught per year)
__ reasonable research expectations
__ research support
__ conference/travel support
__ location of school
__ colleagues
__ atmosphere
__ spousal considerations
__ school reputation
__ salary
__ benefits
__cost of living
__ other (specify: ____________________________________________________)
12. What factor was MOST important to you in selecting a position? (This may or may
not be one of the factors listed above)
________________________________________________________
The Marketing Market, p. 34
The Marketing Market, p. 35
13. What factor was LEAST important to you in selecting a position? (This may or may
not be one of the factors listed above)
________________________________________________________
14. Please describe anything that you felt one or more of the schools you interviewed
with did very well with regard to the interviewing process.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
15. Please describe anything that you felt one or more of the schools you interviewed
with did very poorly with regard to the interviewing process.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Your name: ______________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
(Name and address are needed for the drawing and in order to send you advance results.
The information you provide will remain strictly confidential.)
Thank you for your time!
- CitationsCitations19
- ReferencesReferences40
- "Given myriad reasons, including a shortage of Ph.D. students (AACSB International, 2003), a mismatch of marketing faculty specialists produced versus what is needed (Basil & Basil, 2006), the high cost of attending graduate school for 3–6 years to earn the business doctorate (Policano, 2002 ), and the increasing number of senior business faculty moving into retirement (AACSB International, 2003), future faculty shortages are expected across all business disciplines, including marketing (AACSB International, 2008). Studies have examined the supply of marketing faculty by considering how academic specialty affects the balance between applicants and hiring units (Basil & Basil, 2006 ) as well as factors that limit Ph.D. production (AACSB International, 2003, Policano, 2002). While the numerical production and selected specialties of new marketing Ph.D.s are important, other factors—such as fit—also influence the ability of educational institutions to successfully hire new faculty in business disciplines. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Surveyed job candidates and academic mavens differ in regard to what the candidates should consider most important (e.g., quality-of-life issues, characteristics of the position, and school/department dynamics) when interviewing for an academic position. A principal finding is that candidates weigh quality of life as the most important issue, while mavens weigh the job as being most important. This suggests that candidates view aspects of the academic position much more broadly than do the mavens who prepare them for market and engage in the job interview. Also, there were conflicting attitudes about what should and should not be asked by both sides involved in the interview process. A full discussion of the study’s findings is provided and suggestions are offered for making the academic hiring process more efficient.- "Zamudio et al. (2013) examine the marketing job market and find that both the level of Ph.D. granting institution and the presence of prior publications in top tier marketing journals affect the success of the candidate on the job market. Basil and Basil (2006) examine the shortage of marketing faculty. They find that the shortage is due to a decrease in marketing doctorates and a mismatch between schools' needs and candidates' skills. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: We examine the attributes that contribute to a successful placement of first time finance Ph.D. job market participants. The results of a survey of 237 former job market candidates suggest that while the ranking of the Ph.D.-granting institution plays a significant role in candidates’ success at all stages of the job market (candidates from higher ranked schools receive more conference interviews, fly-outs, job offers, and secure higher salaries), other factors also contribute. Prior publications or invitations to resubmit a paper to a journal, experience of presenting at academic conferences, and prior work experience positively affect marketability. Younger candidates, Caucasians, and graduates of higher ranked schools secure placements with higher research requirements and higher salaries. The quality of the hiring institution plays a central role in the candidate’s overall satisfaction with the job market outcome. Additionally, we collect and summarize recommendations of survey respondents to future first-time job market participants.- "The lack of CCT presence in top institutions and thus weaker network position creates a structural disadvantage for CCTers on the job market. Being grouped within the Consumer Behavior category adds to the difficulties, as CCTers must compete within an already overpopulated CB market, predominately composed of social psychology-based scholars (Basil and Basil, 2006). Moreover, CCT research lends itself poorly to the 'research lab' model wherein it is theoretically possible for a candidate to be involved in multiple A+ publications prior to graduation by using multiple datasets or even quicker means of data collection. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose This paper outlines the key discussion points and ideas generated at the job market roundtable at CCT Arkansas. The session was put together to discuss both immediate short-term solutions to improve PhD candidates’ hiring potential as well as longer-term institutional opportunities that could strengthen the reputation of CCT and foster more favorable job market conditions. Methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper primarily built on collaborative insights from the roundtable session’s participants. Findings We outline the current structure of hiring within marketing academia and offer insights and best practices for increasing an applicant’s chances of gaining a placement. We also identify long-term structural reforms and opportunities that could increase the recognition of CCT research, and help foster conditions more conducive to CCTers seeking academic placements. The recommendations for candidates and the CCT community highlight the importance of building non-CCT networks, effectively positioning and communicating research, and leveraging the benefits a CCT theoretical perspective can bring to marketing departments. Originality/value Most papers on academic hiring processes are descriptive in nature and concentrated on the job market’s structure. This paper adds to this conversation, straddling issues of structure and agency. It critically revisits the structure of hiring, and also discusses practices a candidate can employ to navigate the hiring process, and institutional tactics CCT could undertake to create a stronger brand and network structure. Though the emphasis in this work is on CCT candidates, we suspect such an analysis is also useful for PhD candidates elsewhere and nonmainstream marketing groups.
People who read this publication also read
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.
Learn more