Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.81.4.179-189

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Factors That Motivate Business Faculty to Conduct
Research: An Expectancy Theory Analysis
Yining Chen , Ashok Gupta & Leon Hoshower
To cite this article: Yining Chen , Ashok Gupta & Leon Hoshower (2006) Factors That Motivate
Business Faculty to Conduct Research: An Expectancy Theory Analysis, Journal of Education for
Business, 81:4, 179-189, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.81.4.179-189
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.4.179-189

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 278

View related articles

Citing articles: 28 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]

Date: 12 January 2016, At: 17:59

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

Factors That Motivate Business
Faculty to Conduct Research:
An Expectancy Theory Analysis
YINING CHEN
ASHOK GUPTA
LEON HOSHOWER
OHIO UNIVERSITY
ATHENS, OHIO

ABSTRACT. In this study, the authors

used expectancy theory to examine key factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research. The survey results, from 320
faculty members at 10 business schools,
showed that faculty members who assign
higher importance ratings to both the
extrinsic and the intrinsic rewards of
research exhibit higher research productivity. Study findings suggest that: (a)
untenured faculty members are motivated
by extrinsic rewards; (b) tenured faculty
members are motivated by intrinsic
rewards; (c) research productivity is positively correlated with tenure status and the
percentage of work time allocated to
research activities and negatively correlated
with years in academic employment; (d)
there is no relationship between research
productivity and academic discipline; and
(e) there is no relationship between
research productivity and gender.
Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications

A

cademic institutions classified as
research universities are often perceived as indicative of having quality
programs, faculty, and students (Hu &
Gill, 2000). As higher education institutions compete with each other for
resources, being known as a research
institution is becoming increasingly
important. Hermanson, Hermanson,
Ivancevich, and Ivancevich (1995) noted
that many schools, which were formerly
thought of as teaching oriented, required
publications in refereed journals for
tenure and promotion. Because scholarly activities and research productivity
are used to measure the success of institutions, it is becoming increasingly
important for faculty to be more productive in research. Thus, an individual faculty member’s compensation, promotion
and tenure, prestige, and marketability
are very much related to his or her
research productivity.
There are two streams of research on
faculty research productivity. In the first

stream, researchers examined the
changes of research publication requirements in faculty tenure and promotion
decisions (Campbell & Morgan, 1987;
Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Englebrecht,
Iyer, & Patterson, 1994; Milne & Vent,
1987; Read, Rama, & Raghunandan,
1998; Schultz, Meade, & Khurana,
1989). Those researchers have documented that publication requirements for
promotions and tenure have increased

over time. In the second stream of
research, researchers (Buchheit, Collins,
& Collins, 2001; Hu & Gill, 2000) have
examined individual or institutional factors that most significantly influence the
research productivity of faculty members. Certainly, personal characteristics
like intelligence, insight, curiosity, and
work ethics have an influence, but other
observable and systematic traits can also
be important indicators of scholarly
achievement. Many of the prior studies

that examined influential factors of
research productivity were based on
anecdotal evidence (e.g., personal opinions or experiences; Fox, 1985; McKeachie, 1979). The few studies (Bridgewater, Walsh, & Walkenbach, 1982;
Holly, 1977; Tien & Blackburn, 1996) in
which researchers provided empirical
evidence regarding faculty members’
perceptions of research productivity and
their motivation to conduct research
were limited in external validity by
using a small sample from a specific
field or in internal validity by lacking a
theoretical base.
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964)
provides this theoretical basis. It constructs a conceptual framework of motivation as well as a measurable mathematical model. In this study, we applied
expectancy theory to 10 college of business faculties to provide a better understanding of the faculties’ behavioral
intentions (motivation) to do research.
March/April 2006

179

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

We then examined the relationship of
these motivational factors to actual
research productivity.
Literature Review
Factors Influencing Research
Productivity
Researchers have examined the factors
that most significantly influence the
research productivity of faculty members
(Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; Diamond,
1986; Goodwin & Sauer, 1995; Hu &
Gill, 2000; Levitan & Ray, 1992). Some
scholars believe that promotion has a
motivating effect on research productivity: For instance, Fox (1985) suggested
that higher education institutions can
influence faculty research behavior
through the manipulation of the reward
structure for promotion. However, other

researchers have insisted that faculty publish not for external rewards but because
they enjoy the process of inquiry (e.g.,
McKeachie, 1979). In summary, prior
studies identified two categories of personal motivational factors that drive academic research: Investment factors, or
extrinsic rewards (e.g., income increase,
tenure, promotion), and consumption factors, or intrinsic rewards (e.g., an individual’s personal satisfaction from solving
research puzzles, contributing to the discipline, achieving peer recognition).
In addition to personal motivation,
other factors also have a substantial
influence on faculties’ research productivity. One well-established research
productivity theory, Life-Cycle theory
(Hu & Gill, 2000), suggests that, in general, the research productivity of a
researcher rises sharply in the initial
stages of a career, peeks at the time of
tenure review, and then begins a decline.
Pretenure research productivity is dominated by investment factors and posttenure productivity by consumption factors. Researchers in prior studies
(Buchheit et al., 2001; Cargile &
Bublitz, 1986; Chow & Harrison, 1998)
have identified the following factors as
influencing research productivity: (a)

tenure status, (b) the allocation of working time to research activities, (c) length
of the tenure probationary period, (d)
teaching loads, and (e) financial
research support.
180

Journal of Education for Business

Perspective Behavioral Theories
A number of theories have been proposed to explain individual motivation
to perform. Equity theory (or theory of
fair exchange; Adams, 1963) and
expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) are
the two theories most widely used in the
research literature. According to equity
theory, a person compares his or her
inputs into the situation and outcomes
from the situation (Outcomes A/Inputs
A) with a similar ratio of a referent
other (Outcomes B/Inputs B). Inequity

exists when the perceived ratios of outputs to inputs for a person and his or her
referent are unequal (Adams). Perceived
inequity is the source of motivation to
act to restore equity or fairness in the
exchange. Equity theory has been successfully applied to study consumer dissatisfaction, brand and retailer switching, consumer complaining behavior,
negative word of mouth communication, and several other marketing and
social exchange situations.
Expectancy theory has been recognized as one of the most promising
conceptualizations of individual motivation
(Ferris,
1977).
Many
researchers (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980;
Brownell & McInnes, 1986; Ferris;
Hancock, 1995; Warshaw, 1980) have
proposed that expectancy theory can
provide an appropriate theoretical
framework for research that examines
an individual’s acceptance of and
intention to use a system (DeSanctis,

1983). However, empirical research
employing expectancy theory within an
academe has been limited. This study
uses expectancy theory to examine faculties’ motivation to conduct research.
Expectancy models are cognitive
explanations of human behavior that
cast people as active, thinking, predicting creatures in their environments.
They continuously evaluate the outcomes of their behavior and subjectively assess the likelihood that each of their
possible actions will lead to various outcomes. The choice of the amount of
effort people exert is based on a systematic analysis of (a) the values of the
rewards from these outcomes, (b) the
likelihood that rewards will result from
these outcomes, and (c) the likelihood
of attaining these outcomes through
their actions and efforts.

According to Vroom (1964),
expectancy theory shows that the overall Motivation (M) of a faculty member
to conduct research is the summation of
the products of the attractiveness of various individual outcomes associated

with research (Ak) and the probability
that research will produce those outcomes (Ik), which is expressed by the
equation:
n

M=

∑ ( Ak * I k ),

(1)

k =1

where M = motivation for conducting
research; Ak = attractiveness (or value or
importance) of outcome k associated
with research productivity; and Ik = the
perceived probability (or impact) that
being productive in research will lead to
outcome k.
In our application of the expectancy
theory (see Figure 1), faculty members
evaluated the attractiveness of 13 possible outcomes resulting from performing
research. They then considered the likelihood that each of these outcomes would
occur. According to expectancy theory,
multiplying the attractiveness of each
outcome by the probability of its occurrence and then adding the resulting products yields total motivation to conduct
research. On the basis of this systematic
analysis, the faculty members determined how much effort they would like
to exert in conducting research.
Research Objectives
Although many prior researchers
(Buchheit et al., 2001; Cargile &
Bublitz, 1986; Chow & Harrison, 1998;
Fox, 1985; Hu & Gill, 2000; McKeachie, 1979) examined factors that
influence research productivity, few
have examined faculty members’ perceptions of these factors from a behavioral perspective and how their perceptions are translated into the motivation
to exert themselves to publish. In the
current study, we employed expectancy
theory to examine the motivational factors and their relationship with actual
research productivity in a constructive
manner. By successful application of
expectancy theory, we were able to provide a better understanding of the
behavioral intention (motivation) of faculty members’ devotion to research.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

Attractiveness or
importance of
research rewards

Probability that research
productivity will impact
achievement of rewards

×

Ak

Ik

Motivation for research
• Extrinsic motivators
(investment factors)
• Intrinsic motivators
(consumption factors)

Institutional and
demographic factors:
Tenure status, years in
academics, gender,
academic rank, time spent
on research, discipline

Xk
n

Xk = Ak × Ik M = kΣ= 1(Ak × Ik)
FIGURE 1. Expectancy theory model.

Proposition 2b: Among tenured faculty,
there is a positive correlation between
research productivity and motivation
for intrinsic rewards. Those who show
higher motivation for intrinsic rewards
display better research performance.
Proposition 3: There is a relationship
between research productivity and institutional and other factors.
Proposition 3a: There is a positive relationship between research productivity
and tenure.
Proposition 3b: There is a negative
relationship between research productivity and years in academics.
Proposition 3c: There is a positive relationship between research productivity
and time allocated for research activities.
Proposition 3d: There is no relationship
between research productivity and academic discipline.
Proposition 3e: There is no relationship
between research productivity and gender.

Our objective was to investigate the
impact of the various potential rewards
from research on faculty motivation.
The 13 rewards we tested in this study
included 6 extrinsic and 6 intrinsic
rewards. The 6 extrinsic rewards were
(a) receiving or having tenure, (b) being
full professor or receiving promotion,
(c) getting better salary raises, (d) getting an administrative assignment, (e)
getting a chaired professorship, and (f)
getting a reduced teaching load. The 6
intrinsic rewards were (a) achieving
peer recognition, (b) getting respect
from students, (c) satisfying a personal
need to contribute to the field, (d) satisfying a personal need for creativity or
curiosity, (e) satisfying a personal need
to collaborate with others, and (f) satisfying a personal need to stay current in
the field. The 13th reward, the ability to
find a better job at another university,
could be an extrinsic reward because a
better job would likely translate into
more pay, better research support, and a
lower teaching load. However, a better
job could also mean higher status,
which is an intrinsic reward. Consequently, we segregated this reward from
the other 6 extrinsic rewards because,
unlike the others, it cannot be part of the
reward system of the faculty member’s
current university. We compiled this
group of 13 factors from previous literature and a pilot study, which asked a

focus group of 20 business professors to
list motivational factors other than those
identified by prior literature.
Our second objective was to discover
whether there was similarity between
tenured versus untenured faculty in their
preferences of the rewards for research
productivity or whether they have different motivations to conduct research.
Our third objective was to examine the
impact of influential institutional and
other factors (e.g., tenure status, years
of academic employment, percentage of
working time allocated to research
activities, academic discipline, and gender) on research productivity.
On the basis of the literature reviewed
and research objectives discussed
above, we developed the following
research propositions:
Proposition 1: There is a positive correlation between research productivity and
motivation for rewards. Those who show
higher total motivation for research
rewards display better research performance than otherwise.
Proposition 2: Pretenure research productivity is dominated by investment (extrinsic) factors and posttenure productivity
by consumption (intrinsic) factors.
Proposition 2a: Among untenured faculty, there is a positive correlation between
research productivity and motivation for
extrinsic rewards. Those who show
higher motivation for extrinsic rewards
display better research performance.

To measure the relationship between
motivation and research productivity, it
is important to define research productivity. Doctoral-granting colleges of
business and non-doctoral-granting colleges differ widely in their perception of
acceptable publication outlets. Including both types of colleges in the sample
would distort the measure of research
productivity. For example, within a
given time, seven journal articles at a
non-doctoral-granting college of business would likely represent more
research productivity than seven articles
in the same journals at a doctoral-granting college of business. However, doctoral-granting colleges are more likely
to have a more restrictive list of which
journals count than are non-doctoralgranting universities. Thus, it would be
difficult to compare both quantity and
quality of research between these two
types of schools. To avoid this measurement problem and to increase our power
to discern the relationship between
research productivity and motivation,
we structured the sample to include similar schools of business.
METHOD
We collected the data set for this
study via a mail survey, which is shown
in the Appendix. We mailed the questionnaire in February of 2004 to 670
March/April 2006

181

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

business faculty members of 10 midwestern universities with a balanced
teaching and research mission. These
10 universities are Carnegie Research
Classification II research universities
that do not offer PhD programs in the
business college. They have similar
research expectations and academic
standards. We omitted non-tenuretrack faculty from the sample. Between
the original mailing and the one
reminder mailing, we received 320
usable questionnaires, representing a
48% response rate. In the questionnaire, we collected information such as
academic discipline, gender, time allocated to research, academic rank,
tenure status, research output during
entire academic career, and research
output during the past 24 months (see
Table 1). In the questionnaire, faculty
members also evaluated the importance

of the 13 research rewards (Ak) to them
(Table 2), and their perceived probability that research productivity would
result in each of the 13 rewards at their
respective colleges of business (Ik; see
Table 3).
RESULTS

k =1

Intrinsic Motivation:

Table 4 shows Pearson’s correlation
coefficients between faculty motivation
to conduct research and various measures of research productivity. Faculty
motivation to conduct research (M) was
measured by multiplying the importance of each research reward (Ak) by
the probability of achieving that reward
through research (Ik) and then summing
the resulting 13 products.

MI =

Discipline
Accounting
Finance
Management Information Systems
Marketing
Human Resource Management
Organization Behavior
Business Law
Managementa
Other
Rank
Full professor
Associate professor
Assistant professor
Tenure status
Tenured
Untenured
Gender
Male
Female
Average research output during entire academic career
Books
Book chapters or cases
Journal articles
Grants (in $000)
Average research output during the past 24 months
Books
Book chapters or cases
Journal articles
Grants (in $000)

69
38
26
63
20
17
17
28
42

21
12
8
20
6
5
5
9
13

137
113
68

43
35
22

245
74

77
23

232
88

73
27

1.18
2.41
17.93
81.92
0.24
0.43
2.86
18.62

Note. N = 320; average time spent in research = 29%; average number of years of academic
employment = 17.02.
a
Management includes decision science, production, operations management, and quantitative
business analysis.

6

∑ ( Ak * I k ) = ∑ ( X k ); (3)

Research Productivity and
Motivation for Research Rewards

%

k =1

Extrinsic Motivation:
k =1

n

13

∑ ( Ak * I k ) = ∑ ( X k ); (2 )

6

Characteristic

Journal of Education for Business

13

MO =

ME =

TABLE 1. Demographic Information

182

Overall Motivation:

13

k =1

12

∑ ( Ak * I k ) = ∑ ( X k ).
k =1

(4 )

k =1

We measured actual research productivity by the number of books published,
number of book chapters or cases published, number of refereed journal articles published, and dollar amount of
grants received. We used two time periods to measure the outputs: academic
career to date and in the 24 months prior
to the study. The correlations between
research motivation and total journal
articles published (Y3) and journal articles published in the past 24 months
(Y7) were both positive and significant
at the .01 level. The other measures of
research productivity (i.e., grants,
books, and chapters in books) were not
significantly correlated with research
motivation at the .05 level and were
omitted from further analysis. This
result supported Proposition 1, that faculty who show higher motivation for
research rewards display better research
performance in terms of publication of
journal articles both in the short term
and the long term.
For untenured faculty, the correlation
between extrinsic motivation (ME) and
journal articles published in the past 24
months was significant at the .01 level.
No other correlations were significant.
There were no significant correlations
between intrinsic motivation and
research productivity for untenured faculty. This generally supported Proposition 2a, that untenured faculty are motivated by extrinsic rewards, and those
untenured faculty members who show
higher extrinsic motivation display better research performance in terms of
journal articles published in the past 24
months.
Table 4 shows that the intrinsic motivation (MI) of tenured faculty was positively and significantly correlated well

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

TABLE 2. Importance of Research Rewards to Faculty
Research reward
Extrinsic
Receiving or having tenure
Receiving promotion
Getting better salary raises
Getting an administrative assignment
Getting chaired professorship
Getting reduced teaching load
Intrinsic
Achieving peer recognition
Getting respect from students
Satisfying need to contribute
Satisfying need for creativity or curiosity
Having collaborations with others
Satisfying need to stay current
Finding a better job

M

SD

4.53
4.28
4.18
1.90
2.80
3.40

1.12
1.11
1.09
1.12
1.48
1.34

3.68
3.53
3.76
4.06
3.56
3.99
2.76

1.13
1.28
1.06
1.02
1.08
0.95
1.46

Note. Responses were rated on a scale of 1 = not important at all to 5 = very important.

beyond the .01 level with both journal
publications within the past 24 months
and lifetime journal publications. Intrinsic motivation of tenured faculty was
also positive, but not significant at the
.05 level, for the other six measures of
research productivity (not shown in
Table 4). There were no significant correlations between extrinsic motivations
of tenured faculty and any measure of
research productivity. These results support Proposition 3b, that tenured faculty
members’ research activities are motivated by intrinsic rewards. Those
tenured faculty members who have higher intrinsic motivation display better
research performance in terms of greater
number of published journal articles in
the short term as well as the long term.
Research Productivity and
Tenure

TABLE 3. Faculty’s Perceived Impact of Research Productivity on
Achieving Various Rewards
Research reward
Extrinsic
Receiving or having tenure
Receiving promotion
Getting better salary raises
Getting an administrative assignment
Getting chaired professorship
Getting reduced teaching load
Intrinsic
Achieving peer recognition
Getting respect from students
Satisfying need to contribute
Satisfying need for creativity or curiosity
Having collaborations with others
Satisfying need to stay current
Finding a better job

M

SD

4.57
4.53
3.57
2.08
3.52
3.24

0.83
0.88
1.43
1.04
1.49
1.43

3.85
2.31
3.76
3.88
3.44
3.79
3.24

1.11
1.06
1.11
1.06
1.09
0.98
1.56

Note. Responses were rated on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

To determine the effect of the demographic and institutional factors on
research productivity, we estimated a
linear regression model. We used journal
articles published within the past 24
months (Y7) as the measure of research
productivity, which was the dependent
variable. This measure of research productivity had the highest correlation
with research motivation (see Table 4)
across both tenured and untenured faculty. The five independent variables were
(a) tenure status, (b) years of academic
employment, (c) percentage of time
spent in research, (d) academic discipline, and (e) gender. There was a good
fit between the observed data and the
model, F(5, 315) = 7.984, p < .0001.
The regression results in Table 5 show
that there was a significant positive relationship between tenure status and
research productivity. The regression

TABLE 4. Pearson Product–Moment Correlations Between Faculty Motivation for Research and Research
Productivity Measures

Productivity measure
Journal articles published
Articles published in past 24 months

All faculty
(N = 320)
Overall
motivation (MO)
r
p
.159
.197

.006
.001

Untenured faculty
(n = 74)
Extrinsic
Intrinsic
motivation (ME)
motivation (MI)
r
p
r
p
.127
.283

.294
.010

.048
.044

.691
.712

Tenured faculty
(n = 245)
Extrinsic
Intrinsic
motivation (ME) motivation (MI)
r
p
r
p
.064
–.020

.329
.762

.270
.239

March/April 2006

.000
.000

183

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

Effect of Institutional and Other
Factors

TABLE 5. Effect of Demographic and Institutional Factors on Faculty
Research Output
B

β

t

p

1.609
.950
–.045
4.715
–.082
.403

.141
–.162
.300
–.080
.064

2.827
2.074
–2.296
5.199
–1.491
1.101

.005
.039
.022
.000
.137
.272

Model
Constant
Tenure status
Years in academics
% of time spent on research
Discipline
Gender

Note. Dependent variable: Journal articles published in past 24 months; independent variables:
Tenure status, years in academics, percentage of time spent on research, discipline, gender. F(5,
309) = 7.984. R 2 = 0.114. Bold p values are significant at .05 level.

coefficient for the tenure status variable
was positive (0.950) and significantly
different from zero, p = .039 level. On
the basis of this result, we concluded
that our data supported Proposition 3a.
This is consistent with the findings of
Lane, Ray, and Glennon (1990) on statisticians, Levitan and Ray (1992) on
accounting faculty, and Hancock, Lane,
Ray, and Glennon (1992) on management science researchers, which suggest
that tenured faculty members are more
productive than those without tenure.
Research Productivity and Years
in Academics
The life-cycle model (Diamond,
1986) predicts that faculty research productivity will decline as an individual’s
academic experience increases. In Table
5, the estimated regression coefficient of
the variable years of academic employment was negative (−.045), which is significantly different from zero (p = .022).
One plausible reason for this decline in
research productivity is the decline of
extrinsic motivation as a result of attainment of tenure and promotion and the
proximity of retirement. Another factor
may be that senior faculty members tend
to have more service and administrative
responsibilities, which may hinder their
research productivity. Overall, we can
conclude that Proposition 3b was supported by our data.
Research Productivity and Time
Allocated to Research
Researchers have shown previously
that research productivity depends
heavily on how much time one spends
184

Journal of Education for Business

on research-related activities (Hancock
et al., 1992; Lane et al., 1990). That is,
faculty who display higher research productivity allocate more time to research
activities. Our data in Table 5 show the
same pattern. The regression coefficient
for the percentage of time spent on
research was positive (4.715) and significant, p < .0001. In fact, the beta
coefficient for percentage of time spent
on research was the highest, indicating
this was the most important variable in
the model. Thus, we concluded that our
data supported Proposition 3c.

Researchers (Buchheit et al., 2001;
Hu & Gill, 2000; Tien, 2000) have previously shown that faculty research productivity was a result of the interaction
among many endogenous and exogenous variables, including individual personal characteristics; academic discipline; educational background; previous
employment; institutional characteristics; and teaching, research, and service
assignments. All of our subjects were
from Carnegie Research Category II
non-doctoral-granting colleges of business where many of the institutional
variables or factors were similar. This
enabled us to focus on personal motivational factors, which were the target of
our study. As a further simplification,
we set our research objective to be identifying the variables that may have a significant effect on research productivity
rather than quantifying such effects on
the productivity. For that reason, we
chose a general linear regression model
as the most appropriate tool for the
analysis. The regression model can be
expressed as:
n

Research Productivity and
Academic Discipline
In examining whether research productivity differs across disciplines
within the business schools of our data
set, we found that the regression coefficient for discipline was not significantly different from zero at the .05
alpha level, p = .137 (see Table 5).
Thus, we could not reject Proposition
3d and did not find a difference in
research productivity among faculty
from the various disciplines.
Research Productivity and
Gender
In examining whether research productivity differed between male and
female faculty of our data set, we found
that the regression coefficient for gender
was not significantly different from zero
at the .05 level (p = .272). Thus, we concluded that Proposition 3e could not be
rejected by our data. We were unable to
find a relationship between gender and
research productivity.

Y = B0 +

∑ Bi Xi ,

(5 )

i =1

where Y is the dependent variable, Xi (i
= 1, 2 … n) are the independent variables, and βi (i = 1, 2 … n) are the
regression coefficients.
In establishing the regression model,
we used the self-reported research productivity data collected from the questionnaire on refereed journal articles
published in the past 24 months (Y7) as
the dependent variable. We calculated
the 13 independent motivational variables as the product of Ak (attractiveness
of reward k associated with research
productivity), which we collected from
Section 1 of the questionnaire, and Ik
(perceived probability that being productive in research would have an
impact on outcome k), which was collected from Sections 2 and 3 of the
questionnaire. To test whether there was
an order effect, we prepared the questionnaire in two versions, with the 13
variables arranged in different orders.
The results from the two versions did
not differ significantly, which indicated

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

no order effect. The questionnaire used
for the study can be found in the Appendix. In addition to the motivational variables (X1 to X13), discipline (X14), percentage of time devoted to research
(X15), gender (X16), years in academic
career (X17), and academic rank (X18)
were included in the stepwise regressions as controlled factors for two separate analyses—one for the tenured and
the other for untenured faculty.
Because the independent variables
may not be independent from each
other and, therefore, correlation may be
present among them, we adopted a
stepwise regression with a selection criterion of Cronbach’s alpha = .10. In
doing so, only the independent variables that have a significant contribution at the .10 alpha level can enter into
the regression. Table 6 shows the parameter estimates and model statistics for
the stepwise regression models. The
independent variables are listed by the
order that they enter into the stepwise
regression.
Table 6 shows model statistics for two
regressions, tenured faculty and
untenured faculty. For each regression
model, the F statistic was significant, p <

.01. This indicated a good fit between
the observed data and the models, and
the independent variables are related to
the dependent variable. Furthermore, we
found that R2 ranges from .140 to .141,
which indicated that about 14% of the
variation in the number of journal articles faculty published in the preceding
24 months was explained by the independent variables. Given the large sample size and the great heterogeneity of
the respondents, these R2 values should
be considered satisfactory.
In terms of which variables contributed most to explain the variance in
publication of journal articles, we
observed that, after controlling for the
effects of demographic and institutional
variables, the three factors that had the
most impact on explaining the variability
in number of journal articles published in
the past 24 months by tenured faculty
were percentage of time spent on
research, motivation to contribute to the
field, and years in academics, in that
order. The greater the percentage of time
that tenured faculty members spent on
research and the more motivated they
were to make a contribution to the field,
the more articles they published. Regres-

TABLE 6. Motivators of Journal Article Publications: A Stepwise
Regression Analysis
Independent variable

B

β

t

p

0.218
0.174
–0.137

2.502
3.166
2.563
–2.150

.013
.002
.011
.033

Tenured facultya
Constant
% of time spent on research (X15)
Motivation to contribute to field (X9)
Years in academics (X17)

1.642
3.955
0.073
–0.045

DISCUSSION

Untenured facultyb
Constant
Motivation to get chaired professorship (X5)
Years in academics (X17)

1.102
0.112
0.133

sion coefficients for both variables were
positive and significant at .05 alpha levels. However, research productivity
declined with the length of time a faculty
member stayed in academics. The regression coefficient associated with X17 was
negative and significant at the .05 alpha
level.
The desire for tenure (mean importance rating of 4.53 out of 5) and promotion (mean importance rating of 4.28
out of 5) was great for all untenured faculty regardless of their research productivity and, thus, did not explain variation
in research productivity. However, variation in research productivity in terms
of number of journal articles published
in the past 24 months was most
explained by professors’ ambition to get
chaired professorships and by the number of years they had been untenured.
Those who were more motivated by the
prospect of becoming a chaired professor and those who had waited longer in
the tenure pipeline had published more
within the past 24 months. Regression
coefficients for both these variables
were positive and significant at the .05
alpha level. Because those who had
been untenured longer were, presumably, closer to the tenure decision, they
would have responded to the reward of
tenure and the punishment of denial of
tenure more strongly than would faculty
who were further away from the tenure
decision.

0.298
0.280

1.582
2.497
2.346

.119
.015
.022

Note. Dependent variable: Journal articles published in past 24 months (Y7); independent variables:
Receiving or having tenure (X1), receiving promotion (X2), getting better salary raise (X3), getting
administrative assignment (X4), getting chaired professorship (X5), getting reduced teaching load
(X6), achieving peer recognition (X7), getting respect from students (X8), satisfying need to contribute (X9), satisfying need for creativity (X10), having collaborations with others (X11), satisfying
need to stay current (X12), finding a better job (X13), discipline (X14), % of time spent on research
(X15) gender (X16), years of academic employment (X17). X1 to X13 are the importance or attractiveness of the reward (Ak) multiplied by the perceived probability (Ik) that being productive will
have a high impact on receiving that reward. Therefore, Xk = Ak × Ik. In this survey, the maximum
score is 25 (5 × 5) and the minimum is 1 (1 × 1).
a
F(3, 218) = 11.999, p < .000, R 2 = .141; number of observations = 222. bF(2, 61) = 5.034, p <
.009, R 2 = .140; number of observations = 64.

Effective Use of Tenure and
Promotion
There are two aspects to the motivational strength of any reward. Those factors are the value of the reward to the
individual and the probability that the
reward will occur if the individual is
successful in achieving the goal to
which the reward is attached. Of the 13
motivations examined in this study, faculty ranked tenure and promotion,
respectively, as their two most valued
rewards. They also assigned the highest
probabilities to these rewards; of the 13
rewards, the faculty believed that
research productivity would most likely
lead to the rewards of tenure and promotion. This made having or receiving
March/April 2006

185

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

tenure and promotion the two highest
motivational factors. By making the link
between research productivity and the
rewards of tenure and promotion so
clear in the minds of faculty, universities are using these rewards very effectively to motivate research productivity.
However, the stepwise regressions did
not show that the rewards of tenure and
promotion were the most important factors in explaining the variations in number of publications among faculty. We
supposed that this was because all faculty were highly motivated by tenure
and promotion and the standard deviation of the force of this motivation was
relatively low. Thus, the difference in
number of publications was explained
by other factors. For example, all professional athletic coaches want to win.
Consequently, the will to win may not
be an important factor in explaining the
variations in the win–loss records of
coaches. However, this does not mean
that the will to win is not critical.
Occasionally, legislators and other
public figures question the value of the
tenure system in academe. They suggest
that, once tenured, faculty members
cannot be fired whether they work or
not. Consequently, tenured faculty
members have little incentive to perform and may become semiretired while
still employed by the university. This
scenario seems plausible. However, the
data gathered by this study show the
opposite. As shown in Table 6, tenured
status is significantly and positively
related to the number of journal articles
accepted or published by tenure-tracked
faculty within the past 24 months.
Ineffective Use of Pay Raises
Faculty ranked getting better pay
raises as their third most valued reward.
However, their subjective probability of
receiving pay raises from achieving
research productivity ranked 7th out of
13. Universities have not established a
strong link in the minds of their faculty
between research productivity and the
reward of pay raises. Thus, the motivational effect of the pay raise system is
limited. Universities could, therefore,
increase the motivational impact of
salary raises by making a clearer link
between raises and research productivity. One possibility is to assure faculty
186

Journal of Education for Business

that they will receive a raise in a particular amount (e.g., $1,000 raise) for each
journal article published in a predetermined list of journals. Colleges of business could fund these pay raises by
deducting the total amount of these publication-based pay raises from their
annual raise pool. The remainder of the
raise pool could then be distributed as
before.

One alternative to the current pay
raise system is to give large one-time
bonuses for research productivity (i.e.,
publication) and smaller base increases.
A bonus-based system would reward
faculty with a single, relatively large
monetary reward for research productivity. Such a system would reward all
faculty equally rather than giving de
facto greater rewards to younger faculty.

Unexpected Consequences of
the Annuity Pay Raise System

Time Spent Doing Research

Typically, universities give annual pay
raises, which then become part of professors’ base pay. This increase in base
pay continues throughout the careers of
the professors, provided that they remain
at the university. Thus, each annual pay
increase is effectively an annuity. Consequently, faculty members could still be
receiving rewards when aged 60 years
for research that was published when
they were aged 45 years. Such a system
inadvertently gives a greater incentive to
faculty members who are both young
and intend to stay at the university for a
long time. In contrast, faculty who are
close to retirement have fewer years to
reap the rewards of any increase in annual base pay and, therefore, effectively
receive a lesser monetary reward for
research productivity.
Another, and perhaps related, finding
is that the number of articles published
within the past 24 months decreases
with years in academe. One reason for
that may be that abilities and energy
decrease with age. Another reason that
publications decrease might be that
senior faculty members typically have
greater service requirements. However, a
contributing factor to this observed
decrease in research productivity with
longevity in academe might be the
“annuity” pay raise system. With
longevity, a greater proportion of faculty
members’ pay is derived from past
increases in base pay, which were presumably linked to past accomplishments. The benefits from any current or
future pay raises simultaneously
decrease because older faculty members
have fewer years to reap the benefit of
the annual increase in base pay. Perhaps
the pay system is partially responsible
for the decrease in older faculty’s
research productivity.

The number of journal articles published or accepted within the past 24
months is significantly (p < .001) related to the percentage of work time that
faculty members spent on research. Faculty may increase the percentage of
work time devoted to research by working additional hours and dedicating
those additional hours to research. Thus,
increased publications may come purely
from additional effort. However, faculty
members could also increase the percentage of their time devoted to research
by decreasing their teaching and service
hours and substituting these additional
hours to research. Future research could
examine the extent, if any, of the substitution effect suggested earlier. If the
hours substituted from teaching and service are meaningfully large, administrators should modify their research
requirements in light of their college
mission’s balance of teaching and
research.
Conclusion
In this study, we employed expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) to examine the
impact of various motivational factors
on faculty research productivity. Our
faculty survey data shows that faculty
with higher total (both intrinsic and
extrinsic) motivation for rewards published significantly more articles within
the 24 months prior to the study and
over their careers than did those with
lower motivation for rewards. However,
the category of motivation differs with
tenure status. Tenured faculty members
are motivated more by intrinsic motivational rewards, whereas untenured faculty are more motivated by extrinsic
rewards.
Tenure and promotion are potent
motivators of faculty research produc-

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

tivity, whereas pay raises are insufficiently linked to research productivity
to be a good incentive. After controlling
for other institutional and motivational
factors, we found the number of journal
articles published in the 24 months prior
to the study was (a) positively related to
tenured status, (b) negatively related to
years in academe, and (c) positively
related to the percentage of working
time a faculty member allocates to
research activities.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Leon Hoshower, Professor, College of Business, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.
E-mail: hoshower@ohio.edu
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of
inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(3), 422–436.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding
attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bridgewater, C. A., Walsh, J. A., & Walkenbach, J.
(1982). Pretenure and posttenure productivity
trends of academic psychologists. American
Psychologist, 37(2), 236–238.
Brownell, P., & McInnes, M. (1986, October).
Budgetary participation, motivation, and managerial performance. Accounting Review, 61,
587–600.
Buchheit, S., Collins, A. B., & Collins, D. L.
(2001). Intra-institutional factors that influence
accounting research productivity. The Journal
of Applied Business Research, 17(2), 17–31.
Campbell, D. R., & Morgan, R. G. (1987). Publication activity of promoted accounting faculty.
Issues in Accounting Education, 2(1), 28–43.

Cargile, B. R., & Bublitz, B. (1986). Factors contributing to published research by accounting
faculties. The Accounting Review, 61(1),
158–178.
Chow, C. W., & Harrison, P. (1998). Factors contributing to success in research and publications: Insights of “influential” accounting
authors. Journal of Accounting Education,
16(3/4), 463–472.
DeSanctis, G. (1983). Expectancy theory as an
explanation of voluntary use of a decision support
system. Psychological Reports, 52(1), 247–260.
Diamond, A. M. (1986). The life-cycle research
productivity of mathematicians and scientists.
Journal of Gerontology, 41(4), 520–525.
Englebrecht, T. D., Iyer, G. S., & Patterson, D. M.
(1994). An empirical investigation of the publication productivity of promoted accounting faculty. Accounting Horizons, 8(1), 45–68.
Ferris, K. R. (1977, July). A test of the expectancy theory as motivation in an accounting environment. The Accounting Review, 52(3),
605–614.
Fox, M. F. (1985). Publication, performance, and
reward in science and scholarship. In J. C. Smart
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
and research (Vol. 1., pp. 255–282). New York:
Agathon Press.
Goodwin, A. H., & Sauer, R. D. (1995). Life
cycle productivity in academic research: Evidence from cumulative publication histories of
academic economists. Southern Economic
Journal, 61(3), 729–743.
Hancock, D. R. (1995). What teachers may do to
influence student motivation: An application of
expectancy theory. The Journal of General
Education, 44, 171–179.
Hancock, T., Lane, J., Ray, R., & Glennon, D.
(1992). The ombudsman: Factors influencing
academic research productivity: A survey of
management scientists. Interfaces, 22(5), 26–38.
Hermanson, D. R., Hermanson, H. M., Ivancevich, D. M., & Ivancevich, S. H. (1995,
August). Perceived expectations and resources
associated with new accounting faculty positions. Paper presented at the 1995 American
Accounting Association Annual Meeting,

Orlando, FL.
Holly, J. W. (1977). Tenure and research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 6(1),
181–192.
Hu, Q., & Gill, T. G. (2000). IS faculty research
productivity: Influential factors and implications. Information Resources Management
Journal, 13(2), 15–25.
Lane, J., Ray, R., & Glennon, D. (1990). Work
profiles of research statisticians. The American
Statistician, 44(1), 9–13.
Levitan, A. S., & Ray, R. (1992). Personal and
institutional characteristics affecting research
productivity of academic accountants. Journal
of Education for Business, 67, 335–341.
McKeachie, W. J. (1979). Perspective from psychology: Financial incentives are ineffective for
faculty. In D. R. Lewis & W. E. Becker (Eds.),
Academic rewards in higher education. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Milne, R. A., & Vent, G. A. (1987). Publication
productivity: A comparison of accounting faculty members promoted in 1981 and 1984.
Issues in Accounting Education, 2(1), 94–102.
Read, W. J., Rama, D. V., & Raghunandan, K.
(1998). Are publication requirements for
accounting faculty promotions still increasing?
Issues in Accounting Education, 13(2), 327–339.
Schultz, J. J., Meade, J. A., & Khurana, I. (1989).
The changing role of teaching, research, and
services in the promotion and tenure decisions
for accounting faculty. Issues in Accounting
Education, 4(1), 109–119.
Tien, F. F. (2000). To what degree does the desire
for promotion motivate faculty to perform
research? Research in Higher Education, 41(6),
723–752.
Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty
rank system, research motivation, and faculty
research productivity: Measure refinement and
theory testing. Journal of Higher Education,
67(1), 2–11.
Vroom, V. C. (1964). Work and motivation. New
York: Wiley.
Warshaw, P. R. (1980). A new model of predicting
behavior intentions: An alternative to Fishbein.
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 153–172.

APPENDIX
Questionnaire
This brief questionnaire is designed to understand faculty motivation to conduct research. We greatly appreciate your taking time to
provide meaningful input. Your responses will be kept confidential. Your name will not be revealed in any of our reports or articles.
1. As a faculty member, please evaluate the importance of the following to you using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important and
1 being not important at all.
Importance of the following to me:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

Receiving or having tenure
Being full professor or receiving promotion
Getting better salary raises
Getting an administrative assignment
Getting a chaired professorship
Getting a reduced teaching load
Achieving peer recognition
Getting respect from students

Not
Important
At All
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Very
Important
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
(appendix continues)

March/April 2006

187

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:59 12 January 2016

APPENDIX (continued)
Importance of the following to me:

i.
j.
k.
l.
m.

S