Marketing Marketing: A Study of Hiring Institutions and Job Candidates

1. Marketing Marketing: A Study of Hiring Institutions and Job Candidates Michael D. Basil Debra Z. Basil

2. Overview • There is a shortage of faculty in the field of marketing. • Basil & Basil (JBR, 2006) found that both undersupply and mismatch appear to be responsible for the shortage. • How can we reduce mismatches?

3. Study of Hiring Institutions PURPOSE • This paper will present a summary of studies on academic hiring comparing the views of • Hiring institutions • Job candidates • To compare what hiring institutions and job candidates were looking for. • How can we reduce the mismatch?

4. Study of Hiring Institutions METHOD • Survey of institutions that advertised a job • Sample was drawn from about 180 hiring institutions • (US and international). • 99 responses (55% rate). • 9 reported that they did not have a position • (the position was cut).

5. Study of Hiring Institutions RESULTS • Rank • 28 (31%) were looking for assistants, • 10 (11%) for an associate, • 7 (8%) for full professors, • 6 (7%) reported that the rank was open. • Restricting to the tenure track: • 55% assistant, • 20% associate, • 14% full, and • 12% open

6. Study of Hiring Institutions SEARCH • Average of: • 13.5 AMA interviews • 4 candidates to campus • 2 offers • Only 28 of 90 (31%) reported a successful hire. • 11 (12%) were still in process. • Most of the remaining institutions (51) did not hire. • 7 institutions were not able to hire the candidate of their choice. • 6 couldn’t find an acceptable candidate.

7. Study of Hiring Institutions • Most important factor in selecting a candidate? • Teaching ability • 36 schools • M = 2.8 (1-10 scale, 1 = very important). • Research ability • 34 schools. • M = 2.7 (1-10 scale, 1 = very important). • Fit • with job (31 schools, M = 3.4), • with colleagues (35 schools, M = 4.3)

8. Study of Hiring Institutions Candidate’s “mistakes” in applying • Not targeting (lack of match, too many schools) • Not enough research on the school • (reading the job ad, finding out about the school, etc.). Mistakes that candidates made in interviewing • Not enough focus on the needs of the hiring institution • Lack of homework • Inadequate preparation/research presentation • Seeming arrogant or overpromising.

9. Study of Job Candidates PURPOSE • To learn what candidates were looking for in a school. • To examine their perceptions of the job search process (interviews and offers). • To determine how their choice compared to their ideal.

10. Study of Job Candidates METHOD • A survey of academic job candidates • 93 respondents • US and international institutions

11. Study of Job Candidates RESULTS • Job search • Average of 13.7 AMA interviews [0-33]. • (Matched the # interviews reported by schools) • Average 5 on-campus invitations [0–17] • 3.7 campus visits [range 0-7] • 2.3 job offers [range 0-7]. • 80 (86%) report accepting an offer

12. Study of Job Candidates • Teaching areas • Consumer behavior (50, 54%) • Marketing research (41, 44%) • Marketing management and strategy (34, 37%) • E-commerce (30, 32%) • Marketing theory/principles (25, 27%) • International (25, 27%) • Global marketing (20, 22%) • [multiple responses possible]

13. Study of Job Candidates • Research areas: • Consumer behavior (49, 53%), • E-commerce (33, 35%) • Advertising (23, 25%) • “Other” (22, 24%) • International marketing (21, 23%) • Marketing management and strategy (20, 22%) • [multiple responses possible].

14. Colleagues (M = 5.3) Research support (M = 5.5) Research expectations (M = 5.9) Number of classes taught (M = 5.9) Salary (M = 6.0) Location of the school (M = 6.2) Atmosphere (M = 6.4) School reputation (M = 7.7) Spousal consideration (M = 8.3) Conference/travel support (8.9) Cost of living (9.1) Benefits (9.7) Study of Job Candidates What were candidates looking for in a job? (Rank ordering from 1 to 14)

15. Study of Job Candidates How did schools compare? • Respondents rated their school on a 1-to-5 scale. • Results showed little variance – • range between 3.6 (cost of living) and 4.4 (colleagues). • Candidates identified things schools did well or poorly during the hiring process. • Frequent communication was a key strength (when it occurred) and weakness (when they weren’t kept informed). • A number of candidates were bothered by unprofessional conduct by the interviewer (such as appearing drunk).

16. Conclusions • Schools want candidates to: • match the job • do their homework • examine needs of hiring institution • Candidates want: • good colleagues • research support • reasonable research expectations • reasonable teaching expectations

17. Conclusions • SO… Attracting candidates • Colleagues and research support • Main interest in colleagues • Followed closely by research support • Consider building “areas” of interest • Collaboration and mentorship • Show professionalism in recruitment • Communication and other intangibles

18. Conclusions • Reducing mismatches… • Flexibility! • Find ways to flex • Examples: • Hire in CB, • Move existing faculty to needs • Hire from outside business • Psych, Econ, Comm • AQ versus PQ