Business faculty recruitment : effects of annual salary and health benefits plan.

Business faculty;Recruitment;Salary;Health benefits

Glenn Rodriguez

University:University of Louisville

Department:Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education

关键词: Business faculty;    Recruitment;    Salary;    Health benefits;   

Others  :  https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2223&context=etd

美国|英语

来源: The Universite of Louisville's Institutional Repository

【 摘 要 】

The topic addressed by this study was recruiting business professionals pursuing the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree to teach in business departments located at two-year community colleges. Recruitment is a task vital to organizational success and is becoming increasingly problematic for community colleges due to massive retirements among members of the post-World War II "baby-boomer" generation. The participants in this study were experienced business professionals (N = 187) completing MBA degrees at a university located in a major metropolitan area in the Midwest. The participants role-played as applicants for community college business faculty vacancies. Each participant rated six jobs manipulated experimentally in simulated position advertisements. The design for this study was a (3 x 2 x S) factorial analysis of variance. The independent variables were starting annual salary ($34,000, $44,000, $51,000) and employer-paid health plan (individual, family). The dependent variable was a two-item composite scale for applicant rating of the job. The items were 5-point Likert-type scales (1 = not at all likely, 5 = very likely) for these two items: (a) "How likely would you be to accept an interview for the job described?" and (b) "How likely would you be to accept the job described if offered?" The main effect for salary explained 69% of the variance in job rating. The mean scores for all salary levels were statistically different from one another. The higher the salary level, the higher the participant rated the job. The main effect for health plan explained 13% of the variance in job rating, with participants rating jobs with a family plan significantly higher than jobs with an individual plan. The two-way interaction between salary and health plan explained 3% of the variance in job rating. This was an ordinal interaction. At all levels of salary, participants rated jobs with a family plan higher than jobs with an individual plan. Implications for recruitment practice and future research are discussed.