In light of the tug-of-war observed by Wriston, evidence is strong today that the administrative or organizational side is encroaching further and further upon the faculty battleground. An article by Benjamin (2010) details a critical element of the battle today, contextualized especially by the ever-shrinking size of the full professoriate. Benjamin reports that while it had always been common for administrations and universities to undermine tenure by creating non-tenure-track positions, the distribution of power has shifted in recent decades. Benjamin notes, referring to an article from 1940, that where it had once been appropriate to refer to this as a two-track system, a far more hierarchical reality has since emerged. According to Benjamin, "the two-track system developed on the basis of the emerging distinction between tenured and non? tenured appointments. From the beginning, the former were often more qualified and generally more privileged. The two-track system has become a two-tier system to the extent that second-tier faculty are systematically less qualified, less well compensated, and are provided less professional support and fewer professional opportunities. Most non-tenure-track faculty are able individuals and many are well qualified. Nonetheless, their lower compensation, often narrowly defined tasks, and lack of professional support and opportunity tend to diminish their professional contribution." (Benjamin, p. 3)
This denotes the aggressive effort employed by administrations to reduce the size of the tenured and tenure-track populations. By diminishing the size of this population, administrations are succeeding...
As the article by Engligh et al. (2009) reveals, this has a distinct psychological impact on the professoriate that ultimately translated into a diminished sense of academic freedom. And as English et al. conclude in their research, this is contrary to the patterns revealing improved affective organizational commitment. The article finds that, in fact, "the present research showed employees with more than nine years' tenure had higher levels of affective commitment than those with less than one year's tenure, suggesting that affective commitment strengthens with tenure." (English et al., p. 403)
This suggests that in many ways, the battle over tenure has less to do with
organizational effectiveness or affective organizational commitment and far more to do with a battle for
authority and control over ideological and cultural features of a faculty. Implications are that this is likely also to have negative implications for the achievement of organizational goals.
Works Cited:
Benjamin, E. (2010). The Eroding Foundations of Academic Freedo0m and Professional Integrity: Implications of the Diminishing Proportion of Tenured Faculty for Organizational Effectiveness in
Higher Education. AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 1.
English, B.; Morrison, D. & Chalon, C. (2009). Moderator Effects of Organizational Tenure on the Relationship Between Psychological Climate and Affective Commitment. Journal of Management Development, 29(4).
Wriston, H.M. (1940). Academic Tenure. The American Scholar, 9(3).
