This paper explores the relationship between affective organizational commitment and academic tenure in higher education. Drawing on Wriston's (1940) philosophical treatment of academic freedom, Benjamin's (2010) analysis of the shrinking tenured faculty population, and English et al.'s (2009) empirical findings on tenure and commitment, the paper argues that administrative efforts to reduce tenure-track positions are driven more by a desire for ideological and institutional control than by organizational effectiveness. Research indicates that affective commitment strengthens with tenure length, suggesting that the erosion of tenure undermines both faculty well-being and broader organizational goals.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
Affective organizational commitment is derived from an employee's sense that his or her organization meets the emotional and psychological needs related to the terms of employment. In the context of education, this paper considers the relationship between affective commitment and the continued erosion of tenure.
The text by Wriston (1940) is particularly compelling on this subject because of its age and its relatively philosophical tone. Wriston weighs the question of academic tenure with a scholarly and discursive approach, revealing a set of dimensions to the debate that existed generations ago and remain relevant today. Wriston remarks that while academic freedom is a valuable asset to the pursuit of education, it is not without its problematic dimensions. As Wriston indicates, "the curse of freedom from the point-of-view of governing boards and administrative officers is that it means freedom for the fool as well as the wise man. Unfortunately presidents and boards (and the public) cannot always distinguish the wise man from the fool." (p. 340)
This observation helps explain why there is so much resistance at an institutional level to the continuity of tenure. Efforts to curtail it may be seen as influenced by the incapacity of educational organizations to effectively distinguish quality in the professoriate. Moreover, it suggests that newer mechanisms such as post-tenure review are intended to reassert a level of authority over the educational process that tenure was conceived to offset. In this way, texts such as Wriston's frame the tenure question as a function of the ongoing tug-of-war between educational organizations and the professoriate. Wriston highlights some of the implications of this conflict and implies that motives for confrontation are often unrelated to the goals of organizational effectiveness. Wriston points out that "even when we pass from research and 'creative' work to the subject of teaching we must protect the revolutionary. If minds are to be wakened and intellects sharpened there must be a challenge. How sharp that challenge is to be depends upon the teacher's method, upon the fixity of the student's prejudices, the profundity of his ignorance, the keenness of his mind and many other factors." (p. 341)
Wriston goes on to recall that one of his own professors had once been dismissed for verbally slighting the Church. He notes that in spite of the fact that no students raised any objections to the slight, it was sufficient to see the professor displaced. Here, Wriston reveals that separate from the goals of organizational effectiveness, ideological or political motives may also serve to influence the interest in control shown by administration. In this case, we can begin to understand the importance of tenure in defending against such essentially personalized motives for dismissal.
In light of the tug-of-war observed by Wriston, evidence is strong today that the administrative side is encroaching further and further upon the faculty battleground. An article by Benjamin (2010) details a critical element of this battle, contextualized especially by the ever-shrinking size of the full professoriate.
Benjamin reports that while it had long been common for administrations to undermine tenure by creating non-tenure-track positions, the distribution of power has shifted markedly in recent decades. Benjamin notes, referring to an article from 1940, that where it had once been appropriate to describe 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)
"Benjamin on the shrinking tenured faculty population"
"Empirical link between tenure length and affective commitment"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.