2g, INNOVATION ABSTRACTS _‘83!

__}
2 at Published by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development
? With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

 

 

 

A POPULAR WAY TO KILL FACULTY MOTIVATION--AND AN ALTERNATIVE

Increasing motivation among faculty to teach well these days is both a precarious undertaking and a neces-
sary one. I say “precarious” because dangerous schemes masquerade as good ones and “necessary” because
higher education’s sands are shifting under our feet. The ultimate results of that shift are uncertain, but the
present effects are clear, and reports drone like repetitious chants across academia: the increasing proportion of
the tenured, the decreasing rate of institutional mobility, and the resulting “entrenchment” of whole faculties,
what James Bess, Professor of Higher Education at New York University, terms “economic and organizational
incarceration.” Such a gloomy national forecast may miss campuses where the sun shines brightly, but if the
entrenchment storm clouds hit this University in force, faculty motivation may be threatened, if not entirely
dampened.

The probable results of entrenchment are unappetizing. R. E. Walton, who studies “high commitment
work systems,” anticipates a faculty shift from high motivation stemming from a strong sense of self-direction
and accomplishment to neutrality and even apathy. In some cases, faculty will become privately and publicly
hostile toward educational institutions which offer few challenges and a too-certain future. This is not an out-
come any of us wants for ourselves or for the University, and the horror stories seem too dramatic to ever apply
here. But we have no motivation checks for either tenure or promotion, just the external marks of performance,
and we certainly do not talk either openly or readily about these matters. Do we in fact possess the “dynamic
vitality” our public image makers describe? Underneath the makeup may lurk a different if more recognizable
face. All of which prompts me to ask, “What might be done, with the threat of entrenchment at our doorsteps,
to increase faculty satisfaction, motivation, and ‘productivity’?”

One popular answer comes in an enchanting array of hues and fragrances. Well-intentioned faculty and
administrators ritualistically bless it, although over the long run, it is a good way to kill faculty motivation alto-
gether.

_ Tam thinking of a set of answers really, a host of miracle drugs with the same label, all suggesting “extrin-
sic’ rewards and punishments of some kind as motivators: “merit” salary increases, awards based upon “realis-
tic” teaching evaluations, sabbatical leaves tied to “competitive bids,” speedy promotions for the “truly” meritori-
ous, and so forth. Extrinsic rewards are pay-offs after the fact, after the teaching or writing or researching is
complete. They are residuals.

In their most deadly form, extrinsic reward systems render the teaching or research process a mere instru-
mental means to something else, something more important: more money, more prestige, more released time
from teaching, or a seat at the divisional meeting closer to the Chair.

Although in my own mind there has always been something funny about those who unreflectively chase
rewards like these, I am not suggesting that we do away with salary increases, promotional evaluations, and
public achievement--that would be silly, although diabolically enticing. My point is simpler and, probably, even
more difficult to make: In most cases, extrinsic backslapping, however good it may be for other purposes,
doesn’t motivate for the long campaign. Educational specialists like Bess, McKeachie, Czikszentmihalyi, Deci,
Ryan and others all seem to agree. In fact, extrinsic rewards steadily erode enjoyment of the teaching task at
hand. They threaten work which is its own reward, which is intrinsically satisfying.

Such extrinsic “motivators” fail for three reasons: (1) They shift the locus of control from the faculty
member to the office of an external benefactor. As Deci and Ryan conclude, if self-control increases, intrinsic
motivation does as well, but if personal autonomy decreases so does the motivation for one’s work. They go on
to add,

When teachers have opportunities to try new things, to teach in idiosyncratic ways, to choose
optimal challenges, they seem to be more intrinsically motivated. When the organizational cli-
mate is oriented toward supporting autonomy and providing challenges, motivating teachers is
unlikely to be a problem.

 

—S oF ee

 

 

© Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712