RICE UNIVERSITY
Report
of the Ad Hoc Faculty Advisory Committee on Retirement
August, 1998
II. Faculty Leadership Interviews
Summary
Introduction
Objectives
- Ascertain perceptions on retirement issues from a sample
of faculty leaders.
- Gather input on approach and communication methods.
- Understand the implicit contract between Rice and its faculty
(mutual expectations).
- Understand Rice's long-term goals.
- Identify other issues facing Rice that might affect the retirement
study.
Interviewees
- One and one-half hour interviews were conducted with the
following 12 faculty members:
- Judith Brown, Dean of Humanities, and Ally & Gladys Cline
Professor of History
- Sidney Burrus, Maxfield & Oshman Professor of Electrical
& Computer Engineering
- Harold Hyman, W. P. Hobby Professor Emeritus of History (retired)
- Walter Isle, Professor of English & Speaker of the Faculty
Counsel
- Sydney Lamb, A. Cullen Arnold Professor of Linguistics
- Lars Lerup, Dean of Architecture and Smith Professor
- Kathleen Matthews, Stewart Professor of Biochemistry and
Cell Biology
- David Minter, L. S. Moody Professor of English
- Anne Schnoebelen, J & I. K. Mullen Professor of Music
- Moshe Vardi, Noah Harding Professor of Computer Science and
Department Chair
- Gilbert Whitaker, Dean of the Jones Graduate School of Management
- George Zodrow, Professor of Economics and Department Chair
Organization and Methodology
- Committee members extended invitations personally.
- Each interviewee received a pre-interview package that provided
background on the faculty renewal effort and this study, and
the questions to be covered (see Appendix
D). The following categories were used to guide interview
discussions:
- Retirement issues and incentives
- Long-term issues affecting Rice University
- The implicit contract between Rice and its faculty.
- The interviews focused on retirement practices and the interviewer
put these practices into a broader context by asking about the
long-term issues facing the University and the implicit contract
between the University and the faculty.
- Interviews were conducted by a consultant from Towers Perrin,
a leading human resource firm.
- Notes were taken for subsequent analysis and reporting.
- All questions were open-ended to ensure objectively and candor.
- Interview notes were analyzed by Towers Perrin to determine
prevailing themes and identify supporting verbatim comments.
- The Committee reviewed and edited the summary report that
follows but did not have access to confidential interview notes
from individual sessions.
Retirement Issues and Incentives
What are your views on the faculty retirement initiative?
What is your sense of how other faculty view the retirement initiative?
- Faculty recognize the value of the University's retirement
initiative. They view the transition to retirement as being far
from optimal currently and make the following recommendations:
- The process should be an integral part of an overall career
planning process.
- At retirement, faculty want a smooth transition and a range
of options for creating a role aligned with their interests and
strengths.
- Financial and retirement planning advice and counsel are
lacking, yet it is considered as important as planning for any
other career phase.
- Some faculty endorse offering incentives to everyone eligible
for retirement, others prefer a more selective approach.
- The lack of retiree medical insurance is perceived as a major
obstacle to retirement and one that is confusing.
- Almost all see a need to change the current process of ad
hoc retirement incentives which are viewed as:
- demeaning, requiring negotiation and bargaining
- secretive, putting faculty at a disadvantage
- time-consuming
- lacking in equity.
- Faculty see potential downsides for the University in implementing
broad-based financial incentives, including:
- faculty passing on the initial package and waiting for a
better offer
- establishing a precedent for incentives that will be difficult
to change
- some outstanding performers deciding to retire earlier
- some faculty who would have retired anyway receiving an incentive.
-
- Representative Comments
- "Some departments involve retired faculty and others
forget them."
- "Some retirees end up cut off from the Rice community
and that's not what they want." "We need to make retired
faculty an asset and real members of the faculty."
- "There needs to be a place for you at Rice with responsibilities
if you want them."
- "We need to better prepare people to deal with the financial
and emotional consequences of retirement."
- "We have to work harder at generating interest in retirement,
providing information and education, and creating broader forums
for dialogue."
- "Many people are frightened of retirement because they
are poorly informed."
- "Financial incentives need to be designed carefully
so that we motivate less productive faculty to retire."
- "The lower the salary the higher the incentive needs
to be."
- "The process needs to be outcome-driven."
- "Retiree medical insurance is the biggest factor. It's
a frightening issue to many."
- "The ad hoc process is too closed and this leads to
rumors and misconceptions."
- "The ad hoc process is not conducive to voluntary participation."
- "I don't think a totally fair system exists."
- "I've talked with one faculty member who recently negotiated
his retirement and he was very satisfied."
- "The Deans need to have a win/win situation where there
is a strong motivation for them to take a lead role in transitioning
faculty to retirement."
- "Once retirement guidelines are in place, the Chairs
and the Deans need to be trained in how to implement them."
Long-Term Issues Affecting the University
-
- What are the most critical long-range strategic issues
facing the University?
- Faculty see allocation of resources as the most fundamental
long-term issue:
- Most see maintaining Rice's position as a high-quality and
distinctive undergraduate college as a top priority.
- Many cite the need to enhance Rice's position in graduate
education and research.
- Some are concerned that the increasing emphasis on graduate
education will detract from undergraduate quality.
- Those who emphasize enhancing graduate education and research
have diverse ideas about how to fund this - all agree it would
be unwise to compromise undergraduate education for graduate
education.
- Virtually all faculty members see faculty quality as largely
determining the stature of the University.
- Most faculty conclude faculty quality needs to improve although
there are differences on the extent of the need and the method
for accomplishing this.
- Some faculty emphasize the need to improve the administrative
functions of the University.
The Implicit Contract Between the University
and the Faculty
What is the implicit contract between Rice and its faculty
(what does it offer in return)? How well does the current implicit
contract support the long-term strategy? How is the deal changing?
- University expectations of faculty are increasing to reflect
Rice's aspirations to become a first-tier university
- high quality and visible research throughout one's career
- excellent, attentive and caring teaching
- meaningful contributions as a good citizen of the University.
- In response to this, faculty want
- more time to conduct a significant research agenda
- greater financial support for a larger number of higher quality
graduate students
- fewer University service commitments.
- Interviewees see compensation and benefits as reasonably
competitive:
- Some say compensation is generally competitive for outstanding
faculty, but not so for others.
- Some see compensation as competitive in some schools and/or
departments and not in others.
- Most think there is an appropriate connection between compensation
and performance, limiting rewards for sub-par performers.
- Views vary on the competitiveness of benefits although all
see benefits administration as weak.
- It is important to maintain the culture while demanding a
level of contribution and participation that will allow the University
to move forward.
- Performance evaluation and support for career development
are viewed as inadequate and many see the need to make significant
improvements here-rather than increase the number of retirements.
To Report Home Page
To Table of Contents
To Conclusions
and Recommendations
To Faculty
Leadership Interviews Summary
To Faculty
Focus Groups Summary
To Faculty Retirement Survey Summary (Part 1)
To Faculty Retirement Survey Summary (Part 2)
To Appendices

Rice Home Page
This page is maintained by the Office
of the Provost at Rice University.