RICE UNIVERSITY

---

Report of the Ad Hoc Faculty Advisory Committee on Retirement
August, 1998

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.