Why Universities Shouldn't Mimic Corporate Work Culture

Forbes

03-07-2025

Universities are currently under significant pressure on a number of fronts. Facing budget cuts, the looming elimination of critical funding sources, and accusations of ideological rigidity, public confidence in universities and the services they provide is hitting new lows. One recent broadside comes from a concerted push in some states to eliminate tenure, a form of employment protection that protects faculty from being fired for the subject and content of their academic work. Critics of the tenure system argue that faculty are largely abusing its protections and suggest instead replacing it with a system of annual reviews that ensure faculty are welcoming a diverse range of viewpoints. These critics deride the university system as being obsolete and ill-matched to the needs of our modern society. Instead, they encourage universities to function more like other work environments, with fewer job protections, more layers of bureaucratic review, and heavier oversight.
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS - JUNE 29: People walk through the gate on Harvard Yard at the Harvard ... More University campus on June 29, 2023 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by)
SOURCES OF JOB INSECURITY
Yet a review of the norms common in many other industries suggests that these models are actually quite ineffective in heightening job satisfaction or performance. Consider the question of tenure. Contrary to popular belief, the tenure system does not protect faculty from being fired, nor does it insulate underperforming workers from consequences. But it does ensure that faculty can teach and research controversial topics—climate change, political polarization, economic inequality—without fear that they will be fired either for pursuing questions in these areas, or for the answers they uncover. In contrast, many workers today are employed at-will. But their will is not central—the employer's is. Consequently, most workers labor in jobs with little to no security where they can be fired with or without cause. The knowledge that employees can do their best work, generate returns for their company, yet still face termination at any point predictably produces heightened stress and emotional strain for many workers.
Noncompete clauses, increasingly common in a variety of industries (though not yet in academia), also create an additional source of job insecurity. Initially applied to high status workers in tech and related fields, noncompete clauses bar these workers from going to a competitor and taking valuable intellectual property with them. But as noncompete clauses are becoming more widespread, they make less sense for the workers to whom they apply. Estimates suggest that up to 20% of workers are subject to these stipulations, and that these now include workers in industries like sales, food and beverage, or personal service. For workers in these fields, noncompetes do not protect intellectual property. They just trap these workers into jobs with few prospects for mobility, economic improvement, or options.
Instead of the security of the tenure system, critics system suggest that regular performance reviews would be preferable. But many universities already implement annual reviews of both tenure-track and tenured faculty. Relying solely on performance reviews can create additional problems. Manager reviews often reflect bias, particularly against underrepresented groups. In a classic study, management professors Emilio Castilla and Stephen Benard found these biases were especially pronounced in companies that prided themselves on being meritocracies. Known as the 'meritocracy paradox,' these researchers found that when managers assumed their workplaces were completely fair and equitable, they were less likely to self-reflexively consider their own biases. Universities already face racial and gender gaps in their faculty demographics—replacing tenure with a more traditional review system may seem innocuous, but instituting practices like these risks exacerbating rather than reducing these disparities.
Dartre Green (left) has a performance review meeting with Sprouts Cooking Club founder and director ... More Karen Rogers and Flora restaurant executive chef Rico Rivera in Oakland, Calif. on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2014. Green is working as a chef's apprentice for six months in the Sprouts Cooking Club's chef-in-training program. (Photo By Paul Chinn/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)
CHANGING NORMS IN THE UNIVERSITY
The attributes that make jobs attractive to workers—having autonomy, input into procedures and systems that affect them, predictable scheduling, job security, opportunities for advancement, and being treated with dignity and respect—are all features that, for many years, had been a key component of faculty work. But ironically, a closer look at the university system reveals that for decades it has been moving away from these features. As of 2021, tenured faculty comprise only 24% of workers, with 68% of faculty working in contingent positions. These adjunct positions are more like jobs in many other sectors. They put faculty on annual contracts where they may not have any promise of long-term employment, they have little control over their schedules from year to year, and are very much at-will employees who can be terminated no matter how strong their performance. Importantly, his shift has not resulted in better outcomes or greater satisfaction among adjunct workers. Instead, many report heightened stress, economic instability, and greater challenges to job performance. We are already seeing university work coming to resemble the norms in other settings, and the results are not encouraging.
Autonomy, worker voice, job security—all these features that used to characterize faculty work are key ingredients to creating maximal outcomes for workers. By maintaining a commitment to these aspects of work, universities could set an example of the kinds of jobs that are rewarding and productive for workers. Following the lead of other industries in making jobs less secure, certain, and stable does the opposite.