2019 Academic Marketing Climate Survey: motivation, results, and recommendations

Abstract

We report the results of a survey of the business school academic marketing community conducted in 2019. The goal of the survey was to understand how the organizational climate varied as a function of a variety of demographic descriptors within this field. We provide results for the four sections of the survey—general experience, explicit discrimination, implicit bias, and social and sexual harassment/assault—in an interactive data visualization tool (found here: http://jeffgalak.com/climatesurvey/). In addition, we highlight several key results, notably that females and underrepresented minority (URM) respondents overwhelmingly face a less favorable organizational climate within academic marketing as compared to their male and Asian or White counterparts. We conclude with recommendations that derive directly from the results of the climate survey.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Data Availability

All materials are freely available on the first author’s website (http://www.jeffgalak.com/climatesurvey). As reported in the manuscript, due to the sensitive nature of the data, they will not be made available. That said, the interactive visualization that is referenced in this manuscript allows readers to parse the data from the climate survey while maintaining anonymity of respondents.

Code availability

No code was used to compile results. Rather, GUI-based menus within SPSS were employed.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Though overall representation for women in these two fields is high, representation at more senior levels is still quite low: only 18% of Full Professors in psychology are female only 21% of Full Professors in anthropology are female.

References

  1. AACSB. (2020). Staff Compensation & Demographics Survey 2019–2020. Retrieved on January 2021.

  2. Allgood, S., Badgett, L., Bayer, A., Bertrand, M., Black, S. E., Bloom, N., & Cook, L. D. (2019). AEA Professional Climate Survey: Final Report. In: Nashville: American Economic Association Committee on Equity, Diversity and Professional Conduct.

  3. Association, A. P. (2017). The changing gender composition of psychology: Update and expansion of the 1995 Task Force Report.

  4. Barak, M. E. M. (2016). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace: Sage Publications.

  5. Bastian, H. (2006). ‘They would say that, wouldn’t they?’A reader’s guide to author and sponsor biases in clinical research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(12), 611–614

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brownstein, M. (2019). Implicit bias. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition).

  7. Burton, M., Wastson, P. J., Quinn, N., & Webster, C. (1994). Academic employment of women in anthropology. Anthropology News, 35(7), 11–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Committee on Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. National Academies Press.

  9. DuMonthier, A., Childers, C., & Milli, J. (2017). The status of Black women in the United States. In Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

  10. Ellemers, N. (2014). Women at work: How organizational features impact career development. Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences, 1(1), 46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Finkelstein, M. J., Conley, V. M., & Schuster, J. H. (2016). Taking the measure of faculty diversity. TIAA Institute.

  12. Gasser, C. E., & Shaffer, K. S. (2014). Career development of women in academia: Traversing the leaky pipeline.

  13. GENMAC. (2021). Gender, Markets, Consumers. Retrieved from https://genmac.co/

  14. Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94(4), 945–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gumbus, A., & Lyons, B. (2011). Workplace harassment: The social costs of bullying. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8(5), 72–90.

  16. Hewlett, S. A., Jackson, M., Cose, E., & Emerson, C. (2012). Vaulting the color bar: How sponsorship levers multicultural professionals into leadership. Center for Talent Innovation.

  17. Kickul, J., & Liao-Troth, M. A. (2003). The meaning behind the message: how employees motives and perceptions of climate influence their interpretation of the psychological contract. American Journal of Business, 18, 23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krishen, A. S., Lee, M. T., & Raschke, R. L. (2020). The story only few can tell: Exploring the disproportionately gendered professoriate in business schools. Journal of Marketing Education, 42(1), 7–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological science in the public interest, 6(2), 31–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Michigan, U. o. (2016). Results of the 2016 University of Michigan Faculty Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Retrieved from

  21. Offermann, L. R., & Malamut, A. B. (2002). When leaders harass: The impact of target perceptions of organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Payne, B. K., Vuletich, H. A., & Lundberg, K. B. (2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 233–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pololi, L. H., & Jones, S. J. (2010). Women faculty: an analysis of their experiences in academic medicine and their coping strategies. Gender medicine, 7(5), 438–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. QuickFacts. (2010). US Census Bureau. Internet Website: http://quickfacts.census.gov.

  25. Rudman, L. A. (2004). Social justice in our minds, homes, and society: The nature, causes, and consequences of implicit bias. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 129–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sabharwal, M., & Corley, E. A. (2009). Faculty job satisfaction across gender and discipline. The Social Science Journal, 46(3), 539–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of management Journal, 47(3), 332–349

    Google Scholar 

  29. Singh, J. P., Grann, M., & Fazel, S. (2013). Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos one, 8(9), e72484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. US Department of Education (2018). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and age of student: 2013, 2015, and 2017 (Table 303.45). 

  31. US News and World Report. (2019). 2019 Best Business Schools.

  32. Vesterlund, L., Babcock, L., Recalde, M., & Weingard, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for non-promotable tasks. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wagar, T. H. (1997). Is labor-management climate important? Some Canadian evidence. Journal of Labor Research, 18(1), 163–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Williams, D. A., Berger, J. B., & McClendon, S. A. (2005). Toward a model of inclusive excellence and change in postsecondary institutions. Association of American Colleges and Universities

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Linda Babcock, Rosalind Chow, and Donna Hoffman, for their feedback on the climate survey instrument. The authors would like to further thank Susan Fournier, Stefanie Johnson, and Punam Keller for their participation in a panel discussion at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research regarding preliminary results of this climate survey.

Funding

The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania underwrote some travel expenses for a workshop at the 2019 ACR Annual Conference which featured these data. They also provided funds to hire the programmer who put together the interactive visualization provided herein.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and questionnaire design. Data collection and analysis were performed by Jeff Galak. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jeff Galak and both authors commented on revisions and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff Galak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 10
figure10

Screenshot of visualization (found at http://jeffgalak.com/climatesurvey/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galak, J., Kahn, B.E. 2019 Academic Marketing Climate Survey: motivation, results, and recommendations. Mark Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09569-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Climate survey
  • Discrimination
  • Equity
  • Inclusion