It was December of 1998 and exams were over at Private University (PU). Pat Cowling stared at the big pile of research papers on the far desk corner. With the first semester finally over, Pat could take time to formulate plans for the rest of the year and the summer to follow. The pile on the corner of the desk included Pat's dissertation, "Collaboration Technologies: An Experimental Investigation of Alienation Within a Remote Work Setting," which Pat's committee had approved in November. Also in the pile was a rough draft of a paper from that work and some preliminary ideas for follow-on projects.

Pat had arrived at Private U (PU) in August, directly from the Doctoral Program at Big State U (BSU). Like other new faculty at PU, Pat had been assigned to teach two three-credit courses in the first semester. Both were undergraduate courses, one a required introduction to information systems course and the other in systems analysis. In the spring Pat would again be teaching the required course as well as the projects course that followed systems analysis. Pat had originally been promised an experimental elective in collaboration technologies, but staffing shortages forced the department chair to change the assignment.

The last year, and particularly the past four months, had been difficult. Pat's first child had been born in February, the family had relocated in midsummer and then there was the dissertation defense, mastering a new computer environment, joining the church, the two new course preparations - Pat's first real experience teaching - , and a string of orientations, welcoming parties, church/community activities, and the like. Fortunately, teaching had gone fairly well, though Pat was often just a day or two ahead of the students. Still most of the students seemed to like the class and many came to see Pat during office hours or at other times. This was an expensive private school so Pat made a point of being friendly and supportive with students. Often the conversations extended to problems outside the classroom. Pat's teaching assistant's sister had unexpectedly died in an accident during the semester, and Pat had spent considerable time consoling her and attended her funeral. Pat was also getting more involved in the school and university. Just yesterday the department chair had offered Pat the opportunity to coordinate the annual advisory board meeting. Pat had already been appointed by the dean to the school's undergraduate curriculum committee. The latter met for an hour every two weeks. Here Pat discovered that the conversation was often dominated by senior members of the faculty who sometimes seemed more intent on guarding institutional turf than building an innovative program. Without being requested to do so, Pat had prepared a proposal for an expanded undergraduate computer literacy course with a strong emphasis on using the tools of the internet in support of just-in-time learning. It had received a polite, if unenthusiastic, audience.

Pat also had been called upon several times by the University admissions office for assistance in recruiting talented minority students and faculty. This had been rewarding, particularly as it had broadened Pat's contacts outside of the college.

Research progress had been slow in the fall. Pat was, however, pleased to have completed a draft of the dissertation paper as part of preparation for the defense, but had yet to hear anything back from dissertation advisor, Ima Portent. Nearly two months had passed since Pat had sent Ima the draft, thus far with no response. Ima had been of little help on the dissertation itself, and Pat was seriously considering whether to drop Ima as co-author.

Pat's new contract fortunately included three years of summer money. Some of Pat's classmates from BSU had gone to schools with a greater emphasis on teaching. Many were teaching 9 credit hours a semester without summer research support. They too were accountable for publishing, but the quality standards were apparently somewhat different. Their extra summer support came from teaching opportunities. At PU there were also summer teaching responsibilities available and the department chair was pressuring Pat to teach the intro course again in June.

Thus far, despite considerable hall talk among the junior faculty, Pat had found out relatively little about promotion and tenure standards at PU. Pat's first contract was for a single year as an instructor. In the fall of 1999 Pat would be given a three year contract. Some sort of reappointment process would occur in the spring of 2002, but the nature of this process had recently changed and, according to unknown sources, was likely to change again. The one thing everyone seemed to agree on was that standards at PU were constantly improving and that both reappointment and tenure were high fences to climb and growing taller. Good teaching, though necessary for continued employment, was not enough. Publications in top tier journals such as Information Systems Research and Management Information Systems Quarterly, were critical to success at this institution. So too, particularly for the tenure decision, was the support of external experts in one's area of research. The skuttlebutt on the floor was that reappointment at PU required at least two high quality publications and one or two other works in the pipeline at good journals. Actual reappointment decisions in the various departments varied considerably, both from that standard and from one another. Pat was fortunate to have obtained one good publication, albeit, coauthored with three co-authors, during the doctoral program. And there was the dissertation draft paper sitting on Ima's desk. Now Pat wondered, "what to do next?"

Among Pat's colleagues within the information systems department were the following individuals:

Martin Posey: Posey, 45, had been at PU for his entire career. He was an associate professor teaching five courses a year. He was good in the classroom, well connected in the university and was said to have purple and umber (PU's school colors) running in his veins. Pat had found Posey to be a friendly and frequent luncheon companion. Despite his rank, Posey seemed to have connections and was an interesting, if not always consistent, font of knowledge concerning institutional politics. His well meaning advice to Pat had been to start planning for your next job because tenure or even reappointment at PU was unlikely. "Do the bare minimum in the classroom and stick to the standard script." Posey had advised, "Most importantly, start building your resume. It's the external market you must focus on."

Francis Pierce: Pierce, 42, held an endowed chair and had been at PU for five years. She was editor of an important journal and active in research. Her CV was 20 pages long and included articles in all of the prestigious outlets of information systems and many in other disciplines of the business school and the social sciences. Most of Pierce' works were single authored or older works in which she had been the junior contributor. Her recent research interests seemed to focus on the impacts of information technology on organizational design and institutional memory. In the past two months, Pat had received three articles to review from associate editors at Pierce's journal. One was almost completed, but only after a considerable time investment. Pat, pondered if it made sense to ask Pierce to stem the flow a bit.

Aaron Stalwart: Stalwart, full professor, was in his late 50's and had been at PU for many years. Up until five years earlier he had served as department chair for more than a decade. Like Pierce, his resume was long, but the quality of the outlets was varied and, on average, not particularly presigious. Stalwart had also published several not modestly successful text books. Pat had heard that Stalwart expected new faculty to work as co-authors and that he found ways to get back at those who were unwilling. The good news, however, was that Stalwart had lots of ideas for studies - many of them opportunistic. Last week Stalwart had asked Pat to join him in a study of potential response bias in computer testing. Stalwart felt that the recent decision to offer the GMAT test in computer form made this a timely issue. Moreover, his contacts at the Graduate Management Admissions Commission, creator of the GMAT, might facilitate access to a study database. Stalwart had also suggested that he might be willing to bring Aaron in as co-author for one of his texts that was in need of a revision.

Ransom Poindexter: Poindexter, 39, had come to PU after six years at a more prestigious school. Rumor had it that he had been denied tenure there, but had already been offered an appointment as an associate without tenure at PU. The following year he had been granted tenure and, in 1994, based primarily on four years of service as associate dean and his many contacts in the local business community, was promoted to full professor. Poindexter was a magnificent teacher who left his executive MBA classes spell bound. He had written several best selling non-fiction books on the future of information technology as well as many case studies that were used throughout the world. Poindexter also had a rather long list of practitioner-oriented articles, several of which were, nevertheless, published in scholarly journals. Some of his critics would sniff that standards in those journals had fortunately subsequently risen. Among his more well known works were semi-annual surveys of information technology management practices employed in industry. These were highly regarded by the practitioner community. Poindexter also had an active consultancy which frequently drew him away from the school. Still, he had found time to create an information systems research center that attracted significant funding from firms in the nearby major city. He was a potential source of both funding and real-world research opportunities. Recently, he has enlisted Pat in an offsite executive education program that had generated some much needed cash while providing some real world fuel to fire Pat's classes back at PU. Yesterday, he had offered Pat a five day engagement to assist him in a managerial assessment of a local firm's information technology infrastructure.

Jana Murphy: Jana, 30, was a very bright and talented graduate of another big state university. She was in the office next door and usually kept her door closed. When Pat arrived each morning, Jana was always at her desk and was still there when Pat left at 5pm. Pat, who usually spent most of Saturday and Sunday morning focused on family, church, and community, had on occasion come in on the weekend to find Jana hard at work. Jana did allow herself out of her office for lunch on Fridays, however, and Pat usually joined her. Jana, despite only being out for a year and a half, had two publications in the pipeline, another published, and, just a few weeks before, a fourth accepted in a prestigious journal. All of these works were co-authored, most with faculty from the school she had graduated from. Her research interests were fairly narrow but she had, in Pat's thinking, a wealth of knowledge concerning research methodologies, statistics, and theories of organizational design and change. Jana also taught the introductory undergraduate course and, if the rumors of students could be believed, was not doing well in the classroom. Pat felt there might be complementary benefits from developing a research project with Jana, but was unsure how to proceed.

Rodney Shipman: Shipman, 35, was Pat's only close friend within the department. He was extremely bright and knowledgeable about computers and communications technology. Prior to receiving his doctorate, Shipman worked in a technical position in a consulting firm. His knowledge of the Internet was legendary within both the school and the academy. He was a prolific author of web pages in support of those faculty throughout the world who taught the telecommunications course. The discussion list he actively moderated included some 400 faculty, doctoral students, and executive trainers. As someone had recently said, Shipman was, "at the center of the telecommunications teaching universe." Recently, Shipman had suggested that Pat and he co-author a production for the Management Information System Quarterly's new electronic outlet, MISQ Discovery. The work would be based on the experimental methodology employed in Pat's dissertation, which involved a fairly sophisticated use of a new tool for distributed collaboration. Rodney had told Pat, "Why just describe your methodology to people, when you can let them go out and experience it first hand." Rodney's own research record was modest, though his telecommunications text was selling very well. His reappointment decision, scheduled for the spring, was in some doubt. He had, however, promised to introduce Pat to contacts from throughout the world at the upcoming ICIS meetings and had arranged a number of employment interviews already arranged with schools hungry for his technical talents.

Pat's department also included six faculty members in operations management, statistics, and operations research. The current department chair was not an information systems professional. He rarely came into Pat's office and, when he did, it usually resulted in a relatively stiff conversation. Included in his fatherly advice were suggestions to treat students with care, upgrade pedagogy, turn out more research, not antagonize senior colleagues, work longer, and to build alliances with, depending on the day, professionals in the local business community or faculty in other departments or other universities. From limited observations it appeared that the department chair followed little of his own advice. The Department chair's advice regarding the upcoming ICIS conference had, however, made sense. He had told Pat, "Get to know important people at the conference - those who can help you in your career." "But how," Pat wondered," did one do that?" Perhaps Pat's small role as a paper discussant, engineered by Francis Pierce, could help. Pat would leave for the conference two days later and had yet to look at the paper.

Pat did, however, enjoy discussions with members of other departments and found some shared interest with people in the Organization Behavior and Business Strategy department. In fact the OBBSP department chair, Mary Southland, stopped in on occasion and offered lots of helpful advice. Pat began to view Mary as an ally, mentor, and friend, particularly when Mary had confided that she was being considered for several dean slots. They would have lunch in an hour. Perhaps at that time, Pat could get some solid advice about which way to turn. One issue that would probably not come up was last night's conversation in which Pat's spouse once again expressed a strong interest in the couple's having a second child.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the challenges facing Pat?
2. What are the opportunities?
3. What advice should Mary Southland offer Pat relative to the issues likely to be brought up over lunch?
4. What should Pat's priorities be for the next week, the next eight months, the next two years, and for the three year reappointment?

[When we used this case in the KPMG doctoral consortium the students were given the case the night before and then the discussion questions prior to a 20 minute breakout session. About five minutes before the end of the breakout we gave them one additional question, that served as the basis for the plenary discussion. That last question was, "What did you, as an individual, learn from this case. One hint, the case is pretty silent on the most important element - "what does Pat want?" - thus the analysis should very much be in the eye of the student.]