BACKGROUND: A growing concern among university surgeons is a perceived threat to the traditional academician role. Factors that have led to this concern include (1) changes in reimbursement and patient referral patterns, both of which have resulted in reduced income; (2) mounting external pressure from the departmental chairperson/dean to generate professional fees; (3) pervasive ambiguity in the criteria for promotion and tenure; (4) intensified competition for research dollars in recent years; and (5) a perception that fellow academicians view surgeons as operating room technicians incapable of laboratory research. These cogent issues have the means to place academic goals in jeopardy. Potentially they lead to dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and eventual departure from academia. A healthy solution to the problem includes departmental recognition and reward for whichever primary role/s the academic surgeon embraces--clinical, educational, research, or administrative. Clear chairperson-faculty communication on the issues of expectation and reward is a key ingredient in the solution. METHODS: A mail survey was conducted with chairpersons of surgical departments and academic surgeons addressing the issues of retention, promotion, and benefits. RESULTS: Results revealed significant differences in perceptions, suggesting the need for improved communication between faculty and chairpersons and a team approach to help maintain academic viability in the future. CONCLUSIONS: When the quadruple threat can be mutually described as a departmental rather than individual quality, the joys and rewards of academic surgery can be considerable for faculty and chairpersons alike.
BACKGROUND: A growing concern among university surgeons is a perceived threat to the traditional academician role. Factors that have led to this concern include (1) changes in reimbursement and patient referral patterns, both of which have resulted in reduced income; (2) mounting external pressure from the departmental chairperson/dean to generate professional fees; (3) pervasive ambiguity in the criteria for promotion and tenure; (4) intensified competition for research dollars in recent years; and (5) a perception that fellow academicians view surgeons as operating room technicians incapable of laboratory research. These cogent issues have the means to place academic goals in jeopardy. Potentially they lead to dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and eventual departure from academia. A healthy solution to the problem includes departmental recognition and reward for whichever primary role/s the academic surgeon embraces--clinical, educational, research, or administrative. Clear chairperson-faculty communication on the issues of expectation and reward is a key ingredient in the solution. METHODS: A mail survey was conducted with chairpersons of surgical departments and academic surgeons addressing the issues of retention, promotion, and benefits. RESULTS: Results revealed significant differences in perceptions, suggesting the need for improved communication between faculty and chairpersons and a team approach to help maintain academic viability in the future. CONCLUSIONS: When the quadruple threat can be mutually described as a departmental rather than individual quality, the joys and rewards of academic surgery can be considerable for faculty and chairpersons alike.