Focusing on the high-quality development of university physics faculty, this study analyzes questionnaires with multi-dimensional cross-tabulations and proposes an integrated framework linking profile → pain points → teaching–research relationship → satisfaction → policy. The sample is dominated by PhD holders, mid-/senior ranks, and ages less than 45. Findings show institutional/policy constraints are the primary bottleneck (strict definition 37.5%; broad definition including personal–institutional overlap 63.2%). Alignment and mutual reinforcement between courses and research markedly raise satisfaction (satisfied 44.4%, dissatisfied 3.7%), whereas “different & independent/teaching crowds out research” configurations depress it. In terms of effort allocation and role type, “balanced investment” performs better (satisfied 30.2%, dissatisfied 14.0%), as does the “teaching–research combined” track (31.6%, 17.7%). We recommend multi-track roles with dynamic evaluation, semester–vacation rhythm management with protected research time, organized course–project embedding with cross-institutional resource sharing, and targeted mentorship with buffered onboarding. The results provide actionable evidence for governance reforms and individual career planning in physics faculties.