Merit Pay for Faculty at Fairfield University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Merit Pay for Faculty at Fairfield University PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 4b4edc-NWMzO



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Merit Pay for Faculty at Fairfield University

Description:

Problems with merit pay in theory. ... Western Michigan dropped the faculty-run portion of its merit system when faculty threatened a strike. – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:55
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: ValuedGate1099
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Merit Pay for Faculty at Fairfield University


1
Merit Pay for Faculty at Fairfield University
  • Presentation for the
  • Academic Affairs Subcommittee
  • Board of Trustees
  • March 22, 2001

2
Faculty Presenters
  • Paul Caster, Accounting Department, member of the
    Committee on Conference
  • Nancy Dallavalle, Religious Studies Department,
    Chair of the Committee on Conference
  • Phil Lane, Economics Department, member of the
    Committee on Conference
  • George Lang, Mathematics Department, member of
    the Committee on Conference
  • Irene Mulvey, Mathematics Department, Chair of
    the Faculty Salary Committee
  • Kathy Nantz, Economics Department and General
    Faculty Secretary
  • Cheryl Tromley, Management Department, expert on
    organizational psychology

3
Presentation Overview
  • Introduction and purpose
  • Merit pay from an organizational perspective
  • Merit pay in practice in higher education
  • Our current merit award systems
  • Merit pay and our compensation system
  • Budgetary implications of merit pay
  • Merit pay for Fairfield An institutional
    perspective

4
Introduction and purpose
  • Fairfield faculty involvement in discussions of
    merit pay.
  • Various memos from AVP Grossman
  • Faculty educating itself on role of merit pay
  • Vote of General Faculty of 2/23
  • The purpose of this presentation is to explain
    the Faculty position on merit pay.

5
Merit pay from an organizational perspective
  • Change Why or why not?
  • Implementation of change
  • Compensation structure helps to define the
    culture of an organization
  • Attention turns to tasks that are rewarded.
  • Competition replaces collaboration.
  • Can increase dissatisfaction, feelings of
    inequity, and lack of trust.
  • Surveys show that 70 of employees in any pool
    believe they are above average.
  • POINT Effective change requires a clear causal
    connection to strategic objectives.

6
Merit pay in practice in higher education
  • A sampling of studies and responses from other
    institutions.
  • Problems with merit pay in theory.
  • POINT The faculty has an educated position
    against merit pay that is informed by current
    research.

7
Report California State University
  • Abacus Associates Report on faculty merit
    increase program at the California State system
  • The Faculty Merit Incentive system (FMI)
    discriminates against women.
  • In direct contradiction to the mission of the Cal
    State system, FMI awards are based more on
    scholarship and they are not related to quality
    teaching.
  • The overwhelming majority of faculty oppose the
    FMI program.

8
Survey The University of San Diego
  • The following are responses to an independent
    merit survey (n104)
  • The criteria for merit pay increases are clear to
    me I know what constitutes meritorious work.
    Slightly disagree
  • Cost of living increases should be separate from
    merit increases. Strongly agree
  • I think USD should abandon the current merit
    process in favor of a more equitable system.
    Agree

9
Other survey results
  • From the final report of the CSU Academic Senate
    merit pay task force
  • Nearly all CSU faculty intensely disliked the
    PSSIs (Performance Salary Step Increases).
  • Most faculty are deeply suspicious of any form of
    merit pay other than that provided presently
    through retention, tenure, and promotion.
  • No one contacted, including presidents and a
    former Trustee, could clearly state the rationale
    for the PSSI.

10
Literature analysis
  • From the final report of the CSU Academic Senate
    merit pay task force
  • Most articles pointed out that merit pay, for
    various reasons, does not motivate
    peopleespeciallyin education where motivations
    for being in the profession were not primarily
    monetary.

11
Other institutions
  • From the final report of the CSU Academic Senate
    merit pay task force
  • Penn State dropped its merit system.
  • Western Michigan dropped the faculty-run portion
    of its merit system when faculty threatened a
    strike.
  • After consideration, CUNY chose not to adopt a
    merit system.

12
Comment Connecticut College Professor of
Psychology
  • I think I can speak for my colleagues here in
    saying that if you can avoid it merit pay,
    dont do it. It has achieved nothing but
    animosity, it divides the faculty into gets and
    gets-nots, it is perceived as being unfairThere
    is a literature in industrial organizational
    psychology and in economics and management that
    shows that merit pay rarely achieved its desired
    ends and almost always causes anger and
    dissention. We do not want it here but the
    trustees and president have insisted upon it, so
    we struggle to try to do it better -- with little
    success. Note The President of Conn College
    was effectively forced to resign in the face of
    mounting faculty opposition to the autocratic
    administrative style at Conn College.
  • Private communication from Prof. Joan Chrisler,
    Chair of Psychology at Connecticut College

13
Experts on merit pay
  • From the final report of the Academic Senate
    merit pay task force -- Professor Ed Lawler, USC,
    a leading expert on alternative pay models
  • There have been over 3,000 studies of merit pay
    over the past two decades and only 100 claim
    positive results.
  • Most merit pay systems fail to have any impact on
    motivating workers to perform better.

14
Experts on merit pay
  • From W. Edwards Demings 14 Points for
    Management
  • 12b. Remove barriers that rob people in
    management and in engineering of their right to
    pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia,
    abolishment of the annual merit rating and of
    management by objective.
  • From Out of the Crisis

15
Experts on merit pay
  • Robert Heneman, a leading merit pay advocate,
    describes when not to do merit pay
  • merit pay does indeed have some desirable
    features, and those who reject merit pay under
    all circumstances have gone too far. Based on
    the material presentedon the feasibility of
    merit pay, it can be concluded that those who
    endorse merit pay in all circumstances have gone
    too far...

16
Experts on merit pay
  • Robert Heneman (continued)
  • Merit pay should clearly not be used under the
    following three sets of circumstances
  • 1. The budget is too small or economic
    conditions are too tight to allow the granting of
    large increases to good performers,
  • 2. Employees value leisure, recognition, or some
    reward other than pay increases, or they prefer
    the allocation of rewards on the basis of equity,
    seniority, or some basis other than merit.
  • 3. Institutional arrangements are such that
    ratings of employee performance do not capture
    performance valued by the organization.
  • From Merit Pay

17
Our current merit award systems
  • Tenure and promotion
  • Senior scholar awards, research grants
  • Sabbaticals and summer stipends
  • Humanities Institute
  • POINT We already have a structure that links
    faculty compensation to performance outcomes.

18
Merit pay and our current compensation system
  • Research shows merit increases must be at least
    7 over COLA to be effective.
  • Distinguishing market equity issues from other
    problems merit pay might address.
  • Cost implications of traditional merit pay.
  • POINT Merit pay cannot take the place of cost
    of living increases for all.

19
Three merit scenarios on this years salary
increment
  • Current distribution 3.5 COL .1
  • Salary increase COL .1 COL .1 COL .1
  • faculty 5 70 25
  • Average increase in purchasing power
  • 3.46/pay period for professors
  • 2.76/pay period for associate
  • 2.32/pay period for assistant
  • Total cost to the University 507,662

20
Scenario 2 Current distribution with merit
scheme imbedded
  • Salary increase COL 0 COL .1 COL .12
  • faculty 5 70 25
  • Average increase in purchasing power for
    meritorious faculty
  • 4.16/pay period for professors
  • 3.31/pay period for associate
  • 2.78/pay period for assistant
  • Total cost to the University 507,662

21
Scenario 3 Minimum requirements for merit pay
  • Salary increase COL 0 COL 2 COL 7
  • faculty 5 70 25
  • Average increase in dollars for 2 faculty
  • 69.36/pay period for professors
  • 55.35/pay period for associate
  • 46.43/pay period for assistant
  • Average increase in dollars for 7 faculty
  • 242.76/pay period for professors
  • 193.74/pay period for associate
  • 162.51/pay period for assistant
  • Total cost to the University ??

22
Paying for merit pay -- Budgetary implications
  • Salary compression issues.
  • Market equity issues in compensation.
  • The direct cost of a merit pay scheme.
  • The cost to the University of administering a
    merit pay scheme.
  • POINT Can we afford merit pay at Fairfield?

23
Paying for merit pay Direct costs
  • Following is a partial list of items in the
    budget that will be directly impacted by a merit
    pay system
  • Merit compensation for approximately 55 faculty
    members (assumes 25 are meritorious each year)
  • Increase in research committee budget to support
    faculty research
  • Increase in faculty travel budgets
  • Increase in library resources (research books,
    monographs, and journals)
  • Increase in computer database resources
  • Increase in faculty development costs

24
Paying for merit pay Indirect costs
  • Following is a partial list of costs to the
    university of a merit pay system
  • Administrative time spent determining who is
    meritorious each year
  • Faculty time spent determining who is meritorious
    each year
  • Cost to train evaluators
  • Time and effort to provide feedback to each
    faculty member each year
  • Time and cost to appeal unfavorable merit
    decisions each year
  • Documentation costs
  • Cost to assess the effectiveness of the merit pay
    system

25
Paying for merit pay Unintended consequences
  • In addition to the above costs, we believe the
    following unintended consequences will result in
    additional costs to the university community as
    follows
  • Decline in teaching effectiveness (faculty will
    be forced to refocus their energies on those
    aspects of their performance that can and would
    be measured in a merit pay system)
  • Decline in service (same rationale as above)
  • Faculty dissatisfaction (as seen at other
    universities that have merit pay systems)
  • Student dissatisfaction (as teaching
    effectiveness and service to students declines)

26
Merit pay at Fairfield An institutional
perspective
  • Compensation scheme helps define the culture of
    an institution.
  • Unintended incentives buried in merit pay systems
    -- individual over institutional priorities.
  • Collegiality at Fairfield.
  • Downsides to faculty / administration rift over
    merit pay.
  • POINT Compensation schemes must fit our
    institutional goals and objectives.

27
General Faculty Motion I February 23, 2001
  • IF a merit system is narrowly understood as
    "merit pay", and if "merit pay" is understood as
    a change in the allotment of the annual salary
    increase - as results from the Salary Committee's
    discussions with the administration - from an
    "across-the-board" allotment to a system whereby
    a greater percentage of the increase is allotted
    to those deemed meritorious and a lesser
    percentage of the increase is allotted to those
    deemed non-meritorious
  • THEN the General Faculty asks that the Board of
    Trustees direct the Fairfield University
    administration not to develop a merit pay system.
  • The motion passed, 93 in favor, 2 opposed, 1
    abstention.

28
General Faculty Motion II February 23, 2001
  • The faculty requests that the Board of Trustees
    provide faculty with goals that any change in
    compensation being considered are intended to
    meet and that any vote on compensation changes be
    delayed until such time as faculty have an
    opportunity to address the Board of Trustees'
    goals along with possible methods of attaining
    them and their potential impact on our
    institutional mission.
  • The motion was approved, 90 in favor, 1 opposed.
About PowerShow.com