Download
provost s merit pay initiative n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative

Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative

480 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative

  2. Overview • The provost has initiated a plan by which departments will engage in a process that quantifies performance. • Basic idea: • Workload divided into Teaching, Research, Service/Administration • Rubrics developed for assigning performance in each category • Total score results • Pay increases tied to scores

  3. Overview • The slides that follow are from a presentation to the Organization of Academic department chairs by Dave Barrett, Associate Dean in the College of Education. • While we do not need to conform to the details of the College of Ed Approach, we do need to establish our own guidelines and procedures.

  4. Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative Guidelines and Recommendations September 27, 2017

  5. The Charge • Each department at Clemson University must develop a plan which stipulates the decision rules to be followed by department chairs when they make recommendations to the Dean regarding merit compensation for faculty • This process must be in place by May 2018, so that it can be piloted on real faculty performance data • Our goal is better alignment of merit compensation with faculty performance

  6. Timeline for School of Computing re:Merit Pay Initiative By Feb 16th 2018 • Division chairs & committees have division-endorsed plans for rating faculty performance • School director confirms faculty workload with each faculty member By March 2018 • Division representatives/chairs have conferred & endorsed an SoC-wide plan for rating faculty performance • All faculty vote to approve plan By April 2018 Deans have reviewed and approved rating plans By June 2018 Pilot ratings have been conducted and results evaluated

  7. Timeline for School of Computing re:Merit Pay Initiative By Feb 16th 2018 • Division chairs & committees have division-endorsed plans for rating faculty performance • School director confirms faculty workload with each faculty member By March 2018 • Division representatives/chairs have conferred & endorsed an SoC-wide plan for rating faculty performance • All faculty vote to approve plan By April 2018 Deans have reviewed and approved rating plans By June 2018 Pilot ratings have been conducted and results evaluated • Most faculty budgeted: • 37.5% classroom teaching • 12.5% grad supervision/directed studies/thesis committees • 45% research • 5% service / committees

  8. Required of all Departmental Plans • Each department develops its own scoring/evaluation system • Chairs apply these procedures in making recommendations to the Dean of the College • The Dean holds up to 25% of available funds to be used at his or her discretion • All ratings on 7 point scale • Ratings for each category of performance that department uses in workload distributions • Category ratings must be individually weighted by % Effort • Weighted category ratings sum to Total Score 8. Expected that Total Scores will average about 4.0

  9. Example: Rating Research

  10. Example: Rating Teaching

  11. Example: Rating Service

  12. Example: Arriving at Total Scores* * For this example, assume 3 Categories: Research (R), Teaching (T) and Service (S)

  13. From Ratings to Pay Recommendations There are many options. Some examples: • Available merit pools divided into tenure track and non-tenure track. Total Score determines % of available pool. • Same as 1. above but Total Score adjusted for current salary (to limit % salary increase) before apportioning available funds • Single salary pool, then same as 2. above

  14. Questions for your Department • Other issues for us: • How to standardize FAS categories/entries • When do pubs “count”? • Where does grad supervision go? • Which duties are admin & which are service? • Do we want to make a distinction? • How to divide $$ across divisions • Each division to create criteria • Then reconcile across divisions? • What are the performance categories that are applicable to your department? Note that FAS lists 10 specific categories of performance; we recommend using the fewest possible categories. • Are you going to use the same rating system for non-tenure track faculty that you use for tenured and tenure track faculty? • In this pilot year, will your decision-rules link Total Score ratings to recommendations for % salary increases or to flat amount salary increases? • Will you base ratings on a 3 year “window” of performance? • Are you going to set minimum weights (percentages) for Research for tenured and tenure track faculty? • What will be the role of faculty or faculty committees once criteria are established? For example, will they recommend ratings to the chair? Review the chair’s ratings prior to submission to the Dean?

  15. For Further Information and Questions Dave Barrett, bdavid@Clemson.edu, will oversee project and will work with College of Education, CBSHS, and College of Business Bob Cohen, rscohen@Clemson.edu, will work with College of Science and CAFLS Brian Powell, bpowell@Clemson.edu, will work with CECAS and College of AAH