School of Business Administration : University of Vermont

University of Vermont

School of Business Administration
perf_inc12

Guidelines for performance-based faculty increases (revised 5/15/2012)

{View Previous Guidelines}

These guidelines are underpinned by a data collection system to support decisions made by the Dean on merit and incentives for performance that enhance the goals and objectives of the School of Business Administration.

As preamble, we begin by recognizing that the School of Business administration is an AACSB accredited business school. Our faculty members are responsible for delivering high quality instruction and student advising, high quality research, and responsible and committed service. Associated with this balanced perspective on faculty contributions, our norm is to evaluate faculty using 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service and full-time lecturers on 60% teaching and 40% service.

We recognize that in the interests of best serving our students’ and other constituencies’ needs, it is common practice to hire instructional specialists and modify the workload of tenure track faculty (to provide an appropriate mix of teaching, research and service responsibilities relative to career stage and unique capabilities).

The consequence of this practice is that the assigned workload for teaching, research and service may vary from faculty member to faculty member as the Dean seeks to optimize the faculty’s role in achievement of the school’s objectives.

Our system of allocating performance based salary increases thus allows the Dean to take into consideration the school's strategic objectives and the unique contributions of individual faculty towards those objectives. 

This system shall build upon and reinforce the following principles:  

        • Fairness and equitability of resource allocation and workload
        • Transparent reporting of faculty responsibilities and achievements
        • Professionalism in fulfillment of the academic role; a role that cannot be completely anticipated nor comprehensively captured.

The following protocol for determining and allocating performance based salary increases is designed to support that objective. Overall, the approach is based upon a comparative evaluation of performance across peers within an area of responsibility and a weighting of each area of contribution in the determination of the total increase.

The steps are as follows:

(1)   Divide the total performance pool into three categories – teaching, research, and service. Percentages for each category will be determined by averaging the respective faculty workload percentages.

(2)   Within each category, conduct an evaluation of faculty as follows:

a.  Teaching and Advising
  1. Course Preparations: Count the number of different course preparations in accordance with the School’s course equivalency policy.  Locate each faculty member in Table 1 and award the appropriate category points.
  2. Student Credit Hours Generated: Calculate the number of SCH generated by each faculty member and compare to the median SCH of all faculty members. Locate each faculty member in Table 1 based on his/her percentile score and award the appropriate category points.
  3. Course Evaluations: Calculate the median evaluation score for all faculty members on a select set of student course evaluation questions. Locate each faculty member in Table 1 based on his/her percentile score and award the appropriate category points. Only those course sections that receive >=50 percent response rate will be used to compute the average evaluation score. Example: a faculty member teaches 5 course sections with >=50 percent response rate in 4 of the 5. The evaluation score equals total evaluation score for 4 course sections divided by 5.
  4. Calculate a composite teaching score by weighting each individual’s category scores 40% course preparation, 30% SCH, and 30% course evaluation.
    Table 1
    Category

    Course Preps Equivalents

    40% weight

    SCH and Course Evaluation Percentiles

    30% weight for SCH and 30% for Evals

    1 1 to 1.5 50-59
    2 >1.5 to 2.5 60-69
    3 >2.5 to 3.5 70-79
    4 >3.5 to 4.5 80-89
    5 >4.5 >89
  5. Multiply the number of points awarded by the workload percentage.
  6. Rank the faculty from n to 1 based on the weighted teaching points earned in item iv.
  7. Sum the total number of ranking points generated across all faculty and divide the number of points into the funds available for teaching merit to determine a dollar value per teaching point.
  8. Determine each faculty members’ teaching performance amount by multiplying the number of individual faculty member’s teaching points by the value per teaching point.
b.   For research
  1. For the research active faculty, determine the research contribution of each research-responsible faculty member, using the intellectual contributions measurement structure. As specific weights have yet to be established by the faculty for each aspect of intellectual contribution, the following values will be assigned in a consistent fashion.
    1. Each Tier I publication (either at a stage of accepted for publication or appearing in print) will receive 20 points.
    2. Each Tier II publication (either at a stage of accepted for publication or appearing in print) will receive 10 point.
    3. Each funded research project will receive 5-10 points contingent upon significance.
    4. Each paper appearing in or accepted for publication in meeting proceedings will receive 2-5 points.
    5. Chapters in books, articles in non-Tier I or Tier II journals will receive 1-8 point.
    6. Each presentation will receive 2 point per presentation.
  2. Multiply the number of points awarded by the workload percentage.
  3. Faculty members with research responsibility are expected to have an active program of research. At a minimum, it is expected that the faculty member will have draft versions of papers or teaching tools that maybe submitted for publication. Absent evidence of this work, a faculty member with research responsibilities will receive a 0 score for research contribution and will be ineligible for receiving an allocation from the portion of the performance pool allocated to research achievement.
  4. Rank the faculty from n to 1 based on the weighted points earned in item ii.
  5. Sum the total number of ranking points generated across all faculty and divide the number of points into the funds available for research merit to determine a dollar value per research point.
  6. Determine each faculty members’ research performance amount by multiplying the number of individual faculty member’s research points by the value per research point
c.   For service
  1. Assessment of service, based on reported service activities, as follows:
    • Exceeds expectations.
    • Meets expectations.
    • Fails to meet expectations

(3) Determine individual faculty member total performance dollars by summing across teaching and research.   Service for each individual faculty member will be evaluated by the dean as defined in (c) above.

Last modified May 16 2012 11:17 AM