School of Business Administration : University of Vermont

University of Vermont

School of Business Administration

Guidelines for performance-based faculty increases (revised 5/15/2010)

{View Current Guidelines}

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.

In the interest of best serving our students’ and other constituencies’ needs, it is common practice to:

  1. Hire instructional specialists, and,
  2. 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 will vary from faculty member to faculty member.

Thus, it is imperative that any system of allocating performance based salary increases take into account the school's overall objectives and the unique contributions of individual faculty. 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. Add 1 equivalent course preparation for each honor’s thesis supervised. 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. vii. 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 a 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. For faculty with service responsibilities, determine the service contribution of each service-responsible faculty member, using the categories and point values in Appendix A. Items in Appendix A are not all inclusive. Each faculty member may provide documentation of other activities that should receive points in accordance with the 7 listed service categories.
  2. Determine the individual service points by multiplying the service contribution score by the service workload weight.
  3. Rank the faculty from n to 1 based on the weighted points earned in item ii.
  4. Sum the total number of service ranking points generated across all faculty and divide the number of points into the funds available for service merit to determine a dollar value per service point.
  5. Determine each faculty members’ service performance amount by multiplying the number of individual faculty member’s service points by the value per research point.

(3)   Determine individual faculty member total performance dollars by summing across the three categories – teaching, research, and service for each individual faculty member.

Appendix A

Service Categories
  1. One Time Service Event – Minor: 1 point
  2. Examples include: Participating in admitted student visit days, meeting with board of advisors over dinner, or participating in a journal’s annual editorial board meeting

  3. One Time Service Event – Moderate: 2 points
  4. Examples include: Larger role in Honor’s Day (e.g., active in choosing award winners, writing a bio, attending the Honor’s Day event, and presenting one or more awards), presenting a research paper at the BSAD brown bag research series, serving on an expert panel discussion for a University-wide event, or reviewing a paper submission for a scholarly conference.

  5. One Time Service Event – Major: 3 points
  6. Examples include: Organizing a speaker to come to campus, taking a student club on a road trip, or reviewing a more complex and time-consuming paper submitted to a journal.

  7. Ongoing Service Activity – Minor: 2 points
  8. Examples include: Advising a school or university club.

  9. Ongoing Service Activity – Moderate: 3 points
  10. Examples include: Serving on ad hoc or standing committees at the School or University level, or serving on a committee or board of a professional association.

  11. Ongoing Service Activity – Major: 4 points
  12. Examples include: Serving on a particularly demanding ad hoc or standing committee, or serving as a committee chair in a manner that requires more time than for regular committee members.

  13. Ongoing Service Activity – Extraordinary: 5 or more points
  14. Examples include: Serving on the Faculty Senate Professional Standards Committee. Faculty members who believe they deserve more than 5 points for this category of service activity will need to provide sufficient justification and evidence for the request.

    Service Description
    School Service Category
    BSAD Ad Hoc Committee – Chair 4
    BSAD Ad Hoc Committee – Member 4
    BSAD Admitted Student Visitation Day Attendee 1
    BSAD ALANA Awards Ceremony Representative 1
    BSAD AQ/PQ – Chair 4
    BSAD AQ/PQ – Member 4
    BSAD Beta Gamma Sigma - Advisor 4
    BSAD Beta Gamma Sigma - President 2
    BSAD Board of Advisors Meeting/Dinner Attendee

    1

    BSAD Concordia Case Competition 4
    BSAD Engineering Mgmt Curriculum 2
    BSAD Event Coordinator 1
    BSAD Faculty Secretary 5
    BSAD Faculty Standards - Chair 6
    BSAD Faculty Standards Subcommittee - Chair 3
    BSAD Faculty Standards Subcommittee - Member 2
    BDAD Graduate Studies - Chair 6
    BSAD Graduate Studies - Member 4
    BSAD Guest Lecturer 1
    BSAD Honors Day Presenter 1
    BSAD Honors Day Write-up 1
    BSAD Independent Study Supervisor 5-6
    BSAD Position Search - Chair 6
    BSAD Position Search - Member 4
    BSAD Student Club Advisor 4
    BSAD Study Abroad Advisor 6
    BSAD UG Studies - Chair 6
    BSAD UG Studies - Member 5
    BSAD United Academics Delegate 5
    BSAD United Academics Representative 4
    University Service

    Category

    Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee - Chair 6
    Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee - Member 5
    Faculty Senate Curricular Affairs - Chair 6
    Faculty Senate Curricular Affairs - Member 5
    Faculty Senate Educational & Research Technologies - Chair 6
    Faculty Senate Educational & Research Technologies - Member 5
    Faculty Senate Financial & Physical Planning - Chair 6
    Faculty Senate Financial & Physical Planning - Member 5
    Faculty Senate Professional Standards - Chair 7
    Faculty Senate Professional Standards - Member 7
    Faculty Senate Research, Scholarship & Graduate Education - Chair 6
    Faculty Senate Research, Scholarship & Graduate Education - Member 5
    Faculty Senate Student Affairs - Chair 6
    Faculty Senate Student Affairs - Member 5
    Faculty Senator 5
    UVM Academic Honesty Panel 2
    UVM Academic Support Programs Faculty Representative 4
    UVM Commencement Attendee 1
    UVM Commencement Diploma Presenter/Name Reader 2
    UVM Faculty Advisory Committee TBD
    UVM Honors College Committee TBD
    UVM Honors College Council TBD
    UVM Instructional Grant Committee TBD
    UVM International Studies TBD
    UVM McNair Scholars Program - Candidate Interviewer 1
    UVM McNair Scholars Program - Summer Research Internship Advisor 6
    UVM Miscellaneous Presentations (e.g., Blackboard Jungle; K-M Award Discussion) 2
    UVM Presidential Commission Member 5
    UVM Presidential Commission Subcommittee Member 5
    UVM Provost Office Research & Scholarship TBD
    UVM Student Club Advisor 2
    UVM Task Force Center for Aging TBD
    UVM University Planning Council TBD
    Professional Service Category
    Academic Association – Director 5
    Academic Association – Officer 4-5
    Academic Association – President 6
    Academic Association – Conference Organizer 5-6
    Journal Editorial Board Member 2-5
    Paper Reviewer for Academic Journal 3
    Paper Reviewer for Conference 2
    Professional Association – Director 5
    Professional Association – Officer 4-5
    Professional Association – President 6
    Community Service  
    Each faculty member may make a case for significant community service activities that relate to the individual’s professional expertise. The 7 listed categories will be used to classify activities.  

    Last modified May 16 2012 11:18 AM