(Revised November
2003)
Scope of this Policy
This
document sets forth the general features of an implementation policy for the
Work Plans and Performance Rewards
Faculty
members will use work plans to define what they expect to accomplish during the
year. Department Chairs will use faculty
work plans to insure that departmental needs will be met. At the end of that
year, merit increases will be used to reward accomplishments. Thus, Work Plans
guide effort, and merit increases reward outcomes as reported on the
Professional Activity Report.
The Approved Work Plan
The
approved work plan is the product of a joint planning effort of an individual
faculty member and the Department Chair. This effort is initiated by the
faculty member through submission to the Department Chair of a draft work plan
in the areas of teaching, research, and service. The goal is to develop an
intended activity profile for each faculty member that is commensurate with his
or her interests and abilities and that contributes significantly to the
realization of Department, School and University objectives. (II. A. 1,3 B. 1,4)
The draft
work plan should be specific enough to enable the Department Chair to balance
the preferences of that faculty member with those of his or her colleagues to
ensure that departmental teaching schedules and service obligations will be
met, and that departmental resources will be allocated, in a manner consistent
with the Department, School, and University missions. The draft plan should be consistent with
Department, School, and University promotion and tenure guidelines, as well.
It is
anticipated that achievement of an appropriate balance at the department level
may require the revision of individual draft work plans to arrive at approved
work plans. In such instances, the
Department Chair should discuss with the faculty member the reason(s) for the
revision and assist, if necessary, in drawing up the approved work plan. Work plan approval is ultimately the
responsibility of the Chair. Draft work plans should be submitted by April
1 and should cover at least the next
academic year. As a preliminary step, the faculty member should submit his or
her proposed fall semester classroom teaching portion of the work plan early
enough (perhaps as early as the end of the fall semester) that the negotiation
of teaching assignments can take place prior to final submission of the fall
schedule. (II. A. 1,3 B. 2,4)
Prior to
commencing the planning process, the department chair shall specify the relative
contributions of teaching, research, and service in allocating the total
department merit budget. For example, the department’s merit budget could be
divided into separate pools for teaching, research, and service. Alternatively,
department-wide weights may be used as a way of combining each faculty member’s
rating for his or her accomplishments in each area to determine the overall
merit increase for the academic year.
Faculty members can be guided by these proportions/weights in
establishing their performance plans. To further aid faculty members,
well-specified reward criteria should be available at the time their proposed
work plans are prepared. These criteria
are to be department-level standards, specifying the relative rewards attached
to specific types of accomplishment in the areas of teaching, research and
service. The weights or relative points (and hence the relative rewards)
associated with each type of accomplishment should be the same for all members
of the Department regardless of the planned mix of activity specified in the
plan.
Faculty
members should submit their plans for the courses and number of sections they
propose to teach, and, where feasible, the types of service responsibilities
they are willing to assume. An intended
research focus should be articulated, as well.
Of necessity, commitments in the teaching and service areas may be
binding on the faculty member. Where
special resources (including reduced teaching loads) are being requested in
support of planned research, teaching or service activities, a justification
should be provided along with the request so that informed allocation decisions
can be made. The Department Chair, or
designated departmental resource committee, will weigh the relative merits of
competing resource requests by faculty and make the necessary allocation
decisions.
Faculty
members are encouraged especially to detail possible or intended types of
activity in the teaching, research or service areas where there is any question
of the relative rewards that would attend them. An important outcome of the
planning dialogue between the faculty member and the Chair should be a common
perception regarding the relative rewards associated with each type of
contemplated accomplishment. This common understanding should be in place prior
to acceptance of an approved work plan. (III. A. 2
B. 1,2 ; II. A. 1,3)
Through
work plan development as well as through individual initiative over the ensuing
evaluation period, faculty members can exercise informed choices about the
types of accomplishments they wish to pursue. (III. A. 1,2,3 B. 1)
Faculty Rewards
At the
conclusion of the year, merit rewards will be based upon accomplishments. The merit budget will be allocated for
rewarding teaching, research, and service according to the same proportions or
department-wide weights as articulated by the Chair at the beginning of the
Work Plan planning process. The relative values of accomplishments that were
used for planning at the beginning of the year will be used to reward actual
accomplishments. Within a department,
equivalent contributions by two faculty members should contribute equally to
the dollar amounts of their merit increases, regardless of differences in their
work plans. For example, if two faculty members co-author a journal article,
the article should contribute equally to their merit increases. Similarly, if
two faculty members each teach a section of the same course, with all relevant
factors (class size, etc.) the same and with equal overall quality, then these
accomplishments should contribute equally to their merit increases. All accomplishments must be considered for merit
rewards, based on department guidelines. Thus, if no merit rewards are
available in a given year, each faculty member’s accomplishments for that year
must be carried forward for future evaluation when merit rewards become
available.
The
reward system must account for both qualitative and quantitative dimensions of
accomplishment. An example of a qualitative measure would be the level of
journal in which an article appears. An
example of a quantitative measure would be the number of sections of a
particular course that were taught. To the extent practicable, the system
should specify in writing the measures or standards to be employed in making
qualitative and quantitative assessments.
While
reward criteria are to be applied at the department level and may differ to
some extent from one department to another, consistency with University and
School missions may require that relative rewards for certain types of
accomplishments fall within specified ranges or otherwise be handled in a
manner that is consistent across departments. Such areas of consistency should
be determined through joint deliberation of the Faculty and the School
administration. Finally, it is
anticipated that relative rewards for particular types of accomplishments may
be adjusted, with reasonable lead time, for the purpose of redirecting effort
consistent with Department, School and University missions. (III.
A. 1,2,3,4 B. 1,2 ;