Merit Pay at Carroll University - Winners Take All
[Type the company name] | Merit Pay at Carroll Universiy | Should the Winners Take All? | | | 11/19/2010 |
|
Introduction:
Performance related pay in academia, in particular merit pay, is often a source of controversy. As cited in Value-Related Issues in a Departmental Merit Pay, a faculty-designed merit pay plan is defined as “a process that may produce a pay increase for university faculty who perform a variety of worthwhile work activities according to the practices, policies, criteria and values of certain stakeholders.” (Hanshaw, 2004, p. 57) This process is open to interpretation and therefore may be applied differently by each university and even more specifically by each department. Not all departments value the same practices, policies, criteria and values; even though they cohabitate in the same university structure. Dr. Jeff Foreman, chair of the marketing department at Carroll University, is faced with a similar dilemma. He was given a mere 48 hours to address a new merit pay policy which will aggressively decrease the number eligible for merit pay from 66 percent of the staff to only 25 percent. With this redesign, Dr. Foreman must address concerns about overall retention and morale. He must redefine merit standards and implement a strategic recommendation in the face of a dysfunctional pay structure. As identified by a survey of College and University Personnel Association (CUPA), salary adjustments in the form of merit pay are used by 23.7 percent of the responding institutions. The current pay structure at Carroll University has created unfair pay among equals. Incumbents may be expecting more equity and when it is not forthcoming, leave The University. Any valid recommendation will need to include a review of Carroll University’s history with merit pay and an assessment of current attitudes in relation to pay. His recommendation must include valid standards that include reporting and performance mechanisms. In
|
Introduction:
Performance related pay in academia, in particular merit pay, is often a source of controversy. As cited in Value-Related Issues in a Departmental Merit Pay, a faculty-designed merit pay plan is defined as “a process that may produce a pay increase for university faculty who perform a variety of worthwhile work activities according to the practices, policies, criteria and values of certain stakeholders.” (Hanshaw, 2004, p. 57) This process is open to interpretation and therefore may be applied differently by each university and even more specifically by each department. Not all departments value the same practices, policies, criteria and values; even though they cohabitate in the same university structure. Dr. Jeff Foreman, chair of the marketing department at Carroll University, is faced with a similar dilemma. He was given a mere 48 hours to address a new merit pay policy which will aggressively decrease the number eligible for merit pay from 66 percent of the staff to only 25 percent. With this redesign, Dr. Foreman must address concerns about overall retention and morale. He must redefine merit standards and implement a strategic recommendation in the face of a dysfunctional pay structure. As identified by a survey of College and University Personnel Association (CUPA), salary adjustments in the form of merit pay are used by 23.7 percent of the responding institutions. The current pay structure at Carroll University has created unfair pay among equals. Incumbents may be expecting more equity and when it is not forthcoming, leave The University. Any valid recommendation will need to include a review of Carroll University’s history with merit pay and an assessment of current attitudes in relation to pay. His recommendation must include valid standards that include reporting and performance mechanisms. In
References: Adcox, S. (2011). Clemson University to start merit-pay system. The Augusta Chronicle. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/education/2011-08-11/clemson-university-start-merit-pay-system Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Fletcher, C. (2008). Appraisal, Feedback, and Development: Marking performance review work. London: Rutledge.