Principles for Faculty Reward Systems in a High Performance Academic Culture

The Ohio State University has evolved over time with a continuous focus on

achieving excellence along all dimensions of research, teaching, and service. Perhaps

most noticeable over the years has been a concentration on developing all aspects of a

high performance culture in which outstanding achievements are aligned with carefully

guided decisions about resource allocations. At its core, the assumption is that

achievement of agreed upon performance objectives should provide the primary basis for

allocating institutional resources. In effect, accountability is a guiding principle that

should be reflected in guidance provided to individuals as well as in assessments of their

performance.

Furthermore, it is understood that for a high performance culture to succeed,

assessments of goals and supporting institutional actions to make such achievements

possible should be continuously discussed in an open and clear fashion. For example,

rather than developing static models of "once a year performance appraisal," the most

effective assessment process involves continuous coaching in which guidance is

provided, and linkages between performance and resource availabilities are consistently

clarified. At Ohio State we live in a dynamic institutional environment in which

continuous feedback is essential, not simply desirable.

It is also important to recognize that the university is committed to developing

policies guiding faculty reward systems that are clear and equitably implemented. Each

set of policies, while appropriately tailored to the specific needs of disciplines and

departments, is expected to explicitly address the following issues:

1. Annual performance appraisals reduced to writing and involving a face-to-face

interaction are essential. Without the ability to explore perspectives through

interaction, and without establishing the surety provided through written

commitments, one increases the likelihood of disagreements and

misunderstandings. Most importantly, without such actions the connections

between contributions and reward distributions will be murky and subject to

inaccurate assumptions.

2. Faculty members can and do contribute differently to the multiple missions of

departments and colleges at different points in their careers. At times it is

important to expect achievements in multiple dimensions; at other points in a

career, research achievements should weigh most heavily; at others it may be

more appropriate to acknowledge greater contributions to our teaching and service

missions. There should be explicit agreement with each faculty member about the

expected contribution focus or foci and the levels of achievement expected of

him/her in a given year. The overall mix of contribution patterns should be such

that the portfolio of department/college objectives is achieved.

2

3. We all operate within relatively defined markets. Those markets should largely,

though not entirely, dictate levels of reward differentiation. That includes initial

salary levels, annual increases, and support resource distributions. Markets are

defined externally and not simply by rank. Thus, faculty members in some

disciplines will require higher salaries or different levels of support than those in

others. Furthermore, within markets, submarkets exist based on perceived

excellence. Thus, if faculty member A in market I is seen as more productive

than faculty member B also in market I, the salary and support levels for A will be

higher than for B, even if they are of the same rank. Such differences are a

reflection of scarcity, and that applies to gender, race, or other conditions that

might create scarcity. While difficult to accept for some, failure to recognize this

will deprive the university of its ability to compete effectively. Interestingly, one

also has to deal with the fact that markets are defined in part by like institutions.

Generally, top tier institutions will respond affirmatively to markets created by

other top tier institutions and not markets based on resources second or third tier

institutions are willing to allocate. Indeed, it is not unusual to find second or third

tier institutions over-committing resources to lure a faculty member from a top

tier program. That does not mean that the top tier program can or should

necessarily let that action set the market rate for the targeted faculty member.

4. Promotion standards should be explicit (i.e., written) and reflect the desire for

excellence in the pattern of contributions expected of faculty members. They

should also reflect the reality that (a) not all faculty members will be able to

contribute excellence in all evaluation dimensions and (b) there is a multi-faceted

institutional responsibility that must be achieved by the skills of faculty

collectively.

5. Faculty members actively participating in centers and institutes, or with joint

appointments, should have explicit a priori agreements about how rewards will be

distributed for specific activities. Thus, if a faculty member is publishing in a key

journal for the center or another department, but one not seen as "top tier" by the

home department, the impact of such action on reward distribution should be

clearly established. If we truly believe in the value of interdisciplinary work, then