Implementation of the Missouri State Compensation Plan
Implementation of the Missouri State Compensation Plan
May, 2007
Overview of Major Considerations
The following areas represent the collective decisions of the Compensation Committee during the first year of implementation of the pay for performance system. The approaches outlined in this section were developed based on faculty and administrator input throughout the 2006-2007 academic year.
University Parameters
Performance parameters or “weights” should, as much as possible, reflect faculty assignments. Individuals who are assigned higher teaching loads should have more of their evaluation influenced by the quality of their teaching. Likewise, individuals who are provided with release time for research should be expected to produce more research, both in terms of quality and quantity. Generally speaking, faculty assignment should reflect the effort that a department is expecting from faculty in each area. Evaluations focus on the outcome of those efforts –the learning that occurs or the research or service produced.
Faculty assignments and performance parameters should be negotiated between the department head and the faculty member at the same time.
In many units, all faculty carry 12 hour teaching loads, and no faculty are provided with release time for research. To exclude productive research faculty in these units from appropriate recognition of their efforts would be unfair. Therefore, faculty who are on 12 hour teaching loads may opt for the same performance parameters available to faculty on nine hour teaching loads.
In addition, probationary faculty are to be provided with access to the performance parameters of tenured faculty with nine hour teaching loads. It is recognized that some probationary faculty may wish to benefit from a heavier weight for research efforts than currently included in the university parameters for probationary faculty.
Faculty who receive funding for teaching, research or service projects are to be provided with opportunities to adjust their performance weights to reflect whatever area of activity in which funding occurs. For example, a technical assistance project funded to support a local non profit organization may be considered a service project. The faculty member who receives such funding may opt to enhance the weight placed on service activities in his/her evaluation. The exact amount of weight assigned to such activities should be negotiated between the faculty member and the department head. The weight assigned must be approved by the dean.
Deans are also provided with the discretion to approve adjustments in performance parameters for reassigned time.
Adjustments to performance parameters for any reason may be made at any time during the evaluation year. Beginning in 2007, parameters have been negotiated between faculty and department heads. Only the standards and guidelines developed by each department and the final parameters employed for each faculty member at the time of evaluation are reported to the provost’s office (See link University Performance Parameters).
Department and College Guidelines for the Evaluation of Teaching, Research and Service
Research products sometimes take years to achieve. Products such as books may be “counted’ for multiple years; this determination should be specified in department performance criteria. It is expected that faculty at the department level will play a key role in the ongoing development of performance ratings based on a careful assessment of the application of performance criteria and outcomes.
Participation in the Evaluation Process
All faculty are required to submit annual reports every year and will be evaluated every year. This is a requirement of employment.
Instructors
CUPA data does not report salaries for lecturers. It has been determined that the position of lecturer is comparable to the position of instructor as reported in CUPA data. The position of lecturer has been replaced with the term instructor, and salaries will therefore be “benchmarked” to instructor salaries as reported in CUPA data.
Evaluation Matrix
The Compensation Committee recommends that all cost centers follow the process as outlined in link Compensation Matrix Recommended Guidelines.
Data to be Utilized in Benchmarking Salaries
Colleges may determine what data they wish to utilize for the purpose of benchmarking salaries.
Department and College Personnel Committees
Untenured persons may not serve on department or college personnel committees.
The Compensation Committee has prescribed the following process to be strictly followed at the department and college levels. The committee is particularly interested in assuring that the appropriate communication with faculty occurs during all levels of the process.
Department Level
During January of each year, department personnel committees will utilize department evaluation performance criteria to conduct reviews of annual reports and will prepare narrative assessments of each faculty member. In addition, each member of the department personnel committee will assign a numerical rating on each of the three performance dimensions for each faculty member being reviewed.
Two options are available to compile the input of the department personnel committee:
May, 2007
Overview of Major Considerations
The following areas represent the collective decisions of the Compensation Committee during the first year of implementation of the pay for performance system. The approaches outlined in this section were developed based on faculty and administrator input throughout the 2006-2007 academic year.
University Parameters
Performance parameters or “weights” should, as much as possible, reflect faculty assignments. Individuals who are assigned higher teaching loads should have more of their evaluation influenced by the quality of their teaching. Likewise, individuals who are provided with release time for research should be expected to produce more research, both in terms of quality and quantity. Generally speaking, faculty assignment should reflect the effort that a department is expecting from faculty in each area. Evaluations focus on the outcome of those efforts –the learning that occurs or the research or service produced.
Faculty assignments and performance parameters should be negotiated between the department head and the faculty member at the same time.
In many units, all faculty carry 12 hour teaching loads, and no faculty are provided with release time for research. To exclude productive research faculty in these units from appropriate recognition of their efforts would be unfair. Therefore, faculty who are on 12 hour teaching loads may opt for the same performance parameters available to faculty on nine hour teaching loads.
In addition, probationary faculty are to be provided with access to the performance parameters of tenured faculty with nine hour teaching loads. It is recognized that some probationary faculty may wish to benefit from a heavier weight for research efforts than currently included in the university parameters for probationary faculty.
Faculty who receive funding for teaching, research or service projects are to be provided with opportunities to adjust their performance weights to reflect whatever area of activity in which funding occurs. For example, a technical assistance project funded to support a local non profit organization may be considered a service project. The faculty member who receives such funding may opt to enhance the weight placed on service activities in his/her evaluation. The exact amount of weight assigned to such activities should be negotiated between the faculty member and the department head. The weight assigned must be approved by the dean.
Deans are also provided with the discretion to approve adjustments in performance parameters for reassigned time.
Adjustments to performance parameters for any reason may be made at any time during the evaluation year. Beginning in 2007, parameters have been negotiated between faculty and department heads. Only the standards and guidelines developed by each department and the final parameters employed for each faculty member at the time of evaluation are reported to the provost’s office (See link University Performance Parameters).
Department and College Guidelines for the Evaluation of Teaching, Research and Service
Research products sometimes take years to achieve. Products such as books may be “counted’ for multiple years; this determination should be specified in department performance criteria. It is expected that faculty at the department level will play a key role in the ongoing development of performance ratings based on a careful assessment of the application of performance criteria and outcomes.
Participation in the Evaluation Process
All faculty are required to submit annual reports every year and will be evaluated every year. This is a requirement of employment.
Instructors
CUPA data does not report salaries for lecturers. It has been determined that the position of lecturer is comparable to the position of instructor as reported in CUPA data. The position of lecturer has been replaced with the term instructor, and salaries will therefore be “benchmarked” to instructor salaries as reported in CUPA data.
Evaluation Matrix
The Compensation Committee recommends that all cost centers follow the process as outlined in link Compensation Matrix Recommended Guidelines.
Data to be Utilized in Benchmarking Salaries
Colleges may determine what data they wish to utilize for the purpose of benchmarking salaries.
Department and College Personnel Committees
Untenured persons may not serve on department or college personnel committees.
The Review Process
The Compensation Committee has prescribed the following process to be strictly followed at the department and college levels. The committee is particularly interested in assuring that the appropriate communication with faculty occurs during all levels of the process.
Department Level
During January of each year, department personnel committees will utilize department evaluation performance criteria to conduct reviews of annual reports and will prepare narrative assessments of each faculty member. In addition, each member of the department personnel committee will assign a numerical rating on each of the three performance dimensions for each faculty member being reviewed.
Two options are available to compile the input of the department personnel committee:
- The full committee’s narrative evaluations and performance rankings will be forwarded to the department headOR
2. Each individual committee member’s performance rankings and narrative evaluations
will be forwarded to the department head.
The head will review faculty annual reports, the narrative assessments and ratings provided by the department personnel committee. The department head will meet with the department personnel committee to discuss the assessments and ratings. The department head will then prepare a composite performance rating that takes into account the percentage weights for each of the three categories of teaching, research and service agreed upon previously by the faculty member and the department head, consistent with applicable college criteria within the time specified in the compensation calendar (link to calendar).
Information to be provided to the faculty member by the Department Head on or before the date specified by the compensation calendar:
1) Copies of the committee’s narrative reviews and the committee’s ratings on the three performance dimensions.
2) The department head’s narrative review, ratings on the three performance dimensions and the composite performance rating.
The composite rating will be proposed to the dean and the college council of heads for further consideration.
3) If the department head’s rating on any of the three performance dimensions differs from that submitted by the personnel committee,
the department head will provide a brief written rationale to the faculty member explaining the distinction.
College Level
The dean will meet with the department heads and review the ratings provided by each department head (and the narrative assessments as necessary) to determine the final composite rating of each faculty member.
Information to be provided to the faculty member by the Dean on or before the date specified by the compensation calendar:
1) The faculty member will receive from the dean his/her final composite rating.
2) If the dean’s composite rating of a faculty member is different from the rating that the department head recommends, the dean will
provide a brief written rationale to the faculty member, with a copy to the department head.
Appeal
Only a faculty member’s final composite performance rating may be appealed. Faculty will be provided clear information on the salary implications of the composite ratings prior to the deadline for submitting appeals to the department head as specified in the compensation calendar.
A faculty member who is dissatisfied with his/her final composite performance rating should first request a meeting with the department head to discuss the processes and underlying rationales by which the performance rating was determined.
After meeting with the department head, the faculty member may request a formal review of the rating by submitting a written appeal to the department head stating the reasons for questioning the rating.
At the request of the faculty member, the appeal, along with the department head response and other supporting materials, is forwarded to the dean.
The dean transmits the appeal to the College Personnel Committee (or the College Compensation Committee, if one exists as a separate subcommittee of the Personnel Committee) for consideration.
The College Personnel Committee (or Compensation Subcommittee) will consider the appeal. The committee’s review should make use of the department performance criteria, the narrative and ratings from the department personnel committee and the department head, the department’s annual report of accomplishments, and summary descriptive measures (mean, median, etc) of the ratings of department faculty. If necessary, additional information may be requested by the committee in the process of their deliberations. The college committee will provide a written summary to the dean on the recommended disposition of the appeal.
If the dean makes a decision on the appeal that is different from that recommended by the college committee, the dean must provide a written rationale for that decision.
The faculty member may continue the appeal to the Provost, who will review all written documents associated with the appeal. The Provost may, at his/her discretion, meet with the faculty member. The Provost’s decision on the appeal is final. If the Provost’s decision is different from the decision recommended by the college committee, the Provost must provide to the faculty member a written rationale for that decision.
Only the performance rating itself can be appealed. Individuals who are successful on appeal will receive the salary increase merited by their revised performance rating. The actual percentage salary increase associated with each performance rating is not subject to appeal.
This is the only appeal process to be utilized for appeals of the performance rating. Other grievance procedures, as outlined in the Faculty Handbook, are not applicable.
At any time, any employee who believes they have been discriminated against for any reason not related to job performance may consult the Office for Institutional Compliance.
The head will review faculty annual reports, the narrative assessments and ratings provided by the department personnel committee. The department head will meet with the department personnel committee to discuss the assessments and ratings. The department head will then prepare a composite performance rating that takes into account the percentage weights for each of the three categories of teaching, research and service agreed upon previously by the faculty member and the department head, consistent with applicable college criteria within the time specified in the compensation calendar (link to calendar).
Information to be provided to the faculty member by the Department Head on or before the date specified by the compensation calendar:
1) Copies of the committee’s narrative reviews and the committee’s ratings on the three performance dimensions.
2) The department head’s narrative review, ratings on the three performance dimensions and the composite performance rating.
The composite rating will be proposed to the dean and the college council of heads for further consideration.
3) If the department head’s rating on any of the three performance dimensions differs from that submitted by the personnel committee,
the department head will provide a brief written rationale to the faculty member explaining the distinction.
College Level
The dean will meet with the department heads and review the ratings provided by each department head (and the narrative assessments as necessary) to determine the final composite rating of each faculty member.
Information to be provided to the faculty member by the Dean on or before the date specified by the compensation calendar:
1) The faculty member will receive from the dean his/her final composite rating.
2) If the dean’s composite rating of a faculty member is different from the rating that the department head recommends, the dean will
provide a brief written rationale to the faculty member, with a copy to the department head.
Appeal
Only a faculty member’s final composite performance rating may be appealed. Faculty will be provided clear information on the salary implications of the composite ratings prior to the deadline for submitting appeals to the department head as specified in the compensation calendar.
A faculty member who is dissatisfied with his/her final composite performance rating should first request a meeting with the department head to discuss the processes and underlying rationales by which the performance rating was determined.
After meeting with the department head, the faculty member may request a formal review of the rating by submitting a written appeal to the department head stating the reasons for questioning the rating.
At the request of the faculty member, the appeal, along with the department head response and other supporting materials, is forwarded to the dean.
The dean transmits the appeal to the College Personnel Committee (or the College Compensation Committee, if one exists as a separate subcommittee of the Personnel Committee) for consideration.
The College Personnel Committee (or Compensation Subcommittee) will consider the appeal. The committee’s review should make use of the department performance criteria, the narrative and ratings from the department personnel committee and the department head, the department’s annual report of accomplishments, and summary descriptive measures (mean, median, etc) of the ratings of department faculty. If necessary, additional information may be requested by the committee in the process of their deliberations. The college committee will provide a written summary to the dean on the recommended disposition of the appeal.
If the dean makes a decision on the appeal that is different from that recommended by the college committee, the dean must provide a written rationale for that decision.
The faculty member may continue the appeal to the Provost, who will review all written documents associated with the appeal. The Provost may, at his/her discretion, meet with the faculty member. The Provost’s decision on the appeal is final. If the Provost’s decision is different from the decision recommended by the college committee, the Provost must provide to the faculty member a written rationale for that decision.
Only the performance rating itself can be appealed. Individuals who are successful on appeal will receive the salary increase merited by their revised performance rating. The actual percentage salary increase associated with each performance rating is not subject to appeal.
This is the only appeal process to be utilized for appeals of the performance rating. Other grievance procedures, as outlined in the Faculty Handbook, are not applicable.
At any time, any employee who believes they have been discriminated against for any reason not related to job performance may consult the Office for Institutional Compliance.