I agree as well, I'm afraid. I also want to add a voice against any system where merit is awarded by nomination, even self-nomination. To put it bluntly: the world already over-rewards the self-confident and the system-savy. The current arrangement has its disadvantages (the bias inherent in having peer-evaluation cannot be eliminated, the process is time-consuming, the averaging of step increases is unfair, as are the ceilings, etc.), but it also has advantages, the chief among them are that everyone's (at least relative) merit gets to be considered at the same time, that feedback, reward, and demerits are provided as a matter of routine for each person without having to trigger a special series of events, that the people doing the evaluation are familiar with discipline-specific standards...
To replace our system with strict seniority plus random merit awards would be a mistake, in my view.
Martin
My thinking, exactly.Laurent DobuzinskisChair
Dept. of Political Science
Simon Fraser UniversityBurnaby, BCCanada V5A 1S6
(778) 782-3729From: "Nicolas Schmitt" <schmitt@sfu.ca>
To: "Bernhard Riecke" <ber1@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Abraham Punnen" <apunnen@sfu.ca>, "SFUFA Forum" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May, 2016 10:02:49
Subject: Re: New Collective agreement - suggestionI completely agree with your message, Bernhard.I always took the SFU system as being excellent especially for young scholars.In fact it is probably because it is excellent for young scholars (possibility to move quickly upthe scale) that it is not so good for senior full professors (ceiling).In any case I suppose we'll learn soon what the new collective agreement does on these issues.NicFrom: "Bernhard Riecke" <ber1@sfu.ca>
To: "Abraham Punnen" <apunnen@sfu.ca>
Cc: "SFUFA Forum" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:03:47 AM
Subject: Re: New Collective agreement - suggestionThanks Abraham, interesting suggestion.
However, I don't really see yet what the real problem is that the
proposed changes would address/solve, and how the new system could get
around unwanted conflicts.
In terms of incentives, I think something like the current system (which
has compounding effects if someone continues to excel or continues to,
well, do an okay job but have other priorities in life than being a
publication machine which can be quite legitimate) sets the right
incentives and is fairer than one-off merit awards. There's also no need
to apply for merit awards in regular intervals.
Being currently on study leave I talked to many faculty in different
university system abroad, most of which did not have a regular
performance evaluation (with various negative side effects), and I have
to say that I did prefer something like our current system (maybe with
modifications, of course) as it does provide imho a better incentive to
do well over extended periods of time.my 2 cents, looking forward to an interesting discussion hereBernhard
On 2016-05-22 08:31, Abraham Punnen wrote:
> One of the effective parts in the UNB collective agreement is how the
> periodic review of faculty is handled. Perhaps, we might think of something
> similar for our new collective agreement. Here is my suggestion (mostly
> taken from UNB collective agreement) and would like to hear from others.
>
> 1. The salary increase is fixed (1 step per year) for all faculty members
> and discontinue the current biennial review process.
> 2. A fund for merit awards will be in place. It is a one-time payment, say
> $3500, based on exceptional performance. There will be limits on the number
> of consecutive merit awards one can get. The award can be taken as a
> research grant (no tax implications) or cash (taxable income). This offers
> some reward for exceptional performers while maintaining a well balanced
> salary structure for all. Merit awards are decided by a faculty wide
> committee, based on departmental recommendations. Individuals can also self
> nominate for the merit award.
> 3. Our current average step increment is 1.32 per year. Since everyone gets
> 1 step automatically, the amount equivalent to 0.32 step times number of
> faculty members in each faculty will constitute the available pool for the
> merit award.
> 4. The university can ask for a performance review of any faculty member any
> time. If the performance is satisfactory after such a special review, then
> the faculty must be compensated by an amount equal to a merit award. This
> money however will not be from the merit award pool. (This is to deter
> calling for review of faculty very often but at the same time it offers some
> provisions for quality control). If there are serious issues in
> performance, appropriate disciplinary measures will be taken.
>
> I believe this (in some modified form) is a good format to get out of the
> biannual review process which is labor intensive and have the potential for
> unwanted conflicts.
>
> Abraham
>
> -----------------------
> Abraham Punnen
> http://www.sfu.ca/~apunnen/
>
>
>--
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bernhard E. Riecke, Associate Professor
School of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT)
Simon Fraser University Surrey
250 - 13450 102 Avenue, Surrey, BC V3T 0A3, Canada
web: www.iSpaceLab.com/Riecke www.sfu.ca/siat/people/faculty/bernhard-riecke.html
office: 2830 (2nd floor) E-mail: ber1@sfu.ca phone:+1 778.782.8432 fax: 778.782.9422--Nicolas Schmitt
Department of Economics
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby BC V5A 1S6 Canada
http://www.sfu.ca/~schmitt/