The short interpretation of your message seems to be that two different systems with roughly the same monetary
outcome but not the same design or rules generate the same incentives so we might as well go
with the simpler (and more predictable) design/rules.
If this is the correct interpretation of your message, I cannot agree.
Incentives matter a great deal and merit pay determination is worth the effort, the time and even (at least to a point) the disputes.
Also not all units give 1 and 1.5 only but it is a fact that it is easier to go below 1 and above 1.5 in large units than in small ones.
But this is a problem with the base not with the rules governing merit pay.
Do not get me wrong the current system has its flaws but incentives should remain an important consideration with any
proposed modifications.
From: "Abraham Punnen" <apunnen@sfu.ca>
To: "Bernhard Riecke" <ber1@sfu.ca>
Cc: "SFUFA Forum" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:10:02 PM
Subject: RE: New Collective agreement - suggestion
Bernhard and others,
The basic ideas expressed in all the posts support excellence in
scholarship, and are consistent with my views as well. Before I explain
further, I would like to note that the current bargaining position under
consideration is very well thought out, proposing incremental changes rather
than drastic ones that have a better chance of success. Having said that, it
is also interesting to discuss different points of views and merits and
drawbacks of alternative models.
The compounding effect of the current system is only minimally
useful because of the low ceiling level. The model I proposed is on the
average equivalent to a slow step increase (1 step per year) + 0.32 step
increment in perpetuity (until retirement) after reaching ceiling. The
model makes the .032 part competitive, merit based, and not called salary.
In the long run, it will be beneficial for all and is a good compromise to
ceiling removal.
If we examine the data for the past 10 years, most likely we will
see that approximately half of the cohort gets 1.00 step and the other half
gets 1.5 in each year. In reality, this works out to be 1.25 departmental
average for all most all members over a 10-year period. Not many people make
2 or even 1.5 average over a 10-year period nor do people make 0.75 or .5
average over a 10-year period. So, in reality the current assessment process
is redundant and we spend considerable time and effort, and generate
conflicts at times. A simulation model can show that an active researcher is
better off with my proposed model where progress to the ceiling is slightly
slow but have the additional advantage of higher compensation after reaching
ceiling. Also, there will be additional incentive for the university
administration to consider the model favorably.
Since everyone gets same increments, complaints like a particular
group is favored/disadvantaged can be avoided as well. Thus the salary
structure will be well balanced. Look forward to hear all supporting and
opposing views.
Abraham
-----------------------
Abraham Punnen
http://www.sfu.ca/~apunnen/
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernhard Riecke [mailto:ber1@sfu.ca]
Sent: May 24, 2016 1:04 AM
To: Abraham Punnen <apunnen@sfu.ca>
Cc: 'SFUFA Forum' <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: New Collective agreement - suggestion
Thanks 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 here
Bernhard
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