U-M Office of the Provost: Appendix A - Faculty Compensation Guidelines Study

University of Michigan Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

Events Calendar

Faculty Compensation Guidelines Study

Appendix A

To: Faculty Compensation Guidelines Study Committee
From: Jeff Frumkin
Re: Merit Salary Review Procedures Survey
Date: March 28, 2000

Listed below are the results of the survey of how each of the schools and colleges, except for Rackham, implement the merit salary review process every year. This information comes from the Dean or an associate dean in each of the listed schools and colleges.

The following were the questions asked of each respondent:

Does your school or college provide/require input from each department or equivalent unit? If so, does it come from the chair alone, or is there faculty input (based on standardized formats used in the unit, and/or peer review procedures)?
Does the executive committee become involved in the review process? If so, please describe their role.
Is there a process within the school or college for an individual to challenge the salary decision? If so, please describe it.

Architecture and Urban Planning:

Faculty submit an activity report summarizing accomplishments in teaching, research, and service as well as work in progress. The FAR (Faculty Activity Report) is reported on a standardized form.

Yes, the executive committee is involved in the merit review process. They review all the FAR's and evaluate each faculty member with a numerical score. These are then averaged and presented to the Dean. He makes the final salary decision based upon those scores, his own review, and consultation with appropriate chairs. The Chairs of each program provide written reviews of all governing faculty members.

Yes, there is a process to challenge a salary decision. Faculty may either talk to the Dean or file a formal grievance, which goes to the executive committee. (E-mail from Melissa Harris)

Art and Design:

Each faculty member submits an Annual Activity Report by the end of the school year. The Executive Committee and the two associate deans read all the reports, but also divide the reports equally (into sixths) and review and rate their list on a scale of 1-10. The ratings are weighted (teaching, creative activity and service). They then meet as a group to compare rankings and make a judgement on how to characterize the rankings (e.g., above 7 is excellent, below 2 is poor performance, etc.). This rating is without the assignment of salary dollars in mind. The Dean then makes the salary decisions, which may include equity issues. On occasion the group process also makes equity recommendations. (Interview with Sherri Smith)

Business:

Each faculty member submits an annual activity report. These reports are reviewed by the Executive Committee and rated on a scale of +2 to -2, with a forced mean of 0. The Dean and Associate Deans meet with the Executive Committee to discuss the ratings, focusing primarily on where there are wide discrepancies in ratings. The Associate Deans then meet as a group to review the recommendations from the Executive Committee and to make salary monies allocation recommendations to the Dean. There is then a final review made by the Senior Associate Dean and the Dean.

The Executive Committee also makes a five-year review of each faculty member. The focus here, however, is with respect to productivity. If the productivity has been low, there may be a recommendation for a higher teaching load. (Interview with Susan Ashford)

Dental School:

Each department has its own set of practices based on a set of guidelines established by the School. Most of the departments use a point system. Some departments also involve their executive committee as a review body. The department then submits their recommendations (and methodology) to the Dean. The Dean meets with the chair and reviews each recommendation. On occasion the Dean may request a review by the department for reconsideration. Perhaps once or twice per year a faculty member wants to have her/his salary decision reviewed. The Dean has the chair review the issue in light of the appeal made by the faculty member. (Interview with Bill Kotowicz)

Education:

The School does not have departments, but does have program area chairs. These chairs play a key role in this process. For senior faculty the program chairs and the Dean review the annual reports. The chairs make a recommendation for merit to the Dean. For junior faculty the members of the Executive Committee are assigned to review the annual report of individual faculty member and report their findings to the entire committee. Each junior faculty member has an assigned mentor who also participates in this process. Recommendations are then formed and forwarded to the Dean. The area chair and the Dean then meet with each individual junior faculty member to review the merit recommendation for that year.

The School also has a point system for converting reported activity to some form of numerical scale. (Interview with Annemarie Palincsar)

Engineering:

Engineering has a two-stage process. The initial stage involves the submission of the annual activity report by the faculty member. A departmental committee and the chair then review these reports, and make a set of recommendations. The departmental committee is aware of the general merit salary pool figure. Some departments set their recommendations near the average, while others have greater variance. The top 10-15% of the recommendations are also eligible for additional monies reserved by the Dean (up to 1% of the merit pool).

All of the departmental recommendations are then sent forward to the Associate Deans and the Dean. Their review centers on issues of discrepancy in the recommendations. The Dean makes the final decision. Any appeal is to the chair, which may ask the Dean to review his decision, or he may adjust the salary with departmental funds. (Interview with Linda Katehi)

Information and Library Studies:

The school does not have a department or an executive committee structure. There is a Dean's advisory committee. In the past faculty submit their annual activity report to the Dean. The Dean makes merit salary decisions. Faculty may appeal directly to the Dean. Adjustments have been made in the past. (Interview with Olivia Frost)

Kinesiology:

This is the first year for the new Division Director. The process in the past has been for each faculty member to submit an annual report. The two associate directors then review these reports and the executive committee and then a set of recommendations are forwarded to the Director. (Interview with Patricia Volkinberg)

Law School:

The school does not have a department or executive committee structure. The Dean reviews each faculty member's annual activity report and makes the merit salary determination. The Dean reads each faculty member's publications for the year as well. The Associate Dean provides input to the Dean on matters of teaching performance. (Interview with Chris Whitman)

LS&A:

Faculty submit an annual activities report. In some departments, the activity reports are reviewed by the executive committee of the department or by a special salary committee. Departments that use committees usually use "point" systems to summarize their evaluations. The salary committee then passes its recommendations on to the chair.

In other departments, the chair takes full responsibility for salary increase recommendations. In all cases the College merit system is structured so that the chair has the final say, or at least considerable discretion, in determining the salary recommendations that go to the Dean's office.

Staff in the Dean's office checks the recommendations for consistency across units that share joint appointments and to ensure that the recommendations are compatible with salary guidelines and with the available merit pools. Recommendations are then reviewed in detail by the Associate Dean who passes them on with comments to the Dean.

If there are questions, either the Dean or the Associate Dean meets with (or messages) the department's chair with questions and comments. Any revisions in the recommendations are worked out jointly among them. (E-mail from John Cross)

Medical School:

Department chairs set the salaries. The Dean is not directly involved with individual salaries. The executive committee is not involved in the review process. The Medical School does have an internal review process. It is a three-step process.

Step 1 is a discussion between the faculty member and the immediate unit leader (section head/division chief or department chair). If the matter is unresolved, the faculty member requests a formal review. The formal review is conducted at the unit level with the aid of comparative data (provided by the department and verified by the Office of the Dean). In addition, there is a description of the rationale for differential compensation levels within the unit based on time-in-rank, assignments and performance. If the dispute remains, the major points are conveyed in writing to the chair (in departments with multiple units) for review.

Step 2 is a review of the arguments and data supplied by the parties to the Office of the Dean.

Step 3 is a final appeal to the Dean. (E-mail from Jayne Thorson)

Music:

Each member of the faculty submits an annual activities report form. These are distributed for the information of the six-member executive committee (two associate deans and one assistant dean also serve on the executive committee ex officio). In addition to these reports, department chairs provide the executive committee with an assessment of the professional/creative, teaching, and service activities of each member of the faculty, using a standard format developed for the purpose in the School of Music. Each chair completes an evaluation form assessing the quality of the above and ranking the value of each member of the department hierarchically. The review occurs in the executive committee, which evaluates each member of the faculty individually for merit on a yearly basis during the winter term. The executive committee rates each faculty member on a scale of 1-10 (ten being high) based on the quality of teaching (weighted at .50); the quality of professional work (weighted at .40); and, the quality of service (weighted at .10). There is no formal appeal process. Any faculty member may discuss salary concerns with the Dean, who typically also meets with the lowest ranked members of the faculty to discuss means through which their contribution can be improved. (E-mail from Jim Borders)

Natural Resources:

Each faculty member submits an annual activity report. In the past these all went directly to the Dean. Last year the concentration chairs were asked to review the reports and make a recommendation to the Dean. This process will be continued this year. The Executive Committee makes a recommendation to the Dean on the distribution of merit monies, but does not make individual recommendations. The Associate Deans also review the recommendations and provide input to the Dean. Appeals go directly to the Dean. There have been adjustments made in the past as a result of an appeal. (Interview with James Diana)

School of Nursing:

Beginning with the 1999-00 academic year, faculty in the School of Nursing moved to a biannual merit evaluation unless the faculty or their immediate supervisor elects an annual review.

The faculty member submits a self-evaluation, using the format described in the SON Faculty Handbook, to the Division Director or Associate Dean. The Division Director or Associate Dean writes a merit evaluation using the faculty member's self-evaluation and other relevant data. The Merit Evaluation is used as a basis for a merit evaluation conference between the faculty and the Division Director/Associate Dean. At this point the faculty can challenge the evaluation with the Division Director/Associate Dean. Usually a discussion occurs which results either in a change in the evaluation or the faculty writing a statement to be submitted with the evaluation. Both the faculty and the Division Director/Associate Dean sign the evaluation, which then is sent to the Dean's office.

Once all faculty merit evaluations are completed, they are sorted by academic rank and ordered by level of merit. At a meeting of the Dean, the Division Directors, the Associate Dean and the Director of the Office of Business and Financial Affairs, all of the evaluations are reviewed across each rank for consistency and recommendations are made for merit salary and bonus awards. If a rating is changed, the Division Director/Associate Dean meets with the faculty member to discuss the changes. Again at this point, faculty may challenge the salary decision by writing the Dean. If the faculty is not satisfied with the results of this challenge, she/he can initiate a grievance process. (Faxed material from Carol Loveland-Cherry.)

Pharmacy:

The School is in a transition phase with this process. For many years the merit process had been at the sole determination of the Dean. A divisional structure has been established under Dean Kenyon. Each divisional head is now involved in the merit review process. Each divisional head reviews the annual reports of their faculty and makes a recommendation on merit increase. The four divisional heads meet as a group to review all the recommendations and then submit them to the Dean. Any appeal would be to the division head first, and then to the Dean. (Interview with Jim Richards)

School of Public Health:

SPH requires each faculty member to complete an annual report summarizing his or her research, teaching, and service activities for the year under review. There is a standardized format for the SPH. Some departments submit these materials to departmental (i.e., peer) review, most do not. The Associate Dean meets with each chair individually to review his or her faculty. Both of us have the materials prepared by the faculty in advance of our meeting.

The Associate Dean discuss each faculty member individually, and after some discussion they arrive at an agreed upon merit score (on a scale of 0-5). The Dean uses those scores when she sets salaries for the coming year.

The executive committee is not involved in the review process. The process for challenging a merit salary increase is not formalized. What it usually entails is the faculty member expressing his or her discontent with the chair. The chair will then bring it to the attention of the Dean and the Associate Dean if the chair sees merit in the faculty member's complaint. (E-mail response from Mark Becker)

Public Policy:

Dean Blank and Associate Dean Chamberlain indicated how SPP would operate this year. SPP does not have written guidelines on this yet but will probably develop some over the summer.

Because of SPP's small size they do not have departments so there is no elaborate hierarchy involved. SPP does not need or have a process that develops recommendations for the Dean. Each faculty member will be asked to submit to the Dean an up-to-date CV and a report on her/his activities for the past year, including activities in other units on campus.

The Executive Committee will not be involved in setting salaries. The Dean will set salaries, probably after some conversation with me (due to my roles this year as associate and acting dean). The Dean will also communicate and coordinate with other Deans when faculty have joint appointments, which most of our faculty do.

There is no formal process for challenging salaries. Since SPP is so small and the Dean has regular contact with the entire faculty, she will be available to meet with any faculty member who wishes to discuss or challenge her/his salary. Should that produce an outcome satisfactory to the faculty member, s/he can turn to the ombud or the grievance process. (E-mail from John Chamberlain)

Social Work:

All faculties submit annual activity reports. There is a weighted rank system for each area; teaching, research and service. At the faculty member's request, the weighted rank can be modified to reflect the current emphasis of the faculty member. The Executive Committee (including the Dean) reviews the reports and assigns a rank score in each of the areas. The Dean establishes a merit pool figure and the monies are divided on a point scale basis; e.g., all faculty with a ranking of 5 get $X, all faculty with a ranking of 4 receive $Y, etc. This system at times has the by-product of salary compression because of newly hired faculty salaries that reflect inflation and/or market. Thus, 4-5 years ago a compression adjustment was made. (Interview with Diane Vinokur)

Below is a chart that summarizes the responses I received from the schools and colleges regarding the merit salary review process:

Unit F.A.R. D.C. Chair E.C. A.D. Challenge

CAUP Y N Y Y N Y

ART Y N N Y Y Y

BUSINESS Y N N Y Y Y

DENTISTRY Y Y Y N N Y

EDUCATION Y N Y Y N Y

ENGINEERING Y Y Y N Y Y

INFORMATION Y N N N N Y

KINESIOLOGY Y N N Y Y Y

LAW Y N N N Y Y

LS&A Y Y Y Y Y Y

MEDICINE Y N Y N N Y

MUSIC Y N Y Y Y Y

NURSING Y N Y N Y Y

PHARMACY Y N Y N N Y

PUBLIC HEALTH Y N Y N Y Y

PUBLIC POLICY Y N N N N Y

SOCIAL WORK Y N N Y Y Y

The abbreviation above are as follows:

F.A.R: Faculty Activity Report
D.C: Departmental Committee
E.C: Executive Committee
A.D: Associate Dean

In addition, the following notations need to be given about certain responses (more fully explained in the documentation):

In Education the chair is primarily involved with recommending senior faculty salaries, while the Executive Committee has a primary role with the junior faculty.
In Law, the Associate Dean provides input to the Dean on teaching performance only.
In Pharmacy the chairs meet as a group to review and recommend merit salary increases.
All eighteen schools and colleges have a system for self-reporting of activity by each member of the faculty. Nursing has an annual reporting process, but a bi-annual merit review process.
Only three units (Dentistry, Engineering and LS&A) report some type of departmental committee review process.
Eleven of eighteen units reported that the chair (or equivalent) was involved in the salary review process. Of the seven that did not indicate chair involvement, none have a formal department structure. Nine of eighteen units involve their executive committees in some fashion.
Eleven of eighteen units involve the associate dean(s) in some fashion. All eighteen units indicated that individual concerns could (and have been) raised to the dean. Five units report some type of structure for hearing challenges, ranging from an initial meeting with the chair to a formal grievance.

FACULTY COMPENSATION GUIDELINES STUDY