On April 6, the CAPE Forum, presented Irv Schiffman, Department of Political Science and president of CSU, Chico's California Faculty Association, Jack McKenna, College of Business, and Peter Gross, Department of Journalism, in a discussion of merit pay.
Schiffman discussed the history of the PSSI which former Chancellor Barry Munitz introduced from his experience in the corporate world without a study about the appropriateness of a merit system to the CSU.
CFA and its membership does not support merit pay because of its inherent problems: it disregards intrinsic motivation as a major determinant of faculty performance; it replaces collegial cooperation with collegial competition and conflict; and it lacks due process.
Schiffman reviewed a number of studies that concluded that for merit pay to be an effective motivator of employee performance, at least two conditions must be met: (1) performance must be accurately measured, and (2) the relationship between pay and performance must be clearly defined. He argued that neither of these conditions were met in the three years that PSSIs were distributed.
McKenna has reviewed merit pay research literature and said that there is no under supply of research on merit pay in both the private business sector and the public sector of higher education. The results of the literature are mixed, at best, said McKenna. It has been shown to be both effective and catastrophic, depending on the context.
McKenna was the lead investigator in a study of CSU, Chico faculty members. One hundred and seventy-six responses to a questionnaire regarding merit pay in the CSU were received. The instrument was designed with information from the four prevailing theories of merit pay which include reinforcement, expectation, equity, and goal-setting theory. Goal-setting theory turned out to be the strongest predictor of performance in merit pay. Goal- setting theory asserts that for merit pay to work, three things must be in place: (1) expectations must be explicit; (2) expectations must be achievable; and (3) people need a stake and a say in the process.
Preliminary findings from the study indicated that individuals for whom the merit pay system had encouraged goal-setting behaviors reported having improved their performance in the performance outcome areas of teaching, research, and service. An interesting aspect of this finding is that this improvement occurred without a perceived increase in effort. It may be, McKenna and the other investigators suggested, that those respondents felt as though they were already putting in considerable effort.
Gross believes that a merit pay system can be effective, helpful, and even necessary in its reward of those who perform over and above their colleagues. The point, Gross said, is not to be in competition with one's colleagues, but to be recognized and rewarded for one's work and achievements. The problems with the current CSU merit pay proposal is that the money is limited, that there are no criteria, and that the administration is involved in making decisions about awards.
Although Schiffman argued that the RTP process is a merit system, Gross said that RTP is not a merit system: criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion vary from college to college and they are neither supportable nor precise.
Gross used the analogy of an Olympic team: "All of you are so good that you are now on the team. Does it mean that you are guaranteed a medal or a gold medal?" No, he answered, only that you have participated. He suggested that promotion and tenure as it now stands is likened to everyone being rewarded for being on the team. All faculty may indeed be meritorious, but, he asked if they are equally meritorious. "The answer is no," he said.
Gross said that there are things that separate one faculty member's work from anothers including the reputation gained at a local, national, and even international level. "We do ourselves a service," he said, however, "when we define the criteria ourselves."
Gross made a distinction between being a teacher and a professor to clarify conversations surrounding rewarding good "teaching." "I am not a teacher, an important job at the K-12 levels. I am a professor. As a professor, I do something quite different. I educate by being an expert in my field. I see a qualitative difference between educating and teaching."
Gross emphasized that merit pay should be seen as a system of rewards and not competition. It does, he acknowledged, create separations in the same way that students are spirited by grades, by acceptance into graduate programs, and, eventually, by hiring.
Gross and Schiffman concluded with a discussion of the idea that the merit pay awards come out of others' salaries. Schiffman said that given the 40 percent allocated for merit pay, the amount comes directly out of what colleagues might have received in their paychecks. "It is money taken out of everybody's salary and awarded to 107 individuals (the number at Chico who have thus far received awards), said Schiffman.
Gross disagreed, suggesting that it was only a change in a system that has insured automatic raises in the past, whether you earned it or not. "Now that it has disappeared, it looks as if something has been taken away, when in reality, it has not."}
KM