1. Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative
October 6th 2017

2. Overview
The provost has initiated a plan by which departments will engage in a process that quantifies performance.
Basic idea:
Workload divided into Teaching, Research, Service/Administration
Rubrics developed for assigning performance in each category
Total score results
Pay increases tied to scores

3. Overview
The slides that follow are from a presentation to the Organization of Academic department chairs by Dave Barrett, Associate Dean in the College of Education.
While we do not need to conform to the details of the College of Ed Approach, we do need to establish our own guidelines and procedures.

4. Provost’s Merit Pay Initiative
Guidelines and Recommendations
September 27, 2017

5. The Charge
Each department at Clemson University must develop a plan which stipulates the decision rules to be followed by department chairs when they make recommendations to the Dean regarding merit compensation for faculty
This process must be in place by May 2018, so that it
can be piloted on real faculty performance data
Our goal is better alignment of merit compensation with faculty performance

6. Timeline for 2017-1018 Academic Year
By October 1, 2017 Chairs have confirmed faculty workload distributions By March 2018 Each department has developed its plans/procedures for rating faculty performance and faculty have approved plans By April 2018 Deans have reviewed and approved rating plans By June 2018 Pilot ratings have been conducted and results evaluated

7. Timeline for 2017-1018 Academic Year
Most faculty budgeted:
37.5% classroom teaching
12.5% grad supervision/directed studies/thesis committees
45% research
5% service / committees
Timeline for Academic Year
By October 1, 2017 Chairs have confirmed faculty workload distributions By March 2018 Each department has developed its plans/procedures for rating faculty performance and faculty have approved plans By April 2018 Deans have reviewed and approved rating plans By June 2018 Pilot ratings have been conducted and results evaluated

8. Required of all Departmental Plans
Each department develops its own scoring/evaluation system
Chairs apply these procedures in making recommendations to the Dean of the College
The Dean holds up to 25% of available funds to be used at his or her discretion
All ratings on 7 point scale
Ratings for each category of performance that department uses in
workload distributions
Category ratings must be individually weighted by % Effort
Weighted category ratings sum to Total Score
8. Expected that Total Scores will average about 4.0

9. Example: Rating Research
Excellent
Rating 6-7
Very Good
Rating 4-5
Good
Rating 2-3
Securing External
Funding
PI (or equal credit as Co-PI) on grants totaling >$500K
PI (or equal credit as Co-PI) on grants totaling >$100K
PI (or equal credit as Co-PI) on externally funded grant
Publications
Multiple publications in high impact journals; 1st author on book (major academic publisher)
Multiple publications in moderate impact journals; co- author or
editor of book
Publication in refereed
journal; invited book chapter
Other
Invited plenary address; editor of major journal
Recipient of research
fellowship, associate
editor of journal
Peer-reviewed papers; external consultant on research grant

10. Example: Rating Teaching
Excellent
Rating 6-7
Very Good
Rating 4-5
Good
Rating 2-3
Classroom Teaching
National teaching award; exceptional student evaluations; Clemson Alumni Professor
Notably high student evaluations; shows impact on student learning; develops curricular materials
Consistently positive student evaluations; develops a new course
Mentoring
Publications with students as co-author in high impact journals
Publication with students in moderate impact journal; mentors new faculty member
Publication with student; advises student group; leads a creative inquiry group
Other
Recognized, long-
term professional
development (PD)
Moderate PD activity;
chairs multiple PhD committees
Some PD activity; serves on PhD committees

11. Example: Rating Service
Excellent
Rating 6-7
Very Good
Rating 4-5
Good
Rating 2-3
Service to Field
National award for service; major University award for service; president of national professional
association; national
education panel
Officer of national
professional organization; state or regional award for service; program chair
for conference
College or department
award for service; proposal reviewer for conference
Service to University
President of Faculty Senate; faculty
representative to
Board of Trustees
Selected for University commission; program coordinator for department; author of accreditation report
Chairs department or
college committee; chairs search committee; significant
accreditation activity
Other
Professional service demonstrates national impact
Professional service demonstrates state or regional impact
Professional service
demonstrates local impact

12. Example: Arriving at Total Scores*
Rating
R Weight
Score T
Weight S
TOTAL
SCORE
Faculty A 3
.50
1.50 4
.35
1.40 6
.15
.90
3.80
Professor
Faculty B
.60
3.60 5
.30
.10
.40
5.50
Assistant
Faculty C NA
.00
1.00
4.00
Lecturer
* For this example, assume 3 Categories: Research (R), Teaching (T) and Service (S)

13. From Ratings to Pay Recommendations
There are many options. Some examples:
Available merit pools divided into tenure track and non-tenure track.
Total Score determines % of available pool.
Same as 1. above but Total Score adjusted for current salary
(to limit % salary increase) before apportioning available funds
Single salary pool, then same as 2. above

14. Questions for your Department
Other issues for us:
How to standardize FAS categories/entries
When do pubs “count”?
Where does grad supervision go?
Which duties are admin & which are service?
Do we want to make a distinction?
How to divide $$ across divisions
Each division to create criteria
Then reconcile across divisions?
What are the performance categories that are applicable to your department? Note that FAS lists 10 specific categories of performance; we recommend using the fewest possible categories.
Are you going to use the same rating system for non-tenure track faculty that you use for tenured and tenure track faculty?
In this pilot year, will your decision-rules link Total Score ratings to recommendations for % salary increases or to flat amount salary increases?
Will you base ratings on a 3 year “window” of performance?
Are you going to set minimum weights (percentages) for Research for tenured and tenure track faculty?
What will be the role of faculty or faculty committees once criteria are established? For example, will they recommend ratings to the chair? Review the chair’s ratings prior to submission to the Dean?

15. Timeline for 2017-1018 Academic Year
By October 1, 2017 Chairs have confirmed faculty workload distributions By March 2018 Each department has developed its plans/procedures for rating faculty performance and faculty have approved plans By April 2018 Deans have reviewed and approved rating plans By June 2018 Pilot ratings have been conducted and results evaluated

16. For Further Information and Questions
Dave Barrett, will oversee project and will work with College of Education, CBSHS, and College of Business Bob Cohen, will work with College of Science and CAFLS Brian Powell, will work with CECAS and College of AAH