Merit Salary Adjustments

July 7, 1989

Updated September 2004

University policies and guidelines on faculty evaluation are described in The University of Alabama Faculty Handbook (p. 33). This document summarizes the policies on merit salary adjustments for the Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration that supplement the general University policies.

For purposes of merit salary adjustments, the following policies and review procedures have been established:

1. Separate and distinct evaluations are to be made of teaching, research, and service. Judgments by the Department Head/Director and the Dean are required in making merit evaluations.
   
   
2. Ten percent of the salary adjustment funds are to be retained and allocated by the Dean’s Office using market conditions and productivity as the criteria. When making a market adjustment, the Dean will consider the market value of the individual. The Dean is expected to be able to articulate the rationale for market/productivity adjustments.
   
   
3. Each faculty member is to be considered for the possibility of a merit service increment, and up to 20 percent of the funds made available to the Department can be designated for service raises for selected faculty.
   
   
4. The funds not designated for service are to be allocated 50:50 to teaching and research. Separate evaluations of teaching and research are to be made, and each faculty member is then to be assigned to one of five merit categories. The Department Head/Director is expected to be able to articulate succinctly the rationale for placing a faculty member in a particular merit category. Merit evaluations are to be based on performance over the immediately preceding three-year period.

Merit salary evaluations are tied to a faculty member’s performance and workload. The UA Faculty Handbook (p. 39) defines a full-time work load as “. . . twelve hours of undergraduate teaching per semester combined with the other duties required by good academic citizenship.” The UA Faculty Handbook further provides, “Negotiations between the chairperson and the faculty member can result in replacing part of the teaching component . . . by time assigned to research or other activities which contribute to the mission of the University. . . .” The UA Faculty Handbook (p. 33) directly addresses the issue of merit evaluation of faculty for salary increases as follows:

“Faculty members are subject to evaluations throughout their careers since decisions must be made about matters such as salary increases and the amount of time for research. The criteria and standards used in these evaluations shall be similar to those used in reviews for tenure and promotion, except that these continuing reviews shall concentrate on the question of whether the individual has maintained or improved the level of performance which justified hiring, earlier promotions, and/or tenure.”

The promotion and tenure criteria are articulated in detail in the UA Faculty Handbook (pp. 17-27). The criteria are slightly different for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor and promotion to Professor. However, the substantive bases of the criteria are quite similar and are revealed by the following performance standards which apply to promotion to the rank of Professor:

1. “A successful candidate must present convincing evidence of outstanding instructional performance and effectiveness; each candidate’s record should be judged sufficiently consistent in quality to warrant the expectation of continued performance at this level” (p. 22).
   
   
2. “A successful candidate must present an outstanding record of productive research, publication, creative activity, and scholarly achievement appropriate to his/her discipline and fields of specialization; this record should be sufficiently consistent in both quantity and quality to warrant the expectation of continued performance at this level” (p. 22).
   
   
3. “Each successful candidate must show evidence of a continuing record of outreach/academic citizenship appropriate to the candidate’s area of expertise” (p 23).

It is clear from the UA Faculty Handbook that annual merit evaluations must consider the following fundamental questions:

• Has performance in teaching been maintained or improved, and is it at an appropriate level?
  
  
• Has performance in research been maintained or improved, and is it at an appropriate level for the rank and position held?
  
  
• Is there a continuing record of responsible academic citizenship?

To assess faculty performance and make merit evaluations, the following explicit and specific criteria must be used to supplement the general criteria set forth in the UA Faculty Handbook.

A.   Evaluation of Teaching Performance

Teaching evaluation criteria should be consistent with both the UA Faculty Handbook and College Policy on Student Evaluations of Teachers. In addition to the criteria described in these documents, the annual merit evaluation should consider the following: (not necessarily listed in order of importance)

1. The quality of the teaching.
   
   
2. The quantity of teaching, including the number of students and the number of courses.
   
   
3. The difficulty/uniqueness of preparation and delivery.
   
   
4. The response of students to the faculty member’s teaching efforts.
   
   
5. Special materials, cases, and other extra preparation efforts necessary for unique and specialized courses.
   
   
6. Dissertations directed and other dissertation committee membership.
   
   
7. Student advising.
   
   
8. Publication of textbooks and other teaching materials.

The evaluation of teaching in each individual case should consider these aspects of performance in establishing the recommended merit adjustment for teaching.

B.   Evaluation of Service

Valuable service contributions that are above and beyond the UA Faculty Handbook’s requirement of “a continuing record of outreach/academic citizenship” (p. 21) may be rewarded in two ways. First, important assignments of a continuing nature may be the basis for a reduction in teaching load or special summer research support to compensate for research time lost during the academic year because of significant service activities and responsibilities. Second, merit salary adjustments may be assigned for outstanding and valuable contributions to the Department/School. The total amount of such awards is limited by the 20 percent rule outlined on page 1. Generally, these merit increments should be made only for continuing and significant departmental service and important service activities relating to the faculty member’s academic discipline (e.g. officer in a major academic association).

C.   Evaluation of Research and Scholarship

The UA Faculty Handbook states that faculty members at all ranks are “expected to engage in an ongoing program of research, publication, creative activity, and scholarly effort that is appropriate to their appointment, discipline, and fields of specialization” (p. 13). For purposes of promotion and tenure, the value placed on each scholarly activity varies according to the contribution it makes to the discipline and to the professional stature of the candidate. Furthermore, the UA Faculty Handbook specifies that “each successful candidate is expected to have published a number of substantial articles in recognized refereed journals in his/her discipline. . .” (pp. 20, 22, 25).

The Final Report of the AACSB Task Force on Research (1987) establishes the following minimum standard for faculty research: “Research must be written, be subject to scrutiny and criticism by one’s peers, and extend the boundaries of current knowledge” (p. 4). The AACSB Report also recognizes that some business schools may seek to encourage and reward a more narrow definition of research and suggests that promotion and tenure standards as well as annual performance reviews for merit salary purposes should require that every faculty member engage in research activity.

In providing greater specificity for the College, research and scholarship evaluations should be based primarily on accepted or published materials giving consideration to the nature of the work and the general readership of the publications in which the work appears. Refereed journal articles are a principal form for disseminating new knowledge in most business disciplines. Generally, papers appearing in leading academic journals are to be considered as making a significant contribution to one’s discipline. Other avenues for extending the boundaries of knowledge may include scholarly books and monographs, chapters in scholarly books, papers in professional and/or practitioner journals, and other reference works. Co-authoring activity is recognized as having merit, as is interdisciplinary research. In this context, the faculty member’s “discipline” is to be interpreted broadly to include related functional and foundation areas of commerce and business administration. The evaluation of research also may include an assessment of a faculty member’s success in securing competitive research awards that are based on substantive external peer review (e.g., National Science Foundation awards). Material that is proprietary in nature, such as consulting reports or proprietary computer software, does not meet the minimum AACSB standard to qualify as research for merit salary purposes. Textbooks and other teaching materials are generally considered to be relevant to the evaluation of teaching performance, rather than to the evaluation of research and scholarship.

D.   Assignment to Merit Categories and Percentage Increases
       Within Categories

All individuals in a Department/School receiving the same merit rating for teaching should receive approximately the same merit percentage increase for teaching performance. Similarly, those receiving the same rating for research should receive approximately the same percentage merit increase for their research contributions. Further, those judged to be in higher merit categories should receive larger percentage raises than those in lower merit categories.

 E.   Teaching Loads and Assignments to Merit Categories

A faculty member who is assigned a heavier than average teaching load may contribute more to the teaching enterprise. However, a heavier load by itself is not sufficient reason to elevate the evaluation of teaching to a higher merit category. A heavier load combined with conscientious and effective teaching may elevate the evaluation of teaching to a higher category. In this context, effective teaching includes advising student organizations, continuing interaction with students, being readily available to students, assisting the Department/School in promoting quality education for undergraduate students, and carrying a heavier than average load in teaching large sections.

 F.   Unsatisfactory Performance

Unsatisfactory research performance is reflected by the absence of a continuing and productive record of scholarly research and publication activities. Such performance would not lead to promotion and tenure, and therefore, cannot be considered as acceptable for merit salary adjustments. For those having reduced teaching loads to encourage and facilitate research, unsatisfactory performance will result in an upward adjustment of the assigned teaching load. As noted above, the full-time workload is twelve semester hours of undergraduate teaching, which can be reduced to promote and facilitate research.

Unsatisfactory teaching is defined in the College Policy on Student Evaluation of Teachers. Such performance would not lead to a favorable promotion and/or tenure recommendation and, therefore, cannot be considered as an acceptable level of performance for merit salary adjustment purposes.

Finally, as provided by the UA Faculty Handbook (pp. 21, 23, 26), the absence of outreach/academic citizenship detracts from what otherwise might have been a strong set of qualifications for a merit salary adjustment. Thus, performance in teaching and research is necessary for all merit salary increases but not sufficient. Effectiveness in teaching and research must be accompanied by responsible academic citizenship.

G.   Documentation of Recommendations

The Department Head/Director is responsible for making judgments concerning departmental service increments and merit category assignments for teaching and research. In accordance with the general instructions concerning merit recommendations, the Department Head/Director also makes specific dollar salary recommendations for teaching, research, and service. The recommendations must be supplemented with information that reveals the substantive basis for the judgment.

H.   Annual Merit Evaluation Criteria

Statement of Principles

Evaluation criteria are developed to provide guidance for faculty in determining how to allocate their time and efforts and as a basis for evaluating faculty performance. They also provide a basis for setting program goals and for evaluating success in meeting those goals. These criteria are designed specifically for tenure-track faculty and should be adapted as needed for evaluation of other faculty and instructors.

Teaching excellence and the creation of a superior learning environment throughout the College is a top priority. All faculty are expected to be conscientious in their teaching efforts, to maintain high standards, and to remain current on issues of relevance to the educational process. Success on other criteria does not compensate for poor teaching performance and will not be rewarded unless this criterion is met.

Academic market value is driven largely by research efforts as demonstrated by publications. The market for faculty is segmented among those who publish in top academic journals, those who publish in less academically respected journals, and those who do not publish or who do so infrequently. Consequently, significant salary differentials are likely to exist among faculty, who otherwise meet the teaching criterion, based on their research performances. These differentials are dictated by the market in which faculty work.

Teaching

All faculty are expected to be conscientious and effective classroom teachers. Teaching excellence is not necessarily defined as receiving superior student evaluations but by demonstration of a commitment to effective learning and ongoing development of the skills necessary to create an effective learning environment.

The College uses a five point scale to evaluate teaching. That scale shall be interpreted as follows:

1. Superior performance above that normally expected of faculty. Contributions that substantially enhance the learning environment and the reputation of the College.
   
   
2. Performance consistent with the College’s expectation of teaching excellence. Evidence of a commitment to continuous improvement and special contributions to the teaching program, including extra sections and preparations and/or leadership in  program and course development and coordination.
   
   
3. Performance consistent with the College’s expectation of teaching excellence. Evidence of a commitment to continuous improvement.
   
   
4. Performance below the College’s expectations of teaching excellence. Teaching efforts may be meritorious but the faculty member is encouraged to make special efforts to enhance teaching in ways to be detailed in the evaluation.
   
   
5. Performance well below the College’s expectations. Significant and immediate efforts are needed to improve performance in ways to be detailed in the evaluation.
   

Activities and attributes that are consistent with teaching excellence include, but are not limited to: 

• A clear statement of course objectives and expectations for each course taught.
  
  
• Up-to-date course content.
  
  
• Emphasis on developing higher level cognitive and communication skills in addition to basic technical knowledge.
  
  
• Preparation of students for subsequent courses.
  
  
• Creation of a professional orientation and climate in the classroom.
  
  
• Creation of a stimulating learning environment that encourages students to work hard and perform well.
  
  
• Fair, consistent, and courteous treatment of students.
  
  
• Meaningful use of technology to enhance the learning process.
  
  
• Interaction with other faculty to determine appropriate content and learning  objectives.  Each course should fit into overall program objectives and help achieve the College’s mission.

Faculty can demonstrate their success in meeting the teaching criterion by providing evidence in their teaching portfolios of: 

• Course syllabi that communicate course objectives and expectations clearly and precisely.
  
  
• Exams, projects, cases, and other evaluation instruments.
  
  
• Student evaluations and other student input.
  
  
• Observation of classroom activities by the Department Head or other faculty.
  
  
• Self-evaluation reports.
  
  
• Statements of teaching philosophy and methods.
  
  
• Peer review of course materials.
  
  
• Participation in discussions, workshops, professional organizations, and professional development activities that are directed towards teaching improvement and enhancement.
  
  
• Research, publication, and work activities directed toward enhancing teaching and course content.

This list is not intended to be comprehensive nor is it necessary that faculty use all of these methods. Further, the quality of these efforts and the documentation to support them is more important than simply providing evidence of their existence.

 Research

A superior research effort is one that focuses on the development of a stream of research that is acknowledged through peer review as making a substantial contribution to knowledge and understanding in a particular discipline. Quantity of research and publication is less important than quality. Conference presentations add marginally to an otherwise good record but carry little weight independent of publications.

The College uses a five point scale to evaluate research performance. This scale shall be interpreted as follows:

1. Superior record of research leading to publication in top journals, including Tier 1 journals.
   
   

2. Continuing record of research leading to publication in top journals, including Tier 1 and Tier 2 journals.
   
   

3. Continuing record of research leading to publication in respected journals.
   
   

4. Occasional research and publication.
   
   
5. Extended period without research and publication.
   

Teaching will be rewarded independent of research but the opposite is not true. An otherwise superior research record will not be rewarded without evidence of teaching excellence.

Evidence of research performance can be provided by providing evidence in the research portfolio of:

• Publications, including research books and book chapters;
  
  
• Working papers;
  
  
• Workshop presentations;
  
  
• Conference presentations;
  
  
• Application for research grants;
  
  
• Receipt of research grants;
  
  
• Citations.

 Publications are by far the most important of these.

 Service and Outreach

All faculty are expected to contribute to service and outreach activities. The extent of those responsibilities will depend on individual, departmental and College needs. Tenured faculty are expected to engage in a much higher level of service activity than other tenure-track faculty.

The College does not provide a scale for evaluating service and outreach activities. Faculty will be evaluated on these activities and will be rewarded for superior performance. Poor performance will detract from an otherwise meritorious record.

Activities and attributes consistent with service excellence include but are not limited to:

• Sharing program and committee responsibilities willingly and effective accomplishment of those responsibilities.
  
  
• Contributing to a positive and professional work environment.
  
• Participation in College extracurricular activities, student organizations, research workshops, and other College functions.
  
  
• Engaging in professional activities and participation in academic and professional organizations in such a way as to promote the professional image and reputation of the College.
  
  
• Meritorious assistance to students, staff, and colleagues.
  
  
• Participation in grants, contracts, and professional work activities that enhance the College’s reputation and resource base.

 Evidence of service efforts can be provided by means of:

• Awards and formal recognition.
  
  
• University, College, and departmental committee service.
  
  
• Program leadership activities.
  
  
• Attendance at and contribution to College functions and research workshops.
  
  
• Participation in academic and professional organizations.
  
  
• Leadership positions in academic and professional organizations.
  
  
• Formal evaluation of service activities by committee chairs and others in a  supervisory capacity.
  
  
• Service on editorial boards.