We’ve had a lot of questions about whether the position of the MSFF Steering Committee regarding Pay for Performance has changed since we distributed our handout earlier this fall. Our concerns remain and so we have re-posted our bullet points here on the MSFF web site. You will find them in the article just after this one.
As discussion on P4P continued throughout the course of the semester and as we looked at more and more of the research from the field of Management, we were disturbed by findings that employees under pay for performance tend to emphasize and fulfill only those tasks which have been listed and described for reward while neglecting other duties that did not make it into the guidelines. Time and again, in various studies, we learned that the result of what’s called a “perverse motivator” meant the failure to meet a production quota or other such objective in a “for profit” company, and that’s problematic enough.
We don’t usually produce goods for profit, but we fear what happens to the education of our students and our academic mission if P4P shifts the focus of our obligations to serve students and advance knowledge in our fields to whatever faculty can do to aggrandize themselves. The assumption of a pay for performance program is that employees are motivated only by money. That we have chosen this profession already indicates that our motivations are far more varied than simply this. Some of our members have told us that they are highly insulted by the idea that they would change their priorities for a “cash prize. “ They were equally frustrated with the idea that they would not see an increase in their pay checks for their diligent efforts if they did not fall into line with a particular set of college wide guidelines, even if these were not applicable to their fields or pedagogy or contributions. Further, it is difficult to have confidence that the Metro P4P plan will remedy the experience of employees in other sectors since the guidelines for our faculty have not been finalized.
The faculty at Metro are poorly and unfairly compensated. Base pay is inadequate and will not be remedied by the Pay for Performance plan as currently constituted. Salaries must be brought into line with CUPA data that reflect the real cost of living in the
That’s the way we continue to see it from the Steering Committee of the MSFF. We invite your response, so contact us at MSFF6321@aol.com and we’ll post your ideas as well. Email us too if you want to look at the research we have found on Pay for Performance and why so many entities are walking away from P4P programs. We’ll be happy to share.
For the MSFF Steering Committee:
Ellen Slatkin Renée Ruderman Norman Pence
