APPS 5.04.01 Merit/Performance Policy

01. POLICY STATEMENT

Periodically, the university awards merit-based salary raises to all eligible faculty members. This policy describes the annual performance evaluation process and performance criteria that guides the allocation of merit-based pay raises to faculty. Faculty are evaluated in three categories for merit and annual performance: teaching, scholarship/professional engagement, and service activities. Ratings of between zero and five are assigned to each category for each faculty member. When rating an individual in each category, the Chair will rely on information provided by the faculty member in the faculty member’s Self Evaluation Report, student teaching evaluations, personal observation, and any other documentation (such as peer reviews, etc.) available (Faculty will load their Self Evaluation Report into the Faculty Qualifications system.) Although some degree of subjectivity is necessary in any performance evaluation, the Chair will first use objective guidelines to the extent that they are available and applicable to rate each faculty member. The Department Chair and the individual faculty member will meet to discuss the evaluation, and the Department Chair will enter the evaluation into the Faculty Qualification (FQ) system. The faculty member will have the opportunity to respond to the Chair’s evaluation in the FQ system. 

In absence of information to the contrary, weights assigned to each evaluation category for tenured faculty are 40% teaching, 40% scholarship, and 20% service; weights for tenure-track faculty are 40% teaching, 50% scholarship, and 10% service; weights for nontenure line faculty are 40% teaching, 20% professional activities, and 40% service. However, in the year prior to the evaluation and feedback process, different weights may be assigned after discussion and agreement between the faculty member and the Chair; if they cannot agree, the faculty member may petition the Dean for approval. Opportunity to reset weights will be given to each qualifying faculty member in early spring at least nine months prior to the next evaluation; however, weights must be in conformity with those included in CBAPPS 5.01 Faculty Evaluation. Tenure-track faculty cannot change the weightings (40/50/10). Faculty who fail to maintain their assigned faculty qualification classification (e.g. SA, PA) during the entire evaluation period will not be eligible for merit-based pay raises. 

02. TEACHING

Teaching performance will be ascertained by a subjective assessment of the extent to which the faculty member demonstrates most of the following traits: 

• Knowledge of course material
• Intellectual rigor suitable for the course and its academic level, as illustrated by course syllabus, exam/assignment content, etc.
• Student engagement
• Experimentation with new classroom pedagogy and technology
• Ability to relate to students of varying abilities
• Sharing of materials and successful techniques with other faculty
• Teaching and/or developing new courses
• Punctuality and preparedness in class attendance
• Timeliness in returning student assignments and examinations
• Availability for discussion with students outside of class

Available evaluations of both numerical rankings and written comments by peers and students will be reviewed and compared to other faculty members teaching the same courses and to the departmental average. The number and difficulty of course preparations will be factored into the evaluation score, particularly for non-tenure-line faculty. For example, a faculty member teaching two different graduate courses in the same semester who has average student evaluation scores may receive a higher rating than a faculty member teaching one lower-level course with above average student ratings. Class size and grade-point average will be taken into consideration when reviewing student evaluations. In addition, honors or recognitions received for, and self-development activities focused on, teaching effectiveness will be considered. 

The following discussion describes six specific ratings; numerical ratings can be scaled anywhere between zero and five. 

Rating of 5 points: A 5-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who 

1. is seen as possessing to a high degree all of the above-mentioned traits 

and 

2. has been evaluated by peers and/or students as “significantly above departmental average” in teaching performance. 

A faculty member with this rating should be seen as a teaching role model for other faculty. 

Rating of 4 points: A 4-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who 

1. is seen as possessing to a high degree all or almost all of the above-mentioned traits 

and 

2. has been evaluated by peers and/or students as “above departmental average” in teaching performance. 

Rating 3 points: A 3-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who

1. is seen as possessing to a satisfactory degree all or almost all of the above-mentioned traits 

and 

2. has been evaluated by peers and/or students as “departmental average” in teaching performance. 

A faculty member with this rating is seen as meeting expectations in teaching performance. 

Rating 2 points: A 2-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who 

3. is seen as needing improvements to some of the above-mentioned traits 

and 

4. has been evaluated by peers and/or students as “below departmental average” in teaching performance. 

A faculty member with this rating or lower is not meeting expectations.

Rating of 1 point: A 1-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who 

1. is seen as needing considerable improvement to many of the above-mentioned traits 

and 

2. has been evaluated by peers and/or students as “significantly below departmental average.” 

A faculty member with this rating is “well below expectations” and will be given specific directions for improvement by the personnel committee. 

Rating of 0 points: A 0-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who 

1. is seen as exhibiting none or almost none of the above-mentioned traits, 
2. has been evaluated by peers and/or students as “significantly below average,” 

and 

3. has consistently rejected or ignored previous suggestions for improvement. 

Teaching ratings for 0 or 1 are unacceptable. Future contract renewals, if applicable, will be contingent on improvement. A faculty member who receives a 0-point rating will not be eligible for merit. 

03. SCHOLARSHIP/PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT

This section of the performance/merit policy describes the criteria for evaluating scholarly activities for scholarly academic tenure-track and tenured faculty, and for evaluating scholarly activities, professional, academic, and student engagement activities for non-tenure-line faculty.

Tenure-track and tenured faculty

Intellectual contributions can be divided into two classifications: peer-reviewed journal articles and other intellectual contributions (OICs). These classifications are defined for purposes of the Department of Accounting as follows: 

Peer-reviewed journal article (PRJ): an article that has been accepted for publication in a journal on a current Department of Accounting journal list. PRJ publications must be peer-reviewed research articles as opposed to book reviews, comments, rebuttals, etc. PRJ activity is first included in the year of acceptance.[1] Faculty members planning to submit a manuscript to a journal not on the Department of Accounting journal list are encouraged to petition to have the journal added to the list through the process set out in the Department of Accounting’s PPS 5.04.04. 

Other intellectual contributions (OICs) are those defined in the McCoy College of Business faculty qualification policy for SA faculty CBAPPS 5.07. 

Publication Points

PRJ in FT 50 (Financial Times 50[2]) Ranked Journal: 3 points 

PRJ in Department of Accounting Journal List Rated A+: 2 points 

PRJ in Department of Accounting Journal List Rated A: 1 point

PRJ in Department of Accounting Journal List Rated B: 0.5 point

OIC: 0.25 point

Scholarly contribution is the total points earned over the previous three years. The maximum total points for the three-calendar year evaluation period is 5.0 and the maximum contribution for OICs in a single year is 0.5. 

For example, one B-rated PRJ and three OICs in year 1, one A rated PRJ and four OICs in year 2, and two B-rated PRJs and two OICs in year 3, would yield a score of 4.00 for the year 3 intellectual contribution performance evaluation, as shown below: 

 Non-tenure-line faculty: Clinical Faculty, Faculty of Practice, Faculty of Instruction

Professional, academic, and student engagement activities for faculty classified as Scholarly Academic (SA), Practice Academic (PA), Scholarly Practitioner (SP) or Instructional Practitioner (IP) are listed in CBAPPS 5.07. Faculty who maintain their respective SA, PA, SP, or IP faculty classification will be awarded the maximum performance score for scholarship/professional engagement. 

04. SERVICE

Service is an integral part of faculty responsibilities and essential for all full-time faculty members. Service may be performed at the department, college, university, and professional levels. The following activities are considered job requirements in addition to service: (1) attendance and participation at scheduled departmental and college faculty meetings, (2) attendance at one university graduation ceremony each year, and attendance at major departmental recruiting and student development activities, as specified by the chair. Full-time faculty members (unless specifically exempted) are also expected to serve on committees (department, college, and/or university) as needed. 

Other types of service activities include: 

• Acting as faculty advisor to a student organization
• Periodically attending accounting student organization meetings, honor society inductions, Awards Day, Bobcat Days, Hooding Ceremonies, and other activities that require departmental representation 
• Contributing to accreditation processes
• Working on curriculum development
• Serving as course coordinator
• Actively engaging in departmental recruitment of new faculty
• Actively engaging with alumni as well as current and potential recruiters and donors
• Mentoring faculty members

Assessment of service involves significant subjectivity by the evaluator. A faculty member needs to substantiate the value-added, time, and quality of involvement with various service activities.  

The following discussion describes six specific ratings; numerical ratings can be scaled anywhere between zero and five. 

Rating of 5 points: A 5-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who is recognized as outstanding in the quality and quantity of service and professional activities provided to various constituencies. The faculty member must demonstrate leadership in service, for example, by chairing a committee or acting as a student organization advisor. This faculty member willingly accepts service assignments as needed by the department, college, or university. 

Rating of 4 points: A 4-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who is recognized as above average in the quality and quantity of service and/or professional activities provided to various constituencies. The faculty member is willing to serve when asked, volunteers for projects occasionally, and regularly contributes to some of the activities listed above. This person accepts service assignments as needed by the department, college, or university. 

Rating of 3 points: A 3-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who is recognized as meeting expectations in quantity and quality of service or professional activities. 

Rating of 2 points: A 2-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who is recognized as doing below average quantity and quality of service or professional activities. This rating will be assigned to a faculty member who is recognized as serving on committees but demonstrates low engagement with service commitments (e.g. missing meetings, little contribution to committee objectives). 

Rating of 1 point: A 1-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who is recognized as doing a minimal quantity and quality of service or professional activities (maintaining professional certification or licensing, but little more). This rating will be assigned to a faculty member who is recognized as doing a minimal quantity of service or professional activities, demonstrate minimal engagement with service commitments, regularly misses faculty/committee meetings and/or rarely, if ever, volunteers for service activities. 

Rating of 0 points: A 0-point rating will be assigned to a faculty member who provides little to no service to any constituency. 

.05 MERIT CALCULATION

The following example illustrates how a faculty's overall performance evaluation ranking translates to a merit raise/bonus. Suppose the department is comprised of Faculty Member A and Faculty Member B, both scholarly academic (SA). Faculty member A earns a base salary of $160,000, B earns a base salary of $170,000, and the university's merit allocation is 3%. Faculty Member A has an average three-year evaluation ranking of 3 and Faculty Member B has an average ranking of 4 (rank total is 7). 

The scholarly academic total merit pool would be $9,900 [($160,000 + $170,000) * 3%]

Faculty Member A receives $4,242.86 ($9,900 * 3/7)

Faculty Member B receives $5,657.14 ($9,900 * 4/7)

This process is repeated for non-tenure-line faculty classifications, who have separate merit pools.

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT 

This APPS has been approved by the Governance Committee Members and the Department Chair and represents Accounting Department policy and procedure from the date of the document is approved by the Department Chair, until superseded. 

Review Cycle: September 1, E2Y 

Next Review Date: September 1, 2026