Monday Matters
Ever since becoming the Associate Dean who has primary responsibility for staff issues in the College, I have been troubled by the absence of an ongoing reward system for exceptional performance. If you have been a regular reader of this column, you probably know by now that I believe in an organizational structure based on high expectations for the individuals in the organization, but that also provides resources and incentives and promotes local decision-making and control. In my view, this is how we can foster the kind of vision and willingness to take risks that will result in higher productivity, more efficiency, and a greater number of entrepreneurial activities.
In our College the lack of rewards for high staff productivity can be a disincentive, especially in lean years where we must work harder than ever and yet receive low or no salary increases. This runs counter to my desire to not only provide resources and tools to get the job done, but also to appropriately reward exceptional performance. I'm not talking here about the proverbial "pat on the back." Nor am I referring to "exceptional performance" as fulfilling the day-to-day expectations of the job.
I see employees in our College that consistently seek to increase their skills in order to more effectively meet the demands of a changing workplace. I have watched staff members consistently go the extra mile to help out frustrated students or prospective students. There are others who envision more efficient ways to manage a task and share that vision in operational changes that forever enhance the workplace. Then there are those individuals who anticipate a job that needs to be done and they do it so that the task is done even before the request is made. The list could go on, but I suspect that you now know what I mean when I refer to the exceptional employee.
The Not-So-Outstanding Outstanding Staff Award
In the past we have recognized some staff members with the Outstanding Staff Award. Although this recognition truly honored some outstanding staff members, the award was deficient in several ways. First, the award did not go far enough. One staff member per semester would receive the award that came in the form of $500 and a certificate of recognition. This meant that only two staff members per year could receive this award. That is far from being a widespread incentive for organizational change. Further, the award did not reward ongoing improvement and consistently exceptional performance because those staff members who received the award were not eligible to receive the award for another two years. Even then a repeat winner was required to demonstrate "significant superiority to all other nominees." This rule encouraged a mindset of entitlement ("whose turn is it now?") rather than the performance-reward system that I seek.
Finally, the selection of the outstanding staff member was based on a flawed selection process. After an open call for nominations, a selection committee had the unenviable task of selecting a winner. The only data provided were the nomination letters. Often the winner was the nominee with the most letters. I tried to address this problem by including supervisors of nominees on the selection committee. At least this provided more data for the committee, but there were still problems. This could potentially pit supervisors against one another during the selection process. Fortunately I never saw this happen, at least not overtly.
I believe that it is time to replace the two-times-per-year award with a staff bonus policy. There are several ways that a bonus policy would address the problems with the Outstanding Staff Award. All staff members would be eligible for the annual bonus, regardless of whether they had received a bonus the previous year. I anticipate that substantially more than two staff members a year (perhaps more in the order of one or two per department) would receive a bonus. Selection would rely on a broader range of data that would most prominently include annual performance evaluations, thus adding substance to the meaning of these evaluations. The bonus would be on the basis of measurable improvement and exceptional performance, thus contributing to a system of performance-based rewards.
A Draft Policy
At the October Administrative Council Meeting, the members of the Council endorsed the spirit of my proposal. They also agreed to my request to make the draft of the policy public so that members of the staff would have time to express concerns, make suggestions, and generally provide input into the policy. Although the Dean will make the final decision on the policy, we truly want to hear your concerns and opinions. You can find a draft of the policy at:
http://www.ed.sc.edu/do_seaman/bonus.pdf
The pool of bonus money will be funded by the fringe benefits savings that we incur when members of the faculty secure grants and contracts to pay part of their salary. Now that the College budget, rather than the University budget, pays for fringe benefits, salary savings are accompanied by fringe benefits savings. This latter category is new, so this became a perfect place to find some money to fund an ongoing bonus pool. Further, the size of the bonus pool is directly linked to the external revenue generation of the College. Thus, members of the staff now have an incentive for working hard to support these entrepreneurial activities.
Of utmost importance in this policy is the link of bonuses to annual performance evaluations. With this policy, it will no longer be beneficial to staff members in a department to have everyone rated as above average by their supervisors. I have been asking supervisors to clearly specify on evaluation planning documents the kinds of activities that would be perceived as something above "meets expectations." This will help staff members understand the difference between daily expectations and exceptional performance. A supervisor who clearly documents outstanding performance will be providing the kind of data I will need in order to reward exceptional performance.
Please take a look at the policy and let me know what you think. If you would prefer to stay with the current system of the bi-annual staff award, I would like to know that as well. You already know from reading this column that I believe we can do better, but I also value the opinion of the staff. Your understanding of what will serve as incentives to those staff members who seek to improve themselves and increase productivity is probably better than my own. What I will not negotiate is my desire to promote a system that rewards hard work and discourages mediocrity. Other than that, I'm very open to fiddling with the details. Let me hear from you.
Until next week,
Mike