Faculty Compensation Guidelines Study

Appendix B

The following are the responses I received from the listed schools and colleges with respect to the request for additional information I sent out on February 29, 2000. The questions were:

1. How have issues of lack of salary equity of faculty arisen in your unit, and what has been the response?
   
   
2. What criteria are used, and/or information gathered, in deciding to make a retention offer to a faculty member?

Architecture and Urban Planning (Associate Dean Harris):

1. Salary Equity: If a faculty member has an issue of internal equity they talk to the Dean or they can appeal to the executive committee. As for an issue of outside equity, we try to keep up with our peers (at least for the junior faculty) and match them.
   
   
2. If a faculty member is offered another job, then we determine whether we want to fight to keep them—are they continuing to make an invaluable contribution to our program, do they sustain their national reputation, etc. Then we ask for written confirmation of a competing offer. Generally we try to address equity ahead of time (to short circuit the urge to go out looking and hopefully make invitations less attractive) not only through salary but also resource allocation, travel support, and research support.

Art and Design (Associate Dean Smith):

1. In some cases the Dean has brought individual cases of salary equity to the Executive Committee. In other instances a faculty member has approached the Dean first, and then the Dean brings the matter to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee tries to address real equity issues. The final decision remains with the Dean.
   
   
2. Retention offers have not often been necessary in our field or in our School.

Education (Dean Wixsom):

1. We are perhaps in a unique situation in that we have basically rehired our entire faculty over the past 10 years. For those continuing on the faculty the previous Dean identified an incoming faculty member with similar credentials and raised the salary of the continuing faculty member to within range of the new recruit's salary. He established minimums and ranges for each of the ranks.
   
   
2. I have had limited experience with this issue. I was concerned about losing one person, so I raised his salary as a preemptive move before he pursued the other opportunity seriously. My reasoning was that he was one of our most valuable faculty members and his salary had not kept pace with recent high-end hires. He deserved the increase no matter what.

Engineering (Associate Dean Katehi):

1. In the Dean's office we check for inequities as we make promotion/salary raise recommendations for any faculty member who acts in an administrative capacity. With regard to faculty, every year the departments propose faculty salary raises. The Dean and I review for large deviations from the expected norm. In a case of salary inequity, the Dean may use a special pool to provide additional funds to the department in order to eliminate the inequity(ies).
   
   
2. The retention criteria we are using are 1) the impact of this faculty member to her/his department and college: Our retention offer is normally a package and is provided on the basis of 1) preserving equity within the unit; 2) providing the faculty member an opportunity. Our experience has shown that most faculty members who are considering joining another institution are seeking career advancement and not just a salary raise. With very few exceptions, our efforts have been very successful.

Kinesiology (Associate Dean Van Volkinberg):

1. I asked Dee Edington, our former Director, how he had handled retention issues in the past. His philosophy was proactive; his annual reviews were designed to ensure faculty that they were valued and fairly rewarded for their efforts.
   
   
2. If an outside offer was made, then efforts were made to match the salary. If more lab space or support for research was needed, then efforts were made to solve the problem.

Law (Dean Lehman):

1. For the most part, the question arises when a faculty member says, "I feel like I'm underpaid." Whenever that happens (on the order of once a year) I go back and review all my data and decide whether an adjustment is called for. I then discuss it with the faculty member. Usually I have concluded that my initial assessment was correct, but I have made at least one change. Every summer, I undertake on my own initiative a comprehensive analysis of salary equity for faculty within the school. I rely on data I have about what peer schools are paying their faculty, complete research and teaching records for each faculty member, etc. The results of that analysis drive my decisions about merit increases.
   
   
2. "Retention offers" as such are not something we do. When a faculty member receives an outside offer, the retention process goes on for months. The colleague and I discuss the various considerations pro and con. As part of that conversation, I learn whether finances are an important factor. Sometimes they are not. If they are, we talk through what response is feasible, given the fact that I need to maintain overall equity within the faculty structure. I share the overall salary structure with the colleague. We talk frankly about whom I consider to be that person's quality peers within the faculty, and we look at how much it would cost to adjust that entire cohort in response to the outside offer, and whether that is appropriate. I generally take the position that: (a) if someone is good, they shouldn't need to pursue outside offers to "prove" it to me, (b) our faculty should not be able to obtain a truly significant income boost by moving to a peer school, and (c) when a lower-ranked school offers a member of our faculty a huge salary because they would be a "star" at that school, I usually will not attempt to match that salary, because of the impact it would have on our overall structure.

Medicine (Assistant Dean Thorson):

Individuals concerned about salary equity often get background information and data from me (most are pleasantly reassured when they see the numbers) and can then discuss it with their chairs if needed. Retention offers are at the discretion of the chairs, sometimes with assistance from the Dean.

Natural Resources (Associate Dean Diana):

1. The issues have arisen at first because of faculty complaints, then moreover because of evaluation of those complaints. Due to a long time with sub standard merit increases, there was an overall lack of equity compared to our peers as well as individual cases. Some individual cases later arose out of the analysis to determine overall equity issue.
   
   
2. In the last few years we have not had any faculty leave after getting an offer elsewhere. In the past we have done some evaluation of their merit (both by the Dean and the promotion and tenure committee), as well as the cost of retaining them and their salary level relative to other faculty of a similar level. Most of this decision rests in the Dean.

Nursing (Associate Dean Loveland-Cherry):

1. Faculty usually initiate a question about salary equity with their immediate supervisor (their Division Director/Associate Dean). The Division Director then initiates a salary review by the Office of Budget and Financial Affairs. The salary review is done within the faculty's rank and considers time in rank and productivity. If there appears to be an inequity (given that all other factors are comparable), the Division Director/Associate Dean sends the information to the Dean supporting a salary adjustment. The Dean also is informed about the review if an adjustment is not deemed appropriate. The Dean has been supportive of salary adjustments when warranted.
   
   
2. Criteria used include the productivity of the faculty, the fit with the needs of the program, and the reasons for a faculty considering a move out of the University. If a retention offer is made, a salary review is completed (as described above), information on the competing offer is sought, and consideration is given to other kinds of factors (e.g., time for research, opportunity for other kinds of experiences such as administrative responsibilities). All of this is done in conjunction with the Division Director and/or Associate Dean, but the final decision rests with the Dean.

Public Policy (Associate Dean Chamberlain):

1. We are an unusual school. We have only two dozen faculty and everyone talks with the Dean on a regular basis (and can certainly get in to see her in a day or two if a need arises). So we tend not to have (or need) formal procedures for such matters. We expect faculty to talk directly to the Dean and that usually suffices. If it doesn't, discussion with the faculty Ombuds and the grievance procedure are formal options.

   Nearly all of our faculty hold joint appointments, so most salaries are set in consultation with department chairs and other deans. Last year we were successful in working with the heads of other units to address some equity concerns we had. The Dean and I also talked about concerns we had from last year about different average salary increases in units where our faculty are jointly appointed and about equity issues that arise from having faculty who live in different disciplinary job markets. This was one of the issues we discussed with the Provost at a recent meeting. On the whole I think we have been successful both in thinking about these issues before they become problems and in ensuring that faculty know that the Dean's door is open to any faculty member who wants to raise this issue, either as an institutional issue or on her/his own behalf.
   
   

2. The only recent case we had was in responding to an outside offer that also involved promotion. We went through the usual promotion procedure and treated it like any other promotion case. In addition to the usual criteria, in deciding how aggressively to respond to the outside offer we placed weight on the faculty member's centrality to what we do (teaching in our masters program, research contributions both theoretical and in applied policy areas, and the faculty member's commitment to helping to grow the School under its new dean).

FACULTY COMPENSATION GUIDELINES STUDY