Principles and Policies/Procedures of the
Performance-Based Merit System for Faculty at
Bowling Green State University – 2004

The faculty and administration of Bowling Green State University believe that the following principles must form the foundation for the periodic process of faculty review and the equitable distribution of faculty salary increments. The concept of a performance-based merit system for awarding faculty salary increments is endorsed, provided that such a system is fair, equitable, and firmly grounded on these principles. In this policy, “merit” is defined as a salary increment that is allotted for the performance of duties that meets or exceeds department or academic unit expectations. The rationale for this definition is provided by the following principles:

1. An effective merit system should promote faculty recruitment and retention; adequately reward conscientious performance of normal duties and responsibilities; and provide incentives that encourage distinguished, innovative, and creative achievements to meet unusual challenges and opportunities when they arise.

2. A salary system should be designed to promote internal equity (based upon salary comparisons within the University, college or department) as well as external equity (based upon salary comparisons among individuals from similar universities, colleges, or departments). Internal salary equity promotes performance, whereas external salary equity promotes retention.

3. A performance-based merit system should be based on a collegial peer review process that places primary responsibility on the collegiate department or academic unit and that requires careful evaluation of performance utilizing the collective best judgment of faculty.

4. The merit system should engender the type, quantity and quality of performance that contributes to the achievement of university, college, and department missions and goals. The merit system also needs to recognize that there are often multiple paths that may be taken in support of missions and goals.

5. The department or academic unit approved allocations of effort and evaluative criteria should be reflected in its merit review process. That process must ensure that faculty who have unit-approved individual variations of effort are reviewed and rewarded proportionately to their own approved percentage of effort distributions.

6. The merit system needs to establish a clear connection between faculty performance and reward. A department or academic unit must clearly identify the normal expectations and performance standards for teaching, research/creative activity, and service that are expected of all faculty in the department or unit. Through this process, the department/unit must identify indicators of performances that fall below standard expectations for merit as well as those types of achievements that surpass the standard expectations of the department/unit.

7. The process of performance review should provide faculty members with results and constructive feedback that enables them to develop professionally and to make improvements in their performance.

8. Whenever resources are limited, the merit system must respond to a more restricted set of institutional priorities in order to avoid trivializing the system by spreading too thinly, and thus minimizing, the impact of any merit awards given as incentives.

9. A performance-based merit or salary reward system should foster cooperation rather than antagonism among faculty, should reward groups and teams as well as individuals for collaborative work performance(s), and should generate wide support and general satisfaction of the University campuses.

Bowling Green State University is committed to follow the foregoing ten principles, and hereby, adopts a performance-based merit reward system for its faculty as outlined by the policies and procedures listed below:

1. This merit policy shall neither be implemented retroactively nor in the middle of a calendar year. All faculty must be aware of the revisions in department standards and processes sufficiently in advance of implementation to understand the implications of those revisions and to adjust their performance accordingly.

2. In addition to the annual merit pool for continuing faculty salary increments, funds should be made available on a regular ongoing basis to support raises for (1) salary competitiveness (by rank per the Carnegie classification) (2) promotions in rank, (3) market adjustments, and (4) equity adjustments. The annual merit pool is the product of the total salaries of the continuing faculty times the percentage salary increase approved by the Board of Trustees.

3. All faculty should receive an annual performance review with informative written feedback provided to them in a timely manner. Faculty have a right to expect that their annual performance reviews accurately reflect their actual workload responsibilities, assigned duties, and the agreed upon percentage allocations of effort.

4. With the exception of external peer review, the same performance indicators described in the department policy for annual review, merit, contract renewal, promotion and tenure used in department tenure and promotion policies should be used for annual performance reviews, and they should be consistent with those criteria found in the Academic Charter (B-I.C and B-I.D).

5. The annual performance review should be used based upon the accomplishments over the most recent three-year period on a rolling basis, i.e., each year new evaluation data are added to the file for the most recent year, and evaluation data for the oldest year are eliminated from the file. This will help to reduce inequities that can result both from differences in the merit funds available each year and from fluctuations in performance that may occur from year to year.

6. Each department or academic unit shall receive the full amount available for merit as a percent of the total salaries of the continuing faculty in that department or unit. The faculty of a school or a college may decide, with the approval of its dean, to allocate merit on a school-wide or college-wide basis rather than on a department or academic unit basis.

7. Continuing faculty members will be evaluated in their annual performance reviews at the department or academic unit level to determine their eligibility for merit. The department/unit shall recognize and reward levels of performance that meet or exceed its standard expectation. This recognition and reward shall be based on the policies of the department/unit and the Academic Charter criteria, with appropriate indicators, which establish standards of performance that determine whether the faculty member: (a) qualifies for merit by meeting or exceeding department/unit standards, or (b) does not qualify for a merit increase by meeting or exceeding department/unit standards. It is expected that very few faculty will fail to qualify for merit.

8. The total merit pool for continuing faculty salary increments in a given year shall be allocated as follows: fifty percent (50%) of the merit pool shall be distributed to all continuing faculty who qualify for merit by meeting or exceeding department/unit expectations in their annual performance reviews. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the merit pool shall be allocated to departments or academic units for recognition of those faculty whose level of performance exceed expectations, as defined by the department's or academic unit's internal merit policy.

9. Any faculty member who does not qualify for merit in his/her annual performance review should not receive a salary increase.

10. The foregoing principles and policies/procedures of the performance-based merit system for faculty at Bowling Green State University shall be reviewed by the Faculty Senate and appropriate Senate committees every three years, commencing in the fall of 2008.

Approved by:

• Faculty Senate on May 6, 1997
• Senate Executive Committee on 4/8/97 and 4/29/97
• Faculty Welfare Committee on 4/3/97 , 4/10/97 and 4/24/97

New approvals:

• Faculty Welfare Committee on February 20, 2004
• Senate Executive Committee on 3/23/04
• Faculty Senate on 4/6/04

>>Back to Contents of Faculty Review