Comments on: Bonuses at Kent State

By: Zamfir

Zamfir — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:20:37 +0000

I used to have a student at the local IKEA, and they had the same system: a large yearly bonus based on a range of metrics for the overall store. Everything was written out on a very large board near the canteen, so that everyone could see everyday how the bonus was going.

As Slocum notices, there was no way how an indivdual could make an impact on the numbers, but the company still took it very serious. IKEA is large enough to experiment around with these kinds of things, so I think it must have worked.

My theory was that the point was not to make individuals really work harder, but more to create a feeling of connection between the people and the well-being of the store. If you have a lot of low-status, generic jobs, such a connect is not a given.

But I really doubt that this would have much effect for academics.

By: Slocum

Slocum — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:14:18 +0000

Sounds like an ineffective (if egalitarian) proposal. That has been my experience with revenue-sharing plans—the effect of one’s own efforts on the success of the enterprise as a whole is invariably lost in the noise (and so is the added incentive).

By: jim

jim — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:53:13 +0000

How many of the 864 full-time tenure track faculty actually teach freshmen? Does the Chronicle tell us?

By: otto

otto — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:46:02 +0000

Surely things like overall retention rates are effectively public goods as far as individual faculty are concerned, regardless of the contingent financial incentive.

By: matt m

matt m — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:09:13 +0000

I like the idea of creating new ways for faculty to participate more fully in some of the core functions of the University. One of the better ways Universities are successful in recruiting, retention and fundraising is by increasing faculty participation in these activities. But I wonder whether this would interfere with the ever-increasing demands on research by faculty.

While Kent State says they will reward those who bring in more external funding/grants among other things, and this program will also incentivize participation in the greater University community, it will reduce the amount of time committed to faculty research. Is there is enough money at stake to motivate faculty who are already be pressed for time? The share available to faculty seems too low to warrant widespread participation.