The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance

Reed G. Williams, Gary Dunnington, J. Roland Folse

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. Method. A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. Results. Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from $145 to $6,128. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). Conclusions. The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)156-166
Number of pages11
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume78
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

incentive system
Motivation
performance
incentive
credit
productivity
responsibility
teaching research
Computer Communication Networks
money
Teaching
income
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Education

Cite this

The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance. / Williams, Reed G.; Dunnington, Gary; Folse, J. Roland.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 78, No. 2, 01.02.2003, p. 156-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1a9bf22a8d984af5bb63a379c0cd8374,
title = "The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance",
abstract = "Purpose. To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. Method. A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1{\%} of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3{\%} and then 5{\%}). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. Results. Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from $145 to $6,128. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1{\%} incentive, 23 for the 3{\%} incentive, and 20 for the 5{\%} incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81{\%}) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15{\%} felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). Conclusions. The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.",
author = "Williams, {Reed G.} and Gary Dunnington and Folse, {J. Roland}",
year = "2003",
month = "2",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "78",
pages = "156--166",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance

AU - Williams, Reed G.

AU - Dunnington, Gary

AU - Folse, J. Roland

PY - 2003/2/1

Y1 - 2003/2/1

N2 - Purpose. To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. Method. A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. Results. Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from $145 to $6,128. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). Conclusions. The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.

AB - Purpose. To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. Method. A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. Results. Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from $145 to $6,128. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). Conclusions. The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037331403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037331403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12584094

AN - SCOPUS:0037331403

VL - 78

SP - 156

EP - 166

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 2

ER -