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 US dollars to 6,128 US dollars. 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.
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 US dollars to 6,128 US dollars. 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.
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Kimberly H Allison; Natalia V Oster; Paul D Frederick; Thomas R Morgan; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 7.842