Motivational Implications of Faculty Performance Standards

Abstract

Expectations and how they are communicated influence employees' motivation, effort, goals, efficacy and performance. This study examined faculty performance evaluation standards and processes of 60 academic departments in research universities for motivationally relevant elements. Characteristics were systematically analysed to understand their content and motivational implications. They were examined for features influential on employee engagement, effort, persistence, innovation and organizational commitment, in an iterative, qualitative process. The researchers distilled eight key features of performance standards with influential, research-based motivational implications and analysed how they are demonstrated in the standards. These eight motivationally positive components were evident, but not consistent across these standards. Findings suggest that higher education institutions re-examine their faculty performance standards, consider their motivational messages and implications. Further research on faculty performance standards is also indicated.

Analysis of Research and Scholarship Criteria Within Promotion and Tenure Documents of US Pharmacy Schools

“…36 Literature has shown that unclear promotion policies can lead to unrealistic expectations and perceived unfairness among employees, which can then result in negative work outcomes such as low job satisfaction, increased turnover, and poor organization commitment. 1,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Therefore, we believe that clear objective measures and transparency in PT guidance documents can improve faculty members' perceptions of procedural justice, thus resulting in more positive outcomes such as satisfaction with faculty position/career and high organizational commitment among faculty. 1, 37-39, 42, 45 This in turn builds clear expectations for faculty and may also prevent optimism bias toward the PT process.…”

“…Although a balance between explicitly defined criteria for PT and more flexible holistic guidelines that allow faculty more leeway in making their own individualized case for PT may seem ideal, Hardre and Kollman argue that many PT guidance documents are "largely amotivating" in part because of their lack of specific guidance. 1 Among their recommendations is clear, precise language that helps faculty align their individual performance plans with evaluative criteria, which helps to support faculty performance in a motivationally positive way. In simple terms, this allows faculty to know what to do to succeed in their career advancement while being able to set their own personally meaningful pathway to achieve these criteria.…”

“…These documents are college/school-specific and may vary greatly in their requirements, clarity, specificity, and overall structure. [1][2][3] To assist faculty in their pursuit of academic advancement, a clear, specific definition for all areas of scholarship is necessary within PT guidance documents. 4 The definition of scholarship has changed over the years from one focused on bench-based research to that of Boyer's expanded definition including four areas of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching.…”

“…This clarity of expectations also benefits institutions by facilitating optimal productivity and achievement from their faculty. 1 To date, no broad-scale characterization and analysis of the content of PT guidelines has been published. The purpose of this study was to examine the scholarship requirements for promotion and/or tenure in US-based academic pharmacy institutions.…”

Education journals: Two decades of change and implications for the field

“…Success in academic publishing reflects the quality and type of work valued by the scholarly community as a whole and by specific disciplines, including degree of consensus (Bedeian, ; Hargens, ). Maintaining evaluative quality standards is a high priority for any academic community (Erren, ; Macnab & Thomas, ) because evaluative criteria and specifications substantively influence the nature and outcomes of evaluative processes and decisions (Hardré, Cox, & Kollmann, ; Hardré & Kollmann, ). Peer review by volunteer expert scholars is at the heart of the journal publishing process, and it has been estimated that each review requires 1 to 6 hours (Hojat, Gonnella, & Calleigh, ).…”