The problem with problems... part II.

I got this response to 'the problem with problems' from a friend in 'industry':

Yes, the problem with the Problems -- what I would suggest you look into. . . How are the Project teams, -- and the Management of the project teams -- being rewarded. . . . if those two teams had the same set of rewards (bonus pools, targets. . ) would that bring cohesion to the group.

which was eye-opening. This is so interesting. So, we don't really do this in academia/science centers. I don't know anyone who's EVER gotten a bonus! I never really thought about it, but I guess it's expected that everyone is so invested in what they are doing, and so aware of how many people are relying on them, that we don't really have a 'reward structure' as such. Of course, you can be denied tenure, or promotion if you do a bad job, but that's a stick and not a carrot... much less effective, generally.

Even raises don't necessarily go with merit, an idea that would probably make my industry friend cringe. This is because the institutions are so strapped for cash that they often don't even make CoL increases, much less have extra for merit. In Utah, it's not uncommon for the legislature, year after year, to cut state university budgets, no matter what we do. This has, in the past, resulted in multiple consecutive years of no raises at all, and occasionally even pay cuts for faculty. This, while the institutions were growing in enrollment by leaps and bounds.

It's an interesting problem, because it leaves people feeling like they have no control, and are not valued. They can meet all their 'targets', increase enrollment, recruit new students, get more grants, do more research, publish more papers, and still see an effective pay cut. They can grow the University and it's reputation, produce a 'better product' that clearly people want to 'buy', and still, they see no reward for going above and beyond.

Come to think of it, this is probably the exact reason that so many 'government' projects come in late and over budget. There are actually effective penalties built into the system for coming in on-time and under budget.

But that doesn't mean it HAS to be that way. We're always being asked to run ourselves 'more like a business'. Presumably that would mean building in a reward structure, if that's the way it's done in business, right? Right?

I wonder what a reward structure in academia would look like? Does it really make sense to talk about year-end bonuses? That might be an effective, relatively low-cost way to improve faculty/staff retention, but on the other hand, depending on the criteria, it could put in pressures that we don't really want in the system... It never really occurred to me to wonder about the carrot before, because I was so busy worrying about the stick that I wasn't even looking for a carrot.