A group pay incentive program in academe: Impact on faculty work and attitudes

This study explores the effects of a group pay incentive system as a strategy for motivating faculty to meet department goals at a large research institution. Generally speaking, faculty work at these types of institutions is individually oriented and this investigation explored whether an alternative pay scheme can influence faculty behavior and motivate them to work cooperatively to meet established group goals.;Group incentive systems are common in business but not in higher education. The research on group incentive systems in business settings together with research on faculty provided the research and theoretical foundation for the study. The heuristic framework utilized by Bullock and Lawler (1984) to study 33 gainsharing (a type of group incentive contract) cases was utilized to analyze this incentive system. This framework encourages a holistic investigation of the phenomenon through an analysis of the structural components of the incentive system (what was done), an examination of the implementation factors (how it was done), and looking at the situational or contextual aspects of the organization (where it was done). As evident by the literature, these factors can contribute to the success or failure of a group incentive system.;This investigation utilized a case study approach to provide an in-depth understanding of the department's incentive system and explore its influence on how individual faculty members approach their work. Data collection involved multiple sources of evidence including interviews with the department chairperson, review of appropriate department documents, interviews with the faculty, review of performance data as it relates to the established unit goals, and participant observation.;The analysis of the data revealed several key findings. The department did not meet the established goals and few faculty members reported behavior changes as a result of the incentive system. The examination of the incentive system uncovered several critical factors that contributed to these end results: the faculty did not feel as though they were involved in the development of the incentive system; they were uncomfortable with the financial bonus; the implementation of the program and performance feedback were not timely; there was uncertainty over the goals; and elements of the incentive system were not congruent with key organizational practices and norms. Based upon the literature, the researcher believes these were serious flaws in the DIS and in combination contributed to the program's failure.