If you are facing performance related pay proposals, removal of incremental progression, the ..... other reasons for com
Bargaining & Negotiations Department
Challenging Performance Related Pay
£
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A UCU bargaining guide for branches in Higher Education
June 2015
BN/51
In brief… This guidance will give branches in Higher Education practical bargaining strategies for defending against performance related pay, maintaining a normal expectation of incremental pay progression and negotiating for fair pay.
Contents Introduction to this guidance ................................................................................................. 3 Why is this guidance needed? ....................................................................................... 3 What does this guidance include? .................................................................................. 3 Devolved Nations ........................................................................................................... 3 What is Performance Related Pay? ...................................................................................... 4 Performance related pay ................................................................................................ 4 Incremental progression................................................................................................. 4 Contribution pay ............................................................................................................. 4 Professors...................................................................................................................... 5 The UCU position........................................................................................................... 5 The context ........................................................................................................................... 6 The national agreements ............................................................................................... 6 Introducing the UCU response .............................................................................................. 9 UCU's specific concerns include: ................................................................................... 9 Defending the national agreements..................................................................................... 15 Preparing to negotiate .................................................................................................. 15 Written proposals ......................................................................................................... 15 Opening up the books .................................................................................................. 16 Recruit and organise! ................................................................................................... 16 The common concerns of employers and how UCU can respond ....................................... 17 Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 20 Negotiators’ resource: Notes ............................................................................................... 22 Useful Information ............................................................................................................... 23
2
Introduction to this guidance Why is this guidance needed? This bargaining guidance has been developed for HE branch negotiators, whatever your level of experience, and is designed to give you practical information and evidence based bargaining support to help you in your negotiations.
What does this guidance include?
What is performance related pay? This section sets out the distinction between contribution pay and performance related pay and the different forms of performance related pay that may be proposed by your employer.
The context Here we summarise the existing national agreements that provide the starting point for all local pay progression negotiations.
Introducing the UCU response We begin to look in detail at the evidence base for rejecting performance related pay in Higher Education.
Defending the national agreements In this section we set out the negotiating principles and arguments that branches can use to counter the employers proposals and misleading information that employers might use.
Checklist We include a checklist to help branches ensure all of their bargaining aims have been covered in their negotiations.
Useful Information The contact details of your regional office and links to additional recourses are listed.
If you are facing performance related pay proposals, removal of incremental progression, the introduction of more draconian performance management policies or you need support with individual casework relating to performance management or performance related pay contact your regional or the Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office.
Devolved Nations This guidance will be relevant to branches in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland who are negotiating for fair pay or fighting performance related pay proposals. Branches in the Devolved Nations should check the Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office for any legislation, agreement or other information that is relevant to your local negotiations.
What is Performance Related Pay? Performance related pay Performance related pay can be defined as a form of financial reward which is based on performance that is assessed against objective criteria. In PRP’s purest form there is no rate for the job. In this case pay would usually be determined by a process of negotiation between the employer and employee with any pay increases entirely dependent on measured performance (see UCU research for further discussion on what PRP is [link]). In practice PRP may be implemented at different levels and in different ways. These include:
the introduction of particular criteria that must be met in order to achieve a pay increase a minimum and maximum pay level for each grade with spot points in between a full PRP system where pay increases are only given in relation to performance the removal of a normal expectation of incremental progression.
Performance related pay increases may or may not be consolidated into your base salary. In this guidance we are concerned with these forms of performance related pay and not with contribution pay (see below) that is given in addition to an incremental pay scale.
Incremental progression The national agreements lay down the foundations of a normal expectation of incremental progression. For most this will be an annual increase to the top of the grade and will be given unless performance has been judged to be unsatisfactory (this usually means someone subject to a formal capability process). The rate for the job is set and the annual increment recognises that with each year in the role, the employee is gaining experience, knowledge and skills.
Contribution pay Contribution pay, as distinct from PRP described above, has been in place for a number of years. As stated in National Framework Agreement NFA), contribution pay is in addition to the normal expectation of incremental progression. The rate for the job is maintained. Types of contribution or additional payments may include:
a non- consolidated bonus accelerated increments contribution points above the normal maxima for the grade recruitment and retention payments/ market supplements.
These payments should always be implemented in accordance with a policy that has been agreed with UCU. 4
Such forms of additional or contribution payments are already commonplace in many HE institutions and provide mechanisms to reward exceptional contributions or to attract and retain high quality staff in extraordinary recruitment or market conditions. The integrity of the national pay spine, and locally agreed grading structures and incremental pay systems are maintained. They do not undermine the rate for the job.
Professors We already know that in some areas of research and the professoriate, an international market exists and such academics are effectively competing for individually negotiated salaries. Although this may not be desirable in principle, it is beyond the auspices of this guidance to address.
The UCU position UCU does not believe there is evidence to show that linking pay to performance is effective. The normal expectation of incremental progression, combined with contribution payments where appropriate, should not be removed and additional criteria or barriers to pay increases based on performance should not be introduced. If any PRP related issues are raised in discussions or negotiations at your institution, you should contact your regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office straight away. They, in consultation with national officers, will decide whether this is a matter needs to be bought to the attention of the National Ratification Panel (NRP).
5
The context In recent years there has been a well-documented increase in marketisation, casualisation, new managerialism, increasing pressure from the REF, the introduction of student fees and funding changes. Alongside these changes we have seen an increase in interest from employer in Higher Education (HE) into introducing performance related pay (PRP). Performance related pay has been a growing theme of the national pay talks. In 2010, 2013 and 2015 national negotiations, the University and College Employers Association (UCEA) questioned existing arrangements for incremental progression. UCU firmly rejected this as part of the outcome of national negotiations. However, individual employers may feel it is the right time to try and introduce precursors to, elements of, or full PRP schemes in their institutions. UCU must remain vigilant to such attempts and provide a robust response. UCU has commissioned a systematic review of research into PRP in the post-16 education sector. The research is available on the UCU website [link] and provides part of the evidence base for this guidance
The national agreements There are relevant existing national agreements in HE that set out the principles and process for pay progression.
The National Framework Agreement (NFA) [http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1922] The Post ’92 National Handbook [http://www.ucu.org.uk/1970] Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers Career Development and Staff Appraisal Procedures for Academic and Academic Related Staff November 1987 (Staff Appraisal Procedures) (this is linked from here: CVCP-AUT agreement UCUHE97)
These national agreements should have formed the basis of local negotiations. Local agreements will vary and branches should check their own agreements before entering negotiations. Below we highlight a few of the most important sections in relation to pay progression and appraisal. In all the agreements the normal expectation of incremental progression is explicitly set out. The NFA says regarding progression within grades:
Arrangements for such progression should be: designed to offer equal opportunities for all staff in each particular grade, and to reward the acquisition of experience and contribution; and operated with demonstrable fairness, transparency and objectivity.
6
Progression within each pay range will depend in part on an individual’s length of service in the grade and in part on an assessment of their contribution; although staff will have a normal expectation of annual progression up to the contribution threshold for their grade, subject exceptionally to established procedures for dealing with performance problems (emphasis added).
On attraction and retention premia the NFA says: Institutions may supplement pay rates for each grade, for some or all staff, where labour market conditions dictate. Appendix E sets out guidelines for the use of such premia. Institutions should adopt appropriate policies and procedures with an emphasis on equity and transparency, as developed in partnership with their recognised trades unions. In relation to equal opportunities and pay the NFA asserts institutions should provide:
Action to foster more equal opportunities and to ensure delivery of equal pay for work of equal value is at the heart of this Framework Agreement, and needs to underpin its implementation at local level. Where - following negotiation with their recognised trades unions - HE institutions establish arrangements for payment of bonuses, honoraria, responsibility allowances and other non-consolidated payments, they will operate these with due regard to equal pay and equal opportunities considerations.
Furthermore the NFA states that there are three forms of pay progression:
Progression up to the contribution threshold for each grade, reflecting the growing experience and skill of the job holder. Staff will have a normal expectation that progression from point to point up to this threshold will take place on an annual basis, subject exceptionally to existing procedures for dealing with performance problems.
Accelerated incremental progression, reflecting substantially greater than normal application of skill and experience by the job holder.
Discretionary progression beyond the agreed contribution threshold.
7
The Post 92 National Handboook sets out the circumstances for incremental progression: 4.5.1
4.5.2
A lecturer whether full-time or part-time shall be entitled to one increment on 1st September following appointment and each year subsequently provided that the lecturer has six months or more service in post on that date, subject to the maximum of his or her scale and to satisfying appropriate criteria for bar progression. No increment shall be withheld in respect of any year of teaching service unless the service in that year has been declared unsatisfactory by the institution. In such a case payment of the increment in respect of that year shall be withheld only during the following year unless the institution otherwise expressly determines.
The CVCP-AUT Staff Appraisal Procedures state that appraisal or performance management reviews should: (a) apply, with suitable modifications, to all levels of academic and academic-related staff, including research and analogous staff; (b) be compatible with the development of equal opportunities policies; (c) operate on an annual or biennial cycle; (d; encourage staff to reflect on their own performance, and to take steps to improve it; (e) involve an appropriate mixture of self-assessment, informal interviewing and counselling. The appraisal process should be regarded as a joint professional task shared between appraiser and appraisee, with the latter involved at all stages. The views of students and others who are affected by the performance of staff should also be taken into account; Post ’92 branches in Scotland should consult the Scotland office to discuss the local implementation of HE2000. Locally agreed versions of HE2000 may provide helpful statements on remuneration generally and incremental progression in particular. The agreements demonstrate an explicit commitment to the key principles of a fair, transparent, equality proofed pay scheme that was developed in partnership. Additional ways of rewarding staff contribution and attracting and retaining staff are set out. Furthermore, the agreements show the cornerstone of any appraisal procedure is a professional relationship between the appraiser and appraisee and emphasises the developmental nature of the process. Performance related pay, as distinct from contribution pay, is not provided for in any of these agreements. Branches should always refer back to these national agreements as the foundation for any local agreements. We will also keep them in mind as we go on explore in detail UCUs more specific concerns in relation to PRP, examining the available evidence that calls into question the very basis of PRP.
8
Introducing the UCU response As we have seen above, any introduction of PRP is contrary to the existing national agreements and would not be Framework compliant. UCU believes there is significant evidence that performance related pay is not effective in motivating staff, does not increase efficiency or performance levels and is not a fair way of rewarding staff. The evidence calls into question the overall effectiveness of any PRP scheme. UCU's specific concerns include: Reducing the salary bill Employers may claim they are introducing PRP to provide additional rewards in order to improve motivation and performance. However, UCU believes it may, in part, be due to a desire to reduce the salary bill. Staff will often be referred to as a cost and not an asset and employers will exploit any perceived opportunity to cut overall expenditure and staff ‘costs’ are often seen as an easy way in which to do this. Many employers who implement PRP will have a fixed budget for pay increases that does not allow for all staff to receive the maximum available increase. They may use a quota system that means only a certain percentage of staff can achieve the highest reward each year in order to reduce the costs of the scheme. This puts in place an arbitrary and false cap on the level of pay staff can receive which bears no relation to their achievements. This undermines the principle of performance related pay and is simply a way of rationing pay. Additionally UCU is concerned that in an already highly casualised sector, with many staff on zero hour’s contracts, performance related pay introduces a further level of uncertainty. Pay prospects becomes an unknown quantity and planning for a secure future is made more difficult. The effect on behaviour and decision making The employer will probably be hoping that PRP produces particular effects on the behaviour and decision making of its staff. It will be hoped that PRP will provide an incentive and motivation to improve the productivity and/or quality of outcomes in teaching and research as well as the activities that support them. The existing evidence shows that PRP does indeed effect motivation. However, much of this evidence relates to simple, routine tasks and assumes staff are motivated by selfinterest. Additionally, evidence shows that the effects of PRP on motivation are not always for the better.
9
The UCU research explains that in sectors such as education and health, where tasks are generally more complex, staff are cited as examples of those who:
are intrinsically motivated, enjoy the job they do, have an internalised sense of duty, see their work as contributing to the mission of the sector and not towards profit.
In these cases, PRP can have a negative impact on motivation. The UCU research describes an analysis of 51 experimental studies and this suggests that: ‘financial incentives may indeed reduce intrinsic motivation and diminish ethical or other reasons for complying with workplace social norms such as fairness. As a consequence, the provision of incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance’. The resulting effect on decision making calls into question whether PRP is achieving benefits to the overall mission of the organisation or simply increasing the behaviours that lead to measurable performance. The UCU research goes on to provide an example from a study into PRP in healthcare which states: ‘Performance in health-care is highly complex. In this context, not everything that is important can be measured and valuable aspects of work become invisible and gradually fade away. Additionally, due to the limited monetary resources available for PRP schemes, most star performers easily reach their maximum pay. With limited potential for new salary increments, morale in general suffers. Eventually, the initial positive trend of increased measured performance plateaus. Meanwhile, the real performance (true patient care) deteriorates.’
Collective bargaining and the rate for the job The stated overriding principle of the National Framework Agreement is to ensure equal pay for work of equal value. From UCU’s perspective, the NAF helps to establish a minimum rate for the job. Employers may argue that various factors necessitate moving to a more performance based pay system, such as:
market conditions in relation to specific areas of work or subject areas, the need to attract and retain the high quality staff, regional variations in the cost of living.
However, the NFA already provides ways in which institutions can address these issues. What PRP will do is undermine the rate for the job and collective bargaining. Employers may initially see this as a welcome consequence. They may be attracted to the perceived 10
freedom over their institutional finances and ability to recruit more freely that they think moving away from national or collective bargaining will give them. They may believe this will ensure a higher quality of staff within the institution. The UCU research suggests this is not the case. Attracting and retaining high quality staff The employer will be hoping that PRP allows them to attract and retain high quality staff, that mid-level performers will improve and that poor performers will leave. The UCU research suggests that PRP does have an impact on whether staff are attracted to work and stay at an institution. However, as with the effect on motivation, PRP may not produce the outcome employers want. The UCU research notes that current studies point to a ‘sorting effect’. The sorting effect means that PRP can initially increase the performance of an organisation as ‘weaker’ performers leave and ‘higher’ performers join. What the evidence does not demonstrate is that the qualities of the ‘higher’ performers and their performance are conducive to the overall mission of the organisation. ‘For example, in higher education, which can be considered a mission-oriented organisation, a professor may conduct her teaching activities, produce her publication outputs, and bring in the expected research income. In standard PRP conditions, this professor is likely (if other human biases are not at play) to be described as a high performer. Nevertheless, this type of performance does not guarantee knowledge advancement, excellent education or a contribution to our society, culture, economy or environment, which are arguably the ultimate aims of a university (Newman, 1909; Robbins, 1963). It will take years to determine the degree of impact this professor achieves.’ In order to try and combat ‘sorting’ and the effect on motivation, employers may try and introduce ever more complex PRP systems. This may include ways to try and make the measurement of performance more thorough and objective. UCU suggests that even the most simple PRP systems are likely to be more administratively expensive as more time is needed to gather ever more performance evidence, rate performance and decide and implement pay levels for each of the hundreds of academic and academic related staff. If further levels of complexity are needed to try and mitigate any negative consequences of PRP, the cost of administering the scheme will also increase. ‘Fair’ pay In order to persuade staff of the merits of PRP the employer may also argue that PRP is a fairer way to pay staff than current incremental progression. There may be an initial sense that PRP is a ‘felt-fair’ system and that differing levels of staff performance should be rewarded accordingly. The UCU research shows that this sense of the fairness of PRP is rapidly lost: ‘... this equity rationale turns awry when employees realise that they contribute to income generation but the organisation does not share the benefits in the same proportion ‘(especially when they receive below-inflation rates). In addition, employees may become very sensitive to differentials in pay for the same task decreasing the motivation of those that are paid less.’
11
Employers may still try and rely on a so-called moral argument for giving different pay awards for different levels of performance, particularly when it comes to poor performance. At first sight it might seem right that an employer should not reward poor performance. However, there is no evidence to show that withholding pay will provide any motivation or incentive to improve. Withholding pay may demoralise the individual staff members and further undermines the rate for the job. Universities should already have in place an agreed capability procedure to deal appropriately and fairly with any performance issues. Equality UCU believes that PRP is vulnerable to equality challenges and current research and a number of legal cases have shown this to be true. As we noted earlier, the pay arrangements for the professoriate largely fall outside of the NFA and work on more of a market lead basis. UCU has previously conducted research into the equity of professorial pay and we continue to monitor the situation. The gender pay gap at this level is particularly noticeable. PRP is designed to reward individuals differently for doing the same job and consequently inequality in payments is therefore built into the system. Unlike incremental progression, PRP involves an unavoidable element of discretion and subjectivity in assessing performance, and therefore a higher risk of bias. The UCU research notes that although further research is needed: ‘[T]rends towards performance-related pay systems pose a potential threat to the pursuit of greater gender pay equality as discretion in pay determination increases and there is no clear relationship between earnings and job grade […] the increased importance of management discretion and appraisal are likely to disadvantage women.’ The judgements involved in PRP also contribute to it being a more opaque pay system than a normal expectation of incremental progression. Therefore inequalities in the system may initially be harder to identify. Branches should insist on that an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is carried on out any proposals. Academic Related, Professional Staff It could be that academic related staff are particularly vulnerable to PRP. Employers may feel their work is more measurable and defined and can therefore be more easily subject to a performance rating and ultimately linked to pay. Indeed in some institutions academic related staff will already find they are expected to undergo a more target driven appraisal than their academic colleagues. Branches should be vigilant to any changes to performance management arrangements, changes to statutes and other changes to terms and conditions relating specifically to academic related staff and their potential to pave the way for PRP. In these situations branches should contact their regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office for advice and support immediately.
12
Professionalism It is a constant battle to ensure that the professional status of lecturers, researchers, teachers and academic related staff in HE is respected, maintained and acted on. As described above, HE staff are more likely to be intrinsically motivated. In addition to this internal motivation, teaching, research and related activities tend to be collegiate and PRP introduces an element of competition between individuals which is not in the interest of team working. Even where PRP is based on the performance of teams, this does not encourage cross team working.
‘PRP can generate employees’ perceptions of loss of autonomy and undermine their sense of professionalism.’ PRP may not only undermine the collaborative nature of most research, it can also put at risk academic freedom. We have seen that working to targets can distort performance and move staff away from the core mission of the sector. In which case staff may also feel their freedom to question received wisdom and to push the boundaries of their field, without fear of losing their job or their privileges, and this would include pay, could be put in jeopardy. Appraisal UCU believes there should be no link between appraisal and pay. Any such link undermines the purpose of appraisal and this is set out in the national agreements referred to earlier in this guidance. In order for staff to reflect honestly on their own performance the appraisal process should have at its core a professional relationship based on trust between appraiser and appraisee, concentrating on supporting the development of the appraisee and their contribution to the institution. Where appraisal is linked to pay, that ethos is undermined. This simply encourages staff to use their appraisal to demonstrate measured performance rather than as a safe space to genuinely reflect on and openly discuss their performance. ‘PRP can give rise to gaming behaviour where employees change what they do in order to maximise their income. Their change in behaviour does not necessarily reflect an improvement in actual performance’ Rating performance Performance related pay usually relies on rating or ranking an individual’s performance through the performance management or appraisal process. It is very difficult to ensure the rating of performance is anything other than subjective. It is after all, a judgement. This can cause great damage to the relationship between appraiser and appraisee. As set out above, this relationship should be based on trust and allow an open and reflective discussion to take place. This cannot be the case where the appraisal is linked to pay and the risk attached to 13
the appraisal process is so high. It is noticeable that many institutions will introduce more pernicious performance management schemes where performance is rated or ranked as a precursor to PRP. The student experience The importance of the student experience is not in question and students should have appropriate mechanisms for providing feedback on their experience and contributing to the good governance of their institution. There have been recent reports that the increased marketisation of HE can leave staff feeling pressured to inflate student grades and relax entrance requirements. This does not ultimately serve the interests of students or the institution as the trust and value accorded to higher education becomes diminished by such practices. Providing an excellent student experience is the responsibility of the University. An individual member of staff can contribute to that experience but cannot be responsible for it. Additionally there are continued questions surrounding the validity and reliability of the National Student Survey as a true measure of the student experience. Indeed the UCU research states that: ‘Goodhart’s law asserts that “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”. That is, since publications and students’ satisfaction scores have become monitoring and incentive devises the gaming associated with them means that they may no longer be reliable measures of performance. Their imperfection has increased and now they are very distant from reflecting ‘true’ performance.’ We have seen that targets or objectives can skew the performance of staff as the focus of their practice becomes meeting and exceeding those targets, potentially at the expense of other areas of their work. This can especially be the case where targets, and therefore pay, are linked directly to students outcomes. Such a link is detrimental to the entire education process and UCU firmly believes that student outcomes should not be linked to staff pay.
14
Defending the national agreements Preparing to negotiate Branches should contact their regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office immediately if your employer is proposing to:
introduce PRP, remove automatic incremental progression, introduce significant changes to your performance management process.
The introduction of a more rigid rating or ranking process as part of your performance management could indicate that your employer is paving the way for the PRP. Branches will need to engage with their regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office to review and assess the negotiating needs of the branch. Is incremental progression under attack at your university? or Are you aiming to work positively with your employers on a new performance management process or improving fair pay? The answer to all these questions will shape the way you approach your negotiations. Being prepared is an essential part of any negotiation, even where branches hope to work jointly with the employer. The branch can use the checklist at the end of this guide to set out the aims and evaluate the outcomes of your negotiations. Looking at the following considerations before entering negotiations will give you the right negotiating foundations.
Written proposals You should receive written proposals for any changes to the pay policy or performance management policies of the university. If these have not been given to your branch you should request them straight away. With your regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office, your branch should scrutinise and counter these proposals with the arguments outlined in this guidance. Furthermore the employer should provide its justification for the changes. Your branch should be provided with these reasons and should be prepared to examine and challenge them as appropriate. If your employer is not negotiating with UCU or they are seeking to impose performance related pay you should contact your regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office immediately and a trade dispute should be considered.
15
Opening up the books Your university may cite a reduction in cost as part of their rationale for introducing PRP. However, UCU rejects the claim that PRP will help to reduce costs. In order to challenge the employers assertion that it will save money by replacing incremental progression with PRP, branches should ask them to provide the financial evidence they have used. You may find that the university has not undertaken a full financial comparison between the current incremental pay system and their proposed PRP scheme. For example, have they accounted for the number of staff at the top of the grade when calculating the cost of increments? Your regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office can help you analyse the university finances and the financial arguments put forward by your employer.
Recruit and organise! Your branch should also ensure it communicates with members in the branch and the other trade unions where appropriate. Members may be able to provide you with useful information about the how far the proposals are already in place. Members will also have strong feelings about such proposals and this may provide an opportunity for your branch to organise and recruit activists. This will strengthen your campaign to oppose PRP. When branch negotiators can demonstrate they have the clear mandate of a strong branch behind them, it gives a powerful message to the employer. It will assist your negotiations and show the university that PRP is not wanted by the majority of staff. This can impact on their willingness to reach a negotiated agreement with UCU rather than risk moving into dispute and damaging relationships and good will.
16
The common concerns of employers and how UCU can respond There are a number of common themes that are likely to crop up in any proposal or negotiations regarding performance related pay. Below we look at some of the most frequent barriers raised by employers and how branches can respond and counter those arguments.
What they might say
How you can respond
The current incremental pay system is too expensive
PRP gives a fairer share of the available financial resources
Incremental progression is outdated
Automatic progression is not fair
17
Branches should ensure they have access to the University accounts. You will often find where any costings have been done, they are likely to over-estimate the cost of incremental progression and under-estimate the costs of PRP. Have they accounted for the additional administrative time in the costs of PRP for example? With a fixed pot of money it is likely a quota will be used to limit the number of people able to receive an increase. This is not a fair measure of staff achievement and will not motivate all staff. The increases that will be available to staff through PRP are not likely to be much more than those through incremental progression. This is unlikely to provide an incentive anyway. UCU is willing to work with the employer to explore income generation and other ways of reducing costs through non staff costs means. Branches should interrogate the rationale for proposing PRP. Are the reasons put forward reasons really about reducing the wage bill or improving teaching performance? Branches can then use the arguments in this guidance to undermine those reasons. PRP is not a new idea. It has been tried and tested in other areas for many years and the evidence suggests that in sectors such as HE, it does not produce effects that are conducive to the HE mission. The National Framework Agreement, Post 92 agreements and local agreements are the starting point for any pay system in HE.
Incremental progression is not automatic, it is a normal expectation.
PRP involves a subjective judgement and is therefore more opaque, more open to bias and risks greater inequality. There is already a separate, international market within research in particular. PRP, limited by a fixed pot is highly unlikely increase how attractive the institution is to such staff. The research shows the effect of PRP on recruitment and retention is unlikely to be what management want it to be. Workload planning to allow for scholarly and research time, adequate research resources and academic freedom are more likely to attract and retain staff and contribute to the REF outcomes. The existing management and appraisal structures should already allow managers to know how their staff are performing. Existing agreed appraisal and capability policies should provide a process for dealing with poor performance and emphasise a supportive approach to improving performance. PRP is not a fair and transparent way of addressing poor performance. Withholding pay is a punitive approach and there is no evidence that it provides an incentive to improve performance.
We need to attract and retain the highest quality research staff We need to ensure REF submissions are excellent
PRP allows us to identify and deal with poor performance
PRP will allow us to withhold increments from poor performers
We need to ensure the quality of teaching is continuously improving.
We need to recruit high quality staff across the University
18
There is no evidence to show that PRP improves the quality of teaching. The evidence shows that rating performance against targets and linking this to pay can skew performance towards simply meeting the targets. Measuring performance becomes an end in itself and the core mission of the institution is lost in the noise. There are existing mechanisms, agreed with UCU, for attracting staff. Schemes such as the living wage, London weighting and market supplements can be used as part of an agreed process to deal with external factors. There is no evidence that PRP in and of itself will attract the best staff. Evidence suggests that in more complex tasks such as those in HE, staff are more
PRP will provide greater motivation for staff
PRP is a fairer way to reward effort
PRP will improve the student experience and our National Student Survey results
19
likely to be intrinsically motivated and PRP could actually detract from this. Research, teaching and related activities are collegiate by nature and PRP does not encourage team or cross team working. Agreed mechanisms for rewarding extraordinary effort already exist in the form of contribution pay and should be in addition and not instead of the rate for the job. PRP is not equality proof and may exacerbate existing pay inequalities. PRP tends to concentrate on rewarding measurable outcomes and not on the effort put in by staff. This is especially true when there is a fixed pot of money available. This encourages ‘gaming’ the system and staff may become demotivated. It is the collective responsibility of the University to ensure a good experience for all students and therefore individualised PRP is unlikely to be effective in improving the overall student experience. PRP may encourage staff to concentrate their effort on what is being measured and not on what really matters.
Checklist If any PRP related issues are raised in discussions or negotiations at your institution, you should contact your regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office straight away. They, in consultation with national officers, will decide whether this is a matter needs to be bought to the attention of the National Ratification Panel (NRP). This will usually occur when:
There is no national policy relating to the issue under negotiation and It is considered to be of significance to the wider HE sector It represents a significant variation of an existing national policy.
Completing the follow checklist will help you to evaluate the progress of your negotiations and assist UCU officials and officers in deciding whether this is a matter for the NRP:
Bargaining Aim
Yes
Are UCU being consulted and able to engage in negotiations on any proposed changes? Have UCU received any proposals in writing? Have you informed your regional or national office? Have UCU been given access to the University’s financial information? Have the proposals be subject to a full Equality Impact Assessment? Do the proposals comply with the National Framework Agreement? Branches should seek advice from their regional or Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland office on this matter. Do the proposals maintain a normal expectation of incremental progression?
20
No
Partial
Comments
Do these proposals link the appraisal process and decisions relating to pay increases? Bargaining Aim
Yes
Have a system of rating performance been introduced to the appraisal process? Is there an appeals process? Is there a review procedure for any agreed changes? Will training be given to all staff on any agreed changes?
21
No
Partial
Comments
Negotiators’ resource: Notes
22
Useful Information Below are links to further information and contact details for regional and national offices. All the of National Framework Agreement related documents, including the Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff Guidance on Pay Progression and Contribution-Related Pay can be found here: http://www.ucu.org.uk/1969 The Post ’92 National Contract and other related documents can be found from this page: http://www.ucu.org.uk/1970 The CVCP-AUT Appraisal agreement is contained in this UCU HE branch circular: http://www.ucu.org.uk/circ/UCUHE97.pdf OECD report ‘Does performance-based pay improve teaching?’ http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/50328990.pdf David Marsden’s initial research following the introduction of PRP for teachers in the UK: http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/teachersStudy/pdf/teachers-performanceprov-results.pdf UUK’s report ‘Efficiency, effectiveness and value for money’ more commonly known as ‘The Diamond Report’ http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/EfficiencyEffectivenessValueForMon ey.aspx#.VXVVCUZDBOY Guidance of carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment can be found here: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/employingpeople/managing-workers/equal-pay/equality-impact-assessments Branches should also refer to their HE Negotiating Pack, particularly the section on Performance Management. Contact details for UCU regional and national offices are available here: http://www.ucu.org.uk/regionalofficials
23
