Mozenter.indd Without Merit: One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” Frada L. Mozenter and Lois Stickell This article outlines a proposal developed at the University of North Carolina of a method for awarding merit pay to librarians.The library has a two-tiered structure that includes faculty who are tenured and others who work on contract. Because of this, the Acting University Librarian created two task forces to investigate ways to make merit pay equitable. Each task force developed a proposal that eventually was merged into one document. This article examines the process of developing a plan for merit pay and library faculty reactions to the plan. he University of North Caro- lina at Charlo e (UNC Char- lo e) is a comprehensive, re- gional institution that gained university status within the University of North Carolina system in 1965. The university, which gained Doctoral Re- search Intensive status in 2000, is working toward ARL status. It is the fourth largest of the 17 UNC campuses. Enrollment for 2007 stands approximately at 21,500 stu- dents, including 4,400 graduate students. By 2020, enrollment is projected to be around 35,000.1 The university library, J. Murrey Atkins Library, is a centralized library facility with a small branch col- lection in the College of Architecture. It is the largest research library in the Southern Piedmont region. The library houses more than one million volumes, approximately 28,000 journal titles (23,000 of which are electronic), and over 900,000 government documents,. The library staff consists of 27 librarians and 62 support staff. Organizational units include Library Administration, Technical Services, Ac- cess Services, Special Collections, and the Information Commons. The Information Commons is composed of four service desks (Reference, Presentation Support, the Information Desk, and Circulation). Although Circulation is in this area, it is part of Access Services and not organi- zationally part of the Commons. Access Services incorporates Circulation and the Combined Services Desk. Librarians at UNC Charlo e have had faculty status and eligibility for tenure since 1965. In February 2003, the University Li- brarian called a special meeting of the then–29-member library faculty to inform them that the Interim Provost was insti- tuting a new status for library faculty under special faculty appointments, as provided for in the University’s tenure policy.2 This new career track would consist of non–tenure-track, multiyear appointments. The stated reason for this change was that University Administra- tion believed that librarians would not be able to meet the more exacting standards Frada L. Mozenter is Social Sciences Reference Librarian and Lois Stickell is History and Government Documents Reference Librarian in the Atkins Library at University of North Carolina at Charlo e; e-mail: flmozent@uncc.edu, lstickel@uncc.edu. 34 mailto:lstickel@uncc.edu mailto:flmozent@uncc.edu One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 35 regarding reappointment, tenure, and promotion toward which the university was moving. Librarians currently on ten- ure track or holding tenure had the op- tions of staying on tenure track, retaining tenure and going through the post-tenure review process, or resigning from their tenure-track or tenured positions and signing multiyear contracts as Covered Library Faculty. Implementation of the new career path has meant having two career tracks—tenure-track and Covered Library Faculty (non–tenure-track). All new hires since the implementation of the new career path have been as non–ten- ure-track, Covered Library Faculty. As of January 2008, there are 11 tenured faculty (not counting the Acting University Li- brarian) and 16 covered librarians. Literature Review A search of the library literature for merit pay compensation revealed few articles that specifically look at merit pay for librarians. In general, articles about merit pay originate in the business and management literature. One significant library-specific study is Anderson and Cochenour’s 2001 article “Merit Salary Criteria: One Academic Library’s Experi- ence.” The authors detailed the work of a task force charged with developing crite- ria for merit salary increases at Colorado State University. The task force “decided that the criteria should be descriptive, fo- cus on outcomes, and emphasize that each faculty is responsible for documenting his/ her contributions in terms of outcomes on the annual summary activity report.”3 David A. Baldwin’s 2003 book Library Compensation Handbook defines merit pay as “pay for performance.”4 “Merit pay is defined as individual pay increases based on the rated performance of indi- vidual employees during a specific time period.”5 Baldwin includes a brief history of merit pay, noting that the term is rela- tively new but the philosophy of “linking pay to performance dates back to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Hard work was viewed as self-sacrifice in the service of God—hard work equaled economic success equaled willingness to serve God. Modern merit-pay plans began to appear around the early twentieth century. Many urban U.S. school districts had merit plans in the 1920s, and their use increased dramatically a er World War II. Today, at least 80 percent of U.S. organizations have some type of merit-pay plan.”6 Richard I. Henderson, in Compensa- tion Management in a Knowledge-Based World, while not directly addressing librarians or librarianship does define “knowledge-based pay” as “pay for knowledge.” He notes that a “number of the original pay-for-knowledge plans were within banks and insurance compa- nies and similar kinds of organizations in which large numbers of employees processed records-producing data and information instead of goods.”7 While not all librarians process data, all deal with some form of information. Carol F. Goodson in The Complete Guide to Performance Standards for Library Person- nel8 addresses rating scales and methods of measuring performance in great detail but does not tie these to merit raises. Pa- tricia Belcastro’s Evaluating Library Staff: A Performance Appraisal System also exam- ines the evaluation process without tying it to performance-based salary increases.9 Seaman, Krismann, and Hamilton in “An Internal Equity Evaluation System Based on Merit Measures” focus on salary equity but acknowledge the need to include mer- it in equity pay. The authors acknowledge the difficulty of quantifying merit, stating, “Because librarians have such diverse job duties and widely varying experience, as- sessing merit equity over an individual’s entire academic career proved particu- larly challenging. What constitutes merit, how is it to be measured, and how much and where can supporting information be obtained? The system had to be fair and accurate, but also clear and under- standable. A system that was too complex could be burdensome to those reassessing equity every year.”10 36 College & Research Libraries January 2009 When looking at the issue of merit- based pay, it immediately becomes clear that librarians are in a unique position because much of what they do is difficult to quantify. As Henderson notes, “Be- cause so much of the work goes on inside the brains of these knowledge-directed workers, it is very difficult to identify or recognize the quality of their contribu- tions or outputs through observation or to quantify them.”11 Nevertheless, library administrators need and want accurate ways of measuring and rewarding per- formance. Because there is no generally accepted standard, institutions are le to devise their own formulas or to rely on unwri en processes. Indiana University created a peer review process.12 Temple University worked from guidelines is- sued to carry out a collective bargaining contract with the Temple Association of University Professionals and based their merit awards “principally for outstanding performance in teaching/instruction and in research/scholarship/creative activ- ity.”13 Indiana University and Temple are exceptions rather than the rule, as most libraries leave salary decisions to administrators who o en operate without wri en guidelines. As discussed earlier, the guidelines for merit pay that do exist are o en based on business models. The HR Series, in Policies and Practices, devotes a section to “Increases under Merit Pay Systems” and discusses how to design a merit system. While noting that “most employees want some control over their pay growth rate and most employers want to be able to reward the employees who contribute the most to their jobs, a merit system seems to be a good idea. However, a company must address several critical issues before deciding on or designing a merit pay system.” These include the following: 1) whether the nature of the jobs allows for significant differences in job perfor- mance; 2) whether the performance dif- ferences are observable and measurable; 3) whether the salary ranges are large enough to allow “significant variations in pay for employees in the same job”; and 4) whether the company is willing to “expend resources on training managers to be good raters.”14 In addition, types of work within li- braries vary dramatically. As Anderson and Cochenour point out, “How does one rank the accomplishments of an instructional librarian against those of a serials librarian…”15 Their solution was that “merit should be determined by ap- plying the criteria to one’s job description and one’s accomplishments as related to the predefined annual goals.”16 Organizational Climate Merit pay resides within the overall framework of an organization’s environ- ment. Organizational structure, policies, processes, and procedures obscure the human factor: what Longnecker, Sims, and Gioia call a “mask of objectivity and rationality.”17 Nurse states that organiza- tions are “arenas in which negotiations, networking, the formation of alliances and power blocks as well as the develop- ment of political strategies are common- place events that play an important role in determining who gets what.”18 He goes on to say that, given this environment, it is simply a myth that hard work leads to success. Rather, success is based on who one knows and how successful one is in mastering the “political arena” and the “political tools.”19 Whether or not the theory of organiza- tion as political entity is always accurate, the question becomes, “do employees view it as such?” Lawler contends that performance appraisal systems that tie performance to pay o en fail based not on the merit of the process but rather on the lack of trust between employee and supervisor.20 This refers back to the concept that a certain level of work will result in a specific amount of performance pay. Thus, the trust issue can be viewed by the employee as one of organizational justice. The literature states there are three types of organizational justice. The first, procedural justice, focuses on fairness http:supervisor.20 http:process.12 One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 37 of methods, policies, and procedures. The second, interactional justice, has at its core the treatment received by each employee. The third, distributive justice, is concerned with “the perceived fair- ness of the outcomes or allocations that individuals in organizations receive.”21 Sylie St-Onge uses the terms “perceived instrumentality link” and “instrumental- ity perception” to describe the connection between perception and pay-for-perfor- mance or merit pay.22 The above hint at what managers must overcome if a merit pay system is to succeed. It also reflects what manag- ers must do if they want the organization to succeed in its mission. As determined by a joint University of Maryland Librar- ies/University of Maryland Department of Industrial and Organization Psychol- ogy study, a “healthy organization is be er able to fulfill its service mission.” The actions of an organization that is perceived as violating the trust of its employees also have an impact on its customers.23 Making the issue of organizational climate even more challenging is that academic libraries are dissimilar not only from nonacademic instructions but also from other types of libraries. In many ways, they are also distinct from the wider university in which they operate. They also have internal unique cultural subsystems (public service, technical ser- vice, administration) further confounding a simple solution.24 At UNC Charlo e, the task of creat- ing a framework for merit pay was complicated by the fact that there are two career tracks in the library. Because new hires are placed on the non–tenure track, librarians with seniority are the only ones with tenure. The decision to eliminate tenure-track positions had the unintended consequence of making non–tenure-track librarians ineligible for certain campus commi ees, grants, and even phased retirement. This has created some tension that has affected the organi- zational climate. Current System The library’s current review process cov- ers a calendar year, January 1 through December 31. Each librarian prepares a self-evaluation that delineates achieve- ments as well as met or missed goals. The individual’s supervisor writes an assess- ment based on this evaluation as well as his or her observations. The librarian may (depending on the supervisor) see a dra copy and make comments. The supervisor then prepares a final evaluation, which is signed by both. The signature does not acknowledge agreement with what has been wri en; only that it has been seen. The librarian may submit a rebu al. All documents are filed in Library Adminis- tration. The Acting University Librarian has the option of writing an assessment. The Charge In May 2007, the Acting University Li- brarian asked two librarians to chair task forces charged with investigating criteria to be followed during annual evaluations, a point at which merit pay is distributed. She stated that her request was prompted by complaints about the unfairness of the current system and that people believed the system was based on personal favorit- ism rather than on job performance. Two task forces were created reflecting the library’s two tracks, tenured and contract (also called “covered”). The only stipula- tions given were that “criteria” should be the focal point, that UNC Charlo e peer institutions should be surveyed, and that university personnel policies followed. The Acting University Librarian also wanted the proposed documents submi ed to the complete library faculty for approval. The chair of the Tenured Task Force requested that the task forces be combined because annual merit evaluations and the distribu- tion of annual merit pay is the same for both tenured and covered librarians. In addition, a librarian’s primary work responsibilities are the same regardless of their tenure or covered status, and one funding allocation covers both groups. The Acting University Librarian denied the request. http:solution.24 http:customers.23 38 College & Research Libraries January 2009 The chairs selected two additional librarians from their respective tracks, creating two task forces of three people each. The Tenured Task Force consisted of librarians from Reference, Special Collections, and Technical Services. The Covered Task Force was made up of li- brarians from Reference, Distance Educa- tion, and Staff Development/Instruction. Each group worked separately, creating distinctive processes and policies. The Tenured Task Force The Tenured Task Force began by es- tablishing goals and a strategy. The task force acknowledged that the success of the instrument and process developed would depend on the development of credible, comprehensive measures of performance criteria.25 Frederic W. Cook noted that two requirements are needed for a successful plan. The first is a “cred- ible system of measuring and evaluating performance” and the second is that “employees must perceive that differ- ences in performance will be recognized and rewarded.”26 R.H. Kroll noted that an effective evaluation is possible only if the employee knows “what he is sup- posed to do, how his performance will be measured, and against what stan- dards.”27 In addition, it was important that the instrument be relatively easy to administer, be quantifiable, and allow for standardization across jobs.28 With these criteria in mind, the Tenured Task Force created the following goals: • Develop criteria that establish work priorities that librarians and supervisors must address during the annual review • Create an easy-to-use and easy- to-understand assessment instrument resulting in a transparent process • Demonstrate how supervisors and the Acting University Librarian will recommend merit pay increases based on established and mutually-agreed-upon criteria that reflect the library and univer- sity mission as well as department goals • Develop an instrument and proce- dures that ensure individual librarians are rated fairly within the department and across departments • Develop an instrument that can be used by the Acting University Librarian to determine annual merit raises in conjunc- tion with an individual’s self-assessment and the immediate supervisor ’s rating and wri en assessment The strategy encompassed the follow- ing tasks: • Review the literature • Query libraries among UNC Char- lo e’s peer institutions and select UNC System libraries29 • Develop criteria based on the “Criteria for Review” noted in the Tenure Policies and Regulations of the Library Fac- ulty of the University of North Carolina at Charlo e30 • Follow procedures for annual re- views noted in the university’s Academic Personnel Procedures Handbook31 • Develop sample criteria for some positions to use as examples • Develop a clear, understandable system of establishing assessment forms, assessment criteria, priorities, methods of evaluation, and measurement • Develop a timeline for selected review criteria • Develop responsibilities of indi- viduals, immediate supervisors, and the Acting University Librarian regarding selected review criteria • Present various scenarios regarding lines of authority that impact the review process • Document concerns with the crite- ria, process, and/or timeline Peer Institutions UNC Charlo e peer institutions and three UNC System libraries were contacted via e-mail. They were asked to provide infor- mation on the status of librarians at their institution: that is, whether or not they hold university faculty status; whether librarians are eligible for tenure or work on contracts; whether specific criteria are used to determine annual merit pay and, if so, what are the criteria; if specific http:criteria.25 One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 39 criteria are used, are they weighted; are librarians in a unit or department ranked by a supervisor; and, finally, how are li- brarians in different units or departments compared against each other when it comes to distributing merit pay. Eight of the sixteen peer institutions and one of the three University of North Carolina System schools contacted re- sponded. Five peer institution libraries responded that no specific criteria are used for awarding merit pay. Three of these libraries have unionized representa- tion with salary increases negotiated by union contracts. All but one of the rest of the respondents indicated that merit pay is based on performance. Several responding libraries mentioned goals- based evaluation and assessment based on level of effectiveness in categories such as professional competency, professional service, library responsibilities, scholar- ship, and university service. Only George Mason University uses specific criteria, including the establishment of general performance ratings by supervisors for each librarian and rating specific crite- ria. However, because their criteria were very broad, including categories such as leadership, planning, communication, conflict management, and teamwork, the commi ee determined they would not be an appropriate model for UNC Charlo e.32 The Instrument Since a review of the literature and the responses from UNC Charlotte’s peer institutions revealed li le that specifically addressed merit criteria of professional librarians in academic libraries or, more specifically, explicit criteria or formalized assessment instruments, the Tenured Task Force began to develop an instrument. The plan was to individualize the in- strument depending on the library unit, overall unit goals, and an individual’s work responsibilities. It was also de- signed to progress in stages. In October, library units were to develop unit goals and objectives. In mid-November, each librarian, along with his or her immediate supervisor, was to: • Review and revise the librarian’s job description • Review and revise individual goals • Establish individual-specific crite- ria under each broad-based category for the following annual review cycle • Complete an “Individual Annual Review Assessment Summary Form” In June each librarian and his or her immediate supervisor would meet to review and revise the job description, individual goals, individual-specific cri- teria, and the “Individual Annual Review Assessment Summary Form.” A mid-year review would provide flexibility in case of changes in an individual’s job duties. At the end of the review cycle, the supervisor would complete an “Annual Review As- sessment Summary, Supervisor’s Form.” This proposed process did not alter the current policy. Rather, it was designed to augment it. The individual’s self-evalua- tion would not be affected. The supervisor would still provide a wri en assessment. In the event of a disagreement, the librar- ian could still submit rebu al materials. Categories Three broad categories, based on the library’s tenure document or the covered librarians’ document, formed the basis of the instrument. For tenured librarians, these categories were: 1) Primary Job Responsibilities, which included Profes- sional Competence and Teaching; 2) Scholarship and Research; and 3) Service. For the covered librarians these categories were: (1) Assigned Area of Responsibility; (2) Professional Activity and Scholarship; and (3) Service. The percentages assigned to each area would be tailored to an individual’s status. Each broad category was to be assigned a “percentage” by the supervisor of each library unit, indicating the level of importance a ributed to each function. For example, if the librarian be- ing reviewed was tenured and required to publish, the Head of Reference might assign the category of Primary Job Re- http:Charlo�e.32 40 College & Research Libraries January 2009 sponsibilities, 80 percent; Scholarship and Research, 10 percent; and Service, 10 per- cent. If the librarian was “covered” and not required to publish, the Head of Reference would place no emphasis or less emphasis on “Scholarship and Research.” The head of a unit could ascribe some categories as relevant to all in the unit. For example, the Head of Reference might determine that categories such as Gen- eral Competencies, Overall Work, Liaison Service to Faculty, or Reference Service ap- plied to everyone in the Reference Depart- ment. However, an individual librarian and his or her supervisor could also select librarian-specific categories. For example, the Engineering Reference Librarian could have a category relating to “Patents,” while the Architecture Reference Librarian could have a category relating to management of the Architectural Resource Center. In turn, each of these areas was to be broken down into specific criteria. For example, criteria under “Reference Service” could include “quality of general reference assistance to students and faculty,” “quality of spe- cialized reference assistance to students and faculty in assigned liaison areas(s),” “quality of assistance provided through the virtual reference service,” “number of reference desk hours,” and so on. Weights, Ratings, and Definitions After determining criteria, the next step was to provide a way to quantify a librarian’s performance. The task force determined that it needed to provide a rating scale with labels, definitions, nu- merical ratings, and weights. The task force chose five categories that would reflect various performance levels. Each category was given a label, a descrip- tive statement, and a numerical rating that would be assigned by the immediate supervisor to each subcategory to reflect the quantity and quality of an individual’s work. Weights were set to span 10 (high) to 1 (low). The weight would note the degree of emphasis placed on subcategories by each librarian and his or her immediate su- pervisor.33 Thus, on the continuum, a “10” indicated a subcategory that constituted a major part of one’s job responsibilities; the mid-range, a moderate part of one’s job responsibilities; and a “1,” a minor part of one’s job responsibilities. (See figure 1.) Categories, percentages, and weights would be recorded on an “Individual Annual Review Assessment Summary Form.” The form would be signed by the librarian and supervisor noting agree- ment on the plan. End-of-Year Review At the end of the year the immediate super- visor would complete the process by: • assigning ratings for each indi- vidual criteria • multiplying the weight by the rat- ing FIGURE 1 Weights, Ratings, and Definitions Weights | | | | | | | | | | (High) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Low) Rating Scale Categories Definitions Ratings Exceptional Performance generally superior. Frequently exceeds expectations. 9–10 Commendable Performance above average. Generally exceeds expectations 7–8 Proficient Performance meets standards. Makes a positive contribution 5–6 Marginal Performance meets minimum standards 3–4 Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet minimum standards 1–2 http:pervisor.33 One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 41 • adding subsection weights and totals • adding the total weights and the total totals for each broad category • dividing the total total by the total weight for each broad category • using these final totals to come up with an overall ranking • recoding all data on an “Annual Re- view Assessment Summary, Supervisor’s Form” The form would be signed by the li- brarian and the supervisor. The librarian’s signature meant only that s/he had read it, not that s/he agreed with the figures. Documents The Tenured Task Force submi ed the pro- posal to the Acting University Librarian at the beginning of July 2007. Documents were broken into five groups. The first was an introductory document stating: • goals • strategy • findings from the literature re- view • findings from peer institutions and selected UNC System libraries • definitions of categories, weights, rating scale categories, and other terms • a suggested timeline • responsibilities of immediate su- pervisors and the Acting University librarian • concerns regarding lines of author- ity and training • a proposal for a survey to be dis- tributed one year a er implementation The second document was an example of the “Individual Annual Review Assess- ment Summary Form” with examples prior to the Annual Review Cycle. The third document was an example of the “Individual Annual Review Assessment FIGURE 2 Institutions Posting Merit Pay Criteria Online Procedure for Awarding Merit Teaching/ Performance Research/ Creative Activity/Prof. Development Service Indiana University Faculty member receives a rating and evaluation from Peer Review Committee Yes Yes Yes University of Central Florida Based on supervisor’s evaluation of “Outstanding” or “Above Satisfactory”, etc. Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated University Of South Florida Merit pay committee, based on librarian’s self- ranking and self-evaluation + supervisor’s ranking UNLV Faculty member must apply. Merit advisory com- mittee recommends using a score sheet Yes Yes Yes Colorado State University Recommended by supervisor. Rankings are: Superior, Quality; Satisfactory; Unsatisfactory Performance (which may or may not include teaching) Yes Yes 42 College & Research Libraries January 2009 Summary Form” with examples at the end of the Annual Review Cycle. The fourth document was the “Annual Re- view Assessment Summary Supervisor’s Form,” and the fifth document was a step-by-step set of instructions. The task force also included a second request asking permission to contact and work with the Covered Task Force as the Tenured Task Force believed that it would be more beneficial for both groups to combine efforts. This time the Acting Uni- versity Librarian granted the request. The Covered Task Force The Covered Task Force charged with investigating Merit Pay Criteria began by reviewing five institutions that had posted their merit pay criteria online. The five were Indiana University, University of Central Florida, University of South Carolina, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, and Colorado State University. For the purposes of their research, the Covered Task Force did not distinguish between librarians with tenure and librar- ians who are not tenured. The following table gives a brief summary of the proce- dure for awarding merit pay and whether teaching/performance, research/creative activity/professional development, and service were specifically addressed in merit pay decisions. The results for the five institutions appear in figure 2. In the majority of cases, teaching/per- formance, research/creative activity/pro- fessional development, and service were addressed in the merit pay process, and the task force agreed these were the sig- nificant building blocks in creating a tem- plate for merit pay criteria. The task force created a chart that assigned a percentage to each of the three categories: primary professional duties; research, scholarship, creative activity; and service to the pro- fession, university, and the public. It was the intent of the task force that this be a fluid document and that the percentages assigned to each of the three categories could change each year. For instance, if a librarian was heavily involved in research in a particular year, this might represent a higher percentage of his or her job that year but the following year that percent- age could be adjusted downward as the amount of research decreased. The second issue was who would be involved in making a determination about the quality of a librarian’s work and what the ranking would be. The Covered Task Force determined that the librarian should write a self-review that a merit pay/peer review commi ee could then review, although this was determined to be an optional step. The final reviewer was the supervisor. Each of the review- ers would rate the librarian’s work as Unacceptable, Weak, Satisfactory, Strong, Outstanding, or Not Applicable. The com- mi ee had some discussion over how to tie numbers to these ratings but decided this was not imperative. Based on these ratings, each of the reviewers would then recommend a salary increase of None, Minimum, Moderate, or Large. The task force adapted the University of South Florida’s “Annual Librarian Re- view Summary” and made some minor modifications. (See figure 3.) Compromise Documents The Tenured and Covered Task Forces held a joint meeting in mid-September 2007. The two commi ees reviewed the documents from both groups. The Ten- ured Task Force voiced concerns about the recommended percentages noted in the covered document because it was not clear on what they would be based. The Covered Task Force was concerned with the level of detail and the amount of math that would have to be done in the documents presented by the Tenured Task Force. Since the Tenured Task Force also had concerns about the complexity and since both groups relied on versions of the University of South Florida’s “Annual Librarian Review Summary,” the major decision was to use the tenured group’s recommendations but collapse the catego- ries. Both groups agreed this would make less work for all involved. One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 43 FIGURE 3 Adaption of the University of South Florida’s Annual Librarian Review Summary Form University of North Carolina at Charlotte Librarian Annual Review Summary For the Period _______ to __________ Name _____________________________ Dept. _______________________________ Academic Rank ______________ Date of Rank _______________________________ Describe the individual’s level of performance in assigned duties, relative to your unit’s standard expectations for faculty of comparable assignment, rank, and seniority, as: Unacceptable; Weak; Satisfactory; Strong; Outstanding; or Not Applicable. ANNUAL REVIEW % Assigned Librarian’s Self-Review Merit Pay Committee Supervisor Primary Professional Duties 65 Research; Scholarship; Creative Activity 15 Service: Professional/ University/Public 20 Recommendation: Librarian’s Self-Review Merit Pay Committee Supervisor None ___ None ___ None____ Minimum ___ Min ____ Minimum ____ Moderate ___ Mod Moderate ____ Large ____ Large ____ Large_____ The librarian may include a brief self-review narrative. Both the Peer Review Committee and the Department Head will include on a separate sheet a concise narrative supporting their evaluation, including appraisals of progress toward Promotion as applicable. Signatures: Merit Pay/Peer Review Committee Chair Date Supervisor Date Librarian Date [NOTE: Signing indicates review only and does not imply consent, approval, or agreement. The librarian may include a written response to the review.] 44 College & Research Libraries January 2009 Three broad categories, based on the library’s tenure document or the covered librarian’s document (depending on the librarian’s status), formed the basis of the instrument. For the tenured librarians, these categories were: 1) Primary Job Responsibilities, which included Pro- fessional Competence and Teaching; 2) Scholarship and Research; and 3) Service. For the covered librarians these were: (1) Assigned Area of Responsibility; (2) Pro- fessional Activity and Scholarship; and (3) Service. The percentages assigned to each area would be tailored to an individual’s status. Supervisors of each unit would deter- mine subcategories under each section. Some might be common to all individuals in the unit, while others would be unique to an individual. The rating and weight- ing system remained as in the Tenured Task Forces process. The step-by-step in- structions were enhanced with diagrams and examples for each step. The joint documents were forwarded to the Acting University Librarian on October 29, 2007. On November 27, the entire library faculty had a chance to respond with comments and concerns. (See figures 4, 5, 6, and 7.) The Reactions Reactions were mixed and split along status lines. The proposed plan was gen- erally accepted by the tenured librarians with minor adjustments. The covered librarians were generally opposed to it, believing it did not reflect their status or the responsibilities listed in the docu- ment, “Procedures for Initial Appoint- ment, Reappointment, and Promotion for Covered Library Faculty.”34 They were concerned that they would be forced to publish or suffer the consequences. This concern may have resulted from some confusion about the merit pay forms, since the forms would be tailored by one’s immediate supervisor to each librarian’s status and job responsibilities. Categories and percentages would differ between the groups. Since the total of the three cat- egories for both tenure or covered would equal 100%, no group had an advantage over the other. There was also concern among both the tenured and covered librarians that the rating was subjective and that supervisors could skew the results if desired. This is a valid point, but a built-in safeguard against this was the requirement that each librarian and his or her supervisor meet to detail one’s responsibilities and note the importance of each. The system was transparent in that both the librarian and the supervisor knew in advance what was required. An additional safeguard sug- gested was that supervisors be trained in using a criterion-based weighted system. A third major concern was that it was not known if the Acting University Librar- ian would be appointed to the position permanently or if a job search would be held. If a new University Librarian was hired, that person might not be interested in following the proposed procedures. There was no consensus by the end of the meeting, so the issue was tabled. Both the tenured and covered groups were given the opportunity to discuss their concerns separately, within their own group. A special library faculty meeting would then be held to vote on the pro- posed policy or to table it. The few specific changes requested were made, and the revised documents were distributed. Meeting of the Covered Librarians Covered Library Faculty members met on December 11, 2007, to discuss merit pay. It quickly became apparent that there was strong opposition to the document. Some thought the document was too detailed. Others expressed concern that it added another layer of bureaucracy. It was also pointed out that an annual review process was already in place and that it should be the basis for a merit pay document. Finally, there was opposition to applying numerical values to a review. Since there is no standardized annual review tem- plate for the library, it was suggested that one be developed. Some suggested that One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 45 FIGURE 4 Example / Template: Prior to Cycle Atkins Library Individual Annual Review Assessment Summary (Form #1) Annual Review Dates of Coverage: _____________________ Name: Dept.: Reference Directions for Immediate Supervisor (prior to annual merit pay cycle): 1. Assign a percentage to each category; 2. Assign a weight to individual subcategories; Directions for Immediate Supervisor (end of annual merit pay cycle - assessment): 3. Assign a rating to each subcategory; 4. For each subcategory multiply the weight by the rating for a total; 5. Add the weights for each category; 6. Add the totals for each category. Weights | | | | | | | | | | (High) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Low) On the continuum, a “10” indicates a subcategory constitutes a major part of one’s job responsibilities; the mid-section, a moderate part of one’s job responsibilities; and a “1”, a minor part of one’s job responsibilities. Rating Scale Categories Definitions Ratings Exceptional Performance generally superior. Frequently exceeds expectations. 9–10 Commendable Performance above average. Generally exceeds expectations. 7–8 Proficient Performance meets standards. Makes a positive contribution. 5–6 Marginal Performance meets minimum standards. 3–4 Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet minimum standards. 1–2 Primary Job Responsibilities (Includes “Professional Competence” and “Teaching”) Percentage Assigned: 80% 1. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating General Competencies 9 2. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Overall Work 8 46 College & Research Libraries January 2009 FIGURE 4 (CONTINUED) Example / Template: Prior to Cycle 3. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Liaison Service to Faculty (General) 7 4. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Reference Service 9 5. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Collection Development 6. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Teaching 7. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Training Total “Weight” for “Primary Job Responsibilities” ___________ Total “Total” for “Primary Job Responsibilities” __________ Scholarship & Research Percentage Assigned: 10% 1. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Publications 1 2. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Conferences NA Total “Weight” for “Scholarship & Research” __________ Total “Total” for “Scholarship & Research” __________ One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 47 FIGURE 4 (CONTINUED) Example / Template: Prior to Cycle Service Percentage Assigned: 10% 1. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Committees 2 Total “Weight” for “Service” __________ Total “Total” for “Service” __________ Signatures: Immediate Supervisor Date: University Librarian Date: Note: Signing by the Librarian under review does not indicate agreement. a narrative summary of an employee’s performance should be sufficient and that the Acting University Librarian could make a merit pay determination after reading the narrative. There was also a general discussion of training managers and supervisors in the process of how to evaluate a librarian. The overall sugges- tion was to abandon the document and start over with a new document directly tied to the annual review. Meeting of the Tenured Librarians The tenured faculty met on December 13, 2007, to discuss the criteria for merit pay documents. There was overall support for the document, although comments includ- ed the fact that the formulas were too con- fusing. It was also suggested that standard questions be used so that the University’s automated scoring equipment Opscan could be used. This option was not viable since the instrument was designed to be flexible, recognizing individuals’ status (tenured vs. covered) and job responsi- bilities. Another concern was the number of rating scale categories. The task forces proposed five categories: Exceptional (Per- formance generally superior. Frequently exceeds expectations.), Commendable (Performance above average. Generally exceeds expectations.), Proficient (Perfor- mance meets standards. Makes a positive contribution.), Marginal (Performance meets minimum standards.), and Un- satisfactory (Performance does not meet minimum standards.). It was suggested that three levels would be sufficient. It was agreed that this recommendation could easily be accommodated. Special Meeting of the Library Faculty A special meeting of the entire library fac- ulty was held on December 13. The debate mirrored what had been stated at the first library faculty meeting and at the sepa- rate covered and tenured meetings. To a large extent, support of and opposition to the proposal reflected one’s status, with covered librarians expressing greater op- position to the proposal. The major points of debate were: 1) dissatisfaction with the current lack of standardization regarding 48 College & Research Libraries January 2009 FIGURE 5 Example / Template: End of Cycle Atkins Library Individual Annual Review Assessment Summary (Form #1) Annual Review Dates of Coverage: _____________________ Name: Dept.: Reference Directions for Immediate Supervisor (prior to annual merit pay cycle): 1. Assign a percentage to each category; 2. Assign a weight to individual subcategories; Directions for Immediate Supervisor (end of annual merit pay cycle - assessment): 3. Assign a rating to each subcategory; 4. For each subcategory multiply the weight by the rating for a total; 5. Add the weights for each category; 6. Add the totals for each category. Weights | | | | | | | | | | (High) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Low) On the continuum, a “10” indicates a subcategory constitutes a major part of one’s job responsibilities; the mid-section, a moderate part of one’s job responsibilities; and a “1”, a minor part of one’s job responsibilities. Rating Scale Categories Definitions Ratings Exceptional Performance generally superior. Frequently exceeds expectations. 9–10 Commendable Performance above average. Generally exceeds expectations. 7–8 Proficient Performance meets standards. Makes a positive contribution. 5–6 Marginal Performance meets minimum standards. 3–4 Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet minimum standards. 1–2 Primary Job Responsibilities (Includes “Professional Competence” and “Teaching”) Percentage Assigned: 80% 1. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating General Competencies 9 5 45 2. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Overall Work 8 7 56 One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 49 FIGURE 5 (CONTINUED) Example / Template: End of Cycle 3. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Liaison Service to Faculty (General) 7 5 35 4. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Reference Service 9 7 63 5. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Collection Development 6. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Teaching 7. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Training Total “Weight” for “Primary Job Responsibilities” 33 Total “Total” for “Primary Job Responsibilities” 199 Scholarship & Research Percentage Assigned: 10% 1. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Publications 1 8 8 2. Weight Rating Total Comments Multiply Weight by Rating Conferences NA NA NA Total “Weight” for “Scholarship & Research” 1 Total “Total” for “Scholarship & Research” 8 50 College & Research Libraries January 2009 FIGURE 5 (CONTINUED) Example / Template: End of Cycle Percentage Assigned: 10% 1. Weight Committees 2 Total “Weight” for “Service” Total “Total” for “Service” Service Rating 7 Total Multiply Weight by Rating 14 2 14 Comments Signatures: Immediate Supervisor Date: University Librarian Date: Note: Signing by the Librarian under review does not indicate agreement. how annual self-evaluations are wri en; 2) lack of definitions for “scholarship” and “service”; 3) the belief that too much work would be required of managers; and 4) the perception of a disconnect between the proposal and the current system. Some issues extended beyond the charge of the task force, although sev- eral good suggestions were made that the Library Administration may wish to implement. One of these suggestions was to standardize how individuals write self-evaluations. Although goal se ing is currently in place for both tenured and covered library faculty, Library Admin- istration may need to reiterate that goals must be included in annual reviews. Another issue brought forward by the faculty was the lack of definition regarding service and scholarship. This issue may be something that covered and tenured librarians must address in their respective governing documents. While this lack of definition is a valid concern and critical to reappointment, tenure, and promotion, it does not impact annual administrative reviews. No vote was taken on the proposal. Instead, a vote was taken to adjourn the meeting. This le open three pos- sibilities for the library faculty: 1) have another special library faculty meeting regarding the proposal; 2) discuss the proposal again at the next regular library faculty meeting; or 3) allow the proposal to die. Those present agreed they wanted to continue a discussion about merit pay criteria, but they did not want it to center around the current proposal. The Acting University Librarian thanked the task forces and said their work was concluded. Conclusion Although the proposal was ultimately rejected, the authors believe the proposal accomplished five major things: 1. Individuals’ responsibilities were tied to the goals of their units. 2. Job responsibilities were ranked as to importance. 3. It integrated the status and re- sponsibilities of the tenured and covered librarians into a cohesive process. One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 51 FIGURE 6 Example / Template: End of Cycle—Final Supervisor’s Form Atkins Library Annual Review Assessment Summary Supervisor’s Form (Form #2) Annual Review Dates of Coverage: _____________________ Name: Dept.: Reference A. Using the data from Form #1, determine the total ratings for each category and the overall rating of the individual. B. Directions: 1. Enter the weights and totals noted on Form #1 for each category; 2. For category ratings, divide the total “totals” by the total “weights” (round off) and enter the number in the “ratings” column. 3. Multiply each rating by the percent assigned; 4. For an overall score add these totals. D. Signatures: Librarian Date: Immediate Supervisor: Date: University Librarian: Date: Note: Signing by the Librarian under review does not indicate agreement. Librarian’s Self Review (Optional) Total Score (from Form #1) Immediate Supervisor Weights Totals Ratings Weights Totals Ratings Primary Job Responsibilities (includes “Professional Competence” and “Teaching”) 33 199 6.0 Scholarship & Research 1 8 8.0 Service 2 14 7.0 Percent Assigned Rating by Immediate Supervisor (Multiply Rating by Percent Assigned) Primary Job Responsibilities (includes “Professional Competence” and “Teaching”) 80% 6.0 4.8 Scholarship & Research 10% 8.0 .8 Service 10% 7.0 .7 Overall Score 6.3 Immediate Supervisor University Librarian C. Recommendation for annual merit salary increase based on the over- all rating recorded: 52 College & Research Libraries January 2009 FIGURE 7 Step by Step Instructions (with Examples) • The immediate supervisor and librarian apply percentages to each category and records these on Form #1: For example, Primary Job Responsibilities – 80%; Scholarship & Research – 10%, Service –10% • The immediate supervisor and librarian determine subcategories of responsibilities under each of the categories and records these on Form #1: For example, under “Primary Job Responsibilities” Reference may choose: • “Reference Services” • “Liaison Services to Faculty” • “Teaching” • The immediate supervisor assigns weights to individual subcategories, 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest. The immediate supervisor records these on Form 1. | | | | | | | | | | (High) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Low) On the continuum, a “10” indicates a subcategory constitutes a major part of one’s job responsibilities; the mid-section, a moderate part of one’s job responsibilities; and a “1”, a minor part of one’s job responsibilities. Weights Definitions 10–9 Critical for position 8–7 Essential for position 6–5 Important for position 4–3 Necessary for position 2–1 Useful for position For example, “Liaison Service to Faculty” is assigned a weight of “7”. 3. Weight Rating Total Multiply Weight by Rating Liaison Service to Faculty (General) 7 • Individual librarian meets with his/her immediate supervisor prior to the next re- view period to review the job description, establish goals for the upcoming year, add or modify individual-specific subcategories as applies to an individual’s responsi- bilities, and record the data on Form 1; • Individual librarians and immediate supervisors meet in mid-year to review the above and revise as appropriate; • At the end of the year, the immediate supervisor rates each librarian: 1. The immediate supervisor assigns a “rating” for each individual subcat- egory. The immediate supervisor records these on Form 1. One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 53 FIGURE 7 (CONTINUED) Step by Step Instructions (with Examples) • Individual librarians and immediate supervisors meet in mid-year to review the above and revise as appropriate; • At the end of the year, the immediate supervisor rates each librarian: 1. The immediate supervisor assigns a “rating” for each individual subcat- egory. The immediate supervisor records these on Form 1. Rating Scale Categories Definitions Ratings Exceptional Performance generally superior. Frequently exceeds expectations. 9–10 Commendable Performance above average. Generally exceeds expectations 7–8 Proficient Performance meets standards. Makes a positive contribution 5–6 Marginal Performance meets minimum standards 3–4 Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet minimum standards 1–2 For example, a rating of “5” (Proficient) is assigned to an individual for “Liai- son Service to Faculty”. 3. Weight Rating Total Multiply Weight by Rating Liaison Service to Faculty (General) 7 5 2. The immediate supervisor multiplies the “weight” by the “rating” for each subcategory, e.g. For “Liaison Service to Faculty” 7x5=35. The immediate supervisor records these on Form 1. 3. Weight Rating Total Multiply Weight by Rating Liaison Service to Faculty (General) 7 5 35 3. The immediate supervisor adds the total “weights” and the total “totals” for each category. The immediate supervisor records these on Form 1. For example: • For the category “Primary Job Responsibilities” the total “weights” = 33 and the total “totals” = 199 • For the category “Scholarship & Research” the total “weights” = 1 and the total “totals” = 8 • For the category “Service” the total “weights” = 2 and the total “totals” = 14 54 College & Research Libraries January 2009 FIGURE 7 (CONTINUED) Step by Step Instructions (with Examples) 4. The immediate supervisor transfers the weights and totals noted on Form #1 for each category on Form #2. Librarian’s Self Review (Optional) Total Score (from Form #1) Immediate Supervisor Weights Totals Ratings Weights Totals Ratings Primary Job Responsibilities (includes “Professional Com- petence” and “Teaching”) 33 199 Scholarship & Research 1 8 Service 2 14 5. To arrive at category ratings, the immediate supervisor divides the “totals” by the “weights” (rounding off) and enters the results in the “ratings” col- umn on Form #2. Librarian’s Self Review (Optional) Total Score (from Form #1) Immediate Supervisor Weights Totals Ratings Weights Totals Ratings Primary Job Responsibilities (in- cludes “Professional Competence” and “Teaching”) 33 199 6.0 Scholarship & Research 1 8 8.0 Service 2 14 7.0 6. The immediate supervisor multiplies each rating by the percent assigned and records the numbers on Form #2. Percent Assigned Rating by Immediate Supervisor (Multiply Rating by Percent Assigned) Primary Job Responsibilities (includes “Professional Compe- tence” and “Teaching”) 80% 6.0 4.8 Scholarship & Research 10% 8.0 .8 Service 10% 7.0 .7 Overall Score 7. To arrive at an overall score, the percents in the last column are added, recorded off, and recorded on Form #2. In this example, the librarian’s overall score is 6.3 (A bit better than “Proficient”). Percent Assigned Rating by Immediate Supervisor (Multiply Rating by Percent Assigned) Primary Job Responsibilities (includes “Professional Compe- tence” and “Teaching”) 80% 6.0 4.8 Scholarship & Research 10% 8.0 .8 Service 10% 7.0 .7 Overall Score 6.3 One Library’s A empt to Put “Merit” Back in “Merit Pay” 55 FIGURE 7 (CONTINUED) Step by Step Instructions (with Examples) 8. The immediate supervisor provides a recommendation for annual merit sal- ary increase based on all assessment documentation (see below). Immediate Supervisor University Librarian C. Recommendation for annual merit salary increase based on the overall rating recorded: • The librarian may also provide “self review” measurements; • These are recorded on the “Annual Review Assessment Summary Supervisor’s Form” and forwarded to the University Librarian; Complete Assessment Documentation: • The Librarian’s annual self evaluation plus any other documents s/he chooses to submit; • The immediate supervisor’s rating (Numerical Forms 1 and 2); • The immediate supervisor’s annual evaluation 4. It brought some measurable ac- countability to a subjective process. 5. It offered transparency. A positive result of the commi ees’ work is that it opened a dialogue on the broader issues revolving around an- nual evaluations and how merit pay is awarded. It also demonstrated that the Acting University Librarian acknowl- edged concerns about the weaknesses of the current process and wanted to correct it. However, it also exposed some funda- mental climate issues between tenured librarians and their covered colleagues. While these status issues may have al- ways been just beneath the surface, the a empt to redesign the merit pay process made them the focal point of a formal discussion for the first time. The authors’ hope is that future discussions will result in a workable, measurable assessment tool acceptable to all. Notes 1. University of North Carolina at Charlo e, “UNC Charlo e Facts” (June 2007). Available online at www.provost.uncc.edu/Catalogs/2007-2009/unccfacts.htm. Accessed [date]. 2. University of North Carolina at Charlo e, “Tenure Policies, Regulations, and Procedures of the University of North Carolina at Charlo e” (Apr. 20, 2007). Available online at www.legal. uncc.edu/tenurepol.html. Accessed [date]. 3. Lou Anderson and Donnice Cochenour, “Merit Salary Criteria: One Academic Library’s Experience,” Libraries and the Academy 1 (2001), 470. 4. David A. Baldwin, The Library Compensation Handbook: A Guide for Administrators, Librarians, and Staff (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2003), 67. 5. Ibid, 70. 6. Ibid, 70–71. 7. Richard I Henderson, Compensation Management in a Knowledge-Based World, 8th ed. (Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2003), 395. 8. Carol F. Goodson, The Complete Guide to Performance Standards for Library Personnel (New York: Neal Schuman Publishers, 1997). 9. Patricia Belcastro, Evaluating Library Staff: A Performance Appraisal System (Chicago: Ameri- can Library Association, 1998). 10. Sco Seaman, Carol Krismann, and Fred Hamilton, “An Internal Equity Evaluation System Based on Merit Measures,” College & Research Libraries 60 (Jan. 1999): 4. 11. Henderson, Compensation Management in a Knowledge-Based World, 409. 12. Indiana University Bloomington Libraries, Bloomington Library Faculty Council, www.legal www.provost.uncc.edu/Catalogs/2007-2009/unccfacts.htm 56 College & Research Libraries January 2009 “Peer Review in Annual Merit Evaluation” (Apr. 2, 2003). Available online at www.indiana. edu/~libblfc/20022003/peerreviewrevised.html. Accessed March 30, 2008. 13. Temple University, “Guidelines for Merit Pay” (n.d.). Available online at www.temple. edu/vpfaculty/Merit_Forms/Merit_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed March 29, 2008. 14. Policies and Practices (Boston: Warren, Gorham and Lamont, 1994), vol. 3; 151: 3303. 15. Anderson and Cochenour, “Merit Salary Criteria: One Academic Library’s Experience,” 469. 16. Ibid. 17. Lawrence Nurse, “Performance Appraisal, Employee Development and Organizational Justice: Exploring the Linkages,” International Journal of Human Resources Management 16 (July 2005): 1179. 18. Ibid. 19. A. Dubrin, Winning Office Politics: Dubrin’s Guide for the ’90s (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990); L. Bolhman and T.E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 1991); M.M. Kennedy, Office Politics: Seizing Power, Wielding Clout (New York: Warner Books, 1980), quoted in Nurse, “Performance Appraisal, Employee Develop- ment and Organizational Justice: Exploring the Linkages,” 1179. 20. E.E. Lawler, Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View (New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1971), quoted in Marc Siegall and Chuck Worth, “The Impacts of Trust and Control on Faculty Reactions to Merit Pay,” Personnel Review 30 (2001): 646. 21. R. Folger and R.S. Cropanzano, Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998) quoted in Nurse, “Performance Appraisal, Employee Devel- opment and Organizational Justice: Exploring the Linkages,” 1177. 22. Sylvie St-Onge, “Variables Influencing the Perceived Relationship between Performance and Pay in a Merit Pay Environment,” Journal of Business and Psychology 14 (Spring 2000): 460. 23. Charles B. Lowry and Paul J. Hanges. “What Is the Health Organization: Organizational Climate and Diversity Assessment: A Research Partnership,” Libraries and the Academy 8 (2008): 3–4. 24. Miluse Soudak, “Organizational Climate and Professional Behavior of Academic Librar- ians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 8 (1983): 334–37. 25. Anderson and Cochenour, “Merit Salary Criteria: One Academic Library’s Experience,” 467. 26. Frederick W. Cook, “Merit Pay and Performance Appraisal,” quoted in Anderson and Cochenour, “Merit Salary Criteria: One Academic Library’s Experience,” 467. 27. H. Rebecca Kroll, “Beyond Evaluation: Performance Appraisal as a Planning and Motiva- tional Tool in Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 9 (1983), 28, quoted in Anderson and Cochenour, “Merit Salary Criteria: One Academic Library’s Experience,” 468. 28. Henderson, Compensation Management in a Knowledge-Based World, 430. 29. University of North Carolina at Charlo e, “Peer Institutions for UNC Charlo e” (n.d.). Available online at www.uncc.edu/apir/irmainpage2/Sis_Schools.html. Accessed February 26, 2008. 30. University of North Carolina at Charlo e, “Tenured Policies and Regulations of the Library Faculty at the University of North Carolina at Charlo e” (2007). Available online at h p://library. uncc.edu/files/33/faculty/tenure/Library_Tenure_doc_April_2007_Approved.pdf. Accessed Febru- ary 27, 2008. 31. University of North Carolina at Charlo e, “Academic Personnel Procedures Handbook, Academic Personnel Review Process, Annual Review: Procedures for Annual Review of Members of the Faculty” (n.d.). Available online at www.provost.uncc.edu/epa/handbook/chapter_VI.htm#B. Accessed March 13, 2008. 32. E-mails obtained from UNC Charlo e Peer Institutions. 33. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay, eds. George T. Milkovich and Alexandra K. Wigdor (Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press, 1991), 143–44, quoted in Anderson and Cochenour, “Merit Salary Criteria: One Academic Library’s Experience,” 469 and Henderson, Compensation Management in a Knowledge-Based World, 430–32. 34. University of North Carolina at Charlo e, “Procedures for Initial Appointment, Reap- pointment, and Promotion for Covered Library Faculty at the University of North Carolina at Charlo e” (2003). Available online at h p://library.uncc.edu/files/33/faculty/covered/coveredli- braryfaculty12-04-03.doc. Accessed March 13, 2008. www.provost.uncc.edu/epa/handbook/chapter_VI.htm#B www.uncc.edu/apir/irmainpage2/Sis_Schools.html www.temple www.indiana