The evolution of earned, transparent, and quantifiable faculty salary compensation: The Johns Hopkins pathology experience

Kathleen Burns, Michael J Borowitz, Karen C Carroll, Christopher Gocke, Jody Hooper, Timothy Kien Amukele, Aaron A Tobian, Allen Valentine, Rob Kahl, Vanessa Rodas-Eral, John K. Boitnott, J. Brooks Jackson, Fred Sanfilippo, Ralph H Hruban

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Faculty value equitable and transparent policies for determining salaries and expect their compensation to compare favorably to the marketplace. Academic institutions use compensation to recruit and retain talented faculty as well as to reward accomplishment. Institutions are therefore working to decrease salary disparities that appear arbitrary or reflect long-standing biases and to identify metrics formerit-based remuneration.Ours is a large academic pathology departmentwith 97 tenure-track faculty. Faculty salaries are comprised of 3 parts (A + B + C). Part A is determined by the type of appointment and years at rank; part B recognizes defined administrative, educational, or clinical roles; and part C is a bonus to reward and incentivize activities that forward the missions of the department and medical school. A policy for part C allocations was first codified and approved by department faculty in 1993. It rewarded performance using a semiquantitative scale, based on subjective evaluations of the department director (chair) in consultation with deputy directors (vice chairs) and division directors. Faculty could not directly calculate their part C, and distributions data were not widely disclosed. Over the last 2 years (2015-2017), we have implemented a more objective formula for quantifying an earned part C, which is primarily designed to recognize scholarship in the form of research productivity, educational excellence, and clinical quality improvement. Here, we share our experience with this approach, reviewing part C calculations as made for individual faculty members, providing a global view of the resulting allocations, and considering how the process and outcomes reflect our values.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAcademic Pathology
Volume5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Salaries and Fringe Benefits
Pathology
Reward
Remuneration
Quality Improvement
Medical Schools
Appointments and Schedules
Referral and Consultation
Efficiency
Research

Keywords

  • Academic relative value unit (RVU)
  • Bonus/supplement/incentive (BSI) component
  • Faculty salary
  • Performance-based incentive compensation (PBIC)
  • Research RVU (rRVU)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

@article{45e067929f71484caacfee5ae4e6e747,
title = "The evolution of earned, transparent, and quantifiable faculty salary compensation: The Johns Hopkins pathology experience",
abstract = "Faculty value equitable and transparent policies for determining salaries and expect their compensation to compare favorably to the marketplace. Academic institutions use compensation to recruit and retain talented faculty as well as to reward accomplishment. Institutions are therefore working to decrease salary disparities that appear arbitrary or reflect long-standing biases and to identify metrics formerit-based remuneration.Ours is a large academic pathology departmentwith 97 tenure-track faculty. Faculty salaries are comprised of 3 parts (A + B + C). Part A is determined by the type of appointment and years at rank; part B recognizes defined administrative, educational, or clinical roles; and part C is a bonus to reward and incentivize activities that forward the missions of the department and medical school. A policy for part C allocations was first codified and approved by department faculty in 1993. It rewarded performance using a semiquantitative scale, based on subjective evaluations of the department director (chair) in consultation with deputy directors (vice chairs) and division directors. Faculty could not directly calculate their part C, and distributions data were not widely disclosed. Over the last 2 years (2015-2017), we have implemented a more objective formula for quantifying an earned part C, which is primarily designed to recognize scholarship in the form of research productivity, educational excellence, and clinical quality improvement. Here, we share our experience with this approach, reviewing part C calculations as made for individual faculty members, providing a global view of the resulting allocations, and considering how the process and outcomes reflect our values.",
keywords = "Academic relative value unit (RVU), Bonus/supplement/incentive (BSI) component, Faculty salary, Performance-based incentive compensation (PBIC), Research RVU (rRVU)",
author = "Kathleen Burns and Borowitz, {Michael J} and Carroll, {Karen C} and Christopher Gocke and Jody Hooper and Amukele, {Timothy Kien} and Tobian, {Aaron A} and Allen Valentine and Rob Kahl and Vanessa Rodas-Eral and Boitnott, {John K.} and Jackson, {J. Brooks} and Fred Sanfilippo and Hruban, {Ralph H}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/2374289518777463",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "Academic Pathology",
issn = "2374-2895",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The evolution of earned, transparent, and quantifiable faculty salary compensation

T2 - The Johns Hopkins pathology experience

AU - Burns, Kathleen

AU - Borowitz, Michael J

AU - Carroll, Karen C

AU - Gocke, Christopher

AU - Hooper, Jody

AU - Amukele, Timothy Kien

AU - Tobian, Aaron A

AU - Valentine, Allen

AU - Kahl, Rob

AU - Rodas-Eral, Vanessa

AU - Boitnott, John K.

AU - Jackson, J. Brooks

AU - Sanfilippo, Fred

AU - Hruban, Ralph H

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Faculty value equitable and transparent policies for determining salaries and expect their compensation to compare favorably to the marketplace. Academic institutions use compensation to recruit and retain talented faculty as well as to reward accomplishment. Institutions are therefore working to decrease salary disparities that appear arbitrary or reflect long-standing biases and to identify metrics formerit-based remuneration.Ours is a large academic pathology departmentwith 97 tenure-track faculty. Faculty salaries are comprised of 3 parts (A + B + C). Part A is determined by the type of appointment and years at rank; part B recognizes defined administrative, educational, or clinical roles; and part C is a bonus to reward and incentivize activities that forward the missions of the department and medical school. A policy for part C allocations was first codified and approved by department faculty in 1993. It rewarded performance using a semiquantitative scale, based on subjective evaluations of the department director (chair) in consultation with deputy directors (vice chairs) and division directors. Faculty could not directly calculate their part C, and distributions data were not widely disclosed. Over the last 2 years (2015-2017), we have implemented a more objective formula for quantifying an earned part C, which is primarily designed to recognize scholarship in the form of research productivity, educational excellence, and clinical quality improvement. Here, we share our experience with this approach, reviewing part C calculations as made for individual faculty members, providing a global view of the resulting allocations, and considering how the process and outcomes reflect our values.

AB - Faculty value equitable and transparent policies for determining salaries and expect their compensation to compare favorably to the marketplace. Academic institutions use compensation to recruit and retain talented faculty as well as to reward accomplishment. Institutions are therefore working to decrease salary disparities that appear arbitrary or reflect long-standing biases and to identify metrics formerit-based remuneration.Ours is a large academic pathology departmentwith 97 tenure-track faculty. Faculty salaries are comprised of 3 parts (A + B + C). Part A is determined by the type of appointment and years at rank; part B recognizes defined administrative, educational, or clinical roles; and part C is a bonus to reward and incentivize activities that forward the missions of the department and medical school. A policy for part C allocations was first codified and approved by department faculty in 1993. It rewarded performance using a semiquantitative scale, based on subjective evaluations of the department director (chair) in consultation with deputy directors (vice chairs) and division directors. Faculty could not directly calculate their part C, and distributions data were not widely disclosed. Over the last 2 years (2015-2017), we have implemented a more objective formula for quantifying an earned part C, which is primarily designed to recognize scholarship in the form of research productivity, educational excellence, and clinical quality improvement. Here, we share our experience with this approach, reviewing part C calculations as made for individual faculty members, providing a global view of the resulting allocations, and considering how the process and outcomes reflect our values.

KW - Academic relative value unit (RVU)

KW - Bonus/supplement/incentive (BSI) component

KW - Faculty salary

KW - Performance-based incentive compensation (PBIC)

KW - Research RVU (rRVU)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050517619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050517619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2374289518777463

DO - 10.1177/2374289518777463

M3 - Article

C2 - 29978019

AN - SCOPUS:85050517619

VL - 5

JO - Academic Pathology

JF - Academic Pathology

SN - 2374-2895

ER -