Performance‐related Pay and Quality in Higher Education: Part Two
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Pages | 31-36 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000003449 |
| Author | Philip Lewis |
| Subject Matter | Education |
VOLUME 1 NUMBER 3
1993
Performance-related
Pay and
Quality
in
Higher
Education:
Part
Two
Philip
Lewis
In a previous article (Lewis, 1993a), I demon-
strated that the Citizen's Charter was the basis of
the introduction of performance-related pay
(PRP) for academic staff
in
higher education
(HE).
In proposing to introduce a range of forms
of PRP to the public sector, the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer stated that "pay has an important
part to play in raising the quality and improving
the responsiveness of public services". He
announced that he sought to "achieve
a
closer link
between performance and reward both for
individuals and groups of
staff"
(Marsden and
Richardson, 1992, p. 1).
My contention in the previous article was that
this proposal was based upon three assumptions:
(1) that PRP will motivate staff
to
work more
effectively;
(2) that PRP is a fairer means of rewarding staff
than the current incremental systems;
(3) that PRP will play an important part in
creating better quality public services.
The previous article showed that the first two of
these assumptions are flawed. This article
considers the third assumption.
It may be argued that this article is unnecessary.
If PRP fails to motivate or, as indicated in Part
One, even de-motivates, and is perceived as
unfair by academics, then it follows that, at best,
the effect on quality of service will be neutral, at
worst it will be
harmful.
While subscribing to this
argument, this second article concentrates on
factors that are not directly concerned with
motivation or fairness, but which may still have a
detrimental influence on the quality of service
provided.
A Working Definition of Quality in HE
It is not the purpose of
this
article to explore
definitions of quality in HE, yet there ought to be
some clarification of
the
sense in which the term
is being used
here.
This sense is a simple
one.
It
emphasizes the improvement and maintenance of
quality to the external customer
(e.g.
student,
consultancy client, funder of
research),
or the
internal customer
(e.g.
colleague or support staff).
In Peters and Waterman's (1982) well-worn
phrase, quality is "getting close to the customer".
Improvement of product or service is at the heart
of
the
principles of quality management
prescribed by Deming, whose name, together with
those of
Juran
and Crosby, has become
synonymous with quality management in
industry. Indeed, most of Deming's 14 principles
(Wille, 1992,
pp.
18-23) underpin the quality
movement, which has been taken up so
enthusiastically by British organizations,
including HE institutions, since the 1980s.
Quality,
Deming,
Appraisal and
Performance Pay
An examination of
the
people management
implications of Deming's 14 principles reveals
that they have
a
distinct human relations
management feel about
them.
He emphasizes the
importance of
education
and training, the
elimination of
fear,
an open management style
with a lack of within-organization barriers and
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 3, 1993, pp. 31-36
© MCB University Press, 0968-4883
31
To continue reading
Request your trial