BİR PERFORMANSLA İLİŞKİLİ ÜCRETLENDİRME ÖRNEĞİ: AKADEMİK TEŞVİK UYGULAMASI VE KAMU ÜNİVERSİTELERİNDE ÇALIŞAN AKADEMİSYENLERİN UYGULAMAYA YÖNELİK GÖRÜŞLERİ

Abstract

Performansla ilişkili ücretlendirmeye yönelik yöntemler özel sektörde yıllardır yaygın şekilde kullanılırken, son zamanlarda kamu hizmetlerinde de benzer yaklaşımların izlendiği görülmektedir. Ülkemizde de kamu kesiminde performans ölçümü ve denetimi gibi hususlar üzerinden etkinlik arayışları doğrultusunda performansla ilişkili ücretlendirme daha fazla önem verilen bir konu haline gelmiştir. 2015 yılında hayata geçirilen ve günümüzde de bazı değişikliklerle devam ettirilen akademik teşvik uygulamasının da bu arayışların bir sonucu olduğu söylenebilir. Araştırma, kamu üniversitelerinde çalışan akademisyenlerin teşvik uygulamasına yönelik görüşlerinin ve bu görüşlerin belirli faktörlere göre farklılık gösterip göstermediğinin belirlenmesi amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada akademisyenlerin büyük kısmının teşvik uygulamasının bir takım değişiklikler yapılarak devam ettirilmesini istediği tespit edilmiş ve yapılması istenen bu değişliklerin neler olduğu ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. 

Keywords

• Performansla ilişkili ücretlendirme,akademik teşvik uygulaması,akademisyen

An Example of Performance-Related Pay: Academic Incentive Application and Views of Academicians Working at Public Universities about Application

Abstract

Performance-related pay methods are recently observed in public services while they have been widely used in the private sector for many years. Accordingly performance-related pay have become more emphasized subject in Turkey in the direction of seeking efficiency through performance measurement and audit in the public sector. It can be said that Academic Incentive Application which introduced in 2015 and has been continued today with some changes is also a result of these seeking. The research was conducted in order to determine views of academics working in public universities about incentive application and differences for views according to certain factors. In research, it has been determined that most of the academics want the incentive application to be continued by making some changes and tried to present what are the desired changes.

Keywords

• Performance-related pay,academic incentive application,academician

References

1. Acar, A.C. (2007), İşletmelerde Ücret Yapısının Oluşturulması ve Bir Uygulama, İstanbul: Literatür Yayınları.
2. Armstrong, M. (2009), Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, London: Kogan Page.
3. Ateş, H. & H. Kırılmaz (2015), “Sağlık Personelinin Performans Yönetimine İlişkin Görüşleri Üzerinde Kişisel Faktörlerin Etkileri”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 48(4), 97-128.
4. Becker, W. E. (1999), “Turning Merit Scores into Salaries”, The Journal of Economic Education, 30(4), 420-426.
5. Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West,J. P. & M. R. Van Wart (2012), Human Resource Management in Public Service: Paradoxes, Processes, and Problems. California: Sage Publication.
6. Bila, F. (2011), Tıp Fakültelerinde Performans, , 08.03.2018.
7. Bilgin, K. U. (2008), “Kamu Performans Yönetimi: Vali ve Kaymakamlar Performans Ölçümü Araştırması”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 41(2), 9-80.
8. Bingöl, D. (2006), İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, İstanbul: Arıkan Yayıncılık.

9. Borman, W. C. & S. Motowidlo (1997), “Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personel Selection Research”, Human Performance, 10(2), 99- 109.
10. California State University. (2013). Administrative Manual: Performance Appraisal, , 08.03.2018.
11. Campbel, A., Lindsay, D. H., Garner, D. E. & K. B. Tan (2010), “The Impact of Merit Pay on Research out Comes for Accounting Professors”. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(4), 55-62.
12. Cashin, W. E. (1996), Developing an Effective Faculty Evaluation System, , 11.09.2017.
13. Ceylan, Z. (2009), “Performansa Dayalı Ücretlendirme Modelleri ve Türkiye Açısından Bir Değerlendirme”, Sayıştay Dergisi, 74, 45-72.
14. Chien, M. S., Lawler, J. S. & J. F. Uen (2010), “Performance-Based Pay, Procedural Justice and Job Performance for R&D Professionals: Evidence from The Taiwanese High-Tech Sector”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(12), 2234-2248.
15. Christensen, F., Manley, J. & L. Laurence (2011), “The Allocation of Merit Pay in Academia: A Case Study”, Economics Bulletin, 31(2), 1548-1562.
16. Conroy, S. A. & N. Gupta (2016), “Team Pay-For-Performance: The Devil is in the Details”, Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 32–65.
17. Daley, D. M. (1992), Performance Appraisal in the Public Sector: Techniques and Applications, California: ABC-CLIO.
18. Davidovitcha, N., Soen, D. & Z. Sinuani-Sternd (2011), “Performance Measures of Academic Faculty – A Case Study”. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 35(3), 355– 373.
19. Deci, E. L. (1972), “The Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewards and Controls on Intrinsic Motivation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8(2), 217-229.
20. Diane Publishing Company (1994), Pay for Performance: State and International Public Sector Pay-for-Performance Systems, USA: DIANE Publishing.
21. Dixit, A. (2002), “Incentives and Organization in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review”, Journal of Human Resources,37(4), 696-727.
22. Dixon, M. (2010), Performance-Related Pay and The Importance of Recognition. HR Magazine, , 05.03.2018.
23. Dowling, B. & R. Richardson (1997), “Evaluating Performance-Related Pay for Managers in the National Health Service”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 348-366.
24. Ehnert, I., Harry, W. & K. J. Zink (2013), Sustainability and Human Resource Management, Developing Sustainable Business Organizations, Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
25. Eraslan, M. T. & A. Tozlu (2011), “Kamu Yönetiminde Performansa Dayalı Ücret Sistemi”, Sayıştay Dergisi, 81, 33-61.
26. Eren, V. & U. Durna (2007), “Kamu Sektöründe Performansın Anlaşılması ve Geliştirilmesi”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 40(1), 107-134.
27. Eurofound (2015), Third European Company Survey – Overview Report: Workplace Practices – Patterns, Performance and Well-Being. Luxembourg: Publications Office Of The EU.
28. Gerhart, B. & M. Fang (2014), “Pay for (Individual) Performance: Issues, Claims, Evidence and The Role of Sorting Effects”, Human Resource Management Review, 24, 41–52.
29. Glassman, M., Glassman, A., Champagne, P. J. & M. T. Zugelder (2010), “Evaluating Pay-for-Performance Systems: Critical Issues for Implementation”, Compensation & Benefits Review, 42(4), 231-238.
30. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Balkin, D. B. & R. L. Cardy (2010), Managing Human Resources, London: Pearson.
31. Griffin, M., Neal, A. & M. Neale (2000), “The Contribution of Task Performance and Contextual Performance to Effectiveness: Investigating the Role of Situational Constraints”, Applied Psychology, 49(3), 517-533.
32. Isaac, J. E. (2001), “Performance Related Pay: The Importance of Fairness”, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(2), 111–123.
33. Ivancevich, J. M. (2010), Human Resources Management, New York: Mcgraw Hill.
34. Koç, D. (2011), “OECD Ülkelerinde Performansa Dayalı Ücretlendirme Modelleri ve Türk Kamu Yönetiminde Performans Değerlendirmeye İlişkin Gelişmeler”, Anahtar Dergisi, 23(276), 28-31.
35. Kong, X. (2000), A Study of Merit Pay as a Motivator of Faculty Performance at a Public University, Dissertation Degree of Doctor Education, USA: University Of Northern Colorado.
36. Lee, H. J., Iijimab, Y. & C. Reade (2011), “Employee Preference for Performance-Related Pay: Predictors and Consequences for Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a Japanese Firm”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(10), 2086–2109.
37. Madhani, P. M. (2011), “Reallocating Fixed and Variable Pay in Sales Organizations: A Sales Carry over Perspective”, Compensation and Benefits Review, 43(6), 346-360.
38. Magnusen, K. O. (1987), “Faculty Evaluation, Performance, and Pay: Application and Issues”, The Journal of Higher Education, 58(5), 516-529.
39. Mccrea, E. & M. Deyrup (2016), The Devil is in the Details: A Review of Merit Pay in Higher Education, , 11.05.2018.
40. Mcnabb, R. & K. Whitfield (2007), “The Impact of Varying Types of Performance-Related Pay and Employee Participation on Earnings”, The International of Human Resource Management, 18(6), 1004–1025.
41. Mert, İ. S. (2013), “Kamudaki Yöneticilerin Değerlendirilmesinde Performans ve Potansiyel Arasındaki İlişkinin Belirlenmesi”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 46(2), 1-24.
42. Milkovich, G. T., Newman, J. M. & B. Gerhart (2010), Compensation, New York: Mcgrawhill.
43. Miller, R. I. (1988), “Merit Pay in United States Post Secondary Institutions”, Higher Education, 17(2), 219-232.
44. Mogultay, U. (2006), Making Performance Pay More Successful in Public Sector, , 05.08.2017.
45. Murnane, R. & D. Cohen (1986), “Merit Pay and The Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and A Few Survive”, Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 1-18.
46. OECD (2005), Performance Related Pay for Government Employees, France: OECD Publications.
47. Packwood, Erin C. (2008), “Using Variable Pay Programs to Support Organization Goals”, in L.A. Berger & D.R. Berger (ed.), The Compensation Handbook. New York: Mcgrawhill, 215-226.
48. Ratto, M., Tominey, E. & T. Vergé (2012), Team Structure and the Effectiveness of Collective Performance Pay, IZA Discussion Paper, No.6747, , 05.04.2018.
49. Rutgers University Human Resources (2017), Pay-for-Performance Program (P4P) Overview, , 08.04.2018.
50. Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B. & K. A. Minette (2004), “The Importance of Pay in Employee Motivation: Discrepancies Between What People Say and What They Do”, Human Resources Management, 43(4), 381-394.
51. Sadullah, Ö. (2013), “İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimine Giriş: İnsan Kaynakları Yönetiminin Tanımı, Önemi ve Çevresel Faktörler”, in C. Uyargil (ed.), İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları, 1-47.
52. Sampson, J. P., Driscoll, M. P., Foulk, D. F. & P. S. Carroll (2010), Successful Faculty Performance in Teaching, Research and Original Creative Work, and Service, , 11.04.2018.
53. Schulz, E. R. & D. M. Tanguay (2006), “Merit Pay in a Public Higher Education Institution: Questions of Impact and Attitudes”, Public Personnel Management, 35(1), 71-88.
54. Solmon, L. & M. Podgursky (2001), The Pros and Cons of Performance-Based Compensation, California: Milken Family Foundation.
55. Sonnentag, S., Volmer, J. & A. Spychala (2010), Job Performance, California: Sage Publication.
56. Spiegelaerea, S., Gyesb, G. & G. Hootegem (2016), “Innovative Work Behaviour and Performance-Related Pay: Rewarding the Individual or the Collective?”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1-20.
57. Springer, M. G. (2009), Performance Incentives: Their Growing Impact on American K-12 Education, Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
58. Suff, P., Reilly, P. & A. Cox (2007), Paying for Performance New Trends in Performance-Related Pay, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
59. Susseles, E. R. & M. Magid (2005), “Pay for Performance in the Public Sector”, Benefits and Compensation Digest, 42(1), 32-35.
60. Sutton, T. P. & P. J. Bergerson (2001), Faculty Compensation Systerms: Impact on the Quality of Higher Education, San Fransisco: ASHE-ERIC Publications.
61. Swiss, J. E. (2005), “A Framework for Assessing Incentives in Results-Based Management”, Public Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.
62. Terpstra, D. E. & A. L. Honoree (2009), “Merit Pay Plans in Higher Education Institutions: Characteristics and Effects”, Public Personnel Management, 38(4), 55-77.
63. Terpstra, D. E. & A. L. Honoree (2008), “Faculty Perceptions of Problems with Merit Pay Plans in Institutions of Higher Education”, Journal of Business and Management, 14(1), 43-59.
64. The University of British Columbia (2017), Merit Pay Increases, , 08.04.2018.
65. Torrington, D., Hall, L. & S. Taylor (2008), Human Resouırces Management, New Jersey: Prenticehall.
66. TTB-UDEK Etik Çalışma Grubu (2011), Sağlık Sisteminde Performans Uygulamalarının Mesleki Değerlere Etkileri ve Etik Sorunlar Çalıştayı Sonuç Bildirgesi, , 08.04.2018.
67. Türk, K. & T. Roolaht (2007), “Appraisal and Compensation of the Academic Staff in Estonian Public and Private Universities: A Comparative Analysis”, TRAMES: A Journal of The Humanities & Social Sciences, 11(2), 206-222.
68. Türk, K. (2007), “The Study of Performance Appraisal and Compensation in Estonian Public and Private Universities”, Journal of Global Strategic Management, 1(1). 87-96.
69. UC Davis (2017), Pay For Performance: A Merit Based Salary Program for Nonrepresented Employees, , 08.04.2018.
70. University Of South Caroline Policies (2017), The Policy and Procedure For Pay, , 08.04.2018.
71. Usta, A. (2012), “Kamu Örgütlerinde Kurumsal Karne Modeli ile Performans Yönetimi: Boyutlar ve Göstergeler”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 45(1), 99-120.
72. Ünlü, O. & S. Yürür (2011), “Duygusal Emek, Duygusal Tükenme ve Görev/Bağlamsal Performans İlişkisi: Yalova’da Hizmet Sektörü Çalışanları ile Bir Araştırma”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 37, 83-207.
73. Weibel, A., Rost, K. & M. Osterloh (2010), “Pay for Performance in the Public Sector — Benefits and (Hidden) Costs”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387-412.
74. Wenger, R. B. & D. M. Girard (2000), “A Faculty Merit Pay Allocation Model”, Research in Higher Education, 41(2), 195-207.
75. YÖK (2018), Akademik Teşvik Ödeneği Yönetmeliği, , 12.04.2018.
76. YÖK (2010), Yükseköğretim’de Yeniden Yapılanma: 66 Soruda Bologna Süreci Uygulamaları, Ankara: YÖK Yayınları.