Performance‐related Pay and Quality in Higher Education: Part Two

Abstract

Challenges the assumption that performance‐related pay for academic staff in higher education will play an important part in the creation of better quality public services. Argues that PRP will lead to the non‐pay benefits of appraisal being dissipated; the undermining of academic staff′s professionalism; collegiality being threatened; the hindrance of innovation and change; and the alienation of women and staff from ethnic minorities. Using the simple definition of quality that emphasizes that service providers get “close to the customer”, the combined effect of these dysfunctional outcomes of PRP is that, far from improving quality, PRP is likely to harm it.

Citation

Lewis, P. (1993), "Performance‐related Pay and Quality in Higher Education: Part Two", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000003449