| Abstract: | Three systems for distributing yearly salary raises to faculty according to merit were studied to determine which system is judged to be most equitable. In the relative system, persons with equal merit receive equal percentage raises. In the absolute system, persons with equal merit receive equal raises. In the adjustment system, persons who are equally underpaid receive equal raises. In Exp I, 20 faculty and 85 undergraduate judges were asked to assign raises to hypothetical faculty from a fixed raise pool. It was found that the assigned raises were greater for the lower paid of 2 people of equal merit, consistent with the adjustment system. In Exp II, 22 faculty and 103 undergraduate judges examined future salaries produced by the 3 different systems. Both groups judged the raises given by the adjustment system to be the most "equitable, just, and fair" and raises given by the relative system to be the least fair. In Exp III, 20 faculty members judged salary deserved as a function of merit and years of experience. This deservingness function was used to develop a specific policy for a particular situation in which raises are proportional to the deviations between actual salary and salary deserved. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
