Rating As A Tool For Stimulating Academic Staff In The New Reality

Abstract

Russian universities are facing the challenge: the purpose to take high positions in world rankings has become the basis for the use of a scientometric approach to the formation of rating systems for the individual assessment of the Academic staff (AS). The purpose of this article is to analyze the correspondence of the existing rating system of individual labor assessment of the AS to the new reality challenges, as well as to form, on this basis, directions for its improvement in order to increase the efficiency of the implementation of the employee's labor potential. The study identified the main gaps in the rating system for assessing work based on the scientometric approach. It is shown that despite the fact that the rating system is an effective instrument for influencing the employee's labor, it does not allow, in its current form, the implementation of the main functions of stimulating labor, and also does not contribute to the effective implementation of labor potential. To eliminate these gaps, it is proposed to use a grading system with the formation of profiles of labor behavior of AS: learning, teaching / organizational / methodological/, research, and educational. It is concluded that the proposed models of labor behavior of AS can become the basis for the formation of an effective rating assessment system, allowing the university to solve strategic development tasks, and allowing the employee to fulfil performance indicators in accordance with their knowledge, skills and preferences.

Keywords: Social and labor relations, rating system of labor assessment, employee motivation, model of labor behavior, grading

Introduction

The rating system is one of the main instruments for regulating the labor activity of the Academic staff (AS). It is a personified assessment of the quality of the teacher's work. A significant part of the researchers, considering the rating system as an element of the quality management system, note that it should orient the employee towards the priority solution of those tasks that are strategically significant for the university as a whole, thereby determining the content of their work. Considering that, according to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2012 No. 599, Russian universities are tasked with taking high positions in world rankings, when forming rating systems for individual assessment of the activities of AS, universities give priority to those activities that ensure their growth in world rankings.

The introduction of rating systems allows an employee to independently determine the content of his work in such a way as to most fully transform his potential into performance indicators. "Labor activity is increasingly beginning to acquire discreteness, breaking up into spheres of strict regulation and possible variability” (Absalyamova & Absalyamov, 2015, p. 227). At the same time, the rating system is used by the employer to exercise control functions and motivate the employee to perform certain jobs. However, the processes of formation of the information society lead to a change in the sphere of labor interactions of employees, which implies the need to ensure that the instruments for rating assessment of the work of AS are in line with the new realities.

Problem Statement

The new reality of AS activities, because of the large-scale penetration of digital technologies and tools into it, has led to the following changes in the field of social and labor relations:

• the emphasis in the regulation of labor activity is shifted from the process to the result with the active use of scientometric indicators;
• development of distance and mixed forms of employment;
• formation and development of scientific collaborations in a virtual environment;
• decrease in the level of strict regulation of labor activity and the actual irregularity of the second half of the working day;
• change of the motivational factors of labor activity - information about the academic position of the employee in the scientific hierarchy becomes the main value;
• the possibility of manifestation of opportunist behavior of employees due to the presence of information asymmetry and the emergence of the problem "agent-principal";
• the need to develop information competencies of employees and form a culture of digital behavior.

The adaptation of the rating system for assessing employees' labor to the new reality is lagging behind, which, as a result, reduces its effectiveness as a management instrument.

The modern Russian model of the rating system used in universities is based on the principles of the scientometric approach. Its formation is based on the Government's decree No. 979 dated November 1, 2013, according to which bibliometric indicators were included into the assessment of the activities of any research organization: the number of articles, citation ranking and impact factor according to Web of Knowledge or Scopus. These indicators of the university assessment were projected on the activities of its employees. Scientometric indicators of publication activity have become the main indicators of the effectiveness of AS in the rating assessment systems. However, the scientometric approach to the formation of a rating system for assessing the work of AS does not fully ensure the implementation of the main functions of stimulating labor: economic, moral and social. AS concentrates on meeting formal indicators, regardless of personal inclinations and abilities, which does not allow to realize the potential of the employee and reduces the effectiveness of the regulation of their work. Therefore, the study of the problems indicated in the article is of practical and theoretical importance.

Research Questions

The following questions were raised in this research:

• What is the basis for defining performance indicators for AS?
• How did the introduction of the rating system for the individual assessment of the AS work affect the results of their activities and the indicators of the organization's development?
• What are the gaps in the existing rating system for the individual assessment of AS work, taking into account the factors of the new reality?
• What are the directions of increasing the efficiency of the rating system for the individual assessment of AS work?

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose is the analysis of the correspondence of the existing rating system of individual assessment of the work of AS to the challenges of the new reality, as well as the formation on this basis of directions for its improvement in order to increase the efficiency of the implementation of the employee's labor potential.

Research Methods

In modern scientific research, the problem of the formation of effective systems of rating assessment of labor remains poorly studied. The directions of research are expressed in the formulation of the tasks of substantiating a set of basic indicators for assessing the work of teaching staff to determine the value of the main and motivating part of the salary. The role of the rating as an instrument for monitoring the performance indicators of AS, as well as a structural unit and the university as a whole, is considered in the works of the scientists, including Borovskaya et al. (2013), V. N. Kiroi (Jacques & Kiroi, 2007), Lazarenko et al. (2018), Fedotova et al. (2015), Tarasova and Moskalenko (2017), Borovskaya et al. (2013) and a number of others (Faktorovich, 2010; Goncharenko & Pozdnyakova, 2013). A number of researchers consider the rating system as an element of the quality management system of educational organizations (Bagirova et al., 2016).

The existing rating systems for assessing the work of AS are based on the performance indicators of the university, determined in world rankings, which is obvious from the comparison of the data presented in Figures 1 and 2.

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

The data presented show that when establishing the ratio of certain types of labor activity, the priority is given to research, as in world rankings. It is assumed that “effective” university academic staff should have a solid scientific reputation, expressed by a large number of well-cited articles in prestigious journals. Accordingly, when establishing assessment criteria, universities are based on the principles of a scientometric approach. The most points are given for the performance of indicators of scientific activity: the number of publications indexed in international databases; Hirsch index. This, according to Skinner (1974), motivates the employee to priority implementation of those activities that provide him with the greatest reward.

Indeed, as the results of studies of trends in the development of the country's scientific and technological potential, carried out by the Institute of Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge (ISSEK) of the Higher School of Economics, in partnership with the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia and Rosstat, demonstrate, with the introduction of rating systems for individual assessment of the work of university teachers, the number of articles by Russian authors in journals, indexed in the international databases Scopus and Web of Science, doubled in 2019 compared to 2009.

At the same time, one can note a sharp decrease in the performance indicators of those types of work that are not evaluated in the rating. For example, in SFedU, since 2018, the abolition of indicators in the rating system that evaluate scientific work with students, which is expressed in publications, as well as the limitation of the monographs and textbooks counted to the teacher in the individual rating of monographs and textbooks to 2, respectively, led to a sharp decrease in the performance indicators of these types of work (Figures 3-4).

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

It is obvious that the rating system is an effective instrument of impact that allows you to influence the content of the labor activity of AS. At the same time, the underlying scientometric approach does not contribute to an objective assessment of the results of the labor activity of AS

The main arguments against the use of a metric approach to assessing the effectiveness of AS are set out in the Leiden Manifesto and are as follows:

• scientific activity is a creative process, the quality of which cannot be quantified;
• it is impossible to apply a unified approach to assessing the activities of AS in different scientific areas (natural science, political, socio-economic, etc.);
• metrics focused on English-language publications discriminate against high-quality publications in other languages;
• scientometric assessment indicators have a low degree of data transparency, which does allow to make sure that they are correct.

Along with this, in our opinion, the rating system of assessment, based on the cientometric approach, does not fully ensure the implementation of the main functions of stimulating labor in the new realities:

• from the point of view of the implementation of economic functions, the effective realization of labor potential is not ensured, since the employee focuses his efforts not on the quality of the work performed, but on the fulfillment of formal indicators, often performing roles that are unusual for him;
• from the point of view of the implementation of moral functions in the system of values, the desire to formalize the teacher's academic positions in the form of an increase in the number of publications. This leads to a violation of academic and professional ethics, expressed in a decrease in the quality of publication, an increase in self-citation to increase the Hirsch index, in plagiarism and incorrect borrowing, as well as publications in "predatory" journals;
• from the point of view of the implementation of social functions, a significant part of employees falls into a discriminatory position, whose field of activity is not related to scientific activity, but is focused on working with students, implementing measures of youth policy, organizational, methodological, information and analytical support of the educational process, etc., no less important for the university.

The results of a survey of employees in relation to satisfaction with their professional activities show the need to adjust the existing rating system for assessing the work of teachers. Thus, the results of this survey conducted at the SFU showed that 60% of AS believe that the rating does not allow to assess the results of their work. At the same time, in the group of highly rated employees, there is a decrease in the level of satisfaction with the results their work., There is a decrease in the level of satisfaction with the results of the work in the group of highly rated employees: 16.7% versus 10.4% of the sample average, plus 11% - completely dissatisfied (Chernova et al., 2020). This suggests that the achievement of high rating indicators required such efforts from employees, which were not commensurate with the results obtained.

Findings

Summarizing the above, the following main gaps in the existing rating system of individual assessment of teachers' work can be identified, which do not correspond to the challenges of the new reality (Table 1).

It seems that elimination of these gaps is possible based on a grading system that ensures the implementation of the principles of complexity, flexibility and hierarchy. Complexity is expressed in ensuring the integrity of the combination of learning, research, organizational, methodical, and educational activities of an employee. Flexibility implies the possibility of an employee forming a profile of his work activity in accordance with his own preferences, knowledge and skills within the framework of the general development strategy of the structural unit and the university. Hierarchy means that there are differences in the established criteria for assessing the level of performance indicators of labor activity, depending on the professional qualification group / qualification level of an employee.

In accordance with the grading methodology, for the creation and implementation of this system in the practice of regulating social and labor relations at the university, at the first stage, it is necessary to determine the possible profiles of the labor behavior of the teaching staff. The model of labor behavior should include, firstly, the activities prescribed by the qualification requirements of a certain position, as well as the requirements of the state educational standard and local acts of the university in terms of pedagogical and research activities (expressed by mandatory indicators); secondly, the activities carried out by the employee in accordance with the level of development of their competencies, area of ​​interest, qualifications and other factors (indicators of activities determined by the model of labor behavior). In other words, minimum work standards should be reflected in each model of work behavior.

Taking into account that the main activities of AS are: learning, methodical / organizational-methodical, research and educational, it seems possible to propose the following possible models of their labor behavior:

are employees who are focused on the educational process and its high-quality implementation (including through the use of innovative technologies) to train specialists in demand on the labor market; focused on the development of educational resources, the implementation of additional education programs.

- employees performing administrative and learning functions related to the organization and support of the learning process; managing learning programs; monitoring the state of various aspects of the university, employees, students.

are employees with increased scientific productivity, characterized by the obtaining scientific results that ensure the strengthening of the university's position in the all-Russian and world rankings.

are employees who carry out mentoring functions in relation to students (including, within the framework of organizing the work of student communities, circles; leadership of scientific and project work, etc.), as well as in relation to young researchers (leadership of research teams, graduate students, small scientific groups, etc.). This model of work activity also includes work in editorial boards of journals, in the implementation of expert activities at various levels.

- employees whose activities are related to the performance of work that ensures the commercialization of research carried out by the university, bringing them to the stage of a market product; registration of patents; organization of interaction with the business community in terms of the implementation of contractual work, the implementation of the target recruitment; search for external sources of funding and their organizational and documentary support.

Considering that 5 models of labor behavior have been proposed, then with a balanced distribution of efforts, the share of each group of indicators of activities will be 20%. Therefore, it is proposed to consider as a priority the type of activity (with the establishment of belonging to the corresponding model of labor behavior) for which the proportion of the performed indicators is more than 40% in the total number of assessment indicators (that is, more than 2 times on the balanced ratio). Of course, it is possible that, while forming a model of his labor behavior, an employee does not give priority to any particular type of activity, evenly distributing efforts among all or several of them. Then we can talk about a balanced (with an even distribution of efforts among all types of activities), or mixed (when choosing several priority areas of activity) model.

Despite the differences in the percentage of certain types of activity for each model of labor behavior, employees who maximally fulfill the performance indicators established for each model will receive the same remuneration. Thus, the employee will be able to focus on performing those activities in which he will be most effective. At the same time, within the framework of each model of labor behavior, the content of the work performed, which determines its value for the organization, may be different. For example, in the framework of educational activities (model "teacher"), an employee can prepare and conduct courses in a foreign language, which is of great value for the university in terms of fulfilling the criterion "Internationalization". The publication of the results of scientific achievements in top-rated journals is also of greater value for the organization than, for example, the publication of a monograph in a university publishing house. Differences in value will be reflected in the number of points awarded for each type of achievement. Thus, within the framework of each model of labor behavior, the grades of workers are formed. A grade is a range of marks (points scored) that reflect the types of work that are of equal value to the organization.

The contribution of each model of labor behavior to the implementation of the strategic development goals of universities associated with increasing competitive positions in world rankings is presented in Table 2.

It is obvious that each model of labor behavior is capable of providing one or another criterion of the world ranking and has a certain value for the university. The degree of value of each direction, given their strategic importance for the university, can be set by weighting factors. This, in particular, is important for universities at the regional level, which may not set themselves the task of increasing global competitiveness and are focused on training specialists for the regional labor market. If all areas of activity are equivalent for the university, then their weight values ​​can be taken as a unit.

When forming a grading system, it is important to understand that the choice of a model of labor behavior is largely determined by the phase of professional development of the employee. That is, we can say that in the course of the development of the employee's competencies, as a result of a change in functionality performed by the position, it is possible to change the model of labor behavior. Therefore, it seems appropriate to link labor behavior models with these phases in order not only to solve exclusively the tasks of assessing employees, but also to understand how the model of his labor behavior changes at different stages of his professional career and to form targeted recommendations for the implementation of stimulating impacts, changes in the employee's functionality.

Each profile of work activity is quite easily filled with blocks of key assessment indicators, taking into account those indicators that are already reflected in the rating systems of universities, as well as indicators that allow to take into account the gaps of this system outlined earlier. Bearing in mind the previously noted need to take into account the scientific branch of knowledge in which research is carried out, as well as the specifics of the educational programs being implemented, it seems necessary to form a list of key assessment indicators separately for each structural unit (department / institute) of the university.

Conclusion

Rating systems for the individual assessment of the teacher's work are designed to ensure the effective implementation of the labor potential of employees. The currently existing rating assessment model, based on the scientometric approach, requires significant adjustments, since it does not ensure the implementation of economic, social and moral functions. In our opinion, the formation of a rating system for the individual assessment of AS work on the basis of grading makes it possible to build a hierarchy of types of labor activity in accordance with their strategic importance (value) for the organization and to determine the amount of incentive payments to an employee. Each of the proposed models of labor behavior of employees allows the university to solve strategic tasks associated with increasing its competitive positions in world rankings. The proposed system of rating assessment of the work of AS allows to form targeted recommendations for the implementation of stimulating effects, changes in the employee's functionality, thereby increasing the efficiency of regulation of labor relations in the field of higher education in the context of the new realities of their implementation.

Acknowledgments

The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project № 20-310-90015.

References

• Absalyamova, S. G., & Absalyamov, T. B. (2015). Remote employment as a form of labor mobility of today’s youth. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 227-231.

• Bagirova, A. P., Klyuev, A. K., Notman, O. V., Shubat, O. M., Shcherbina, E. Yu., & Yashin, A. A. (2016). Teaching work in modern Russia: transformation of content and assessment. Ural Publishing House. University.

• Borovskaya, M. A., Shevchenko, I. K., Razvadovskaya, Yu. V., & Bechvaya, M. R. (2013). Incentive system as a tool to improve the effectiveness of scientific and educational activities: the experience of federal universities. University management: practice and analysis, 4(86), 79-86.

• Chernova, O., Matveeva, L., & Mikhalkina, E. (2020). The methodology for the evaluation of youth economic potential: Revealing the resources for regional development. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 11(1), 246-255.

• Faktorovich, A. A. (2010). Principles of quality management in higher education in the context of the implementation of the Federal State Educational Standard. Higher Education in Russia, 12, 40-48.

• Fedotova, O. D., Mareev, V. V., & Karpova, G. F. (2015). Stimulating the publication activity of teachers as a way for Russian universities to enter the system of world relations in the field of science and education. Bulletin of Eurasian Science, 6(31), 88.

• Goncharenko, S. N., & Pozdnyakova, Yu. A. (2013). Information support for assessing the level of professional qualifications of teachers in the context of the introduction of the FSES system. Mining information and analytical bulletin (scientific and technical journal), 11, 118-123.

• Jacques, S. V., & Kiroi, V. N. (2007). On the rating assessment of scientific and pedagogical workers and scientific and educational structural units of the university. University management: practice and analysis, 5, 66-71.

• Lazarenko, V. A., Lipatov, V. A., Oleinikova, T. A., Severinov, D. A., & Filinov, N. B. (2018). On the effectiveness of the implementation of the ranking in the university management system (practical experience). Higher education in Russia, 6, 9-19.

• Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. Knopf.

• Tarasova, I. V., & Moskalenko, O. V. (2017). Types of communication of professional self-expression of a university teacher with his individual rating. Akmeologiya, 3(63), 57-63.