Guidance on Additional Increments (Non-Professorial Academic Staff)

Introduction

The Increments Sub-Committee considers cases for award of recurrent or non-recurrent additional incrementation for non-professorial academic staff and is empowered to agree the allocation of available resources.

The Sub-Committee has the following functions:

To consider and approve recommendations from Heads of Department for award of recurrent or non-recurrent additional incrementation for non-professorial academic staff put forward under the main Additional Increments round (31 January 2008 deadline).
To approve incrementation to members of staff successful at Major Review in the form of one additional increment (effective from 1 August following the session in which Major Review is passed).
To approve incrementation to members of staff promoted to Senior Lecturer and to Reader in the form of two additional increments for promotion to either grade (effective from 1 August following the session in which the decision to promote is taken).
To review any promotion or review cases referred by Heads of Department, where it is felt there are particular retention issues, or stellar cases, or where there are anomalies which have not been sorted out before, for consideration of additional incrementation beyond the normal increase.
To consider, on an ad-hoc basis, recommendations from Heads of Department for additional incrementation for individual members of non-professorial academic staff which may arise outside of the annual Additional Increments round.
To consider issues of supplementation for individual members of the non-professorial academic staff referred by Heads of Department.

Consideration of Additional Increment Requests

All requests for additional incrementation referred to the Increments Sub-Committee are to be submitted by Heads of Department. The Sub-Committee will have before it the following information in respect of each request:

Additional Increments Form: completed by the Head of Department with full justification of the recommendation.
The candidate's up-to-date CV.
School student survey results for the two preceding sessions.

Sub-Committee Membership and Meeting Schedule

Sub-Committee membership comprises Professor George Gaskell, Pro Director (Planning and Resources) - Chair; Professor George Philip, VCAC, and a third member drawn from the membership of the Promotions Committee (nominee for 2007-2008 to be confirmed). The Sub-Committee meets annually in the Lent term (the date for the Sub-Committee to meet in Lent term 2008 will be publicised in due course).

Funding for Additional Increments

The total sum available for recurrent and non-recurrent payments is contingent upon funding and varies from year to year. It follows that there can be no expectation that any submission will be successful on the basis of previous experience. In recent years the academic salary settlement has made no provision for the allocation of additional increments at the discretion of management to reward exceptional performance or to aid retention. School funds will have to bear the cost of any additional increments awarded in 2007-2008. The number of additional increments that can be awarded will therefore be limited.

Recurrent/Non-Recurrent Increments

In making requests to the Sub-Committee, Heads of Department should be mindful of the differential effect of recurrent and non-recurrent awards.

Recurrent awards are appropriate in those cases where the performance identified is substantiated by evidence of results over the recent past and is judged to be likely to continue to the benefit of the School's national and international reputation.
Non-recurrent awards are appropriate where either the above situation pertains and the individual has reached a ceiling on the discretionary salary scale; or where the outstanding performance is substantiated only in the recent past and for reasons not related to performance of the individual, is not likely to continue in the future; or where the case is based substantially on departmental administration and management.

Heads of Department are reminded that cases are individual in character - increments are given against research performance and often closely related retention grounds. Applications for a general pay award across a department fall outside the terms of the scheme and cannot be received. In short, the additional increments scheme is not to be used as a way to adjust salaries upwards across a given department.

Individuals who are nearing the top of an academic pay scale should normally be considered in the first instance as candidates for Promotion. If they are not suitable candidates for Promotion, the case for an incremental award may be difficult to make in terms of "outstanding performance" and the Head of Department will need to make the case for the exceptional circumstances in which the award might be appropriate.

Heads of Department are also reminded that award of an increment is not an appropriate way to recognise long service at the School prior to retirement.

Criteria

Cases put forward for recurrent awards should be supported by evidence "of outstanding performance" over a period of two years or more in one of the main areas of:

1. Research and other scholarly activity
The Head of Department should state the case addressing the following issues:

The candidate's outstanding publication record relative to career stage and seniority.
The receipt of external research grants, and management of research projects.
The contribution of the candidate to scholarly activity through service to learned societies, journals, research councils, etc.

Research excellence might normally be considered to be strong grounds for promotion. Where a candidate is being proposed for additional increments instead of promotion, the Head of Department should indicate why promotion is not considered appropriate at this stage, and what advice has been given to the candidate about future promotion prospects.

2. Teaching quality
The Head of Department should state the case addressing the following issues:

Candidate's visible contribution to teaching matters - including departmental contribution and wider school contribution e.g. course development and review, staff development, key teaching administration duties carried out to high standard, service on relevant committees.
Volume of teaching and teaching related activity in relation to colleagues within the department.
The level of difficulty of subject matter being taught.
Whether feedback on teaching performance is positive.
How the candidate deals with feedback. If problems have been identified how have these been dealt with.
Any other matters that may need explanation/interpretation in the School student survey results.

3. Citizenship
Activities linked to departmental administration and management, School-wide service, or activities performed outside the School (e.g. widening participation programmes; or media contributions). Cases put forward on the basis of "outstanding performance" in departmental administration and management will normally be appropriate to be rewarded on a non-recurrent basis unless the Head of Department can make the case for the exceptional circumstances in which a recurrent award might be appropriate.

Retention

Additional recurrent increments may also be awarded where there is evidence that retention of a key member of staff is becoming difficult. These situations are treated as exceptional and can only refer to a specified individual.

Retention is not only an RAE issue; the Sub-Committee recognises that there are specific subject specialisms where it is extremely difficult to recruit new high quality staff.

Issues of Equity

Additional recurrent increments may also be awarded in exceptional cases where a member of staff appointed or promoted in the recent past has not been appointed on the appropriate scale point and the error can be put right. This places an obligation on Heads of Department to look over the department salary table provided by Human Resources prior to making submissions, and to take the opportunity both to iron out obvious inequalities across the department (as where one lecturer's salary is not commensurate with his/her peers) and also to apply for increments for any member of the full-time academic staff of a department, whose salary, without any special justification, seems unduly low.

Potential gender based inequalities have been looked at carefully for a number of years and the Sub-Committee checks the position in departments each year. Heads of Department are reminded to review not less favourably good performance which has been interrupted by extensive periods spent undertaking care duties and, specifically, in the case of women, periods of maternity leave.

While the Sub-Committee does not compare specific cases on a cross department basis it does look at the market conditions that exist in different subject specialisms both within and across departments.

Number of Requests per Department

Since "outstanding performance" is a relative quality, departments are not expected as a general rule of thumb to support more than two candidates in a small department and four in a larger department for awards in any one year.

Heads will be aware that following introduction of the new LSE Pay Framework all progression within Band 9 (Reader) is contribution-related - i.e. the annual 1 August increment is no longer applied.

The view is that the limits on the number of requests described above might constrain the ability of Heads to be able to consider all Readers within their departments for contribution-related incrementation. It has therefore been agreed to enlarge the number of requests departments are permitted to put forward as set out below. It should be noted that where a department intends to submit fewer cases than the maximum number permitted say, for Lecturers/Senior Lecturers, the spare cannot be used to put forward additional case(s) for Readers and vice versa. This arrangement is introduced with effect from next session (07/08) for review in Summer term 2008.

Larger Departments:
Lecturers/Senior Lecturers: a maximum of 4 cases
Readers: a maximum of 4 cases
Thus, larger departments may put forward up to a maximum of 8 cases per session.

Small Departments:
Lecturers/Senior Lecturers: a maximum of 2 cases
Readers: a maximum of 2 cases
Thus, small departments may put forward up to a maximum of 4 cases per session.

Heads of Department are not required to rank their nominees in order of relative quality, but may do so if they wish.

The Sub-Committee monitors the number of requests put forward by Departments over time, to ensure that all Heads of Department are making use of the additional increments mechanism to reward staff.

Timing of Incremental Increases

Recurrent incremental awards are backdated to the 1 August of the academic session in which they are submitted. Non-recurrent incremental awards will be made payable in the following month's salary.

Confidentiality of Requests

To prevent disappointment, wherever possible, nominations for additional increments should be kept confidential from the nominees.

Initial Salary Position of Staff Promoted to Senior Lecturer and to Reader

The Increments Sub-Committee will assume that standards are appropriate to reward members of staff promoted to Senior Lecturer and to Reader with two additional increments. The Sub-Committee will expect Heads of Department to refer only those cases where it is felt there are particular retention issues, or stellar cases, or where there are anomalies which have not been sorted out before, for consideration of additional incrementation beyond the usual level of reward.

Promotion to Professor
Initial Professorial salaries are determined by the Remuneration Committee which meets annually in the Summer term (further information on procedures is available from Alison Johns, Director of Human Resources).

Incrementation on passing Major Review

The Increments Sub-Committee will assume that standards are appropriate to reward members of staff who have been successful at Major Review with one additional increment. The Sub-Committee will expect Heads of Department to refer only those cases where it is felt there are particular retention issues, or stellar cases, or where there are anomalies which have not been sorted out before, for consideration of additional incrementation beyond the normal level of reward.