In 2014, University Leadership initiated the Officer of Administration Compensation project, which was influenced by information shared by the OA Council. The purpose of the project was to create and maintain a compensation system in order to remain competitive in the market, to attract and retain talent, and to be able to appropriately reward top performers. This presentation is intended to describe the process that was used to place OA positions in the new OA compensation structure. This process took place over a period of almost 18 months and included multiple reviews by a number of different stakeholder groups, including the Project Team, Aon Hewitt (the external consultants), unit leadership and HR Partners. Specific information regarding position placements within the compensation structure will be distributed to individual OAs via e ‐ mail no later than July 29, 2016. 1
There were 3 main phases the project team worked through in order to assign positions to a salary band, each of which contained multiple steps. These phases were: reviewing job content, conducting a market analysis, and the iterative process of evaluating positions and assigning them to a salary band within the compensation structure. Position placements were assigned to the compensation structure based on the position duties and requirements, not based on the merits of the person who holds the position. In other words, if two people held very similar positions, but one incumbent had an advanced degree and the other one didn’t, the positions would still be assigned to the same band in the structure, as the placement decisions were made based on the job duties, not on the incumbent’s qualifications. 2
The job content review phase was completed in order to help the Project Team gain a greater understanding of each position’s actual duties, scope and responsibilities. Because job titles vary widely across campus, it was important to focus on the actual content of the job, rather than the job title. In the beginning of this phase, departments submitted position descriptions and organizational charts to Human Resources, who utilized that information to conduct the job content review. This included reviewing the duties, scope and responsibilities of the positions and categorizing the positions into three groups: Administrative Support, Individual Contributor, and Managerial. Individual Contributor positions are positions not considered administrative support, but also do not supervise other people. A few examples of individual contributors are: department level communications, budget, human resources and development positions. Positions were initially grouped by members of the project team based on the position descriptions and organizational charts. Then, members of the Project Team met with unit leadership and representatives to review the preliminary groupings and make necessary adjustments. Individuals involved in this process included: Human Resources, Vice Presidents, Deans, Chiefs of Staff and other unit representatives such as HR Partners, directors, unit/department heads or others designated by senior leadership. Initial group placement criteria included considerations such as education/experience required for the position, nature of work, scope of responsibility, and level of fiscal authority. The review focused on the position, not the individual in the position, and also focused on the position’s duties, scope and responsibilities, not the job title. The job content review of OA positions was a collaborative, iterative process that resulted in a better understanding of the nature of OA positions and the various levels of OA work being performed across campus. It also provided an initial framework, which we call a job grouping framework, for comparing positions to others across campus and for matching UO positions to positions in the external market. For more detailed information regarding the grouping criteria and categories, please refer to the appendix. 3
Once we had reviewed job content and created a job grouping framework, the next phase in the process was to conduct market analysis and begin matching jobs to the relevant external labor markets. The first step in the market analysis process was to identify relevant labor markets based on what industry or industries we would typically recruit from for the position. This is important because the labor market was what then informed where we looked for benchmark positions and which salary data would be most relevant to the position. For most of our positions, we first looked at the Higher Education labor market, but many of the university’s OA positions can also be found in other industries, such as not for profit, healthcare, or general industry. For example, Higher Education is really the only labor market where you will find positions like Academic Advisors or Admissions Counselors. But positions such as budget, IT and communications can be found in almost any industry, in addition to Higher Education. For these types of positions, we looked at a broader segment including general industry to provide a more accurate and well rounded picture of market salaries. For additional information regarding the labor markets that were identified and utilized in the project, please refer to the Appendix. 4
Once the appropriate labor markets had been identified, market salary data was identified from relevant published salary surveys. In order to ensure validity and accuracy, all of the salary surveys used were conducted by third party providers. Some examples of salary surveys utilized include: Colleges and Universities Professional Association (CUPA) salary survey for higher education specific salary information, Division 1A Athletics Annual Compensation Survey for certain athletics positions, and several general industry surveys conducted by consultants like Mercer, Towers Watson, and Aon Hewitt. For a complete list of salary surveys utilized for the project, please see the appendix. 5
Based on the duties, responsibilities and requirements of positions as listed in the job descriptions, jobs were matched to similar positions in relevant labor markets. This process is called “benchmarking positions.” A benchmark position was considered a match if the duties, responsibilities and requirements listed in the position description represented a 70% or greater match to a benchmark position summary. The matches were made based on job content, consideration of job grouping results, and benchmark job summaries. These matches were preliminarily made by the external consultants, then were reviewed with Human Resources, unit leadership, and HR partners. The process of finding matches and reviewing them for accuracy with unit leadership and representatives and human resources occurred multiple times over a period of several months. 6
This is an example of the benchmark position description for an Admissions Counselor position. A benchmark position is one that has a standard and consistent set of responsibilities from one organization to another and for which data is available in valid and reliable salary surveys. As you can see, the benchmark position description is very brief and describes the essential functions of the position. Often times, multiple levels of benchmark positions were identified for a position based off of the duties, responsibilities and requirements listed in the position description. For example, there might be an entry level, a journey level, and a career level identified for one job type, such as a financial analyst or office manager. The job grouping framework was utilized to identify which level of benchmark position was an appropriate match for that UO position, which would later be used to identify what the market salary data was for the position. Compensation best practice for a project such as this is for at least 60% of positions to be matched to a benchmark position. Approx. 73% of UO Officer of Administration positions were able to be matched to benchmark positions through this process. 7
The labor market and salary survey information were used to build the compensation structure, which consists of multiple compensation bands and corresponding salary ranges. You can view the compensation structure on the OA Compensation project webpage. While the compensation structure was being built, the project team determined it was important to engage OAs and supervisors by gathering updated position descriptions. Over 400 new or revised positions descriptions were gathered and reviewed, which resulted in additional benchmark job matches being identified and some adjustments being made to preliminary matches. This was an incredibly useful step in the process, as it helped ensure we had the most updated and accurate information to use when making decisions about placing positions within the structure. 8
Recommend
More recommend
