In 2014, University Leadership initiated the Officer of - - PDF document

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

• ther 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

• f 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

• rganizational 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

• n 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

• n 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

• f 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

The next step in the project was to identify what we call “Comparable Roles.” Comparable roles are positions that are very similar in duties, responsibilities and requirements that can be found in multiple departments across campus. This slide lists the positions that were identified as comparable roles for the purposes of this project. It’s important to note that there are other positions that were found that had a few similar positions located in

• ther units, such as grant writers, faculty consultants, and event planning

positions . This list shows the positions that were most often found in many units across campus. The identification of comparable roles was essential to ensuring internal parity across campus. Once positions were placed within the compensation structure, a review of comparable roles was done to ensure that OAs in similar positions, but located in different departments, were placed appropriately in relation to each other.

9

All of the work described so far, including reviewing position descriptions two different times, conducting the job content review exercise, and identifying benchmark positions and comparable roles, resulted in having a basis to compare how positions across campus related to each other. The next phase of the project was the position evaluation phase, which was the process of determining the band placement of positions within the compensation structure. Initially, benchmarked jobs were assigned to the salary band with the midpoint closest to the market rate midpoint identified for that job during the market analysis process in order to create a preliminary compensation structure. For example, if the market rate midpoint for a benchmarked position is $40,000, that position was assigned to Salary Band OA 3 because the midpoint of Salary Band OA 3 is $41,699. Once initial placements were assigned based on the market rate midpoint for the job, additional meetings with leadership and human resources were held to make necessary adjustments to account for differences between the UO job and the benchmark job (for example, differences in experience/skills required for the position, scope of job responsibilities, or significant challenges in recruiting or retaining certain positions.) 10

In some cases, positions were not able to be matched to a benchmark job, as they are very unique in their duties, responsibilities and requirements. For example, several of our research positions are highly specialized and unique to UO and were unable to be matched. Positions unable to be benchmarked were reviewed and discussed with senior leadership, unit representatives, and the project team. Significant consideration was given to the placement of these positions including responsibility/impact of the job on UO’s overall success, managerial scope of the job, knowledge and skill required, and level of complexity

• f the work. Other considerations included career path progression, turnover and

recruitment. Some of the questions that were discussed when evaluating non‐benchmarked positions included:

• What are the supervisory elements of the job?
• What is the job’s level of budget responsibility?
• How does this skill/complexity level compare to other jobs in the unit and on campus?
• Who does this position report to?
• Who does this position supervise?

These types of questions were discussed with leadership during the multiple meetings used to accurately place positions in the compensation structure. For a detailed list of considerations used to evaluate specialized, non benchmarked positions, please refer to the appendix. 11

Members of the Project Team held over 35 meetings with senior leaders across campus to review and adjust the placements of positions within the structure and to place non‐ benchmark positions in the structure. Placements were reviewed within each Vice President/Dean unit initially, then reviewed again looking at campus as a whole. The process of reviewing and adjusting position placements was an on‐going, collaborative process that took place over several months. Multiple people were engaged in the process and multiple sources of information were utilized to help ensure accuracy and consistency in the new OA Compensation structure. 12

For additional information regarding the position placement process or the OA Compensation project, please visit the resources listed above and review the appendix. 13