President Glidden's Memo | Project Goals | Team Structure and Responsibilities
The Project Plan | How Will This Project Affect You? | JIQ Process | FAQs | Contact Us | Main Page

First, it is necessary to define the Compensation practices and philosophies that have been operational themes for  University Human Resources (UHR).

UHR’s fundamental philosophy has been to provide a total compensation package (intrinsic and extrinsic rewards) that enables the University leadership to attract and retain the high caliber faculty and staff necessary for academic excellence at our Research Extensive university.  We recognize the need for an effectively designed “total compensation” package.  See “The Concept of Total Compensation at Ohio University” for further details. 

To that end, UHR has played a role in managing six pay plans at Ohio University:

• Executive officers

• Faculty

• Administrative and professional

• Classified

• Service and maintenance (AFSCME Local 1699)

• Police Officers (Fraternal Order of Police)

A seventh pay plan was introduced as a result of the Compensation Project:

• Information Technology for Administrative staff and separate plan for Classified staff (formerly part of the Classified or Administrative and Professional groups).

Our pay program objectives have always included:

• assuring internal equity; in essence, ‘equity’ means that people should be paid fairly for their contributions; this includes pay levels, promotional and upgrade increases, the job worth hierarchy, etc.;

• assuring external competitiveness; this primarily refers to being market driven and to the fulfillment of the ultimate objectives of pay—to attract, retain and motivate faculty and staff;

• assuring external equity;

• being tied to performance; a component of pay should be tied to performance contributions toward the mission and goals of the institution;

• complying with all appropriate laws and regulations;

• being efficient and affordable.

In light of our program objectives, UHR’s experts further recognize that traditional approaches to compensation and benefits are being transformed by society and government to meet the needs of a changing faculty and staff.  In recent times we have been faced with significant economic pressures and public sentiment to improve productivity, boost the quality of our many services, and control total compensation costs.  We are constantly monitoring and balancing our sources of funding to meet our academic and business needs and goals.

It is imperative for us to further pause and reflect on “why” we have implemented these new compensation philosophies and programs and what steps have been taken to implement the new initiatives:

• 1998: UHR recognized a need for a new compensation and classification system for classified staff at Ohio University. How? Long Range Planning, HR Audit, Compensation Task Force, on-going dialogue with the Classified Senate.

• Early 1999: UHR submitted an RFP to eleven (11) Nationally known consulting firms; it included a request for separate bid on IT Compensation Plan; mid-1999 selected Watson Wyatt Worldwide

• September 2, 1999: officially began the Compensation Project by initiating and orienting the Steering team (9 members) and the Project Team (11 members) and the Watson Wyatt Worldwide Team.

Between September of 1999 and July of 2001, the Compensation Project achieved the following milestones:

Completion of the Discover Phase

• The primary purpose of this phase was to discover the philosophies, direction, support, and needs of the university’s senior leadership and the employees.

• The methodologies used included:

-senior officer (president, provost, vice presidents, and deans) interviews; employee focus groups; JIQ completion; employee opinion surveys; open meetings; market data analysis; and, effective use of consultants, employee groups, and the steering and project teams.

• Results achieved include:

 - discovered key messages we need to send employees through reward systems, e.g., shared responsibility in place of paternalism

- discovered ways to align and engage people with the university’s objectives

- discovered obstacles to the alignment and engagement

- the obstacles we call gaps include:

+communication (mission, decisions, employment)

+ accountability (performance criteria, training, upward evaluation)

+ collaboration (aligning pay systems with what is valued, between units)

+motivation (clarifying expectations, policies, supervisory accountability)

+trust

• Discovered the Ohio University 'employee commitment index' was 'off the charts' for the national, normalized Watson Wyatt database; Ohio University staff are committed to the progress and future of the university.

Completion of the Invent Phase

This phase included the following deliverables:

+Documented compensation philosophy;

+Flexible framework/pay structure that accommodates Classified and IT populations;

+ Labor market competitive assessment;

+ Administrative guidelines;

+ Performance management system;

+ Currently finalizing the pay delivery system.

Now in the Midst of the Implementation Phase

 July 1, 2001 implementation included:

+ New classification plan for Classified and Classified IT staff;

+New compensation system for Classified and Classified IT staff;

+New framework/pay structure for Classified, Classified IT, and Administrative IT;

+New policies relative to the new system;

+First phase of the performance management program will be implemented January 1, 2002

The questions have been grouped into three (3) common themes:

• Employee perceptions of supervisors

• Performance Management

• Salary and budgets

Beneath each theme are numerous sub-themes (see “Frequently Asked Questions” immediately following this introduction.) The FAQs have been grouped into three significant themes and numerous sub-themes: 

The results of the opinion survey clearly indicate that employees generally feel good about their supervisors.  The perception is that employees are confident in their supervisors’ ability to do their job, and comfortable in their relationship with their supervisor, and that supervisors keep employees relatively informed of departmental, unit, and university activities.  However, there was also clear indication that employees do not trust their supervisor’s ability to effectively evaluate the work-related performance of employees.

Historical data indicates that supervisors have returned approximately 90% of all required annual performance evaluations.  Even though the return rate is exceptionally high, employees noted in the survey, they don’t trust the supervisor to be objective, especially if pay is linked to performance.  Data also indicates employees are concerned about the supervisor’s level of commitment to adhere to the requirements of the new performance management program.

The opinion survey also measured employee/supervisory commitment to the University and their jobs.  The Watson Wyatt Worldwide Company noted in their analysis of the survey data the employee/supervisory “commitment index” was “off the charts”.  Employees and supervisors alike are committed to their jobs, the university, and furthering the mission of the university.  This level of commitment provides an excellent foundation on which to build an effective performance management program.

The current design of the new performance management program includes five elements of accountability for supervisors.  The first is the required attendance at the performance management program training.  The training is currently being designed by the university’s professional development office and will be delivered in November and December of this year to all employees and supervisors participating in the implementation of the IT pay plan.  The training requirements are quite extensive and well designed.  One element of the training program is to include the “effective” use of university policy 40.011.  This is the employee recognition policy which encourages and permits supervisors to more effectively reward employees.  A second element of accountability is the required compliance with all elements of the performance management process.  These will be described more fully in the next question.  A third element of accountability is the option for employees to request a performance evaluation of their supervisor.  The fourth element of accountability includes the option for employees to appeal their evaluation up the chain of command of their planning unit.  The last element of accountability is the requirement for the supervisor’s immediate supervisor to review and “sign-off” on the evaluation of the employee.

The executive sponsor of the Performance Management initiative of the Compensation Project is President Robert Glidden.  Dr. Glidden has been intimately involved with the design of the new program and has assured commitment to its effective implementation.  The project’s team leader was Nancy Crist, Director of Executive Offices, and her team members represented faculty, administrators, and classified staff.  These individuals met for many months conducting extensive research and participating in spirited dialogue and conversation, essentially designing a very effective system.  The system contains many key time periods and outcomes.  They include the following:

• The evaluation process begins with “Performance Planning” in May/June.

• Performance Planning consists of at least the following:

-the review of the current job description;

-the review of the position’s current role’;

-the review of the seven core competencies;

-goal-setting and planning for the following year.

• “Coaching” should continue throughout the performance year.

• A semi-formal mid-year review is to take place between November and January.

• Preparation begins for the actual Performance Management assessment in May.

• The Performance Management Program will be effective January 1, 2002, for all IT staff.

• Training for these individuals and their supervisors will occur during the months of November and December 2001.

• The Performance Management assessment for the participating individuals will occur in May and June, 2002.

• Merit Pay will occur only for the administrative IT staff.

NOTE:  All classified staff, including classified IT, will receive an ‘across-the-board’ increase (no merit component) on July 1, 2002.

3. Performance Management Program Documentation                                   
                 Documentation includes the following:

• performance evaluation document used by the supervisor for the employee

• self-evaluation form used by the employee

• performance evaluation document used by the employee for the supervisor

• supervisor Performance Management Program checklist

• job description of the employee

Please continue to monitor the website of University Human Resources.  In the coming months, you will find all appropriate documentation for the Performance Management Program available at www.uhr.ohiou.edu.

The Pay Delivery Policy is currently being drafted by the Compensation Project Team, in cooperation with University Human Resources, Classified Senate, the Administrative Senate, and numerous other interested individuals representing employee groups.  The final policy will be available on University Human Resources’ website.  If you are interested in reviewing the most current draft of the policy, or if you are interested in having a presentation conducted for your staff meeting, please contact University Human Resources.  This policy will address all methods of pay delivery including promotions, demotions, position upgrades, position downgrades, new hire rates, returning retiree rates, and more.  It does not address merit pay.

It is assumed that merit pay for administrative IT staff will continue in a similar manner as in the past.  It is the Performance Management component that is changing significantly.  As mentioned earlier, Pay Delivery for classified staff will again be across-the-board in July of 2002.  The decision to move to merit pay for classified staff will occur no later than May to August of 2002 for an eventual payout in July of 2003.

Budget and planning for the university is a daily process.  However, the university does adhere to a budget that is, essentially, established annually.  A fiscal year is defined as July 1 through June 30.  Regarding the line item of salary, wages, and benefits,

these items are normally determined by the Board of Trustees during its April meetings, with the effective date the following July.  The university’s new Performance Management Program will more appropriately coincide with the fiscal planning process of the university.

Last year, University Human Resources requested  $1.1million to adjust all identified 200+  Information Technology professionals’ salaries based on Market Equity studies.  The university was able to provide 24.2% or $250,000 of the recommended amount.  It is assumed that University Human Resources will continue to seek appropriate Market Equity adjustment dollars until an equitable situation has occurred between university IT staff and the identified local and national market.  Market Equity adjustments would be approved by the President , the Provost, and the University Planning Advisory Council.

The individual departmental raise pool is essentially determined by the budgetary increase approved by the Board of Trustees at its April meeting.  These raise pool monies are distributed effective July 1, while the decision occurs during the months of May and June.  Deans, directors, department heads, and supervisors will be trained during the Performance Management Program on the topic of  “employee recognition”.  The primary focus will be to encourage the use of the university policy #40.011, Employee Recognition.  It is anticipated this program will be departmentally funded and more widely used as a mechanism to offer spot bonuses and immediate rewards to outstanding performance throughout the performance review cycle.

The longevity bonuses, enjoyed by classified staff for many years, will continue into the future.

University Human Resources will regularly monitor internal and external equity conditions, and annually evaluate the raise pool distribution.

It should be noted that University Human Resources will provide each Planning Unit Head with information regarding Performance Management in their respective units.  The information will primarily consist of those supervisors who performed Performance Management staff evaluations, and those who failed to conduct the evaluations.

UPDATED: August 8, 2001

The following are responses to your questions from the employee orientation sessions.  Questions have been grouped by subject matter.

The following slide, which was part of the employee orientation sessions, is causing significant confusion. The intent was to show that all hourly rates that existed in the previous system are included in the new pay system. Many people interpreted the slide to mean that previous pay grades (e.g. 62, 65, and 68) are grouped into the new (e.g. Pay Grade C). This is not the case. The entire premise of the market-based pay structure is that each old classification was matched to the market and then placed in the correct new pay grade. 

Supervisor and Individual Employee Information
In addition to project newsletters and website updates, information regarding the Compensation Project was distributed as follows:

Mid-June: 

• Employee packets and letters were sent to IT employees who had attended the orientation training session. Plan Sponsors identified and distributed packets to supervisors. 

Late-June:

• Packets for those who did not attend the training were sent to Plan Sponsors. Plan Sponsors should conduct make-up orientation training sessions as needed before distributing the information.

Mid-July:

• Employee letters were sent to classified employees. Packets for those who had attended an orientation session were distributed to supervisors by the Plan Sponsor. Plan Sponsors were to conduct make-up orientation sessions prior to distributing packets to supervisors. 

The goal is to ensure there has been an orientation to the program prior to the individual receiving their information. Every effort will be made not to penalize an employee because their supervisor did not attend a session.

If a supervisor is not available (e.g. due to extended vacation, etc.) the Plan Sponsor should be considered the "go to" person. On-going training for new supervisors is being considered. 

Late-July:

• Memo detailing the Screening and Appeals Process were distributed to classified staff

Screening and Appeals Process
Under the Ohio Revised Code and University Policy, classified employees have the right to appeal their classification in the new compensation plan. Individual memos were sent to employees notifying them of the appeal basis and process. Click here to view the Screening and Appeal Process memo. 

TIMELINE:
July 27th                 Appeal letter sent to classified employees
Aug 1st -Aug 31st    Screening Process
Aug 15th -Oct 15th  Appeal to State Personnel Board of Review 

Titles and Job Descriptions
Information regarding the new compensation plan can be found on University Human Resources' website. The following information is available:

	Titles and job descriptions for Classified staff
	Pay Structure
	Mapping of old classifications to the new system
	Ohio University's Classification Plan

COMING SOON:

	Titles and job descriptions for IT staff
	Policy Guidelines

The New Classification Plan
Information from the JIQs that employees completed during the Discover Phase were used to develop the new plan. The number of classifications has been reduced to 68. New titles were generated from the classification plan. Individual employee letters and information packets were distributed  which contained new titles and job descriptions. 

The JIQ process was used to gather information about the work performed at Ohio University. One purpose of the consolidation process was to identify positions that may have been misclassified. These were reviewed and audited to make sure positions were classified as accurately as possible. Old classifications were mapped over to the new classification plan. There is an appeals process for those who do not agree with their new classification. 

Classifications have a new set of minimum qualifications associated with them. They are very important in the employment process. As always, departments can work with the Employment Office in UHR to develop postings that reflect additional qualifications.

IT Job Titles
Ohio University title vs. Generic title
The individual employee letter and packets for IT staff listed both an Ohio University and a generic title. IT staff will continue to use the Ohio University title. The primary purpose of using a generic title was to match jobs to market salary surveys. This also helps compare IT positions across units that have different Ohio University titles but similar content. 

In determining which positions were IT, the IT project team members met as a group to review the JIQs in relationship to the IT definition. Positions are constantly changing, and it is expected that the Compensation team will continue to work with the IT team, which includes the Associate Provost for IT. This review process will become a part of the day-to-day management of the pay plan. 

Roles
The three roles should be considered as three very broad job descriptions that encompass all of the work performed by staff at Ohio University. In assigning a job/classification to a role, the primary focus of the position was considered. The Administrative/Technical Role and the Professional Role are both considered 'individual contributors'. While their focus is primarily on individual contribution, it is possible that they supervise other employees. The Manager Role has a primary focus of working through others to get work done. Those in this role have a primary responsibility for a unit, department, or shift. 

The role assignment drives competency expectations. The primary goal is to put a position where it best fits.  Assigning a position to the wrong role can result in performance expectations not matching the work.

A key point to remember is that pay is not connected to a role. For example, the fact that the term 'professional' is part of the Certified Professional Secretary (CPS) designation has no relationship to the use of the word 'professional' as a role title. Job content is considered in assigning classifications to roles. The compensation and rewards project and steering teams worked very hard to make these assignments and  considered the expert advice form external consultants when designing this plan. Much thought and discussion went into the three role titles.

The new single market pay structure and the role-based competency framework lends itself to adding the remaining Administrative and Professional staff to it. This further reinforces a shift toward a culture of partnership. Remember that administrators were included in the organizational assessment process in Phase 1, Discover which included focus groups and the employee opinion survey. There are no plans to incorporate faculty into this plan due to the nature of their work being substantially different than that of other staff. The bargaining units (AFSCME and FOP) will not be incorporated into the new plan. The pay structure for bargaining unit positions have been revised based on market, and we will continue to consider the importance of market competitiveness for all pay plans at the university. 

Pay Structure
A 15% difference between pay ranges (market reference) is standard for pay structure design. Currently, the administrative pay structure has 15 % differences. Pay ranges reflect what the market pays for different levels of work. This will be a change for classified staff who are used to a 4% difference. This does mean that the duties of a job will have to change more substantially than in the past to warrant a change in pay. This too is different and will take some time to adjust to. The focus is to be able to move to rewarding horizontal development, in the same pay range and job. Eventually, we hope to add this dimension in the Performance Management Program.

Assigning positions to pay ranges is based on determining estimated market values (EMV) for positions and and then matching the EMV for a position to the most appropriate market reference point. It is possible that a very 'hot skills' IT position could be in a higher pay grade than their supervisor, especially if the supervisor is not IT. However, we would not expect this to happen very frequently. 

The market information should apply to all Ohio University employees: the Athens campus, five regional campuses, and COM's CORE sites. Remember that the entire state of Ohio was considered to be the local market. This information plus some flexibility in the hiring range should address many of the recruitment problems experienced at the CORE sites. 

July 1, 2001 Pay Increase

Classified employees will receive their across-the-board increase (subject to Board of Trustee approval as always) as they have in the past.  Everyone will receive the full increase.  Employees at pay grade maximums will not have their increases changed in any way. 

Base merit increases for administrative IT employees are taking place through the reappointment process (replaces the old contract process).  The decisions about raises are made the same way as in the past.

July 1, 2001 Market Adjustments

In spite of a very difficult budget year for the State of Ohio and the university, the senior officers, based on UPAC’s recommendation, have demonstrated that closing the market gap is a priority by allocating funds for the adjustment.  The university hopes to continue to close the gap over the next few years.  Spreading the adjustments over several budget years is an approach that has been taken by other universities in Ohio.

Administrative IT adjustments took place together with the regular annual merit increase process.

Planning unit heads were encouraged to consider performance, hot skills, and criticality of position in addition to market variance in making their allocation decisions.  The intent was to provide planning unit heads the ability to maximize the dollars available to them.

Some classified IT (approx. 14) and classified support staff (approx. 31) employees will receive market adjustments July 1, 2001 based on the same criteria used to calculate the market adjustment budgets for administrative IT.  We will calculate this centrally since classified employees do not currently have pay for performance, so there will be no discretion involved in the allocation.  Those employees will receive letters notifying them of the pay adjustment.  We will be working with planning unit heads to keep them informed. 

The market competitiveness strategy is to get all IT employees’ salaries to at least 80% of market (pay grade minimums in the new structure), and those who have been in their current positions a minimum of 3 years to 90% of market (market range minimums within the new pay grades).  Three years as a basis for the decision represents the typical learning curve for a job.  It is the general rule of thumb recommended to us by Watson Wyatt.

There is no process to grieve the market allocation decisions.  Certainly, administrative IT employees can discuss these decisions with their supervisors.

Future additional funding to close the market gap comes out the respective year’s existing budget.  There is no magic source for this.

IT Market

The new pay ranges are divided into three zones:  developing, market, and performance to emphasize that market is the driver in decision-making. 

Developing Zone:  The targeted range for new hires, and for employees who are still developing or are not fully proficient in their job.

Market Zone:  The targeted zone for employees who are fully proficient in their job and consistently meet performance expectations.

Performance Zone:  The targeted zone for highly skilled and consistently high performing employees.

Regarding reviewing market values for jobs, the Compensation Office in UHR will reassess the market comparisons annually to ensure ongoing integrity.  If the market for a job changes significantly, either up or down, the job would be moved to the correct pay grade.  Pay would not be changed.

The determination of the raise pool each year will continue to be based on the same considerations as in the past:  the State of Ohio budget, the university’s financial circumstances, cost of living information, and projected salary budget information from the market.  The project does not impact this decision process.

For employee and supervisor convenience, UHR will be putting as much information as possible on our web site: the new classifications, new pay structure, generic IT titles, roles, and competencies.

For employees,  both IT and classified, who did not complete a JIQ, we used the most current alternative information available:  PIQs, PDQs, classifications.

You will be able to get a better sense of the market value for your job as well as others when you receive the individual information and when we get all of the abovementioned information on the UHR web site.  The pay structure is designed so that you can consider the market reference point as the estimated market value of any job assigned to it.

Classified Market

Your pay grade assignment is not based on your personal hourly pay rate.  It is based on the estimated market value (EMV) for your position.  Example:  Everyone currently in the Secretary classification would move to the same new pay grade, and everyone would keep their pay rate so there would continue to be people at different points along the pay range just as there is now.

The Compensation Office in UHR will review the market data annually because it is always changing to ensure jobs are properly matched to the correct pay grade.

The market used for classified jobs includes the Midwestern region of the U.S., and it considers Ohio as the local market.  This is a very generous definition of market.  A labor market is defined as the geographic area from which candidates apply for a job, and the area that employees leave OU for new jobs.  For most classified jobs, that’s the county the campus is in, and its surrounding counties.  This varies for the main campus and the regional campuses.  This market was also used for Healthcare positions.

Classified Pay

Longevity continues to be valued by Ohio University.  Employees who have been at OU longer make more money than shorter term employees all things equal.  Also, the university recognizes classified service through the longevity bonus award ($500 for 5 years, $1000 for 10 years, etc.), and through the service awards program.

The pay structure will be managed by reviewing data on salary budgets and cost of living to decide how much the structure should move each year.

It will take a much greater change in duties to reclassify a position to a higher pay range through the audit process.  The previous classified pay structure has too many pay grades with too little difference between the pay grades.  What the market pays for different jobs is what determines the appropriate distance between jobs.  Too little difference between pay ranges is one reason the audit process has not worked well.

Market adjustments are being made to both classified staff and IT staff.

The new compensation plan is designed to support employees developing in their current positions, and being rewarded for that instead of the current system that puts pressure on the audit system to reward performance which is not what it’s purpose is.  For this to work, have to get the performance management program into place.

Longevity bonuses do not count toward retirement because of PERS definitions and rules.  For more details, call PERS.

The new comp plan provides for flexibility in determining hire rates as opposed to the current which requires new hires to start at pay grade minimum.  This gives the hiring department the flexibility to recognize the previous experience and education of a candidate.

Decisions about taxes on lump sum bonus payments are made following IRS rules.

Based on the process of matching classified jobs to market, in many cases several classifications will merge.  We will go from about 130 classifications to 70.  There is no pay change associated with this process.  After July 1, when someone promotes, most likely through the employment process, but still possible through the audit process, the promotion increase is 5%-10%.  The criteria that should guide a supervisor in making that decision is what the new pay rate would be in relationship to the market reference point.

If you don’t believe that you are in the correct classification, there will be an appeal process to the State Personnel Board of Review.  We will be notifying all classified employees of their rights by letter.

A 15% difference between pay grades (calculated at the market reference point) is typically what the market tells us is the difference in pay between one job and the next higher job.  It is currently the difference between pay grades in the Administrative and Professional Pay Plan.

Each employee who attended an employee orientation session will receive individual communication that explains “what does this mean to me?”  It will also be discussed with you by your supervisor.

No one is changing employee status from classified to contract or vice versa as a result of this project.

When we matched jobs, that may combine a variety of typical duties, we generally matched to the highest level duties to get a good match.  The rationale is that we would probably recruit for the highest level skill set if the position were vacant. 

And thank you to the person who wrote:  “Thanks for sticking your necks out and doing all this.  It is a step in the right direction.”

Q: Will the 5, 10, 15, etc. year bonuses for classified staff continue?
A: Yes, the university wants to continue to recognize the long-term service of its employees. The new compensation plan will add additional ways to recognize the contributions of employees.  It will not take away current recognition programs for length of service.

Q: Will classified staff continue to supervise other employees?
A: Yes, there is no intention to change work design in the units.  Directors and department heads will continue to structure their units to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the workforce.

Q: Will pay grades have caps?  If so, how do you reward people at the cap?
A: Yes, the new pay structure has pay grade maximums. Beginning July 1, 2002, an employee whose pay is at or above pay grade maximum in the new structure, will receive their base increase to the extent that it does not exceed the pay grade maximum, any remaining amount of increase will be by lump sum bonus. 
     This is the same approach that we were following a few years ago before this project began.  The new pay grades are wider than the current structure so that the alignment of employees in the new structure will look different.  We are still designing the performance management plan, and a guiding principle for our design will be to truly be able to reward exceptional contributions of employees regardless of their position in the pay grade.  In other words, an exceptional contributor should not be rewarded less than others simply because they are at or above pay grade maximums.

Q: Can you explain in greater detail what happens to employees who are maxed out and above the new range?
A: The maximums of the pay grades are set at 30% (almost one-third) higher than the market reference point (the market value for jobs in a particular pay grade).  An employee whose pay rate is at pay grade maximum is making 30% more than the market is paying for comparable jobs.

History of Ohio University’s Approach to Pay Grade Maximums for Classified:

	FY 90-91 (when the current structure was implemented) through FY 95-96:  Classified employees could not be paid more than pay grade maximum.
	FY96-97 through FY97-98:  The number of classified employees who were maxed out increased fro 47 to 87; the payout changed to continued base increases in the amount that took the employees’ pay to grade maximum with the remaining amount of the increase paid as a lump sum bonus.
	FY98-99 through FY00-01:  No restrictions on base increases pending design of the new compensation plan.
	July 1, 2001:  Classified employees receive full base increases regardless of position in the new pay structure.
	Beginning July 1, 2002:  The new policy takes effect which returns to a combination of base increase and lump sum bonus (same as FY 96-97 and 97-98)

    In the current classified pay structure, there are approximately 116 employees above pay grade maximums.  In the new structure, the number is almost the same.  However, the identity of the employees changes. Currently, the university tends to pay above market on the lower end of classified positions, and below market on the upper end of classified positions.  In the new structure, most above max employees will be in the lower pay grades.   The new structure offers opportunities for promotion into higher pay grades.

Q: What about people who have received a reclassification (due to the job audit) since completing the JIQ?  Will the new title be used or the one on the JIQ?
A: Classified employees who have been reclassified through the audit process will be slotted into the new system based on their current classification.  Example—If they were a Clerical Specialist when they completed the JIQ, and have since been reclassified as a Secretary, they will be slotted into the new system the same as all employees in the Secretary classification.  We are creating an entirely new classification plan with new and fewer classifications, and with new titles.

Q: If the terminology “performs other duties as assigned” continues to be a part of all job descriptions, won’t it limit opportunities for horizontal growth in the new structure?
A:  No, it shouldn’t.  “Performs other duties as assigned” is always a part of our jobs; it is never the substantial focus of the duties and responsibilities we perform.  In the new plan, the emphasis is more on the contributions of the employees as they relate to the new competencies and less on the position.  This approach will help us to shift the focus to horizontal growth.

Q: What is the distribution process and schedule for when employees will be notified of their new places in the system?
A: The individualized employee information will be developed and sent to plan sponsors by University Human Resources following employee orientation sessions. The plan sponsors will see that the individual employee materials get to each employee’s supervisor.  The supervisor will be trained in how to discuss this information with the employee.  It is the responsibility of the planning units to ensure this takes place.
     The employee will receive a copy of the letter included in the packet.  The packet will include the following:  new title, new classification (for classified staff), new compensation plan booklets for both IT and classified  (which lists all of the new titles, career series, and pay grades), the new pay structure, the employee’s role assignment, and the competencies for that role.

Q: How can we insure that employees can trust their contract supervisors to have knowledge and training by the time classified roles are implemented?
A:  All classified and IT employees and their supervisors will attend an employee orientation session. This will be the first step in training. There will be additional training to support the performance management project. Supervisors, in their own performance evaluations, will be assessed partly on their willingness and ability to follow the new university policy on performance management. While it is difficult to mandate any university policy, an environment and culture that strongly encourages certain behavior can be created.       Recognizing that there is a lot to communicate and train about, we intentionally decided to implement only the role-based competency framework and market-based pay structure July 1, 2001. The Performance Management Program will be phased in with implementation for the IT staff to be October 1, 2001, and implementation for the classified staff to be July 1, 2002. 
     This is the beginning of a new approach to HR processes and programs, a new way of  “doing business”.  We can’t build trust overnight, but it can happen over time.

Q: Many employees are fearful that their pay will be jeopardized should they not be a “favorite” worker of their supervisor.  How will this issue be addressed?
A:  The competencies and roles clearly define performance expectations. They provide a clearer roadmap for both employees and supervisors. That will make it easier for supervisors to evaluate performance, for employees to know what the expectations are, and for the planning unit head to hold the supervisors accountable.
     There is no merit component for classified staff for 2001 or 2002. Classified staff will receive across-the-board increases this year and next. Wages for 2003 have not been considered nor determined at this time.  The university will evaluate the success of the IT performance management program and continue to research before addressing the issue of a classified pay delivery system.

Q: Wouldn’t the market-based structure require “up-to-date” information on some time basis (monthly, quarterly, or yearly)?  How often should it be updated to make it clearly a “market-based system?
A: Yes, a market-based pay structure does require that it be managed to stay current.  This is the responsibility of the Compensation Team in University Human Resources.  We plan to review the structure annually, to prepare for the annual salary planning process.  Not only will we be looking at the structure, but we will look at individual positions to determine if their position should be reassigned to a different pay grade (either up or down).  This would be more likely in the IT jobs than the classified.

Q: Who decides at what level (local, state, or national) market values are to be compiled?
A: The steering and project teams worked with the Watson Wyatt consultants to develop our market strategy for classified and IT positions.  The Compensation Team will continue to follow that strategy using the same survey sources that have been identified to pull current data each year for analysis.

Q: Can Ohio University afford such a program?
A: The actual compensation plan provides a new design that is based on the market which will result in a realignment of salary budget dollars.  What that means is that this plan does not change the yearly university decision about the size of the salary budget.  It does provide different criteria to consider the allocation of those dollars; immediately in the new market-based structure, and in the future in the new performance management system.  Separate from the new compensation plan, we are working to close the market gap. 

Q: When will further details on the new plan be available?
A: Currently, information is available through project newsletters and on the project web site:  www.ohio.edu/comp Project newsletters and other information are archived on the web site for your convenience. The communication plan between now and the July 1 implementation includes: the employee orientation sessions and the one-on-one conversations between the supervisors and employees. We will continue to assess the implementation and will consider other avenues of communication as necessary.

Q: Aside from academic discussion or thought, what is real bottom line improvement to compensation for classified employees?
A: The bottom line improvement for classified staff includes:

	A pay structure that is connected to a broadly defined market
	A classification plan that is modernized and more fitting to the work being performed
	A classification plan that does not ‘force’ employees and managers to misuse the system by attempting to reward employees via the job evaluation
	Movement toward eliminating the ‘caste’ system that separates hourly from salaried staff
	Creation of a modernized pay plan policy
	The opportunity to recognized for outstanding performance throughout the fiscal year
	The opportunity to have performance evaluated more consistently

     This is a significant culture change, and the feedback we received in the Discover Phase indicated that it was best to move slowly to ensure employee training and communication.  We welcome your thoughts on this approach, visit www.ohiou.edu/comp and use the “Contact Us” link to submit your feedback..

Q: What are the definitions of the roles?
A: The definitions for the roles are new for all of us.  Considering all of the work being performed by staff at the university, excluding the senior officers, it would generally fall into three broad roles:  Administrative/Technical, Professional, and Manager. The three roles drive the competency expectations meaning that there are different expectations for someone in an Administrative/Technical Role vs. a Professional Role vs. a Manager Role. 
     The specific role definitions and competencies can be found at the following address: http://www.ohiou.edu/comp/Role_Based_Frame.htm

Q: Is it possible with this new system that a new employee can be hired in at a higher rate than a current employee?
A: It is possible because the design has built-in flexibility.  However, we will be communicating that new hires should be consistent with a unit’s internal equity.  In other words, units should definitely consider the relative pay of their staff when making offers to candidates.  If a candidate offers more experience or education though, that would be an appropriate reason to bring someone in higher than a current employee.  This is currently the way the administrative pay plan works.

Q: How will pay be effected with the new plan?
A: There will be no change in pay associated with the implementation of the new compensation plan with the exception of those affected by the market adjustments. Administrative IT staff will be impacted most significantly and there will be limited adjustments for a small number of classified staff as well.  This is generally for those who are below pay grade minimum in the new structure or who are below 90% of market with a minimum of three years in their current position. Classified staff will receive across-the-board increases this year and next. Wages for 2003 have not been considered nor determined at this time. 

• What is a Market Based Pay Approach?
• How were the JIQ's used in this project?
• What was used to compare OU to the external market?
• What were the specific surveys used for purposes of this project?
• What are the expected results of this project?
• What are the results of the employee opinion survey?

• The Job Information Questionnaire (JIQ) process resulted in a composite or representative JIQ for each classification title within each planning unit. What happened to the JIQs after they left the planning unit and were forwarded to University Human Resources (UHR)?
• How will the comparisons to market affect my position?
• Why did OU administer the JIQ process rather than have Watson Wyatt Worldwide do it for us?
• How was the JIQ process carried out?
• How was the Employee Opinion Survey developed? Is this an "off-the-shelf" survey from the consultant?
• Why is it important that I complete an Employee Opinion Survey?
• I’m concerned that if my "true" opinions are known, there could be repercussions for me on my job.
• How will the survey data affect the outcome of the new compensation plans?
• How will I find out the results of the survey?
• Why is the University doing this? What are the goals of this project?
• What do you mean by reward programs?
• Why were Focus Groups conducted?
• How did you choose the employees/individuals to participate in the Focus Groups?
• Who facilitated the focus groups?
• If I’m not on a focus group, when will I get to have input?
• How will you administer the Employee Opinion Survey?
• Will there be a freeze on classified job evaluations or "audits?"
• How are you defining Information Technology positions?
• How will you identify IT positions?
• Will the IT compensation plan include classified and administrative positions?
  

A: It’s important both from the employer’s perspective and from the employee’s perspective. A prime goal for the university is to ensure that all pay plans (executive, faculty, administrative, IT, classified, AFSCME, and FOP) are externally competitive. By comparing Ohio University jobs to comparable jobs in the external market through the exercise of market pricing, a fact base is created that can be used to guide effective allocation of resources. Maintaining external competitiveness ensures the university’s ability to recruit or hire talented employees, and it pays a significant role in retention. If employee’s pay is not competitive, they are more likely to leave Ohio University for better paying jobs elsewhere. The other part of maintaining external competitiveness is exercising the fiscal responsibility of not overpaying for particular jobs or skill sets.

The market competitiveness process that took place in the Discover Phase (completing JIQs and matching to salary survey information) was used to create a market based pay approach for the project.

Q: How were the JIQ's used in this project?

A: The composite or representative JIQs are being used for comparisons to market benchmarks and for developing up-to-date job descriptions as part of the new compensation plans.

A: The job information questionnaires completed during the Discover Phase were used to develop benchmark jobs. These benchmark jobs were compared to the external labor market.  

The chart below depicts the job level or category and the geographic and type/size of institutions used for the comparison.

Q: What were the specific surveys used for purposes of this project?

A: The following are survey sources used for market comparison:

GENERAL INDUSTRY SURVEYS Compdata Survey Ohio Metropolitan Benchmark Compensation Survey for North Central Region Watson Wyatt 1999/2000 Geographic and Industry Office Personnel Compensation Supervisory Management Technician and Skilled Trades Human Resources Management Information Technology Mercer Information Technology Survey

INDUSTRY SPECIFIC SURVEYS Watson Wyatt Healthcare  Professionals Survey College and University Personnel Association Administrative  Compensation Survey Warren HMO Survey Library FY00-01 Compensation Plan by Class Title Order Ohio Higher Education Computing Council Compensation Survey of IT Positions Inter University Council (Classified)

A: The project was designed in three phases. As the project progresses, the specific results will unfold. In general, the desired results of the project are to: recognize value-added individuals, eliminate the audit process, support career development, and increase the flexibility of the system.

This project has initiated three additional projects: Communication, Performance Partnership, and Training.  This integrated project is known as ohiouniversity@work.

A: The survey results can be found in Reserve in the libraries of all Ohio University campuses. A summary of the results are available at the following website: http://www.ohiou.edu/comp/survey_results.htm

A: All JIQs were forwarded to UHR after review by the planning unit heads. The facilitators within each planning unit identified those JIQs that did not seem to fit, in general, with others in the same classification. Those JIQs were reviewed by UHR to determine if a job audit seemed appropriate. Audit recommendations were discussed with the facilitator who communicated the recommendation to the employee.

The number of JIQs that didn’t fit with others in the same classification was relatively small. Still, we were fortunate to have an opportunity to ensure that current jobs were classified appropriately under the existing compensation plan.

The composite or representative JIQs will be used for comparisons to market benchmarks and for developing up-to-date job descriptions as part of the new compensation plans.

A: Market comparisons tell us how pay for different OU jobs compares with other universities and organizations . For both Classified and IT, benchmark positions are identified and used to make these comparisons. Benchmark jobs are a sample of jobs that meet the following criteria:

• They represent most levels in the current pay structures
• They represent the different types of work being performed (e.g., secretarial, nursing, networking, database administration, etc.)
• They are jobs represented in most organizations

A total of 125 benchmark positions will be identified. We anticipate the market analysis to have a minimal impact on the Classified pay structure, whereas, the impact may be more significant on the IT pay structure. Market information will be carefully considered in the development of the new Classified and IT pay structures. More detail on this process will follow by early April.

A: The Steering and Project Teams concluded that to administer the JIQ process themselves would not only save the University thousands of dollars on the total project, but would also lend itself to several other advantages:

1. This was an opportunity for meaningful discussions within the planning units regarding work being performed.
2. This was an opportunity to ensure that the job duties and responsibilities being described would accurately reflect the kind of work being performed at the university and within each planning unit.
3. Thorough job documentation will be important as we begin writing new job descriptions during the Invent Phase of the project.
4. JIQs that did not fit with others in the same classification were identified for job audits ensuring appropriate classification under the existing compensation plan.

A: In the fall, all Classified employees and those identified as having a primary focus of IT were asked to complete JIQs describing their duties and responsibilities.

Key employees, from each of the 26 planning units at Ohio University, played a vital role in the JIQ process. They participated in training and spent significant time and effort in facilitating meetings and in compiling the information into representative JIQs. The work of these employees resulted in a successful response from each planning unit and produced job information that will be meaningful to the new compensation plans. (See JIQ Update)

The overall response rate for Classified employees was 79%, and 84% for IT employees.

A: The survey is the result of significant input, review, and revision, between Ohio University and Watson Wyatt Worldwide to make it truly an Ohio University Employee Opinion Survey.

1. First, we began with a survey developed by Watson Wyatt Worldwide for this kind of compensation project. We are relying on their expertise in terms of the topics that are relevant to a successful compensation project. Those topics are:

President Glidden's Memo | Project Goals | Team Structure and Responsibilities

The Project Plan | How Will This Project Affect You? | JIQ Process | FAQs | Contact Us | Main Page

OHIO Front Door | University Human Resources

Copyright ©1994-99 Ohio University