Presentation Transcript

1. University of Missouri Faculty Compensation October 2, 2009 Betsy Rodriguez Vice President for Human Resources

2. UM System Human Resources Strategic Plan 2009-2013

   People Excellence Synergy
3. Vision University of Missouri is recognized as having a positive, inclusive, high performance culture based on cooperation and respect and where the work environment reflects a community that promotes work/life balance, values unique contributions, and allows individuals to make a difference through their service.
4. Mission People First: To provide strategic guidance for the implementation of best practice human resource management that enables UM excellence and values our people as its primary resource.
5. Critical Focus Areas Fully engaged workforce (people first) Effective processes Excellent service to customers Strategic resourcing
6. People First: Talent Management Human Resources Academic Affairs TALENT MANAGEMENT for Faculty ACADEMIC HR ISSUES Workplace Climate Faculty Recruitment Faculty Retention Faculty Engagement Compensation philosophy Diversity Phased retirement Work environment & climate Collaboration & collegiality Total rewards system Climate workshops COACHE Diversity Understanding & improving climate Work-Lifebalance COACHE Diversity Mentoring Work-Life balance Total rewards system Diversity Recruitment - pipeline for future faculty Recruitment Search committee training Performance Management Succession Planning Professional Development General Policies Develop model Exit interviews Identify leadership competencies Mentoring Phased retirement Recruitment Academic titles & appointments Diversity Leaves for academic appointments Non-Tenure Track Faculty Compensation & total rewards COACHE Academic appointments Chair training Diversity Phased retirement Tools to address personnel issues Dealing with performance issues Diversity Leadership development programs Mentoring New Faculty Teaching Scholars
7. People First: Total Rewards System Total Rewards System is driver of people strategy---making possible a diverse, high quality, engaged, and productive faculty and staff Compensation and rewards must align with and be part of university/campus strategic plans Total rewards sends a message to (prospective and current) employees Effective use of Total Rewards System resources requires philosophy, strategy, planning, analysis, and accountability And investment!
8. Philosophy/Strategy Question If we value people first, why do our budgets always begin with mandates such as utilities, maintenance, and insurance? Why isn’t compensation the first ‘mandate’? Compare people assets to physical assets – we’ve deferred the ‘maintenance’ and that is causing structural problems.
9. Additional Questions Can faculty and staff explain their salary level, esp in relation to similarly situated colleagues? Can faculty and staff explain their career path, and the compensation changes that accompany promotions? Can we reward longevity (seniority) and also pay for performance? How important is internal equity? How much value do we get for the cost of benefits?
10. Consequences of Below Market Salaries Higher turnover, and the associated greater cost of training new faculty and staff Longer time to fill positions and the costs of extended vacancies in key positions Filling positions with 2nd and even 3rd tier candidates as top-tier candidates accept positions at organizations that provide higher levels of compensation (and the longer-term implications this has for the University's image, ability to draw students both within and out-of-state, impact on development and research funding, etc.) Lower morale and associated reduced productivity
11. Total Rewards Framework: Compensation Begins with philosophy (to mirror our vision): Examples… To provide total compensation that attracts and retains high quality faculty and staff, and that rewards (seniority?) high performers. To be competitive within appropriate occupational peer groups for high performing faculty and staff with programs that focus on recruitment and retention. To be at the competitiveaverage by campus, with a core set of centers of excellence that are leaders in their fields.
12. Total Rewards Framework: Compensation (con’t) Includes a strategy: e.g., Where are we now? – see next slide Where do we want to be? What needs to be done? How is it funded? How much focus on salary and benefits vs other ‘rewards’?
13. Peer Comparisons: Faculty Salaries Includes all ranked faculty per AAU definitions Chart shows percent growth in overall salary base, with an average salary Average salary ranges from $73k to $116.8k MU was only one of few schools with increase in 2008 With strategic investment in Fall 2008, MU remains next to last
14. Salary Peer Comparisons: Faculty
15. Salary Peer Comparisons: Faculty
16. Salary Peer Comparisons: Faculty
17. Total Rewards Framework: Compensation (con’t) Is defined by a set of Objectives and/or Core Values: e.g.– for Salary: Salary ranges will be established based on appropriate markets Initial compensation will be within the established ranges, based on experience and skills– with consideration for internal equity Compensation changes will be based solely/mostly on merit Merit will be determined by college/campus established metrics Differentiation and decision making regarding high vs. low performance Metrics will consider all areas of performance critical to university mission Salary structure will manage employee growth and development Faculty promotions will include a flat dollar amount or a % of salary All employee groups will be treated equally for annual increases (regardless of market position? Regardless of funding?) Objectives lead to building and communicating salary STRUCTURE
18. Total Rewards Framework (con’t) Is defined by a set of Objectives and/or Core Values: e.g.-- for other Compensation: Compensation programs will be flexible to meet individual, department, and campus needs Total Rewards considers issues beyond salary and benefits– total value proposition
19. Total Value Proposition What are other reasons/programs beyond traditional compensation (salary and benefits) that attract and retain faculty and staff? What do employees value? Faculty: Environment/culture, collegiality, academic freedom, recognition, shared governance, collaboration opportunities, gifted/high performing students, lab space/equipment, professional travel, work/life balance, etc.
20. Total Rewards Framework (con’t) Must be based on Analysis: Faculty (ranked) data available and communicated Further work needed on defining salary ranges Further work needed on unranked faculty data Staff data needs work! Consultant did initial work for BOC meeting Will require significant time and investment
21. Total Rewards Framework (con’t) Concludes with Accountability: Require annual performance evaluations to justify annual salary changes Provide market data to decision makers – see next slide Hold decision makers responsible for ensuring compensation objectives are met, or there is a strategy to get there Ensure faculty and staff understand the compensation philosophy, strategy, objectives
22. 11-Month Salaries Tenure and Tenure Track
23. Cost of Salary Changes Cost of salary increases: $638m operating (state) budget Each 1% increase = $8 million 4% salary increase would cost $32 million How to pay for increases? Tuition: 1% comp increase = 2% tuition increase Other: Increases in revenues Decreases in expenses (e.g. reduction in work force, program closures, efficiency savings, vacancy savings) Do we allow variation by campus?
24. Quick Review of Benefits
25. Comparator Institution BenchmarksHewitt Associates Relative Value Study *After 7/1/09 pension plan amendment
26. Summary Observations of Benefits UM offers a competitive array of benefit programs that are currently slightly below the average of its peer group UM, strategically, assumes risk through self-insurance when appropriate UM employees, through premiums/contributions bear a significant portion of the cost of providing UM benefit programs
27. Summary Observations of Benefits UM employees, at the time of purchasing health care services bear a significant portion of cost for services rendered Areas of significant deviation from the average of the peer group include: Above average Employer Paid Value of Long Term Disability Base Plan Employer Paid Value of Post Retirement/Pre 65 Medical Benefits Below Average Employer Paid Value and Total Value of Dental Benefits
28. Summary Observations of Benefits The 7/1/09 change that requires employees to contribute to the pension plan has resulted in a decrease in UM’s ranking among peer institutions in both the pension and overall categories The majority of peer institutions continue to offer subsidized post employment health care benefits UM is unique in offering a defined benefit plan as the primary pension plan avenue
29. History of Actual UM Contribution Rates % of payroll