Virginia Tech Human Resources: Restructuring Information Session Brian Gittens, HR Restructuring Project Manager

1. Virginia Tech Human Resources: Restructuring Information SessionBrian Gittens, HR Restructuring Project Manager

2. Purpose of the Session • Overview of the Human Resource Restructuring Initiative • Overview of the focus group and survey results that helped guide the recommendations • Information on the three HR Restructuring resolutions approved by University Council on May 5, 2008

3. Human Resource Restructuring Overview • In June, 2007 President Steger wrote a letter to the University Community, stating the following: • “On July 1, 2006, Virginia Tech began operation under provisions of the ‘Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act.’ This effort stemmed from our belief that we can operate more effectively and efficiently with a greater degree of authority and autonomy than we had as a regular state agency…..”.

4. Human Resource Restructuring Overview • Higher Education Restructuring provides for two human resources systems for non-faculty employees. • Classified employees - hired prior to July 1, 2006 • University employees – hired after July 1, 2006

5. Human Resource Restructuring Overview • Classified employees will have the opportunity to move to university staff at least every 2 years. • The election to move from classified staff to university staff is permanent.  Employees will not be given the option to go back to classified status. • Employees in any of the Level 3 universities (VCU, VT,UVA W&M), whether classified or university staff, would revert to classified staff if they moved to another state agency that is not a Restructured University.

6. Human Resource Restructuring Overview • Certain policies will remain identical for Classified & University Staff: • Retirement • Healthcare • Workers’ Compensation • Grievance Policy • Policies subject to change under the new university HR system include: • compensation and classification, • performance evaluation, • leave, • employment and promotion, • layoff & severance.

7. Human Resource Restructuring Overview • A Steering Committee and an Employee Advisory Committee were formed to provide recommendations and goals for the HR systems, which support the university’s mission, values, and strategic plan. • Three design teams were formed to review their respective policy areas and develop recommendations: • Compensation & Rewards • Performance Management & Employee Relations • Staff Benefits & Work Life

8. Human Resource Restructuring Summary • On July 1, 2006, Virginia Tech began operating under the provisions of the Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act. • Under the Restructuring Act, the university was granted the authority to develop and implement new human resource systems for staff employees hired after June 30, 2006; and we will also continue to administer the state’s HR system for classified employees. • Classified staff will be given the options to convert to the new system during an upcoming enrollment period. • Policy Design Teams were formed to develop recommendations based on the university’s strategic plan and data gathered from the university community.

9. Data Collection Effort

10. Focus Group and Survey Overview • During the past year, HR conducted focus groups and a survey of staff and faculty. • The purpose of the focus groups and survey was to evaluate staff human resource policies and processes.

11. Focus Group Overview • 23 focus groups included 200 employees • Participants were randomly selected • Representation from all pay levels and College/VP areas • Off-campus employees included • Participants favorably evaluated focus group process as “An environment where they could openly share their opinions”

12. Summary of Focus Group Results Regarding Performance Management • A majority of participants agreed that performance should be an important factor in determining pay. • There was agreement that the 3 point ratings system was not effective in distinguishing levels of performance at VT. • There was a desire for a performance system to provide incentives to go “above and beyond” instead of “getting by.” • Managers need to be trained

13. Summary of Focus Group Results Regarding Compensation and Benefits • The most prevalent concern over compensation is inadequacy in relation to the external market. • Compensation was cited as primary reason for high rates of employee turnover. • The most positive responses reflected satisfaction with benefits offered by Virginia Tech. • A majority of employees were also satisfied with the amount of paid leave provided by university but stated concern over “use it or lose it” practice regarding leave.

14. Survey Overview • Surveys were sent to 4,589 staff and faculty who supervise staff. • 2,148 or 48% of invited employees completed the survey.

15. Summary of Survey Results Regarding Performance Management • Over half (55.2%) rated the performance evaluation program as fair or poor. • Staff and staff supervisors indicated that the most important factors that should be used in performance planning and evaluation include: • employees should know what is expected of them • employees should be given clear goals and objectives • supervisors should recognize employees’ contributions.

16. Summary of Survey Results Regarding Performance Management • Performance management factors that received the highest agreement ratings from supervisors include: • performance planning helps in setting expectations • performance evaluation helps in assessing performance. • The factors that received the lowest agreement ratings from supervisors include: • the system encourages achievement • the system helps the supervisor in motivating employees • the three-point scale is effective in distinguishing various levels of performance.

17. Summary of Survey Results Regarding Compensation • Over half (56.8%) rated the system as fair or poor. • The overall mean rating for the compensation program is 2.38, below the midpoint of a five point scale.

18. Summary of Survey Results Regarding Compensation • The highest mean rating, 4.38, was for an interest in working in a place that provides and opportunity to get pay increases based on performance. • The second highest rating, 4.09, indicates a willingness by respondents to participate in a system that resulted in lower performers being paid less than the state increase (so higher performers could get more than the state increase) • The results indicate widespread support for moving the compensation system to a pay for performance model.

19. Overview of the Resolutions • Resolution Regarding Performance Management and Employee Relations • Resolution Regarding Compensation and Rewards • Resolution Regarding Redefinition of Administrative and Professional Faculty

20. Resolution Regarding Performance Management • Change to a 4-point rating scale: The new ratings are: model performance; strong performance; developing performance; and unacceptable performance. • Examine the feasibility of implementing a formal documented mid-year feedback process for university and classified employees. • The current self-evaluation policy governing classified staff be extended to university staff. • The probationary and the newly revised standards of conduct policies be extended to university staff.

21. Other Changes Regarding Performance Management Simplify the performance management process: • That forms used for performance planning and evaluation be reviewed and made easier to use. • That once the forms have been simplified, that they are computerized to support efficiency, record-keeping and ease of use. • That the P-141 form as a requirement for university staff to receive the highest rating be removed.

22. Other Changes Regarding Performance Management • Apply the new performance management system to University and Classified staff.

23. Compensation and Rewards Resolutions

24. Resolution Regarding Compensation and Rewards • Compensation and Rewards - Key Points: • Link performance rating and salary increase • Provide more flexibility in the compensation management process.

25. Resolution Regarding Compensation and Rewards • Develop a merit pay program for university staff that allows for differentiation of pay increases based on individual performance. • Eliminate the 10% cap on in-bands and role change salary adjustments for university staff. Each situation can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and handled appropriately.

26. Resolution Regarding Compensation and Rewards • Salary band and job classification structure: The team noted that the current structure provides appropriate flexibility for career and salary growth. Therefore, the team recommends: • That the university maintain the same salary range and job classification (roles) structure for university staff

27. Resolution Regarding the Redefinition of Administrative and Professional Faculty Appointments

28. Resolution Regarding the Redefinition of Administrative and Professional Faculty Appointments • The human resources restructuring initiative approved by the state includes the opportunity for redefining the administrative and professional faculty. • Administrative faculty members are typically the senior administrative leadership of the university. • Professional employees are in managerial positions and/or positions that provide direct service or support for academic, administrative, extension, outreach, athletic or other programs.

29. Resolution Regarding the Redefinition of Administrative and Professional Faculty Appointments • The majority of positions currently classified in pay bands 5, 6, and 7 within the state system would be eligible to become part of the Administrative and Professional structure. • Organizational management will be involved in reviewing positions to determine eligibility for change to A/P status.

30. Resolution Regarding the Redefinition of Administrative and Professional Faculty Appointments • Classified staff currently in bands 5-7 eligible for the change would be given an opportunity to move to A/P status. The positions of employees choosing to remain classified would be refilled as A/P whenever they became vacant. • University staff in positions determined eligible (approximately 70 staff members) would be converted to A/P status.

31. Resolution Regarding the Redefinition of Administrative and Professional Faculty Appointments • The current categories of Administrative and Professional faculty will be referred to as Senior Administrators and Managers and Professionals and their definitions slightly modified

32. Senior Administrators • Perform work related to the management of the educational and general activities of the institution at least 50% or more of their contractual time. • Typically serve in executive-level leadership roles such as vice president, dean, and assistant or associate vice president or dean. • The organizational reporting relationship is normally not lower than three levels below the president or the next most senior position(s).

33. Managers and Professionals Managers (Directors) • Typically have responsibility for supervision and evaluation of a significant number of staff and/or professional faculty, and budgetary responsibility for their unit or a substantive program. • Exercise discretion and independent judgment and they must perform managerial or director functions at least 50% of their contractual appointment. • Typically report to a senior administrator and provide leadership and oversight for their unit or a significant program.

34. Managers and Professionals Professionals • Provide direct service to students, other university constituencies, or clients external to the university as part of the university’s missions of learning, discovery, or engagement. • May direct or provide support for academic, administrative, extension, outreach, athletic, or other programs. • May provide vital university functions such as information technology, budget or finance, human resources, public relations, development, and architectural or engineering functions. • Incumbents must regularly exercise professional discretion and judgment, and are expected to take professional initiative in carrying out their primary roles and assignments.

35. Tentative Implementation Plan for A/P Faculty Redefinition Resolution • Review of positions eligible for conversion—Summer 2008 • Board of Visitors approval in August 2008 • Effective for University Staff—October 2008 • Effective for classified staff who choose to convert—Spring 2009

36. Questions For more information go to www.restructuring.hr.vt.edu , call or email Brian Gittens at 231-3294 (bgittens@vt.edu)