PROFESSIONAL FACULTY – JOB CATEGORY AND
COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Steering Committee Meeting
November 13, 2012
Copyright ©2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved
Agenda Topics
 Job Category Framework - Updated
 Progress to-date and
Program Design Next Steps
 Moving along the Change Curve
 Next steps and timing
Copyright ©2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved
Job Category Framework
The Job Category Framework will:
 Ensure a consistent, equitable, and understandable application of titles across
all Professional Faculty positions and supports more accurate competitive
compensation comparisons
 Illustrate level within job families and consistency across job families for the
University
 Capture the unique nature of roles and responsibilities of Professional Faculty
positions and group with similar positions, where appropriate
 Assist with defining job value factors for determining internal equity (job valuing)
and external comparability
 Serves as a guide in the future when creating new jobs and assigning them to
salary grades
Competitive compensation data may be indirectly linked to job titles,
but relies on role complexity, function criticality, and job scope as
defined by the Job Category Framework.
2
Job Category Framework
The Framework has three components:
 Job Families
Compiled PDQ Descriptions and Job Profiles
aligned by Families based upon common roles,
responsibilities, skills, and career progression
 Job Level
Reflects the organizational responsibility,
accountability, and competency requirements
of the Job Profile, possibly of a Position
 Job Profile
Compiled PDQ
Description
Supervisor
Approved PDQ
Individual PDQ
The value of the Job Profile is anchored by benchmark competitive pay practices,
taking into account Job Family, Job Level, and internal relationships.
3
Job Category Framework
Job Level Designators
Designator
Role Summary
EX 2
 Provides strategic leadership for more than one area that has broad impact across the
University
EX 3
 Provides strategic leadership, generally for one area, that has broad impact across the
University
AM 1
 Plans and directs areas/strategies that have impact within a department or among several
departments
AM 2
AM 3
AM 4
 Directs operations of multiple programs in support of a Department, Center, or Institute
 Directs operations of a program in support of a Department, Center, or Institute
 Responsible for managing a functional unit within a department or a program
AM 5
 Responsible for assisting in the management of a functional unit within a department or a
program
AM 6
 Supervises staff in performing daily activities and tasks that support the operations of a
function or department
AM 7
 Performs or coordinates administrative work for a department or unit with complex
projects and minimal guidance, requiring knowledge and application of institution policies
and practices
Job levels do NOT necessarily represent a hierarchical ranking of jobs, but help establish career
progression within and equity across job families based on the responsibilities of the job.
4
Job Category Framework
Job Level Designators, continued
Code
Role Summary
PR 1
 Focuses on specialized field of professional expertise requiring extensive skills,
knowledge, education experience
PR 2
 Reviews and provides counsel on interpretation of and changes to University policy,
Federal and State regulations, and contractual agreements
PR 3
 Provides confidential administrative support and performs or coordinates administrative
work for an executive level administrator
PR 4
 Provides advice, facilitation and training on the development, administration and
technical aspects of a particular area or specialized field
PR 5
 Coordinates day-to-day activities relying on independent judgment to initiate actions in
support of the operations of a program or a limited subset of a department or unit
PR 6
 Provides tailored advice on technical aspects of a particular area or specialized field
PR 7
 Focuses on specific elements of a program or project requiring specific expertise,
skills, and knowledge, producing qualitative and quantitative analysis
The value of a position is anchored by competitive pay practices,
taking into account Job Family, Job Level, and Job Profile definition.
5
Agenda Topics
 Job Category Framework - Updated
 Progress to-date and
Program Design Next Steps
 Moving along the Change Curve
 Next steps and timing
Copyright ©2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved
Outcomes of the PDQ Process
PDQ responses were collected at the end of July:
 Overall response rate was 65%
 Typical response for participating Universities averages around 60%
 OSU response rate is considered high when considering the diversity of
positions and locations
 This rate is high enough to move forward with the process of benchmarking
positions and creating position descriptions from the completed and reviewed
PDQs
 Response rate by Job Family indicates a solid representation of completed
PDQs across most job families
 Positions without PDQs are included in the ongoing job family review and
leveling working sessions and the process going forward (market benchmarking
and creating position descriptions). In the absence of PDQ information, we will
leverage position information from a variety of other sources:
 Current position descriptions
 Designated subject matter experts in the job family
7
Progress on Job Family and Level Review
 Job Families reflect an aggregation of positions that have similar competencies, and have
natural career progression; positions within a job family are not always aligned with the
organization unit
 Job Family definitions will facilitate better understanding of and progression for career
paths
 OHR, with Sibson’s guidance, is conducting Job Level reviews by family, first with BC
HR Staff, then with BC HR and SME leaders (see Appendix for participants)
Final Draft Job Families
 Academic Services
 Administrative
Services
 Athletics
 Business & Finance
Services
 Clinical & Health
Services
 Communications &
Marketing
 Executive/Chief
Officers
 Facilities & Operations
 Field, Research, and
Outreach Services
 Food & Retail
Services
 Information
Technology
 Institutional Advancement
& Development
 Legal & Compliance
 Library & Museum
 Organizational and
Human Development
 Maritime Operations
 Student Services
Job families are not listed by value; same job levels may occur within
each family and will be valued against market benchmark pay data.
8
Process for Job Family and Level Review and Approval
Job Family and Level review steps
 OHR and Sibson further refined the levels and definitions and facilitate the Job Family
working group sessions
 OHR and BCHR Managers reviewed and refined initial Level assignments
 Management level below Vice Presidents/Vice Provosts act as SMEs and participate in
working sessions – additional information and/or discussion may occur within respective
organizations
 Project Team (with Sibson facilitation) will review results for University-wide alignment
 Steering Committee will approve Job Category Framework and share results with the
President’s Cabinet and Provost’s Council
Should leadership below the Cabinet / Council
review before final approval?
9
Revised Project Schedule
The new schedule envisions completion during the first quarter 2013; the annual
review process will occur before completion, but may be informed by the
competitive assessment
Phase
Estimated
Timing
Phase 1:
Develop Compensation Philosophy and
Change Communication Strategy
Feb – Apr
Phase 2:
Develop Job Grouping/Categorization
and Titling System (Job Category
Framework)
Phase 3:
Identify Benchmark Jobs and conduct
competitive compensation assessment
Phase 4:
Develop Salary Structures, Job
Leveling Methodology and Pay
Guidelines
Phase 5:
Define Plan Implementation
Requirements and Communication Plan
Key milestone meeting
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
‘13
Feb
’13
Mar
‘13
Apr – Nov
Nov – Jan
Jan – Feb
Feb – Mar
Completed Work
In Progress/Future Steps
Implementation
during 1Q13
10
Program Design –
Next Steps
 Maintaining the Job Family Framework
● The Job Profile Title will become the “system title” for the Compensation Program and
will continue to connect to the individual, supervisor-approved, PDQs
● PeopleAdmin maintains current Job/Position Descriptions
● A process is being developed for an online PDQ process to create new Position
Descriptions and facilitate changes to existing ones
● Key issues
 Will OSU merge the Job Profile Title with the PeopleAdmin title and how will that
impact “working titles”?
 How will this impact, if at all, the official organizational titles?
 Conducting the Competitive Pay Assessment
● Confirming and communicating the Compensation Philosophy competitive position
strategy – alignment of market median pay to salary structure midpoints
● Process for Benchmarking
See next two pages
11
Competitive Pay Benchmarking Process Overview –
Begins with the Compensation Philosophy
The Compensation Philosophy defines 3 employee segments: Senior Leadership,
Mid-Level Directors and Staff, and Functional Experts and Professionals.
 Comparison markets for benchmarking purposes will differ across the three segments:
Employee Segment
Industry
Market
Senior Leadership and HE
Specific Professionals
Higher Ed (National Peers TBD),
Higher Ed (Regional Peers TBD)
National /
Regional
Mid-Level Directors and Staff
Functional Experts and
Professionals
Higher Ed (Regional TBD),
General Industry
General Industry: Local market
(TBD) when available
National /
Regional / Local
Regional/
Local
 All 3 employee segments have the same target market position (market median);
differences in comparison markets are intended to identify appropriate talent
markets:



Senior Leadership has a higher education-specific comparison market
Mid-Level Directors and Staff have a blended higher education/general industry comparison
market
Functional Experts and Professionals have a general industry-focused comparison market,
with exceptions for selected positions that will be aligned with Higher Education
Individual benchmark positions may require specialized market comparator sources.
12
Benchmarking Process Overview
A six step process –
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Identify benchmark jobs – a stratified sample of Job Profiles across Job
Families and Levels, using Position Descriptions and PDQ data, that are likely
to be found across the talent market segments
Identify appropriate compensation survey sources – highly reliable and
validated research sources, available for future years
Match OSU benchmark jobs to comparable job descriptors in the surveys
– recognizes that not all jobs will be a perfect match and allowing for judgments
or adjustments, as needed
– BC HR will participate in and review benchmark matching, discussing with
organization leaders as needed
Select appropriate “scope cuts” within the surveys – recognizes size,
market segment, and geographic differences
Make necessary adjustments
Gather the compensation data – age and adjust the pay data to a common
point in time
Should leadership below the Cabinet / Council
review before final approval?
13
Agenda Topics
 Job Category Framework - Updated
 Progress to-date and
Program Design Next Steps
 Moving along the Change Curve
 Next steps and timing
Copyright ©2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved
Keys to Successful Transformation
Eight-Step Process for Leading Successful Change*
In order to manage any significant change, leaders must be clear
and in agreement about
 the need – Build Urgency and
 the goals – Create a Vision
Implementing
and Sustaining
8. Make Change Stick
7. Keep At It
6. Acknowledge Short-Term Wins
Engaging and
Enabling
5. Focus on Action
4. Communicate for buy-in
3. Develop Guiding Structure
Creating the
Environment
2. Create a Vision
1. Build Urgency
* Source: John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen, “The Heart of Change” (2002).
15
The Vision has been confirmed and the Urgency described
The Compensation Philosophy includes a vision for the Program that describes our goals:
 Support the recruitment and retention of a diverse, high-quality workforce to fulfill the mission of the
University.
 Create a Job Family framework, reflecting the variety of positions and responsibilities among Professional
Faculty that more clearly defines career progression
 Ensure competitive salary practices through comparison to appropriate talent markets
 Enhance OSU’s work environment by providing opportunities for all Professional Faculty to achieve
career and work life goals
 Recognize and reward productivity and work effectiveness, encouraging life-long learning and
development.
The Steering Committee questioned the need for a goal around fairness and equity.
 The Project Team confirmed that the Compensation Philosophy addressed this goal under Pay
Governance – see Appendix
The sense of Urgency was described as:
 The University is growing and expanding its capabilities, so change is needed now to achieve
institutional goals
 Attracting, retaining, and motivating Professional Faculty, and effectively rewarding their contribution
is critical to OSU’s success
Is the sense of urgency compelling (next page) ?
16
Present State
Build Urgency—”True Urgency”
Complacency
A False Sense of Urgency
A True Sense of Urgency
More pervasive than people
recognize, insidious, and often
invisible
Also pervasive, insidious, and often
seen incorrectly, as a true urgency
Rare and immeasurably
important for transformations to
occur
Real or perceived wins, usually
over a long period of time
Recent problems with long-standing
previous successes, slow and
incremental decline
People not only at the top, but up
and down the institution create
urgency and re-create it when
needed
People Think
“I know what to do, and I am doing
it already”
“What a mess this is, but how do we fix
it?”
“Great opportunities and hazards
are everywhere.”
People Feel
Content with the known (and
anxious of the unknown)
Very anxious, angry, scared and/or
frustrated
A powerful desire to move and
make progress, NOW!
Unchanged - Action which ignores
an institution’s new opportunities
or hazards, focuses inward, does
whatever has been done
comfortably in the past
Frenetic - Meeting-meeting, writingwriting, going-going, projects-projects,
with task force after task force and
PowerPoint to the extreme – all of
which exhausts and greatly stresses
people
Urgent - Action which is alert, fast
moving, focused externally on the
important issues, and continuously
purging irrelevant activities to
provide time for the important stuff
Roots
Behavior
Where on this scale are the various stakeholders at OSU?
* Source: John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen, “The Heart of Change” (2002).
17
Keys to Successful Transformation
The Change Curve—Overcoming Resistance to Change
CHANGE = f (A x B x C) > R
A = Present State (-) . . . Build Urgency
B = Desired State (+) . . .Create a Vision
C = Initial Steps to Support Change
R = Resistance (overcoming fear of loss)
The central challenge is not strategy, not systems, not Program design.
These elements and many others can be very important, but the core
challenge in achieving change is behavior— what people do, and the
need for significant shifts in what people do.
18
Keys to Successful Transformation
Why do Transformations Fail - Dealing with Positive Change
When it comes to the Job Category and Compensation Program –
 Where is the Steering Committee on this change curve?
 Where do you think Professional Faculty members are on the curve?
EFFECTIVENESS
5
Uninformed Certainty
“I think I know what is going to
happen and I am comfortable.”
1
4
2
Informed Doubt
“I definitely know what is
going to happen and I am
not comfortable.”
Informed Certainty
“Embedding the ‘new ways’
into what I know and
understand.”
Realistic Concern
“I know what we need to do,
but I know it will be a stretch.”
Wilderness Zone
3
TIME
The Job Family review process has involved more than 30 leaders from across the University.
Inevitably, this requires consideration of individual names to confirm job roles and
responsibilities.
19
Keys to Successful Transformation
Determine Resistance Points Based on Stakeholder Interests
 Who are the key stakeholders with vested interest in the new Job Category and
Compensation Program?




Steering Committee
President’s Cabinet/Provost’s Council
Faculty Senate
Professional Faculty, at large
 Program Administrators (Supervisors,
Managers, Directors)
 Business Center HR Staff
 OHR
Exercise:
 For each stakeholder listed above, complete a ‘T-Account’ to identify what they personally
stand to benefit and what overt / predictable fears they have
Determine the impact of the T-Account information on the following
dimensions:
 Program Design
 Administrative Guidelines
 Communications
20
Possible Change Communication Tactics
The results of the “T account” exercise will help determine what, if any,
tactics are needed:
 Change readiness assessment survey –
•
Design Change Readiness Assessment Survey – with Project Team around
 Program knowledge
 Case for change
 Understanding of benefits; cost of no change
•
Project Team review to gain agreement on assessment outcomes, roles, timing, and administration
 Agreement on target groups and go-forward actions
•
Conduct change readiness data collection
•
Compile findings and provide diagnostic and recommendations to increase stakeholder readiness
 Opportunities / challenges
 Tactics to close gaps
 Conduct focus groups –
•
•
•
Select stratified sample for 4 groups, 12 – 15 participants each
Develop discussion guide
Consultant facilitated sessions
 Cascaded communications through organizational leaders
•
Scripted messages delivered through staff meetings in a synchronized manner facilitated by
BC HR staff
21
Agenda Topics
 Job Category Framework - Updated
 Progress to-date and
Next Steps in Program Design
 Moving along the Change Curve
 Next steps and timing
Copyright ©2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved
Immediate next steps and timing
1. Complete Job Family and Level reviews
By mid – December
2. Review and finalize benchmark position selection
and matching
Through mid – December
3. Define Change communication tactics, as needed
By Dec 7
3. Complete competitive compensation assessment
By end of January
23
APPENDIX
Copyright ©2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved
Subject Matter Experts involved in Job Family and
Level reviews
Business and Finance
Maritime Operations
Student Services
Academic Services
 Larry Roper

Becky Warner

Mark McCambridge
 Kate Peterson

Susie Brubaker-Cole

Aaron Howell
 Tom Scheuermann

Moira Dempsey
 Dan Larson

Bob Gilmour

Sherm Bloomer
Food and Retail
Services
 Tom Kirch

Ken Smith

Bob Nettles

Robyn Jones
 Eric Alexander

Danny Damron

Dee Wendler

Rich Turnbull
 Allison Davis White Eyes

Ryan Collay

Jack Breen
 Lisa Hoogesteger

Cathy Law

Luke McIlvenny
 Pat Ketchum

Skip Rochefort

Roger Admiral
 Joy Jorgensen

Kyle Cole

Tom Fenske
 Rebecca Sanderson

Lisa Templeton

Brad Dennis

Damian Bailey
25
OSU Draft Compensation Philosophy
Compensation Philosophy
Element
Pay Governance
Proposed OSU Principles
• Roles and responsibilities for ensuring an effective compensation program are distinguished,
including clearly defined approval authority, checks and balances, review, and audit with a
commitment to accountability that is supported at all levels
 President’s Cabinet, Provost’s Council, and the Executive Committee for Faculty Senate are responsible
for setting policy and compensation strategy for the institution.
 Office of Inclusion and Equity is responsible for ensuring the compensation program is consistent with
equal opportunity requirements and affirmative action goals and requirements, and responding to
concerns and complaints of pay discrimination
Accountability for Program implementation and ongoing administration are defined below
Deans, Directors, &
Department Heads
 Setting objectives, and
operational goals for the
institution
 Communicating openly,
regularly, and clearly with the
institution community on
organizational policy
 Setting the standard for
performance planning,
coaching and feedback,
adherence to Compensation
Program principles, and
holding direct/indirect reports
accountable for the same
Business Center Human
Resources
Office of Human Resources
 Providing expertise in
administering and maintaining the
Job category Framework and
Compensation program
 Collecting and maintaining
University-wide market data based
on total compensation practices and
assessing overall competitiveness
 Providing recommendations to
supervisors around appropriate
salaries and ranges
 Serving as a subject matter expert
that establishes parameters around
compensation program
 Communicating the pay program
to ensure understanding by staff
and administrators
 Ensuring pay practices are fair and
equitable across the University in
consultation with appropriate
resources
 Identifying opportunities to
enhance and improve
compensation program
 Communicating the pay program
and ensuring policy-level and
process understanding by staff
and administrators
 Designing, developing programmatic
changes to maintain contemporary
pay practices in consultation with
Academic Affairs and OEI.
 Developing communication materials
and training for the Program and
ensuring policy-level understanding
by staff and administrators
Supervisors
 Understanding job responsibilities
and requirements of jobs in area
of responsibility
 Ensuring job descriptions are
current
 Collaborating with Business
Centers around appropriate
salaries
 Setting performance expectations,
providing clear and effective
feedback, and evaluating
performance
 Understanding Compensation
Program principles and policies
and communicating with staff
about the Program
26