Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Why was this study conducted?
The recruitment and retention of staff requires that the University maintain an effective system for the compensation and classification of professional and scientific jobs. This study was conducted in response to a recent unit evaluation reflecting employer concerns and employee concerns expressed through University Staff Council.
How could this study benefit professional and scientific staff?
The goal of the compensation system is to support the recruitment and retention of University staff. To this end, the study is intended to improve the effectiveness of the University’s compensation and classification system and practices. The study process itself will serve to increase the knowledge of the compensation system within the University community and to make it more transparent. The recommendations identified are expected to make University salaries more market competitive and better support individual career development within the University system.
How was the consultant selected?
A competitive process was used to select a consultant. Six firms responded to the call for proposals, four were interviewed on campus and Buck Consultants was selected on the strength of their qualifications and experience.
Who provided information to the consultant?
The project has been lead by a team of Human Resource professionals, with representation from University Human Resources, University Hospitals and Clinics, and the colleges of Public Health, Liberal Arts and Sciences and Medicine. When the consultants visited the University campus, they met with the President and Vice Presidents, Deans, selected administrators, Human Resource leaders from each college and division, and the Executive Committee of Staff Council.
What process will take place to evaluate the recommendations contained in the consultant report?
Within a period of a few weeks, the consultant report was presented to the President, Vice Presidents, Deans, Senior Human Resource Leaders, Unit Human Resource Representatives, Staff Council Executive Committee and the full Staff Council for review and comment. All non-organized professional and scientific staff members are invited to review the report and its recommendations, and submit questions and comments to comp-class@uiowa.edu.
How and when will decisions be made?
Following a period of comment and discussion, the steering committee for this study will begin to formulate specific recommendations with the Senior Human Resource Leadership Council. These recommendations will be shared with the Staff Council for their comment and then forwarded to the President and Vice Presidents for their consideration. Final policy recommendations would be submitted to the Board of Regents for approval.
If adopted, how would the changes recommended in the report be implemented? How long might that take?
The report contains a “road map for change” which envisions an evolutionary process over a period of two to three years. It also contains illustrations of how the recommendations could be implemented. No decisions regarding accepting the recommendations or the manner in which they would be implemented have been made at this time.
What was the expected outcome from the consultant analysis?
The outcome sought from the consultant study was a diagnostic evaluation of the current system, with specific suggestions for change for improvement that could reasonably be implemented within 3-5 years.
What is the “point factor system” and how is it currently used?
The point factor system is used to evaluate individual job classifications and place them into pay grades with other job classifications of similar value. The current point factor system has been in place for over thirty years and evaluates jobs on the basis of thirty-six factors.
What is comparable worth?
It is a provision within Iowa law that establishes the policy that public employers: “…shall not discriminate in compensation for work of comparable worth between jobs held predominately by women and jobs held predominately by men. “Comparable worth” means the value of work as measured by the composite of the skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions normally required in the performance of work.” It is one form of internal equity between like jobs within the University.
Is there a basic conflict between market value and the concept of “comparable worth”?
The consultant report suggests that there are ways in which market valuation and comparable worth can co-exist within a compensation system and that these are not mutually exclusive concepts.
How does the University currently recognize market?
Historically, market factors have been recognized in setting starting salaries, but not in the salary rates for existing staff. Over time, advanced hiring rates have caused the need for equity adjustments to bring existing staff in line with market rates paid to new staff. Market adjustments have also been made in the form of counter offers to documented offers of employment outside of the University, in order to retain individuals and talent within the University. Finally, certain classifications in healthcare and research have moved to “specialty” paygrades, when the market rates exceeded the value of their existing paygrades, and where recruitment and retention problems have been documented. In summary, the recognition of market has been through an increasing number of exceptions to the current compensation structure.
How does this study of the compensation and classification system relate to the University’s strategic plan or the recent “Working at Iowa” survey?
The compensation study directly supports the Iowa Promise in that compensation is an important component in our ability to attract and retain the talents of staff members necessary to achieve the strategic goals of the University and the various units within it. The “Working at Iowa” survey highlighted the importance of communication on issues important to staff, and the compensation is clearly an important issue for the campus community.
The report uses the term “cost of labor” as a measure of salary increases. How does this relate to the cost of living?
The cost of labor in the report is the increase in the overall salary budget from year to year, which has typically been less than the average rate of salary increases for individuals, as the former takes into account factors such as turnover and new hires who would not experience a salary increase. The cost of living typically refers to the index of factors reflecting the relative cost of personal living expenses as they change from year to year.
Questions about the recommendations
How do the recommendations change the University’s current compensation and classification philosophy?
If adopted, the recommendations would make a fundamental change in the University’s compensation and classification philosophy. It would move from a system that is built upon internal equity and very little consideration of market value, to one that is built upon the value of jobs in the context of their relevant market, with an analysis of jobs that are predominately male or female, to assure the application of comparable worth.
How would the report recommendations impact the University’s application of “comparable worth?”
The report recommendations would fundamentally change the way in which “comparable worth” is maintained, but would not change the University’s commitment to adhere to the principles of comparable worth articulated in the Iowa Code. Rather than building the compensation model on an evaluation of relative equity between jobs, the compensation model would be built upon relative market value, with adjustments to address the comparability of male or female dominated job classifications as necessary.
What would be the impact of the recommendations on the University’s salary budget?
The recommendations contained in the consultant report are anticipated to be “salary neutral” overall, in that they believe the University is already allocating an appropriate level of funding toward salary increases. The impact upon individuals or units may vary depending upon how specific job classifications or groups of job classifications relate to their relevant market value, to be determined through the course of the implementation process. Future salary increases will continue to be balanced by both the need to maintain market comparability and the University’s ability to pay.
If adopted, how would the recommendations impact individual salary adjustments?
Individual salary increase would continue to be impacted by job performance, but would also be impacted by the relationship of current salary to the relevant market value of the job classification. Individual salaries would not be decreased, but future increases would be impacted by whether the position is currently above of below the relevant market value, within the context of the funding available for salary increases.
How would the recommendations address the progression of individuals within their salary range?
Individuals would be expected to progress to a relevant market value for fully competent performance, with any additional salary based upon job performance.
If the recommendations are accepted, how would the “market value” of any particular job be determined?
As part of the implementation of the new model, market value data would need to be obtained for comparable benchmark jobs in the relevant market, e.g. peer institutions in higher education, healthcare, etc., to determine the benchmark market value of University positions.
If the recommendations are accepted, how would “market value” be determined if the job does not match with any comparable jobs?
If comparable jobs do not exist within a peer group, the market value may need to be extrapolated from comparison to other similar positions within the University, for which market data is available.
Do we know at this point who might be the “winners” and “losers” in following the report recommendations?
It is too early to know how individual salaries may relate to their relevant market salary rates. The intent of the recommendations is not to take away from individual staff, but to focus future resources on those salary rates that are not reasonably competitive with salaries for similar jobs in the market.
How do the recommendations address the overlap with Merit System positions?
Following the model described in the report, the Merit system would be viewed as one of the relevant markets in setting the salary rates for comparable positions within the professional and scientific system, along with other relevant market comparisons.
How would the report recommendations impact the Merit System Supervisory and Exempt staff members?
The report and its recommendations do not impact the Merit System staff, whose compensation is based upon a Regent wide compensation structure. The report only cites the Merit System as one factor that impacts the Professional and Scientific compensation system.
If the recommendations are accepted, how would past performance impact current market value comparisons?
Past and future performance would continue to influence individual salary increases.
What would be the impact of the recommendation to move away from the use of “generic” classifications?
The use of more job specific classifications would allow us to better match jobs for purposes of determining their market value. The report also suggests that this model would better support recruitment and the career development of incumbents.
Does the University have any current examples of more job specific classifications grouped into levels?
Yes. Several years ago Information Technology classifications were restructured into five job families, with three to five levels of position within each job family. This is one illustration of how the consultant recommendations could be implemented.
How do the report recommendations address the differences in Professional and Scientific salaries related to differences in funding sources?
The report recommendations propose a uniform philosophy for using market salary rates as the target for compensation rates, regardless of funding sources. The ability of individual units to meet this target will still be influenced to some degree by their ability to pay.