Job Evaluation Snakes and Ladders. Carys Thomas Loughborough University

Transcription

1 Job Evaluation Snakes and Ladders Carys Thomas Loughborough University

2 Job Evaluation and IT/IS Staff 2004 UCISA-Directors Survey Results UCISA Advisory Note 2005 Survey Results Common themes Snakes (pitfalls, problems) Ladders (opportunities, tips)

3 2004 Survey to UCISA-Directors list Aug responses What stage? 22% institutions finished 59% institutions scheme selected, implementing 17% not yet started Which scheme? 62% HERA 33% HAY

4 UCISA Advisory Note Ground rules Point out the potential inequity comparing an individual with advanced technical skills against a person with more traditional responsibilities managing people or budgets Highlight the need for evaluation against external market rates for the job as well as making internal comparisons Check that job evaluators have sufficient knowledge of IT roles to make meaningful judgements

5 UCISA Advisory Note Preparing for Job Evaluation Well-written job descriptions are essential Use meaningful job descriptions, linked if possible to NCC job categories Use NCC Salary Survey for comparisons with external market rates Managers should be well-prepared for the exercise Ensure staff being evaluated are well briefed about the nature of the exercise, especially the need to present themselves well to the job evaluator

6 2005 Survey to UCISA-Directors list June responses (22 responded both years) What stage? (going backwards??) 29% institutions finished 39% in progress 32% evaluations not started for department Which scheme? (no change) 68% HERA 32% HAY

7 Common Themes Pay Outcome in terms of pay are still unknown in many institutions. Certainly no overview emerging for IT/IS staff. Winners and losers within institutions reported. Significant red-ringed group of admin staff at one institution. But no major horror stories! Control expectations that everyone will get a pay rise

8 Common Themes - Time Workload - large amounts of staff time needed (managers, advisers, interviewers, evaluators, your own submission!) Long timescales (e.g. 2 years) Jobs change during the process Staff scepticism and fatigue Much time spent on the process rather than the day job. Don t underestimate the amount of time and effort involved

9 Common Themes - Involvement Get as many staff as possible involved to ensure you have the impact needed to recognise the roles we have. Try to have an IT person on the panel when evaluating IT jobs. (We) were heavily involved in assessment at a senior level so were able to ensure that our staff have been properly treated Get involved early on. Put in a lot of time to understand the process and influence the process and outcome. Don't wait to be asked. Be a pilot.

10 Common Themes Handling by HR department: project management skills statistical rigour communication disempowering managers Need to communicate the process effectively to staff

11 Common Themes The job -- v -- performance in the job Particularly complex has been the issue of staff "growing" and the role changing and reward. If the role does not change then it does not matter how good the staff, they simply cannot progress.

12 Snakes? or Ladders? Make sure that you and staff are in a union and properly represented. Be aware that there may be others within the institution who will relish the fact that market force adjustment of IT salaries is no longer justified and counsel staff to be realistic in their expectations. Be positive - it's the new set of rules so get to grips with them and exploit them!

13 Snakes - 1 Schemes do not sufficiently value technical expertise. Technical staff are mostly sidelined in this process and it feels difficult if not impossible to get any suitable allowances made for technical skill - responsibility yes, pure skills no. Depth of knowledge and experience needed higher weighting The powers that be do not understand the odd nature of IT and the fact that you can have a brilliant and essential person who does not score many points but who is vital to your organisation and needs to be retained on a reasonable salary. Read the rules and ensure you phrase the JD appropriately.

14 Snakes 2 Evaluation / scoring done by staff with no IT understanding We have ended up after much argument with common job specs with a technical sheet so that HR can ignore what they cannot understand. Schemes don t take market forces into account Expect a dip in staff morale, casualties to stress Don t do it at the same time as merger or staffing reorganisation Don t wait for it to sort out existing disputes, promotion cases etc (even if HR say it will)

15 Snakes - 3 Staff who are downgraded lose motivation but not money due to salary protection The technical family was very focused on technicians within Faculties rather than University-wide roles Beware pre-existing politics wrt central v faculty IT comparability of roles High graded staff don t realistically fit on the new scale Lose some flexibility for high performing staff

16 Snakes 4 Loss of existing IT career progression schemes Union disputes slowing the process down Inherently subjective - difficult to get consistency in scoring Perceived increase in bureaucracy particularly for promotions The process is going to be fraught in the IT area; less in others which I manage where staff are more flexible.

17 My favourite snake quote Absolutely enormous problems. This exercise has taken hundreds of hours of the senior management team (approx 1 FTE at least just from the management team). It has created (needlessly) expectations amongst staff which will be dashed. It has resulted in critical projects being postponed (eg Business Continuity, Benchmarking and many others). It has caused stress to many staff. It has been completely mis-handled by our HR dept because of a lack of communication - partly caused by mis-communications between management and Unions. What could have been an enormously progressive project has finally come to a "lets just end up with something very similar to the current status quo".

18 Ladders - 1 Equal pay for work of equal value across the institution transparency and fairness All staff job descriptions reviewed Staff have a better understanding of their own jobs Managers have a better understanding of their staff s jobs. An up to date job description (along with clear objectives) helps with performance management, particularly under performance Sorts out existing (long standing) anomalies Career progression policy Heads invited to normalise scores for dept

19 Ladders - 2 Possibility of market-related pay External reference points NCC Salary Survey, BCC, SFIA Don t start JD s from a clean sheet of paper steal examples from other Institutions! Security staff graded higher improved staff Overall a positive experience that has helped recruit and retain key staff Be prepared to challenge inconsistent outcomes

20 My Favourite Ladder Quotes Err - keep informed. Get into regular meetings with HR/HERA. We actually have the HERA team space in our offices and that means we know what's going on roughly first hand. On the whole I'm impressed with the Hay methodology as a way of comparing apples, oranges and pears.