Tag Archives: Staffing

Revising the Staff Salary Increase Program: Background

This is the first of three posts aimed at explaining the new salary increase program that the College will put in place during the next two years. Although we are holding open meetings this week to explain the new procedures, I thought it would be useful to put the relevant information online, so people can review the plan and ask questions (you can use the comments section to do that).

There is a lot of information to share about this plan, and the logistics involved are complicated. Therefore, I have divided this overview into three parts. My first post addresses the history behind the plan; the second will describe the plan; and the third will lay out the timeline for implementing the plan.

Again, if you have questions or just want to weigh in, you may use the comments section. Or, if you prefer, you may email questions to me at vpadmin@middlebury.edu.

*****

In the spring of 2010 President Liebowitz asked the Staffing Resources Committee to review the College’s staff compensation program to ensure that we optimize the funds allocated to this very significant budget item. (A similar project is focused on faculty wages). The SRC began the project by reviewing the 2008 findings of the last Wage and Salary Committee and met with Human Resources to understand how the compensation program has been working since its inception. The committee then recommended to the President that the W&S Committee be re-commissioned to advise the SRC on the new project.

The SRC concluded that while the staff compensation program is working well, there are several areas that could be improved. These areas, which the W&S Committee flagged for future consideration in its 2008 review, include 1) the challenge of rewarding strong performance through compensation (merit pay); 2) the fact that a considerable number of staff salaries are below the midpoints of their salary ranges, while others exceed the maximum pay level established for their grades; and 3) the lack of career ladders for staff members interested in professional advancement.

Given the President’s charge, the SRC chose to focus on items 1 and 2. Although the committee agreed that the career ladder issue warrants further consideration, it felt that the challenges surrounding the College’s annual salary increase process—namely, merit pay and salary distribution (salaries below the midpoint and at the maximum)—demand immediate attention. After consulting with the reconstituted W&S Committee, the SRC developed several possible strategies for addressing these challenges. Following considerable debate and discussion, the two groups settled on the approach outlined below. It should be noted that this approach is not meant to overhaul the current staff compensation system. Rather, it is an attempt to fine-tune one aspect of the program: the annual increase process.

For years, the College has been committed to a compensation structure that moves employees toward a salary that compares favorably with market rates–namely, the top 20% of the market. This goal dates back to the establishment of the old benchmark system, which was aimed at bringing staff to the 80th percentile of the given market for their job. At the same time, the College has instituted an evaluation process that is designed to reward superior performance with enhanced compensation. In surveys taken in 2007-2008, staff members expressed a strong preference for merit-based pay.

Like most salary programs, ours is based on a careful delineation of job responsibilities and market rates. Several years ago, the College instituted a system that placed each staff position in a particular band and level, establishing a mid-range and maximum salaries for all positions that are tied to comparable jobs in the market. Not surprisingly, given the years of experience represented on our staff, some colleagues earn salaries that exceed the maximum level established for their band and level. And because our method for determining annual salaries is tied to percentage increases, staff members at the top of their salary ranges draw a disproportionate number of dollars from the pool set aside each year for raises.

The SRC believes this arrangement is unsustainable and that in order to reward the good work of staff members who are further down in the general salary range, we need to rethink our approach to salary increases.

The situation we face is a sensitive one. While we want to recognize the superior performance of all employees, including those at the top of the salary range, we also need to support the compensation needs of staff members at the beginning and middle of their careers.  The solution we pursue will require a delicate balance of priorities and a clear understanding of the trade-offs involved.

Read more about the staff salary increase program.

The Juice Bar Lives! (Or Will Soon)

Good things come to those who wait . . . . That’s the underlying message of our Juice Bar competition, and I am sure the people looking to buy food and drink in the space once known as the Juice Bar hope this mantra applies to them as well.

So here is the update: as I reported on December 10, our selection committee reviewed nine strong applications, and then interviewed three of the finalists.   We have now settled on our winners, and are very excited about the vision and menus they will bring to the erstwhile Juice Bar (whether it gets a new name remains to be seen).   What’s interesting about their proposal is that it prominently features food options that the Grille does not currently offer (some might call these options healthy alternatives).  In fact, almost all of the proposals stressed the need for healthy/nutritious/local food options on campus.  Which isn’t to say that the Grille doesn’t offer healthy alternatives–only that we could easily expand the possibilities in this area.

So what does this new vision of the Juice Bar look like, and who won the competition?!   You will have to wait until tomorrow (that is, Thursday the 20th) for the answer because I promised the CAMPUS that they could break the news.

Update: you can read the CAMPUS article here, which nicely covers all the salient points.

Also, on behalf of our selection commitee, I want to thank all the students who sent us such creative Juice Bar proposals.  Kudos to the students who will be launching their venture this spring:  David Dolifka, Kate Strangfeld, Ben Blackshear, Jessi Stevens, and Sarah King.

Juice Bar Competition Update

A selection committee convened last week to review the nine proposals we received for a student-managed food and drink service in the Juice Bar. As we have mentioned before, proposals were evaluated on the following criteria: feasibility, economic viability, vision, and simplicity. We also took into consideration the numerous comments readers left on the last update post, so thank you to all who contributed.

After much deliberation, we have narrowed the field to three proposals. We have notified the students and we will be conducting interviews in the first week of January. We hope to make a final decision shortly thereafter. If we are unable to reach a decision after the interviews, we will reconsider the other applications.

In the meanwhile, please feel free to continue chiming in on what you’d like to see at the Juice Bar.

On Staffing, Mission, and the Challenges of Reorganization

To illuminate one aspect of the staffing changes the College has experienced during the last two years, we asked Jeff Cason, Dean of International Programs and a faculty member in the Political Science department, to describe the benefits and challenges of reorganization.

*****

As everyone knows, we have been going through a great deal of change on campus lately as we have dealt with a reduction in staff, changing expectations about what staff should do, and reassessing what we all do, in many ways.

I have found it particularly interesting—as well as challenging and rewarding—to work with staff in the “international” area as we have dealt with the need to readjust our expectations over the last year and a half, and as we have consolidated operations in the area. In this international area, we’ve seen a staff reduction that mirrors the overall staff reduction at Middlebury, which is about 15%. This has not been easy—how could it be?

In the consolidation, we have brought together staff in the International Programs and Off-Campus Study office, the International Students and Scholar Services office, and the Rohatyn Center for International Affairs. Bringing these three areas together makes a great deal of sense, given their affinities and related and cross-cutting purposes.

The consolidation has brought both challenges and opportunities. Since we are an area of the college that has certain “non-discretionary” service requirements (we can’t stop providing services for international students who need visas to come to Middlebury, after all!), we have to figure out how to do things more efficiently, and figure out what we have done in the past that we no longer need to do.  And in some ways we are doing more.  For instance, over the last few years we have been increasing the number of students from other colleges and universities who attend Middlebury’s Schools.  This makes both financial and reputational sense for the College, so we know we will continue in this direction.

A key component of our reorganization effort has been to make sure that communication happens throughout our area and the entire organization.  We have done this by making sure that everyone is at the same table every two weeks, in a general staff meeting. While this might be seen by some as a new time commitment, by bringing colleagues together, we have been able to learn from one another and save time in other ways. At these meetings we have also increased cross-campus dialogue by inviting colleagues from other departments (most recently, the office of Student Financial Services) to meet with our full staff and discuss topics related to the entire group’s work. The individual units also continue to have their standard meetings to discuss nitty-gritty and routine work in their areas. This is still a work in progress, but we have made progress.

Very importantly, this consolidation has led to colleagues doing new things, which almost everyone has found beneficial. As one colleague put it to me in an email, responding to a query about what I might include in this post: “I think the thing most worth mentioning is how the consolidation has forced us to think differently about ‘our jobs.’ We have people who have traditionally always done certain tasks/projects, but as we consolidate, different people have been given the opportunity to dabble in areas of interest where they may not have had experience before.” Noting that there are different needs (and different crunch times) in the different offices, this staff member concluded: “The challenge is identifying these needs and availabilities and matching them with staff interests enough in advance to capitalize on the opportunities, but we’ll get better at that.”

I do think we’re getting better at that, as our staff knows more about what everyone in the broader area—and outside the area—does. It is not a simple process, of course. And it’s interesting, to say the least.

Closing the Loop

To shed some light on the ins and outs of internal communication, I asked the directors of two of the biggest operations on campus to explain how their departments manage the communication process.  This is what they had to say.

From Norm Cushman, Director of Facilities Services

At Facilities Services, the pursuit of exemplary customer service is a continual goal. With many details to keep track of in our business, there is always the chance that we will fail or disappoint a customer.  Over time, we’ve come to subscribe to the philosophy that if you take care of the little things, the big things will take care of themselves.  Consequently, we believe that taking care of the little things is what matters most.  And in order to take care of the little things, we try to “close the communication loop” in our interactions with others.  Simply stated, if I know something that you don’t know, the communication loop is open.  For email, a response of “thanks,” “I agree,” “let’s discuss,” or “understood” lets the other party know that you have read their message and that they have been acknowledged. Similarly, returning phone messages lets the caller know that you take their call seriously. Closing the loop requires little effort and even when the news does not satisfy the other party, it helps avoid the “they never get back to me,” black-hole of communication.  People almost always wish to know that their message has been received and understood, even if they don’t like the reply.  By the way, this philosophy applies to communications within Facilities Services as well communications with the rest of the campus.

From Mike Roy, Dean of Library and Information Services

People frequently contact LIS when something is wrong, something is broken, or they need something quickly in order to get their work done. And because many of our services require coordination among the various parts of LIS, we often need to communicate internally before we can respond with a complete answer and follow up on a request.  This communication loop can be a challenge to manage. We receive requests through multiple channels—email, web forms, phone calls, faxes, walk-ins, paper forms—and we respond in variety of ways.  We strive to blend the friendliness of a hotel concierge and the efficiency of FedEX.com, and avoid the soulless bureaucracy of governmental agencies.  Over the years, we’ve found that the use of queues (like sending email to helpdesk@middlebury.edu) and allowing patrons to track their requests via the web is the most robust way to manage requests, with the caveat that the best forum for handling a more complicated request is a face-to-face meeting, a phone call, or a series of email.  But the problem with email is that it is fragile. It is usually a one-on-one transaction, and if the thread gets lost, or the person on the other end happens to be on vacation, your request can be forgotten or delayed. More robust systems that allow requests to be routed, managed by multiple people, and allow the requester to check on the status of things are, in principle, far superior to email. That said, such systems are more cumbersome for all involved, and feel much less personal than the phone, face-to-face conversation, and even email.

The Staff Resources Committee (SRC)—Where We Are, Part 1

President Liebowitz had a lot to say about the work of the SRC in his fall address to the campus, and for good reason—the committee has played an important role in guiding the reductions in staff and reorganization efforts that have taken place during the past two years.

SRC business was also the focus of a recent Senior Managers meeting and a forum hosted by Staff Council, a recording of which is available on the Council’s website.

The bottom line coming out of these meetings is mostly good, though the numbers speak to dramatic institutional change.  After two years of attrition—encouraged by early retirement and voluntary separation programs—the College’s staff has shrunk by almost 15% since the summer of 2008. As of October 21, the College employed 856 FTEs (these are “full-time equivalents,” not actual people), down from 1021 in August of 2008. See the graph below for an historical perspective on the size of the staff.

These reductions were instrumental in resolving the budget deficits that the College forecast when the recession hit and our endowment plummeted and fundraising became more uncertain.  They also guided us down to an overall FTE count—in the neighborhood of 850—that the SRC believes is a reasonable threshold or limit going forward, based on the College’s financial resources.

With fewer staff resources, we have also worked to consolidate departments with overlapping responsibilities and reassign staff members from one area of the college to another. Not surprisingly, this initiative has generated anxiety, with colleagues wondering whether or how their areas will be affected, which is why clear communication is so important. That said, we are aiming to complete major consolidations of departments by January 1.

Despite the progress we’ve made, challenges remain.

In particular, Vice Presidents/Deans must continue to work with managers/supervisors to refocus departmental missions, prioritize work, and identify those functions that we will no longer support because of reduced resources, or do differently in light of fewer staff.  This effort—and the vertical and lateral communication it requires (a dept shouldn’t stop doing something without figuring out how that loss will affect other areas of the College)—has been a struggle. Staff colleagues continue to report that their workloads have not been adjusted downward, or that they are doing more with less. As we pull out of this recession, we must do a better job of aligning expectations with our available resources.

Feedback? This has been a broad-brush summary, and I would welcome any comments, questions, or recommendations. You may post anonymously if you like.