Agenda

HR Payroll Consolidation (Ellen Usilton)

• Thank you for your feedback at the previous meeting. Due to a number of factors, we were unable to shift the implementation date from April.
• Timeline:

• The good news is that the transition week will be based on Oracle entries, and we will not have to reconcile after the pay period. We will be paying for actual hours worked.
• The only things that are coming out of the transitional check will be taxes, retirement (core/voluntary), and Panther plan premiums (since our other medical premiums and voluntary deductions are based on a 26 times/year cycle).
• Discussion:
  • It would be helpful to have clear and targeted communication for students. There has been some misinformation circulating.
  • There will be an SAT Meet-up for all faculty and staff (formal communication forthcoming) on Tuesday, March 28, 12:00-12:50pm PT with the option to join in-person or via Zoom.

Staff Compensation System (Jeff Dayton-Johnson)

• This presentation is specifically regarding the new staff compensation system, and we acknowledge that the faculty compensation system is an urgent, important, and upcoming body of work. 
• This is intended to be a waterfall type of information sharing. Each member of the SLG is sharing this information with their direct reports, and it is intended that each of you will share this information with your teams as well. We think it is important for managers to take ownership of this messaging and collect questions.
• You may also receive this presentation from your managers and directors in Vermont if you are part of an anchor function. This is a complicated new system, and going over this more than once, and having more opportunities to ask questions, is important at an early stage. Those of you in Leadership Alliance have heard versions of this as well. 
• Timeline:
  • Gather
    • February-March
    • SLG led, waterfall conversations to reach all staff and gather input from every level of supervisor
    • Focused on framing approach/expectations to build shared understanding
  • Review
    • Mid-April
    • All data available with market increases already applied
    • Apply movement in skill matrix for those that have reached significant career progression
  • Check
    • April-May
    • Ensue accuracy and consistency within and across divisions and each decision is explainable
    • Expect to have approx 10% of staff shift career progression on skill matrix
  • Share
    • June
    • Final decisions complete
    • Direct conversations with all staff using waterfall approach
• Overview:
  • Role:
    • Role mapped to market and min/max range established
    • Agnostic to individual
  • Individual
    • Skill matrix based on ownership and impact drives whether individual falls into range
  • Discretion
    • Final layer of discretion based on VP/Manager functional expertise
    • Guardrails in place
• Skill Matrix Philosophy
  • The skill matrix is a tool to place individuals into the range based on career progressions – and, specifically, their level and ownership and impact
  • Elevates a culture of high performance and ability to focus compensation conversations on skills and competencies – questions on how to increase pay can tie back to results and are transparent
  • Calibration across the institution on skill matrix – goal is to move people to “thriving” and have that be at midpoint of grade range
  • Each year, the market is reviewed, and ranges may be adjusted -and skill matrix will consistently be tied to percentage into range. This will result in market increases for all staff in the ranges each time there is a market adjustment.
• Skill Matrix: Ownership & Impact
  • Progresses from Learning in the role (minimum) > Growing in the role (25%) > Thriving in the role (50%) > Leading in the role (75%) 
  • These percentages refer to the position in the range (rate of pay within the range)
  • Leading is currently at the 60th percentile, and we are continuing to gather resources to make ground towards the 75% target.
• Ask the following question of yourself and your leaders/supervisors:
  • Who on your team has achieved significant career progression in the past year in terms of ownership and impact?
  • This is the list of people who will shift up a level in the skill matrix. All others will remain in the same place (but remember they will still be eligible for a raise through Step 1: ROLE (based on market) and Step 3: DISCRETION).
• Skill Matrix Progression:
  • Our expectations is that roughly 10% of staff will shift in career progression and therefore skill matrix placement each year.
  • This will be tracked/monitored when SLG members/designees completed skill matrix placement in Axiom leading up to final decisions – and this will be reviewed institutionally by SLG and HR.
  • No department or area will be able to be a significant outlier
  • This is not intended to calibrate or hold people back in a pre-defined way, but rather is a realistic and necessary target to name and check ourselves to ensure consistency within and across divisions and not over inflate movement in a way that risks the overall approach.
• The skill matrix is a longer term and more steady progression, especially compared to the annual performance review

• FAQs (full list covered in slide deck)
  • How do we recognize people in terms of their contribution, especially unusual contributions during the year, if we are not allowed to give a pay increase?
    • There are monetary and non-monetary forms of rewards and recognition, and there are a lot of ways we can reward and celebrate the contributions of our team. For example, this now includes taking your team to breakfast at 831 Catering.
• Summary
  • There are various options for increases to compensation in FY24, depending on specific situation of the market, skill matrix placement and discretion
  • Zooming out of the example:
    • Each year, we plan to update the overall ranges based on the market and anticipate shifting at an overall, aggregate level—which will mean that if the labor market increase 5% in a given year, the ranges would shift up 5%
    • This will cascade to all and be applied to the adjusted rate at the ROLE step
    • Then, on top of this, individuals will be eligible for adjustment in skill matrix placement and/or discretion up to the maximum of the range
    • Promotions or new roles will result in moving through the process from the start
• Pathways to increase individual compensation
  • Stay in role
    • Continue to deliver as outlined
    • No significant movement in ownership or impact
    • → No change to placement, market adjustment if applicable
  • Build skills in role
    • Within role, increase level of ownership and impact
    • → Move within skills matrix, move up in range
  • Expand scope/role
    • Scope and/or role has changed from existing role
    • Promotion to new role requires budget approve
    • → New role requires new benchmark and skill matrix assessment
  • Move to new role
    • Move within department or across institution to a new role
    • → New role requires new benchmark and skill matrix assessment
• Discussion:
  • Does the ongoing market analysis include a look at the 15% differential between Vermont and California?
    • Yes we will validate the differential as well
  • There are multiple sources of market information, but a single market definition. We participate in a college & university survey and broad national survey, and specifically gather data that matches the criteria for our organization.
  • It would be helpful to create more opportunities for people to become more literate/fluent in this work. There is a lot of information here and it takes multiple touchpoints to build understanding.
  • Are managers able to partner with their HRBP on this waterfall communication?
    • Yes, HRBPs can be available to partner on this communication.

Agenda

Introduction to Fair Process (Melissa Sorenson)

• Intro from Jeff Dayton-Johnson:
  • The Board meeting in Monterey was important for a number of reasons. One of those was the opportunity for the board to meet with the Staff Council/Staff Advisory Team, Faculty Senate, and Student Council.
  • A key takeaway from these conversations is that we need to do a better job of communication. Specifically, more effective, efficient, and thoughtful use of our existing pathways – which include meetings like this, the bi-weekly VPAA emails, and clarity about how people can be involved in the important decisions we have before us.
  • We know it is important to have a framework with a shared set of expectations for how we can be involved, and are going to formally roll out a framework called Fair Process.
  • Today’s meeting is an opportunity to learn more about the fair process framework and how it is being applied to an upcoming decision about HyFlex learning.
• Melissa Sorenson
  • Restorative Practices (RP) is a social science that studies how to improve and repair relationships between people and communities – with the goal of building healthy communities, and providing pathways to repair harm and restore relationships when needed.
  • Framework: Centers relationships and trust building by creating opportunities for engagement and participatory decision-making.
  • Continuum: Informal everyday practices to more formal highly-structured tools, Proactive practices to support relationship and community building to responsive practices that can be engaged to repair harm and restore relationships
  • These practices can be incredibly meaningful as we strive to create inclusive environments where diverse viewpoints can be shared.
  • The Middlebury Restorative Practices (RP) Initiative began in 2017, and is shaped by four key practices:
    • How we build and maintain community: Circles
    • How we connect: Affective statements & questions
    • How we make decisions: Fair process
    • How we lead: Social discipline window
  • Today we are going to focus on fair process, which involves three key steps.
  • Step 1: Engagement
    • Engagement: Involving individuals in decisions that affect them by listening to their views, allowing them to hear and respond to the views of others, and genuinely taking their opinions into account
    • Ensure clarity on:
      • Decision being made
      • Process being used (timeline, engagement opportunities, etc.)
      • Person/people responsible for making the final decision
        • Note: Fair Process is not decision by consensus
  • Step 2: Explanation
    • Explanation: Explaining the reasoning behind a decision to everyone who has been involved or who is affected by it
    • Ensure clarity on:
      • What was heard in the engagement process
      • What decision was made
      • What rationale informed the decision
  • Step 3: Expectation Clarity
    • Explanation: Making sure that everyone clearly understands a decision and what is expected of them in the future
    • Ensure clarity on:
      • What decision was made
      • Who is impacted
      • What this decision means for everyone going forward
  • Discussion/Reflection Prompts
    • What questions do you have about fair process?
    • When might fair process not be an appropriate pathway for decision-making? (emergency situation, situation where decision has already been made)
    • What is a decision that might impact you where you would like to see fair process used?
    • What is a decision that you need to make that will impact others where you might be able to use fair process? (If you would like a partner to map out the process, please feel free to reach out!)
• Discussion
  • An important element of a fair process is that people at the table know what is being discussed and know they are taking part in the fair process framework.
  • The Communications department can also serve as a partner here since communication plays such a key role in fair process.
  • We need to slow down and ensure that we have more time for fair process input on important decisions. Part of this is building discipline around the timeline and making fair process a priority.
  • The engagement portion is essential for people to be clear where we are. There are three types of conversations:
    • FYI: Information sharingInput: Opportunity for consultation and feedbackDecision-making: Making a final determination
    • We need to set clear expectations and follow-up on the promise.

HyFlex Consultation (Patricia Szasz)

• We currently have four recognized modes of instruction on our course schedule. The decision we need to make is whether Hyflex will be formally added as a fifth mode of instruction we support and identify on the course schedule, and if so at what level of discretion (program level, instructor level, etc.)
• Middlebury defines Hyflex instruction as follows: A course that offers live class sessions that can be attended in-person on campus, online via Zoom, or re-watched asynchronously afterward. Students can choose their preferred mode of attendance week-to-week and class-to-class. Some coursework and interactions may be offered online-only, so that students are interacting both in live and asynchronous ways.
• Timeline: We plan to invite input from now through March 17. Stakeholder meetings will include the Council of Program Chairs and Student Council. A survey will be shared with all faculty and the ILG can also have access for input.
• There could be some very good reasons to offer HyFlex, and also good reasons not to do it. This makes it a good opportunity for us to go through a deliberate practice of fair process.
• Decision-maker: JDJ is the decision-maker, Patricia is facilitating the process
• Discussion:
  • Are there other modes that are being considered? No, we have four modes, and this could be a fifth possible mode. The others would remain.
  • It feels like there could be another mode between blended synchronous and Hyflex, where the course is available on Zoom/in-person and students can flexibly decide, but it is not available asynchronously afterwards.

Agenda

• New Microcredential Launch, Jeff Dayton-Johnson
• HR Payroll Schedule Update, Ellen Usilton
• Cybersecurity Programs, Jeff Dayton-Johnson
• Curricular Change Process: TESOL/TFL Proposal & Process Updates, Patricia Szasz

New Microcredential Launch (Jeff Dayton-Johnson)

• Yesterday we launched our first Canvas Catalog course. This is a small program by design, but a significant achievement. The first course is Subtitling for Streaming: Learn the Industry Standards, and is designed to be competency-based with an assessment at the end. When learners complete the course and pass the assessment they receive a digital badge. 
• The course is free for those with a Middlebury.edu email, and you can view it here: https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/degree-programs/online-translation-localization-management/program-details/subtitling-for-streaming 

HR Payroll Schedule Update (Ellen Usilton)

• Payroll consolidation
  • HR is working on an initiative to move all Middlebury payrolls to the same bi-weekly cycle and is working on building an engagement and communications plan for this potential transition.
  • This initiative is still in the proposal stage and there will be a final decision about moving forward in the coming days. 
  • Operational Goals
    • Transition CA employees to the VT payroll schedule
    • Reduce payroll processes and integrations from being run 52 time per year to 26 times per year
    • Achieve improved efficiency and reduced complexity
      • Finance (feeds to general ledger, costing audits, etc.)
      • Payroll (payroll runs, check printing & distribution, ACH feeds, tax filings)
      • Benefits (all leaves, life events & enrollments coordinated in a single cycle)
      • HR (time entry and absence support)
      • IT (outbound integrations to vendors – retirement & benefits vendors and banks, reduced by 50%)
  • People Priorities
    • Achieve more business process alignment between VT and CA, and ease time & absence management for anchor function leaders with staff on both campuses.
    • Early and frequent engagement with CA employees to ensure they are well-informed and prepared for the transition.
    • Mitigate any impacts for CA employees by providing a transition plan and offering special personalized support as needed
    • Partner with MIIS on communication and engagement (please recommend partners to HR)
  • Preliminary Timeline
    • Technical timeline would target April implementation
    • Communications timeline will be developed collaboratively
  • Next Steps
    • Technical project and testing will be managed by implementation project team
    • Identify MIIS partners
    • Develop and implement employee communication and transition plan
• Additional Considerations Raised by ILG
  • Concerns about timing during semester, strong preference for summer when there are fewer student and adjunct employees to transition. Note: There are many factors that play a role in timing, and it may not be possible to shift from April.
  • Recommendation to have an FAQ sheet, especially for how student employees might be impacted – including timecard timecard submission, direct deposit timeline beyond the transition week, pay stub posting. A fact sheet for taking local California requirements (examples of MediCAL and CalFresh) into consideration would be helpful.
  • Potential Partners: Staff Advisory Team, Communications, Academic Advisors

Cybersecurity Programs (Jeff Dayton-Johnson)

• There has recently been a lot of activity and discussion around cybersecurity at MIIS.
• We currently have a Cyber Collaborative, led by Philipp Bleek, that works to support courses and opportunities in the cybersecurity area. We have a rich array of offerings that are cyber-adjacent, but a core cyber curriculum could bring these and other offerings into a distinct and remarkable set of cyber programs.
• We have had the ambition to offer something more substantial in cybersecurity for at least ten years, and in order to grow our offerings we know we need a faculty anchor who can teach broadly in this area and help us think about new offerings in the cybersecurity realm.
• New online program recommendations have included the recommendation for an online Cybersecurity MA. This is a large and growing field that represents a reasonable stretch from our existing academic strengths. 
• There is also potential interest in a leadership-focused on-ground cybersecurity MA program designed to help leaders in public policy and the private sector to guide their teams in the cyber realm of the future.
• At this point we are still building and refining these ideas. The next step would be to make faculty hire and start to expand our offerings. If we can move smoothly through a successful recruitment process we may have a cyber professor on campus as early as this Fall 2023.

Curricular Change Process: TESOL/TFL Proposal & Process Updates (Patricia Szasz)

• Reference: TESOL and TFL Specialization for All Students Proposal
• We have had our curricular change process in place for several years, and have identified several opportunities to improve the process. These include greater clarity on roles, improved efficiency and speed of the review and approval stages, and a more robust post-approval implementation and communication process.
• Melissa Sorenson and I are tackling the issue of helping small changes move through the process in a more streamlined way, and finding ways to ensure that larger changes will have a more significant phase of stakeholder engagement prior to approval. 
• We are working with ITS on a new process that will use Microsoft Teams to automate the workflow so that the process will move more quickly.
• Our process updates have also included a more robust post-approval process to better communicate decisions and clarify roles in supporting implementation. Currently this takes the shape of an email communication post-approval.
• A proposal that is currently moving through the process is the TESOL/TFL Specialization for All Students (linked above). This comes on the heels of a similar proposal from IEM to make the specializations available to all students.
• Patricia has emailed stakeholders directly for feedback, and the feedback window closes on February 24. Please reach out if you have any questions or concerns.
• Next up through the process will be the Microcredential pilot of TLM and Financial Crimes.
• The Dean of Academic Innovation is the primary point of contact for curricular change.
• Discussion:
  • There is a desire for greater clarity on the processes for admissions decisions and modality decisions in addition to program content decisions. This also includes processes for the creation of new programs and the canceling or suspension of existing programs.
  • We need to ensure broad communication about program changes so that all departments can adapt as needed.
  • It would be helpful to have more clarity about the parameters for APSIC review, and potentially a rubric that aligns with the purview of the group.

Institute Leadership Group 1.19.23

Agenda

• Institute Council SP23 OKRs

Notes

• During the first ILG meeting of the semester, the group had a chance to review and provide feedback on the Institute Council Spring 2023 Objectives & Key Results (OKRs). The OKRs have now been finalized and published on this site: Institute Council Spring 2023 (Q3/4) OKRs

Institute Leadership Group 2.2.23

Agenda

• New Middlebury Homepage – David Gibson
• Board Meeting Report-out – Jeff Dayton-Johnson

Notes

New Middlebury Homepage (David Gibson)

• David Gibson shared a draft wireframe of the new Middlebury front page with the ILG. The Middlebury website redesign has been in progress over the last several years. This has involved revising thousands of pages, and the front page is the last step in this work.
• A primary goal of this redesign is to better represent ourselves as a connected Middlebury, and fully incorporate all parts of the Middlebury network.
• The new web design has a series of billboards with a headline, text, and a call to action to apply. For example: World Ready, Coles & Connected, Accessible & Inclusive
• The website will also have billboards for the Undergraduate College, Graduate & Professional Studies, and Four Fluencies (Solving the Climate Crisis, Analyzing Data, Transforming Conflict, Understanding Cultural Differences)
• The billboards each have three pop-up stories that speak to the opportunities available in each area.
• We are working to shift the way we speak about a global Middlebury, and there are increasing examples of cooperation and collaboration across the institution.
• The ILG had the opportunity to provide feedback, and we will continue to fine-tune the language and optimize the experience and search capability as students navigate across the organization.
• There is appreciation for the steps forward in elevating the Institute’s representation, building a unified constellation, and highlighting the opportunities at MIIS.

Board Meeting Report-out (Jeff Dayton-Johnson)

• Thank you to everyone who supported the board meetings, we had an incredibly successful visit. Key themes are highlighted below.
• Educational Dynamism: Laurie started our IBA meetings by saying that where we are now with the Business Plan at MIIS is investing in educational dynamism. That’s what the Institute and our business plan is all about, how we can maintain and accelerate the dynamism that is part of our culture.
  • Premium Brand: By focusing on our three verticals, Global Security, Climate Change, Intercultural Communication – these are areas where we are the premium brand.
  • Innovation in Delivery: We are focused on innovation and product design, and new ways of packaging and delivering what we do to reach larger audiences.
  • Scale: Our investment in online programs is aimed at achieving a scale for financial sustainability.
• Showcasing Student/Faculty Work: We had fantastic presentations from faculty: CoLab, TLM classroom examples, CTEC, CNS. There is so much pride in what we are doing and the work of our colleagues.
• Highlighting upcoming projects: Online sustainability MPA, microcredentials in TLM and Financial Crimes, innovation in TI programs, online partnership. There are so many ways we are moving forward.
• Campaign: There were a series of presentations by Dan Courcey about the Middlebury campaign. He discussed how the campaign is going to MIIS, and the presentation was so well received and encouraging. We are going to organize a town hall for faculty and staff for Dan to reprise that conversation this month.
• Overall there were incredible levels of positivity felt from the board, and many involved commented on the excitement and energy expressed during the meetings.

Agenda

• Institute Council FA22 OKR Grading (Jeff Dayton-Johnson)

Introduction

• This is the third semester we have implemented a regular cycle of presenting the Institute Council OKRs at the beginning of the semester, and following up with grading at the end of the semester.
• These OKRs represent collective Council work and do not represent the full priorities of individual members.
• Some of these OKRs will carry over into the spring semester.

OKR Scoring Key

• 0.7 to 1.0 = Green (Completed or near completion)
• 0.4 to 0.6 = Yellow (Progress short of completion)
• 0.0 to 0.3 = Red (Minor progress)

Objective 1: Finalize ‘Institute of the Future’ focus areas (Global Security, Climate Change, Intercultural communication), including the associated degree and non-degree programs that we will offer in 2025

• Overall Score: 0.4
• Key Results:
  • KR1 (Score 0.6): Define and launch a process to solicit input from campus stakeholders in October 2022
    • Progress: Focus group conversations with Eduvantis; VPAA met with each program
  • KR2 (Score 0.3): Incorporate input from Eduvantis & other market sources with findings on programmatic opportunities and market positioning that will be presented to the ILG in November 2022
    • Progress: Initial input from Eduvantis, but final report has not yet been received
  • KR3 (Score 0.4): Draft revised focus area and program portfolio plan (market intel summary, consultant recommendations, strategic directions) for board consideration at January 2023 meeting
    • Progress: Partial report to be shared with Board, focused on timeline, metrics, milestones

Objective 2: Define immediate next steps for expanding online programs at scale

• Overall Score: 0.5
• Key Results:
  • KR1 (Score 0.9): Decide which program goes online next and appoint program development leader in October 2022
    • Progress: TLM Microcredential proposal is moving through curricular change process
  • KR2 (Score 0.4): Decide which two programs are on deck to go online for 2023 development and begin planning by January 2023
    • Progress: One program moving through initial consultation, second program not yet identified
  • KR3 (Score 0.2): Set up ‘Online Steering Committee’ with charge and timeline in October 2022
    • Progress: New program proposal review and approval process will be finalized in Spring 2023

Objective 3: Design New TI Curriculum for FA24 Implementation

• Overall Score: 0.7
• Key Results:
  • KR1 (Score 1.0): Launch ‘TI Transformation Task Force’ with Council & TI faculty in September 2022
    • Progress: Task Force created in October 2022, including market intelligence and curriculum subcommittees
  • KR2 (Score 1.0): Develop project plan and timeline with clear division of labor between Council & Faculty by October 2022
    • Progress: Complete
  • KR3 (Score 0.7): Deliver final task force authored plan to Provost in December 2023 (incl needs assessment summary & curricular design outline)
    • Progress: Deliverable deadline shifted to January 2023
  • KR4 (Score 0.2): Invite input on draft working group plan from ITS, DLINQ, HR, other anchor functions in October 2022
    • Progress: Will invite input after plan is more fully formulated

Objective 4: Hire 3-5 faculty by Spring 2023 (for Fall 2023 start)

• Overall Score: 0.9
• Key Results:
  • KR1 (Score 1.0): Determine which positions will be filled/created in September 2022
    • Progress: Received approval for MPA & IEM (conversion of visiting to regular positions) and NPTS faculty positions
  • KR2 (Score 1.0): Finalize position descriptions with program chairs & other stakeholders and post job announcements in September 2022
    • Progress: Complete
  • KR3 (Score 0.9): Launch search committees, charges, search calendars, and DEI training plan in September 2022
    • Progress: Established calendars on time, but launch was delayed to late October by budgetary approvals etc. Performed 3 DEI trainings with NPTS search committee (1 ea in Oct/Nov/Dec), shared trainings with the other 2 committees
  • KR4 (Score 0.7): Finalize budgets and advertising plan with HR, Ways and Means Committee, and others in September 2022
    • Progress: Received final approval to post late October, some advertising with professional associations didn’t go through until mid November