Common Ground Corner
New pay grades offer consistent Guidelines
With the implementation of a new, structured classification and compensation system for staff members in May, it is reasonable that individuals have focused on their own situations, say the heads of Human Resource Services and the Office of Common Ground.
They hope that now that the system has been in place for a few months, employees will begin to look at its broader implications and many benefits.
Carl Sorensen, associate vice president for human resource services, and Glyn Hughes, director of common ground, say that the new system alleviates a situation in which underrepresented groups often were hurt the most due to salary disparity.
“We have a system now that offers an objective and consistent way to deal with pay decisions,” says Sorensen.
He said that after all staff positions were assigned a pay grade, “adjustments were made based on the position description, performance and service as compared to similarly graded positions. As a result, a higher percentage of women than men received adjustments, and a slightly higher percentage of minorities received adjustments.”
The table below shows the distribution of equity adjustments according to gender and race:
| Total | Total Eligible | Total Receiving Increase | Percent of Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 590 | 146 | 24.7% |
| Male | 412 | 72 | 17.5% |
| Total | 1002 | 218 | 21.8% |
White | 701 | 149 | 21.3% |
| Minority | 301 | 69 | 22.9% |
| Total | 1002 | 218 | 21.8% |
The numbers are not final since staff can make appeals to their classification through September. Of the appeals received by HR so far, Sorensen says some have been adjusted up. He said that in assigning pay grades and making adjustments, an accurate job description is critical.
Implementing the new structure “is a massive change project. It is expected that it will feel difficult to some people,” says Hughes. Going from no structure to putting everything into a structure “was painful and hard for some.”
Still, what the system provides going forward is “consistent guidelines for starting salaries based on the requirements of the job and performance expectations,” says Sorensen. Hiring managers still have some flexibility in the initial hiring rate based on whether a job is entry level or requires some experience. “The guidelines are now determined by the system, not the department head,” he says.
“The reason for creating a system was to eliminate discriminatory patterns that can exist when there is no system,” says Hughes. “The tradeoff is that decisions become less personal.”
Human Resource Services built in some course adjustments to the process, knowing that implementation would not be flawless. In addition to allowing ample time for appeals, HR made sure staff could ask questions anonymously on the Web site and then refer to a FAQ page for more information. “We also published the salary grade table and the grades of all positions, against Mercer’s recommendations,” said Sorensen. (Mercer is the consulting company that recommended the classification system.)
Human Resource Services and Common Ground see their relationship in the process as collaborative, the two department heads say. “Common Ground does not oversee or monitor HR. Changes have been inspired by Common Ground, but we have in place an HR office whose values are in alignment with Common Ground,” says Hughes.
Sorensen calls the system “a work in progress.” Going forward, HR will provide training in such areas as writing a job description and hiring practices.
For more information on the new salary structure project, visit hr.richmond.edu/projects.htm.