Classification for the Future The Ups and Downs of Class Consolidation International Personnel Management Association Training Conference Ottawa, Canada.
Post on 17-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Classification for the Future
The Ups and Downs of Class Consolidation
International Personnel Management Association
Training ConferenceOttawa, Canada
October 19-23, 2002
Agenda
• Why class consolidation• Different ways to consolidate• Outcomes • Lessons learned• Discussion by Gwinnett County and
City of Dallas
Why Class Consolidation?
• The average number of employees to class titles is 3
• Most organizations have expanded the number of titles by an average of 10% per year
• Jobs and technology have changed• Most employees want their own job title• Individual job titles mean higher pay
Different Ways to Consolidate
• By occupational focus– Engineering– Finance– Human resources– Etc
• By department focus– Public Works– Fire– Budget office
• By salary grade
Four Levels of Work
• Entry
• Developmental
• Full Performance
• Master/Supervisory
• Basic skills, learns to do things “our way”
• Developing proficiency
• Fully competent to perform all aspects of job
• Recognized expert
Outcomes-Positives
• 50% reduction of classifications• More generic class descriptions• Easier management of personnel• Less administrative time spent on
class reviews• Fewer pay grades
Outcomes-Negative
• Employees don’t “see” their position in the class description
• Employees treated more generically• Potential higher payroll• Perceived pay compression of
employees who used to be in different pay ranges are now in the same
• Requires strong management
Organization Facts:• 3,859 authorized positions in 2002• Approx. 650 job classifications before study• Approx. 650,000 citizens served• Nonunion environment – “unofficial” unions
organized but not recognized by the BOC as bargaining unit
• Full service Human Resources Department:– Compensation– HRIS / Records– Employee Relations– Organizational Development– Employment
Prior System
• 10 Point FES (Factor Evaluation System)– Used same system since 1983
• 2001 Requests for Reclassification– 248 Requests / 85 position studies
completed– 74 upgraded, 1 downgraded, 10 stayed the
same
• Compensation System managed by a Division Director and 2 HR Generalists
Difficulties with Prior System:
• Bureaucratic system– Department Review– Merit Board Approval– BOC approval
• System manipulation to get upgrades• Too many individual classifications• Job description too detailed/job specific• Request for reclassifications submitted
for every little change in duty– Focus is on volume and length of job
description
Consolidation Process
• Fox Lawson & Associates contracted to consolidate where feasible
• PDQs (Position Description Questionnaires) completed by every employee
• Peer panels conducted for job families– Employees selected at random by FLA to represent
each classification– Some individual (unique job) interviews conducted
• Jobs requiring licenses/certifications in the same classification as others that did not have the same requirement were compensated through Pay for Performance System.
Timeline:
• Contract awarded in May 2001• PDQs submitted to FLA in August
2001• Peer Panel interviews Jan/Feb 2002• Draft consolidated job descriptions
June 2002• Merit Board & BOC final approval Dec
2002• To be implemented 1st Qtr 2003
Communication:
• Countyline Newsletter Articles monthly• All employee emails and memos• All employee meetings• Weekly update meetings with County Admin & COO• Dept Director / Elected Official Briefings• Supv/employee Education
– Broad banding– New DBM System– Generic Job Descriptions– New Performance Management System
• Dept POC (Point of Contact) Meetings• AskCCR@hotmail.com
• AskCCR Comment box
Results:
• Job classifications reduced from approx. 650 to 300
• Job family approach:– Classifications grouped by type of work
not department– Similar knowledge and skills– 3 to 4 levels in each job family
Reactions:
• Consolidation of 650 to 300 tough to digest• Many concerns from departments and employees
– Internal equity compared to “old FES system”
• Resistance to change became an issue– Detailed/custom job descriptions to generic– Work job titles
• Entitlement mentality vs. Pay for Performance• External market pay vs. COLAs (3% annually)
Reviews & Appeals
• HR/FLA vs. Department/Employees
• Formal appeals to FLA
• Requests for review – HR Director
Thoughts & Recommendations
• Communicate timeline and progress throughout process
• Top management commitment• Consultants with Government experience• Try to “manage expectations”• Ability of Consultant/Contractor to defend
policies/data/implementation• “True Commitment” to market pay
Before 2001
o In1994, switched from step system to pay for performance
o Ten pay schedules:o Seven civilian o Three uniformed o 950+ classifications
o HR functioned as pay & classification police
Driving Change
o Need for market competitivenesso Organizational changes
o Flatter structureo Span of control initiative
o Need for more pay plan flexibility and simplicity o Broadly titled jobs allow flexibility in job
assignments o Smaller staff in HR to monitor pay actions and
maintain numerous classificationso Departments wanted more autonomy in pay issues
Residual Issues
o Step mentality alive & wello Longevity & loyalty strongly valuedo Assumption: long tenure = good performance
o Pay grade = statuso Classification system used to “reward” employees
with upgrades
o Learning about pay for performance:o Supervisors hesitant to be honest with
employees about poor performance issueso Performance pay not successfully tied to
actual performance
First Step: Consolidate Pay Plans
o Consolidation of five civilian pay plans into one
o Implementation of $10/hour minimum wage
o Big change!o Ugly, but a start
o Inappropriate overlap between gradeso Compression
Next Step: Separate the Next Step: Separate the Grades from the TitlesGrades from the Titles
Title/Grade Title
Grade
Clerk 35
Clerk 36
Clerk 37
Human Resources Analyst 55
Clerk I
Clerk II
Clerk III
Senior HR Analyst
_________________
_________________
_________________
___
75
76
77
83
o Job titles separated from pay grades
o Roman numerals and/or senior designates levels
Next Step: Fix the Salary Structure
o Old Structure
o 25 levels
o Inconsistent percentages between minimum and maximum
o Inconsistent percentages between grades
New Structure
o 20 levelso Consistent range
spread of 65% o Consistent differential
between grades of 10%
o Use of alphabetic designation instead of numeric
75
72
71
Maximum
MidpointMinimum
74
4%21%27,78725,36522,94373
6%45%33,23928,09122,943
15%12%25,61824,28122,943
30%23,89721,12618,356
5%32%30,20926,57622,943
Grade
Annual AnnualAnnual% Min
to Max% Between Midpoints
Old Pay StructureOld Pay Structure
E
B
A
Maximum
MidpointMinimum
D
10%65% $37,770$30,331$22,891C
10%65%$45,702$36,700$27,698
10%65%$34,337$27,573$20,810
65%$27,471$22,060$16,649
10%65%$41,547$33,364$25,180
New Grade Annual AnnualAnnual
% Min to Max
% Between Midpoints
New Pay StructureNew Pay Structure
Problems:
o Over 950 classifications
o Many single-incumbent titles
o Descriptions narrow in scope
o Difficult to maintain
o Too much emphasis on internal equity
And Then-the Classifications
o
o Consolidate jobs to allow more flexibility
o Emphasize pay, not title or grade level
o Allows movement of employees within departments to meet work level needs
oShrinking budgets & staff
oLevel of service demand remains constant
Classification Solutions
o ManagersoSupervisorsoInspectorsoLaborer/maintenance titlesoCustomer service titlesoOffice/clericaloExecutives
o Classification reduction: 950 to 450
o Title Consolidations:
Changes to the Classification System
Change Methodology
o Considered:o Common elements with other jobs o Similarity of basic qualifications with other titleso Organizational structure around this jobo Appropriate pay grade for the jobo Median pay for this jobo Cost of the consolidation
Change Methodology con’t
o Worked closely with customer departments to meet organization’s needso HR team met with every department’s executive
teamo Discussed proposed consolidations o Made revisions as needed
o Buy-in from City Manager and executive teamo Ultimate decisions on some titles made by Ultimate
Compensation Manager (aka City Manager)
Impact & Issues
o Employees o Below minimum of new range received salary increaseo Above maximum of new range had no change to pay for
two years
o Costo Civil Service
o Created changes to minimum qualificationso Developed subsets of broad classifications Consider impact on Reduction in Force procedures
Collective bargaining agreements/unions
Lessons Learned
o Start earlyo Work with client departments and civil service
systemo Communicate, communicate, communicate
o Employeeso Management o Not the same message to all!
o Be prepared for grade level envyo Keep an eye on the cost
Ongoing Issues
o Municipalities very comfortable with old-style compensation plans: resistance to change
o Conflict with:o Efforts to combine market sensitivity with pay for
performanceo Pressure to emulate private sector
o Training management on compensation issues o Creating freedom with fences o Some departments love the freedom, some don’t
Ongoing Issues
o Success in tying performance pay to actual performance
o Developing HR's role as partners with client departmentso Eliminate barriers we created ourselveso Frame salary management issues as a
function of budget, not control
top related