Instead of, or in addition to a merit pay program, can IWU administration consider re-evaluating staff salaries to ensure they are competitive? The Classification and Compensation program was developed in 2002. Have the pay rates in each grade increased in the last 6 years? To my knowlege they have not.

Also, can the administration consider having salary ranges for each grade, rather than having a set starting amount? This may allow hiring managers more flexibility, and would likely help with staff retention. It would allow for staff members coming in with previous experience or education, or those who pursue additional education/training to be better compensated.

“What is MeritPro?”

●The paragraph that is presented doesn’t completely jibe with the last public information that was offered in President Wilson’s memo of 3/15/2007. I think many non-exempt staff still believe that the performance review process that was undertaken as a trial last year and which will be performed again soon will be used in determining whether they receive a merit increase this year. However, the MeritPro blog seems to indicate that it is being considered as an option, but may not be used at all as a basis for determining merit. Additionally, I believe there should be an update on the status of reviews for exempt staff.

●This paragraph mentions 5 programs, but I only see 3 programs. The last two tables aren’t programs, but methods of determining who benefits from the programs.

●It also appears that we have moved away from using the terms “merit pay” or “merit increase” to using the more generic term “recognition”.

● I appreciate (and applaud) all of the hard work of the Merit Program Task Force. I know that it requires a tremendous amount of time and effort to solicit information and synthesize it into a recommendation. However, it seems that this important process is being rushed. Can we devise a thoughtful program which addresses all our employees’ needs in six months? When the aforementioned performance review process was first introduced to Staff Council, I countered with some very specific concerns which have not yet been answered, some of which apply to this process as well. Among those concerns is this one:

“If we design and support a process, how can we be assured that it:

a. Is implemented fairly
b. Will be continued even in lean budget times
c. Is reviewed for equity”

Are long range plans and implications being looked at by this committee?

“Pro/Con Tables”

I am ambivalent about some of the information presented in these tables. At times, something that is a “Pro” for the employee is a “Con” for the university.

One Time Monetary:

What amount is deemed significant and who is making that determination? How does a one-time monetary award allow us to recognize more people each year?

As a relatively young winner of the Starkey award (43 at the time and less than 10 years of service compared to the average age and years of service of other winners), I can speak to the on-going motivational factor of a one-time award. For me, it is zero. Yes, it was great to be recognized and the $350.00 (net after taxes) was nice, but it isn’t what keeps me coming to work everyday. In fact, the one-time nature of the award can be de-motivating to someone who has another 20 years until retirement.

And in this area just between the “One Time Monetary” and “Monetary Increase to Base Pay”, the language gets a bit murky for me. For example, faculty have an award—the University Award for Teaching Excellence (aka the Pantagraph Award)—which is of a one-time nature. They can only win the award once in their IWU career, but the monetary award is added to their base salary and benefits and raises accrue from this increase. This situation is in stark contrast to the Starkey award, which is truly one-time in nature, and, in my opinion, reflects an inequity between the way faculty and staff are compensated.

Monetary Increase to Base Pay:

My preference. Obviously this choice has the most long-term implications to the university and long-term benefits for the employee.

Non-Monetary Awards:

I am a strong advocate for professional development, however, using it as a form of merit as mentioned in the second item—if employees were awarded opportunities for additional training or education, the award would enhance the employees’ skills and perhaps give them opportunities for promotion—actually has a big “con” in terms of IWU. With the majority of non-exempt positions clumped in three or four broad categories, there are very few opportunities for promotion or advancement for non-exempt staff. There are even fewer opportunities for non-exempt staff to move to an exempt position. This “reward” could create a group of people who have no place to go except somewhere else, which places the “employee retention” goal at risk.

The cons of the third non-monetary award—time off—speaks to the thinness of staff ranks, as addressed in Martha’s comment to the blog. It is hard to enjoy being gone if you know you are going to pay for it upon your return.

Nomination and Supervisory Evaluation as Basis for Determining Recipients

What strikes me from these two tables is the amount of work that it is going to take to sustain whatever type of program is established. Do we have or will we acquire the resources to ensure the timely and equitable implementation of whatever program is established.

Martha Tyner’s comment:

I agree with what Martha addresses in her comment. However, I don’t think that the two things she mentions, merit programs and adequate staff levels, have to be mutually exclusive. I believe that we should actually be working on both of them. The Human Resources goal of the Strategic plan addresses both of these items, as well as several others, without giving priority to any of them.

OVERALL SUMMARY:

As I mentioned before, all of these programs look like they would consume the greatest resource that any of us have, time, and quite frankly, I don’t know if we have the time (and staff) to devote to a merit/recognition program. The additional work involved in nominations and/or evaluations may place a serious burden on people who already have too much to do.

I think the blog and suggestion boxes are a great start for sharing information and for allowing feedback from staff. Additionally, could someone from the task force send out a formal memo letting staff know the current status of this program (even if it is to inform staff that nothing has really been decided)? As performance evaluation forms are coming out soon, a memo explaining how performance reviews may or may not relate to merit pay might be helpful and help avoid misconceptions.

I have several thoughts/comments regarding the options you posted:

Increase to Base Pay
I agree that an increase to base pay would be the most meaningful but ONLY if there is sufficient funding to ensure it is actually a “meaningful” increase. As “meaningful” can vary a lot based on your current salary and expectations I can imagine that is a difficult decision to make. Do you feel that there is sufficient funding to make this a meaningful option?

Increase by nomination:
Would self-nominations be considered? Or would nominations need to come from a supervisor, administrator, or other staff member?

Increases tied to performance reviews:
The following was brought up at our staff council meeting by Jenny Hand regarding performance reviews and their relations to merit pay. It is our understanding that no decision has been made as to whether performance reviews will be tied to a merit increase, as options are still being investigated. Yet the performance review process will be starting soon, and to our knowledge the reviews will be due prior to a decision regarding merit pay being made.

Therefore, is it fair to rely on a review completed in March, April, or May for a merit program that doesn’t start until after that time period? Employees and supervisors may put additional time and effort into an evaluation if they know it is tied to a merit increase. If an increase is tied to performance reviews will employees and supervisors have the opportunity to revise or make additions to their performance evaluation forms if necessary?

Other thoughts:
I like the idea of a pool of money being available to reward staff for “exceptional” work, as currently supervisors have no formal way to reward employees who go above and beyond their current job requirements and responsibilities. The only option to increase staff pay at this point (that I’m aware of) is through the classification and compensation program, which can take more than six months to receive a response. To my understanding this program is not set up to reward exceptional work or initiative, it is meant only to address changes in a position.

Therefore, I would really like to see a “merit program”. I would like funding available so exceptional staff could receive monetary rewards for exceptional work. Included in that funding, I would hope to see money available for staff professional development. Then I think staff members or their supervisors should “apply for” or complete some formal form or interview in which they outline their reasons as to why they should receive either the monetary or non-monetary (professional development) reward.

I firmly believe that, until this campus is adequately staffed, any merit-pay program will offend and demoralize more people than it will reward. It has been several years since any support staff colleague has told me that they currently have the time, energy, and/or resources to comfortably fulfill all of the responsibilities assigned to them.

The re-accreditation self-study in 2003 cited staff stress that “appears to be…the product of thinness in staff ranks and high dependence on student workers” and noted that “stress arises when staff members feel that they enjoy less influence over the policies and procedures for which they are responsible than they might want.” (Growth & Challenge: A self-study Conducted in Support of a Continuing Accreditation Visit by the North Central Association, p77) I have not seen any relief in any of the issues of staff stress since that report.

Because we work on a small campus, where we have established personal relationships with committed and loyal colleagues, we have continued to support one another by rising to the challenge of increasing workloads, but patience is wearing thin and morale is suffering. Any program that rewards only a few when the majority feel they are working beyond reasonable limits can only lead to resentment rather than motivate us to do more.

The ONE possible reward I would support and find useful might be some special one-time “prize” given to an employee who discovers and/or implements a new procedure or policy that results in a measurable saving of resources for the campus, or that somehow makes a significant impact on the campus’ ability to fulfill our vision of social justice or environmental sustainability. This wouldn’t have to be regularly awarded—just whenever some truly noteworthy contribution was made, perhaps on the basis of a nomination process and committee decision.

I believe there are other ways to reward staff besides merit pay, and any of them would help morale. Flexible paid-time-off would reward the employee who stays healthy and minimizes their use of sick time. Provide opportunities for training and education, to reward our interest in improving skills and maximize our opportunities for promotion/advancement. But most of all, use any improvement in the University’s financial situation to hire enough support staff to complete the work at hand.

Brian Sheehan