STAFF CLASSIFICATION AND
COMPENSATION STUDY
Compensation Philosophy and Comparison Market
Project Update
Developed 11/08/2015
Wright State University
Copyright © 2015 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Agenda
1. Project Update
2. Focus Group and Interview Themes
3. Comparison Market
1
Project Update
The Sibson Consulting (Sibson) partnership began May 2015 and will run to late 2016 with
8 phases overall:
2015
1
Project Kickoff and Compensation Philosophy Development
May – September
2
Position Profile Updates
September – December
3
Assessment of Current Practice (Compensation and Benefits)
October – December
4
Position Profile Tool
October – December
Progress within Phases 1 and 2:
 Conducted information collecting and on-site visit to gain understanding on the current
state
 Collected data on Wright State University (Wright State) benefits which will undergo a
market assessment
 Assessed potential comparison institutions
 Began formulation of compensation philosophy
 Evaluated position profile tools against the needs presented at Wright State
2
Agenda
1. Project Update
2. Focus Group and Interview Themes
3. Comparison Market
3
Focus Group and Interview Themes
Overview
In order to better understand the current situation at Wright State, Sibson conducted two days
(June 18th—19th) of on-site focus groups and interviews which consisted of:
 Four Leadership focus groups
 One focus group and project kickoff with the Total Compensation Advisory Committee
 Seven Conversation Cafés were offered to the staff population (classified and unclassified)
(approximately 200 attendees)
4
Focus Group and Interview Themes
General Themes and Impact
General Themes
Views were consistent across groups and can be summarized as follows:
 Employees feel a strong affiliation to the university’s mission and to their colleagues
 Shared pride and excitement for the growing reputation of Wright State
 Desire to work with HR to drive strong people decisions
 Seeking defined career path opportunities at Wright State
 Perception of inconsistent practices and lack of transparency
 Project seen as a positive step toward transparency and collaboration on pay decisions
Impact
 Collaborative approach to decision-making and communication will increase credibility and ensure
adoption of new program
 Communication plan should include multiple, varied opportunities for employees to understand new
program
 Information on program should come from managers and leaders, not just from HR
 The foundation of the program should be valid for multiple years yet, should allow flexibility to
change due to institutional factors
 Career path options should be clearly defined in new program
5
Focus Group and Interview Themes
Benefits and Compensation
Benefits
 Tuition remission and health benefits flagged as competitive advantages
 Perception that benefits are currently used to make up for less than competitive compensation
 Recognition that benefits may change and affect prominence of compensation in total rewards
Compensation
 Call for an assessment of compensation versus a clearly defined comparison market
 Desire for clarified, consistent policies and clear role in compensation processes
 Currently the cause of significant issues in recruiting and retention for key areas (for instance,
IT)
 Need for ways to reward high-performing employees using compensation
Impact
 Reinforces need for compensation assessment with open sharing of results
 Implemented program should drive manager ownership of compensation decisions,
consistency in decision-making, and support collaborative work with HR
 Compensation philosophy definition will need to balance future profile of benefits and budget
realties emerging from study
 While not covered in study, resulting modern structure will be a key foundation for a pay for
performance program
6
Focus Group and Interview Themes
Total Rewards Activity Results
 All focus group and interview participants (including Conversation Cafés) were asked to
complete an activity to help us better understand the current and desired future state for the
Employee Value Proposition model in terms of Total Rewards at Wright State
 With $100 to allocate, how do you think Wright State currently spends their resources?
 If you personally had $100 to spend, how would you allocate it based on what is important
to you?
 Below are results which reflect the distribution of spend (rounded to nearest percentage1)
across the focus group and interview groups:
Current
Affiliation Compensation Benefits
Desired Future State
Career
Work
Content
Affiliation
Compensation Benefits
Career
Work
Content
Leadership
21%
30%
29%
12%
8%
8%
38%
21%
18%
16%
Total
Compensation
Advisory
Committee
14%
44%
29%
8%
5%
9%
42%
29%
11%
9%
Conversation
Cafés
20%
26%
29%
12%
13%
10%
37%
26%
14%
12%
Overall
Average
Spend
20%
27%
29%
12%
12%
10%
38%
26%
15%
12%
All groups except one identified the need for an increased focus on compensation and
decreased focus on benefits in the employee value proposition.
1
Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
7
Agenda
1. Project Update
2. Focus Group and Interview Themes
3. Comparison Market
8
Comparison Market
Role in Assessment
A comparison market defines the market Wright State compares to when competing for talent
 Comparators should be similar in terms of characteristics, size, and regions
 Comparison markets may vary by job type and level
 Comparison market options include a higher education and general industry market. Details are
provided in the chart below
Compensation
Role
•
•
Comparison group to benchmark
WSU’s compensation
Higher education and/or general
industry will be used appropriately
for each job type
Benefits
•
•
Higher
Education
Market
Definition
Institutions of similar:
• Type (research classification)
• Operating budget
• Full-time student enrollment
•
General Industry
Market
Definition
•
•
General industry organizations in
areas with similar cost of labor
•
Comparison group to benchmark
WSU’s benefits
Higher education and general
industry will be used
Broader cross-section of public
universities
Benefits do not vary as much by
size and operating budget
Focus on private sector industry
of surrounding region (i.e. Ohio)
9
Comparison Market
Purpose of Comparison Institutions for Higher Education
The first step in the process of building a compensation philosophy is to identify a list of
comparison institutions for the comparison of higher education-specific jobs during the
compensation assessment:
What a Comparison Institutions List Is
 At least 25 institutions to be used to obtain market data
 Representative of a relevant range in size, operating budget, and scope
 Institutions in locations with a similar cost of labor
 A common list to identify comparators for the entire university
 Consistent for 3-5 years barring significant changes at the university or comparison institutions
What a Comparison Institutions List Is Not
 A handpicked list of institutions lacking rationale behind choice
 A list of institutions per job or per department
 A list of aspirational comparators Wright State intends to model within 5-10 years
 Changed based on budget realities on an annual basis to drive desired market results
10
Comparison Market
Development
The following methodology is being used to develop a draft comparison institution list:
1. Examined previously identified comparators provided by Wright State that were used for a
variety of purposes
2. Assessed list based on industry best practices considering appropriate institutional
characteristics to determine fit based on the following characteristics:
 Operating Expenses
 Total Student Full-time Equivalent
 Carnegie Classification
 Programs and Accreditations
3. Recommended refinements (additions, deletions) based on industry practices.
A draft list is currently under review by
leadership.
11