Management Forum Presentation
November 3, 2008
Lynne Gervais, Associate Vice-Principal Human Resources
1
 M group vital to McGill’s operations, key player in
growth and development of McGill as a World Class
Institution
 Desire to align Human Resource practices with “Best
Practices”.
 Commitment made to management and professional
staff in December 2007 to review the current M
Compensation framework
2
 Current M salary structure not systematically benchmarked
since the implementation of the Pay Equity Program in 2002
 Current structure lacks flexibility to adapt to market
conditions for attraction and retention of key talent
 Pay scales are narrow; salary progression is slow and a
promotion is needed in order to obtain a significant salary
increase
 Does not allow for sufficient recognition of individual
contribution
 No clear market reference point to validate competitiveness
3
Current Benchmark Excercise

Two (2) consulting companies were selected to conduct this benchmarking exercise:

Normandin-Beaudry : Mercer, Watson Wyatt, Hewitt

The Hay Group
Role Profiles Surveyed
1. SAF
(4 role profiles)
2. All other job families (17 role profiles)
LOG, FIN, PER, COM, ADM, IST
Market Reference
Type of Survey
G13 Universities +
Concordia University + 4
main English CEGEPS
(Dawson, Vanier, John
Abbott, Champlain)
Closed
All industries + Not for
profit
Standard
published
surveys- Greater
Montreal data,
National dataNon profit,
National data all
industries
4
 Levels 1 & 2 (grades 5 & below)
 McGill’s salaries are overall competitive
 Levels 3 & 4 (grades 6 & above)
 McGill’s salaries are generally less competitive
 SAF positions:
 The maxima of McGill’s current salary scale is in line with the median salary of
our reference market ;
 Actual salaries are on average 5% lower than market median
Note:
This study was conducted only on base salaries, and does not take into account the other
components of the total rewards (benefits, holidays, etc.) offering of the University
5
Way Forward- Best Practices
6
Best Practices :Salary Benchmarks
Current Practice
 Para Public & Public
Sectors primarily

Going Forward
 Private Industry data in addition
to Public and Para Public
Yet we recruit from a range of
sectors including Private
Industry
 Local Markets- Montreal
 Yet we occasionally recruit
within the Province and other
provinces in Canada
 Based on Local & National
reference Market
 Internal Equity focus
 Yet best practices indicate
focus should be both external
& internal
 Focus on external market as well
as internal references
7
Best practices: Salary Scale
 Wider ranges for each grade; allows for:
 Growth in the role;
 Increased complexity, scope;
 Correct positioning of roles based on market.
 Target Pay as a main reference point

Based on the market;
 Slope Increase
 Between all grades;
 Recognizes the complexity of roles
8
Movement in Salary Ranges
 Capacity to pay
 Growth in the role
 Acquiring additional competencies, skills, qualifications
 Achieving/exceeding objectives;
 Greater impact on the institution
 Unusual market pressure – example, retention of hot
skills i.e.
C.A.’s now, IT during Y2K
9
10
Effective December 1
Now
 2 reference points :
 Minimum and Maximum;
Market reference point not
clear
Max
 Narrow scales- little or no
room to move ; pay
compression; red circle
situations resulting in lump
sum payments.
 Linear slope between pay
grades
reference point for competitive pay.
Based on McGill Competitive market .
 Three Zones
 Single Zone:
 Min
 Introduction of Target Pay as main
 Min
Target
Max
 Zone 1,
Zone 2,
Zone 3
 Increase in the difference between
min & max to provide more
movement within each salary range at
all levels.
 Increasing slope between target pay
points to reflect increasing complexity
11
Current Structure
$150,000
$140,000
$130,000
$120,000
$110,000
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Grade
12
New Structure
$200,000
$190,000
$180,000
$170,000
$160,000
$150,000
$140,000
$130,000
$120,000
Zone 2
$110,000
Zone 1
$100,000
Min
$90,000
Target
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Grade
13
Level Grade
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Min
Mid
Max
34,900
38,400
42,200
46,500
51,100
53,900
60,700
68,300
76,800
86,400
97,200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
43,600
48,000
52,800
58,100
63,900
71,900
80,900
91,000
102,400
115,200
129,600
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
52,200
57,700
63,400
75,500
83,100
93,500
105,200
118,300
143,400
161,300
181,400
Market Median
$
47,000
$
58,000
$
78,000
$
110,000
14
Salary Management
The range associated with each grade is divided into three zones
$
$$$
Target
Min
Job Max
100%
Zone 1 Development/Transition
 New
incumbents..
 Recent
promotion…
 Acquiring new
skills…
 Meeting most
requirements
Zone 2 – Target (95-110%)
 Meets all
requirements…
 Sustained
achievements…
 Possesses key
competencies,
both technical
and behavioral
Zone 3- Exception



Significantly
exceeds
requirements
consistently…
Possesses high
demand skills…
Recognized as an
expert in their
field
The division of each grade into 3 zones provides increased
flexibility and enables the University to place a fair value on the
competencies, responsibilities and contribution of each employee
15
 Ensure McGill’s competitive salary positioning on the
broader reference market
 Reinforce the link between contribution and rewards
 Support employee growth & development
 Foster accountability/ownership at local managerial
level
16
Next Steps
 Develop competency framework for each job family

Technical competencies & behavioral competencies for each
role in each job family
 Review current salary policies and define specific
criteria for moving within and between the ranges in
new structure
 Develop specific merit guidelines to support the
implementation of the salary policy
17
18
 Salary Freeze in 1995
 Catch-up exercise begun in 2001
 New “M” Compensation Structure implemented in 2002
Actual
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
CPI
2.2%
2.8%
1.8%
2.2%
2.0%
3.5% to 4%
3.5% to 4%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
5% **
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
2.5%
3.0%
Market Avg. Increase*
McGill Budget
2007
2.2%
2008
????
* Source: Conference Board of Canada. Aggregate national & local (Québec) data for all industries, as well as public, para-public and not-for-profit organizations.
Average increase = overall increase budget, including scale increase, across the board, progressions, merit.
** 2002 included the 2nd and final phases of a catch-up exercise begun in 2001 to compensate for freezes and lower budgets in previous years.
Note: The University uses the annual CPI of previous December as a reference when
determining salary policy
19
 2008: 3%
 2% minimum increase for all employees meeting requirements of job
 1% additional budget given to each unit to recognize leading
performance
 2009: 3%
 1% minimum increase for all employees meeting requirements of job
 2% additional budget given to each unit to recognize leading
performance
 2010: 3.5%
 % of minimum increase and performance increase to be defined
20
Performance levels
 Performance Categories—4 levels
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
MINIMUM INCREASE
1.
Leading
2% +
2.
Strong
2%-3%
3.
Building Consistency
0-2%
4.
Immediate Improvement Required
0%
21
Performance Definitions
Leading
Consistently outstanding performance exceeds expectations
Strong
Solid performance and consistently meets job requirements
Building Consistency
Performance does not consistently meet job requirements
Requires Immediate Improvement
Performance consistently fails to meet job requirements
22
Questions / Comments
23