Classification for the Future
The Ups and Downs of Class
Consolidation
International Personnel
Management Association
Training Conference
Ottawa, 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
Gwinnett County Government
Roderick Powell, SPHR
Human Resources Director
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
City Of Dallas
Compensation – 2001 and Beyond
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 competitiveness
o Organizational changes
o Flatter structure
o 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 classifications
o Departments wanted more autonomy in pay
issues
Residual Issues
o Step mentality alive & well
o Longevity & loyalty strongly valued
o Assumption: long tenure = good performance
o Pay grade = status
o 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 issues
o Performance pay not successfully tied to actual
performance
First Step: Consolidate Pay Plans
o
o
o
o
Consolidation of five civilian pay plans into one
Implementation of $10/hour minimum wage
Big change!
Ugly, but a start
o Inappropriate overlap between grades
o Compression
Next Step: Separate the Grades
from the Titles
o Job titles separated from pay grades
o Roman numerals and/or senior designates levels
Title/Grade
Title
Grade
Clerk 35
_________________
Clerk I
75
Clerk 36
_________________
Clerk II
76
Clerk 37
_________________
___
Clerk III
77
Senior HR Analyst
83
Human Resources Analyst 55
Next Step: Fix the Salary Structure
o Old Structure
New Structure
o 25 levels
o 20 levels
o Consistent range spread
of 65%
o Consistent differential
between grades of 10%
o Use of alphabetic
designation instead of
numeric
o Inconsistent percentages
between minimum and
maximum
o Inconsistent percentages
between grades
Old Pay Structure
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
Grade
Annual
Annual
Annual
71
18,356
21,126
23,897
% Min
to Max
30%
72
22,943
24,281
25,618
12%
15%
73
22,943
25,365
27,787
21%
4%
74
22,943
26,576
30,209
32%
5%
75
22,943
28,091
33,239
45%
6%
% Between
Midpoints
New Pay Structure
Minimum
Midpoint
Maximum
$27,471
% Min
to Max
65%
% Between
Midpoints
$27,573
$34,337
65%
10%
$22,891
$30,331
$37,770
65%
10%
D
$25,180
$33,364
$41,547
65%
10%
E
$27,698
$36,700
$45,702
65%
10%
New
Grade
A
Annual
Annual
Annual
$16,649
$22,060
B
$20,810
C
And Then-the Classifications
Problems:
o Over 950 classifications
o Many single-incumbent titles
o
o Descriptions narrow in scope
o Difficult to maintain
o Too much emphasis on internal
equity
Classification Solutions
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
Changes to the Classification System
o Classification reduction: 950 to 450
o Title Consolidations:
o Managers
oSupervisors
oInspectors
oLaborer/maintenance titles
oCustomer service titles
oOffice/clerical
oExecutives
Change Methodology
o Considered:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Common elements with other jobs
Similarity of basic qualifications with other titles
Organizational structure around this job
Appropriate pay grade for the job
Median pay for this job
Cost of the consolidation
Change Methodology con’t
o Worked closely with customer departments to meet
organization’s needs
o HR team met with every department’s executive team
o Discussed proposed consolidations
o Made revisions as needed
o Buy-in from City Manager and executive team
o 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 increase
o Above maximum of new range had no change to pay for two
years
o Cost
o Civil Service
o Created changes to minimum qualifications
o Developed subsets of broad classifications
 Consider impact on Reduction in Force procedures
 Collective bargaining agreements/unions
Lessons Learned
o Start early
o Work with client departments and civil service
system
o Communicate, communicate, communicate
o Employees
o Management
o Not the same message to all!
o Be prepared for grade level envy
o 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
performance
o 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 departments
o Eliminate barriers we created ourselves
o Frame salary management issues as a
function of budget, not control
?
Question and Answer Session
?
?
?