CGIAR
Review of Total
Compensation
May 2005
CGIAR Review of Total
Compensation
• Background
• Phase 1- Short Summary of Phase I
Results reported at ExCo VI
• Phase 2- Results Of Phase 2-Comparison
to Market
• Phase 3 and 4 - Update
Background
CGIAR ExCo concluded at its May 2003
meeting that:
“The Secretariat working with CBC,
should prepare a paper of
compensation structures and levels and
mechanisms for ensuring transparency.
Compensation data on the CGIAR
should be compared with those from
appropriate comparator organizations.
The CGIAR data should be enriched
with the expansion of the study to
include compensation packages for
locally recruited staff. ”
Terms of Reference
• Drafted in consultation with CBC
• Approved in January 2004 by ExCo
Review was divided into 4 Phases
• Phase 1-Review of Compensation Structures
and Mechanisms for Ensuring Transparency
of Internationally Recruited Staff (IRS)
• Phase 2- Comparison of CGIAR
Compensation package for IRS with the
Market
• Phase 3- Review of CGIAR Compensation
Structures for Nationally Recruited Staff
(NRS)
• Phase 4- Integrated Results Report
Overall Approach
• Governance of Project: Steering Group
• Collaborative and Technical Support:
Focal points from each Center, appointed by
DG’s
SAS-HR Director and G & D Leader
• Professional Anchor: Sandra Lawrence for overall
coordination, technical advice and quality control
• Survey and analysis: Persis Mathias, Project
Leader for Phase 1 from Hewitt Associates,
Malaysia and Michael Ronan for Phase 2 from
Hewitt Associates, United States
Overall Compensation Philosophy
for IRS
To internationally recruit the best qualified staff
• To do so, need to address:
Often remote location of center
Need for enhanced security
Limited opportunity for spouse employment
Uprooting of families from home country
Policies to maintain close contact, both
professionally and personally to home country
in view of term appointments
• These factors affect the design of overall
package of salary, allowance and benefits for the
Centers
Phase 1- Survey of Centers’
Compensation Levels
Mapping
• IRS staff at Centers and System Office mapped
to 9 Hewitt levels- 4 Research levels, 3
service levels, and two management levelsDDG and DG
Cash compensation
• Actual minimum, median & maximum base
salary data
• Bonuses
• Other cash payments
Benefits
• All employee benefits
Salary administration
• Compensation philosophy & structures
Base Salary
• Range of Median Base Salary
•
Shows base salary paid across all Centers and
the System office at Minimum, Maximum,
Median and Mean of each Level across centers
•
Base salary is the actual annual amount paid to
individuals based on their level of
responsibility
•
Mean is the average of all individual salaries
and median is the 50th percentile
Overview Range of Median Base Salary
Min
Max
Mg mt 2
Mg mt 1
S e rvic e s 3
S e rvic e s 2
S e rvic e s 1
Legend
Re s e arc h 4
Median
Mean
Re s e arc h 3
Re s e arc h 2
Re s e arc h 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figures in USD 000's per annum as of Dec 2003
140
160
180
200
Total Compensation
Comparisons
• Variations and differences come to light when one
looks at the over view of compensation and the
method of delivery- cash allowance vs. benefit
• Some benefits are paid as cash allowances, others
are policies
• In order to approximate total compensation,
added all cash payments, quantifiable benefits,
estimated pension contribution and cost of
insurances
Overview of Median Total Compensation
Min
Mg mt 2
Max
Mg mt 1
S e rv ic e s 3
S e rv ic e s 2
S e rv ic e s 1
Re s e arch 4
Legend
Re s e arch 3
Median
Mean
Re s e arch 2
Re s e arch 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Figures in USD 000's per annum as of Dec 2003
Approach to Phase 2
IRS Comparison to Market
Objective
To provide a comparison with comparator
organizations particularly those engaged in
agricultural research, in private and public sectors,
world-wide
Content Coverage
Compensation packages for HQ and out posted staff
Basket of Comparators
Government- National Agriculture Research
Organizations
International Organizations
For Profits
Phase II – Study Process
Planning
• We spent a fair
amount of time
discussing the
scope and intent
of the study.
• We jointly
developed the
study
questionnaire
with Sandra.
• Data collection
efforts were
divided and
meetings set.
Data
Collection
Data
Cleaning
• Data collection
meetings were set
with each
participating
organization and
position matching
conducted jointly.
• Questionnaires
were reviewed for
completeness and
clarity. Issues
were handled
directly with each
organization.
• Questionnaires
were completed
by each
organization
• Questionnaires
were processed
by Hewitt and put
through various
review cycles to
ensure all data is
complete and
accurate.
Analysis
• The data was
analyzed for
competitive
positioning.
• Quantitative and
qualitative
analysis were
conducted.
• Study results and
report developed.
Report reviewed
by CGIAR
Steering Group
Comparator Organizations
In order to understand market practice, the following
organizations were identified as competitors for
Research and Research Center Management talent on
a global level.
Governmental
Organizations
ARS
CIRAD
JIRCAS
EMBRAPA
International
Organizations
IFAD
FAO
* Note - All comparator organizations were endorsed by the Steering Group.
For-Profit
Organizations
ADM
Cargill
Pioneer Hi-Bred
Study Positions and Levels
The level descriptors used position matching purposes
in Phase II were consistent with Phase I for the
Research levels and Management Levels
Research Level I
Research Level II
Research Level III
Research Level IV
Dep. Director General
Director General
* Note - Service levels were not include because they only represent 20% of the IRS population
Position-Matching Results
ARS
CIRAD
EMBRAPA
Director
General
SES 3/4 Area
Directors
Level 9 Dept./Progra
m Directors
Deputy
Director
General
SES 4/5 Asst. Area
Directors
No Match
IFAD
Executive
Director
President
Asst
President
General /
Adjunct Unit
Chiefs
Vice
President
Research
Level IV
Level 8 Research
GS 15 Lead
Supervisor /
Major Impact
Specialist / Researcher
Players
Team Leader
W
Research
Level 5
Research
Level III
Researcher
GS 14 Level 7 - Full
Q, R, S, T, U,
Team Leader Professional
V, W
Research
Level II
GS 13 Level 7 Researcher Experienced
Entry
L, M, N, O, P,
Researcher Professional
Research
Level 3
Band 3 Band IV-C P3 P3 Senior
Proj. Leader /
Intermediate
Professional Professional Professional
Indiv.
Scientist
Contrib.
Research
Level I
Level 6 - Researcher GS 12 Entry
A, B, C, D, E,
Entry-level Professional
F, G, H, I, J &
Researcher
(No
K
Research
Level 2
Associate
P2 - Entry
P2 - Entry Professional
Professional Professional
/
Professional
Experience)
Research
Level 4
Cargill
ADM
ADG
Senior
Manager I
Band 7 President,
R&D
D1 Div. Head
D1 Div. Head
Manager II
Band 6 VP
Band III-E Strategic Dir.
Research
P5 - Team
Leader or
Expert
P5 - Team
Leader or
Expert
Senior
Advisor
Band 5 Dir./ VP, BU
Band III-C/D Research
Leadership
Advisor
Band 4 Manager /
Indiv.
Contrib.
Band III-A Sr. Research
Professional
P4 - Senior
Officer
FAO
Pioneer
Hi-Bred
Band II-A Head,
Research &
Prod. Dev.
JIRCAS
P4 - Senior
Officer
Band 2 Indiv.
Contrib.
Band IV-B Level I
Scientist
HQ vs. Outposted
• A view of both Headquarter-based and Outposted was
conducted because HQ-pay levels are the basis for defining
packages for Outposted staff.
• We first compared CGIAR’s IRS staff to the HQ-based staff of
the comparators, then made a comparison against similar
positions that are outposted from the headquarter. This
second approach provided us with an understanding of how
Research staff on international assignments are paid.
• A key difference to keep in mind is the nature of the roles at
the comparators, which tend to be 3 to 5 years assignments
Terms and Methodology
•
Base Salary – Annual amount paid to individuals based on
their level of responsibility
•
Total Cash – Base salary plus guaranteed allowances (e.g.,
housing allowance in Japan), other allowances (e.g.,
allowances for non-Italian IFAD/FAO employees) and
variable pay (e.g. bonus for the For Profits).
•
Net of home country tax income – Appropriate income taxes
were subtracted from the Government and Not for Profit
organizations
•
US$ Conversion – For the HQ-Based Staff, we used PPP
rates, as opposed to spot rates, to convert all pay levels to
US$.
•
It is also important to remember that the CGIAR data is
aggregate statistics for all CG Centers.
Key Findings-HQ Base Salary
Base Salary for HQ Staff – CGIAR Aggregate vs. Comparator
Organizations, “-” indicates CG is lower than comparator, “+”
indicates CG is higher.
Level
Governmental
International
For-Profit
I
-
-
-
II
-
-
-
III
IV
+
+
=
-
DDG
+
+
-
DG
+
+
-
Base Salary - Centers vs. Comparators
For Research Level I, it is easier to see the disparity in
levels between the Centers and the low positioning
relative to the comparators.
Comparis on of Averag e Annual B as e S alaries - Res earch Level I
8 0 ,0 0 0
7 0 ,0 0 0
Go v ern m en t
In t ern at io n al
Fo r P ro fit
L in ear (CGIA R Cen t ers)
Annua l Ba se Sa la ry (in US$ )
6 0 ,0 0 0
CGIA R Cen t ers
5 0 ,0 0 0
4 0 ,0 0 0
3 0 ,0 0 0
2 0 ,0 0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0
0
2
4
6
8
N u m be r o f C e n te rs
10
12
14
16
Base Salary - Centers vs. Comparators
For Research Level II, the low positioning continues
relative to all three comparator groups. The disparity
between Centers continues.
Comparison of Average Annual Base Salaries - Research Level II
80,000
70,000
60,000
Government
Int ernat ional
For P rofit
Linear (CGIAR Cent ers)
Annual Base Salary (in US$)
CGIAR Cent ers
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2
4
6
8
Nu m be r of C e n te rs
10
12
14
16
Base Salary - Centers vs. Comparators
At Research Level III, most of the Centers begin to
catch up with Government and International, but
remain below the For Profits.
Comparison of Average Annual Base Salaries - Research Level III
100,000
90,000
80,000
CGIAR Centers
International
For Profit
Linear (CGIAR Centers)
Annual Base Salary (in US$)
70,000
Government
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2
4
6
8
Numbe r of Ce nte rs
10
12
14
16
Base Salary- Centers vs. Comparators
At Research Level IV, most Centers have surpassed
Government and have caught up to International. One
Center leads the For Profits.
Comparison of Average Annual Base Salaries - Research Level IV
180,000
160,000
140,000
Government
International
For Profits
Linear (CGIAR Centers)
Annual Base Salary (in US$)
CGIAR Centers
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2
4
6
8
Numbe r of C e nte rs
10
12
14
16
Base Salary - Centers vs. Comparators
For the DDG, all Centers have surpassed Government
and all but one have caught up with International.
None pay similar to the For Profits.
Comparison of Average Annual Base Salaries - DDG
180,000
160,000
140,000
Government
International
For Profits
Linear (CGIAR Centers)
Annual Base Salary (in US$)
CGIAR Centers
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2
4
6
8
Numbe r of C e nte rs
10
12
14
16
Base Salary - Centers vs. Comparators
For the DG, all Centers have caught and surpassed both
the Government and International organizations. One
leads the For Profits.
Comparis on of Average Annual Bas e S alaries - DG
250,000
CGIAR Cent ers
Governm ent
Int ernat ional
For P rofit s
Linear (CGIAR Cent ers)
Annual Base Salary (in US$)
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2
4
6
8
Nu m be r of C e n te rs
10
12
14
16
Key Findings – Annual Total Cash
Total cash for HQ Staff – CGIAR Aggregate vs.
Comparator Organizations
Level
Governmental
International
For-Profit
I
-
-
-
II
-
-
-
III
+
-
IV
+
-
-
DDG
+
-
-
DG
+
+
Total Cash Centers vs. Comparators
For Research Level IV, CGIAR’s Total Cash position still tends to lead
Comparison of Average Annual Base Salaries - DG
Government, but now lags both International and For Profits.
250,000
Comparison of Annual Total Cash - Research Level IV
180,000
160,000
200,000
Government
International
For Profits
Linear (CGIAR Centers)
Annual Total Cash (in US$)
CGIAR Centers
Annual Base Salary (in US$)
140,000
120,000
150,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
100,000
40,000
20,000
50,000
0
2
4
6
8
10
Number of Centers
12
14
16
18
20
Key Highlights – HQ-Based Staff
•
Research Levels I and II are consistently below the comparators
for Base Salary and Total Cash;
•
When analyzed individually, the DDG and DG Base Salary levels
tend to be above Government and International;
•
In aggregate, CGIAR’s base salary begins to align with
Government at Level IV, but individually begins at Level III;
•
CGIAR leads Government in Total Cash for Levels III and above;
•
CGIAR’s aggregate Total Cash levels lag International, except at
the DG level where it leads, and the For Profits;
•
Pay practices for HQ-based roles are a function of local country
standards, so results with vary:
•
Base salaries and pay structures differ to a high degree between
the various CG Centers.
Definitions of Components of Pay
for Outposted Staff
•
Total Cash with Allowances – Base salary plus guaranteed
allowances, other allowances and variable pay PLUS allowances
provided to international assignees;
•
Total Cash with Allowances & Home Leave – Total Cash with
Allowance PLUS the cost of home leave for a married couple with 2
children;
•
US$ Conversion – For the Outposted Staff, we used spot rates, as
opposed to PPP rates, to convert all pay levels to US$.
Key Findings- Total Compensation
for Outposted Level 4 Researcher
Comparison of Total Cash, Allowances and Home Leave for a
CGIAR Research level IV compared to a staff outposted
from comparators to the specific location.
Country
Governmental
International
For-Profit
Mexico
+
=
-
Philippines
-
-
-
Nairobi
-
-
-
Key Highlights – Outposted Staff
On base salary, CGIAR leads Government, is in line with
International and lags the For Profits;
CGIAR tends to generally be below the International and ForProfit organizations for outposted staff when looking at the
levels of total cash and allowances;
For staff at comparators outposting is for a limited period,
and allowances may decline after set period. This is not true
for CG staff at Centers;
When collecting data on outposted or expatriate employees
from the comparators, information is on typical allowances
provided to their employees when away from their home
countries. These types of allowances are provided by the
Centers but the level and manner of payment (cash vs. benefit)
varies greatly by Center
Overall Summary and Commentary
Base salary posture for IRS employees at Research Levels I
and II tend to lag all comparators, including Government.
As this is the “feeder pool” for the Research organization,
further analysis may be required;
CGIAR tends to lead Government in total cash levels, with
the exception of Research Levels I and II, but lags
International (except at the DG level) and lags the For
Profits;
When comparing base salary and allowances for IRS versus
outposted or expatriated employees at the comparators, we
find that CGIAR generally lags all of the comparator groups;
Overall Summary and Commentary
The most notable finding was the level of disparity in pay levels and
practices across the CG Centers in base salary, total cash and with pay
ranges as illustrated with Research Level 3 below:
R e se a r c h L e v e l I I I - A n n u a l B a se S a l a r y
F o r P r o f it
In t e r n a t io n a l
Go ve rn m e n t
C e n t e rs /C o m p a ra t o rs
IC R A F
IC A R D A
C IP
IF P R I
C IA T
C IF O R
IIT A
C IM M Y T
IR R I
IL R I
IC R IS A T
IP G R I
IW M I
W A RDA
W o r ld F is h
25
50
75
F ig u r e s in U S D ' 0 0 0
Note: IFPI values include the tax gross-up for US employees
100
125
Overall Summary and Commentary
Given the level of disparity in base salary and
allowances among the Centers, making accurate
comparisons is challenging . However, the aggregate
comparisons shed some light in terms of typical
practices.
In order to make compensation decisions based on the
external comparators, comparisons would need to be
made with the individual centers, taking into account
factors such as the location of the center, cost of living
in the country, benefit provisions, etc.
Update on Phase 3Nationally Recruited Staff
Questionnaire developed in collaboration with Centers
(CIAT, ICRAF, ILRI,IPGRI, IRRI, WORLD FISH)
Focus
• NRS Grade and Salary Structure
• Salary Admin procedures
• Major benefit provisions (e.g. medical and pension)
Schedule
• Questionnaire sent April 12
• Response due May 31
• Phase 3 report completed end August
• Results to Steering Group and ExCo in fall
Phase 4
Integrated Results
• Synthesis and Recommendations
• Target Completion Date: End 2005
CGIAR Disclosure Principles
Endorsed by ExCo
• Overview of base salary ranges
• Benefits policies
• Basic employment data, e.G. Overall
number of staff by employment
category
• All material updated periodically
• No disclosure of individual staff data