report on the general staff job evaluation survey

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

Evaluating job evaluation Report on individual member survey and branch president questionnaire June 2010 1. Purpose of the project The following report summarises the data collected from two surveys circulated by the TEU’s General Staff Sector Group earlier this year. The purpose of the surveys was to obtain a more in-depth understanding of the effectiveness of job evaluation amongst general staff in the tertiary sector, and to use the information gathered to develop policy for the union, as well as a possible claim for future negotiations.

2. Data collection Branch questionnaire The first part of the data collection process was a short questionnaire sent to branch presidents of seven universities (with the exception of AUT1) and three polytechnics/institutes of technology (ITPs) - Aoraki Polytechnic, Otago Polytechnic, UCOL - being those with current general staff collective agreements. Branch presidents were asked 12 questions about job evaluation at their institution, including questions about the process for job evaluation, access to information about the process and results, the role of the union in the job evaluation process, and whether the respondent had any sense of the general feeling amongst staff about job evaluation.

We received responses to the questionnaire from six of the seven participating university branches, however unfortunately did not receive responses from any of the ITP branches.

1

Although AUT was not surveyed, observant readers of this report will note the institution’s name in some questions, with no responses collected; this is an error in compiling the survey questions.

1 Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

Individual member survey Following the short questionnaire sent to branches, an on-line survey was distributed to each participating branch, requesting them to send the link to general staff members to complete.

The survey questions in some cases repeated what was asked in the branch questionnaire (this was so we could get a sense of whether the job evaluation model and processes was broadly understood amongst staff), as well as asking a number of qualitative questions about individual experiences of the job evaluation process.

We received responses from individual members at each of the participating university branches, and two of the three ITP branches. The majority of individual responses were from Massey University, closely followed by Otago and Canterbury. Very low responses were received from Lincoln University, University of Auckland, UCOL, and Otago Polytechnic. No responses were received from Aoraki Polytechnic.

3. Interpreting results Whilst a number of clear themes emerged from the data, caution should be exercised in extrapolating these to all institutions who participated in the surveys. A combination of the number of individual responses at each institution and participation rates at each institution indicate that any conclusions drawn from the data can only be viewed indicatively, and should not be regarded as definitive.

4. Analysis of responses from the branch questionnaire Our discussion in this section focuses on the level of union involvement in job evaluation processes, comments from branches about perceptions amongst members of the job evaluation process, and whether any other issues relating to it have arisen in their institution.

Union involvement The level of union involvement varies considerably between institutions, with some branches having direct representation on committees and others with little or no direct involvement in the job evaluation process. In terms of providing additional information or assistance, branches tend to approach this on an “as needed” basis.

Perceptions of the job evaluation process Branch responses to the question “What would you say is the general feeling amongst members regarding the job evaluation process?” indicated that members generally felt somewhat negative towards the process. This appeared to stem from three main issues: 1. A perceived lack of transparency in the process (for example no ability to see comparative results of committee decisions); 2 Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

2. Limitations of salary structures and career progression opportunities; 3. Inadequacies of the job evaluation model itself (for example lack of recognition of the range of skills).

Other issues that branches raised that were seen as potentially impacting on the integrity of the job evaluation process included: 1. Inconsistent position descriptions, with ad hoc processes for updating these; 2. Salary levels in the collective agreement viewed as not matching the true “value” of specific roles; 3. Other forms of remuneration, for example, bonuses, being used to subvert the job evaluation system in order to keep staff.

5. Analysis of responses from the individual member survey General information The survey was started by 460 respondents, with 370 respondents completing it.

The majority of individual responses were from Massey University, with responses being received from six other universities and two of the ITPs invited to take part in the survey.

Figure 1: Participating institutions

3 Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

Responses were received from across schools or departments, and covered most areas of the university or institute of technology/polytechnic. The exception was in the areas of maintenance, caretaking and cleaning – this can probably be explained by either these jobs being contracted out in many institutions or these members not having ready access to a computer. The responses covered a good range of general staff occupation groups, with the exception again as before (maintenance, caretaking and cleaning).

The majority of respondents had worked in their current role for up to five years (48.9%).

Those employed five years and up to 10 years represented 24.2% of responses to this question.

The 10-15 year category received 11.8% of responses, with those working in their current role for over 15 years representing 15.2% of responses.

Figure 2: Length of time employed

Long service at their institution was a common characteristic amongst respondents. Those employed for over 15 years totalled 29.6%, those employed up to five years or between five and ten years were represented fairly evenly (27.1% and 27.3% respectively). Respondents employed between ten to 15 years represented 16% of responses to this question.

Demographic information The survey was completed by more women than men - 68.5% compared to 31.5%. The majority of respondents fell into the 46-55 years age category.

4 Tertiary Education Union Te HautĹŤ Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

Figure 3: Age distribution

The ethnic group distribution of responses is reflective of the breakdown of staffing by ethnicity in most TEIs. Figure 4: Ethnic group distribution

5 Tertiary Education Union Te Haut큰 Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

Understanding and experiences of job evaluation In response to the question “Is job evaluation currently being used in your institution?” most respondents (60.1%) knew that job evaluation was being used in their institution, however a significant number (35.2%) didn’t know.

Figure 5: Use of job evaluation in institutions

Additionally, most respondents were unsure of the model used at their institution. Where the model was known, Strategic Pay or Compers were used most commonly, although several respondents noted that their institution had developed their own system.

A large number of respondents who had a job evaluation system in place at their institution were unsure of the process for evaluating new positions (77.2%), with 22.8% indicating they were aware of the process. A significant number of respondents (81.7%) were unsure whether there was a different process for re-evaluating current positions. Overall about 18% of respondents knew about the process and commented on it (5.8% who indicated that the process was different; 12.4% who noted that the process was the same).

Unsurprisingly most respondents (42.9%) indicated that they would use their institution webpage to access information about job evaluation, although other options were also noted, such as printed manuals and verbal updates at meetings. A reasonable number of respondents did not know where to access job evaluation information (39.3%).

6 Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

Figure 6: Access to information

Most respondents didn’t know who initiates the re-evaluation of positions (39.7%), although just over 35% of respondents knew that the head of school or department was responsible for this, with a further 26.8% who knew that an individual employee could apply for re-evaluation.

Nearly half of respondents (45.4%) responding to the question “Has your job been evaluated or re-evaluated within the last five years” had their positions re-evaluated. Those that hadn’t or didn’t know if their position had been re-evaluated represented 39.6% and 15.0% of respondents respectively.

Most respondents answering the question “Have you applied to have your job re-evaluated in the past five years?” indicated that they had not (77.2%), with 22.8% having done so. For those that answered “yes” to this question, most had not been re-graded to a higher band or grade (40.4%), although the difference was not significant compared to those that had been regraded (31.1%). Roughly a third of respondents were unsure whether they had been re-graded (28.4%).

The responses to the question “Did the re-evaluation result in a higher salary?” roughly equated to responses for the previous question, i.e. most that were placed into a higher band or grade also received a higher salary, and (unsurprisingly!) those who were not re-graded did not receive higher salary (42.5%).

Responses to the question “Do you believe your own position has been appropriately placed within the salary scale” were fairly evenly split between those who felt their positions were placed appropriately (40.2%) and those who did not (38.3%). Those who were unsure made up 21.5% of responses.

7 Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

Those who reported feeling positive about placement on the salary scale generally cited three reasons: a. The salary placement was viewed as being equitable with similar positions within the institution; b. It was seen as commensurate with the individual’s experience and qualifications and the tasks and responsibilities required for the position; c. It was seen as comparing well with similar positions in other sectors.

Other comments from those who felt positive about their placement on the salary scale included that they had been able to analyse position using external data (surveys); that there had been changes to the salary structure; and that re-banding had resulted in movement for the whole team, with better recognition of varied work, skill level and longer hours also noted in the re-banding process.

For those who reported feeling dissatisfied with their placement on the salary scale, comments tended to fall into these themes: a. Limitations in the structure of the current salary scale – respondents noted limited or no ability to move in their salary scale, as well as limited ability to seek promotion.

“Unable to move further up the scale – strict limits on how much pay can go up each year, which doesn’t recognise any changes in responsibility/complexity through the year.” b. Restricted ability to assess a range of expertise and responsibility – respondents felt that the model had a limited ability to recognise factors such as extensive industry or other experience, or levels of responsibility other than management/supervisory roles.

Comments noted that in some cases the model used tended to focus on academic qualifications, without equally recognising these other factors. “Job evaluation only looks at the bare bones of the job, with no recognition of the many other attributes that a stable and senior general staff member inevitably brings to a department.” c. Inconsistent application of the model being used – some respondents commented that they were aware of other staff doing the same job with the same responsibilities/experience, but graded to a higher step on the salary scale.

Other comments where respondents felt neutral or unsure about whether they were fairly placed noted the lack of information about comparability with other staff or positions (within department, institution, between institutions, or internationally), which meant they were unable to adequately compare their placement.

In response to the question “We would also be interested in your comments about your experience of the job evaluation process as a whole…”, responses were varied. For some the job evaluation process was positive or neutral – “The evaluation process was okay. It redefined my changing role and added new procedures that I now do as the technology changes. I think it has been a positive process, and having a very good manager helped…”

8 Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

“It’s generally positive. Jobs naturally change and evolve so it’s necessary to discuss and evaluate periodically.”

For others however, the experience was less positive or outright negative. Whilst many respondents commented that they understood the need for a consistent process to evaluate positions and responsibilities, a number had concerns with the models and processes being used. Comments included that they were formulaic, were not able to adequately consider the nuances of different positions, and that the process itself was lengthy, time-consuming for the individual staff member, with often no discernable benefit or positive outcome.

As well, respondents commented about poor processes in relation to the communication of job evaluation outcomes (for example, a message for an applicant that simply stated “You have been unsuccessful” with no further explanation). Many respondents also felt that because of the limitations of salary progression and career progression within their occupational groupings, the job evaluation was of little use to them, as it was not able to offer any advance to salary or career. “It seems to me that there is a deliberate silence regarding job evaluation, and I suspect that this is because the managers do not want it to be used too much so that they have to pay people more.”

A number of respondents also commented that it should not be left to individual staff to initiate re-evaluations – this should occur regularly as part of the management of each department and in conjunction with the human resources department.

Those that were unsure about the usefulness or otherwise of the job evaluation process generally commented that a lack of information about comparability with similar positions meant that they had no ability to compare their salary and therefore could not assess the effectiveness of the model. Others also noted issues such as being in a very specialised role, or being at the top of the salary scale as limiting their ability to assess the system.

6. What changes would improve the job evaluation system?

A number of respondents provided ideas for improving job evaluation systems. These fell into the following areas: 1. More transparency of information about how results are achieved; 2. Comparative data between similar positions in other institutions (here and Australia); 3. Recognition of the range of skills a general staff member may bring to a position, other than financial or management skills; 4. Salary and remuneration structures that allows advancement; better career progression structures

9 Tertiary Education Union Te Hautū Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010

Issues&campaigns/issues/jobevaluation

7. Conclusion The results obtained from this survey should not be viewed as a definitive analysis of issues relating to job evaluation. However the consistency in concerns raised about methodologies and processes certainly suggest that further analysis of job evaluation models would be a worthwhile endeavour for the TEU and institutions using these systems.

Additionally, the General Staff Sector Group believes it would be worthwhile for branches to raise the main issues identified as a result of the data collection with their human resources department. Whilst all issues may not be relevant to their institution, the consistency of issues raised (even when the limitations of the survey sample are noted), indicates to us that a comprehensive review of current models may need to be considered.

10 Tertiary Education Union Te Haut큰 Kahurangi o Aotearoa June 2010