1. Salary Policy Task Force Recommendations A presentation to the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees November 16, 2017

2. Salary Policy Task Force
Charge:
Review historical UW salary increases, investigate the policies of peer institutions, analyze market comparisons and salary adjustments
Recommend criteria for annual salary increase and appropriate weight of each component
Provide recommendations on the annual evaluation process
Participants:
Representatives from:
Faculty and Staff senates
Deans and VPs
Athletics, Non-academic supervisor
Casper residency / professional school
Provost’s office, HR, Legal

3. Two Main Salary Drivers Considered
Market: Adjustments based on market analyses, intended to align salary ranges for University employment positions with appropriately identified equivalent positions at approved institutional close and stretch peers, Oklahoma State University survey of doctoral degree granting institutions, business or industry.
Human Resources will be responsible for extracting and compiling this data on an annual basis.
Merit: Merit increases are individual percentage increases to an employee’s salary based on the employee’s level of performance as determined during the annual performance evaluation performed by the employee’s supervisor.
Employees who receive performance evaluations of less than Meeting Expectations or Not According to Expectations are ineligible for merit increases. Additionally, the amount of the merit adjustment shall be differentiated based on level of performance.

4. Market Considerations: Staff
Competitors, comparators have grown at approximately 2% per year recently
Flat salaries → higher turnover costs
Adversely affects UW’s educational mission
True for both faculty and support staff
Vacation/Sick Leave payouts for departing former employees
Comparable Staff Classifications: Percent of jobs with a higher average wage
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% 0%
State, 81%
UW, 19% UW
State

5. Implications of the Staff Salary Differential
Two relevant competitors: public and private sector employers in the region
As salaries fall behind market the lure to leave grows
UW then becomes a first stage trainer for other firms and institutions
Turnover costs include:
Loss of expertise
Lack of continuity
Advertising costs
Search and screen costs (including personnel)
Training costs

6. Market Considerations: Faculty
Interpretation: resources tied to position
“Insurance” for possible future need to replace current individual
Short term vs. long term
Use data from Oklahoma State University salary survey
Split out by rank (Full/Associate/Assistant), for
Entire survey
Subset of universities in our region
Information is available for many years
Also consulted (limited) data from peer and stretch peers
Information was readily available for only last two academic years

7. Ratio of UW Faculty Salary to Comparators (Peer and Stretch)
Patterns in the Data
Ratio of UW Faculty Salary to Comparators (Peer and Stretch)
Academic Years 2015 and 2016
Associate Professors
Full Professors
Vet Science
Chemistry
Elem & Early Ed
Elec/Comp Engineering
Nursing
Law
Agricultural/Applied Econ
Physics & Astronomy
Finance
Educational Studies
Civil/Arch Engineering
Kinesiology & Health

8. Percentage Change in Faculty Salary
Patterns in the Data
Percentage Change in Faculty Salary
All Ranks

9. Merit Considerations: Staff
Accurate position descriptions and performance management tools are already in place
Substantive performance review training for supervisors initiated
Training on usage of tool takes place annually
Unit-level will have access to best practices to determine what good performance “looks like” in particular job groupings
Need to increase supervisor training to establish appropriate differentiators between rating levels for meritorious performance

10. Merit Considerations: Executive & Administrative at Will
Accurate position descriptions are being created
Appropriate annual performance management tools are in process of design
Need to increase training opportunities to establish appropriate differentiators between rating levels for meritorious performance

11. Merit Considerations: Faculty
Initial performance evaluation tool is in place
Tool differentiated from annual reviews for staff and administrative at will positions based on faculty expectations
Future performance to include review of prior three year cycle
Meritorious determined by best practices in the academic discipline
Challenges
Joint projects
Across departments within college
Across colleges
Where does the information come from?
Annual reports
Input from unit head (e.g., department chair)
Interpreted by Dean

12. Our Proposal
Annual performance review establishes meritorious performance
Fully utilize HR to acquire objective data to establish relevant market benchmarks
Initial split: place majority of weight on merit, with substantial weight on market (60% merit, 40% market)
Set aside percentage of dollars to address compression, inversion and equity issues identified during annual salary setting process
Going forward, creation of salary adjustment committee to review data, funding, and make annual proposals to the President