Assessing the State Classified Personnel System

1
Assessing theState Classified Personnel System

• Focus Group SummaryandSurvey Question
  Recommendations
• May 14, 2004

2
Agenda

• Focus Group Objectives and Approach
• Overall Themes
• Ideal Scenario
• Other Opportunities
• Draft Survey Questions
• Next Steps
• Appendix
• REPLY Results
• What Works/What Doesnt Work At-A-Glance

3
Objectives

• Identify questions to be asked on an all-employee
  opinion survey assessing the State Classified
  personnel system and opportunities for
  improvement.
• Gauge effectiveness of current University of
  Colorado State Classified personnel system
  processes and practices.
• What works well in the current State Classified
  system?
• What does not work well in the current State
  Classified system?
• What are the possible opportunities for the staff
  and the University in creating a new personnel
  system?
• What are the potential drawbacks of creating a
  new personnel system?

4
Approach

• Six Groups
• Participants were selected in an unbiased/random
  manner, to achieve a high degree of fairness in
  representation
• State Classified staff to four sessions (one at
  each campus)
• Male 18, Female 34, Total 52
• Years of Service 10 average
• Exempt Professional staff and Faculty who
  supervise State Classified staff at two sessions
  (CU Boulder and UCD)
• Male 9, Female 22,Faculty 13, Exempt Prof
  18,Total 31
• Years of Service 12 average

• Two-hour sessions led by Watson Wyatt
• Participants were promised confidentiality to
  encourage candid feedback
• Sessions were tape recorded for Watson Wyatts
  use only
• REPLY instant survey system was utilized

5
Overall Themes (Classified, Faculty and Exempt
Professional) Keep

• Job security (no dismissal without cause and
  recourse)
• Legal rights that ensure fair employment
  practices
• A system thats tied to government (makes it
  more trustworthy)
• PERA
• Benefit choice (medical)
• Equitable and objective hiring practices
• Written job descriptions
• Compensation
• Pay for performance concept, with periodic job
  evaluations based on written goals
• Appreciation for years of experience
• Diversity of workforce

6
Overall Themes (Classified, Faculty and Exempt
Professional) Change

• Increase stability, flexibility, consistency and
  simplicity (fewer rules)
• Reduce bureaucracy and frustration (molasses,
  byzantine)
• Remove disparity between types of employees at CU
  (State Classified, Faculty, Exempt Professional)
• One personnel system for everyone
• Faster process to remove poor performers
• Bumping is good for very few people, but creates
  a lot of disruption and morale problems
• Hiring practices (testing system and Rule of 3
  are archaic and burdensome, increase ability to
  hire temps into permanent positions)
• Currently are a waste of time and effort make
  tests relevant
• More diversity through consistently equitable
  hiring practices
• Pay-for-performance
• Apply pay-for-performance more consistently
  through increased training and accountability
• Pay-for-performance must be funded by the State
  to be meaningful
• Add confidential supervisor evaluation to
  pay-for-performance system
• Pay tied to goals can be difficult and create
  inequity goals are easier to set for some
  departments than others
• Consistent, equitable, accurate, flexible,
  easy-to-write, easy-to-use job descriptions
• Fewer job classifications
• Create growth opportunities instead of stifling
  those with ambition or talent
• Remove 10 promotion salary cap
• Upgrading without requirement to post jobs (its
  a joke, time consuming, creates morale problems)

7
Overall Themes (Classified, Faculty and Exempt
Professional) Issues

• Lack of consistency and understanding is
  everywhere
• Disparity of treatment of employees from one
  campus to another and from one type to another
• Supervisors arent well trained in disability
  accommodation so arent in compliance
• System complexity allows people to manipulate and
  abuse it and they do!
• Retention rights very inconsistent application
• Good old boy culture still exists in some
  areas, even though system is designed to prevent
  it
• Beware making changes that will force talent to
  leave the organization
• Job security is more important to some than
  higher pay
• Job security is more important in the academic
  world since chairs and deans regularly change
  need to avoid patronage
• PERA protection of retirement income
• Make sure PERA remains funded
• Older employees are VERY focused on retirement

8
Overall Themes (Classified, Faculty and Exempt
Professional) Opt Out Issues

• Need to know more
• We need to know what the alternative to the
  current personnel system is before we can decide
  whether its a good idea or not.
• How is the opt-out question affected by the
  Enterprise question?
• Cant we just fix the old system?
• Cost
• Will implementation of a new system be
  cost-effective?
• If theres a shortage of funding for pay, where
  will the money come from to create a new
  personnel system?
• Suspicions
• Is this just another one of those initiatives
  that come and go?
• Is this just another way to keep from paying me
  what I am due?
• Is this a way for the University to get rid of
  expensive, older employees and bring in younger,
  cheaper ones?
• The State legislature wants to get rid of higher
  ed to save money.
• Seems like were being pushed toward wanting to
  opt out.
• Positives
• The University should have more authority to do
  what it needs to do.
• We should have everyone under one equitable
  personnel system.
• Worth it to opt out, even if no extra pay is
  available, just to make other changes.

9
Overall Themes Additional Comments from Faculty
(who supervise State Classified staff) and Exempt
Professional

• The State Classified system is time-consuming and
  a burden
• Difficult to get State Classified staff into
  upgraded positions
• The State Classified system makes things take 25
  more time than they should makes me look
  stupid!
• Job descriptions are too cumbersome and subject
  to interpretation, but it is helpful to have
  guidelines
• Hiring is antiquated its impossible to hire
  someone from outside the system unless its done
  under the radar, want more authority at the
  departmental level
• We end up with older, less productive employees
  because of our cumbersome system.
• Pay-for-performance without pay increases created
  mistrust and it ties back to faulty testing
  positives include annual discussion, goal
  planning and coaching
• Its unfair to have two people doing essentially
  the same job but under different systems treated
  differently (increases, pay, comp time/OT)
• Exempt Professional status is more secure than
  State Classified, because I cant be bumped.
• State employees can have misaligned loyalty with
  the University promotes an us versus them
  mentality
• Staff are hungry for an idea of what the
  alternative might be
• Set a mission that empowers every University
  employee, then set the system based on that
  mission

10
Overall Themes - Differences byCampus

• CU Boulder
• Faculty gets more money and its likely to stay
  that way under the current president State
  Classified staff want respect from faculty
• UCD
• Lots of people are retiring from the State
  Classified system creates brain drain and
  opportunities for promotion
• UCD is the step-child, CU Boulder is the favored
  child they have more resources there
• UCHSC employees are better paid
• Promises about pay have been made and broken
• UCCS
• We have to do a lot more here (wear lots more
  hats), because were smaller were not
  recognized for the extras we do
• UCHSC
• We need a system that can coordinate well with
  the grants and contracts (soft money) received
  theyre complicated enough without a complex
  personnel system on top of them
• UCH opted out to stay competitive, but their
  employee retirement plan was hurt when stock
  market fell significantly
• Do we need to be concerned about outsourcing if
  theres a new system?
• Retention rights? What retention rights?

11
Ideal Scenario

• Job security for those that deserve it
• A grievance process that is less difficult and
  time-consuming
• In the event of layoff, reallocation of worker by
  an impartial, well-informed HR department (rather
  than through an inflexible bumping system)
• One set of simple rules for everyone, that dont
  require work-arounds and that everyone applies
  consistently
• Pay for performance thats fair (more supervisor
  accountability) and funded (if not funded, then
  dont link the performance to pay)
• PERA
• Benefit choices (with good out-of-area options),
  with greater University contribution
• Flexible, easy-to-write and easy-to-use job
  descriptions
• Flexible and fair hiring practices
• More authority at the department level for hiring
• Flexible and fair compensation practices
• Compensation that considers work load
• Compensation that recognizes breadth of
  responsibility, not just the number supervised
• Ability to give inexpensive recognition of good
  work, as desired
• Responsive, well-trained HR staff

12
Other Opportunities

• More training about how the system works now
• Meetings are most effective
• More visible HR staff
• Performance evaluation training, with
  accountability for equitability
• Communication about the value of current benefits
• Communicate what job protections exist outside
  the State Classified system, if any

13
Next Steps...

• Focus group results on task force website
• Survey May 20 June 4
• Faculty has been notified that survey is coming
• Notify staff of survey via
• Campus broadcast e-mail
• Groups without e-mail will get hard copy
• Article in May 20th Silver and Gold
• Include in e-mail notice
• Link to survey
• Task force website address
• Translation services available
• Similar messages as for focus group invitation
• Tracking respondents
• Confidentiality issues
• Employees dont know their employee I.D. numbers
• Using normative data helps confirm no duplicate
  participants
• Survey results presented to task force on June 17

14
REPLY Results - State Classified Staff

• Focus group 3 UCD
• Focus group 5 UCCS
• Focus group 6 UCHSC

15
Combined State Classified Staff Responses
16
Combined State Classified Staff Responses
17
Combined State Classified Staff Responses
18
Combined State Classified Staff Responses
19
Combined State Classified Staff Responses
20
EP and Faculty Responses FG7
21
EP and Faculty Responses FG7
22
EP and Faculty Responses FG7
23
EP and Faculty Responses FG7
24
EP and Faculty Responses FG7