Goal 5 Committee Report

Committee Members:
Chair: Sherry Kauppi - Director: Affirmative Programs
Co-Chair: Michael Abbott - Director: Accounting Services
Betty Chavis - Coordinator of Outreach/Multiethnic Programs: Educational Opportunity
Rebecca Christianson - Manager of Quality Services Education: President's Office
Richard Elenich - Analyst/Programmer: Institutional Analysis
Ellen Horsch - Director: Human Resources (also Graduate Student Representative)
Jeannie Patrick - Administrative Associate: Office of the Dean of the College of Engineering (also Graduate Student Representative)
Dolores Vincent - Senior Systems Analyst: Information Technology
Vernon Watwood - Professor: Civil and Environmental Engineering

The committee will evaluate the University's progress in meeting its strategic goal of providing a rewarding and challenging work environment in which staff meet or exceed expectations. The committee will examine

1. policies on attracting, retaining, motivating, and developing outstanding administrative and support staff with competitive salaries and benefits;
2. the opportunities available for professional development and continuing education;
3. the use of periodic reviews and individualized development plans to foster employee growth and development;
4. the environment for all constituents (executives, administrative, professional, and support staff); and
5. policies to increase diversity of staff with emphasis on recruitment and retention of women and ethnic minorities.

The committee will make recommendations to the Steering Committee for possible avenues of improvement and identifying areas of concern.

The following is an evaluation of MTU’s performance relative to NCA criteria and applied to MTU Strategic Goal 5, stated above.

In addition to using the materials in the MTU Resource Room, the NCA Committee which was charged to evaluate Goal 5 surveyed staff members from the entire campus. Copies of the staff survey and the numerical results are attached in the Appendix.

As it relates to Goal 5, Criterion 1 is met at the University level. It is not met consistently at the departmental level. The goals for staff that are articulated in the strategic plan are consistent with MTU’s vision and mission for staff and appear to be appropriate to the University mission [2.1D2].

At the departmental level, goals for staff across MTU are less clear and, at times, un-stated. This is especially true in academic departments. Very few of the departments have indicated how staff are involved in departmental governance. This is not surprising considering the limited role staff play in academic departments. In general, administrative departments addressed the role of staff to a greater degree.

In many departmental self-studies, individual departmental goals are clear, but it is not apparent how staff are expected to contribute toward reaching those goals. It is also unclear how staff have input into the planning process in their departments.

There are no patterns of evidence that practices regarding staff are consistent from department to department. For example, about one-half of the self studies describe opportunities for staff to attend professional development or continuing education sessions. Only four out of 46 departments indicated that money is set aside in their budgets for staff development.

While most departments do not indicate how staff are involved in governance issues, a few did express how staff are involved in decision making. Examples of staff involvement in both academic and administrative departments range from self-directed work teams to departments where staff have full voting rights on most issues [2.6].

With the exception of the University Employee Tuition Benefit Program, there are no stated University-wide policies or procedures relating to staff development.

The level of knowledge about the mission of the University appears to vary among groups (represented vs. non-represented). A greater percentage of non-represented staff report that they know the mission than do represented staff (Attachment 2, Question 19).

General Comments

Since 1988, MTU has improved significantly in organizing its resources to accomplish its purposes regarding staff. Staff were not even mentioned in University planning documents at that time. [2.1C]. In the Strategic Planning Process instituted in 1992, staff were recognized as a critical component of the University by being given a University level goal dedicated to them alone.

The organizational structures for the human resources of MTU are generally reviewed, revised, and re-organized with each change in leadership in each department. Current organizational charts for administrative departments are filed in the Human Resources (HR) Office.

The discussion below relates to the way the University is organized to address the following staff issues: hiring, compensation, promotion, diversity, governance, best practices, training and other current staff concerns.

Hiring Process

The MTU hiring process mandates that no hire can be approved if the candidate has not met all of the posted requirements for the position. Human Resources works with departments prior to posting to define essential functions and develop appropriate related requirements. Managers establish the requirements as they relate to the current needs of each unit. For instance, one hire may reflect a need for strong technical skills, and the next hire may emphasize a requirement for strong managerial or communication skills to bring the entire unit into its most efficient balance. The process of hiring only those meeting posted requirements applies to internal and external hires. This includes cases where an accommodation may be needed to perform the essential function (HR handout "Important Employment Information").

Compensation

Since 1988, there has been extensive revision of compensation administration. According to the Department Self-study from the Human Resources (HR) office, "In 1988, HR did not have a current compensation system or a compensation expert. The United Auto Workers (UAW) had successfully organized the clerical and technical employees in January of 1991, highlighting compensation and pay practices as the major reason. The threat of more union activity among the professional staff forced the administration to review the compensation/classification system. In 1990, Hay Group consultants were retained to create a system that would address the needs of the University."

Staff salaries were restructured around implementation of the Hay compensation system in 1992 [2.6H8]. Since then, market pressures and the nature of our specialized departments have influenced the compensation system to become even more tailored to MTU issues. The objectives for the MTU compensation program are:

• retain valued employees,
• attract qualified employees,
• motivate individual performance, and
• treat employees fairly

(Understanding Classification and Compensation, MTU Human Resources, May 1995).

The bargaining units use local markets to drive their compensation plans to achieve the objective of being at the midpoint in the Benchmark surveys. Two units with pressing pay issues, the UAW, which now represents the clerical staff, and the Police Officers Association (POA), which represents Public Safety Officers, developed 5 year plans to address those wage concerns.

Promotions

One frustration that has been identified by the staff is that the organizational structure does not easily facilitate staff in finding challenging positions where they can use their qualifications within the same department. The institution has small, often highly specialized departments. This may make it difficult to develop career paths. As the organization "flattens," it becomes even more difficult. Larger departments, like Information Technology and the Library, have more opportunities for career paths. However, in some cases the practice of moving to various departments can have a positive effect, in that it develops employees with a broader perspective.

Diversity

Diversity of the staff is also a prominent consideration of the administration since 1988. Key hires demonstrate this. For instance, Educational Opportunities operates programs specifically designed to increase the diversity and cultural understanding for all areas of the University. In 1990, a person who now serves as the Coordinator of Outreach/Ethnic Programs, was hired to recruit out of the Educational Opportunity (EdOp) office. In 1996, the Coordinator of Native American Outreach was added to the EdOp staff. One example of greater interaction with the Native American populations is the Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) which began hiring in 1993. Initiated as a technology transfer program out of the Civil Engineering Department, TTAP is a unit where staff are hired for the sole purpose of providing 55 tribes in 31 states with information, services and assistance regarding transportation. Every effort is made to employ tribal members or persons with affiliations to the tribes. Staff has also been added in the form of a new minority recruiter’s position in the Admissions Office in 1993. This person strengthens contacts with all populations, including African Americans, from our student recruitment areas.

When President Tompkins arrived at MTU in 1991, he established the Presidential Commission for Women (PCW) and the Presidential Commission for Diversity (PCD). In 1994, the PCW produced "A Study of the Climate for Women at Michigan Technological University." Findings of the study were presented to the administration and the Board of Control. Recommendations were developed and shared with the administration. Then plans from each department incorporated relevant actions from those recommendations. For instance, one finding of the study was a perception that female staff are paid differently than male staff. To follow up on this part of the report, an equity analyst was hired jointly by the PCW and the Affirmative Action Office. The analyst studied the pay practices and the potential disparate impact on women and minorities at MTU. The final report from the analyst is expected in 1997.

Diversity issues are also developing outside of the hiring arena. In 1991, the first MTU staff members attended off-campus National Coalition Building Institute (NCBI) workshops regarding prejudice and effective methods to counteract it. In March of 1996, 13 staff members, three faculty, and eight students were trained to lead NCBI workshops on our campus.

MTU has had an Affirmative Action Plan to monitor hiring and set goals for protected class members at the University since the 1980’s. The plan uses various legally defined factors to determine availability of qualified prospective applicants. Along with the current utilization analysis and the expected openings for the coming year, goals for all departments, including staff, are generated. Progress reports on these goals are shared with the President annually. Total minority group representation for the 1,141 employees (at or above .75 FTE) was 7.4% in 1996. The job group with consistently zero representation for minority groups is "Skilled Crafts". The highest level of representation is in the "Executive Managerial" with 7 of 74, or 9.5% in 1996. This is up from the lowest point of 4.1% in 1991. The average minority representation for staff is near 4%.

Governance

Staff participation in the governance of the institution has grown significantly since 1988. One of the first serious efforts to include staff in the governance of MTU was begun in 1989 by the Vice President of Operations and Finance. Large sessions were organized across campus to educate the Operations and Finance staff regarding the concepts of the new participative management style. Reactions were mixed, from excited acceptance to staunch resistance. Over the years understanding of the roles and acceptance of the greater responsibilities of shared governance have evolved. Staff Council was originally formed to advise on issues of interest and concern to staff who were not represented by the University senate. In 1991, Staff Council began advising the President in much the same manner.

In 1994, the general perception that Staff Council was becoming dominated by union interests led to another innovation—the inclusion of most professional staff in the University Senate constituency. The Senate, which was comprised of mostly faculty, considered adding the Human Resources office to their constituency, but instead voted in 1994 to include nearly all professional staff to the constituency. This model was piloted for almost 2 years, and was voted into the bylaws in 1997.

At the department level, staff involvement in departmental governance has been minimal and inconsistent. In 1995, the nineteen academic departments were called on to develop charters. As of February 1997, all charters were completed and approved. In the first round charters, only a few mention staff. Those that do mention staff, include staff roles in governance, and mention attendance at meetings. At least two departments mention voting rights for non-bargaining unit staff members. Some distinguish between voting on non-academic issues only, while others give full voting rights [3.4]. Improvements to the charters are now being proposed by some departments. Administration expects that staff roles will be more clearly defined, refined, and enhanced as these revisions reflect and incorporate the goals of the University.

Best Practices

The current structure at MTU positively affects staff. In recent years, MTU has adopted the practice of benchmarking as a means of self evaluation relative to all of our Goals. We have identified peer institutions (those most like us), and benchmark institutions (those with successful programs or practices). Benchmark institutions were visited to review and gather information about "best practices." After such comparisons, one noticeable distinction for MTU operations is the position of the Executive Vice President/Provost which was established and filled in 1992. This combined position keeps staff more closely involved in the general information sharing and decision making of the whole university.

The benchmarking trips also revealed that many institutions have considered outsourcing services. In addition to our bargaining unit environment, our geographical location, and availability of service providers would have a strong impact on such decisions. Outsourcing issues are of great concern to staff.

In 1991, President Tompkins arrived with an agenda to introduce Total Quality Education (TQE) to the campus. A TQE Coordinator was hired in 1992 to support the President’s initiative. The concepts of TQE support the ideals of shared governance.

Consistent with part of the staff recommendations, the Provost has designated $5,000.00 from the general fund to be used for training for managers and supervisors. Sessions will begin in September, 1997.

The financial resources of MTU related to staff are organized around several programs. The MTU compensation system for professional/non-represented staff is the tailored version of the Hay System. As previously mentioned, there are five-year compensation equity programs in place for two of the three bargaining units on campus.

The physical resources designated for the goals related to staff are not discussed in this report. Computer or office equipment and other physical needs were not mentioned by staff as an issue of concern.

MTU is meeting the goal of providing an environment that is rewarding and challenging in which staff meet or exceed expectations.

General

Staff provide the support needed so the University can effectively perform its various functions. In their daily work, staff are often the first contact for students seeking assistance in a variety of matters. They create and maintain the support systems which must operate for the educational process to function. They participate in the recruitment of quality students, faculty, and staff. They facilitate instruction, research, and advancement opportunities. They maintain the university’s physical plant and safe environment.

Staff Environment

In addition to the above functions of staff, they serve in an advisory capacity on such groups as the Staff Council. Staff Council develops and administers projects like the Employee Excellence Awards, the Staff Recognition Awards, Family Fun Day, and Supervisor Evaluations.

Staff indicate that their work environment is acceptable, although they report room for improvement (Attachment 2, Question 6). Staff feel safe in their work environment (Attachment 2, Question 7). They report that they find their jobs challenging. This is true especially for those who are unrepresented. By and large, staff find their jobs rewarding (Attachment 2, Questions 13 &14).

Turnover rates are often indicators of employee levels of satisfaction. The most recent turnover rate for regular full time staff at MTU was 76 persons leaving and 795 remaining, or 9.6%. The turnover rate for the whole University was 8.3%. Many variables could affect this. For instance, MTU is the primary employer in the local area. The quality of community-to-campus, or "town-gown," relationships are critical for the local communities, as well as for the University.

Training

A Training and Development (T&D) Coordinator was hired in HR in 1990. When the reduction in force occurred in 1991, the position of T&D Coordinator was eliminated. As a stop gap measure, HR personnel offered "Lunch and Learn" sessions to campus members. Currently, T&D is combined with the TQE office, now called the Quality Service Education Office (QSE). "Quality Service Education has offered development programs for the campus since 1993 (i.e. computer training for 52 employees)" [2.6H8].

Opportunities for growth for campus professionals have expanded since 1988. In 1993, MTU began paying for female professionals and faculty members with interests in administration to attend a month long program at the Bryn Mahr Institute. Internships in the Provost Office are given to those faculty who return from Bryn Mahr, providing them with valuable related administrative experience.

The evaluation of the supervisors mentioned above, which was developed by the Staff Council and is now administered in the Institutional Analysis Office, helped drive training decisions on campus. President Tompkins asked Staff Council to develop a tool to give feedback not only to himself but to all persons in a supervisory role. The results of that evaluation helped to determine areas of need for training on campus.

In spite of the improvements mentioned above, one concern indicated by staff is that they are not able to keep current in their fields. They report that their departments do not adequately provide the resources required for training and development. They also appear to have few expectations that the University will do so (Attachment 2, Question 15).

Contrary to expectations of Goal 5 committee members, it was found that this lack of training exists in both academic and non-academic departments to the same extent. The problem is that there is very little money budgeted for staff training and development. A few departments have allocated money for staff training and development, while most have not. For the most part, departments do not have a formal staff training plan, but some self-studies indicate that professional development is encouraged [2.6]. There seems to be some apathy among staff and/or directors regarding staff training.

The MTU administration has responded to committee and team recommendations in most cases. For instance, as described in Criteria #2, the PCW’s Climate Study lead to actions in many departments. Eight TQE teams have also provided recommendations that have streamlined operations in departments or in cross departmental projects. Improvements have been recognized in student recruiting and registration, scheduling, receiving money and gifts in Advancement, and SDC membership increases (Interview with the Quality Services Education Manager).

One significant exception to the administration’s response record related to the Training Improves Productivity (TIP) report. The TIP team recommended placing more emphasis on training staff, especially computer training and supervisory training. This report was submitted to the administration and shared with the Deans and Directors in the summer of 1996. There has been no administration response to-date in the areas of on-campus computer training, new employee orientation, or general staff training and development.

Training and development continues as an area in which staff are very interested (Attachment 2, Question 15). A number of one day seminars and courses have been offered to staff. They include: Supervisory Skills, Time Management, Delegation, Laughing Matters (Stress Management), and Goal and Priority Setting. These offerings have been appreciated by those who have attended but there is a perception that those who need them most are not attending. Participation in all of these session has been voluntary.

Compensation Picture

According to the Assistant Director of Compensation and Recruitment, the perception that most staff are compensated below the national average, or current market may be due to salary compression. Existing staff see incremental increases that keep up with inflation, but not the market. New hires are brought in at competitive market rates. Many departmental self-studies seem to reiterate this concern about compression. Also, staff are not compensated entirely on merit. This is not unusual in higher education, but it may lead to performance and morale problems. There have been past perceived equity problems which are detailed in the PCW’s Climate Study. As mentioned in Criteria #2, the PCW and the Affirmative Action office co-sponsored hiring an analyst to further study this perception of an equity problem.

One compensation strength is that the benefits package provided by the University offers family premiums of over $5700.00 for health benefits in a flexible plan that is paid entirely by MTU. Compared to 13 Michigan universities, this premium amount is the third highest. Also, among those 13, seven have families pay premiums for their health care (Interview with the Benefits Manager).

Members of the bargaining units do not indicate that they play as large a role in departmental decision making processes as un-represented groups (Attachment 2, Question 16). This is unfortunate but not unexpected in a union environment. The rest of the staff say that they have some input in departmental decisions (Attachment 2, Question 16). Some departmental self-studies mention that staff have formal or informal ways to give input into the decision making process.

Bargaining Units

One of the objectives of the University, and HR specifically, is to "continue favorable relations with the three labor unions and to continue to develop the equity plan for each union." As mentioned, the five-year pay equity plans are making sound progress. Regarding the strong relations, "Human Resources has been successfully employing issue-based bargaining with both the UAW and POA. . . After the resignation of Labor Director and subsequent financial crisis in 1991, labor relations moved to Human Resources. . . Contracts are bargained and tentatively agreed upon in very short time periods. . .in less than one week and as short as three days." The UAW has ". . .participated in more ‘cutting edge’ compensation processes than any other unit on campus. For example, the unit was the first to address the problem of employees over the maximum pay rate in their salary range by giving a non-base salary adjustment" [2.6H8].

In 1992–93, a busy time for union relations, the MTU Mail Services staff accreted into the AFSCME unit. Also in 1992–93, the UAW Technical unit decertified, leaving only the clerical unit represented by that organization.

Having noted the strong relations with the unions, it is also important to recognize that unionization can be a sign of discontent on the part of the employees. Regarding the level of satisfaction of the professional/ non-union staff, attempts to unionize that group failed in a close "No" vote in that same year, 1992–3. We believe that the many reviews and improvements to the policies over the past five years have made unionization of the professional staff much less likely to be a hot issue.

With the inclusion of Goal 5 in MTU’s strategic plan, department heads are now more aware of the issues facing staff and they may be committed to address these issues.

The University will be able to continue to accomplish its purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness with regard to Goal 5, if more attention and more resources are directed toward professional development.

General

Many members of the University staff community recognize that there are significant inadequacies with respect to training opportunities. Several resources address the need for staff training resources. They include, but are not limited to: the TIP report, the 1993 QUOIN survey (a campus climate survey designed to assess Baldridge Award categories), and 1996 MTU Staff survey results.

Both external threats and internal weakness may affect staffing plans. A major weakness is the lack of awareness among academic and administrative department heads/chairs that staff have a valuable role within the institution. For example, in the department self-studies, less than 40% mentioned anything about staff needs or related resources. An external threat is a decreasing revenue base, linked to declining enrollment and shrinking research funding from both state and federal sources. The departmental self-studies reflected minimal or no budgetary support earmarked for staff training and development, which in turn, limits the opportunity for professional development. A strong commitment and an increase in resources are needed.

Internally, staff are faced with the dilemma of lack of promotional paths, inadequate salaries, and understaffing.

Staff needs have started to be addressed to varying degrees. Based on the comparison between the 1996 MTU Staff Survey results and the 1993 QUOIN Survey results, more respondents feel today that MTU does not think it is important for staff to receive information and training to do their job effectively. However, the comparison also illustrated that staff believes MTU is addressing the above issues better than in 1993.

As mentioned, the TIP quality team, sponsored by the Executive Vice President/Provost, developed a report that detailed recommendations for improving staff education. Aside from supervisory training mentioned in Criteria #2, there is no plan to enhance staff training and resource allocation at this time.

In general, MTU staff feel that the University has demonstrated honesty and integrity in its dealings with them (Attachment 2, Question 21).

General

Since 1991, MTU has utilized various compensation systems to evaluate staff positions with regard to appropriate salary ranges. Other studies/surveys have been made for special purposes regarding fairness in pay practices. For example, at least two studies have been made to determine if women are appropriately compensated (Faculty Equity Study by Dr. Paul Nelson [5.2D] and Report from Equity Analyst due in 1998). The Nelson study determined that gender was not a factor in pay discrepancies for faculty. Current compensation and classification policies have attempted to resolve some of the problems and concerns of staff. No system can resolve the complicated question about what the appropriate compensation is for a given individual in a system. Procedures to pay competitively seem to offer the best resolutions.

Staff concerns about sick leave have resulted in improved programs. Prior to 1989, there were several cases of individual staff members who developed terminal conditions. When their sick leave ran out, there was no mechanism to extend it and they were forced to take unpaid leaves of absence. In 1989 and 1990, there were several cases where employees offered to share their earned sick leave benefit. Rather than sharing sick leave, other exceptions were granted at the Vice President level. Once the precedent of making exceptions was set, two concerns arose. One was the frustrations of staff who had the willingness to share their benefits with their fellow employees facing serious illness. The other was the perception that all employees were not treated consistently. The issues were studied and a program was implemented in 1992–93 whereby employees could contribute sick leave days into a pool that could be accessed by any MTU employee participating in the pool and who is facing serious health issues. The extra sick time available covers the gap between exhaustion of paid sick leave and eligibility for long term disability (Interview with Benefits Manager).

We measure success, or lack of success, of policies regarding environment and morale of staff in a variety of ways. One way is for supervisors and members of the Human Resources department to simply ask various employees. This type of an approach often leads to a sampling from a non-representative group. Another, more systematic, way of doing this is by the use of surveys in which all staff are requested to answer questions and opportunity is given for them to comment on any subject which will often reveal telling things about the success of policies. This has been done at least three times in the recent past, the last time during the preparation for this accreditation visit.

Generally, questions regarding fairness in hiring practices and employee treatment have been resolved with current internal procedures. Any claim filed with external agencies, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Office of Civil Rights (ORC) were dismissed or dropped.

When a position is no longer needed due to budget changes or a change in University direction, the University makes an effort to relocate this person to an open position when it occurs where his/her skills can be utilized effectively. This policy has been in effect for a least eight years and perhaps longer. As an example, when approximately 50 people had their employment terminated because of a fiscal crisis about six years ago, all but about five were rehired over the next two years.

The hiring/recruitment procedure is being adhered to with regard to the rules of Affirmative Action. However, given the geographic location and the demographics of the academic population, MTU needs to employ more, or other, methods in order to move toward their goal of greater diversity.

Strengths

1. Hard working, dedicated staff.
2. Low turn over rates.
3. Long term plans for compensation policies.
4. Total Quality Manager’s position.
5. MTU has a very competitive benefits package.

Weaknesses

1. Inconsistent administrative support for training and development at the department level.
2. Lack of career paths for staff.
3. Unionized support staff environment.

Opportunities

1. Changing technology may offer relief from geographic constraints.
2. Increasing population of 18-year-olds for student recruitment affects budgets.
3. Trained and talented pool of local applicants from which to recruit employees.
4. Town-gown relationships.
5. Location may make recruiting some individuals easier due to lifestyle considerations.

Threats

1. Enrollment and tuition revenue are down.
2. Tougher competition for limited research funds.
3. Political considerations at the state level.
4. Technology changes faster than we can keep up.
5. Location makes recruiting difficult for some positions.
6. Town-gown relationship may cause MTU to miss opportunities to capitalize in cutting costs, etc.

1. Funds should be allocated to departments for training and staff development. This would keep departments engaged in the training function for staff as well as give them some control and input. The funds might be designated for training and development only, similar to the way faculty computing funds are currently set up.
2. To increase diversity among staff on campus, more exploration of methods to increase diversity and more emphasis should be placed on recruiting and hiring members of minorities among the staff.