Survey shows 7.3 percent gap in UW staff salaries

An improved survey of professional staff salaries showed a salary gap of 7.3 percent with the regional market as of July 1.

The survey, conducted this past spring by Johnson/Lindstrand Consulting, Inc., collected data on 59 benchmark jobs. The advisory committee (composed of professional staff and members of the Office of Compensation and Professional Staff Programs), working with Johnson/Lindstrand, recommended the addition of several new jobs and reviewed and revised existing benchmark descriptions as needed. As a result, the benchmarks represent about 50 percent of professional staff and appropriately reflect the distribution of employees among salary grades and job types. The benchmarks chosen are well known, commonly understood jobs, and generally found in large numbers in the public and private sectors.

This year’s survey was analyzed in a variety of ways using statistical methods that helped assure the accuracy and quality of the data. New statistical techniques also were used to confirm that the benchmarks chosen are truly representative of the UW professional staff population, making the extrapolation of the survey results to all professional staff more reliable. Jobs that are difficult to evaluate through the traditional market survey process can be appropriately aligned by applying a market/equity regression line to estimate the market average for each professional staff job class.

Johnson/Lindstrand used a combination of published salary surveys and targeted data collection. This year’s survey relied more heavily on a targeted survey than in the past, with information gathered from both peer institutions and larger local organizations, such as Microsoft, Visio, Spacelabs Medical, Paccar, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and many others.

The salary gap in 1996 was 8 percent, but because of changes in benchmark jobs and shift in data sources, direct comparisons can be misleading. However, it would appear that professional staff salaries are maintaining their position compared with the market. Factors that may be influencing this include: a 45 percent rise in recruitment over the past two years and the need to offer more market-competitive rates; increased number of position and salary reviews, many in response to hiring new employees at higher rates than existing staff; merit salary adjustments of 4 percent in 1997 and 2 percent in 1998; increased number of competitive offers to retain high performing staff; and implementation of new salary ranges for positions in grades 5-10 in July 1997.

While professional staff salaries have maintained their position compared with the market, this year’s survey showed that base compensation is only part of the picture. Annual incentives, which are used to reward organization-wide or individual performance, are provided in 35 percent of the 48 organizations responding to this portion of the survey. When total cash (cash payments beyond base pay but not including stock options) is factored in, the salary gap with the regional market rises to 12.6 percent.

Johnson/Lindstrand recommends the University develop a compensation philosophy encompassing total cash compensation. They point out that other public sector organizations are developing variable pay/incentive programs, and the University should investigate what is permissible for state agencies.

Johnson/Lindstrand’s analysis supports the UW salary proposals for professional staff, employing a three biennium approach to closing the salary gap. In addition, the consultants recommend the University selectively allocate additional funds, above the overall average for professional staff, to correct base pay market gaps for specific job types such as information technology and health care. The University is having an increasingly difficult time recruiting for positions in these fields.

An information hour to discuss the findings will be held at noon Friday, Oct. 23 in room 110 Johnson Annex. The entire report is available at campus copy centers and a summary of the key results are on the web: http://www.jlconsulting.com/uwsurvey1998/html/1998_executive_summary.htm. ¶

Bob Roseth, News and Information