M&P Classification

Job Evaluation Program

• Systematic Process Compares and categorizes job information in order to place each job into a structure for administering salariesFactor comparison system - each are elements which distinguish jobs from one another
• Factors are of equal value and are not weighted

Job Evaluation Factors

• Knowledge and Skill Problem Solving / Decision Making Scope and Complexity Impact and Accountability
• Internal / External Contacts

Job Audits

• Method used to review and evaluate the duties and responsibilities of individual positions Results could be to reclassify a position higher/lower or determine that the current salary grade is appropriate A job audit is appropriate when the duties and responsibilities have changed significantly and substantially This could be either through expanded or reduced responsibilities or through a reorganization Employees, supervisors or the Director of Human Resources can initiate a job audit Job audits require the completion of a M&P Position Description Questionnaire (available on-line or from any of the 3 Human Resources locations on campus) Job audits are conducted by Compensation Representatives
• Formal appeal procedures exist if the staff member chooses to appeal the audit results

Merit Increase Program

Program Goals

Primary goals of the salary program are: to reward and recognize individual contributions; to ensure that internal salary relationships remain equitable; and to pay salaries that are competitive in our identified marketplace.

Merit Increases

Merit increases will consider individual contributions, internal equity and the relative position of an individual's salary to market reference points. Employees should receive full merit increase consideration based on performance, competencies and contributions to achieving the goals of the department and section.

Minimums and Maximums (effective July 1, 2006)

Grade	Minimum	Midpoint	Maximum
20	42,800	51,300	59,800
21	45,000	53,900	62,800
22	47,200	57,300	67,400
23	49,500	62,500	75,500
24	53,000	67,950	82,900
25	57,800	74,000	90,200
26	63,000	81,600	100,200
27	69,900	91,100	112,300
28	77,600	101,700	125,800
29	86,000	113,400	140,800
30	95,500	126,600	157,700
31	106,000	141,250	176,500

 

 

Merit Increases, Performance Reviews and Performance

Definitions Successful performance and motivation to develop competencies and one's career are strongly influenced by the advice, coaching and recognition that a staff member receives from his or her manager or supervisor. University policy encourages regular performance assessments as opportunities for the supervisor and the staff member to discuss goals and accomplishments, as well as competencies needed for further progress. Supervisors are responsible for conducting these reviews annually and basing merit increases on these assessments.

At the foundation of a merit pay system is fair performance management. The success of the system relies on managers and supervisors evaluating employees' performance and making clear appraisals of the quality of their work. The performance levels and definitions on the following page are a guide to help supervisors determine merit increases by categorizing employees' performance in a fair and consistent way.

Performance Definitions

1. Performance in this category clearly shows exceptional attainment. Performance consistently and uniformly far exceeds the usual expectations and established standards for the position. "Extraordinary," "distinguished," "remarkable," and "outstanding" are common descriptions of this level of performance. Little, if any, opportunity remains for employees in this category to improve their performance level or extent of their contribution to the unit.

2. Performance in this category frequently exceeds the established goals and objectives for the position. Performance results in achievements that surpass the norm in a manner that makes an identifiable difference in the work that is important, understood, and accepted by both the supervisor and the employee. Employees in this category usually meet all the standards and objectives of their jobs quickly and make regular contributions beyond the demands of their jobs.

3. Performance in this category can be described as meeting, and occasionally exceeding, the expectations and standards established for the position. Performance is highly competent and consistent. The employee's performance level may periodically exceed the norm, but is most appropriately placed in this category because of its reliability and consistency, resulting in a regular, ongoing achievement of the established standards for the position. Performance in this category enhances the opportunity of the work unit to achieve its goals. This category typically defines the performance level of the majority of Yale's staff.

4. Performance in this category does not always meet standards of satisfactory performance or is consistently below the minimum acceptable expectations and standards established for the position. An employee in this category can be described as inconsistently meeting established norms and standards for the position or regularly failing to meet the established standards and goals for the position. In some cases, performance may be due to the employee needing more experience and / or training. Performance in this category by a new or inexperienced employee would be expected to increase rapidly to a level of meeting the standards and expectations of the position upon additional training, however, performance in this category by a fully trained and experienced employee could result in a project failing or could diminish the opportunity of the work unit to achieve its mission and goals.