Analysis finds U-M in sync with peers on compensation, disclosure

Topics:

The University of Michigan is comparable to peers in its compensation practices and its approach to disclosing total pay based on state law, according to an analysis of dozens of institutions across the country.

Still, the review by U-M Human Resources and an external consultant revealed an opportunity to strengthen controls and use of additional or non-base pay across the university. Non-base pay includes such pay as discretionary bonuses, salary supplements, incentive pay and administrative differentials, among others.

President Mark Schlissel requested the review of compensation practices during his first year in office. The analysis looked at three areas: executive compensation levels, the use of non-base pay, and practices on public disclosure of compensation for all employees. Data on compensation practices came from more than 50 peers and data on transparency and disclosure came from more than 20.

Compensation for U-M executives (top management, vice president and dean roles) is near the top among public peers and in the median of private peers, placing it at the 75th percentile overall for base salary, total cash compensation, and total compensation and benefits. Given the university’s scale and scope, U-M’s compensation program is appropriate and should continue, according to the analysis.

“This feels right to me in striking the balance between continuing our competitive edge for the best administrative talent and being fiscally responsible, especially given the scale and complexity at Michigan,” Schlissel said in accepting the recommendations.

Benchmarking showed use of non-base pay or variable pay is common among peers, and is often used to recruit, retain and reward employees. The analysis showed all institutions studied used non-base pay to varying degrees. More U-M executives and deans receive non-base pay than peers, although award levels are consistent with the market.

Non-base or variable pay also is viewed by U-M and peer institutions as fiscally sound, as the non-recurring and discretionary nature does not create recurring budget impact, according to the report.

Like U-M, most peer institutions are decentralized and use of non-base payments often is not centrally tracked or administered. The analysis identified the need to bring more coherence and consistency to how such payments are used and tracked, and U-M will explore how to improve guidance and processes around non-base and variable pay.

“As we look into this matter we will strive to balance the desire for greater consistency around the use of these payments with the desire to maintain decentralized control at the unit level,” said Kevin P. Hegarty, executive vice president and chief financial officer.

The analysis showed there is no standard practice across institutions in disclosing compensation. U-M and other institutions largely disclose compensation in line with state or other requirements, and public institutions disclose far more than private peers.

Michigan state law requires the disclosure of base salaries paid by general fund dollars. U-M exceeds that requirement by also including employee name, appointing department and appointment fraction. The university also lists all faculty and staff not paid with general fund dollars.

The report recommended maintaining existing disclosure practices and the president accepted that recommendation.

Tags:

Comments

  1. Jim Ginnaty
    on October 1, 2015 at 8:37 am

    Yet, we have managers who supervise 20 or more employees that make less than an entry level carpenter with no supervisory responsibilities.

  2. Former Employee
    on October 1, 2015 at 8:54 am

    This is fascinating. Glad to know Schlissel thinks it “feels right” to continue to get paid lots of money…in the top 75%…while many of the people who keep the institution running….are making in the 25th %ile. Does it really “feel right” to give your top execs double digit percentile raises while the minions receive 3-4%? Really? There’s something wrong with the feel-o-meter here. I left due, in part, to the abysmal salary. And I know of several others who left or have given notice and will be leaving in the next month. This includes “important” people…. like surgeons…in addition to those of us with less highly esteemed positions who are still highly skilled, dedicated employees.

  3. jenifer jones
    on October 1, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    I have to agree with the former employee view of the pay scale at the University of Michigan, It is amazing that those of us who keep the instution with all its we are the brightis and the best glory, are the lowest in raises per year. My current position is required by the University and the state of michigan, that we are certified, and must pay $65.00 per year for this in order to remain employed, yet we are told that we are at the top of our pay scale, and therefore our pay will be frozen. How is it right that a person recieving a salary of $750,000. yet he get a higher raise than the hands on caregivers.

Leave a comment

Commenting is closed for this article. Please read our comment guidelines for more information.