Umich Reclassification Project a Miserable Failure
… at least in my case. The University of Michigan, my employer (technically), has engaged on a lengthy and expensive job classification project. The ostensible goal is to have job titles that better match market titles (less ambiguous and/or more accurate), so the U can better peg their compensation rates to market data and to define clear career paths for U employees.
My previous official job title was Computer Systems Consultant I, which has been changed to Help Desk Support Service Specialist Associate. Less ambiguous? More accurate? First off, that title has two nouns. Am I a “specialist” or an “associate?” Or what is a “specialist associate”? Second, I only spend about one-fifth or less of my time doing anything that could be construed as “help desk”-like. I spend at least an equal amount of time doing real system and network administration, technology training, web design and development and general IT consulting (not to mention writing grants, facilitating meetings, and DBA duties …).
I am insulted.
I am, however, not surprised. I’ve been skeptical of this project from the beginning. The U administration stipulated the project be “budget neutral,” meaning nobody gets a raise (or a pay cut) based on what the project discovers. In conflict with this requirement, however, is the requirement as part of the process that University units develop a “compensation philosophy,” that they can justify based on the newly available market data. This creates an incentive to assign titles pegged to lower salary ranges, because if an existing salary doesn’t “match” the market, and a raise can’t be given because of it, then an employee must be classified into a different bracket. Also, pegging titles to lower salary titles creates a “compensation philosophy” that looks generous on paper, especially where there is some ambiguity in the process (like my position). This, of course, defeats the whole purpose of the project.
Aside from my personal whine, this project also highlights the problems of categorization, a subject that’s gotten a lot of play in the social software think-circles lately, due to the wild popularity of sites that incorporate a “tagging” approach to categorization, like del.icio.us and Flickr. Some good discussions on relate issues can be found at You’re It. I’d like to tag my job as: nonprofit sysadmin web webdesign webprogramming netadmin networkadmin itconsulting ittraining dba helpdesk itsupport
Well, due to my rather lowly “official” job title, at least I still get time and a half overtime…
Update: Perhaps I spoke a little too soon? After some protest, I’ve been reclassified to Systems Administrator Intermediate, which is much more appropriate. My working title is “Technology Coordinator” which suffices, I suppose.
June 6th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Hrmm. I wonder what mine will change to…
I am guessing I will find out sooner than later!
June 6th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
So, what was the project supposed to do exactly? Classify 36,000 people accurately and eliminate all ambiguity from a bureaucracy that has existed for over 180 years? I’ll agree that in your example, they obviously screwed up, but it’s not like there’s an easy solution to the problem they are trying to fix.
My title actually changed to a very recognizable (industry-wise) term, and is, in fact, a change for the best (I went from a Performance Support Analyst to an Instructional Designer). The discussions of tagging content aside, the U didn’t have a system where many titles were recognizable outside of the U. Many of the changes being made in the program were to bring obvious jobs into line with their industry counterparts. From there, positions can be described properly and compared accurately to the salaries and responsibilities of a standard [insert title]. It’s hard to retain or hire good candidates when you have a position that doesn’t relate to 90% of the potential workforce.
If it bothers you that much, take it up with your local HR rep. You obviously got shorted in the process or at the very least were insulted; since the process is ongoing, now would be the time to try and change the title.
June 6th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Ryan,
Please note that the first sentence of this post, including the title, is that the Classification Project was a miserable failure in my case. Also please note that I acknowledge this post is a personal “whine.”
I’m glad you got reclassified in a sensible way, and I’m sure many people have. However, I don’t think that my case is unique, and I wanted to point out that the “budget neutral” mandate combined with the “establish a departmental compensation philosophy” mandate creates a tension in cases like mine where they might have to acknowledge that I am probably underpaid for my set of job duties.
In my case, I accept this fact because I in reality work for a non-profit that has partnered with a U unit (my supervisors aren’t employed by the U at all), and I like my workplace and my coworkers enough to put up with it. What irks me about this is that they had more than enough information to make a better choice on this label, they chose not to, and the simplest and most likely explanation (assuming they actually considered my supervisor-approved job description; not having paid attention to that would’ve been more insulting) is they were trying to peg me in to a lower salary bracket. I’d rather they have respected me enough to at least try to find an accurate label, and if that put me in a bracket that doesn’t jive with their “compensation philosophy,” live with it or give me a raise. Don’t insult me by calling me a help desk jockey.
I have already taken this up with my immediate supervisor. I don’t expect much to come of it in my particular case. The division between who pays me and who’s my boss creates a nice circle where everyone can point their finger at everyone else, and nobody really deals with it…
June 6th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
I understand it’s a personnal experience thing, and I don’t want to come off as a shill for the process. I don’t work on the project (thank God) and I agree that in your case, the tension you spoke of wrecked the process.
Part of the issue, in my opinion, is that the U doesn’t get how to be a business. “Departmental compensation philosophy” is just buzz language for performance-based compensation management, a philosophy that academia hasn’t been quick to adopt or embrace, as your experience clearly illustrates. I can only assume that you should have been reclassed higher and rightfully earned an increase, something the U stopped before it could get going with that “budget neutral” BS.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to come off as an apologist, I just wanted to relate from the other side. Good luck with your appeal; hopefully working for a partner will help your cause, not hurt it.
June 7th, 2005 at 9:31 am
I ended up as an “Information System Training Specialist Intermediate” which is a more accurate title than I had before (Computer Systems Consultant I). I think they did miss the boat for many of the IT jobs though because most of the people around me have either “Desktop Support” titles or “Help Desk Support” titles which, as Scott points out, don’t take into consideration how diverse the jobs actually are. There aren’t many units on campus that actually have enough IT employees to be able to say they are “Help Desk” or “Desktop Support” only. IT managers in particular have gotten titles that really don’t reflect what they do.
In the defense of the reclass project though, it needed to be done and I do think that many of the jobs, like mine, are more correctly reflected in the new titles.
June 7th, 2005 at 9:33 am
I ended up as an “Information System Training Specialist Intermediate” which is a more accurate title than I had before (Computer Systems Consultant I). I think they did miss the boat for many of the IT jobs though because most of the people I know have either “Desktop Support” titles or “Help Desk Support” titles which, as Scott points out, don’t take into consideration how diverse the jobs actually are (and they are not happy). There aren’t many units on campus that actually have enough IT employees to be able to say they are “Help Desk” or “Desktop Support” only. IT managers in particular have gotten titles that really don’t reflect what they do.
In the defense of the reclass project though, it needed to be done and I do think that many of the jobs, like mine, are more correctly reflected in the new titles.
June 17th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Pretty popular reclassification title. It’s mine too. I wonder how long it will be before someone decides there are just too many of this class of ’specialists’.
June 18th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
My staff is generally satisfied with their reclassification titles (which were released to them yesterday). What won’t please them is when they go to the Classification System Project website and they compare their “budget-neutral” salaries to the market data gathered by the U as part of the CSP.
There are actually two titles associated with every staff position now…the working title (the “official” U title) and the market title (what you might see listed for any given position in a newspaper). I will note that, for my staff, none of the “market titles” we had proposed were incorporated into their official documentation. I know they were submitted to HR, but don’t know where along the way they might have been dropped from the process, if they even made it out of HR at all.
Staff planning on appealing their new titles should note that no changes will be made for at least 6 months. I’m just happy that, as a member of the “Primary” job family, I didn’t have to go through this entire process myself.
June 18th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Rob, thanks for your input. All but one of my co-workers that received new titles were not happy with them for one reason or another, and our immediate supervisors, for the most part, support our disputes — though they are rather miffed that they didn’t see our new titles until after we did. I suspect some units to do a better job than others — I heard one department had a hr-type sit down one on one with each employee, and they mapped the titles together! Looks like my unit is just jacked. I look forward to seeing the details of the title on Monday.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I went from “Programmer Analyst II” to “Web Designer Associate”. I too, feel insulted. First off, I’m not only a web designer. I do a lot programming. I also do extensive work with databases and interfaces that are not web-related. I feel like I’m the only person who actually knows what I do. The worst part of this job title reclassification is my status change from exempt to non-exempt. Fortunately, my benefits and vacation time are unaffected (for now), but any new co-workers with the same title get jacked on vacation time and benefits.
I have also heard rumors that this is the first of four phases of the reclassification process. It frightens me to think that my benefits and vacation time may be on the line.
July 13th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Alex. I know in my unit, *many* people are unhappy with the way this process has gone, while in others it has gone quite well. I switched to non-exempt back when the over-time regs kicked in. It didn’t change anything for me, but I agree that it sucks for anyone who follows. I think it highly unlikely that the U might ever revoke benefits, since I think they’re trying to avoid driving a mass of campus workers into the arms of the AFT UPOWER organizing campaign. I wonder if, now that everyone has a new title and has an idea of how they are valued/perceived by their departments, whether this will lead to more folks taking an interest in that campaign.