performance bonuses and perceptions of salary scales
TRANSCRIPT
Performance bonuses and perceptions
of salary scales
21 November 2012
Performance management at SU
• Uniform characteristics of SU performance management:
– Applicable to all permanent members of staff
– Central point of departure is based on annual work agreement with:
• Agreed KPAs
• Objectives per KPA
• Agreed weightings per KPA
• Provision for self-evaluation
• Awarding of mark, finally calculated according to a standardised 5-point
scale
Underlying dynamics
• Open communication process between line manager and subordinate
• Subordinate’s participation in the process – stating of objectives,
feedback, self-evaluation
• Compulsory feedback during performance cycle:
– Before start of performance cycle (Jan to Dec of each year),
discussion to reach agreement on performance outputs for the
cycle concerned
– Progress discussions between line head and subordinate during
the cycle
– Personalised development plans for each employee
– Open and fair process during and at end of each cycle, formal
performance appraisal with agreed-upon work agreement as base
– Performance must be discussed with employee and the employee
must sign to confirm that the performance mark had been
discussed with her, that note was taken of her performance mark
and that the PDP was discussed
(Process is audited every year by SU’s internal auditors)
Generally accepted provisions and practice
• Final marks on 5-point scale are verified institutionally
• To qualify for annual general remuneration adjustments, staff must achieve at
least 3 on the standardised 5-point scale
• Excellent employees may be nominated for performance bonuses (which are
awarded for SU as a whole to a maximum of 20% of the top achievers) – verified
by the Rector’s Management Team
• Underachievers: general annual remuneration adjustments are withheld
partially/in full and they are subjected to compulsory short-term performance
management – again with clearly agreed short-term performance improvement
objectives – if performance does not improve, it could give rise to further steps
being taken
Standard work agreement
Summary
• Is used uniformly for all support service staff
• Work agreements are contextualised to make provision for
distinctiveness of the respective faculties
• Permitted by management, but managed strictly according to
fixed procedures and standardised outcomes for the University
as a whole
• Moving towards e-performance, management have
concentrated over the past 18 months on testing the e-approach
in the Faculty of Health Sciences
• Moving to a system of 360-degree appraisals – is being
implemented in a structured manner from the senior post grades
to further down in the University
• Examples
Example: Engineering
Distribution of performance marks in 2010 and 2011
11
4 30
1296
826
77 0 33
1697
828
69
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1-1.99 2-2.99 3-3.99 4-4.99 5
2010
2011
Rector’s Awards 2011 review period - academic
12
Women Men Total Awards
Total
nominations
Awards
Number of
nominations Awards
Number of
nominations
Academic
5 9 36 38 173 47 209
6 9 44 17 78 26 122
7 18 91 24 151 42 242
8 25 163 28 125 53 288
9 4 24 2 13 6 37
10 1 1
11 2 2
13 1 1
14 1 3 1 3
66 365 109 540 175 905
Percentage 18% 20%
Rector’s Awards 2011 review period - Support
13
Women Men Total Awards
Total
nominations
Support
Services
4 2 2 4 8 6 10
5 5 14 8 29 13 43
6 8 31 8 32 16 63
7 11 59 11 60 22 119
8 22 112 14 87 36 199
9 44 160 16 110 60 270
10 64 262 14 83 78 345
11 46 212 13 72 59 284
12 17 92 8 45 25 137
13 9 35 9 49 18 84
14 4 20 22 98 26 118
15 17 89 12 67 29 156
19 1 8 1 8
249 1088 140 748 389 1836
Percentage 23% 19%
• 5 people in post grade
• Earn as follows
– 1 R750 000
– 2 R500 000
– 3 R490 000 median
– 4 R470 000
– 5 R250 000
Calculations of medians
14
Median remuneration - academic
15
250 000
300 000
350 000
400 000
450 000
500 000
550 000
600 000
650 000
700 000
750 000
Professor Associate-Professor Senior Lecturer Lecturer Junior Lecturer
Median remuneration at SU, men and women
Vrouens Mans US
Median remuneration – Support Services
16
250 000
300 000
350 000
400 000
450 000
500 000
550 000
600 000
650 000
700 000
750 000
800 000
P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
Median remuneration at SU, men and women: Post grades 5 to 9
Vrouens Mans US
Median remuneration – Support Services
17
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
160 000
180 000
200 000
220 000
P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15-17
Median remuneration at SU, men and women : Post grades 10 to 17
Vrouens Mans US
Distribution of remuneration - Academic
18
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
400 000
450 000
500 000
550 000
600 000
650 000
700 000
750 000
800 000
850 000
900 000
Distribution between the 80th and the 20th percentile of academic remuneration for men and women
Distribution of remuneration – Support P5–P9
19
200 000
250 000
300 000
350 000
400 000
450 000
500 000
550 000
600 000
650 000
700 000
750 000
800 000
850 000
5 - F 5 - M 6 - F 6 - M 7 - F 7 - M 8 - F 8 - M 9 - F 9 - M
Distribution between the 80th and the 20th percentile of support services remuneration for men and women
Distribution of remuneration – Support P10–P17
20
70 000
80 000
90 000
100 000
110 000
120 000
130 000
140 000
150 000
160 000
170 000
180 000
190 000
200 000
210 000
220 000
230 000
240 000
250 000
10 - F 10 - M 11 - F 11 - M 12 - F 12 - M 13 - F 13 - M 14 - F 14 - M 15-17 - F 15-17 - M
Distribution between the 80th and the 20th percentile of support services remuneration for men and women
Any questions?
21