• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Set 9
 

Set 9

on

  • 942 views

Draft version for review, January 2007

Draft version for review, January 2007

Statistics

Views

Total Views
942
Views on SlideShare
942
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Set 9 Set 9 Presentation Transcript

    • FICSA
      • Capacity Building on
      • Professional Salaries and Allowances
      • Part 9
      • Review of the pay and benefits system
      • Version 1.3 (2007) - DRAFT
    • Review of the pay and benefits system
      • In 1996 and 1997, the General Assembly called on the ICSC “to play a lead role in the development of innovative approaches in the field of human resources management as part of the overall reform taking place in the organizations of the common system”
      • As part of its response, the Commission developed a Framework for human resources management, endorsed by the UNGA in 2000
      • Within the Framework, reform of the current salary system was given highest priority
      • According to the ICSC, a modernized pay and benefits system would improve organizational performance by:
      • Creating a flexible, transparent and administratively simple system
      • Rewarding staff in a competitive and equitable manner on the basis of merit, competence, responsibility and accountability
      • Motivating and encouraging staff to develop skills and competencies and provide opportunities for career advancement
      • Meeting organizations’ needs to attract, develop and retain high-quality staff
      Review of the pay and benefits system
    • Pay system reform in national civil services No Yes Yes Yes (Mid-1980s) New-Zealand No No Yes Yes (1996) Mexico No No Yes Yes (1998) Korea Limited Yes Yes Yes (1994 and 1998) Australia Pay increases based on seniority Senior Executive Service Performance base pay system Pay/ classification reform Countries
    • Pay system reform in national civil services Pay increases based on seniority Senior Executive Service Performance base pay system Pay/ classification reform Countries Not automatic Yes Yes Yes (1978,1990) United States No Yes Yes Yes (1994, 1999) United Kingdom No No Yes Yes (1998/2002) Switzer-land Yes Yes Yes Yes (1991) Norway
    • Components of pay and benefits system
      • New job evaluation system
      • Senior Management Service
      • Broad banding
      • Reward for contribution (Pay-for-performance)
      • Strategic bonuses
    • Job Evaluation System: Why change ?
      • Present job classification system is 25 years old
      • Reflects HR priorities from a previous era
      • Out of step with new work environments
      • Poor tool for assessing technical jobs
      • Too hierarchical in orientation
      • Impedes staff deployment
      • Does not support or link with recruitment, performance management and career development.
      • Not transparent and subject to manipulation
      • Slow and labour-intensive
      • Administratively cumbersome and too costly to maintain
      • Retain capacity to evaluate jobs across occupations and organizations
      • Capture the texture of new work environments
        • Less emphasis on hierarchy
        • More value placed on innovation
        • More value given to partnership building
      • Support a holistic approach in HR management integrating performance and competency objectives
      • Speed
        • Simple, responsive, decentralized operation
      Job Evaluation System: New Design
    • Job Evaluation System: Components
      • The New Master Standard
        • Macro, not micro
        • Streamlined and updated
      • Grade Level Descriptors
        • Simplified for operational use
      • Career Development Streams
        • Grading patterns to facilitate post deployment
      • Staff Growth and Development Yardsticks
        • Salary movement reflecting both retrospective achievement and prospective competency development
    • Job Evaluation System: Tools
      • Model of the new job evaluation system is designed around two evaluation tools:
      • New Master Standard (NMS) , which updates a point rating approach to provide a consistent basis of evaluation across organizations and occupations, and
      • Grade Level Descriptors , based on the values of the New Master Standard but designed to be broadly accessible, flexible, and most importantly, provide linkages to competency development and performance management.
    • New Job Evaluation System: FICSA comments
      • Experience and education not weighed when grading job
      • Job classifiers should use system, not untrained managers
      • Weights given to factors are not correct
      • New system easily used to over or underrate a post
      • The major aims of a Senior Management Service are to:
      • Foster good management, i.e. improve leadership qualities and competencies
      • Relate performance to organizational goals and objectives
      • Reward for managerial excellence
      • Increase policy coherence, personal and organisational development by having mobile managers throughout the common system
      • Develop managers for today and tomorrow
      • Establish ‘esprit de corps’
      Senior Management Service (SMS)
    • Senior Management Service (SMS)
      • Developmental work involves CEB and UN System Staff College
      • Core competencies established
      • Common criteria for determining positions to be included in SMS established for use by executive heads
      • CEB approved SMS in April 2004
      • Seen by CEB as management tool, not new category or new conditions of service
      • ICSC affirms it is the only body responsible for recommending to the UNGA the establishment of SMS
    • ICSC Rationale for Broad Banding
      • Broad banding groups current grades into broad salary bands
      • Generally no steps in the bands
      • Broad banding provides for career development and enables organizations to use jobs and deploy staff in a manner that is more aligned with programme demands
      • Broad banding is more responsive to the management of work, including teamwork
      • Broad banding offers managers flexibility to shift duties and responsibilities of staff to meet new requirements and priorities
      • Broad banding “recognizes the world of work as it currently exists”
      • Broad banding offers the ability to deploy staff in other than a hierarchical structure which facilitates the achievement of results
      • Broad banded systems generally accompanied by pay-for-performance schemes
      ICSC Rationale for Broad Banding
    • Development of Broad Band Models
      • The Commission decided that only one broad banded model should be applied to the common system
      • In ICSC view, using one model would preserve the integrity and cohesion of the common system; The existence of pay structures that vary by organization would create unnecessary competition for staff among the organizations
      • The Commission selected 3 models to be tested which were designed to address the individual circumstances of possible volunteer organizations
    • Pay for performance: What is it?
      • Rewards staff for performance, not seniority/length of service
      • Rewards staff for developing new competencies
      • Rewards staff who take on new/different/more/more highly valued tasks
      • Effective performance appraisal system is prerequisite for pay for performance:
      • Pay for performance: Risks
      • Raises not automatic
      • Staff compete with each other for raises: bad for team work
      • Pay increases at discretion of supervisor
      • More work and pressure on supervisor
      • De-motivates staff
      Pay for performance
    • FICSA opposition to broad banding and pay for performance
      • Difficult to maintain system-wide consistency and equity in pay
      • Less control over salaries; they may erode or increase indiscriminately
      • Funds may not be allocated for performance pay on a consistent basis
      • High profile tasks rewarded, not mundane tasks
      • Negative impact on teamwork
      • No protection from arbitrary job assignments
      • Frankness, independence, integrity of staff undermined
      • Work shifts from higher to lower levels
      • Pay progression slows, particularly after midpoint of band is reached
      • Advancement early in career as competencies grow; little if any advancement later
      • No promotions
      • Intervals between performance increases may be increased (e.g.,18 months, 2 years)
    • Pilot studies: Models
      • Model 1
      • Salary structure: Band 1 P-1, P-2 Band 2 P-3, P-4, P-5 Band 3 D-1 and D-2
      • Evaluation for determining pay: Confluence of factors: performance, competency development and client feedback
      • Evaluation and pay decisions: The evaluation of performance will be done annually with pay decisions to be made every two years with fixed and variable percentage increase applying to relevant rating categories
      • Model 2
      • Salary structure: Band 1 P-1, P-2 Band 2 P-3, P-4, P-5 Band 3 D-1 and D-2
      • Evaluation for determining pay: Current appraisal system enhanced to the extent possible to take into account competencies and client feedback
      • Evaluation and pay decisions: To be made in accordance with the current evaluation cycle of the organizations, with a fixed and variable percentage increase applying to relevant rating categories
      Pilot studies: Models
      • Model 3
      • Salary structure: Retain the current 7 grade structure with no step increments
      • Evaluation for determining pay: Current appraisal system enhanced to the extent possible to take into account competencies and client feedback
      • Evaluation and pay decisions: To be made annually in accordance with the organizations’ current evaluation cycle with a fixed and variable percentage increase applying to relevant rating categories
      Pilot studies: Models
    • Pilot Studies: Decisions 2004
      • Performance appraisal system (PAS)
      • Credible, reliable, acceptable to all parties
      • Critical analysis of ability of PAS to differentiate levels of performance
      • Minimum 3, maximum 5 ratings categories
      • No forced distribution of ratings
      • Exact weights for results achievement, competency development and client feedback determined by volunteer organizations together with ICSC
      • Broad banding/pay-for-performance
      • One broadbanded structure and related pay-for-performance system
      • Band 1 P-1-P-2
      • Band 2 P-3 – P5
      • Band 3 D-1 – D-2
      • Minimum and maximum pay established by minimum and maximum salaries of grades
      • Each band has two salary ranges: dependants and no dependants
      • Control ‘grade creep’ by accounting for staff position in grade to determine performance award and more difficult performance objectives/competencies as staff move to higher end of band
      Pilot Studies: Decisions 2004
    • Review of pay and benefits system
      • Performance award payments
      • Fixed and variable percentage increases
      • No increase if performance improvement needed
      • Paid as lump-sum non-pensionable amounts during pilot
      • Performance awards to stay within 2.5 per cent for Models 1 and 2; 2 per cent for Model 3
      • ICSC will provide guidelines to pilot organizations on process to be used in determining overall ratings and salary increases to ensure equity of treatment
      Pilot Studies: Decisions 2004
    • Review of pay and benefits system
      • Promotions : Promotions from one band to the next higher band should result in an increase of 3 to 6 per cent, but not less than the minimum of the higher band.
      • Baseline information requirements
      • Before pilot begins:
      • Workforce data, attitude surveys, ranking distributions
      • Client feedback mechanisms, competency development
      • Then:
      • Control groups established
      • Selection of staff to participate in pilot in consultation w/ICSC
      • Professional staff are basis of pilot; GS staff may participate on the basis of Model 3.
      Pilot Studies: Decisions 2004
      • Volunteer organizations
      • IFAD
      • UNAIDS
      • UNDP
      • WFP
      • Possibly ICTP Trieste if deemed ‘Ready to proceed’
      Pilot Studies: Decisions 2004
      • Administrative aspects
      • Volunteer organizations develop workplan according to ICSC template
      • Initial pilot study for 3 years beginning 1 July 2004, but can be extended
      • Project manager to be recruited at D-1 level
      Pilot Studies: Decisions 2004
      • Criteria for success
      • Cost analysis providing assessment of financial controls to determine if they are functioning as intended
      • Analysis by gender to determine if any gender bias from performance pay
      • Full criteria in Report of ICSC for 2004, Annex II (A/59/30, Vol.I), many based on perceptions of participating staff
      Pilot Studies: Decisions 2004