- Email: [email protected]
Market equity tempered by career merit: A case study
Market Equity Tempered by Career Merit: A Case Study by Scott Seaman, Nancy Carter, Carol Krismann, and David Fagerstrom
During the 1995/1996 academic year, the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries received market equity for librarian salaries. However, the University administration stipulated that equity increases were to be position specific rather than divided equally. Moreover, individual increases were to be based partly on past merit. This article describes how market equity was justified and applied.
Scott Seaman is Associate Director, Administrative Services, University of Colorado, Boulder, Norlin Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0184 ⬍[email protected]⬎; Nancy Carter is Head, Math/Physics Library, University of Colorado, Boulder, Lester Math/Physics Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0184 ⬍[email protected]⬎; Carol Krismann is Head, Business Library, University of Colorado, Boulder, White Business Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0184 ⬍[email protected]⬎; and David Fagerstrom is Head, Science Library, University of Colorado, Boulder, Norlin Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 803090184 ⬍[email protected]⬎.
T
his article is a case study of how market equity for librarians was justified and applied at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The justification process was unusual in that the university administration requested comparative performance measures as part of the analysis. Moreover, the administration required that the market equity disbursements be adjusted so that those librarians with higher merit would receive larger increases. Finally, because of financial limitations, university funding of the market equity was spread over four years. These mandates and limitations affected the process and manner in which individual awards were distributed. Within higher education, there are innumerable studies of salary equity. Most are gender-based analyses, that is, how the salaries of female faculty compare with those of their male counterparts. In performing such analyses, one of two broad techniques—regression analysis or matched pairs—is typically employed. Regression analysis is a statistical technique that correlates an independent variable, such as experience or rank, to salary. Regression techniques permit the ranking of relative relationships within a group; an application of such internal equity ranking can be found in Scott Seaman, Carol Krismann, and Fred Hamilton’s article in College & Research Libraries.1 But regression analysis alone cannot determine whether market inequity exists between, for example, a group of local librarians and a group of national librarians. To do so, some form of matched pair comparison must be performed. At its most basic, matched pair comparisons involve a one-to-one comparison of the subject to an identical counterpart. Ideally, the counterpart is identical in every way except for the independent variable that is being tested. In gender-based studies, this
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 225–232
involves locating male and female counterparts of the same rank, teaching credentials, publication history, and service records. Salary differences are then measured to determine any inequity. An example of such a study can be seen in a study by Joan McConkey, Susan Anthes, Ellen Robertson, and Barbara Bintliff.2
LITERATURE REVIEW Market equity is achieved when local salaries approximate those of peers at a group of comparable institutions. Not only does market equity acknowledge the moral, judicial, and economic equality of employees, but it also recognizes that the ongoing health of an institution depends on paying fair market value to attract qualified individuals and prevent high turnover. Most articles in library and information science on this subject scrutinize market equity simply to conclude that librarianship is a female-dominated profession that is intrinsically underpaid and undervalued. Only four studies of market equity for academic librarians that were not based on gender inequalities were found. The article by Gwendolyn Pershing and Mary Krutulis, however, relates to creating salary equity within a small peer group of librarians based on either position responsibilities or merit. Although a valuable contribution to the literature, this article does not relate directly to determining market equity. The publication by Bonnie Osif and Richard Harwood is a literature review of merit-based pay and is not intended to offer insights into the issues or techniques surrounding market equity.3 Two papers relate directly to calculating market equity. The Maureen Pastine and Shirley McLean paper, “Pay Equity in Libraries,” is a case study of how market inequity was identified and addressed
July 2000
225
at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Texas. SMU’s approach to addressing their pay inequity was extensive. Librarians’ salaries at SMU were determined to be lower than average peer salaries based on the Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL) annual salary data. Comparisons of collection size and growth, personnel turnover, reference activity, user education, and even letters of reference were also included in justifying market equity. Although the library was awarded equity over a three-year period, because of campus cutbacks these increases were cancelled after the first year.4 Jeanie Welch and Linda Dugger described how Lamar University Library (Texas) implemented a salary equity system for its 15 faculty in the mid-1980s. The system computed a salary for each academic rank by using market values collected from the American Association of University Professors and from national publications. Librarians of the same faculty rank can have very different duties. Consequently, market salaries were adjusted according to professional experience, educational background, job responsibility, special skills, and unique experience to arrive at a final salary for each position. By adjusting for such categories, Lamar University Library was able to create a salary structure that reflected local priorities. However, basing salaries on academic rank forced the University to adjust market values to fit the variety of library positions. The result was a salary structure reflecting local priorities rather than national market conditions.5 The most useful literature on market equity among peers in higher education is found not in the library literature but in the voluminous literature published on salary equity and market values for academic positions in higher education. The most notable contain a wealth of information and insights useful to any academic library undertaking a salary equity review process. Although it is not in the purview of this brief literature review to discuss in detail all that can be learned from these articles, they offer sound advice worth highlighting.6 According to Celia Allard, equity issues are fundamentally administrative and conceptual rather than statistical in nature. Consequently, those designing equity systems must thoroughly understand the institution’s culture and salary policies. There is no perfect system for market equity analysis, and the chosen solution is only the better of a number of poor alter-
226
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
natives. Moreover, it should be communicated at each phase of the market equity analysis that compromises are necessary, and inadequacies in the methodology and procedures have to be faced throughout the process.7
“. . . equity issues are fundamentally administrative and conceptual rather than statistical in nature.”
Attempting to express compensation criteria in numeric terms has a major statistical weakness because good numeric measures of many important criteria are difficult to calculate. For example, professional experience is often expressed by years at an institution, years at a certain rank, or years since terminal degree. James Waters and George A. Milliken concluded, however, that none of these values accurately measures how well individuals apply experience to their assignments. Merit ratings are even more problematic because they are subjective evaluations of professional productivity in teaching, research, and service. Ratings are open to interpretation, usually by an evaluating committee that changes annually. Also, institutional definitions of merit can change over time, confounding long-term comparisons. Another common measure of merit is the number of publications by a particular faculty member. But a mere count of these ignores the quality of the scholarship.8 Despite the limitations of merit measures and statistical analysis, most university administrators will expect some form of numerical comparison to substantiate the existence of market inequity. When performing such an analysis, the selection of variables is critical and must be consistently applied throughout the process.9 Most faculty salaries are determined on the basis of academic qualifications and professional merit. Variables that have a close relationship to qualifications and merit, therefore, should be selected. It is important not to have too many independent variables. As the number of independent variables increases, so does the likelihood that an inadvertent correlation between them could invalidate the comparison. Known as the Stein Effect, this results in the study measuring a hidden
correlation between independent variables rather than the intended correlation. For example, it is recommended that professional rank not be a variable because of the high correlation between rank and salary. Also, using professional rank as a variable presupposes that all academic faculty are at their proper ranks and that promotion discrimination does not exist.10 Another obstacle to the process is that results will often be presented to nontechnical and sometimes skeptical parties. If presented in an arcane or unintelligible manner, the success of the argument may be undermined. Furthermore, it is generally not realistic to present all the collected data that was analyzed. For these reasons, clear and straightforward tables and graphs should be presented to the decision makers.11
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER LIBRARIES
AT
The University of Colorado is a fourcampus system. Its primary research campus is in Boulder, is a research institution, and is supported by the University Libraries, which consists of a main library and five subject-specialized external branch libraries. The University Libraries on the Boulder campus is a member of the ARL, with total holdings of 2,600,000 books and 18,400 serial subscriptions. In addition, there is an autonomous law library that is not part of this case study. The 55 librarians have faculty status, including significant research, publication, and service responsibilities. Governance within the University Libraries is managed by the Libraries’ faculty. The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), one of five elected faculty governance committees, annually reviews faculty activity in research and service, assesses internal salary equity, and recommends both compensation awards and internal equity adjustments to the dean of libraries. The executive committee of the Libraries, the Cabinet, is comprised of the dean of the university libraries and three associate directors. The Cabinet works closely with the Libraries’ FPC on matters of personnel evaluation and salary allocation. The FPC recommends annual faculty salary increases to the dean who has final responsibility for all decisions.
NEEDS ANALYSIS
AND
JUSTIFICATION
Even before 1995, it was becoming evident that Libraries faculty salaries were
Table 1 Excerpt of Comparison of Mean Salaries of University Librarians by Position University of Colorado at Boulder versus Public AAU Libraries, Academic Year 1996 –1997 Colorado Librarians’ Mean Salary
Number Colorado Positions
AAU Public Librarians’ Mean Salary
Number AAU Public Positions
Combined Librarians’ Mean Salary
Total Number Positions
Associate director
63,473.30
3
76,281.90
64
75,708.40
67
Head, branch
45,742.50
4
51,988.70
219
51,876.70
223
Functional specialist
34,614.00
4
41,735.40
253
41,624.60
257
Dept. head: acquisitions
49,734.00
1
51,170.70
25
51,115.50
26
Dept. head: reference
45,918.00
1
52,523.60
31
52,317.20
32
48,942.20
45
48,469.30
24
49,289.60
195
208
44,331.30
216
Position
Dept. head: cataloging
41,375.60
3
Dept. head: serials
47,948.00
1
Reference: over 14 years experience
38,409.40
7
44,530.60
Reference: 10 to 14 years experience
30,164.00
2
37,930.10
93
37,766.60
95
Reference: 5 to 9 years experience
32,452.70
3
34,619.00
79
34,539.70
82
Reference: under 5 years experience
29,039.60
2
30,295.30
79
30,264.30
81
0
42,674.20
135
42,674.20
135
Cataloging: over 14 years experience Cataloging: 10 to 14 years experience
33,614.00
2
39,549.30
57
39,348.10
59
Cataloging: 5 to 9 years experience
32,754.00
2
35,794.10
51
35,679.40
53
Cataloging: under 5 years experience
29,594.00
2
28,527.70
36
28,583.80
38
no longer competitive. Recruitment and retention were becoming more difficult. Complicating this was the high cost of living in the Boulder area. Too often faculty who preferred to stay in Boulder left because of higher salary offers elsewhere. That year the Libraries’ Cabinet began collecting data to discern whether salaries were equitable with the national market. The University of Colorado, Boulder’s (UCB), comparison group is considered to be the Association of American Universities (AAU), a group of 62 North American research universities—all of which are members of the ARL. Approximately half of the AAU are public institutions, and it is to this subgroup of 29 institutions that the University of Colorado is routinely compared.12 Consequently, in the Fall of 1995, the Libraries’ Cabinet asked the ARL’s Statistics and Measurement Program to compare the mean salaries of all public AAU libraries against similar positions at UCB. This comparison, based on ARL’s Annual Salary Survey, examined the salaries of 14 different job classifications (e.g., associate director, branch head, serials head, and reference librarian) in relation to the national mean and UCB salaries. Although a few of the Libraries’ job classi-
fications were salaried slightly higher than market, the majority ranked between 7% and 12% lower than the national mean. Several classifications were as much as 25% below market (see Table 1). This comparison presented objective evidence that significant market inequity existed at UCB. The ARL comparison did not, however, estimate the overall difference between UCB salaries and the national market. To calculate this number, the ARL data were organized into a spreadsheet that detailed the various positions, the percentage and dollar variation from the national mean, the number of positions affected at UCB, and the total adjustment needed to bring that classification to market equity. The total estimate of all adjustments, nearly $300,000, represented the amount needed to bring the Libraries to 1996/1997 market equity within the AAU public institutions. It is important to note, however, that this calculation estimates the total market inequity present in the Libraries and not each individual’s market inequity (see Table 2). The ARL comparison, the estimate, and the anecdotal evidence of recruitment and retention were presented to the vicechancellor for Academic Affairs by the
dean of libraries. Although sympathetic, the vice-chancellor did not immediately agree to fund the adjustment. Instead, the proposal was sent to the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee (AABAC) for review, a committee of campus faculty that evaluates budget proposals from the campus colleges and makes recommendations to the vice-chancellor. The AABAC proved skeptical, arguing that the Libraries’ situation was not unique because all Boulder faculty were underpaid. The AABAC also questioned whether libraries, in general, were becoming obsolete because of the proliferation of electronic media. The AABAC, however, did not dismiss the Libraries’ market request; instead, the committee asked for library usage statistics. This was relayed to the Libraries as a request for multiple measures of comparative performance without specifying which measures were to be compared or what peer group was to be used. The Libraries chose to use this as an opportunity to demonstrate that service quantity was relatively high while salaries were relatively low. As an exhaustive body of library literature illustrates, comparative performance measures are controversial.
July 2000
227
Table 2 Estimating Market Inequity by Position University of Colorado at Boulder versus Public AAU Libraries, Academic Year 1996 –1997 1996/97 UCB Salary
1996/97 AAU Mean
1996/97 UCB Mean
% Variation
Dollar Variation
Number of UCB Positions
Adjustment
Associate director
63,473.30
76,281.90
63,473.30
⫺20.18%
12,808.60
3.00
38,425.80
Head, branch
45,742.50
51,988.70
45,742.50
⫺13.66%
6,246.20
4.00
24,984.80
Functional specialist
41,735.40
41,735.40
34,614.00
⫺20.57%
7,121.40
4.00
28,485.60
Acquisitions
51,170.70
51,170.70
49,734.00
⫺2.89%
1,436.70
1.00
1,436.70
Reference
52,523.60
52,523.60
45,918.00
⫺14.39%
6,605.60
1.00
6,605.60
Cataloging
48,942.20
48,942.20
41,375.60
⫺18.29%
7,566.60
3.00
22,699.80
Serials
53,145.70
53,145.70
47,948.00
⫺10.84%
5,197.70
1.00
5,197.70
Documents
48,704.10
48,704.10
43,230.0
⫺12.66%
5,474.10
1.00
5,474.10
Circulation
49,627.20
49,627.20
45,357.00
⫺9.41%
4,270.20
1.00
4,270.20
Rare Books
57,900.00
57,900.00
45,721.00
⫺26.64%
12,179.00
1.00
12,179.00
Computer Systems
54,356.30
54,356.30
42,219.00
⫺28.75%
12,137.30
1.00
12,137.30
Other
49,486.90
49,486.90
43,075.30
⫺14.88%
6,411.60
6.00
38,469.60
Over 14 years exp.
44,530.60
44,530.60
38,409.40
⫺15.94%
6,121.20
7.00
42,848.40
10 to 14 years
37,930.10
37,930.10
30,164.00
⫺25.75%
7,766.10
2.00
15,532.20
5 to 9 years
34,619.00
34,619.00
32,452.70
⫺6.68%
2,166.30
2.00
6,498.90
Under 5 years
30,295.30
30,295.30
29,039.60
⫺4.32%
1,255.70
2.00
2,511.40
10 to 14 years
39,549.30
39,549.30
33,614.00
⫺17.66%
5,935.30
2.00
11,870.60
5 to 9 years
35,794.10
35,794.10
32,754.00
⫺9.28%
3,040.10
2.00
6,080.20
Under 5 years
29,680.40
29,680.40
27,726.90
⫺7.05%
1,953.50
4.00
7,814.00
Over 14 years exp.
47,509.50
47,509.50
42,761.00
⫺11.10%
4,748.50
1.00
4,748.50
10 to 14 years
40,230.30
40,230.30
41,641.00
3.39%
0.00
Position
Department head
Reference Librarian
Cataloging Librarian
Other Librarian
Estimated Inequity
Meaningful comparative measures of effectiveness have, after nearly two decades, proven elusive for librarians to identify. A wide gap between the types of statistics routinely collected by most libraries, including UCB, and the data required to derive indicators of performance quality exists. The simple input measures currently collected for institutional analysis, such as acquisitions budgets, volume counts, and numbers of staff, are poor indicators of performance. Using such numbers to compare institutional effectiveness can often inadvertently mislead an audience unfamiliar with the subtleties of library goals and services.13
228
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
“A wide gap between the types of statistics routinely collected by most libraries, including UCB, and the data required to derive indicators of performance quality exists.” Nonetheless, the Libraries began collecting the available information to answer the questions posed by the AABAC. The budget committee had not prescribed which indicators were to be used or even the comparison group, yet indicators and context within which they are placed can
1.00
0.00
51.00
298,270.40
produce very different results. For example, when 1995 salaries were compared with the then 110 ARL institutions, UCB ranked in the bottom 10% of all institutions. But among the AAU public institutions, UCB ranked in the bottom 25%. Consistently throughout the comparison process, placing Libraries salaries in the context of the ARL institutions resulted in market inequity appearing much worse than when compared only against the AAU public libraries. The dean of libraries, however, made a tactical choice to use the AAU as the comparison group. He felt it important to use a comparison with which the audience, the AABAC, was most familiar.
Fortunately, the ARL Statistics and Measurement Web page offered an interactive edition of the ARL annual statistics.14 The interactive nature of the data proved invaluable throughout this process. By means of the Web page, ranked lists of all reporting ARL institutions could be produced for any year since 1961/1962 for any of 48 categories. Basic inputs, such as professional salaries or acquisition budgets; service activities, such as circulation volume or interlibrary loan; and user base, including total teaching faculty or total students, could be compared across all ARL institutions. Moreover, any category of data could be divided by any other category, resulting in ratios that more equitably rank the institutions being compared. For example, by setting the denominator to “student full time equivalent” and varying the numerator by such data as materials expenditures, total circulation, reference questions, and per-student services could be better ranked among institutions of very different sizes. The presentation to the AABAC included several dozen tables that included comparisons of service quantity and operating expenditures on a student-FTE basis and comparisons of professional salaries that included all 110 ARL libraries. To reduce the list to only AAU public institutions, the approximately 60 non-AAU libraries had to be removed from each table. Only 10 tables, those that best illustrated the Libraries’ situation, were delivered to the AABAC. In general, these tables indicated that the Libraries’ performance, as measured by per-student activity, tended to be in the top 25% of AAU institutions while salaries were in the lower 20% (see Table 3).
THE MARKET AWARD With data indicating that UCB Libraries was among the lower salaried but higher service providers, the vice-chancellor gave verbal assurance that the Libraries would be awarded $300,000 in market equity. Several stipulations, however, were attached to this award. First, the award was to be made over four years at $75,000 each year. Second, awards were to be made with case-by-case justification rather than simply dividing the award by the number of faculty. Finally, individual increases were to be tempered by performance-based merit. Those faculty with a demonstrable his-
tory of higher performance were to receive higher increases.
“Factoring career merit into a market adjustment was a stipulation that the Libraries had not anticipated and for which the library literature offered no guidance.” Factoring career merit into a market adjustment was a stipulation that the Libraries had not anticipated and for which the library literature offered no guidance. Moreover, dividing the equity over four years had significant implications for both process and results. Although the merit component was unusual, the condition that monies were to be distributed over four years had profound consequences. Spreading the increase over four years would not bring salaries to the 1995/1996 mean until the academic year of 1999/ 2000. Complicating the process was considerable time pressure. Specific justifications and adjustments were due to Academic Affairs only two weeks after notification of the award. After notification, the dean immediately formed a small task force of librarians to resolve these issues and make recommendations for specific salary increases. Because the FPC traditionally scores faculty research and service performance to determine annual salary increases and internal equity, persons from this group were the logical choice for task force members. The task force consisted of three members of the FPC and two members of the Cabinet.
THE MARKET EQUITY PROCESS Although an estimate of $300,000 in total market inequity had been calculated, individual awards had not been determined. The actual process of determining the specific market equity increase for each position consisted of two steps. The first placed each faculty member into a job classification that most closely matched those in the ARL “Comparison of Mean Salaries.” The second required devising a method or formula that would most fairly reflect the faculty member’s past career merit. Moreover, it forced an examination of how individual awards were to be distributed. Addressing only the worst inequities
the first year was considered but discarded as unwise because there was no guarantee money would be available for any subsequent year. Instead, it was decided to distribute each year’s monies to all the faculty proportional to the annual market adjustment. In that way, everyone would benefit from the beginning, and, if anything happened to the funding over time, everyone would benefit proportionally to the amount of his or her adjustment. Determining who was eligible for market increases was one of the more sensitive aspects of the process. The vice-chancellor stipulated that market was to be awarded to “library faculty.” Using the definition of faculty found in our University Libraries Faculty Handbook necessarily mandated eliminating temporary and some part-time faculty positions from the process. The result was that out of 55 faculty positions there were 51, some of which were vacant at the time, that would be considered for a market equity adjustment. The next task was to match UCB faculty with the classifications listed in the ARL Comparison of Mean Salaries. The majority of the faculty positions had obvious counterparts, such as associate director, branch head, department head, reference librarian, or catalog librarian. There were, however, several UCB positions that did not have obvious counterparts on the list. One of the more troublesome positions, for example, was that of unit head. This is a position that is not a department head but that has supervisory duties. There was nothing that truly represents such a position in the ARL comparison. Nevertheless, to maintain the integrity of the process, only data from the ARL document could be used. Four such positions exist in the UCB system, and all of them were assigned to the functional specialist category. Two other faculty positions that were not mirrored— one in public relations and another in collection development—were also assigned to this category. One department head was placed in department head-other rather than in a more obvious category because of what was believed to be an artificially low salary for that category. Another faculty member who held two half-time positions had calculations made in each category for half the salary; then the two halves were added together to arrive at a market amount. In another case, one faculty member served as head of two depart-
July 2000
229
Table 3 Professional Salary by Professional Positions Association of Research Libraries Statistics Rank-Order Statistics 1995 Rank
AAU Public Institution
Ratio
1.
Michigan
$62,553.79
2.
Rutgers
61,441.96
3.
California, Los Angeles
46,001.16
4.
Minnesota
44,915.97
5.
Arizona
44,905.02
6.
Iowa
44,745.86
7.
Missouri
43,281.56
8.
Suny-Buffalo
43,278.40
9.
Ohio State
43,058.35
10.
Michigan State
42,620.04
11.
California, Santa Barbara
42,485.96
12.
Iowa State
42,162.46
13.
Wisconsin
41,682.97
14.
Virginia
41,564.11
15.
North Carolina
41,063.19
16.
Indiana
40,008.46
17.
Washington
38,892.42
18.
Florida
38,617.80
19.
Purdue
37,842.64
20.
Nebraska
37,751.51
21.
Texas
37,491.83
22.
Illinois, Urbana
37,009.01
23.
Oregon
36,405.50
24.
Pittsburgh
35,973.64
25.
Colorado
35,097.33
26.
Maryland
35,008.54
27.
Kansas
32,458.70
28.
Pennsylvania State
32,064.36
29.
California, Berkeley
NA
Source: ARL Rank Order Statistics Data, http://www.lib.virginia.edu/socsci/arl/test-arl/simple.html.
ments. The salary for either alone would not be sufficient. In this case, the task force agreed that the duties performed resembled those of a department head of a specialized area. In each case, the task force used judgment and consensus to find a counterpart and was careful to document its deliberations for review by the dean.
FACTORING MERIT INTO MARKET AWARDS Assigning faculty to an ARL classification immediately determined a market salary mean for that position. The mandate from
230
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
the vice-chancellor, however, was to use career merit to temper the salaries, that is, to make the market increase reflect factors in an individual’s career.
“Assessing career merit for each of 51 librarians, particularly within a two-week timeframe, was an intimidating task.” Assessing career merit for each of 51
librarians, particularly within a two-week timeframe, was an intimidating task. Moreover, the University had not mandated the proportion merit was to play in the total salary increase. Consequently, the task force struggled with two issues: how to quickly, yet with reasonable accuracy, assess an individual’s career performance and how to fit that assessment into a percentage of the market increase. Although having each librarian write a descriptive essay documenting his or her career performance was discussed, the task force discarded the concept as too
Table 4 Calculation of Annual Market Increase by Position University of Colorado at Boulder
Name Worf, W.
Position Cataloging Librarian/over 14 yr
Janeway, J. Department Head/Documents Data, D.
Department Head/Serials
1996/97 Adjustment Total Career to AAU Adjustment Increase to Annual UCB 1996/97 Merit 1996/97 AAU 1996/97 to 1996/97 Increase to Salary Score Mean Mean AAU Mean UCB Salary UCB Salary $33,500
2
0.97
$45,420
($1,363)
$10,557
$2,639
$43,230
3
1.00
$48,704
$0.00
$ 5,474
$1,369
$47,948
1
0.93
$53,146
($3,720)
$ 1,478
$ 369
Chekov, A. Head, Branch
$45,250
2
0.97
$51,989
($1,560)
$ 5,179
$1,295
Crusher, B. Head, Branch
$50,736
4
1.05
$51,989
$2,599
$ 3,852
$ 963
Kirk, J.
$31,678
1
0.93
$34,619
($2,423)
$
$ 129
Reference Librarian/05 to 09 yr
impractical and time-consuming. Instead, the task force chose to adapt an existing process, that of internal merit equity, to measure career performance. As part of the annual evaluation process, the FPC is mandated by the University to calculate internal merit equity by using a quantifiable system. The purpose is to ensure that salaries within the Libraries are consistent with long-term performance ratings. This process measures performance over an entire career in the areas of librarianship, research, and service. Factors considered in determining the career merit score include quality of librarianship, publication record, service contributions, and years of experience. Although partly a subjective assessment, one consequence of the annual internal merit equity evaluation is that a score is calculated for each librarian’s career merit. An in-depth discussion of this system is available in Seaman, Krismann, and Hamilton’s article.15 This system offered a reasonable evaluation of the performance of an individual over his or her career. Moreover, it was expedient because the scores had recently been calculated for the annual evaluation process. Finally, at least this part of the process was well understood and had been approved by the library faculty. The majority of the faculty scored three on career merit, (25) with the next largest group (14) scoring two. The task force agreed to assign a percentage of the mean to each of these scores. A low career merit score, a one, would receive 93% of the mean; a career merit score of two would receive 97%; a score of three would receive 100% of the mean; and the highest score, four, would receive 105% of the mean.
An argument could be made for a wider distribution of the percentages. For instance, instead of a spread from 93% to 105%, a spread from 90% to 110% could have been used. However, because the primary purpose was to correct market equity problems, the individual awards were only tempered with career merit. All the faculty, from the most meritorious to the least, were underpaid according to market standards. Our intent was to raise all salaries as much as possible within the confines of money available and the AABAC’s mandates. Table 4 outlines the adjustments and calculations used to arrive at individual increases. For instance, Walter Worf, a cataloger with more than 14 years of experience, is in a position with an AAU mean market salary of $45,420. His career merit score of two determines that he will receive 97% of the AAU mean. Consequently, there is a $1,363 negative adjustment from the AAU mean of $45, 420. Judith Janeway, a documents head whose career merit is three, will receive 100% of $48,704. No adjustment is made to the AAU mean; her increase is simply the difference between the AAU mean and the UCB salary. Because increases to these market salaries were to be distributed over a period of four years, the annual increase was one quarter of the total increase. Any process that determines a person’s salary must be approached with caution. It must be recognized that in dealing with most human endeavors there are many elements of subjectivity. Consequently, the final step in determining market equity was to review the list of increases one-by-one to ascertain that every adjustment made sense and to see if further
518
adjustment was advisable. For instance, “tweaking” was indicated for a faculty member with an extraordinary length of service. A text detailing the reasons for the market and merit increase for each faculty member was drafted for the dean. The dean used these drafts as the basis for case-by-case justifications to the vicechancellor. Simultaneously, letters were written to each faculty member itemizing his or her increase and explaining that the intent was to provide equity relief incrementally over four years proportional to the degree that the salary was out of adjustment with the AAU mean. In addition, the letter emphasized that all faculty members in the Libraries were considered for a market-equity adjustment. The faculty were also reminded that the process was based primarily on mean salary levels of specific positions across the AAU rather than on individual career accomplishments or the ability to negotiate incoming salary.
CONCLUSION In fiscal year 2000/2001, the Libraries should receive its fourth and last market increment. Salaries will then be at the 1996/1997 mean of AAU public institutions. The necessity of distributing the equity increase over a four-year period undermined the final outcome. Consequently, the ARL ranking of UCB Libraries’ faculty salaries has increased only slightly in the past four years. Without the market equity adjustments, however, the salary situation in the Libraries would be desperate. Moreover, the process did engender some notable successes. The dean successfully argued for equity funds before a skeptical vice-chancellor and bud-
July 2000
231
get committee. This was virtually unprecedented in the University’s recent history. The task force was able to devise quickly and implement a strategy to disperse the funds. The system was devised through the cooperation of library faculty and administrators; it accommodated University mandates, and it was fully documented and defendable.
“The system was devised through the cooperation of library faculty and administrators; it accommodated University mandates, and it was fully documented and defendable.” NOTES
AND
5.
6.
REFERENCES
1. Scott Seaman, Carol Krismann, & Fred Hamilton, “An Internal Equity Evaluation System Based On Merit Measures,” College & Research Libraries 60 (January 1999): 79 – 89. 2. Joan McConkey, Susan Anthes, Ellen Robertson, & Barbara Bintliff, “Salary Equity: A Case Study,” College & Research Libraries 54 (January 1993): 33– 41. 3. Gwendolyn Pershing & Mary Krutulis, “Using a Value Engineering Technique to Determine Salary Equity among Academic Librarians,” Library Administra-
232
4.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
7. 8. 9.
tion & Management 10 (Fall 1996): 240 – 245; Bonnie Osif & Richard Harwood, “Employee Compensation,” Library Adminisitration & Management 9 (Fall 1995): 241–245. Maureen Pastine & Shirley McLean, “Pay Equity in Libraries,” The Bottom Line 7 (Summer 1993): 7–12. Jeanie Welch & Linda Dugger, “Suggested Guidelines for Salary Determination in an Academic Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (January 1989): 366 –371. Donald M. Norris, “Triage and the Art of Institutional Research,” The AIR Professional File (Spring-Summer 1983), EDRS, ED 234665, microfiche; James Waters & George A. Milliken, “Evaluating the Effects of Gender in Employment Discrimination Cases,” in American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Business and Economics Section, in Toronto, Canada, August 15–18, 1983 (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1983), 1–9; Celia A. Allard, “Assessing Faculty Salary Equity,” The AIR Professional File (Fall 1984), EDRS, ED 253179, microfiche; Elizabeth A. Ehrich & Gabriele A. Michels, “Stagewise Regression—A Different Approach to Salary Equity Studies,” Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Orlando, Florida, 1986, EDRS, ED 280413, microfiche. Allard, “Assessing Faculty Salary,” p. 9. Waters & Milliken, “Evaluating the Effects,” p. 3. Allard, “Assessing Faculty Salary,” p. 3.
10. Ehrich & Michels, “Stagewise Regression,” p. 17. 11. Norris, “Triage and the Art,” p. 5. 12. These institutions are University of Arizona, University of California at Berkeley, University of California at Los Angeles, University of California at Santa Barbara, University of Florida, University of Illinois at Urbana, Indiana University, University of Iowa, Iowa State University, University of Kansas, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Nebraska, University of North Carolina, Ohio State University, University of Oregon, Pennsylvania State University, University of Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers University, State University of New York at Buffalo, University of Texas, University of Virginia, University of Washington, and the University of Wisconsin. 13. Martha Kyrillidou, “An Overview of Performance Measures in Higher Education and Libraries,” Association of Research Libraries [Online]. Available: http://www. aarl.org/newsltr/197/overview.html (April 25, 1999); Don H. Revill, “Performance Measures for Academic Libraries,” Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science 45 (1990): 294 –333; Beth J. Shapiro, “Access and Performance Measures in Research Libraries in the 1990’s,” Journal of Library Administration 15 (1991): 49 – 66. 14. [Online]. Available: http://fisher.lib.virginia. edu/newarl/list.html. 15. “An Internal Equity,” pp. 79 – 89.
During the 1995/1996 academic year, the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries received market equity for librarian salaries. However, the University administration stipulated that equity increases were to be position specific rather than divided equally. Moreover, individual increases were to be based partly on past merit. This article describes how market equity was justified and applied.
Scott Seaman is Associate Director, Administrative Services, University of Colorado, Boulder, Norlin Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0184 ⬍[email protected]⬎; Nancy Carter is Head, Math/Physics Library, University of Colorado, Boulder, Lester Math/Physics Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0184 ⬍[email protected]⬎; Carol Krismann is Head, Business Library, University of Colorado, Boulder, White Business Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0184 ⬍[email protected]⬎; and David Fagerstrom is Head, Science Library, University of Colorado, Boulder, Norlin Library, CB 184, Boulder, Colorado 803090184 ⬍[email protected]⬎.
T
his article is a case study of how market equity for librarians was justified and applied at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The justification process was unusual in that the university administration requested comparative performance measures as part of the analysis. Moreover, the administration required that the market equity disbursements be adjusted so that those librarians with higher merit would receive larger increases. Finally, because of financial limitations, university funding of the market equity was spread over four years. These mandates and limitations affected the process and manner in which individual awards were distributed. Within higher education, there are innumerable studies of salary equity. Most are gender-based analyses, that is, how the salaries of female faculty compare with those of their male counterparts. In performing such analyses, one of two broad techniques—regression analysis or matched pairs—is typically employed. Regression analysis is a statistical technique that correlates an independent variable, such as experience or rank, to salary. Regression techniques permit the ranking of relative relationships within a group; an application of such internal equity ranking can be found in Scott Seaman, Carol Krismann, and Fred Hamilton’s article in College & Research Libraries.1 But regression analysis alone cannot determine whether market inequity exists between, for example, a group of local librarians and a group of national librarians. To do so, some form of matched pair comparison must be performed. At its most basic, matched pair comparisons involve a one-to-one comparison of the subject to an identical counterpart. Ideally, the counterpart is identical in every way except for the independent variable that is being tested. In gender-based studies, this
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 225–232
involves locating male and female counterparts of the same rank, teaching credentials, publication history, and service records. Salary differences are then measured to determine any inequity. An example of such a study can be seen in a study by Joan McConkey, Susan Anthes, Ellen Robertson, and Barbara Bintliff.2
LITERATURE REVIEW Market equity is achieved when local salaries approximate those of peers at a group of comparable institutions. Not only does market equity acknowledge the moral, judicial, and economic equality of employees, but it also recognizes that the ongoing health of an institution depends on paying fair market value to attract qualified individuals and prevent high turnover. Most articles in library and information science on this subject scrutinize market equity simply to conclude that librarianship is a female-dominated profession that is intrinsically underpaid and undervalued. Only four studies of market equity for academic librarians that were not based on gender inequalities were found. The article by Gwendolyn Pershing and Mary Krutulis, however, relates to creating salary equity within a small peer group of librarians based on either position responsibilities or merit. Although a valuable contribution to the literature, this article does not relate directly to determining market equity. The publication by Bonnie Osif and Richard Harwood is a literature review of merit-based pay and is not intended to offer insights into the issues or techniques surrounding market equity.3 Two papers relate directly to calculating market equity. The Maureen Pastine and Shirley McLean paper, “Pay Equity in Libraries,” is a case study of how market inequity was identified and addressed
July 2000
225
at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Texas. SMU’s approach to addressing their pay inequity was extensive. Librarians’ salaries at SMU were determined to be lower than average peer salaries based on the Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL) annual salary data. Comparisons of collection size and growth, personnel turnover, reference activity, user education, and even letters of reference were also included in justifying market equity. Although the library was awarded equity over a three-year period, because of campus cutbacks these increases were cancelled after the first year.4 Jeanie Welch and Linda Dugger described how Lamar University Library (Texas) implemented a salary equity system for its 15 faculty in the mid-1980s. The system computed a salary for each academic rank by using market values collected from the American Association of University Professors and from national publications. Librarians of the same faculty rank can have very different duties. Consequently, market salaries were adjusted according to professional experience, educational background, job responsibility, special skills, and unique experience to arrive at a final salary for each position. By adjusting for such categories, Lamar University Library was able to create a salary structure that reflected local priorities. However, basing salaries on academic rank forced the University to adjust market values to fit the variety of library positions. The result was a salary structure reflecting local priorities rather than national market conditions.5 The most useful literature on market equity among peers in higher education is found not in the library literature but in the voluminous literature published on salary equity and market values for academic positions in higher education. The most notable contain a wealth of information and insights useful to any academic library undertaking a salary equity review process. Although it is not in the purview of this brief literature review to discuss in detail all that can be learned from these articles, they offer sound advice worth highlighting.6 According to Celia Allard, equity issues are fundamentally administrative and conceptual rather than statistical in nature. Consequently, those designing equity systems must thoroughly understand the institution’s culture and salary policies. There is no perfect system for market equity analysis, and the chosen solution is only the better of a number of poor alter-
226
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
natives. Moreover, it should be communicated at each phase of the market equity analysis that compromises are necessary, and inadequacies in the methodology and procedures have to be faced throughout the process.7
“. . . equity issues are fundamentally administrative and conceptual rather than statistical in nature.”
Attempting to express compensation criteria in numeric terms has a major statistical weakness because good numeric measures of many important criteria are difficult to calculate. For example, professional experience is often expressed by years at an institution, years at a certain rank, or years since terminal degree. James Waters and George A. Milliken concluded, however, that none of these values accurately measures how well individuals apply experience to their assignments. Merit ratings are even more problematic because they are subjective evaluations of professional productivity in teaching, research, and service. Ratings are open to interpretation, usually by an evaluating committee that changes annually. Also, institutional definitions of merit can change over time, confounding long-term comparisons. Another common measure of merit is the number of publications by a particular faculty member. But a mere count of these ignores the quality of the scholarship.8 Despite the limitations of merit measures and statistical analysis, most university administrators will expect some form of numerical comparison to substantiate the existence of market inequity. When performing such an analysis, the selection of variables is critical and must be consistently applied throughout the process.9 Most faculty salaries are determined on the basis of academic qualifications and professional merit. Variables that have a close relationship to qualifications and merit, therefore, should be selected. It is important not to have too many independent variables. As the number of independent variables increases, so does the likelihood that an inadvertent correlation between them could invalidate the comparison. Known as the Stein Effect, this results in the study measuring a hidden
correlation between independent variables rather than the intended correlation. For example, it is recommended that professional rank not be a variable because of the high correlation between rank and salary. Also, using professional rank as a variable presupposes that all academic faculty are at their proper ranks and that promotion discrimination does not exist.10 Another obstacle to the process is that results will often be presented to nontechnical and sometimes skeptical parties. If presented in an arcane or unintelligible manner, the success of the argument may be undermined. Furthermore, it is generally not realistic to present all the collected data that was analyzed. For these reasons, clear and straightforward tables and graphs should be presented to the decision makers.11
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER LIBRARIES
AT
The University of Colorado is a fourcampus system. Its primary research campus is in Boulder, is a research institution, and is supported by the University Libraries, which consists of a main library and five subject-specialized external branch libraries. The University Libraries on the Boulder campus is a member of the ARL, with total holdings of 2,600,000 books and 18,400 serial subscriptions. In addition, there is an autonomous law library that is not part of this case study. The 55 librarians have faculty status, including significant research, publication, and service responsibilities. Governance within the University Libraries is managed by the Libraries’ faculty. The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC), one of five elected faculty governance committees, annually reviews faculty activity in research and service, assesses internal salary equity, and recommends both compensation awards and internal equity adjustments to the dean of libraries. The executive committee of the Libraries, the Cabinet, is comprised of the dean of the university libraries and three associate directors. The Cabinet works closely with the Libraries’ FPC on matters of personnel evaluation and salary allocation. The FPC recommends annual faculty salary increases to the dean who has final responsibility for all decisions.
NEEDS ANALYSIS
AND
JUSTIFICATION
Even before 1995, it was becoming evident that Libraries faculty salaries were
Table 1 Excerpt of Comparison of Mean Salaries of University Librarians by Position University of Colorado at Boulder versus Public AAU Libraries, Academic Year 1996 –1997 Colorado Librarians’ Mean Salary
Number Colorado Positions
AAU Public Librarians’ Mean Salary
Number AAU Public Positions
Combined Librarians’ Mean Salary
Total Number Positions
Associate director
63,473.30
3
76,281.90
64
75,708.40
67
Head, branch
45,742.50
4
51,988.70
219
51,876.70
223
Functional specialist
34,614.00
4
41,735.40
253
41,624.60
257
Dept. head: acquisitions
49,734.00
1
51,170.70
25
51,115.50
26
Dept. head: reference
45,918.00
1
52,523.60
31
52,317.20
32
48,942.20
45
48,469.30
24
49,289.60
195
208
44,331.30
216
Position
Dept. head: cataloging
41,375.60
3
Dept. head: serials
47,948.00
1
Reference: over 14 years experience
38,409.40
7
44,530.60
Reference: 10 to 14 years experience
30,164.00
2
37,930.10
93
37,766.60
95
Reference: 5 to 9 years experience
32,452.70
3
34,619.00
79
34,539.70
82
Reference: under 5 years experience
29,039.60
2
30,295.30
79
30,264.30
81
0
42,674.20
135
42,674.20
135
Cataloging: over 14 years experience Cataloging: 10 to 14 years experience
33,614.00
2
39,549.30
57
39,348.10
59
Cataloging: 5 to 9 years experience
32,754.00
2
35,794.10
51
35,679.40
53
Cataloging: under 5 years experience
29,594.00
2
28,527.70
36
28,583.80
38
no longer competitive. Recruitment and retention were becoming more difficult. Complicating this was the high cost of living in the Boulder area. Too often faculty who preferred to stay in Boulder left because of higher salary offers elsewhere. That year the Libraries’ Cabinet began collecting data to discern whether salaries were equitable with the national market. The University of Colorado, Boulder’s (UCB), comparison group is considered to be the Association of American Universities (AAU), a group of 62 North American research universities—all of which are members of the ARL. Approximately half of the AAU are public institutions, and it is to this subgroup of 29 institutions that the University of Colorado is routinely compared.12 Consequently, in the Fall of 1995, the Libraries’ Cabinet asked the ARL’s Statistics and Measurement Program to compare the mean salaries of all public AAU libraries against similar positions at UCB. This comparison, based on ARL’s Annual Salary Survey, examined the salaries of 14 different job classifications (e.g., associate director, branch head, serials head, and reference librarian) in relation to the national mean and UCB salaries. Although a few of the Libraries’ job classi-
fications were salaried slightly higher than market, the majority ranked between 7% and 12% lower than the national mean. Several classifications were as much as 25% below market (see Table 1). This comparison presented objective evidence that significant market inequity existed at UCB. The ARL comparison did not, however, estimate the overall difference between UCB salaries and the national market. To calculate this number, the ARL data were organized into a spreadsheet that detailed the various positions, the percentage and dollar variation from the national mean, the number of positions affected at UCB, and the total adjustment needed to bring that classification to market equity. The total estimate of all adjustments, nearly $300,000, represented the amount needed to bring the Libraries to 1996/1997 market equity within the AAU public institutions. It is important to note, however, that this calculation estimates the total market inequity present in the Libraries and not each individual’s market inequity (see Table 2). The ARL comparison, the estimate, and the anecdotal evidence of recruitment and retention were presented to the vicechancellor for Academic Affairs by the
dean of libraries. Although sympathetic, the vice-chancellor did not immediately agree to fund the adjustment. Instead, the proposal was sent to the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee (AABAC) for review, a committee of campus faculty that evaluates budget proposals from the campus colleges and makes recommendations to the vice-chancellor. The AABAC proved skeptical, arguing that the Libraries’ situation was not unique because all Boulder faculty were underpaid. The AABAC also questioned whether libraries, in general, were becoming obsolete because of the proliferation of electronic media. The AABAC, however, did not dismiss the Libraries’ market request; instead, the committee asked for library usage statistics. This was relayed to the Libraries as a request for multiple measures of comparative performance without specifying which measures were to be compared or what peer group was to be used. The Libraries chose to use this as an opportunity to demonstrate that service quantity was relatively high while salaries were relatively low. As an exhaustive body of library literature illustrates, comparative performance measures are controversial.
July 2000
227
Table 2 Estimating Market Inequity by Position University of Colorado at Boulder versus Public AAU Libraries, Academic Year 1996 –1997 1996/97 UCB Salary
1996/97 AAU Mean
1996/97 UCB Mean
% Variation
Dollar Variation
Number of UCB Positions
Adjustment
Associate director
63,473.30
76,281.90
63,473.30
⫺20.18%
12,808.60
3.00
38,425.80
Head, branch
45,742.50
51,988.70
45,742.50
⫺13.66%
6,246.20
4.00
24,984.80
Functional specialist
41,735.40
41,735.40
34,614.00
⫺20.57%
7,121.40
4.00
28,485.60
Acquisitions
51,170.70
51,170.70
49,734.00
⫺2.89%
1,436.70
1.00
1,436.70
Reference
52,523.60
52,523.60
45,918.00
⫺14.39%
6,605.60
1.00
6,605.60
Cataloging
48,942.20
48,942.20
41,375.60
⫺18.29%
7,566.60
3.00
22,699.80
Serials
53,145.70
53,145.70
47,948.00
⫺10.84%
5,197.70
1.00
5,197.70
Documents
48,704.10
48,704.10
43,230.0
⫺12.66%
5,474.10
1.00
5,474.10
Circulation
49,627.20
49,627.20
45,357.00
⫺9.41%
4,270.20
1.00
4,270.20
Rare Books
57,900.00
57,900.00
45,721.00
⫺26.64%
12,179.00
1.00
12,179.00
Computer Systems
54,356.30
54,356.30
42,219.00
⫺28.75%
12,137.30
1.00
12,137.30
Other
49,486.90
49,486.90
43,075.30
⫺14.88%
6,411.60
6.00
38,469.60
Over 14 years exp.
44,530.60
44,530.60
38,409.40
⫺15.94%
6,121.20
7.00
42,848.40
10 to 14 years
37,930.10
37,930.10
30,164.00
⫺25.75%
7,766.10
2.00
15,532.20
5 to 9 years
34,619.00
34,619.00
32,452.70
⫺6.68%
2,166.30
2.00
6,498.90
Under 5 years
30,295.30
30,295.30
29,039.60
⫺4.32%
1,255.70
2.00
2,511.40
10 to 14 years
39,549.30
39,549.30
33,614.00
⫺17.66%
5,935.30
2.00
11,870.60
5 to 9 years
35,794.10
35,794.10
32,754.00
⫺9.28%
3,040.10
2.00
6,080.20
Under 5 years
29,680.40
29,680.40
27,726.90
⫺7.05%
1,953.50
4.00
7,814.00
Over 14 years exp.
47,509.50
47,509.50
42,761.00
⫺11.10%
4,748.50
1.00
4,748.50
10 to 14 years
40,230.30
40,230.30
41,641.00
3.39%
0.00
Position
Department head
Reference Librarian
Cataloging Librarian
Other Librarian
Estimated Inequity
Meaningful comparative measures of effectiveness have, after nearly two decades, proven elusive for librarians to identify. A wide gap between the types of statistics routinely collected by most libraries, including UCB, and the data required to derive indicators of performance quality exists. The simple input measures currently collected for institutional analysis, such as acquisitions budgets, volume counts, and numbers of staff, are poor indicators of performance. Using such numbers to compare institutional effectiveness can often inadvertently mislead an audience unfamiliar with the subtleties of library goals and services.13
228
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
“A wide gap between the types of statistics routinely collected by most libraries, including UCB, and the data required to derive indicators of performance quality exists.” Nonetheless, the Libraries began collecting the available information to answer the questions posed by the AABAC. The budget committee had not prescribed which indicators were to be used or even the comparison group, yet indicators and context within which they are placed can
1.00
0.00
51.00
298,270.40
produce very different results. For example, when 1995 salaries were compared with the then 110 ARL institutions, UCB ranked in the bottom 10% of all institutions. But among the AAU public institutions, UCB ranked in the bottom 25%. Consistently throughout the comparison process, placing Libraries salaries in the context of the ARL institutions resulted in market inequity appearing much worse than when compared only against the AAU public libraries. The dean of libraries, however, made a tactical choice to use the AAU as the comparison group. He felt it important to use a comparison with which the audience, the AABAC, was most familiar.
Fortunately, the ARL Statistics and Measurement Web page offered an interactive edition of the ARL annual statistics.14 The interactive nature of the data proved invaluable throughout this process. By means of the Web page, ranked lists of all reporting ARL institutions could be produced for any year since 1961/1962 for any of 48 categories. Basic inputs, such as professional salaries or acquisition budgets; service activities, such as circulation volume or interlibrary loan; and user base, including total teaching faculty or total students, could be compared across all ARL institutions. Moreover, any category of data could be divided by any other category, resulting in ratios that more equitably rank the institutions being compared. For example, by setting the denominator to “student full time equivalent” and varying the numerator by such data as materials expenditures, total circulation, reference questions, and per-student services could be better ranked among institutions of very different sizes. The presentation to the AABAC included several dozen tables that included comparisons of service quantity and operating expenditures on a student-FTE basis and comparisons of professional salaries that included all 110 ARL libraries. To reduce the list to only AAU public institutions, the approximately 60 non-AAU libraries had to be removed from each table. Only 10 tables, those that best illustrated the Libraries’ situation, were delivered to the AABAC. In general, these tables indicated that the Libraries’ performance, as measured by per-student activity, tended to be in the top 25% of AAU institutions while salaries were in the lower 20% (see Table 3).
THE MARKET AWARD With data indicating that UCB Libraries was among the lower salaried but higher service providers, the vice-chancellor gave verbal assurance that the Libraries would be awarded $300,000 in market equity. Several stipulations, however, were attached to this award. First, the award was to be made over four years at $75,000 each year. Second, awards were to be made with case-by-case justification rather than simply dividing the award by the number of faculty. Finally, individual increases were to be tempered by performance-based merit. Those faculty with a demonstrable his-
tory of higher performance were to receive higher increases.
“Factoring career merit into a market adjustment was a stipulation that the Libraries had not anticipated and for which the library literature offered no guidance.” Factoring career merit into a market adjustment was a stipulation that the Libraries had not anticipated and for which the library literature offered no guidance. Moreover, dividing the equity over four years had significant implications for both process and results. Although the merit component was unusual, the condition that monies were to be distributed over four years had profound consequences. Spreading the increase over four years would not bring salaries to the 1995/1996 mean until the academic year of 1999/ 2000. Complicating the process was considerable time pressure. Specific justifications and adjustments were due to Academic Affairs only two weeks after notification of the award. After notification, the dean immediately formed a small task force of librarians to resolve these issues and make recommendations for specific salary increases. Because the FPC traditionally scores faculty research and service performance to determine annual salary increases and internal equity, persons from this group were the logical choice for task force members. The task force consisted of three members of the FPC and two members of the Cabinet.
THE MARKET EQUITY PROCESS Although an estimate of $300,000 in total market inequity had been calculated, individual awards had not been determined. The actual process of determining the specific market equity increase for each position consisted of two steps. The first placed each faculty member into a job classification that most closely matched those in the ARL “Comparison of Mean Salaries.” The second required devising a method or formula that would most fairly reflect the faculty member’s past career merit. Moreover, it forced an examination of how individual awards were to be distributed. Addressing only the worst inequities
the first year was considered but discarded as unwise because there was no guarantee money would be available for any subsequent year. Instead, it was decided to distribute each year’s monies to all the faculty proportional to the annual market adjustment. In that way, everyone would benefit from the beginning, and, if anything happened to the funding over time, everyone would benefit proportionally to the amount of his or her adjustment. Determining who was eligible for market increases was one of the more sensitive aspects of the process. The vice-chancellor stipulated that market was to be awarded to “library faculty.” Using the definition of faculty found in our University Libraries Faculty Handbook necessarily mandated eliminating temporary and some part-time faculty positions from the process. The result was that out of 55 faculty positions there were 51, some of which were vacant at the time, that would be considered for a market equity adjustment. The next task was to match UCB faculty with the classifications listed in the ARL Comparison of Mean Salaries. The majority of the faculty positions had obvious counterparts, such as associate director, branch head, department head, reference librarian, or catalog librarian. There were, however, several UCB positions that did not have obvious counterparts on the list. One of the more troublesome positions, for example, was that of unit head. This is a position that is not a department head but that has supervisory duties. There was nothing that truly represents such a position in the ARL comparison. Nevertheless, to maintain the integrity of the process, only data from the ARL document could be used. Four such positions exist in the UCB system, and all of them were assigned to the functional specialist category. Two other faculty positions that were not mirrored— one in public relations and another in collection development—were also assigned to this category. One department head was placed in department head-other rather than in a more obvious category because of what was believed to be an artificially low salary for that category. Another faculty member who held two half-time positions had calculations made in each category for half the salary; then the two halves were added together to arrive at a market amount. In another case, one faculty member served as head of two depart-
July 2000
229
Table 3 Professional Salary by Professional Positions Association of Research Libraries Statistics Rank-Order Statistics 1995 Rank
AAU Public Institution
Ratio
1.
Michigan
$62,553.79
2.
Rutgers
61,441.96
3.
California, Los Angeles
46,001.16
4.
Minnesota
44,915.97
5.
Arizona
44,905.02
6.
Iowa
44,745.86
7.
Missouri
43,281.56
8.
Suny-Buffalo
43,278.40
9.
Ohio State
43,058.35
10.
Michigan State
42,620.04
11.
California, Santa Barbara
42,485.96
12.
Iowa State
42,162.46
13.
Wisconsin
41,682.97
14.
Virginia
41,564.11
15.
North Carolina
41,063.19
16.
Indiana
40,008.46
17.
Washington
38,892.42
18.
Florida
38,617.80
19.
Purdue
37,842.64
20.
Nebraska
37,751.51
21.
Texas
37,491.83
22.
Illinois, Urbana
37,009.01
23.
Oregon
36,405.50
24.
Pittsburgh
35,973.64
25.
Colorado
35,097.33
26.
Maryland
35,008.54
27.
Kansas
32,458.70
28.
Pennsylvania State
32,064.36
29.
California, Berkeley
NA
Source: ARL Rank Order Statistics Data, http://www.lib.virginia.edu/socsci/arl/test-arl/simple.html.
ments. The salary for either alone would not be sufficient. In this case, the task force agreed that the duties performed resembled those of a department head of a specialized area. In each case, the task force used judgment and consensus to find a counterpart and was careful to document its deliberations for review by the dean.
FACTORING MERIT INTO MARKET AWARDS Assigning faculty to an ARL classification immediately determined a market salary mean for that position. The mandate from
230
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
the vice-chancellor, however, was to use career merit to temper the salaries, that is, to make the market increase reflect factors in an individual’s career.
“Assessing career merit for each of 51 librarians, particularly within a two-week timeframe, was an intimidating task.” Assessing career merit for each of 51
librarians, particularly within a two-week timeframe, was an intimidating task. Moreover, the University had not mandated the proportion merit was to play in the total salary increase. Consequently, the task force struggled with two issues: how to quickly, yet with reasonable accuracy, assess an individual’s career performance and how to fit that assessment into a percentage of the market increase. Although having each librarian write a descriptive essay documenting his or her career performance was discussed, the task force discarded the concept as too
Table 4 Calculation of Annual Market Increase by Position University of Colorado at Boulder
Name Worf, W.
Position Cataloging Librarian/over 14 yr
Janeway, J. Department Head/Documents Data, D.
Department Head/Serials
1996/97 Adjustment Total Career to AAU Adjustment Increase to Annual UCB 1996/97 Merit 1996/97 AAU 1996/97 to 1996/97 Increase to Salary Score Mean Mean AAU Mean UCB Salary UCB Salary $33,500
2
0.97
$45,420
($1,363)
$10,557
$2,639
$43,230
3
1.00
$48,704
$0.00
$ 5,474
$1,369
$47,948
1
0.93
$53,146
($3,720)
$ 1,478
$ 369
Chekov, A. Head, Branch
$45,250
2
0.97
$51,989
($1,560)
$ 5,179
$1,295
Crusher, B. Head, Branch
$50,736
4
1.05
$51,989
$2,599
$ 3,852
$ 963
Kirk, J.
$31,678
1
0.93
$34,619
($2,423)
$
$ 129
Reference Librarian/05 to 09 yr
impractical and time-consuming. Instead, the task force chose to adapt an existing process, that of internal merit equity, to measure career performance. As part of the annual evaluation process, the FPC is mandated by the University to calculate internal merit equity by using a quantifiable system. The purpose is to ensure that salaries within the Libraries are consistent with long-term performance ratings. This process measures performance over an entire career in the areas of librarianship, research, and service. Factors considered in determining the career merit score include quality of librarianship, publication record, service contributions, and years of experience. Although partly a subjective assessment, one consequence of the annual internal merit equity evaluation is that a score is calculated for each librarian’s career merit. An in-depth discussion of this system is available in Seaman, Krismann, and Hamilton’s article.15 This system offered a reasonable evaluation of the performance of an individual over his or her career. Moreover, it was expedient because the scores had recently been calculated for the annual evaluation process. Finally, at least this part of the process was well understood and had been approved by the library faculty. The majority of the faculty scored three on career merit, (25) with the next largest group (14) scoring two. The task force agreed to assign a percentage of the mean to each of these scores. A low career merit score, a one, would receive 93% of the mean; a career merit score of two would receive 97%; a score of three would receive 100% of the mean; and the highest score, four, would receive 105% of the mean.
An argument could be made for a wider distribution of the percentages. For instance, instead of a spread from 93% to 105%, a spread from 90% to 110% could have been used. However, because the primary purpose was to correct market equity problems, the individual awards were only tempered with career merit. All the faculty, from the most meritorious to the least, were underpaid according to market standards. Our intent was to raise all salaries as much as possible within the confines of money available and the AABAC’s mandates. Table 4 outlines the adjustments and calculations used to arrive at individual increases. For instance, Walter Worf, a cataloger with more than 14 years of experience, is in a position with an AAU mean market salary of $45,420. His career merit score of two determines that he will receive 97% of the AAU mean. Consequently, there is a $1,363 negative adjustment from the AAU mean of $45, 420. Judith Janeway, a documents head whose career merit is three, will receive 100% of $48,704. No adjustment is made to the AAU mean; her increase is simply the difference between the AAU mean and the UCB salary. Because increases to these market salaries were to be distributed over a period of four years, the annual increase was one quarter of the total increase. Any process that determines a person’s salary must be approached with caution. It must be recognized that in dealing with most human endeavors there are many elements of subjectivity. Consequently, the final step in determining market equity was to review the list of increases one-by-one to ascertain that every adjustment made sense and to see if further
518
adjustment was advisable. For instance, “tweaking” was indicated for a faculty member with an extraordinary length of service. A text detailing the reasons for the market and merit increase for each faculty member was drafted for the dean. The dean used these drafts as the basis for case-by-case justifications to the vicechancellor. Simultaneously, letters were written to each faculty member itemizing his or her increase and explaining that the intent was to provide equity relief incrementally over four years proportional to the degree that the salary was out of adjustment with the AAU mean. In addition, the letter emphasized that all faculty members in the Libraries were considered for a market-equity adjustment. The faculty were also reminded that the process was based primarily on mean salary levels of specific positions across the AAU rather than on individual career accomplishments or the ability to negotiate incoming salary.
CONCLUSION In fiscal year 2000/2001, the Libraries should receive its fourth and last market increment. Salaries will then be at the 1996/1997 mean of AAU public institutions. The necessity of distributing the equity increase over a four-year period undermined the final outcome. Consequently, the ARL ranking of UCB Libraries’ faculty salaries has increased only slightly in the past four years. Without the market equity adjustments, however, the salary situation in the Libraries would be desperate. Moreover, the process did engender some notable successes. The dean successfully argued for equity funds before a skeptical vice-chancellor and bud-
July 2000
231
get committee. This was virtually unprecedented in the University’s recent history. The task force was able to devise quickly and implement a strategy to disperse the funds. The system was devised through the cooperation of library faculty and administrators; it accommodated University mandates, and it was fully documented and defendable.
“The system was devised through the cooperation of library faculty and administrators; it accommodated University mandates, and it was fully documented and defendable.” NOTES
AND
5.
6.
REFERENCES
1. Scott Seaman, Carol Krismann, & Fred Hamilton, “An Internal Equity Evaluation System Based On Merit Measures,” College & Research Libraries 60 (January 1999): 79 – 89. 2. Joan McConkey, Susan Anthes, Ellen Robertson, & Barbara Bintliff, “Salary Equity: A Case Study,” College & Research Libraries 54 (January 1993): 33– 41. 3. Gwendolyn Pershing & Mary Krutulis, “Using a Value Engineering Technique to Determine Salary Equity among Academic Librarians,” Library Administra-
232
4.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
7. 8. 9.
tion & Management 10 (Fall 1996): 240 – 245; Bonnie Osif & Richard Harwood, “Employee Compensation,” Library Adminisitration & Management 9 (Fall 1995): 241–245. Maureen Pastine & Shirley McLean, “Pay Equity in Libraries,” The Bottom Line 7 (Summer 1993): 7–12. Jeanie Welch & Linda Dugger, “Suggested Guidelines for Salary Determination in an Academic Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 (January 1989): 366 –371. Donald M. Norris, “Triage and the Art of Institutional Research,” The AIR Professional File (Spring-Summer 1983), EDRS, ED 234665, microfiche; James Waters & George A. Milliken, “Evaluating the Effects of Gender in Employment Discrimination Cases,” in American Statistical Association, Proceedings of the Business and Economics Section, in Toronto, Canada, August 15–18, 1983 (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1983), 1–9; Celia A. Allard, “Assessing Faculty Salary Equity,” The AIR Professional File (Fall 1984), EDRS, ED 253179, microfiche; Elizabeth A. Ehrich & Gabriele A. Michels, “Stagewise Regression—A Different Approach to Salary Equity Studies,” Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Orlando, Florida, 1986, EDRS, ED 280413, microfiche. Allard, “Assessing Faculty Salary,” p. 9. Waters & Milliken, “Evaluating the Effects,” p. 3. Allard, “Assessing Faculty Salary,” p. 3.
10. Ehrich & Michels, “Stagewise Regression,” p. 17. 11. Norris, “Triage and the Art,” p. 5. 12. These institutions are University of Arizona, University of California at Berkeley, University of California at Los Angeles, University of California at Santa Barbara, University of Florida, University of Illinois at Urbana, Indiana University, University of Iowa, Iowa State University, University of Kansas, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Nebraska, University of North Carolina, Ohio State University, University of Oregon, Pennsylvania State University, University of Pittsburgh, Purdue, Rutgers University, State University of New York at Buffalo, University of Texas, University of Virginia, University of Washington, and the University of Wisconsin. 13. Martha Kyrillidou, “An Overview of Performance Measures in Higher Education and Libraries,” Association of Research Libraries [Online]. Available: http://www. aarl.org/newsltr/197/overview.html (April 25, 1999); Don H. Revill, “Performance Measures for Academic Libraries,” Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science 45 (1990): 294 –333; Beth J. Shapiro, “Access and Performance Measures in Research Libraries in the 1990’s,” Journal of Library Administration 15 (1991): 49 – 66. 14. [Online]. Available: http://fisher.lib.virginia. edu/newarl/list.html. 15. “An Internal Equity,” pp. 79 – 89.