Walmart, Wells Fargo, and Deloitte on Job Architecture...Associated with many “labels” including...

5/15/2018

1

William NavaronsManager, Compensation Design

Walmart, Wells Fargo, and Deloitte on Job Architecture

:

Ryan MillerDirector, Talent Architecture

Lynda Phenix Sheila C. Sever, CCPSenior Manager Senior Manager

Walmart, Wells Fargo, and Deloitte on Job ArchitectureIf You Build It, They Will Come . . . And Stay!

Learning and Development

Performance Management

Career Pathing

Succession Planning

Workforce Planning

Employee Experience

M&A Integration

Rewards

Talent Acquisition

Risk ExcellenceGovernance | Compliance

Tech

no

log

y

Tale

nt

Man

agem

ent

JOB ARCHITECTUREThe foundation for a company’s critical elements of talent

management strategy

5/15/2018

2

IntroductionsSheila C. Sever, CCPSenior ManagerDeloitte Consulting LLPSheila has 20+ years of consulting and corporate experience working with a wide range of clients. She has published on a variety of topics in WorldatWork Journal and workspan. Today’s session marks her fifth Total Rewards conference presentation. She advises clients on optimizing their total rewards package to best attract and retain talent across their organizations.

Lynda PhenixSenior ManagerDeloitte Consulting LLPServes as a strategic partner in a variety of Job Architecture projects covering multiple industry sectors with a recent focus on M&A. She has played a key role in the development of Deloitte Consulting’s core job architecture methodology and tools. She was a main driver behind Deloitte Consulting’s Global Job Architecture Practices Survey.

Ryan MillerDirector, Talent ArchitectureWalmart

Ryan is a member of the Global People Division leadership team at Walmart and is currently focused on the redesign of the organization’s talent architecture. In this role, he collaborates to develop learning and growth programs that are increasingly digital in nature and in alignment with Walmart’s vision of the future of work. He draws from 25 years of Human Resources experience, including international assignments – most recently as the Head of Talent Development for Walmart for APAC markets. He was also responsible for the development of Top Talent & Executive Development for Next Generation Walmart globally.

William NavaronsManager, Compensation DesignWells FargoLeads the development for company-wide compensation design initiatives covering compensation philosophy, strategy, and program framework. He is currently serving in a leadership role in the planning and design of an updated approach to job architecture. Prior to joining Wells Fargo, he has held significant compensation leadership roles in multiple industry sectors as well as consulting. William has published on various compensation topics within World at Work, the National Association of Stock Plan Professionals (NASPP) and the National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO). William holds CCP, CBP, and GRP certifications from WorldatWork.

Provide pointers on how to present a case for Job Architecture to your organization: articulating the resulting benefits to talent management,

compensation investments and employee experience1

Share leading practices in job architecture design, such as design principles, number of job levels, job titling conventions, career pathing, job/role growth

criteria and governance 2

Discuss Job Architecture experiences at Walmart and Wells Fargo through a panel discussion with Human Capital leadership3

The purpose of this session is to fill in the knowledge gap on job architecture practices through sharing Deloitte’s proprietary research and discussing the practical application of these findings through a panel discussion with industry leaders who are in the midst of job architecture projects. Today we will:

Session objectives

5/15/2018

3

Job architecture defined and making the case

Total rewards and the connection to job architecture

The core components of job architecture—jobs and associated pay values are often the nucleus and common factors upon which human capital programs are built. While job architecture is most commonly the domain of the compensation function, these programs serve as the foundational elements of an organization’s talent strategy.

While “compensation owned”, it is more than just about pay. Job architecture is tied

to the core elements of total rewards

5/15/2018

4

Job architecture definedAssociated with many “labels” including the job catalogue, career framework, job bank, leveling, etc., job architecture is an umbrella that contains the following core Human Capital programs centered around the development, implementation and administration of both the job framework and pay structure:

Governance

Global Job Architecture:

• Creates organizational language to consistently define positions globally. It is the foundation for other elements across HR, particularly Rewards, Talent, and work environment

• Provides the foundation for aligning global workforce, programs, rewards, resources, and support systems

• Alignment to pay architecture and programs• Slotting positions (initial and ongoing)• Management of evaluation criteria• Governance models and decision rights

Job Levels

Pay Grades

Job Titles

Career Pathing

• Identify number of organizational levels and assignment of jobs to those levels

• Create consistent criteria for entry

• Assess appropriate spans of control (optional)

• Job groups/job families• Dimensions and factors• Number of levels• Desired level of overlap

across Architecture

• Identify function-based job families and classify jobs

• Define career progressions irrespective of reporting relationships

• Determine linkages to pay grades

• Design grades to appropriately compensate work

• Develop pay administration processes for managing costs

• Job progressions—creating meaningful, cross-organizational titles that accurately reflect level and work

• Job titles are typically associated with job codes to be loaded in HCM System

Communications and Change

The job architecture spectrum and triggers

• Human Resources transformation with technology (Human Capital Management System) changes

• Significant shift in business model or strategy including M&A

• Misalignment between company pay and market practices

• Perceived internal and external pay equity concerns

The Drivers of Job Architecture

• Inefficient talent management practices

• Proliferation of job titles and lack of clear career framework

• An unexpected or unexplained increase in employee turnover

• Jobs no longer reflect the work that needs to be accomplished to support the business

Data Clean-Up

Job/ Employee Mapping

Focus on Select

Functions/Groups

Focus on Jobs Only

– All Functions/

Groups

Full Design-

Jobs and Pay for All Functions/

Groups

5/15/2018

5

Benefits of job architectureOne of the significant roadblocks to embarking on a job architecture project is articulating the value and outcomes of the project. This often begins with a current state assessment, articulating the need, and gaining leadership support for change

A single job architecture framework will support talent management through improvements in:

Providing better understanding of career paths through grouping jobs into family groups and families—this enhances visibility to potential opportunities

Setting clear criteria and expectations for movement through careers

Compensates consistently for like jobs/work internally and externally

Provides consistent and efficient market analysis and common basis for compensation programs

Creates governance for administering pay and talent decisions

Efficiency Engagement

Supports enterprise-wide talent management programs

Clarifies succession planning and skills gaps

Reduces role ambiguity and clarifies accountability; supports career pathing

Simplification

Supports geographic mobility across the company

Increases accuracy of HR data reporting for human capital planning and forecasting

Supports a HR technology implementation

What typically resonates with line management?

Improved internal pay equity –promotes “fair” pay treatment

Decreased hiring timelinesPerformance and career

development

More effectively marketing jobs – market alignment of

titles

Results of the Deloitte Consulting 2017 global job architecture practices survey

5/15/2018

6

Deloitte Consulting’s Global Job Architecture Practices SurveyThe 2017 global job architecture practices survey analyzes the issues, ideas, and solutions of respondents regarding their job architecture practices.

Because of the impacts to financial investments, the employee experience and talent management effectiveness, organizations continue to search for market leading practices to inform their redesign efforts. Currently there is very little quantitative market intelligence on this topic.

Need for data

Many organizations are finding, as they continue to evolve organizational models and strategies, that the core job architecture framework is no longer supportive of business needs.

Outdated job architecture

Deloitte invited c-suite, business leaders, human resources, total rewards and talent executives from around the world to participate in the Deloitte Consulting 2017 global job architecture practices survey.

The survey contains the following:

• Job Architecture Strategy/Design Approach

• Job Leveling Practices

• Job Titling Nomenclature/Career Path Practices

• Job Description Practices

• Rewards Staffing Practices

This is a “Participant Only” survey.These are high level findings that explore a subset of the overall research.

Survey participants105 organizations participated in the 2017 global job architecture practices survey. Participants span across all major industries and range from large Fortune 500 organizations to smaller organizations with less than $5 billion in revenue.

Fortune 500 Membership

No59%

Yes41%

41% 41%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Less than $5B $5 - 25B $25B+

Per

cent

of

Res

pond

ents

Revenue Mix

25%

22%

14%

10%8%

5% 5%4% 4% 3% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%Primary Industry

Among 105 participating organizations, 41% are members of the Fortune 500; varying in size, survey participants span industry sectors.

Note: Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

5/15/2018

7

Staffing the total rewards functionParticipants were asked how they manage the compensation function—specifically whether their organization uses an HR Service Center Model—as well as if compensation professionals serve as total rewards (“TR”) professionals with responsibilities in both compensation and benefits. Participants were also asked the number of employees that compensation professionals typically support.

68%32%

Use of HR Service Center

Use HR Service Center

18%

32%

23%

18%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Less than 1,000

1,000 to 2,000

2,001 to 3,000

3,001 to 9,999

10,000 or More

No. of Employees Supported by Compensation Professionals

28%72%

Focus on Compensation vs. Benefits

Do not use HR Service Center

Responsible for both

Responsible for one

When managing the compensation function, majority (68%) of survey participants use a service center to deliver HR services, while TR professionals generally focus on delivery of compensation

or benefits rather than both.Most compensation professionals (excludes service center staff) support 1,000 - 2,000 employees.

Job architecture program elementsParticipants were asked about their current job architecture program elements.

5%

28%

48%

53%

77%

78%

80%

90%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

Point factor job evaluation

Program governance guidelines and processes

Career pathing

Functions and families

Pay structures/ranges/grades

Job leveling

Job titles

Elements of Current Job Architecture Program(n=105)

Most participants report that the primary components of their job architecture programs include job titling, job leveling, pay structures/ranges/grades, and functions

and families.

5/15/2018

8

Polling Question

Question: When did your organization last design/redesign/significantly update job architecture?

Answer:

1. Undergoing a job architecture project or <1 year ago

2. 1 – 3 years ago

3. 3 – 5 years ago

4. 5+ years ago

5. N/A – have not redesigned

Click Here for Poll Results

Polling Question

Question: How long did the latest job architecture design/redesign project take to complete?

Answer:

1. Currently completing a job architecture project

2. <6 months

3. 6 – 12 months

4. 12 – 14 months

5. 2+ years

Click Here for Poll Results

5/15/2018

9

Job architecture strategy and design approachParticipants were asked about their most recent job architecture redesign project and its duration.


Most Recent Job Architecture Redesign Project

(n=105)

Length of Job Architecture Projects

(n=95)

10%

24%

13%

10%

6%

37%

Have not redesigned jobarchitecture

5+ years ago

3-5 years ago

1-3 years ago

Less than 1 year ago

Currently undergoing a jobarchitecture project

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%Percent of Respondents

41%

7%25%

18%

8%Currently undergoing

a job architecture project

Less than 6 months6-12 months

12-24 months

2+ years

Primary design drivers are a combination of a need to update job and pay programs and support of talent programs. Projects typically span from 6 – 18 months depending on

complexity, degree of participation and available resources.

12

3

Updating job structure/title practices

Assessing pay program and aligning to market practiceImproving career pathing and talent development

Drivers of Job Architecture Review

Job leveling practicesParticipants were asked about job leveling effectiveness and current job leveling practices.

The most prevalent job leveling practices include aligning to base pay ranges, providing guidelines describing requirements for each job level, and tying annual and

long-term incentive opportunities.

10%

3%

11%

24%

25%

50%

58%

62%

63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Not use job leveling

Tied to health and welfare benefit eligibility

Tied to training and development opportunities

Tied to information access

Tied to long-term incentive eligibility and opportunities

Tied to annual incentive eligibility and opportunities

Job leveling criteria / guidelines with requirements for entry in a level

Tied to base pay ranges

Current Job Leveling Practices(n=103)

5/15/2018

10

3 4 5

3 4 5

4 5 6

5 6 8

Number of Levels by Career Track(n=105)

25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile

Executive/Management

Admin Support/Clerical

Professional

Technician/Skilled Trades

Job levels by career trackParticipants were asked to provide information on the number of job levels used to differentiate jobs/roles within the broad career tracks of executives/managers, professionals (typically individual contributors), technicians and skilled trades and administrative support.

Participants reported using a median of 6 career levels in the executive/management track and 5 levels in the professional career track. They also use a similar number of levels in the

technician/skilled trade and administrative support career tracks (4); however, it should be noted that 14 organizations reported that they do not have a technician/skilled trade career track.

% of Orgs Using > 10 Levels

10%

8%

4%

2%

33 4

2 4 5

4 5 6

6 7 8

Revenue: Over $25Bn=19

Number of job levels by career track considering revenueParticipants were asked to provide information on the number of job levels used to differentiate jobs/roles within the broad career tracks—the data below show how the number of job levels varies based on organization size.

When reviewing the data by organizational revenue, we saw fewer levels overall for participants with revenue of under $5B. Participants with revenues over $5B reported

using a similar number of levels, regardless of size.

3 4 5

3 4 5

4 5 6

4 5 7

Revenue: Under $5B

Executive/ Management


Professional


% of Orgs Using >10

Levels

2%

2%

0%

2% 3 4 5

3 4 5

4 5 6

5 7 8

Revenue: $5B to $25Bn=43

% of Orgs Using >10

Levels

14%

7%

3%

0%

n=43

% of Orgs Using >10

Levels

17%

22%

23%

6%

25th Percentile

Median

75th Percentile



Professional




Professional


5/15/2018

11

Differentiating criteriaParticipants were asked to indicate the criteria they use to differentiate people management levels. The table below lists the top six criteria used as differentiating criteria for management level and individual contributor level employees.

Much of the differentiating criteria is fairly consistent across career tracks, with a few major differences. For example, leadership, people management responsibility, and

decision making were far more likely to be listed as criteria for management levels than individual contributor levels.

Management Levels (n=69)

Individual Contributor Levels (n=68)

Leadership/Scope of Management

93% Experience 84%

People Management Responsibility

83% Scope of Work 84%

Decision Making 75% Complexity 78%

Complexity 74% Decision Making 76%

Budget Responsibility 70% Autonomy/Independence 75%

Span of Control 70% Impact 72%

63% of participants listed education as a criterion for individual contributors, whereas 45% listed it as a criterion for management.

93% of participants rated leadership as a key criterion for management vs. only 21% for individual contributors.

25% of participants listed Communications Responsibility as a key criterion for employees.

Job titling nomenclature—standard formatsParticipants were asked if they utilize adjectives, ordinal numbers, or a combination to create job titles.

44% of participants utilize adjectives to indicate level and/or degree of responsibility in job titles. 40% use a combination of adjectives and ordinal numbers, however, this may not

necessarily be by design as 46% of participants who report using both are doing so because they do not currently have a consistent job titling structure in place.


Other5%

Ordinal numbers (e.g. Accountant 1, Accountant 2, Accountant 3)

8%

Both adjectives and ordinal numbers (e.g.

Accountant 1, Accountant 2, Senior

Accountant)40%

Adjectives (e.g. Associate

Accountant, Intermediate Accountant,

Senior Accountant)

44%

Neither4%

2%

46%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

The organization has no standardizedjob title methods at this time

Job titles may include numbers for thelower level and ajdectives for the higherlevel such as Accountant 1, Accoutant

2, Senior Accountant

If both, why?

Job Titling Practices

5/15/2018

12

System job titlesParticipants were asked the statement that best characterizes the job titles (i.e., system titles) used in their organizations’ Human Capital Management systems.

A majority (59%) of participants have job titling practices that are consistent across the entire organization, with a few exceptions.

*Other responses indicated that their system titles are consistent across the enterprise or that they were still working on creating more consistency.

3%

6%

12%

20%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Other*

The job titling practices are not consistent across the entire organization, but aregenerally consistent within a country, with exceptions; they are not consistent

between countries

The job titling practices are not consistent across the entire organization, but aregenerally consistent within a region; they are not consistent between regions

The job titling practices allow for maximum flexibility across the organization andvary greatly

The job titling practices are consistent across the entire organization, with a fewexceptions

Statement that Best Characterizes System Titles(n=103)

The job titling practices are not consistent across the entire organization, but are generally consistent within a country, with exceptions; they are not

consistent between countries

The job titling practices are consistent across the entire organization, with a few exceptions

The job titling practices allow for maximum flexibility across the organization and vary greatly

The job titling practices are not consistent across the entire organization, but are generally consistent within a region; they are not consistent

between regions

Secondary job titlesParticipants were asked if their organizations allow for the use of business card/desk/secondary/working job titles, in addition to the system title.

The majority (86%) of respondents allow for the use of business card/desk/secondary/working job titles, in addition to the system title.

Yes86%

No14%

Does Your Organization Use Secondary Job Titles?(n=105)

5/15/2018

13

Dual career pathsParticipants were asked if they use dual career paths in their organization and then specifically which functions used them.

55% of participants utilize dual career paths, with 23% of the participants using them organization-wide. The largest group (44%) provide dual career paths only in select job

functions, typically for critical workforce segments / “hot jobs.”

Note: Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.*Other responses indicated that the dual career paths were very informal or that they were in development.

Yes55%

No45%

Does Your Organization Use Dual Career Paths?(n=104)

4%

23%

30%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Other*

All job functions

Most job functions

Only used for select job functions,typically critical skill/hot jobs and/or thosewith technical/scientific/engineering focus

If Yes, Indicate the Functions for Which Dual Career Paths are Offered

(n=57)

Use of “management” job titlesParticipants were asked how they differentiate between managers and individual contributors in terms of job titling.

41% of participants do not differentiate titles between managers and individual contributors when using “management type” job titles. 33% of participants do differentiate

titles between managers and individual contributors through the placement of the management title.


Differentiation between people managers and

individual contributors through

management title33%

No differentiation41%

Management titles not used for

individual contributors

13%

Differentiation through HRIS input;

no title differentiation

12%

Other2%

Does Your Organization Differentiate Titles between Managers and Individual Contributors?

(n=103)

5/15/2018

14

Global rolesParticipants were asked how they differentiate between global roles and non-global roles in job titles.

The majority of participants do not differentiate global roles in the job title and for those that do, the term “Global” is used by 77% of the participants in select titles to indicate this

distinction.

*Some participants indicated multiple answers.

12%

8%

12%

15%

27%

77%

0% 50% 100%

Other

Global indicators not used

Worldwide

Enterprise

Corporate

Global

Yes25%No

75%

Does Your Organization Differentiate Global Roles in the Job Title?

(n=104)

If Yes, Which of the Following Job Title Indicators are Used to Designate a Global/Enterprise Role?*

(n=26)

Regional and country local pressures to modify job titlesParticipants were asked if they experience local pressures to modify standardized global job titles and if so in which regions and countries.

47% of participants report a need to modify job titles in various regions; this occurs most often in the Asia Pacific region.

*Some participants indicated multiple answers.

53%

12%

14%

15%

19%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

None

South America

Middle East and Africa

North America

Europe

Asia Pacific

Regions Pressuring for Job Titling Change* (n=94)

Top Countries Pressuring for Job Titling Change

(n=28)

Country Percent

India 43%

China 39%

Brazil 21%

United States 18%

Germany 14%

France 11%

Japan 11%

Thailand 7%

UK 7%

Singapore 7%

5/15/2018

15

Job architecture impact on pay programsParticipants were asked to provide information as to how compensation (e.g., base pay, short-term/annual incentives, and equity pay) differed across management and individual contributor jobs that are at a similar/same level.

The majority of participants reported that management and individual contributor jobs at the same level receive generally similar compensation opportunities. When rewards are

differentiated, they tend to be about 5-10% higher for people managers.

58%

12%

16%

12%

1%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Generally Similar

2-5% Higher

5-10% Higher

10-20% Higher

20-30% Higher

30%+ Higher

67%

6%

14%

10%

2%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Generally Similar

2-5% Higher

5-10% Higher

10-20% Higher

20-30% Higher

30%+ Higher

72%

4%

7%

5%

4%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Generally Similar

2-5% Higher

5-10% Higher

10-20% Higher

20-30% Higher

30%+ Higher

Base Pay DifferencesShort-Term/Annual

Incentive Differences Equity Pay Differences

Although 58% of organizations offer similar base pay for jobs on the management versus the individual contributor track, 40% of organizations pay between 2-20% higher for jobs on the management track

In relation to base pay and short-term pay differences, equity pay shows more binary results—the large majority (72%) pay about the same for equity pay, but 8% (versus 1% for base and STI pay) pay 30% or more to jobs on the management track

Q&A

Walmart, Wells Fargo, and Deloitte on Job Architecture...Associated with many “labels” including...

Documents

Transcript of Walmart, Wells Fargo, and Deloitte on Job Architecture...Associated with many “labels” including...