Human Resource Practices Development Team

Design Team Report June 1996 - February 1997

Design Report Index || HRPD Home Page

 

II. Perspectives of the MIT Community

Steering Committee

Individual Interviews

Succession Planning

Reengineering Teams

Focus Groups

Job Design and Classification

Personnel Officers

Speak-ups

Compensation, Recognition,and Rewards

Common Themes

Planning and Appraisal

Hiring

Career Planning and Career Pathing

From the outset, involvement of the overall MIT community and the areas specifically involved in reengineering was essential to assess the strength of existing human resource practices at MIT and to identify current and future needs for the Institute. The type and nature of involvement varied according to the role of each constituency as will be apparent from the descriptions which follow. But wherever appropriate, the team established a common understanding with each one about the nine elements of human resource practices within its scope and then asked the following questions:

How does it work now?

What would it look like if it worked really well?

Where at MIT does this happen?

What do you see as immediate and future needs?

Steering Committee

 

Before the team was assembled, steering committee members, select senior faculty, and administrators voiced significant concern to the team captain about the outer limits of change. Reverence for MIT elicited, "This is not private industry. Keep MIT special. Change the culture, but don't destroy it." Wisdom suggested, "Consistency is necessary for fairness", but "Sell us a basket of options, not a 'one size fits all' solution." This was followed by common sense, "Include academic departments and centers on the design team." Gentle caution reminded, "The faculty will not become managers," and "The involvement of Sloan adds credibility, but the advice of other academics is needed for balance." And finally, "Senior leadership must give very visible, active, constant support for success." This early guidance not only provided the basis for the team charter, but also established a model of collaboration between the Steering Committee and the team. Throughout the summer, the team returned to the Steering Committee, both individually and collectively, to reflect on the concerns of the community, provide progress reports and updates on benchmarking interviews, and most importantly, to ask for help and advice in developing the strongest recommendations possible. Steering Committee involvement was ongoing and critical to the efforts of this team.

Top of Page

Reengineering Teams

The first constituency the HRPD Team sought out were areas already involved in work redesign and reorganization. Within the first weeks of the project, representatives from Physical Plant, Student Services, Mail Services, and Management Reporting spoke with the team about their redesign efforts and human resource needs. Contact with each active reengineering team was maintained throughout the summer by various team members in their regular work assignments, and through weekly meetings of the reengineering team captains. This ongoing collaboration was essential for the HRPD Team to develop appropriate recommendations for a changing MIT.

Personnel Officers

The HRPD Team also immediately involved the personnel officers. Again, within the first weeks, the sponsor, the team and the personnel officers met together to discuss the scope and approach of the project, and emphasized the importance of their ongoing participation. Throughout the summer, members of the HRPD Team continued to meet with the personnel officers to provide progress updates and seek their feedback.

Individual Interviews

 

MIT has many knowledgeable employees outside the personnel office involved in the delivery of human resource practices, and the HRPD Team interviewed as many as possible within the limited time available. A total of 90 interviews were conducted with deans, associate deans, faculty, senior administrators, directors, department administrators and professionals considered to be experts in this field. Interviewees were asked a series of questions developed to correspond to the nine human resource practices. Discussions varied, depending on the experience and expertise of the interviewee. See Appendix B again for more detailed information about individual interviews.

Top of Page

Focus Groups

In an attempt to guarantee the participation of all types of employees from across the Institute, the HRPD Team invited select employees from throughout MIT to share their thoughts, opinions, and ideas about the delivery of human resource practices at MIT. Twelve focus groups were held, each organized to include only participants from within similar job categories. The categories included administrative officers and personnel administrators, support staff, administrative staff, faculty, personnel officers, redesign teams, and reengineering teams. The HRPD Team was unable to conduct separate focus groups for union members and research staff due to union regulations and grant restrictions. Each focus group reviewed the nine human resource practices from a professional perspective and ranked them according to importance. The ranking exercise was followed by an in-depth discussion of the practices identified as the highest priority by the group.

At the conclusion of this phase of information gathering, clear priorities, similar concerns and themes had emerged from all the focus groups. In the aggregate, compensation, planning and appraisal, and career planning were the top three priorities, followed in order by individual and team development, hiring, job classification, career pathing, job design, and succession planning.

Top of Page

Speak-Ups

Joan Rice's memo announced the Speak-Ups and encouraged the entire community to participate. These 15 open forums, built on information learned from the focus groups, included 152 people from throughout the Institute. Each session reviewed the nine human resource practices and asked participants to rank them in order of importance. Discussion then focused on the issues of highest interest to the group. Participants' thoughts about what MIT should look like as an employer in the future were also solicited. Again, in the aggregate, the same priorities, concerns and themes emerged, confirming earlier focus group findings.

Throughout this process of information gathering, the HRPD Team learned an important lesson. The MIT community cares a great deal about the Institute and is very concerned about doing what is best for MIT during this time of transition. They want to help, but they feel they haven't been asked how to do so. In asking for the involvement of MIT's employees, the HRPD Team not only developed a common understanding of the most important concerns and needs for MIT, the team also heard some creative suggestions for change.

Common Themes

 

Many people spoke about the intrinsic value of working at MIT. Employees recognized the need for change and demonstrated willingness to work hard and be challenged. In general, they appreciated the opportunity to voice their thoughts and suggestions, and particularly valued the two-way communication the team established during this project. Employees expressed a strong hope that opportunities and mechanisms of participation would be systematized in the future. Other common themes were directly related to the nine human resource practices.

Planning and Appraisal

Despite Institute-wide efforts to require performance appraisals, the appraisal process is neither uniform nor consistent. This inconsistency appears in all areas of the Institute, for all classifications of employees. Where appraisals are conducted, they may not be used strategically to link individual and department goals to the goals of the Institute. The process is viewed by many to be cumbersome and difficult, and not applicable to those working in a team-oriented environment. It is inconsistently used to reward high performing employees, document poor performance, or identify needed skill development. In general, the success of performance planning is widely regarded as highly dependent on the management skills and savvy of the supervisor.

Individual and Team Development

While the separate training programs offered by the Institute are generally well-received, they are not coordinated with the Institute's future strategic needs. Currently, training programs are not customized to meet different needs across MIT, (i.e. delivered at times convenient for employees on all shifts). There is a need to develop people and project management skills, core skills for specific job requirements, and team skills. Due to budgetary and funding differences across the Institute, "rich" departments can generally afford to train their employees while "poor" departments or areas dependent on grant funding cannot. Finally, although many employees appreciate the tuition assistance policy, it needs revision to consider the rising costs of higher education, the changing educational needs of employees, and more administrative flexibility.

Top of Page

Career Planning and Career Pathing

In general, career paths are rare at MIT. While certain professions, such as library science, clearly follow a career track, most jobs at MIT do not fit neatly within a formal career path. Employees don't receive clear messages about how their current skills and responsibilities can be developed to meet future needs and openings at the Institute. They are hesitant to discuss future career goals for fear they may jeopardize their current position, while managers fear they may lose good employees.

Hiring

The hiring and transfer processes are neither well understood nor well communicated. The role of the Personnel Office is not clear, and the current administrative processes are considered cumbersome. Outside applicants are not acknowledged in a timely and professional manner, and internal candidates are not given fair consideration. The latter may be due to the stigma attached to lateral moves and a lack of opportunities to move vertically.

Succession Planning

There is no formal succession planning at MIT's senior level. Early retirement has left gaps at high levels, an indication that the Institute has not been grooming replacements for key administrative positions. On a more positive note, deans' offices appear to be more proactive in grooming up-and-coming faculty for increased responsibilities.

Job Design and Classification

The processes for developing job designs and assigning classifications are widely regarded as unfair, politicized and poorly communicated. Consequently, there is a strongly held perception that job designs and classifications are not applied equally to all areas of the Institute for employees at all levels. In general, employees working in "rich" areas with well-positioned supervisors who advocate for their staff are believed to be better off. The current system of job design and classification does not allow for a growing need to structure work in more flexible ways.

Compensation, Recognition, and Rewards

In general, MIT employees work hard and care a great deal about where they work. However, the perception is that this work is unappreciated and unacknowledged. There is a strong sentiment that MIT must recognize -- formally, informally, monetarily and/or creatively -- milestones of strong performance and relevant education. The manner in which MIT employees are compensated does not reinforce the Institute's directions or goals. Currently, it is unclear whether compensation is tied to performance, longevity, both, or neither. It is unclear whether salaries are competitive within MIT as well as in the marketplace. Benefits, an important element of the compensation package, are inconsistent between payroll categories. Non-monetary rewards are used in some areas, but not in others (i.e. time off, flextime, equipment at home).

The above perspectives of the MIT community shaped the team's fundamental understanding of the current human resource needs and possible human resource practices in the future. While important to acknowledge and address, they had to be framed within the context of the Institute's needs. To better understand how to match identified employee needs with MIT's needs, the HRPD Team looked to the experiences of other organizations through benchmarking interviews.

 

Top of Page || Design Report Index || HRPD Home Page

 MIT Home Page