Pay & Conditions: pay benchmarking and reward policies and procedures workshop

Charles has been the Finance Bursar of Merton College since 2012. He also serves on several of the committees that are involved with the collegiate University’s finances. He was elected to the Chair of the Estates Bursars Committee in 2021, one of the principal committees of the Conference of Colleges. Charles has spent 25 years in investment and corporate banking in India, China and London. He graduated from Harvard Business School in 1980 with a MBA, and from Balliol College in 1978. 

Members of the Pay & Conditions Steering Committee met for another informative workshop this month, to bring together various strands of discussion around pay benchmarking data and reward policies and procedures. This session covered senior staff, professional services and support staff, and academic and research staff. Our aim was to review current pay and reward structures and policies, with staff feedback in mind, and to identify potential areas for change or improvement. 

Benchmarking 

Following on from earlier discussions at the end of the summer, we reviewed additional data on pay at the University and compared it to other UK employers, as well as academic pay data from the US and Europe. We also took the opportunity to look specifically at researcher pay and other benchmarking data relating to specific staff groups and salary scales. This has helped us to identify further data to explore for other pay groups.  

We covered a wide range of issues to do with structure, policy and process. We also considered different approaches to pay and reward in other institutions and settings, with input from the independent reward consultant who is supporting the Steering Committee. The committee talked through the strengths, weaknesses and applicability of different types of pay structure, such as fixed-rate, incremental scales, grade-based, skills-based pay, and job families. 

Pay context 

As part of the discussion about pay, we examined the national process used for setting pay in UK universities. The National Framework Agreement – which was developed by UCEA (the Universities and Colleges Employers’ Association) and the higher education trade unions and implemented from 2006 – introduced a single-table, national pay bargaining process, effectively reducing ten annual negotiations to one and modernising pay arrangements. The University of Oxford has been a part of this process since the Framework Agreement’s inception. As we know, this is what gave rise to the national pay scale we adopt and a set of principles that inform pay and grading across all member institutions (including the use of job evaluation for grading).  

The committee recognised that there is a fair amount of flexibility around how these national structures are applied and adapted locally. With this in mind, we looked at the approach taken by different universities. In Oxford, as the University is an Oxford Living Wage employer, our pay scales start at point 11 of the national pay spine. We have been looking at a range of feedback from staff about the pressures from the rising cost of living, and at the implications of our grading and banding structure. These discussions have clarified the scope we have to modify the approach Oxford takes, even as part of the National Framework Agreement, and we are considering recommendations with this in mind. 

Key considerations 

As our workshops and the feedback received from staff across the University have made clear, any conversation about pay benchmarking and reward at Oxford requires a great many things to be taken into account. We talked about key principles that should underpin any recommendations around pay and reward. We also considered whether these tests are met by current approaches to pay for both academic and professional services staff at the University, and where there might be room for improvement. We agreed that pay benchmarking needs to consider the impact of local cost of living, particularly in relation to our competitiveness in both local and international markets.  

In this discussion, we also spent time discussing Oxford’s ambitions in terms of its place in pay benchmarking relative to competitors. Any conversation about pay across the University does, of course, require consideration of the impact on colleges, especially for academics holding joint appointments. We are aware that there are differences in the allowances offered across the colleges, and the implications of these are being explored. The Steering Committee will continue to keep colleagues in the Conference of Colleges updated on the progress of this review. 

Next steps

Following on from our workshop discussions, the committee has started to look at a number of ‘persona’ (case examples of staff), as a helpful way of drawing together all the data we have looked at, and examining issues such as recruitment, retention and progression. As the bulk of our benchmarking and data analysis draws to a close, with this being the last of our scheduled committee workshops, there is much still to be done as we move to the next phase of drawing conclusions and making recommendations. 

You can find out more about the work of the Pay & Conditions Report Steering Committee on the Pay & Conditions Report webpages. Please note that the staff consultation phase of this review has now finished, but you can contact the project team with any questions about the review at payandconditions@admin.ox.ac.uk.