How admin and NMU-AAUP compare to our peer institutions
Our Board of Trustees must think we are significantly above average, as our senior administrators have compa-ratios far above our peer institutions (117 to 143%)!; although our faculty are only in a normal average range of 103 to 109% of the median (3 to 9% above the median). Hmmm. Which is it, are we excellent or just average?
[100% Credit to Steven A Edelson for this educational short!]
To ensure that fair and equitable compensation, one tool HR professionals use is a “compa-ratio”. This is can be used internally and externally.
Compa-ratio is a formula commonly used by compensation professionals to determine the competitiveness of employees’ pay and calculated by taking salary divided by the salary range median.
While there are no hard & fast rules regarding these percentages, a number between 90 and 110% indicates an employer is paying right near the median, and over 120% indicates quite a bit above the median, often reserved for top performers.
When we look at NMU faculty compared to our peer institutions, we fall generally in the 103-109% range, meaning we’re compensated at a market competitive rate compared to our peers (all else equal). That indicates that NMU considers itself an “average” institution, paying “average” wages. And I think that’s not quite right. I think we’re above average, but my opinion isn’t as important as the Board of Trustees. But if we look at another category of employees, we see a different story. The Board of Trustees must feel that we’re significantly above average, as our senior administrators have compa-ratios far above our peer institutions. President, Provost, Associate provosts, CFO, athletic director, head of communications… they range from 117% to 143%. So what does this mean? Are we an average institution that pays based on the average, or do we view ourselves as above average and pay accordingly?
President of the NMU-AAUP/AFT 6761, Rick (P.W.) Mengyan, Ph.D.