Compensation

February 16th, 2010  |  Published in Uncategorized  |  2 Comments

Most people who read this blog probably already have some idea of how much knowledge, experience, and expertise the University lost when Greg Neunaber retired at the end of last month. Since talking to him and other current and retired coworkers at his retirement party, I’ve been pondering how the University has been able to recruit and retain so many intelligent and talented people. We all know it’s not the money, so what is it?
Money can be a powerful motivator, but there are other forms of compensation an employer can provide, especially an employer like the University of Texas. For example, there’s the opportunity to work with other good people, or to work with cutting-edge technology. There’s also the ability to continually learn new things and develop new skills. Perhaps the most potent compensation, however, is the feeling that you’re making a real contribution to something that matters—that the systems you work on make it easier for the University to educate people, expand the frontiers of human knowledge, and enhance our community, state, and nation. It can also help if you feel that the University’s leadership understands and values your contributions.
If you have any related thoughts, feel free to leave them in the comments.

Responses

  1. Adam Connor says:

    March 3rd, 2010 at 9:03 am (#)

    I think there are many forces, but before focusing too much on job security I think the University needs to have a clearer plan for whom it is trying to recruit and keep. Lately I’ve had the feeling that the University doesn’t have a clear strategy here.

    Then again, lately retention hasn’t really been the issue.

  2. Adam Connor says:

    March 3rd, 2010 at 11:34 am (#)

    Second thought: Another major compensation element is autonomy. Generally, folks will give up money to have more control over how they carry out their daily work.

    My perception is that autonomy is decreasing for many analysts here — the pressure to be more productive is resulting in more management of resources.

    I think we do need to be more efficient but we are probably going about it the wrong (although obvious) way: squeezing blood from stones. The problem is the short-term gains carry long term costs, and they don’t scale — you can’t keep squeezing tighter every year (and be successful).

Leave a Response