7y
Thank you for sharing this perspective and for suggesting the promotion analysis comparing remote vs. Utah team member promotions. I requested and received this analysis from our People Operations team, and we will share the results with all team members in our next ATM meeting, but let me summarize here. We looked at three time horizons: first, from mid-2016 through mid 2017, next from mid-2017 through the implementation of our job levels in spring of 2018, and third, from spring 2018 to the present. In the first period, remote team members received disproportionately more promotions than Utah team members (50% of the promotions compared to representing approximately 42% of the team member population). During the second period, remote team members received disproportionately fewer promotions (27% of promotions while representing 44% of the team member population). During the final period -- March 2018 to the present -- remote team members also received disproportionately fewer promotions, but the gap narrowed (33% of promotions while representing 45% of the team member base).
As we reviewed this data, it felt important to share it broadly with all team members, including all managers and leaders, as a reference, to try to ensure there is no bias in our hiring or promotion practices in any way, including any biases related to remote vs. Utah location. It also reinforces for me the importance of our implementing systemic standards in the ways in which we post new positions, which often represent promotion opportunities, communicate those opportunities to all team members, and have an interview team involved in that decision-making process. This will also be an analysis that we regularly review, at least annually, to try to ensure that there is not bias in our hiring and promotion practices, in any way.
I also appreciate your feedback regarding middle management. You invited me to share some data to support the premise that middle and upper management is living up to the mission, cultural attributes and operating principles. First, let me offer up that I believe we need more data to better understand our performance as managers -- and this was a driving force behind the rollout of the 360-degree feedback process for all managers. This decision to roll out an annual 360-reivew process for every manager at Health Catalyst, no exceptions, was informed by feedback very similar to yours, received through Gallup, Glassdoor, anonymous feedback on our intranet site, and other small-group discussions, highlighting that there is like a problem with some managers' behaviors not measuring up to the values of the company. This was reinforced by the follow-up team member anonymous survey we conducted a few months ago, specifically devoted to the team member experience with their direct supervisor. While there was some encouraging data in the survey results (e.g. a large majority of team members rated their current manager's performance an 8, 9 or 10, with 10 representing the best experience with a supervisor across their entire career), there were also 8% of team members who rated their experience with their manager to be a 1, 2 or 3, suggesting a significant need for improvement. The challenge with that survey data was that we could not pinpoint where we needed to address performance issues, but the 360-degree feedback process will absolutely help us understand this more precisely. We will complete the rollout of the 360's by the end of 2018, and I commit to you and to every team member that we will work hard to address performance issues with managers. Part of every team member's experience at Health Catalyst should include having an effective, qualified, and caring manager.
I'm also asking our finance team to help us understand the financial implications of a modification to our base salary increase policy -- which currently translates to a 0% annual increase for team members whose current pay is at or above the 75th percentile for their position, based on the Radford benchmarking data. While on the one hand, the benchmarking data would suggest that we've kept our promise to team members to pay them above-market in this situation, it is also disheartening to work hard, provide significant value, and then receive no pay increase. What we're modeling is some form of "cost-of-living" increase possibility for these team members at or above the 75th percentile. We are also encouraging managers to bring promotion/job level increase proposals to the Leadership Team as quickly as team members qualify for these promotions, to enable pay increases to resume at a more significant level.
Finally, thank you for your work at Health Catalyst these past three years. I'm sorry your experience has included negative elements. I hope we can make system-wide improvements that might improve your experience. I continue to view the team member experience as my first and most important priority as CEO.
