STAFF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Committee Members

John Jackson, Chair

Myron Allen

Maggie Deming

Kathie Hull

Roxanne Keeney

Al Rodi

Brad Saxton

Guy Scarpelli

 

The committee recognizes that there is no perfect performance evaluation system.  What we recommend here is not perfect either.  Rather, it is an attempt to design a system for the situation we perceive in the year 2000 at the University of Wyoming, and is based on needs expressed by staff and supervisors at the institution.

 

A concept that is implicit in the committee’s work, but not the main focus, is the relationship between performance evaluation and merit raises.  UW has a culture in which “every salary raise is a merit raise.”  The committee believes that it is important for managers and employees to have a clear, common understanding of this notion.  There are three components:

 

1.   Meritorious performance (that is, performance that at least meets expectations) is a necessary condition to receive a salary raise.

2.   Differences in performance can justify differences in raises.

3.   Other factors, such as equity and market considerations, may also carry weight in raise decisions.  For example, it is permissible for a meritorious employee whose salary is inequitably low to receive a larger raise than a more meritorious employee whose salary is already high.

 

Performance appraisals are the primary inputs into the merit raise decision.  That is appropriate if the performance appraisal is a carefully considered appraisal of each employee’s performance by one who knows his or her performance for the previous evaluation period.

 

Understanding merit raises in this way should make it unnecessary for supervisors to distort performance evaluations for the purpose of justifying needed salary adjustments.  Distortion of this type erodes the credibility of any evaluation system.  By taking pains to communicate the reasons for their raise decisions (such as 1,2, and 3 above), supervisors can help avoid the confusion that sometimes arises when employees receive raises that are not tied solely to their performance appraisals.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS LEADING TO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS

 

To arrive at the recommendations in this report the committee undertook the following process:

 

1.   Read and discussed a summary of the current thinking on performance evaluations and related issues.  This information is attached as Appendix A.

 

2.   Interviewed University Officers who, by virtue of the positions they hold, have reason to see the results of the current performance appraisal system.  Interviewed were David Baker, University General Counsel; James Pew, Director of Human Resources; and Jesse Vialpando, Employment Practices Officer.

 

3.   Solicited input on the current system, its advantages and disadvantages from staff employees.  This was done by establishing and advertising a web site where people could submit anonymous comments.  The committee received fifty comments.  In addition, a paper questionnaire was given to Physical Plant employees who were not as likely to have access to a computer as part of their jobs.  There were seventy comments received from this source.  A summary of the comments can be found in Appendix B.

 

4.   Telephone interviews were held with representatives from other institutions.  Those were: Michigan State, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Southern Illinois, University of Colorado-Denver, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.  A conceptual summary of the results of those interviews is found in Appendix C of this report.

 

5.   The committee met several times and deliberated on the input received and finally agreed to the recommendations contained in this report.  Minutes of those meetings are available form the committee for those who are interested.

 

6.   The recommendations were then discussed with the Executive Committee of the Staff Senate, James Pew and David Baker.  Their comments have either been incorporated in this report or noted where appropriate.

 

A BRIEF REVIEW OF CURRENT THINKING ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

 

The following is a brief summary of the committee’s general observations about performance appraisal.

 

·         Identifying and measuring performance for employees has many potential benefits for the organization and the employee.

·         Performance appraisal should serve both developmental and administrative purposes.

·         Formal as well as informal appraisal is necessary.

·         There are many methods for doing performance appraisal, but there is no clear best method.  Adapting the various options to an organization’s needs may be the best solution.

·         There may be some advantages to having employees provide feedback to their manager on his or her performance under certain circumstances.  There might be disadvantages as well, such as managers who are threatened by feedback and who retaliate, or those who refuse to accept constructive criticism.  Some employees will be afraid to give honest feedback as well.

·         For more detail, see Appendix A.

 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM UW STAFF AND SUPERVISORS

 

The following is a summary of the most important and significant comments that the committee received concerning performance appraisal.

 

  • The largest number of comments had to do with supervision and the role of supervisors in the process.
  • Several respondents felt the performance planning part of the current system was a strength.  Many felt that if the system was to be used for merit or other administrative purpose, changes were needed.
  • Second-level managers (those who supervise supervisors) received criticism for often failing to ensure that performance evaluations are timely and effective.
  • Some respondents find it frustrating that specific measures of how well each job duty was being done were not available in the current system.
  • For more detail, see Appendix B.

 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS

 

The committee gained several insights from its investigation of other institutions.

 

  • Training those who participate in the performance appraisal process, including employees, was judged to be very important if it is to be successful.
  • Most performance evaluation forms from other institutions provide definitions of terms and categories.  The forms vary widely, but all have at a minimum a summary description of the employee as exceeding expectations, meeting expectations, or needing improvement.
  • It is difficult but necessary, to use a system that covers both administrative and developmental purposes.
  • Clear, accurate job descriptions are critical to the success of the process. 
  • For more detail, see Appendix C.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

 

In light of all these observations and information, the committee has 5 recommendations.

 

1.       ADD A NUMERICAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMPONENT:  While the planning component of the current system can work for development, it does not work as a basis for merit pay or other administrative purposes that require comparison of performance to a standard.  We recommend that a second component be added to UW’s performance appraisal system.  This would be a rating by the supervisor of the employee’s performance, based upon the major duties identified in the employee’s job description.  In essence: “How well is the employee doing what the job description says he or she is being paid to do?”

 

The comparison should be against a standard of acceptable performance – not against other individuals in the unit.  A 5-point scale should be used to rate: 1) each of the major tasks in the job description, 2) citizenship, and 3) overall performance.  We recommend using the following descriptive terms: “unusually proficient,” “above expectations,” “meets expectations,” “below expectations,” and “unacceptable.”  Shared common definitions of those terms, shown on the form in Appendix D, will aid in more uniform ratings.  Obviously a good current job description that includes well-defined, specific job duties is an important part of such an evaluation.

 

2.       KEEP PERFORMANCE PLANNING:  Keep the performance planning features of the current system.  The current system of performance planning is well-thought out and designed for what was intended.  It can work as the development portion of a more comprehensive performance review system.  The focus here should be goal-setting and performance feedback aimed at development of the individual for personal growth and/or promotion.  A recommended form that updates the current form somewhat is found in Appendix D.

 

3.       CLARIFY AND AMPLIFY SUPERVISOR AND MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL:  There is a need for better mechanisms to make both supervisors and second-level managers more accountable for the thoughtful evaluation of employees. 

 

Performance appraisal is an important part of a manager’s job and every employee deserves to be evaluated each year.  Mandatory evaluation may be a change in practice for UW, but it elevates the process for all concerned. 

 

Research on performance appraisal suggests that one of the fastest ways to improve a performance evaluation system is to train the managers who will use it.  Interviews with administrators at the other institutions led to the same conclusion.  Currently training for supervisors at UW is neither required nor very well attended.  The committee recommends mandatory training for both supervisors and second-level managers.  We also recommend development of short seminars for all current second-level managers and for all supervisors, immediately upon acceptance of a new performance evaluation system.  New managers and supervisors should have to take the training within a few weeks of their appointment.  Further, performance evaluation should be covered in new employee training, as the evaluation process will be most effective if employees have a good understanding of the reasons for performance appraisals.  Training is necessary but insufficient to solve the problem of inconsistent managerial treatment of the performance appraisal process at UW.

 

It is also important to establish responsibility and to elevate the quality of performance evaluation done by both supervisors and second-level managers.  The lack of consistency with which the current system is applied is a serious drawback.  Many supervisors do no performance evaluation or planning, thereby not providing any formal feedback to employees.  That fails to provide staff personnel with the perception that this is an activity the institution takes seriously.  Each supervisor should evaluate each employee every year.  Each employee should receive verbal and written feedback each year.

 

Second-level managers should pay attention to how well a supervisor evaluates and provides feedback to his or her employees.  Further, second-level managers should be rated on how well their reporting supervisors develop.  This development should include the supervisor’s use of performance evaluations.  Training, responsibility for required appraisal, and observation by higher management will be required to change the system successfully.

 

4.       IMPLEMENT EVALUATION OF SUPERVISORS BY EMPLOYEES: Employee evaluation of supervisors is a potentially useful tool that has some potential problems associated with it. There were enough comments by staff employees in favor of such an approach that the committee recommends that it be tried.  Such a system must be anonymous.  Evaluations based on a brief questionnaire should go to the second level manager to be summarized, with the originals destroyed after summary.  This is similar to a system currently being used in A&S to evaluate academic department heads.  Feedback to the supervisor from the manager on this matter should be part of the supervisor’s evaluation.  This recommendation is not for a 360 degree appraisal (as described in Appendix A), which is judged to be inappropriate here, but rather for a simpler variant of the idea.

 

For such an approach to work, all new employees, as part of their orientation, should be made familiar with the issues involved with the performance appraisal system and their formal feedback to their supervisors.  See Appendix E for a suggested form for rating of supervisors by employees.

 

      5.   IMPLEMENT FORMAL EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES DURING PROBATIONARY PERIOD: Probationary employees may need feedback and evaluation even more than long-term employees.  The committee recommends that mandatory performance evaluation occur at 90 days, 6 months, and again just before the end of the probationary period during the first year.  Of course, coaching and informal appraisal should occur on an ongoing basis during the entire period. After the end of the probationary period, the new employee will be evaluated annually like all other employees.  It should be noted that University Counsel raises some legal concerns about this recommendation.  Such concerns must be resolved with Counsel’s office before this recommendation is implemented.