Professional Development - Progress
Orientation
The following recommendations were made relating to how employees develop in their job roles:
- Improve the orientation process for new employees and those changing jobs within 帝王会所 as well as at the departmental level
- Continue to support the New Faculty Welcome program administered by the Associate Provost for Faculty and Academic Planning
- Consider developing annual Classified and Administrative Senate orientation sessions focusing on resources and responsibilities common to employees in these categories
- Develop orientation programs within units specific to systems trainings and other needs within individual units
- Task University Communications and Marketing (UCM) with developing tools to inform new and prospective employees about 帝王会所's culture, mission and vision as well as living in the Athens area
- The implementation team met with representatives from UCM regarding this item and were provided links to videos that currently exist ( and ) and will be developing a marketing plan to promote the videos.
- The 鈥淏ranching Out鈥 series that entails interviews with behind the scenes type employees (cooks, custodians, admins, faculty. etc.) which could be promoted through compass, the front door, or senates was also discussed.
Performance Management
The Performance Management sub-team of the Campus Climate Task Force (Luanne Bowman, Wendy Rogers, and Lewis Mangen) met regularly with a cross-functional Steering Committee of campus leaders from January, 2016 through March, 2017 to design and pilot a new approach to performance management that included the following:
- Introduction of ongoing performance feedback and development
- Management and employee training
- Increased supervisor confidence in dealing with performance concerns
- Simple, user-friendly forms and processes
The role of the Steering Committee was to guide the development of a new campus-wide approach to performance management to address concerns raised in the Campus Climate Survey as well as other concerns from leadership and employees. The Performance Management Steering Committee reports to the Compensation Partner Group which is connected to the RC Strategy Team. A Design Team worked closely with the Steering Committee to design new processes, forms and training. Steering Committee and Design Team participants are shown below:
|
Steering Committee |
Design Team |
|---|---|
|
Co-Chair - Luanne Bowman, Russ College of Engineering |
Lead 鈥 Zac Shoup, University HR, Talent & Org. Dev. |
The development of a campus-wide approach to performance management is designed in three phases:
Phase 1 鈥 Create performance management training, design new process with simplified forms, pilot new process and forms with a cross functional group of academic and support units. New process only applies to Administrative employees in the first year so we can explore the best way to make connections between pay and performance.
Phase 2 鈥 Adjust performance management process and forms based on learning from the Administrative pilot group. Expand new streamlined process to Administrative employees in remainder of academic and support units. Create a Pilot group to streamline performance management for Classified staff.
Phase 3 鈥 Make final adjustments to process based on learning from the Classified pilot group. Explore system options for automating and streamlining administrative components of the performance management process.
Phase 1 鈥 COMPLETED 鈥 Highlights include:
- Guidelines and desired outcomes for a common performance management process for all administrative employees are in place.
- Results from a pre and post pilot survey, which included approximately 300 administrative employees from five planning units, have been reviewed and analyzed.
- A new modular training approach was developed and administered for all pilot supervisors. Training was highly rated, scoring an average of 4.5/5.0 on 鈥渆ager to apply content鈥 and 鈥済ood use of time鈥.
- New streamlined forms and tip sheets have been developed and will be used consistently for all Administrative staff in the 2017-2018 performance cycle.
- Guidelines for performance calibration have been created to help managers understand and apply ratings more consistently.
- Discussion planner templates and space for recording 鈥渃heck-in鈥 dates on the performance evaluation form are being used to encourage more frequent performance feedback and alignment of efforts with goals.
Performance Management Training Content
Performance management involves much more than year-end performance appraisals. Individual goals must be aligned with organizational goals, expectations clearly defined and mutually understood, feedback provided throughout the performance cycle, and opportunities for development should be identified and explored. Finally, year-end evaluations should be used to capture performance highlights and focus attention on future opportunities, but the forms and process need to be simple and easy to understand so that both managers and employees find value in completing them.
To support these goals, several training modules were developed with a broad university audience in mind. The goal of performance management training is to help employees and supervisors understand the following:
- Core components of performance management
- Skills and knowledge needed to sustain effective performance
- Skills needed to provide and receive accurate and timely feedback
- Skills needed to accurately evaluate and support employee performance
Training was designed in a modular framework so that each module could be delivered independently from the others within a standard two-hour time block. As subject matter experts in performance management, HR Liaisons provide training content to their units based on needs.
- Module 1 - Understanding Performance Management
- Module 2 - Managing Objectives
- Module 3 - Coaching and Feedback
- Module 4 - Evaluating and Recognizing Performance
In response to feedback from leadership and the planning units, Modules 1 and 2 were combined to reduce total time commitment from four hours to three hours with an understanding that the new three hour training would be a reasonable 鈥渕andatory鈥 requirement for the successful introduction of performance management.
Summary of Pilot Survey Results
All Administrative employees in the pilot group were invited to participate in a baseline and a follow-up survey so that changes in perceptions, behaviors, and confidence as a result of the pilot could be measured and reported. Highlights include:
- % employees who felt the year-end evaluation provided useful information more than doubled
- % employees who felt the year-end evaluation form was simple and easy to understand increased by 64%
- % employees who frequently discussed goals and expectations with supervisors went from 31% to 65%
- % employees receiving regular performance feedback went from 45% to almost 70%
- Supervisor confidence in handling key performance management responsibilities increased more than 25%
- % supervisors able to prepare for year-end evaluations in 30 minutes or less increased by 77%
- % supervisors able to write year-end evaluations in 30 minutes or less increased by 65%
The performance management survey included several questions from the campus climate survey, so the pilot survey data were also used to project changes in Campus Climate Survey results if the larger campus community was exposed to the new performance management process with the same degree of success. Based on % changes in survey responses from the pilot group (post v. pre survey), projected changes in campus climate survey responses to the same questions are shown below:
Actual Climate Survey Results
| Campus Climate Survey Item (Administrative and Classified Staff) |
% Agree |
| I understand how my job contributes to this institution's mission | 87 |
| My supervisor / department chair makes his/her expectations clear | 64 |
| I receive feedback from my supervisor / department chair that helps me | 59 |
| I am given the opportunity to develop my skills at this institution | 62 |
| I am regularly recognized for my contributions | 45 |
| Our review process accurately measures my job performance | 43 |
| Issues of low performance are addressed in my department | 38 |
Projected Results Using Pilot Data
| Campus Climate Survey Item (Administrative and Classified Staff) |
% Agree |
| I understand how my job contributes to this institution's mission | 85 |
| My supervisor / department chair makes his/her expectations clear | 74 |
| I receive feedback from my supervisor / department chair that helps me | 70 |
| I am given the opportunity to develop my skills at this institution | 70 |
| I am regularly recognized for my contributions | 48 |
| Our review process accurately measures my job performance | 59 |
| Issues of low performance are addressed in my department | 64 |
Phase 2 鈥 IN PROGRESS 鈥 Highlights include:
- Development of a new module for non-supervisory staff to understand their role and how to actively engage with their supervisor in the process. This module was developed in response to requests for more applicable and time efficient training options for non-supervisors.
- Rollout of the new system across the institution including training for supervisors of all non-bargaining unit staff and use of a university-wide form.
- A structured pilot in partnership with Classified Senate wherein classified non-bargaining staff will provide valuable feedback about their participation in the process and associated forms, tools, and trainings.
Campus-Wide Rollout and Transition
HR Liaison鈥檚 have begun to develop plans with each planning unit to ensure the transition of all departments into the institutions new performance management system. Realizing the uniqueness of each planning unit and the variances in each unit鈥檚 current performance management capabilities, HR Liaisons will consult with unit leader ship to develop flexible and effective plans. Each plan will be developed by December 1 and will ensure that:
- all non-bargaining unit staff transition to the new form;
- all employees that supervise staff should in the training developed and offered by UHR and
- units develop a strategy for 鈥減erformance calibration鈥 sessions to ensure consistency in evaluation amongst supervisors.
Liaisons will also work with planning units to identify the need and opportunity for non-supervisory staff members to participate in the newly developed module.
Classified Non-Bargaining Pilot
As the new performance management system is being rolled out and planning units are transitioned, UHR and Classified Senate have collaborated to form a committee that will:
- recommend necessary adjustments to performance management forms and activities to ensure alignment with managing the work performed by classified staff;
- better understand the link between the ongoing performance management cycle and the role of the form/formal evaluation for classified staff and
- ensure the system is presents a fair and consistent methodology for evaluation in preparation for implementation of merit based annual increases for classified non-bargaining unit staff.
Members of the committee will attend each module of the training session to be offered throughout the rollout and transition to the new system. Through a series of meetings, UHR will solicit feedback regarding the content of trainings. More importantly, the committee will meet at key points throughout the performance management cycle to provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of the system in practical real-time.
Feedback gathered during this pilot will inform any changes that may need to be made to the performance management system, including the evaluation form, before the system is used in future cycles as a basis to award merit or pay for performance increases to classified staff.
Phase 3 鈥 POST COMPLETION OF PHASE 2鈥 Highlights will include:
- Adjusting the system, form, and tools based on learnings from the pilot with classified employees.
- Implementing the opportunity for rewarding classified employees for their work through merit-based annual increases informed by evaluations.
- Exploring system options for automating and streamlining administrative components of the performance management process.
Compensation
Many of the other ongoing items in the task force report concerned matters related to compensation. The team members met with various administrators charged with managing faculty and staff compensation at the institution who provided an update on the initiatives underway. The Compensation Partner Group was formed, meeting monthly to discuss university administrative and classified employee compensation issues and discuss best policies/procedures/practices surrounding compensation. Current goals of the group include review of the Pay Administration Guidelines, oversight of the development of performance management tools, creating consistency in annual raise pool allocations, and defining the overload process. Over the past four years, we have made significant investments in the compensation of our faculty and staff. Our efforts are noted below:
- FY15 鈥 $1.3 million provided for tenure track faculty on the Athens campus, $540,000 for regional tenure-track faculty, and $1.7 million provided to non-tenure-track faculty on the Athens and regional campuses as part of the 3-year faculty compensation plan.
- January 2016 鈥 $1,146,881 investment addressing equity concerns for 446 administrative and classified non-bargaining unit employees.
- FY16 鈥 year two of the faculty compensation plan; $850,000 provided for tenure-track faculty on the Athens campus, $325,000 for regional tenure-track faculty and 1.03 M provided to non-tenure-track faculty on the Athens and regional campuses.
- July 2016 - $592,202 invested to address equity affecting 422 administrators and classified non-bargaining unit employees.
- FY17 鈥 faculty investments for year three of the faculty compensation plan were identical to those listed above for FY16. The next step will be to convene a follow-up task force to analyze the results of the compensation plan. The goal will be to develop recommendations for future plans to maximize our investment in faculty compensation to attract and retain talented faculty.
- June 2017 鈥 completion of the biennial equity review resulted in an investment of $443,715 applied across 62 administrative and classified non-bargaining unit employees. These adjustments reflect our regular biennial internal equity review that is a critical component of the university鈥檚 overall compensation philosophy. Pay equity will continue to be reviewed, and adjusted as warranted, on a biennial basis with the assistance of a third pay expert.
This review of our investments in faculty and staff compensation over the last 4 years clearly demonstrates 帝王会所鈥檚 commitment to our compensation philosophy of achieving fair, equitable, and consistent pay practices and opportunities for all employees.