PERFORMANCE REVIEWS FOR FACULTY AND STAFF Effective Performance

PERFORMANCE REVIEWS FOR FACULTY AND STAFF: Effective Performance Conversations • • • Nancy Waite Katrina Di Gravio December 2, 2019

Agenda and Logistics 1: 00 Introduction – Why do we do Performance Evaluations? 1: 10 Similarities & Differences: Staff & Faculty 1: 20 Staff Performance Reviews 2: 30 Break 2: 40 Faculty Performance Reviews 3: 50 Discuss and Wrap Up

Purpose of Evaluations Why we do evaluations?

Similarities & Differences: Staff & Faculty • Performance reviews are a REQUIREMENT • Chairs and Directors are accountable for BOTH staff and faculty reviews • There is only ONE faculty position/job description • There are MANY staff positions/job descriptions • The TWO salary structures are different • Yet many academic administrators will be involved in both staff and faculty evaluations

Staff Performance Conversations

The Basic Principles 1. Focus on the situation, issue, or behaviour, not the person. 2. Maintain the self-confidence and self-esteem of others. 3. Maintain constructive relationships. 4. Take initiative to make things better. 5. Lead by example. 6. Think beyond the moment.

University of Waterloo Policies Policy 5 Salary Administration Staff in University Support Group will have their performances formally reviewed annually. Policy 18 Staff Employment The purpose of performance management is to provide ongoing confidential, constructive feedback to a staff member regarding her/his performance in relation to the requirements of her/his job description and identified career goals and objectives. Measurement will be achieved through regular ongoing meetings, feedback sessions and support on performance, culminating in a formal annual evaluation and plan.

Ratings 5. Exceptional performance in all areas of the job requirements which is recognized throughout their unit or broadly throughout the University. 4. Performance significantly exceeded the requirements of the job in one or more key areas. 3. Performance was fully satisfactory in all key areas. 2. Need for recognizable improvement in one or more key areas. 1. Performance was significantly below job requirements in several important areas and improvements will be required or reassignment or termination will be considered. Ratings at this level are subject to disciplinary action.

Staff Performance Appraisals • The performance appraisal consists of a conversation between the supervisor and the staff as well as the completion of the required form. • Staff may utilize the Staff Activity Form as part of the review process as well. • Performance appraisals should be a confirmation of information already discussed with the staff member over the previous performance year. There should be “no surprises”. • This is a conversation designed to encourage, coach and recognize accomplishments.

Characteristics of Positive Performance Discussions • Should be year-round - not yearly. • Focus on the performance, not the personalit y. • Encompass formal and informal evaluat ions of th e jo b perfor mance. • Focus on clear job performance expectat io ns. • Set G oals • Relat e to specif ic examples. • Encourage self-evaluation. • Discuss suggesti ons for improvement an d development.

The Performance Appraisal Cycle Three steps: 1. Plan and Prepare 2. Write the Appraisal 3. Conduct the Conversation

University of Waterloo Core Values Staff must be evaluated on the following factors! • • • Client Service Working Relationships Communication Job Knowledge and Application Taking the Initiative to Make Things Better Additional areas should be added that are specific to the individual’s role.

The Appraisal Form • Be specific about comments and concerns – ALWAYS use examples. • Doesn’t have to be a dissertation, but should be more than “good job. ” • May be given to the staff member prior to the conversation for review. • Must have reviewer’s signature, usually the Dean, Department Head, Assoc. Provost. • Must be signed by the employee. This does not necessarily mean agreement with the review, only that the review took place. • Send completed form to HR by established deadline.

The Conversation § Have you reviewed the staff members performance in relation to their job description and specific accountabilities? § Set aside uninterrupted time to focus on the staff member. (30 – 60 min. ) § Be aware of your body language. (open, receptive, attentive) § Don’t put obstacles between you. (e. g. ‘The Desk’) § No personal issues may be discussed. (e. g. since you’ve been back from maternity/sick leave) § Don’t ignore areas where improvement is necessary. This is confirmation of on -going discussions through the performance year. (pitch fork / halo) § Make sure to give the staff member an opportunity to talk about their experiences in the last year, and make sure you listen! (no lip service) § Remember this is a conversation meant to encourage, coach and recognize accomplishments.

CASE STUDIES

Case Study: Quinn is a team leader for one area of a team project. The project has been plodding along, meeting most of the timelines, but some things have fallen behind. While Quinn has been contributing to the workloads and completing the assigned tasks, there is an issue of tardiness that has been addressed a few times throughout the year. Also, on several occasions decisions have had to be put on hold because Quinn has been late and unprepared. Everything else related to Quinn’s performance has been very good. Team members and clients stated that Quinn is easy to deal with, communication is always clear and concise, reports are finished on time, and Quinn has in-depth job knowledge.

The Runaway Administrative Assistant

Instructions - Penelope • Read through the four stages in this case. • Take a few minutes to review the scenario • Think about what your first steps will be • Write down some key points you would want to address • Write down some questions you would like to ask • Construct the actual message that you will deliver to Penelope.

The Value of Coaching When employees feel valued in an organization they are: ≫ ≫ ≫ Proud of the work they do and develop a sense of ownership Engaged and readily promote a positive culture Enthusiastic, passionate and have a higher attention for quality than their counterparts Engagement increases when: • • • People feel that their manager knows who they are as a person People know how the work they do matters And finally, people want to know how they are being measured and that the work is aligned with the goals of the organization. Lencioni, Patrick. The Truth about Employee Engagement.

Do You Know How to Handle…? • Secondment – depends on the length of secondment during performance year. • Promotions/Transfers – depending on the time elapsed since the person changed positions • Leaves – Medical leaves/ Maternity • Signatures – The staff signature acknowledges that the performance discussion has taken place. • Rebuttals- can be completed under the staff members comments or can be attached separately to the form.

HR Tools and Resources for Managers • https: //uwaterloo. ca/human-resources/supportmanagers/compensation • https: //uwaterloo. ca/human-resources/supportemployees/compensation

Contact Information Questions regarding the Staff Performance Appraisal System should be directed to: Lee Margaret Hornberger, Assistant HR Director, Total Compensation Human Resources lmhornberger@uwaterloo. ca 519 -888 -4567 x 39188 Joan Kennedy Compensation& Benefits Analyst Joan. kennedy@uwaterloo. ca 519 -888 -4567 x 31948

Break

Faculty Presentation

Terminology: the Mo. A and Policy 77 Annual A nnual Performance P erformance Review 2. 0: Outstanding 1. 75: Excellent 1. 5: Very good 1. 25: Good 1. 0: Satisfactory Promotion ll Promoti on to Fu Full ‘High order of a chievem en t in both scholarship and teaching’ ‘Satisfactory perfor mance in ser vice’ ‘Greatest em ph asis is placed on scholarsh ip’ Alternate standard* *in exceptional cases, a tenured Associate Professor may be promoted on the basis of an outstanding teaching record accompanied by a continuing and long-standing record of satisfactory or better scholarship and service.

Chairs and Committees? Mo. A § 13. 5. 6 • Units of >15 members must strike a performance evaluation advisory committee • Units of ≤ 15 members may choose (by majority vote) to have the Chair or a committee carry out the task • The advantages of a committee: transparency and the elimination of actual bias/the apprehension of bias

Dean’s Responsibilities Mo. A § 13. 5. 7 The Dean shall review the ratings proposed by the Chair, and may establish an advisory committee to assist with this review. The Dean may modify the ratings for a Member or Members of a Department, if necessary, to maintain consistency of standards across the Faculty. The Dean shall inform the Chair in writing of the final individual and overall ratings, together with reasons for any changes.

Final (? ) Disposition Mo. A § 13. 5. 8 • Chair informs faculty member in writing

The Letter • Clarity and honesty • Link it explicitly to the Departmental APR and T&P guidelines • Highlight achievements (i. e. , don’t reproduce the entire Activity Report) • Contextualize achievements for future FTPCs, UTPCs (e. g. , disciplinary norms)

Final (? ) Disposition Mo. A § 13. 5. 8 • Chair informs faculty member in writing • Chair provides opportunity for faculty member to discuss the ratings

Where Does the Buck Stop? • APRs not normally grievable (Mo. A § 9. 2. 5): ≫ Annual performance evaluations and selective increments, and denial of sabbatical leaves are not normally grievable except under 9. 2. 2 or 9. 2. 3. • Faculty member to raise concerns with Chair first, then Dean • Chairs to raise concerns about their own evaluations with Dean first, then VPAP

Miscellaneous Considerations • Does rank of faculty member matter? • Does your unit/Faculty strive towards a particular average? • How to assist under-performing or otherwise struggling faculty members? • Tenure is not a sinecure: ‘persistent and serious neglect of the normal duties of a faculty member’ can lead to dismissal for cause (Mo. A § 8. 5).

Things to Beware Of • Waiting for evaluation time to address serious issues • Using the assessment letter as a discipline letter • Judging individuals for things other than their performance • Using different standards for different individuals • Dropping a rating drastically from one year to the next (sudden performance issues may be an indicator of other problems)

Cases to Consider What is your worst situation?

THANKS FOR COMING TODAY!