Performance Enhancement Team Streamlining the Hiring Process.
-
Upload
gillian-west -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of Performance Enhancement Team Streamlining the Hiring Process.
2
Performance Enhancement Team #2• Pat Bril, Library
• Ruby Cook, BFA/Financial Operations
• Dorothy Edwards, Human Resources
• Sheila Faris, University Advancement
• Rosamaria Gomez-Amaro, Affirmative Action
• Norma Hernandez, University Advancement
• Ellen Junn, Faculty Development Center
• Maria Plimpton, Human Resources
• Curt Swanson, H&SS
• Mary Watkins, Faculty Affairs and Records
• Peggy Atwell, Academic Affairs (Coach)
• Bill Barrett, Administration (Coach)
• Sue Lasswell, Information Technology (Coach)
• Joan Weise, Bolero Associates (Facilitator)
7
18
21
37
55
10
17
16
36
84
11
19
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Number
Recruitments Hires Unfilled
Tenure-Track Faculty Recruitment 1995 -1998
1998
1997
1996
1995
8
All Instructor Hires, 1995-1998
10 17 1636
58 67 75 79
665688
846
935
733
937
1050
772
Full-Time Tenure Track 10 17 16 36
Full-Time Lecturers and Coaches 58 67 75 79
Part-Time Faculty and TAs 665 688 846 935
Total Instructor Hires 733 772 937 1050
1995 1996 1997 1998
9
Statistical Summary of HR Operations, 1995-1998
148163
188
210
151
182
209
4 515
22
303
350
412
251
483
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Base 1995 1996 1997 1998
Staff Searches(including MPP)
Emergency Appointments
Retired Annuitants
Total Activity
10
1998 Composite Hirings
Full-Time Lecturers and Coaches
5%
Full-Time Tenure Track2%
Retired Annuitants1%
Emergency Appointments16%
Staff Searches(including MPP)
14%
Part-Time Faculty and TAs62%
Grand Total=1533
11
Common Characteristics of the Current State
• The process takes too long
• The process is too complicated
• The process is learned “on the fly”
• The process requires too many approvals
• The process has inherent delays and
redundancies
12
Root Causes (1)
• Information is not consistently communicated and absorbed
• The status of recruitments is often not available
13
Root Causes (2)
• In the current process, the level of staffing involved in recruitment does not meet customer needs
• There are too many levels of approvals and recommendations
14
The underlying issues are two-fold
• “Patchwork quilt of ad hoc band-aid solutions”
• University has not determined the “value added” at each step prior to re-engineering the hiring processes
Our goal is to have a clear, streamlined, universally
understood, and timely process that has shared ownership.
16
The benefits to be gained are...
• We identify and hire the best candidates
• We make the best use of our available time, resources, and energy
• We achieve a higher level of morale and productivity
• We experience improved relationships and increased harmony
17
Team Recommendation: We propose the following...
• A cross-functional team should be charged with a comprehensive revision of all three hiring processes– Representatives from faculty, staff, and
administration should be appointed to the team– A consultant should be hired to guide the
project
18
Team Recommendation (2)
• The project must reflect the University’s Mission and Goals and our desire to become “the best public comprehensive university in the nation”
• The project must be given a high priority and supported as an institutional commitment