mgermanmcdanielhrd.files.wordpress.com · Web view03-11-2019 · Employee performance...

Running head: performance evaluation 1

Performance Evaluation at McDaniel College

Marcia German

McDaniel College

performance evaluation 2

Employee performance evaluations are one of the most important, yet difficult,

tasks for supervisors in today’s workplace. Managers are reluctant to give honest, constructive

feedback for fear of upsetting the people that they depend on to get the work done, and employee

can become defensive and take feedback personally. Add to that the fact that many organizations

have vague processes that are subject to interpretation, and the process becomes one that

employees dread. In spite of the bad feelings associated with performance evaluations, they are

necessary tools that can provide managers and employees alike with many positive outcomes

(Pulakos, 2004). These outcomes can include clarified responsibilities and expectations;

improved productivity; positive communication between employees and managers; and behavior

that aligns with organizational values, goals and strategies. Well-administered performance

evaluations can also provide a basis for making human resources decisions such as pay increases,

promotions, and terminations that can withstand legal scrutiny.

Although institutions of higher education are part of an industry focused on feedback and

self-improvement, they are not immune to the struggles that organizations face with performance

evaluations. Due to declining student enrollment and rising operational costs, colleges are

seeking ways to increase their productivity and cut costs (Tobias & Petrus, 2015). Often this

translates into a reduction in the number of staff members and pressure for the remaining

employees to increase their productivity. This can affect the morale on campus, and ultimately

the culture of the entire college. This, in addition to the traditional frustrations that come with

performance evaluations, can leave HR professional in higher education in a situation where they

are trying to incorporate business principles of rewards and recognition that could ‘benefit both

employees and the institution in ways that would ultimately increase productivity and morale”


(Tobias & Petrus, 2015). This is a difficult goal that would be much more attainable if the

institution had an effective performance evaluation process in place.

McDaniel College is no exception to this struggle of controlling costs, while increasing

productivity and morale. The Human Resources Director at McDaniel College, Jennifer

Glennon, had inherited an ineffective performance evaluation system and was aware of problems

that needed to be addressed. She felt strongly that there was opportunity to improve the process

and suggested that the evaluation form be recreated. In response to the request for an updated

performance evaluation form, it was decided that the best way to begin was to conduct a needs

assessment. Following the needs assessment, peer institutions were identified, and outreach was

conducted to compare evaluation tools used at those colleges. Concurrently, research was

conducted into best practices for performance management. That research, along with the needs

assessment and peer institution review, was ultimately used to create new evaluation forms for

McDaniel College.

The needs assessment for this project began with identifying the business need, which

was the need for staff members at McDaniel College to receive meaningful, accurate, and

detailed annual performance evaluations. During an interview with McDaniel’s Human

Resources Director, questions were asked regarding the current process and evaluation form, as

well as goals for the new process (see Appendix A for a complete list of interview questions). It

was found that the completion rate for annual performance evaluations at McDaniel was only

50% for the 2017/18 academic year, which was the highest completion rate in history, but well

below the goal of 100% completion. In addition, many of the evaluation forms that were

submitted were lacking detailed information that could provide documented feedback to

employees or support any legal decisions.


Staff members at McDaniel were then surveyed regarding their experiences with

performance evaluations at McDaniel (see Appendix B for a complete list of survey questions).

These surveys were distributed using an anonymous Qualtrics link to protect their

confidentiality. They were asked questions such as how long they have been employed at

McDaniel and when was the last time they had received a performance evaluation. Those that

replied that they had received a review were then asked questions about the process and whether

or not it led to meaningful conversations about their performance or resulted in goal setting for

the following year. The survey concluded with questions about whether they felt their supervisor

communicated clearly and supported them in their positions.

The survey was sent to 243 staff members at McDaniel and had a response rate of 35

percent. A summary of responses can be viewed in Appendix C. Seventy-six percent of those

who responded had received an evaluation while employed at McDaniel, with

63 percent stating that a review had occurred within the last year. It is worth noting that this

survey was sent out before the deadline for performance reviews to be completed for this

evaluation period. Under ideal conditions, this survey would not have been sent until after the

deadline had passed. Sixty-seven percent of respondents stated that they felt that the review

process led to meaningful conversations with their supervisor, however many surveys included

comments such as, “It's usually just sign it and return”, “Sometimes not even done in person”,

and “It was simply handed to me to review.” These statements are evidence that training is

needed to ensure that supervisors are conducting review meetings appropriately.

McDaniel can be proud that 83 percent of respondents indicated that they feel like their

supervisor cares about their development, and 81 percent feel that their supervisor is responsive

to their ideas, requests, and suggestions. However, employees requested that supervisors be


trained on how to evaluate employees, that the process be more consistent, for evaluations to be

link job descriptions to work outcomes, for the opportunity to rate their supervisors, and for pay

to be linked to performance.

Based on the information obtained through the needs assessment, it was obvious that

McDaniel’s performance evaluation process needed some improvements. The next step was to

review the processes and tools used by peer institutions. Robin Dewey, the Director of

Institutional Research at McDaniel College, provided a list of schools that the College deemed as

peer institutions. Jennifer Glennon, the HR Director, provided an additional list of Human

Resources offices from the local area. Both lists were used to send email outreach asking for any

information that the colleges were willing to share about their institution’s performance

evaluation process. Seventeen HR offices responded, sharing a wide variety of options. They

ranged from simple six-question Word documents to complicated Excel spreadsheets that

required a lot of cut and paste of job responsibilities. A few chose to use the Performance

Management software that was offered through their HRIS program. Although the methods

varied widely, all expressed that they wished they could afford to spend more time on the

process. One HR Manager shared that she was keeping the process simple because her goal was

simply 100% completion for compliance reasons. Once that goal is reached, she hopes to work

on making the evaluation form more informative. The common consensus was that it is an

important, yet imperfect piece of the puzzle.

Despite the wide variety of options available, research indicates that there are best

practices that should always be considered in the design and administration of performance

evaluation systems (Allan, 1994). First, for strategic purposes, performance management should

be designed specifically with the needs of the organization in mind. Every employee’s job should


contribute to the strategic plan. Company-wide strategies should be broken down into

departmental goals, which should be broken down even further and assigned to employees who

are ultimately evaluated on whether their performance supports those goals. Mathis and Jackson

(2008) state that “the sum of all performances in all jobs in the organization should equal the

strategic plan for the organization.” (p. 326). This means that each individual should be able to

relate the behaviors on which they are being evaluated to the success of the College. This

strategy should also help gain support from company leaders, which is also recommended.

Many of the other best practices center around fairness, ease of use, and meaningfulness.

Fairness is important not only from an employee perception point of view, but also from a legal

standpoint. Ease of use can determine if supervisors ever complete the forms and have the

conversations that are necessary. Meaningfulness adds value to the process and can determine

how much effort employees are willing to put into it.

The issue of fairness is important not only for employee morale, but to prevent any legal

issues. New hires should be made aware of the evaluation process during the onboarding process.

Palaiologos, Papazekos, and Panayotopoulou (2011) suggest that “this will help them be better

prepared for their evaluation, in terms of the procedure followed and the criteria expected from

them.” Next, the evaluation process be formalized and standardized (Veglahn, 1993). There

should be a step-by-step plan that can be followed, and performance standards should be well-

communicated and understood by all parties. He goes on the recommend that supervisors should

be trained to evaluate employees’ performance in a consistent manner. This can help prevent

discrimination. Also, any extreme ratings should be documented with specific examples to

justify the rating. It is important that rating factors be objective and performance expectations

should be defined in behavioral terms (Allan, 1994). Efforts should be made to ensure that


evaluations be free of bias, and not be influenced by factors such as race, sex, or age. While

unconscious biases are hard to address, employers can provide training to help supervisors

become aware of their biases. There should also be policies that address discrimination and it

should never be tolerated. In addition, the opportunity for formal appeals or grievances should be

available to encourage employee confidence in process. Following these recommendations

would create a fair process that an organization could use to defend itself if charged with

discriminatory evaluation practices,

It is recommended that the performance evaluation process be easy to use and should not

create a burden on supervisors (Allan, 1994). There should not be numerous lengthy forms to

complete or complicated tasks. The process should be straightforward and well-communicated to

all involved. If supervisors view it as a cumbersome system, it will be considered an imposition.

This is less likely to be an issue if they are part of the process of designing the system. Asking

for input from supervisors can make the process more transparent and it is more likely to be

acceptable to them.

Lastly, the process needs to be meaningful. If evaluations are simply written, recorded,

and filed away, employees will not see their value. The process will be viewed as merely a box

to check, as mentioned in the employee survey responses that were received. Using the

information shared in an evaluation as a basis for pay raises, rewards, development opportunities,

promotions, and terminations will show that the process is important and worth the effort. (Allan,

1994).

Based on the research conducted, new evaluation forms were developed for staff

members at McDaniel. First, an annual staff performance evaluation form was created to be

filled out by supervisors to rate their employees’ performance (see Appendix D). To meet the


need of ease-of-use, the form was specifically created to be user-friendly. Supervisors can check

the well-labeled rating box that corresponds to the proper rating. They can also type comments,

job-specific responsibilities, and goals directly into the form. A four-digit, 1-4, rating scale was

used in an attempt to avoid the central tendency bias that comes with a 5-digit scale. Each rating

was clearly defined, with examples to assist the rater in determining the appropriate rating. In the

case of a rating of “1”, the rater is required to give specific examples of unacceptable

performance, steps for improvement, and consequences if performance remains unchanged. This

requirement meets the need of specific documentation to substantiate the rating.

Within the form, there are four performance sections. The first covers attributes that are

expected from all employees at the College to meet the standards set by the First Principles. Each

attribute is specifically defined so that both supervisors and employees know what behaviors are

being rated. The second section is designed for supervisors to include important job specific

responsibilities. The spaces provided are clearly labeled and the supervisor will need to carefully

consider each job description while completing the evaluation. This ensures that the employee is

being rated on their particular job, not a compilation of job responsibilities that the supervisor

manages. Next, there is a section to review employee progress on goals that were set the previous

year. This allows space for the supervisor to evaluate the employee’s performance in relation to

those goals. Those goals may have been met much earlier in the evaluation period, but this

provides an official space for the supervisor to document those successes. The last section is

where the supervisor and employee can create SMART goals for the upcoming year. SMART

goals are specific measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound. This definition is listed on

the form for convenience.


In order to encourage specific examples and well-documented feedback, space is

provided within each section for supervisors to include comments specifically related to each

individual rating. The form ends with a spot for employee signature, supervisor signature, and

Division Head signature. The signature section states that the employee has received and had an

opportunity to discuss the form with their supervisor but does not imply that they agree with the

information it contains.

Two additional forms were modeled after the staff evaluation form described above but

were designed for slightly different purposes. One was created as a form to evaluate supervisors,

so it contains an additional rating box for their supervisory responsibilities (see Appendix E).

The remaining form is a staff member self-assessment that allows employees to assess their own

performance, pre-evaluation meeting (see Appendix F). This is a useful outlet for employees to

be able to share their own perceptions with their supervisor and Human Resources.

Although the new evaluation tool in an improvement over the old one, it is recommended

that it be tested and evaluated for effectiveness. A trial run with a test group is suggested to look

for weaknesses in the structure of the form and the wording of the ratings and behaviors. This

would be a good time to ask for feedback and recommendations from supervisors and employees

testing the new forms to see if they are acceptable and feasible. Those who use the form must

approve of its structure and content and be able to reasonably complete the process for its

intended purpose. Although efforts were made to make the form as user-friendly as possible, it is

ultimately up to the supervisors to determine if it is ever used as intended. Their feedback is

crucial, and evaluation should be ongoing. Selden and Sowa (2011) recommend that

“management should survey employees at least every two years to assess their perceptions of the


performance management system.” Information gathered should then be used to make

improvements to the evaluation process.

Another suggestion would be to require supervisors to go through performance

management training. This was a suggestion that was mentioned several times in the employee

surveys. Roberts (2003) states that supervisors should receive extensive training in “goal setting,

setting performance standards, conducting interviews, providing feedback, counseling

employees, managing conflict, and avoiding rating errors.” He goes on to recommend that

training should discuss ethical dilemmas that could arise during the appraisal process. Awareness

of potential issues can often prevent future problems. Training should also include best practices

for conducting evaluation meetings. Gordon and Stewart (2009) break down the appraisal

interview and suggest the organizations can improve performance evaluations by developing and

teaching procedures to facilitate effective conversations between supervisors and employees.

This would include pre-meeting preparation, agenda setting, framing, shared semantics, meeting

structure, using questions properly, and constructing a persuasive message. Communication

training on such topics are often overlooked, but can be valuable to performance management,

One final suggestion would be to consider instituting a 360 review process. This process

includes evaluations of not only direct supervisors, but also peers, customers and other team

members in order to formulate a more comprehensive image of the employee. It also allows for

upward evaluation of supervisors as well. Analoui and Fell (2002) recommend that

“consideration should be given to the introduction of 360-degree appraisal in giving a more

complete picture and promoting a truly two-way process.” Based on feedback received through

staff surveys, this would provide a welcome opportunity for employees to rate their supervisors.


This process that began as a request to simply create a new evaluation form has been eye-

opening, and I have learned much over the last three months. I discovered the needs assessment

process and found that it is best to determine why change is needed verses just making changes

based on a hunch. I was introduced to new technology when creating the Qualtrics survey to get

feedback from staff members. Most importantly, I learned a lot about the performance

management process and the frustration that it presents for employers. Thankfully, there are

many resources available pertaining to best practices that can help make the process a little

easier. While I am confident that the new evaluation forms that I created are an improvement

over the prior forms, I know that this process is ever-evolving and that changes will be made. I

am just thankful for the opportunity to be part of the process!

References


Allan, P. (1994). Designing and implementing an effective performance appraisal system.

Review of Business, 16(2), 3. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.hoover2.

mcdaniel.edu:2443/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9510272839&site=eds-live

Analoui, F., & Fell, P. (2002). Have You Been Appraised? A Survey of the University

Administrative Staff. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(6), 279–87.

Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.hoover2.mcdaniel.edu:2443/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ661324&site=eds-live

Gordon, M. E., & Stewart, L. P. (2009). Conversing about performance: Discursive resources for

the appraisal interview. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(3), 473–501.

https://doi-org.hoover2.mcdaniel.edu:2443/10.1177/0893318908327159

Mathis, R. L, & Jackson, J. H. (2008). Human resource management (12th ed.). Mason, OH:

Thomson South-Western.

Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational justice and

employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial Training,

(8), 826. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.hoover2.mcdaniel.edu:

2443/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.276951286&site=eds-live

Pulakos, E. D. (2004). Performance management A roadmap for developing, implementing and

evaluating performance management systems [PDF file]. Retrieved from

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-

views/Documents/Performance-Management.pdf

Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: a technique that

works. Public Personnel Management, (1), 89. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-

com.hoover2.mcdaniel.edu:2443/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.16071


3334&site=eds-live

Selden, S., & Sowa, J. E. (2011). Performance management and appraisal in human service

organizations: management and staff perspectives. Public Personnel Management, (3),

251. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.hoover2.mcdaniel.edu:

2443/login.aspx?

Tobias, B., & Petrus, A. (2015). Partnering for success: Developing a performance management

system with a link to rewards [PDF file]. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/marci/OneDrive/

Desktop/Practicum/HEWorkplace-Vol7No1-Partnering-for-Success.pdf

Veglahn, P. A. (1993). Key Issues in Performance Appraisal Challenges: Evidence for Court and

Arbitration Decisions. Labor Law Journal, 44(10), 595–606. Retrieved from

https://search-ebscohost-com.hoover2.mcdaniel.edu:2443/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=sih&AN=5809767&site=eds-live

Appendix A


Interview with Jenni Glennon, Human Resources Director, McDaniel College

Regarding McDaniel’s current appraisal process:

1. What is the purpose of the performance appraisal system at McDaniel?

2. Is the current system based on staff members’ written job descriptions?

3. How skilled are your supervisors in setting measurable goals, giving, and receiving feedback?

4. Do you feel that your supervisors and employees regularly engage in open and honest feedback on performance and goals? Do they document “critical incidents” throughout the year?

5. Do you feel that the current system is integrated with McDaniel’s mission statement?

6. Do you have established uniform record-keeping rules for performance evaluations?

7. Is there a review system in place to ensure appraisals are accurate, consistent, and fair?

8. Does your system evaluate:

a. Knowledge, skills, and abilities for the job?b. Whether previous goals were satisfied?c. Quality and quantity of work?d. Attendance?

9. Has your current system been reviewed by legal counsel for possible unlawful discrimination?

10. Are supervisors routinely trained on how to do performance appraisals?

11. Does your system provide an opportunity for employee feedback?

12. Does each appraisal contain an action plan for improvement in the coming year?

13. Are decisions involving pay raises, promotions, transfers, layoffs, and terminations linked to your system?

Goals for a new process:

1. How would a new performance appraisal tool benefit McDaniel?


2. To what extent do the current executive and management teams support the need for change?

3. Is the organization primarily focused on improving results or instilling right values and behaviors? Should the new system evaluate achievement of goals or demonstration of behaviors, or both?

4. How do you feel a new system should appraise performance? By manager appraisal, multi-rater feedback, objective measures, or a combination of several factors?

a. Practically?b. Ideally?

5. To what extent do results depend on collaborative behaviors through people working in teams? What emphasis should be placed on encouraging cooperation as distinct from individual achievement?

6. What level of employee input into the appraisal rating should the new system accept?

a. Should the supervisor’s evaluation carry more weight?b. Should the employee rate their manager?

7. Should the time frame of the performance management cycle remain the same? (dates)

8. Would McDaniel benefit from using technology to streamline the appraisal process?

9. How do you plan to reward good performance/exceptional performance? What combination of financial and non-financial rewards should be used?

a. Practically?b. Ideally?

10. How would a new system manage disagreements between supervisors and employees? Should there be a dispute resolution process?

11. How will you know that you have achieved your purpose? What tangible evidence will count as indicators of success?

Appendix B


Staff Survey

Q1 - How long have you worked at McDaniel College?

1 Less than 1 year

2 1 year - less than 2 years

3 2 years - less than 3 years

4 3 years or longer

Q2 - How long have you worked in your current position?

1 Less than 1 year

2 1 year - less than 2 years

3 2 years - less than 3 years

4 3 years or longer

Q3 - Have you ever received an annual performance review while employed as a staff

member at McDaniel College?

1 Yes

2 No

If no, skip to Q8.

Q4 - When did your most recent performance review take place?

1 Within the last year

2 1 year - less than 2 years ago

3 2 years - less than 3 years ago

4 3 years ago or longer

Q5 - Do you feel that the performance review process leads to meaningful

conversations with your supervisor?

1 Yes

2 No - Please explain


Q6 - Did you leave your last performance review meeting with a clear

understanding of your performance goals for the upcoming year?

1 Yes


Q7 - Are you honest in your feedback to your supervisor during the annual

review process?

1 Yes


Q8 - Does your supervisor clearly communicate the expectations for your job?

1 Yes


Q9 - How often does your supervisor connect with you to provide performance feedback

throughout the year?

1 My supervisor does not provide feedback

2 We only meet for the annual review

3 We meet at least twice a year, but less than quarterly

4 We meet at least quarterly

5 My supervisor meets with me as needed to address any concerns

Q10 - My supervisor cares about my development.

1 Strongly agree

2 Agree

3 Neither agree nor disagree

4 Disagree

5 Strongly disagree


Q11 - My supervisor effectively communicates information that I need to do my job well.

1 Strongly agree

2 Agree


4 Disagree

5 Strongly disagree

Q12 - My supervisor is responsive to my ideas, requests, and suggestions.

1 Strongly agree

2 Agree


4 Disagree

5 Strongly disagree

Q13 - Please share any additional thoughts, comments, or suggestions about the

performance review process at McDaniel College.

Appendix C

Qualtrics Survey Results ReportPerformance Review Survey


July 25th 2019, 12:11 pm EDT

Q1 - How long have you worked at McDaniel College?

# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std

Deviation Variance Count

1 How long have you worked at McDaniel College? 1.00 4.00 3.44 0.98 0.96 84

# Answer % Count

1 Less than 1 year 8.33% 7

2 1 year - less than 2 years 10.71% 9

3 2 years - less than 3 years 9.52% 8

4 3 years or longer 71.43% 60

Total 100% 84


Q2 - How long have you worked in your current position?

# Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation Variance Count

1 How long have you worked in your current position? 1.00 4.00 3.07 1.21 1.47 84

# Answer % Count

1 Less than 1 year 19.05% 16

2 1 year - less than 2 years 13.10% 11

3 2 years - less than 3 years 9.52% 8

4 3 years or longer 58.33% 49

Total 100% 84


Q3 - Have you ever received an annual performance review while employed as a staff member at McDaniel College?



1

Have you ever received an annual performance review while

employed as a staff member at McDaniel College?

1.00 2.00 1.24 0.43 0.18 84

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 76.19% 64

2 No 23.81% 20

Total 100% 84


Q4 - When did your most recent performance review take place?



1 When did your most recent performance review take place? 1.00 4.00 1.66 1.02 1.04 59

# Answer % Count

1 Within the last year 62.71% 37

2 1 year - less than 2 years ago 20.34% 12

3 2 years - less than 3 years ago 5.08% 3

4 3 years ago or longer 11.86% 7

Total 100% 59


Q5 - Do you feel that the performance review process leads to meaningful conversations with your supervisor?


1

Do you feel that the performance review process leads to

meaningful conversations with your supervisor? - Selected

Choice

1.00 2.00 1.33 0.47 0.22 57

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 66.67% 38

2 No - Please explain 33.33% 19

Total 100% 57

Q5_2_TEXT - No - Please explain

No - Please explain – Text

Last review was five minutes long of the superior speed reading what he wrote with no conversations of my perspective; the reviews before that were a joke


I had nothing to discuss

felt that it was a time for praise, but was not given constructive feedback for how to improve

but I have not had them one a yearly basis.

It is just a part of my supervisor's check list.

It really just depends on what is going on.

Being evaluated by athletes can sometimes produced biased comments.

It was simply handed to me to review.

They do want they want anyway

It's usually just sign it and return. Sometimes not even done in person.

I appreciated the positive feedback but we didn't have a meaningful conversation about it.

seems like a waste of time unless there is a problem

We converse daily and as situations warrantWe review and tweak processes through the year so the annual review is just another conversation but with a form to go along with it.In light of everything that is happening on campus, performance reviews feel threatening. Every week there's another announcement that some person or department has been eliminated.


Q6 - Did you leave your last performance review meeting with a clear understanding of your performance goals for the upcoming year?


1

Did you leave your last performance review meeting with a clear understanding of

your performance goals for the upcoming year? - Selected

Choice

1.00 2.00 1.28 0.45 0.20 58

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 72.41% 42


Total 100% 58



My performance on department objectives was marked as satisfactory or above; goals are arbitrarily decided and to be forgotten about until the next review, or so it seems by the department practice


Yes, but I had to ask for clarification on the expectations and performance goalsMy supervisor and I started but have not completed the review process, therefore we have not finalized and set goals for the upcoming year. This is due to different time in the office during the summer.It was a while ago - I cannot remember.No goals were really discussed and even the ones that were, wound up getting changed throughout the year.I honestly don't remember.

No set goals, vagueIT was more of a way to document what I had been doing, not what was expected to happen in the future.Yes, only because I provided the goals.

There weren't any goals set.

have not had a review in current position

I "perform" my job to the best of my ability every day. That's my only goal.


Q7 - Are you honest in your feedback to your supervisor during the annual review process?


1

Are you honest in your feedback to your supervisor during the

annual review process? - Selected Choice

1.00 2.00 1.12 0.33 0.11 57

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 87.72% 50


Total 100% 57



I know I was BUT it was a while ago.

Never given the opportunity but probably wouldn't be received well.


It's tough to be honest. Soemtimes it is seen as critical and that is not how it is meant to come across.

not had one in current position

The review was not geared to assess the supervisorThere's not really an opportunity for the employee to give feedback - it's all about how we can do more for the college.


Q8 - Does your supervisor clearly communicate the expectations for your job?



1Does your supervisor clearly

communicate the expectations for your job? - Selected Choice

1.00 2.00 1.22 0.41 0.17 77

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 77.92% 60


Total 100% 77



Sometimes yes. Expectations are often assumed and individually interpreted.My supervisor arrived a little over a year ago after I'd been in my current position for at least 10 years. I work independantly and am the only staff member in my sub-department (department within the college dept.). My supervisor and I keep each other well-informed; however, I already had a firm grasp on the expections and goals of my sub-dept. which align with the expectations/goals of the overall department.


Due to many changes in my division, my job expectations are changing. These are typically communicated clearly and in a timely fashion once decisions are made.Not necessary to do with me

My current supervisor is the best communicator I ever had.

I put "no", but I really mean "sometimes."My position is new to me and the division I'm currently in. I think that we're still feeling our way around job expectations.They do want they want & spin it

It would be nice to have feedback, positive or negative.

most of the time but they can some times be a moving target

Learn as you go by making mistakes and then told how it should have been done.


Q9 - How often does your supervisor connect with you to provide performance feedback throughout the year?


1

How often does your supervisor connect with you to provide

performance feedback throughout the year?

1.00 5.00 4.27 1.29 1.66 75

# Answer % Count

1 My supervisor does not provide feedback 6.67% 5

2 We only meet for the annual review 9.33% 7

3 We meet at least twice a year, but less than quarterly 5.33% 4

4 We meet at least quarterly 8.00% 6


5 My supervisor meets with me as needed to address any concerns 70.67% 53

Total 100% 75


Q10 - My supervisor cares about my development.



1 My supervisor cares about my development. 1.00 5.00 1.74 1.07 1.15 77

# Answer % Count

1 Strongly agree 55.84% 43

2 Agree 27.27% 21

3 Neither agree nor disagree 9.09% 7

4 Disagree 2.60% 2

5 Strongly disagree 5.19% 4

Total 100% 77


Q11 - My supervisor effectively communicates information that I need to do my job well.


1My supervisor effectively

communicates information that I need to do my job well.

1.00 5.00 1.79 1.01 1.02 77

# Answer % Count


2 Agree 36.36% 28


4 Disagree 3.90% 3


Total 100% 77


Q12 - My supervisor is responsive to my ideas, requests, and suggestions.



1My supervisor is responsive to

my ideas, requests, and suggestions.

1.00 5.00 1.70 0.98 0.96 77

# Answer % Count


2 Agree 24.68% 19


4 Disagree 6.49% 5


Total 100% 77


Q13 - Please share any additional thoughts, comments, or suggestions about the performance review process at McDaniel College.

Please share any additional thoughts, comments, or suggestions about the performance review process at McDaniel College.HR, please train supervisors in what a performance review is and can do and how to use it in a meaningful way!The performance review process is much more vague than at any place I have ever worked prior. It is also inconsistent, but we are doing them now.It would be helpful to review our supervisors similar to how students get to review their professorsOne of the performance review forms, title is Annual Staff Performance Appraisal, isn't clear and subject to various interpretations.Would prefer our performance reviews be tied to raises!

Performance evaluations that are not merit-based are a waste of everyone's time.I am less than one year in my new role and one year with a new VP. The outgoing VP never did an annual review before she departed.I have found the review process to be pointless. It's not administered as a true performance review should be. It seems like it's more like busy work/ticing a box than being anything useful. Performance reviews should be based on how well one is doing the tasks outlined in one's job description and that has never happened in a performance review that I have had here.I'm not fully aware of how it works. In my other position I didn't do a self eval but rather met with my Supervisor and I haven't had anything in this current position.Thank you!

I love my job!I think the review process is a little underwhelming. It could be a little more robust, job specific, linking job descriptions to work outcomes.I don't really feel that this survey was about the performance review process. I seemed more about my supervisor. I will say that I believe the performance review process is important. It should, however, be tied to merit increases in salary. Otherwise, staff perceive it as not important.I feel that an appraisal that reflects the responsibilities of the job would be more effective. Also, regular check-ins/status updates regarding goals would be good.I have had a change of supervisor during this past year. My current supervisor effectively communicates information regularly to me, while I have not undergone a complete official performance review since the change.I tried not to answer the question about how often my supervisor offers feedback/meets with me bc answers offered did not include that we meet weeklyBe nice if the supervisors were able to be evaluated by their workers, but some are above the process.It needs to be a 5 rated review instead of 3. Some people are better than average but not stellar. Same goes for below average. So we as supervisors end up giving 2.5 instead of a 2 or a 3.Different evaluation instruments and processes need to be developed to address different types of employees. In athletics, as an example, where coaches are lecturers and coaches they need to be evaluated on a different cycle and the instrument needs to be more specific to their success and include performance (wins and loses), recruiting, retention, peer and student evaluation. In addition each coach should be on a minimum three year schedule to allow them an opportunity to reposed to areas of


improvement discussed in the last evaluation.I think the review should be connected to our increases. People should get higher increases with a good review than those with a poor review.Performance reviews are a waste of time if you have open communication. Things should be addressed immediately, not once a year.PErfomance reviews should be associated with a merit increase of pay. I should be compensated for doing an excellent job. I goet teh same percent of increase as someone who is still in their probationary period and earns a higher salary because they are salaried and I am hourly. The system here in not fair and the pay is not comparable. Many states have just gone to a $15 minimum wage. Many of us at McDaniel have been here for several years or longer and still don't even make $15/hr. PAy structure needs to be re-evaluated.I would be nice if the performance review was linked to raise percentages. Some employees can do the bare minimum, call out sick a lot, and still get the same raise as everyone else!!I`m the type of person who doesn`t need alot of feedback unless there is a problem.

Don’t feel that annual review is needed or effectiveI think the review process can be frustrating for some when not linked to regular performance raises. It's hard to hear that you are doing a fantastic job, but will not be rewarded for it.Should be consistantEmphasis should be put on the supervisors from their division VP, as to the importance of annual reviews and proper documentation of successes and short-falls in this position. This is beneficial in the employees (and the employers) for future promotions or disciplinary needs.Why is there no review of our supervisors from our point of view? Everything is top-down in the review process.Do employees really care about their performance when they are paid so poorly?My supervisor and I communicate on a daily basis multiple times a day. I feel that I recieve feedback, both good and bad, in real time. I always know where I stand. Ironically, if we had formal, scheduled meetings, I may not get as much feedback as I do currently.

Appendix D


Annual Performance Evaluation: Staff

Employee Information

Employee Name Employee ID

Position Title Date

Department SupervisorEvaluation Period

InstructionsUsing information from the entire evaluation period, provide feedback to the staff member on each factor listed. Once the evaluation has been reviewed with the staff member, forward it to your Divisional Head for signature. Return completed forms to the Office of Human Resources.

Definition of RatingsThere are four rating categories that should be recorded in whole numbers only (1, 2, 3, or 4). The notation “N/A” indicates no basis or knowledge to evaluate a particular objective.

1 Does Not Meet Expectations

The employee exhibited shortfalls in professional behavior, job knowledge, or performance and is not meeting expectations. Reserve this rating for an employee who has not benefitted from development and/or training and continues to have difficulty with job responsibilities When assigning this rating, provide specific examples of unacceptable behavior or performance, steps to correct the problem, and consequences if the problem is not corrected.

2 Needs

Improvement

The employee requires additional training and/or development to gain skills and/or knowledge in order to meet expectations. This area is a development priority until performance deficiencies improve to a satisfactory degree. This should be used for an employee who requires additional performance development, was recently hired, recently promoted, or has assumed new responsibilities.

3 Meets

Expectations

The employee is competent at the expected levels of performance and is making valued contributions to the College. Performance is consistent with what is routinely expected of an employee in the position, and the employee has successfully completed the goals and challenges outlined during the review period. Performance is good and the individual is considered a skilled employee.

4 Exceeds

Expectations

Overall performance of duties and responsibilities consistently exceeded the performance standards established for the position. The employee devised and implemented improvements that resulted in departmental improvements/ successes. The employee regularly contributed to the achievement of the College’s mission, goals and objectives. Performance at this level is recognized by other staff members, faculty and students. Reserve this rating for a highly motivated employee who demonstrates superior quality work and maintains a high level of effectiveness with little or no supervision.

N/A No basis or knowledge to evaluate this objective.


AttributesDependability & Adaptability:

Has an excellent attendance record; is punctual; completes assignments and keeps commitments; is an independent worker who needs little supervision; can be depended on to handle the normal work functions and extra work when necessary; accepts accountability for own actions; does what is necessary to get the job done; is consistently flexible and open-minded; handles pressure calmly.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations

2 = Needs Improvement

3 = Meets Expectations

4 = Exceeds Expectations N/A

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Quality Work Results:

Maintains a high level of quality; is thorough and accurate; pays close attention to detail; demonstrates an exceptional commitment to quality and excellence; looks for opportunities to make continuous improvements in key processes or techniques; sets high standards.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Professionalism:

Treats faculty, students and staff with respect; responds to people in a positive, supportive and service-oriented manner consistent with the College’s First Principles.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Communication/Listening:

Presents their ideas clearly; provides correct and consistently good information; uses appropriate channels of communication; maintains friendly contacts; keeps up with issues of common concern; listens to others and follows up appropriately.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Job Knowledge:

Understands the duties and responsibilities of the job; is knowledgeable about what is necessary to perform the job effectively; is aware of how the job advances the goals of the College; actively keeps up-to-date with developments; takes the time to master equipment or new process.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Inclusiveness:

Promotes cooperation, fairness and equity; shows respect for people and their differences; works to understand perspectives of others; demonstrates empathy; brings out the best in others.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Information Security: Role Assigned – (enter assigned role here)

Meets the responsibilities of assigned information Security Role.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐Comments


Overall Rating for Attributes(average the rating numbers above)

Job Specific ResponsibilitiesUse the employee’s job description, please list 3-5 specific job responsibilities and rate them.

Replace with Specific Job Responsibilities

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations






1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations






1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations






1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations





Overall Rating for Job Specific Responsibilities(average the rating numbers above)

Achievement of Last Year’s GoalsPlease comment on employee progress for goals developed during the last performance evaluation.

Replace with Goal set during the last performance evaluation.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments



1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Overall Rating for Achievement of Last Year’s Goals(average the rating numbers above)

Goals for the Upcoming YearSMART Goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound. Supervisors and employees should work together to set SMART goals for the upcoming fiscal year. Individual goals can be a specific project, a professional development opportunity, or a new approach to an existing problem. Individual goals generally support the goals of the department, and subsequently, the College. Goals should be revisited regularly so that progress toward achieving the goal can be monitored. SMART goals have a specific end product and a deadline that is able to be accomplished within the evaluation period.

Goal #1

Goal #2

Goal #3

Goal #4

Verification of ReviewMy signature indicates acknowledgement that I have received and had an opportunity to review and discuss this evaluation with my supervisor and does not imply that I agree with the information contained.

Employee Signature Date

Supervisor Signature Title Date

Division Head Signature Title Date


Appendix E


Annual Staff Performance Evaluation: Supervisors



Position Title Date


InstructionsUsing information from the entire evaluation period, provide feedback to the staff member on each factor listed. Once the evaluation has been reviewed with the staff member, forward it to your Divisional Head for signature. Return completed forms to the Office of Human Resources.




2 Needs

Improvement


3 Meets

Expectations


4 Exceeds

Expectations



Attributes


Dependability & Adaptability:

Has an excellent attendance record; is punctual; completes assignments and keeps commitments; is an independent worker who needs little supervision; can be depended on to handle the normal work functions and extra work when necessary; accepts accountability for own actions; does what is necessary to get the job done; is consistently flexible and open-minded; handles pressure calmly.

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments



1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Professionalism:


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments



1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Job Knowledge:


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Inclusiveness:


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments



1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations





Supervisory Responsibilities:

Develops and maintains job descriptions for assigned positions; plans, directs and assigns work of assigned staff; makes hiring

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


and disciplinary decisions; provides feedback on performance

Comments


Job Specific ResponsibilitiesUse the employee’s job description, please list 3-5 specific job responsibilities and rate them.


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations






1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations






1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations






1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations





Overall Rating for Job Specific Responsibilities(average the rating numbers above)

Achievement of Last Year’s GoalsPlease comment on employee progress for goals developed during the last performance evaluation.


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


Goals for the Upcoming YearSMART Goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound. Supervisors and employees should work together to set SMART goals for the upcoming fiscal year. Individual goals can be a specific project, a professional development opportunity, or a new approach to an existing problem. Individual goals generally support the goals of the department, and subsequently, the College. Goals should be revisited regularly so that progress toward achieving the goal can be monitored. SMART goals have a specific end product and a deadline that is able to be accomplished within the evaluation period.

Goal #1

Goal #2

Goal #3

Goal #4

Verification of ReviewMy signature indicates acknowledgement that I have received and had an opportunity to review and discuss this evaluation with my supervisor and does not imply that I agree with the information contained.





Appendix F

Pre-Evaluation Staff Self-Assessment




Position Title Date


InstructionsComplete this self-assessment for the evaluation period listed above and return it to your supervisor prior to your evaluation

meeting.




2 Needs

Improvement


3 Meets

Expectations


4 Exceeds

Expectations



AttributesDependability & Adaptability:

Has an excellent attendance record; is punctual; completes assignments and keeps commitments; is an independent worker

1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


who needs little supervision; can be depended on to handle the normal work functions and extra work when necessary; accepts accountability for own actions; does what is necessary to get the

Comments



1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Professionalism:


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments



1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Job Knowledge:


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Inclusiveness:


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments



1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments



Job Specific ResponsibilitiesUsing your job description, please list 3-5 specific job responsibilities that you feel are most important to your job and rate how your job performance during the evaluation period.


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Replace with Specific Job Responsibilities1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐Overall Rating for Job Specific Responsibilities(average the rating numbers above)

Achievement of Last Year’s GoalsPlease comment on your progress for goals developed during the last performance evaluation.


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations




☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments

Replace with Goal set during the last performance evaluation.1 = Does Not Meet

Expectations



4 = Exceeds Expectations

N/A

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Comments


Goals for the Upcoming YearPlease enter any goals that you feel would be important for you to achieve during the upcoming fiscal year. Individual goals can be a specific project, a professional development opportunity, or a new approach to an existing problem. Individual goals generally support the goals of the department, and subsequently, the College.

Goal #1

Goal #2

Goal #3

Goal #4

Verification of ReviewMy signature indicates acknowledgement that I have received this self-assessment and had an opportunity to consider my performance during the evaluation period listed.




mgermanmcdanielhrd.files.wordpress.com · Web view03-11-2019 · Employee performance...

Documents

Transcript of mgermanmcdanielhrd.files.wordpress.com · Web view03-11-2019 · Employee performance...