Simmons 1

University of Vermont:

Human Resources Internship Research Paper

Internship Logistics:

By working with HRS Staff our team developed a questionnaire that was designed to gather information about current processes for performance appraisals within individual departments at the University of Vermont (UVM). The research I conducted as part of this internship is intended to help the HRS department, 1) enhance the current performance appraisal process at the University of Vermont and 2) design a web based performance appraisal format/module that the whole University may benefit from.

In February, March and April I conducted in-person interviews with HRS identified contacts in twelve academic and seven administrative units. (See supplemental section for complete list) In addition, I conducted a phone interview with Kay Larson from the University of West Florida by creating a PeopleAdmin Performance Management Module Questionnaire.

This paper will address the research I have compiled regarding the information received from the academic and administrative units I interviewed, as well as best performance appraisal practices from UVM’s peer institutions, human resource organizations such as the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), and Segal Sibson, a human resource consultant firm.

Background on Performance Appraisals:

A performance appraisal (PA) is a “means of evaluating an employee’s current and/or past performance relative to his or her performance standards” (Dessler 306) Appraisals are critical when evaluating if an employee’s performance is good, or bad. It is a vital component that critiques employees so that employers may reinforce good performance, or take corrective actions for bad performance.

Performance appraisals typically involve: (Dessler 306)

Setting work standards

Assessing the employee’s actual performance relative to those standards

Providing feedback to the employee with the aim of motivating him or her to eliminate performance deficiencies or to continue to perform above the bar.

There are a plethora of performance appraisal formats that are being used today in our society; however, “the best appraisal forms merge several approaches” (Dessler 320). All forms are intended for the same purpose and employers and employees rely heavily on performance evaluations for many different reasons. A few of those reasons are that most employers base pay and promotions decisions on the evaluation of an employee’s performance appraisal, and the appraisal allows the employer and employee to develop a plan for correcting any deficiencies, or to reinforce good behavior/performance. Lastly, appraisals provide an opportunity to review the employee’s career plans in conjunction with his or her strengths and weaknesses.

Simmons 2

Performance appraisals are one of the most, if not the most important aspect of any job. Despite the reasons listed above, it is known that many employees respond well to positive reinforcement. Managers and supervisors can implement positive reinforcement by giving praise, recognition or financial bonuses. Some advantages of positive reinforcement are that it “increases behavior, maximizes employee performance, and sustains positive change for a longer period of time”. (Daniels)

Typically it is the supervisor’s role to conduct the actual appraisals. Presumably, it is known that giving any sort of feedback to employees can sometimes be very difficult. Nonetheless, there seems to be a link between performance evaluations and positive reinforcement. A performance appraisal can ideally serve as a tool to help reinforce an employee’s positive perception of the work they have been completing. However, on the contrary, many mangers find giving performance appraisals to be an uncomfortable task. There is of course the possibility of having to deal with the appraisee’s unpleasant reactions when receiving a less than par evaluation. In addition, the awkwardness may be heightened if the performance appraisal process is not conducive to such honesty (Dessler 308).

Examples of Potential Appraisal Problems:

Many performance appraisals have some sort of rating system in place that goes hand in hand with the process. A problem that may arise from having a rating scale is the “unclear standards problem”. This problem accentuates the ambiguity of such rating scales because certain supervisors may have different perceptions on what is fair, good, or exceptional performance. To help curb this problem, HR and supervisors conducting the appraisals can include descriptive phrases that define or illustrate each trait that is being evaluated (Dessler 321).

Another problem that may arise is called the “halo effect”; this is the “influence of a rater’s general impressions on ratings of specific qualities (Dessler 321). What this means is that supervisors may rate an unfriendly employee lower on all traits, rather than on the trait “gets along well with others”. The halo effect problem also falls into the bias category, as it is known that biases are present in almost every aspect of society and everyday life. Regarding performance appraisals, “performance ratings amplify the quality of the personal relationship between boss and employee. Good relationships tend to create good appraisal experiences, while bad relationships create bad experiences (Dessler 322)”. In addition, there are age, race and sex biases that have also been known to skew individual ratings. For example, one study concluded that women had to receive higher performance ratings than promoted men to be promoted (Dessler 322)”. With such inequalities and biases prevalent, the need for consistency in evaluating employees by supervisors has become more prevalent.

How to Effectively Perform Fair Performance Appraisals:

To perform effective and fair performance appraisals, managers should first be knowledgeable about the potential problems that may arise from the appraisal process and ultimately how to deal with them. The next objective is to choose the right tool, or combination of appraisal tools. Additionally, employees should be fully aware of how they are being evaluated. To provide an unbiased evaluation, managers and supervisors must communicate

Simmons 3

prior to the appraisal what standards the employee will be compared to. It is imperative to clarify what it is that you expect from your employees: this may include setting specific goals that the employee will be measured against, or simply notifying the employee of the standards in place for the position. Defining the employee’s job and performance criteria is the most important step prior to conducting the initial performance appraisal. Appraising the employee against previously communicated standards is crucial. Lastly, there should also be a feedback session that includes a discussion on the employee’s performance, progress and plans for future development (Dessler 309).

The role of Human Resources (HR) is to ensure supervisors and managers receive the proper training and are knowledgeable in areas needed to effectively complete performance evaluations. The role of each HR department’s involvement varies within different companies and organizations. Typically, HR managers provide advice and are there to assist supervisors when they ask for help regarding this area. Other responsibilities of the HR department are to provide additional training to supervisors to improve their appraisal skills, monitor the effectiveness of the appraisal system, and ensure that the process complies with Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner (EEO) laws. (Dessler 309)

Best Practices: Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)

According to SHRM, “employee development and performance appraisals are the Achilles heel of human resource management and their flaws and ineffectiveness in certain organizations can be attributed to the fact the process is highly personal and often threatening for mangers’ and employees (Pulakos 13)”. Recent studies show that Less than 40 percent of employees said their systems established clear performance goals, generated honest feedback or used technology to streamline the process. (Pulakos 13) These figures suggest that performance appraisals are not being used to their full potential. With such poor opinions on their effectiveness it is only natural for employees and managers to underestimate the value they can bring to their organization as a whole. Many view performance appraisals as an unnecessary tool that is cumbersome, time consuming and not worth the effort.

Like I mentioned before, these are incorrect perceptions; there are many positive outcomes that come from effectively incorporating performance appraisal processes into any given organization. SHRM lists these outcomes below:

Possible Outcomes from Effective Performance Management: (Pulakos 13) Clarifying job responsibilities and expectations. Enhancing individual and group productivity Developing employee capabilities to their fullest extent through effective feedback and coaching Driving behavior to align with the organization’s core values, goals and strategy Providing a basis for making operational human capital decisions (e.g., pay). Improving communication between employees and managers

By following the recommendations of various organizations including SHRM these outcomes can easily be attained. In order to fully attain the amenities from conducting performance appraisal’s it is recommended that one follow SHRM’s best practices. Before the

Simmons 4

actual process is started it is imperative to define what purpose the performance management system will serve. For example, will the evaluations be a form of decision making where promotions or pay are based, or is it simply for employee development and feedback? SHRM stresses the importance of not having too many objectives, as it tends to be one of the leading factors in predicting failure. It is important to evaluate the individual needs of your given organization and modify them to your organization culture.

Below SHRM has implemented the most common practices used by various organizations. SHRM’s typical performance management process starts with the determination of the organizations strategy and goals, which then into the next steps of the process: performance planning, ongoing feedback, employee input, performance evaluation, and lastly performance review. (Pulakos 16) Each step is elaborated further below.

Performance Planning:

SHRM like Dessler, states the importance of reviewing with employees their performance expectations and behaviors they are expected to achieve at the beginning of the performance management cycle, prior to the initial performance appraisal. Behavioral results and expectations must also be tied to the organizations objectives. By doing so, employees must be aware of how certain behavioral standards influence the company’s future success in reaching its objectives and how they relate to their individual job and expectations of the given employee. Results and goals that the organization expects the employee to achieve should be predetermined so that the employee developmental needs are taken into account. Employee involvement in the goal setting process is highly encouraged.

Below SHRM has given a set of guidelines that should be implemented when employees are involved in setting goals with their organization.

Guidelines for Establishing Effective Performance Goals (Pulakos 18) Goals must clearly define the end results to be accomplished. To the extent possible, goals should have a direct and obvious link to organizational Success factors or goals. Goals should be difficult, but achievable, to motivate performance. Goals should be set in no more than three areas—attempting to achieve too many

different goals at once will impede success.

Ongoing Feedback:

Next in the performance management cycle is providing ongoing feedback. It is imperative that managers and supervisors provide ongoing feedback to their employees. This applies to positive and negative performance, and noting when each has occurred on a regular or situational basis. To effectively encourage such feedback SHRM recommends that the organization trains both supervisors and employees about their role and responsibilities in the performance feedback process. Managers should provide feedback in a constructive, timely manner, while employees should seek feedback to ensure they are performing up to standard. (Pulakos19)

Simmons 5

Guidelines for Providing Feedback Effectively (Pulakos 19) Provide immediate positive and developmental feedback in a private location. Ask for the employee’s view about what could have been done differently. Be specific about what behaviors were effective or ineffective. Focus on what the person did or did not do not personal characteristics. Collaboratively plan steps to address development needs. Offer help in addressing development needs and providing resources.

Employee Input:

Employees can give input in various ways. Some ways SHRM has encourages employee input is by asking employees to provide self-ratings on their performance standards within their evaluation. Another way of encouraging employee input is to ask the employee to record key statements of situations or results where they felt that they exceeded or reached certain goals.

Guidelines for Writing Employee Accomplishments (Pulakos 20) Include the situation or circumstances faced by the employee. Describe what specific actions the employee took to achieve results. Describe the impact of the accomplishment on the work unit or organization.

Some benefits of encouraging employee input are that it involves the employee in the process, thus increasing employee ownership and acceptance. It also reminds managers of the results the employee achieved and how they were achieved, and has the capacity to increase communication and understanding.

Performance Evaluation:

When conducting the actual performance evaluation the organization must choose competencies that it will evaluate the employee on. According to SHRM “competency models articulate the knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics that are deemed to be most instrumental for achieving positive organizational outcomes (Pulakos 21)”. Typically organizations identify between 5-10 key competency areas they would like to measure, however this is entirely situational and based on the individual needs of your organization. It is recommended that competencies be defined based on specific job expectations and behaviors. The primary advantages of defining competencies in terms of behavioral performance standards are “(1) to help employees understand what is expected of them and (2) to provide uniform standards that a manager can apply in evaluating employees, thereby increasing consistency, transparency and fairness (Pulakos 23).”

Organizations must decide how they will evaluate employees and who will perform the evaluation on those employees. Performance evaluations can be obtained from various people including managers, peers, direct reports and customers (Pulakos 27). It is the organizations responsibility to choose the most effective person to perform the evaluation. However, SHRM recommends that if feedback from different rating sources is collected, the ratings of at least three raters from each rating source should be averaged and reported to the employee. However, in order to have multiple ratings, automated processes are encouraged because requiring multiple ratings for just one employee is a time consuming task. If this process is not implemented, managers are thought to be the best resource for conducting employee evaluations. (Pulakos 30)

Simmons 6

Performance Review:

The last step in the performance management process states that if organizations have followed the best practices SHRM has given, “Assuming that feedback has been provided on an ongoing basis, the formal performance review session should simply be a recap of what has occurred throughout the rating period (Pulakos 31).” What this means is that the performance evaluation should not be used as a “gotcha moment”, there should be no surprises to the employee or the manager when this review is conducted. During this time ratings, narratives, goals and the rational for why a manager gave the specific employee a certain rating should be discussed through an open dialogue. The performance review is also a good time to plan future goals for the next review.

Lastly, depending on the purpose of your performance evaluation; granted it be for decision making or development, will decipher whether or not the meetings subject matter includes pay, promotions, and administrative decisions. If it has been decided that the evaluation will be geared towards making decisions, this is an appropriate time to discuss these topics. Conversely, if the performance appraisal’s purpose is more for employee development then it is recommended that separate meetings be scheduled to discuss these areas, so that the manager can have a more open discussion about employee development.

Performance Implementation:

As previously mentioned, the tools and processes are not typically the downfall of the successful implementation of performance management. What really matters is how employees and managers value the whole subject. If performance management is not valued, it is inevitable that the implementation will not be successful. To ensure successful implementation, SHRM suggests that organizations do the following:

Cornerstones of Successful Implementation (Pulakos 33) Ensure alignment with other HR systems. Pilot test. Get organizational members on board. Train employees and managers. Communicate. Evaluate and improve. Automate.

To wrap up SHRM’s recommendations, the most important aspect of successful implementation of performance appraisal processes it to follow the EEO laws.

Best Practices: Segal Sibson

Simmons 7

Like SHRM, Segal Sibson has found that the success of performance management depends on the organization and the organizational cultural view on the process as a whole. Segal Sibson defines performance management as “the business process that includes goal and expectation setting, performance tracking and feedback, performance evaluation, development planning, performance improvement and consequences based on performance (Kochanski, Sorensen 1). Below Segal Sibson has listed five ways that their organization found to help improve the execution and impact of performance management in organizations. The five Critical Success Factors are: create a performance culture, use the right measure, calibrate across manages, improve delivery of messages and differentiate rewards.

1. Create a Performance Culture: If organizations create a sound performance culture that implements goal setting, performance tracking and feedback, regular performance evaluations and development and performance improvement initiatives, the success of the performance management process will improve. It is recommended that companies ensure that performance goals are set and have an appropriate level of difficulty. Sibson states that companies need to assess their individual culture and see how it is in line with company practices. (Kochanski, Sorensen 1).

2. Use the Right Measures: A recent academic study showed “clearly defined performance criteria” to be the number one driver of effective performance appraisal processes (Kochanski, Sorensen 1)”. It is important for companies to define the criteria they will be evaluating their employees to. Segal Sibson also emphasized how some companies are using “value tree” analysis to determine how each individuals role in the company can best contribute to the overall success of the business, “The value tree breaks down corporate goals into the discrete actions that contribute value, and identifies measures for each job or role that really drive value for the organization (Kochanski, Sorensen 1)”. When employee goals are known organization wide it has the potential to increase the effectiveness of the performance management system, while also increasing the success of the organization.

3. Calibrate across Managers: To have effective performance management and performance evaluations, rating scales need to be standardized across all managers who conduct the evaluations. Segal Sibson states that “organizations that use a consistent methodology and criteria for assessing performance (on the front end) and invest time in calibrating assessments and consequences in manager meetings (on the back end) raise the level of understanding of performance expectations, increase the likelihood that performance messages will be delivered and improve the overall quality of the assessment (Kochanski, Sorensen 1)”.

4. Improve Delivery of Messages: Like SHRM previously stated effective communication is the foundation for implementing strong performance management. Performance evaluations are useless if employees are not receiving feedback from their managers. According to Segal Sibson, “only 42% of employees report getting regular performance feedback (Kochanski, Sorensen 1)”. It is anticipated that most managers would like to communicate with their employees on how they are doing, but tend to avoid it as it has the potential to be an awkward situation. As previously mentioned, communicating with employees on areas regarding positive or negative performance can sometimes be extremely difficult. For this reason, Segal Sibson also suggests that additional training be given in order to show managers how to effectively deliver

Simmons 8

performance messages. This also includes training on teaching employees how to take constructive criticism. Training ultimately helps improve the manager’s confidence in this area, and gives them the proper tools to handle a difficult situation.

5. Differentiate Rewards: Since performance evaluations are frequently used to distribute pay increases and bonuses, it is important to differentiate rewards. It is anticipated that when funding for such amenities is lacking, manager and employee moral regarding performance appraisal practices may decrease. Later I will discuss how having no merit increases has effected various UVM departments moral and eagerness to complete performance evaluations, but for now it is safe to generalize that when the availability of money is low, employees and managers feel it is almost pointless to put effort into performance evaluations. Sibson recommends creating fewer levels of base pay increases. For example rather than a 2 percent increase compared with a 2.5 percent increase, companies could create numbers that are more meaningful in distinction. For example a 0 percent increase compared to a 3 percent increase, or a 3 percent increase compared to a 6 percent increase. (Kochanski, Sorensen 1). Larger discrepancies show that better results on a performance evaluation will have the greatest financial gain, thus encouraging effective performance management processes.

UVM’s Philosophy on Performance Management:

To relate what you have just read to our university, I would like to talk about the performance appraisal process here at UVM.

Importance of Performance Appraisal: UVM: (HRS UVM)

According to UVM the performance appraisal is a communication tool that is designed to support each individual’s contribution to the university. UVM believes that the appraisal provides a way to measure skills and accomplishments, as well as the major role it plays in helping identify areas for professional growth. Here at UVM our philosophy is that each employee is entitled to a thoughtful and careful appraisal. Through my research this has been known to not always happen; this may be attributed to the fact that the success of this process depends on the supervisor’s willingness to complete the initial evaluation, as well as the employee’s willingness to take constructive criticism into account when encountering performance barriers.

Overall the purpose of performance appraisal’s here at UVM is to give supervisors a chance to gain a better understanding of each employee’s abilities pertaining to their job. In addition, a performance appraisal allows supervisors to evaluate employee progress within their job in hopes to improve or modify job performance by recognizing good or bad work. All employees want feedback on how they are performing, and a performance appraisal allows feedback to be given. Employees will only prosper and grow from performance evaluations because it gives them a chance to work on areas of improvement in hopes that they may develop to their full potential. While UVM only asks that performance evaluations be done annually, it is encouraged to have them done more often when time and resources allow for it. It is especially important to do performance evaluations because some supervisors use PE’s as their only

Simmons 9

communication tool throughout the year. UVM and HR organizations alike believe that open lines of communication throughout the year help make effective working relationships. In addition, if organizations genuinely agree that people are the most important resource in any job, then it is believed that everyone deserves to be given a thoughtful performance appraisal at some point during their employment.

Brief Summary of Process at UVM:

There are two standard forms that UVM makes available to all departments; these forms can be seen in the supplemental section of this paper. The first is the employee performance appraisal form which is completed by supervisors, and the second is the self-assessment form which is completed by employees. Both forms are completed concurrently; after both the employee and the employee’s immediate supervisor have completed their forms there is a follow up discussion, either accepting or choosing to revise the completed forms. Each person must sign the form indicating they have received a copy, then the remaining copies are retained by the department, and the original copy is sent to Human Resource Services.

The most important aspect of the performance management process is the meeting between the employee and their immediate supervisor. Within this meeting topics discussed may include, but are not limited to: job performance, personal career objectives, problems or concerns about the present job, and or goals for improving future performance and productivity. While there are many preemptive steps that employees and supervisors can take to prepare oneself for such meetings, UVM’s human resource website gives a full list of such tips, as well as supervisor and employee instructions online at: uvm.edu/hrs > Info for faculty & Staff> Performance appraisal process. If various divisions at UVM feel that the UVM standard forms are not appropriate for their department, they may request permission from HRS to use a different form. Everyone is granted the opportunity to design and implement their own form; however, it must be preapproved by the HRS department. Criteria regarding granting approval of modified performance appraisal forms can also be found online following the same steps.

Generally at UVM performance appraisals are to be completed every year for each employee; however, the purpose of this research project is to find out why this has not been happening, which I will explain later on. Human Resource Services does not impose this practice on the university for the sake of creating more work; the purpose of the appraisal is to encourage two way communication among supervisors and their subordinates. Emplacing a culture where frequent communication is encouraged helps maintain good performance throughout the year.

Best Practices at Peer Institutions:

Although UVM’s performance appraisal process and philosophy towards them is similar to many of the peer institutions listed below, there were a few areas that stood out that I would like to address. The nine peer institutions looked at in conjunction with UVM, were: Cornell University, University of Connecticut, University of Maine, University of Massachusetts, University of New Hampshire, Dartmouth College, Middlebury College, New York University and the University of Michigan. These nine institutions were chosen by Leslie Parr because she believes that they have strong HR practices that UVM may learn from.

Simmons 10

Cornell University:

Cornell University wants to ensure that all relevant employees benefit from effective, appropriate and regular evaluation by their immediate supervisors. To do so they require that all regular or term, full-or part-time university employees have an annual performance evaluation conducted with their immediate supervisor. In addition to annual evaluations, Cornell implements a program called a 6 month contribution. “The Program Contributions component of the performance evaluation process is intended to capture concrete deliverables/outcomes, the quality of accomplishments, and establish some objectives for a six month time period; the goal concrete contributions are explicitly incorporated into the annual evaluation process, but also to align an employee's efforts with CIT's strategic and program goals, and to introduce a greater level of accountability for outcomes (Cornell)”.

These evaluations are not optional and are mandated by the university. In addition, Cornell’s HR department contacts all employees and supervisors who default on their responsibilities, initial failure to conduct and maintain performance evaluations may lead to further disciplinary action, up to and including termination (Cornell). Making evaluations mandatory is a best practice for Cornell, however, making something mandatory does not ensure that it will be done effectively,

To further ensure that supervisors have the skills necessary to conduct performance evaluations in a manner that is consistent, equitable, reasonable and supportive to the individual being evaluated HR offers regular training sessions that focus on how the performance Review process works, how to get the most out of the discussion and how the process ties-in with other important processes. Lastly, Cornell offers over 2,000 SkillSoft Online Courses, to all Cornell affiliated staff at no charge.  These courses further educate employees on all areas regarding performance management (Cornell).

University of Connecticut:

Like Cornell, UCONN mandates the completion of performance appraisals. For UCONN they must be done at the following times:

Performance appraisals are required at the following times: (UCONN HR)1. Annually for all permanent employees, at least three months prior to an employee's

anniversary increase date 2. During an initial or promotional working test period

3. In order to amend a previously submitted "less than good" rating due to a marked improvement in an employee's performance and restore the anniversary increase;

4. At such other times it is determined that the quality of service of an employee should be recorded.

One process that stood out to me about UCONN was how their evaluations were tied to merit increases. To sum up the evaluation process after all steps have been taken, the employee’s performance is either “satisfactory or better”, or a separate appraisal is filled out for an employee

Simmons 11

whose performance is “less than satisfactory”. A less than satisfactory performance appraisal rating means that an employee is not eligible for an anniversary increase, or in some bargaining units, a promotion or transfer. Lastly, unsatisfactory ratings filed within two years of each other may be cause for dismissal. As you can see UCONN is very strict about their process as it is clearly used for things other than the facilitation of feedback.

University of Maine:

It seems that UMAINE’s performance management process has been lacking to say the least. In fact “In 2010, the Chancellor and Board of Trustees directed that the University of Maine system significantly increase the number of employees who receive an annual performance review to improve performance management and productivity (UMAINE HR).” Given that UMAINE believes that the work of every employee contributes to the experience of the students, faculty and staff, it is only natural that they would want to improve the process that provides such benefits (UMAINE HR).

Like UVM, UMAINE encourages the same process for conducting performance appraisals; some examples are referring back to the employee’s job description before the performance meeting is scheduled, and setting future performance goals. One practice that UMAINE does well is encouraging efficient goal setting by using the SMART goal setting framework. SMART goal setting makes sure that goals are specific, measureable, attainable, relevant and time framed (UMAINE System 9). The one thing UMAINE does that I think is a best practice that UVM could learn from is that they highly encourage 360 degree performance evaluations to be made in addition to regular performance assessment forms.

University of Massachusetts:

The University of Massachusetts (Amherst) has respectable policies regarding performance planning. The key to a good performance management process are good goal setting practices. For UMASS no fewer than (3), and no more than (8) goals will be identified for an employee’s current evaluation period. Setting a standard for this area seems to be a solid practice that UVM could follow. Similarly to UMAINE, UMASS also incorporates the SMART goal setting framework into their performance management process (UMASS HR 13).

UMASS also has interesting policies regarding performance documentation. It is encouraged that supervisor’s keep a Performance form diary, or a fact file to record performance observations. In addition, Supervisors are also expected to perform at least one form of interim communication during the performance period. This communication could be in the form of a meeting, discussion, email or written interim review (using the interim review form) (UMASS HR 17).

Another best practice UMASS encourages is that supervisor’s consider cultural differences when giving performance feedback; because different cultures value different methods of communication and directness, it is important for a manager to give feedback that is culturally sensitive to the employee at hand (UMASS HR 21).

University of New Hampshire:

Simmons 12

The University of New Hampshire believes that performance management is a daily responsibility and is an integral part of any organization. Like UVM, UNH believes performance management is not a one-time event, and is much more than simply conducting an annual review. What UNH focuses on is how supervisors support and give employees feedback throughout the year. Their performance appraisal process is almost identical to UVM’s; in that it lacks full compliance and completion. It is estimated that each year only 60-80% of annual performance evaluations are completed and returned to UNH HR (Proulx 1). UNH also has inconsistencies in how employees are being evaluated. Such problems have encouraged UNH to create a strategic plan to revamp their current performance evaluation process.

Some initiatives in place at UNH are: a competency based performance evaluation form, as well as the position, application, classification, and evaluations online system (PACES).

Competency evaluation: UNH’s competency model is believed to be the core of their performance process. Job-requirement based competencies and behavioral objectives are the basis for this method. UNH believes that “a competency model for any staff position helps to integrate the university’s organizational values with the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for high performance in that position (UNH HR 1)”.

Some core competencies for employees include: commitment to the values of the university, quality, collaboration and teamwork, professionalism and accountability, and job specific knowledge and skills. Supervisory competencies include: leadership and management, and performance management and development (UNH HR 1).

UNH’s performance management committee has plans to create more opportunities for training, as well as developing a multi sourced feedback tool (also known as the 360 degree evaluation (UNH HR 1).

Dartmouth College:

While Dartmouth’s performance appraisal method is very similar to UVM’s process there is one practice that Dartmouth uses that may be beneficial to UVM. Their performance review discussion worksheet is used, and is a tool that outlines potential topics to discuss during review meetings. This worksheet also includes sections that note skills and abilities, a summary of the past years accomplishments and developments plans, as well as goals for the coming year (Dartmouth 3).

Middlebury College:

For Middlebury College performance evaluations are highly linked to merit increases. Employees receive letters in June once their performance evaluations have been complete; these letters detail their new pay award and are based off of their performance ratings.

Pay increases are as follows: (Middlebury 4)

Not consistently meeting expectations: no increase

Simmons 13

Consistently meeting expectations: increase

Significantly meeting expectations: higher increase, and eligibility for a single sum bonus for exemplary performance

New York University:

One practice that NYU has in place is their SPEAK program. SPEAK stands for success, performance, engagement, alignment and knowledge. This program is designed to encourage communication throughout the year and divides discussions into three parts (NYU HR 1)

Beginning of the year: manager and employee meet to discuss and establish goals and other performance expectations for the coming year

Throughout the year: manager and employee regularly meet to discuss progress on goals and expectations

End of Year: employee and manager assess, review and discuss the employees performance (NYU HR 2)

NYU also has an optional mid-year check in as one of their practices. During this check in adjustments to goals or expectations can be made. In addition, managers and employees are encouraged to keep notes about their individual performance through the Performance Journal Form. The intent of completing a mid-year check in is to understand what accomplishments have been made, as well as plans for the remainder of the year (NYU HR 1).

University of Michigan:

While access to best practices at this university is limited due to authentication and user restrictions, the general things that U-M are or have already integrated into their performance management process are the following:

A fully integrated U-M organizational competency model has been implemented into the HRD catalog and management curricula.

In addition, a website with self- instruction and tools has been implemented and units are integrating it into interviewing/selection and performance feedback practices.

A “leading practices and learning” performance management strategy that will support the enactment of technical/functional competencies and career community participation (The Regents of UM 1)

Organizational Competency Model: U-M has eight organizational competencies that provide the basis their supervisors evaluate their subordinates on. These competencies include: advancing the mission, building relationships/interpersonal skills, communication, creative problem solving/strategic thinking, development of self and others, flexibility/adaptability to change, leadership/achievement orientation, and quality of service (UM HR 3)

Simmons 14

There are many best practices being conducted by these institutions that UVM could take a deeper look into. Perhaps some of them may be implemented into our current system, in hopes to possibly help improve our compliance rate with the performance management process as a whole.

Interview Results:

As previously mentioned, In February, March and April I conducted in-person interviews with HRS identified contacts in twelve academic and seven administrative units. Those that were interviewed were Peter Blackmer (Libraries), Rose Feenan (School of Environmental and Natural resources), Nicole Chittenden (School of Business Administration), Gary Deziel (Extension), Dennis DePaul (Student and Campus Life), Richard Fanus (College of Agriculture and Life Sciences), Cathi-Cody-Hudson (Continuing Education), Dan Harvey (Research and Graduate College), Patricia Eldred (Administrative and Facilities Services), Debra Routhier (Custodial Services), Jean Evans (College of Education and Social Services), Susan Bristol (College of Medicine), Mary Reilly (College of Mathematics), Linda Burnham (College of Arts and Sciences), Mark Metivier (Development and Alumni Relations), and lastly Wanda Bean (College of Nursing and Health Sciences).

An interview was not conducted with Judy Martelle from the Physical plant because she advised me that the process is identical to Debra Routhier’s Custodial Services Division and the answers given would be universal. To see the complete survey questionnaire with full responses from each participant please see the supplemental section. In addition, the supplemental section provides a list of each interview participant’s title, full name, contact information and time and date of when the interview was completed. Below I will provide a summation of all my interview results for each question.

Question #1: Does your college division conduct performance appraisals?

Of the 16 participants interviewed, 14 stated that their departments do conduct performance appraisals in some way. Overall, 87.5 percent of those interviewed seem to be participating in the performance appraisal process in some way or another. Of the remaining two, Rose Feenan & Nicole Chittenden stated that they used to conduct performance appraisals religiously every year, but currently are not conducting them for various reasons that will be explained later. Rose’s staff has not been evaluated since 2007, and Nicole’s staff has not been evaluated since 2008. An 87.5 percentage rate of completion however does not reflect a reliable figure. Of the 14 that stated they did conduct performance appraisals, many of them admitted that within their specific departments it doesn’t happen for all of their employees. For example: Mark Metivier stated that they do participate in performance evaluations, however out of his 65 employees, around 30 percent of them do not receive a performance evaluation. On the other spectrum there were participants that had 100% completion, and enforced a “no exception” policy when getting performance evaluations done. Mary Reilly, Cathi-Cody Hudson, Dennis

Simmons 15

DePaul, and Gary Deziel practice such policies. Many participants that were not mentioned either don’t agree with the process, or are trying to reach targets of 100 percent completion but have barriers that are hindering their performance in this area.

Questions #2: What are the barriers to conducting performance appraisals?

There are many barriers that individuals have encountered pertaining to conducting performance appraisals. One of the most frequent responses I received to this question was that people are simply too busy to be bothered by them. Given the time constraints, and the length of the initial process, many interviewees find performance appraisal’s to fall towards the bottom of their pile. In addition, many supervisors hate the idea of conducting performance appraisals and their perception of the importance of the whole process is lacking to say the least. Many supervisors think that the forms and process are cumbersome and ineffective. For example, Mark Metivier has very strong opinions on this issue and thinks that performance appraisals are meaningless. He also thinks that the whole process should be thrown out, and departments should be given the choice on whether or not they want to participate. Another factor that effects people’s perception on the importance of performance evaluations is not having merit increases. Since UVM has not had merit increases for the last few years, many supervisors and their subordinates feel that the whole process is pointless.

Other reasons for not completing performance appraisals are sloth, laziness and anxiety. Susan Bristol found that some of her supervisors don’t deal well with interacting with their employees when it comes to performance appraisals and managing in general. Many supervisors think that the whole process can be extremely awkward, especially when the feedback given is negative. In addition, some Susan stated that some supervisors have no formal training on how to manage, let alone on how to effectively complete a performance evaluation. Poor management practices and an overall lack of leadership are presentment throughout UVM’s campus.

Rose Feenan and Nicole Chittenden both mentioned that the reason they are not completing PA’s currently, is because of the transitional and organizational structure changes their departments have been experiencing. Both the school of Business and the Rubenstein School have seen Dean and Assistant Dean changes in the past. Rose stated that it is hard to conduct performance evaluations when employees aren’t aware of whom their immediate supervisor is.

Debra Routhier in Custodial Services explained that in her department a barrier in conducting performance evaluations is the language and culture differences among her employees. English is a second language to several of her employees, so the process translating the form and expecting employees to fill out the form in English is difficult.

Simmons 16

Lastly, the timing of when performance appraisals need to be done is sometimes awkward for certain departments. Mary Reilly stated that when performance appraisals are done at the same time as budget, with no merit increases, it can be misleading to employees.

Question #3: What are your college/division’s management goals in conducting performance appraisals?

Peter Blackmer’s goal is to recognize good performance and reward it. He would like to reward performance with pay increases, but given the financial state of UVM this is not possible at this time. Patricia Eldred also wants to celebrate and recognize good work as she believes that evaluations are not just about pay, but they are about communication recognitions. On the other side of the spectrum, evaluations also serve as a good time to discuss strengths, and areas of improvement.

For many supervisors it is simply about being able to sit down with your employee, have a conversation and give valuable feedback. Within that conversation goals on areas that should be discussed are current performance, how previous goals were met and the discussion of setting future goals. Open communication seems to be a popular goal when conducting performance appraisals. Several of the supervisors interviewed believe that two way communication is crucial when discussing performance issues, and it serves as a good time to chat about what they as a supervisor can do to help further their employees career paths.

Many goals depend on the supervisor conducting the performance review, but for Gary Deziel he wants to create successful employees that feel valued. Gary is one of the rare participants that diligently practices exceptional performance management. Gary requires his supervisors to meet with employees as least four times a year to check up, present goals, and give feedback on current performance. Richard Fanus is not far from behind, and is working at constantly improving their performance operations. He believes that performance evaluations are a vital part of effective management.

Participants like Dan Harvey, and Susan Bristol believe that evaluations are crucial when documenting poor performance and serve as a paper trail that documents such behaviors. At least for those who don’t see the positive benefit, they are able to take advantage of the process nonetheless.

Sadly, for others sometimes it is just about checking it off their list of things to do. Many supervisors and employees put minimal effort into the process. In fact, Mark Metivier believes that performance appraisals are not an integral part of business.

Simmons 17

Question #4 & 5 will be combined together since they are rather similar:

(4) How frequently are performance appraisal’s conducted? (Annually/Other)

(5) At what intervals are performance appraisals conducted? (Probation end, Yearly Other)

As previously mentioned Nicole and Rose’s departments are not currently conducting performance appraisals, but when they did, they were done annually. Of the remaining 14 participants, 13 of them conduct performance appraisal’s at least once a year. Mark Metivier’s department goal is to conduct performance appraisals annually; however, they are actually occurring around every 18 months. Individuals like Dennis DePaul, Susan Bristol, Peter Blackmer, Cathi-Cody-Hudson, and Jean Evans have special circumstances in addition to conducting them annually. Cathi conducts them annually, midyear and at the end of the probation reviewing periods; Dennis’s division conducts a six month and an annual for new hires, Susan’s department conducts performance evaluations at probationary periods if performance issues come up, and lastly Peter conducts them annually in the spring time, or if performance issues arise. Jean and Richard’s departments currently only conduct additional performance appraisals if there are performance issues; however, Jean is trying to move toward a more permanent bi annual cycle. Occasionally Richard will perform an intermittent performance evaluation for employees that are involved in bigger projects that come up.

Question #6: Does your college/division use UVM’s standard performance appraisal form? (Yes/No)

While UVM does give individuals the freedom to use their own form as long as it is approved by Human Resources Services, the majority of those that I interviewed do in fact use the form that is provided by HR. Of the 16 interviewees, 5 only use the UVM form, 3 departments use the form while offering other options, 3 departments use it as a basis to create their own customized forms by modifying it to their specific colleges, and the remaining 5 participants use completely different forms other than the UVM form. Skip Fanus explained that the form his department uses is slightly modified from the UVM form, Nicole Chittenden said that her department uses the UVM form, but has added an additional goal setting sections that is catered to the business school, and lastly, Mark Metivier claimed that the UVM form is 50-60 percent integrated into the current form that his department uses. The last 5 departments have completely different forms that are catered to their individual departments. For example: Dennis DePaul’s department creates a form for each career field; and each form has behavioral and cultural competencies implemented. In the next section I will provide a list of the additional forms and resources that the other departments use.

Simmons 18

Question #7: If no, what forms does your college/division use?

A complete list of forms for those who chose to use a different format for conducting performance evaluations can also be found in the supplemental section. A summary of the forms used and their titles are shown below.

Mark Metivier: Performance Assessment- FY10

Jean Evans: UVM Performance Review

Rose Feenan: Staff Development/Performance Review

Nicole Chittenden: Personnel/goals-planning-staff

Linda Burnham: Performance appraisal form & performance appraisal form (OFFICE)

Deb Routhier: Performance Evaluation form UE (union) Staff, supervisory staff, and non-represented staff

Patricia Eldred: UE Staff, Staff, supervisory staff, director’s performance appraisal

Dennis DePaul: Performance improvement plan

Cathi-Cody-Hudson: EE 360 Assessment, CE’s annual performance appraisal process, Excel CE Template

Question #8: Describe your college/division performance appraisal process.

Most departments receive notification from HR that PE’s are to be done, they then would forward such emails, or write their own email notifying their staff that it’s time to do performance evaluations. In addition to departments sending out emails, supervisors are expected to do them, if they don’t monthly reminders are sent out, phone calls are made, and some get spoken with in person if the process goes unattended for too long. The general process is that evaluations are completed, the supervisor and employee discuss and finalize them through an open dialogue/narrative, the employee then gets a copy, a copy is kept on file within the divisions’ personnel files, and lastly, most are forwarded to central HR. A few individuals keep a master list or have a designated employee whom is in charge of keeping track of who has done them, and who has not.

While most of the departments that I interviewed have a fairly straightforward, similar process, there were a few departments that stood out as having a unique, unconventional way of completing performance evaluations. Below I will briefly describe a few of these methods.

Patricia Eldred: For Patricia, like the others, she sends out an email saying that it is time to do PA’s and if people fail to comply she hounds them until they do. When the evaluations are

Simmons 19

completed they are sent to Patricia and her assistant Janet is delegated the task of keeping a master checklist. If Janet finds that some PA’s are missing, she sends additional emails to those who haven’t completed them. Patricia also sends all employees a narrative sheet that she asks them to fill out by rating themselves; this is done with the expectation that it will be returned in a timely manner. Lastly, once Patricia receives an employee’s rating of themselves, she reciprocates with her own rating of them by using the seven Baldrige Criteria. (Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer Focus, Measurement/Analysis, Knowledge Management, Work Force Focus and Operations Focus and Results)

In addition to this process, Patricia Eldred oversees Deb Routhier’s Custodial division and receives all performance evaluations from this department. For Union employees within the Custodial division, a supervisor performs the evaluations, and the employees receive a copy once this has been done. The employee is then allowed to review the copy for three days, after this three day period a meeting is held between the employee and their immediate supervisor to add an addendum, or not. After the reviewing process is complete and finalized, the paperwork is forward to Patricia, which then is forwarded to central HR.

Dennis DePaul: Dennis is the prompter of this process for his division and diligently holds monthly meetings with his supervisors discussing performance evaluations. Within his department a little friendly competition of seeing which supervisor can hand in all of his/her employee evaluations first occurs. Dennis’s supervisors/directors send him a list of all their employees and the dates that their PA’s were done, (or when they will be done if they haven’t already). In addition, an electronic and hard copy is sent to HR. More specifically in Dennis’s office, each department is required to send him 2-4 potential problematic employees, or shining star employees. A shining star employee is one that excels in all aspects of job performance.

Gary Fanus: Gary also is the prompter for his division and he holds quarterly meetings with everyone to discuss foundations and rules regarding performance appraisals. For his department PA’s are arranged one to two months in advance, and employees receive an email self-assessment form approximately one week before their initial performance meeting. The employee is expected to fill that out prior to the meeting. Then the employee and the supervisor conduct the PA, a copy gets sent to HR and a copy remains in house.

Lastly, the individual I interviewed who has the most detailed process, which requires the uttermost effort for completion, is part of the Continuing Education segment of our university. Given that the Continuing Education’s process is so detailed and rather extensive, below I will simply provide a brief summary. For more details on this method and the forms used, one can find the entire procedure with comprehensive directions in supplemental section.

Cathi-Cody-Hudson:

Simmons 20

Step 1: The initial process starts in November: Each employee and each employee’s supervisor are responsible for forwarding to Cathi a list of (4) colleagues’ names who they would like to complete their 360 assessment form on their job performance. The deadline for these lists is December 1st.

Step 2/3: From this list of (8), Cathi chooses (6) names, which coincide evenly with each person’s list (3 from each). After this list has been chosen Cathi then sends her supervisors a list of their subordinates, for whom they need to complete a 360 evaluation for. All supervisors are given a code for each employee so that they may complete the 360 assessment online through Survey Monkey. All 360 assessments must be completed by the first week of January.

Step 4: In December, program and function team leaders should facilitate a team meeting to identify future goals for team members in relation to their role on the team and the teams priorities. A list of these goals is required, and must be submitted in an excel worksheet that is provided by Cathi for input into the EPA (employee performance evaluation) template.

Step 5: In January, Cathi runs all 360 assessment aggregate summary reports/individual reports and distributes them to her supervisors. The EPA template worksheets are prepared by Cathi and sent to supervisors and employees for their completion.

Step 6/7: By February 15th, EPA documents must be complete in preparation for the initial EPA meeting between (supervisor’s and employees). Between February 15th, and March 15th, EPA meetings must occur to evaluate current goals/accomplishment and review future team goals. Supervisors and employees may choose to discuss and add individual goals if they choose to do so. Supervisors are expected to schedule meetings with each employee to review a 360 aggregate summary (provide a copy to the employee), complete the EPA document and discuss general performance and goals.

Step 8: Deadline for process is March 31st; EPA document must be finalized, signed, copied and submitted by this time. Cathi then sends to UVM Employee Relations Office for employee’s official UVM file.

Questions #9: How does your college/division encourage, support, train and hold managers/supervisors accountable for conducting performance appraisals?

Often when authoritative figures have negative attitudes towards the performance appraisal process it tends to trickle down the subordinate ladder. Several of the individuals I interviewed admitted that there are no repercussions for supervisors that do not complete their performance evaluations. A number of supervisors are not held accountable and slip through the performance management cracks. Many believe that with merit absent there is no incentive to complete them. In addition to this there is no reward or punishment; Nicole Chittenden believes that money cannot be taken away when there are no merit increases in the first place. Low

Simmons 21

participation may be linked to the lack of accountability within certain departments, or the scare attendance and availability of training programs. Sadly, some departments only encourage performance appraisals to be completed when there are performance problems.

Despite those who try to ignore the process in hopes it will magically disappear, there are solid enforcers that ensure performance evaluations get completed. Dan Harvey mentioned that he has never encountered a problem getting his staff to complete them, but if he were to in the future he would give them a black mark on their own individual evaluations. Richard Fanus has similar logic; those who do not complete their performance evaluations typically get a note from the Dean. If this note does not prompt them to complete them, it is likely that on their individual evaluation it will mention their failure to comply with such policy. In Debra and Patricia’s units, Union contracts require that performance evaluations be completed at least once a year. Although this does not apply for all of their affiliated employees, both Debra and Patricia mandate their completion. Given that their department has over 500 employees there may be a few that go unnoticed, but the percentage is small. For Patricia the penalty for supervisors that do not complete them is a write up on their own evaluations. Patricia also stated that when merit money returns to UVM, she won’t hesitate to take it away from those who do not complete their performance evaluations. The ultimate goal is to complete them and find out why they are not being done. Once Patricia learns why they are not being done she makes an effort to help that supervisor complete them before she resorts to punishment.

For Dennis, Peter, Cathi, Mary, Gary and Jean there are no exceptions to the rule as supervisors are required to complete them. Each one of the people I have mentioned diligently monitors all of their supervisors until all the evaluations have been completed. Failure to complete them is not an option. Gary Deziel’s department offers a supervisor training series in conducting performance evaluations that he requires all of his employees to go to. There is also one person in charge of keeping a checklist and tracking their completion. Cathi also provides training on how to conduct performance evaluations and encourages her supervisors to go to learning services for further guidance. Dennis’s approach is the most unique of them all; Dennis has created a friendly competition within his division as supervisors race to see who can get their performance evaluations done first.

Question #10: Does the location and setting where supervisors meet with employees to conduct/discuss performance appraisals allow for privacy and promote a culture of respect, if so, how?

Of the 16 interview participants 13 either held their meetings in a private office with staff and supervisors present, in a private conference room, or in an entirely different location and setting all together. Most supervisors understood the importance of having a private, neutral space and tried to ensure this occurred during all performance meetings. For meetings that were held in a supervisor’s office, an extra effort was made to make employees feel comfortable by

Simmons 22

holding the meeting at a supplemental table within the office. The benefit of this was to eliminate the intimidation and authoritative factor; supervisors did this by sitting next to the employee rather than behind their own desk. Supervisors also allowed the employee to sit near the door in case they felt the need to leave.

Gary Deziel and Peter Blackmer have unique approaches to holding their performance meetings. For Gary these meetings were held on an entirely different floor from where the employee worked so that there was no leakage. Meetings we also held in private corner office locations in Rutland Vermont. Peter required that all meetings happened off site and not within the supervisor’s office. Peter told me of times he took employees to the Davis center lounge, or to local coffee shops when conducting performance appraisals. Although this method is rather unorthodox, it is still very effective.

Of the remaining 3 interview participants, 2 had no idea how their performance appraisal meetings were conducted and could not comment on the details regarding this matter. Susan Bristol was among these few and admitted that sometimes performance evaluations were simply handed in without even being discussed. The last participant, being Nicole Chittenden, explained that when her department was conducting their performance evaluations they were done by email. This method is rather impersonal and very ineffective in my opinion.

Question #11: Do employees participate in personal goal setting for the coming year(s)? (Yes/No) If yes, please explain.

With the exception of Rose, Linda, and Nicole’s departments, all of the participants interviewed answered yes when asked if their employees participate in personal goal setting. Whether employee goal setting is done through a self-assessment goal setting process, a written narrative, email, or a self-assessment form, all interviewees agreed that goal setting is a crucial process in performance management. Even the departments that are not currently conducting performance appraisals stated that when they were doing them, goal setting was a major part of the process. The only outlier within this question was Linda Burnham; Linda had no idea if employee goal setting was taking place in her department.

The general process of employee goal setting is to have employees fill out a form on their individual goals, if the form was relevant to that employee. The next step is for the employee and the supervisor to have a conversation about how the employee feels about their performance in meeting past goals. The employee and supervisors then continue to discuss the employees past performance, and from this discussion comes the creation of future goals for the coming year.

Goal setting is believed to be a collaborative process so it is important for the employee and the supervisor to come up with individual goals for the employees that are in line with the organizations general mission. For example, Gary Deziel writes 1-3 goals for each employee, and expects his employees to come to their meeting with a few goals of their own. This meeting

Simmons 23

serves as a Segway where Gary and his subordinates can discuss what each other have come up with.

For individuals like Patricia Eldred, the process is a little lengthier. Goal setting is major for Patricia’s division, so she starts out by giving each employee a prefilled form filled with their past goals from the previous year. From this form, the employees are asked to fill out how they think they did in meeting their goals. Patricia and her employees then have a conversation about future goals she would like them to strive for. Lastly, from this process Patricia uses the seven Balridge Criteria including (leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, measurement analysis, knowledge management, workforce focus, and operations focus and results) to give the employee a written narrative on how she thinks they met their individual and organizational goals.

Question #12: Are performance appraisals tracked within the college/division? (Yes/No)

12 of the 16 departments surveyed said that there was some sort of tracking being done within their specific college division. Although it may be in the form of simple lists and excel spreadsheets, at least an effort is being made. Two of the remaining four who answered no to this questions include Rose Feenan and Nicole Chittenden; Rose and Nicole used to track performance appraisals but since they are not currently doing them, their previous actions do not apply. Jean Evans and Susan Bristol stated that there is no metrics for them to track performance appraisals within their specific college division. Susan also stated that it may be possible that various departments are doing them keeping them in house and not sending them to central HR, but there is no way to know for sure. A large majority of the various departments that are tracking their results keep a copy on file within their specific Deans office, give the employee a copy, and then send an additional copy to central HR.

Question #13: What do you think works well in your college/division, and what doesn’t?

Most departments that conducted performance appraisals by choice or even by force did acknowledge the fact that they are an extremely useful tool for giving positive and negative feedback to employees. The best thing observed about performance evaluations is that giving employee’s positive feedback increased morale, and helped set the context for improvement. Other benefits mentioned were that performance evaluations increased communication among employees and their supervisors, helped establish goals, and addressed any issues that need to be dealt with. Communication is one of the main variables needed to create better relationships within any organization, and helps encourage a less confrontational work environment. Many individuals surveyed stated that when supervisors regularly communicate with their staff it provides employees with a good understanding of where they stand with their supervisors on a performance basis. Face to face communication is the preferred method among those interviewed, because one on one time makes employees feel like they are valued and that their opinions matter.

Simmons 24

Things that didn’t work so well were that the process is time consuming, and the time and effort put into the process is not always 100%. In Susan’s department her faculty often only think about clinical, research and teaching; she finds that her staff fail to look at managing their subordinates and conducting performance evaluations. Other departments feel that supervisors don’t have the ability or skills to conduct respectful conversations when it is time to give negative feedback. A lack of training on how to conduct performance evaluations effectively does sometimes get in the way during uncomfortable meetings with employees. Jean Evans commented that some supervisors have a hard time separating their personal relationships with employees during evaluation periods as favoritism is a problem that she faces in her department. Jean finds that many supervisors become protective of certain staff members, despite their inadequate performance, simply because of their personal relationships.

In terms of the effectiveness of the forms, some find that they work perfectly, some find they need to be updated, and the rest value the flexibility of using their own form. For Debra Routhier a large majority of her employees require a translator when filling out their performance evaluation forms. The language barrier tends to cause a lot of response content to get lost in translation. Lastly, another problem that was noted within my research was that when there are no merit increases, employee morale tends to go down. Supervisors often have a hard time dealing with this as it is completely out of their hands.

Questions #14: When would be an ideal time of year to conduct performance appraisals?

A range of answers were given to this question so it is hard to clearly pinpoint one time that is best for all. Many interviewees felt that the answer to this question was situational and depended on the circumstances. Rose Feenan stated that many people run on a different cycle in her division, while faculty members are only employed nine months out of the year, finding a time that coordinates with their academic schedule is tough. In her division some perform the evaluations in November, and some in April. While many believe there is never an ideal time to conduct performance evaluations, there are many that would like to do them closer to their fiscal year so that they are completed before the next year. Other recommendations were to coordinate them with faculty evaluations or anniversaries.

It is hard to please everyone, as preferences differ for many of the departments, some want to do them in the months of January and February when budget decisions are being made so that performance evaluations can be tied to merit increase, while others want to do them in the months of March, April, May, June and July. Several individuals completely disagree with tying them to merit, and want to separate them as much as possible. Another popular time to do them that was suggested was between the months of September and December, when the semester starts to slow down for many employees. As previously mentioned, it is hard to pinpoint one time that works best for everyone, but it may benefit our HR department to listen to Patricia

Simmons 25

Eldred’s philosophy on this question; which states that as long as they are getting completed, it may pay off in the long run to be a little flexible with the time frame.

Question #15: If you have ideas about improving UVM’s current performance appraisal process, please explain.

Peter Blackmer had a suggestion that I think is worth noting here. He recommended that we create a data system that could track an individual’s performance over time. He believes that technology could do a better job for aggregating and synthesizing data that management can utilize. Others simply felt that improvement lies in the universities attitude towards them, because there are no repercussions for not completing them, it makes people wonder the purpose for doing them. The message needs to be sent from the top in order for those at the bottom to follow. One comment said was that UVM needs to provide an incentive for doing them. Rose stated that HR could have an annual PE kickoff with trainings, or implement a web based system where forms and data on performance evaluations can be accessed, submitted and tracked online. This system should also grant flexibility for each department, so that they can cater it to their individual needs.

Several other suggestions involved implementing additional training, and advertising it campus wide. Gary Deziel says that HR 101 is all about formal education and campus wide implementation. Lastly, other areas of improvement were within the UVM offered forms, a few individuals believed the form needed to be updated on its content as well as its format. For example, Richard thinks the form is very repetitive and some of the categories simply do not apply to all departments.

Question #16: How could Human Resource Services support your efforts?

Some individuals failed to comment on this area, or believed that HR should only work with units who want to do performance evaluations for the right reasons, other than just checking them off. Another viewpoint made was that HR should drop the entire process and retain it as a service, for those who want to participate. Surprisingly, one individual believed that for the performance evaluation process to work, it needed to be done with an outside consultant that has no emotional attachment whatsoever. This outside consultant would be responsible for creating and overseeing the entire process. It is evident that this option is not likely to happen.

Additional comments on this question noted the importance of mandating the process entirely by holding people accountable and standardizing the process. Other popular answers were that HR could provide more links and services on how to conduct performance appraisals; this includes having better web resources with information on the importance of conducting them, how they are conducted and other tips necessary for successful completion.

Simmons 26

To go off of that point, the general consensus was that HR should provide more training sessions and workshops, on the importance of performance evaluations and proper ways to conduct them. Many of those interviewed believed that in addition to mandating the actual process, HR should mandate web based and onsite training for supervisors on areas linked to performance evaluations. Susan, Dennis and Richard mentioned that not all managers in their departments have good leadership, management, or interpersonal skills. Additionally, not all managers are trained on diversity and culture, and could benefit from such training.

Critiques to the UVM form were that it is difficult to use and should be modified because it is believed to be too generic. On a more technical note, several individuals mentioned that creating an electronic system that keeps track of performance evaluation records would be beneficial campus wide. This option also cuts down on the paperwork needed to be stored for this area, and cuts down on wasted time, money and space. Some sort of online system would be beneficial to many, but only if it could be modified for departments that have unique needs.

Question #17: What are your views on decoupling merit and performance?

To my knowledge merit has not been available at UVM for the past couple years, in addition those who make a base pay of over $70,000 do not receive merit increases. Having merit absent effects departments in many different ways. One problem with this process is if merit is tied to increases, and there are no merit pool funds available, it becomes difficult for supervisors to find the motivation to complete performance evaluations, and for employees to put in the extra effort in their performance if everyone is thought to be getting the same increase, or remaining the same. Merit is believed to give employees an incentive to work harder, and when raises or increases remain stagnant that motivation dwindles fast. Financial incentives are not the only factor in influencing employees to work harder, nor should they be the only reasoning for completing performance evaluations. However, the reality is that merit is important to people for many reasons.

Of the 16 participants interviewed, 11 stated that merit should be tied to performance, 1 stated that it shouldn’t be tied, and the remaining 4 were on the fence about the whole situation. Of those who claimed that it should always be tied their reasoning was merit is a good tool to reward their top performers. They want to be able to reward good performers, and it is assumed that you cannot provide merit without good performance indicators. The problems with this logic is 1) that if they are tied, and there are no merit increases, supervisors have no control over this process and 2) you have to place a lot of trust within your managers to be fair as the performance evaluations can sometimes be subjective, as it is a matter of who is writing them and how they feel in that moment. Whether or not merit is tied to performance, Mary Reilly states that “in people’s minds it is always going to be tied”. Mary believes that we should think of other creative ways to motivate and reward our staff. People respond well to good working conditions,

Simmons 27

support, and an enthusiastic office culture. She also believes that having a job and a place that you enjoy working at goes a long way.

Of the remaining individuals who are on the fence with this issue, it is believed that merit can be tied to performance, but it should not be the only reason for conducting evaluations. Jean Evans stresses the importance of giving positive feedback regardless if raises occur or not. She also noted that when there are merit increases there must be a measure to base them off of as it is hard to separate the two from one another. Gary Deziel added that his performance evaluations are tied to merit from a logical perspective, however, his division does not talk about pay in the actual performance evaluation. He stresses the importance of separating the two because money is not the most important factor, being recognized for what you have done, what you are doing, and receiving guidance and suggestions for personal growth is where the real value lies.

Question #18: If performance appraisals were mandated, would this change anything for you either positively, or negatively: please explain.

While a few individuals had no comment on whether or not this would be a good thing, the general consensus geared slightly more in favor of mandating the process entirely. Those in favor of mandating the process felt that it would 1) make them feel better about doing them knowing that all UVM employees were treated equally if everyone was doing them, and 2) it would help create a standard, unified process that everyone must follow.

Typically those who are in favor of mandating the process at UVM have some sort of strict performance guidelines in place and already require it in their specific divisions. For example Gary Deziel, Patricia Eldred, Cathi-Cody-Hudson, Dennis DePaul, and Mary Reilly already hold their supervisors accountable, while granting no option for failure to complete. As mentioned before there are repercussions being enforced for non-compliance, but generally those who are in favor of mandating performance evaluations see it as a benefit to the university as a whole. It is believed that a campus wide mandate would help create uniformity, and could be a valuable resource for hiring employees internally. Cathi mentioned that more than 50 percent of the time when she goes to find an evaluation on an employee during the hiring process, there is not one available. If performance evaluations were mandated a record for all employees would be readily available campus wide so that obtaining resources on candidates for hiring would be easier. Dennis suggested that the university could give some sort of incentive to those who complete their performance evaluations and turn them in first; in hopes that maybe it would spark some interest.

On the other side of the spectrum, there are valid concerns that were brought to my attention that should be taken into consideration before mandating the process entirely. A few participants believed that a mandate from HR will not be taken seriously, and only felt that people would comply if the requirement came from the provost’s office. In addition, it was believed that if the process was made mandatory it wouldn’t be the solution to the problem, and

Simmons 28

it would create more work. It is said that if there is no quality control to make sure that the forms are being completed in a meaningful and efficient way, that the mandate would be a waste of time. Lastly, if the form were to be mandated that would create additional strain on the HR department as some tracking and enforcement initiatives would have to be monitored and set forth.,

Recommendations:

One can conclude that the majority of those interviewed do agree that performance evaluations have positive benefits within their organization, despite the complications that may arise from doing them. However, it is evident that our university still has a long way to go in reaching higher levels of compliance with this process. As with anything, there are always a select few difficult individuals that will fight the process no matter what changes are being made, nonetheless, this should not hinder HR from increasing their involvement in holding everyone accountable for completing performance evaluations campus wide. Segal Sibson stresses the importance of having organizations create a sound performance culture, that implements goal setting, performance tracking and feedback, regular performance evaluations and performance improvement initiatives.

If UVM can create a sound performance culture through the recommendations I have listed below, our performance management process will improve indefinitely. I understand and identify with those who stated that the process should be revamped before it can be mandated; however, once HR does actually modify the performance evaluation process in a positive way, mandating should not be far behind. Peer institutions like Cornell, UCONN have successfully mandated their performance evaluation process. I am aware that mandating may cause a fuss, and increase the amount of time and energy HR has to spend on holding departments that default accountable, but I believe this increased effort will help reinforce HR’s belief that the process is valuable and worth everyone’s time to complete. If HR can put the extra time and effort into it, and lead by a positive example in time others will begin to follow. There must be accountability, without that the process is destined to fail.

One recommendation that I have come up with from my research is to increase the educational awareness of the performance evaluation process entirely. HR could do this by offering & or mandating training programs that are specifically geared towards educating supervisors and employees on the importance of performance evaluations and how to effectively conduct them. In my research I have found that many supervisors lack the skills and ability to effectively conduct performance evaluations, while this is not the only reason, it is one of the leading variables as to why PA’s sometimes don’t get completed. Additional trainings that assist supervisors with their management, leadership and interpersonal skills (including culture and diversity awareness) may also help increase confidence in conducting PE’s. Potential trainings

Simmons 29

offered in the future could follow SHRMS best practices and should discuss topics including but not limited to:

Performance Management Training Topics: (Pulakos 39) Philosophy and uses of the system. Description of the rating process. Roles and responsibilities of employees and managers. How to plan performance, set expectations and set goals. How to provide accurate evaluations, minimizing rating errors and rating inflation. The importance of ongoing, constructive, specific behavioral feedback. How to seek feedback effectively from others. How to react to and act on feedback in a constructive manner. How to give feedback in a manner that minimizes defensiveness and maintains self-

esteem. How to identify and address development needs. How to use the automated system and related software.

One peer institution that has sound training initiatives is: Cornell University. As previously mentioned Cornell’s HR offers regular training sessions that focus on how the performance review process works, how to get the most out of the discussion and how the process ties-in with other important processes. Lastly, Cornell offers over 2,000 SkillSoft Online Courses that further educate employees on all areas regarding performance management (Cornell). If UVM were to implement some sort of training initiatives that were similar to that of Cornell’s, it would greatly improve our performance management process.

Lastly, with training being implemented, HR must evaluate and trace the completion of such offerings. Mandating that all supervisors go through some sort of training regarding the performance management process will undoubtedly help them understand how to better perform, as well as increase their knowledge on the logical importance of PE’s. Educating employees and supervisors on the importance of PE’s from a physiological rather than financial standpoint can help curb some of the frustration when merit rewards are absent.

Another best practice I observed from SHRM and many individuals interviewed recommended are to automate UVM’s performance management process. The purpose of this internship was to get valuable feedback from UVM’s HR representatives within all the divisions interviewed regarding this process. The hope is that in the near future UVM will be able to convert to a web based system like People’s Admin. If UVM were to implement a web based program this would be in line with SHRM’s best practices, because it would increase the automation of UVM performance management process. A web based system could raise compliance significantly. In addition, I recommend that if UVM does decide to convert to a web based system, they should consider pilot testing before a campus wide implementation happens. Pilot testing is also one of SHRM’s best practices. Though no final decisions have been made, UVM is taking into consideration all opinions and variables regarding this matter.

Simmons 30

Given that technology sometimes does a better job at aggregating and synthesizing data than people, for this reason HR could provide more links and services online for reference. Having better web resources with necessary tips, advice and suggestions, could greatly improve educational awareness.

Another recommendation I have for HR is that when departments/divisions are anticipating political structure changes, whether it be the replacement of a new Dean or Assistant Dean, HR could make an effort to place extra attention within these departments. If they did this, it would help ensure that all employees receive the feedback that they are entitled too, despite variables that may have otherwise prevented such completion. Other areas that HR could make note of are departments that have certain variables that decrease the effectiveness of PE’s. As previously mentioned, Deb Routhier commented that in her department a barrier in conducting performance evaluations is the language and culture differences among her employees. Given that English is a second language to several of her employees, and the process of translating the form is difficult, HR could cater specific services to departments that face these unconventional problems. In this case, assisting that department in hiring/providing translators or creating a form in other applicable languages may increase the effectiveness of the evaluation.

Other recommendations were to have HR offer additional forms; many believe the current forms format is cumbersome and ineffective. If HR provided a few options, other than the standard form that currently exists, this may help eliminate some of the burden. Updating UVM’s current forms and processes to included competency models could also help benefit the compliance rate. SHRM, Segal Sibson and peer institutions including UNH, and UM have stressed the importance of implementing competency models into their performance appraisal practices. As previously mentioned SHRM believes that “competency models articulate the knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics that are deemed to be the most instrumental for achieving positive organization outcomes (Pulakos 21).” SHRM best practices recommend that organizations implement 5-10 key competency areas they would like to measure; the University of New Hampshire and Michigan are successfully following SHRM best practices. In the future, UVM could implement such models into our own performance management process.

In addition, HR could look into the deadline for when evaluations have to be completed. All departments preferences differ greatly in this area, and an in depth look may be what is needed to get better compliance.

Lastly, I believe that it is important for HR to meet with their HR reps and discuss areas of concern. Communication is the key to success in all aspects of life and HR must stress the importance of communication between supervisor’s and their subordinates, as well communicating their intentions and future plans to help eradicate the performance evaluation issue. For example New York University has a wonderful program called SPEAK that UVM could implement. This program is designed to encourage communication throughout the year

Simmons 31

and divides discussions into three parts; beginning of year, throughout the year, and end of year communication. UVM could implement a similar communication program within their performance management process.

Having people on board is the only way to positively move forward. While it is impossible to please everyone, gathering others thoughts and opinions and taking them into consideration are good steps in the right direction. While I’m sure you could listen to my recommendation opinions forever, one person in mind that has experience in some of the areas that UVM wants to work on is Kay Larson: below are the results from my phone interview with her regarding People’s Administration.

People Admin Performance Module Questionnaire Results:

Given that UVM currently uses PeopleAdmin for applicant tracking and is assessing how to effectively use the performance management module, it is only natural that we gain insight from someone who has had previous experience in implementing the full People Administration system. The focus of my internship was to collect information about performance appraisal processes that could help enhance UVM’s current system. To do that, our HR department felt that it would be extremely beneficial to contact Kay Larson from the University of West Florida (UWF). Mrs. Larson is the current Manager and Employment Trainer at UWF; her name was provided to us by Melissa Olszewski at PeopleAdmin as a current user of the performance management module.

I conducted a brief half hour phone interview with Mrs. Larson asking her questions pertaining to her experience with the PeopleAdmin performance management module. Attached in the supplemental section, one can see the complete questionnaire, as well as her full responses to each question. This interview provided valuable insight that will be useful for UVM in the future if they decide to implement the full web based performance management module.

The University of West Florida has been using the applicant tracking system since 2004 and found People admin to be the best product out there. For this reason Mrs. Larson encouraged UWF to use this particular tool on campus. People Admin allows its users to customize their own processes, and this was the dominant factor that effected UWF decisions to implement the system. Currently, the system is being used for roughly 750 staff at UWF.

The new system rollout was a fairly simple process. UMF went with a stage rollout and did the system live internally to Human Resources (HR) only between the months of September to December. There were a total of three HR users that had access to the entire system and on December 1st UWF went live throughout the whole campus by making performance evaluations available online. UWF’s complete rollout coincided with their January performance evaluation deadline and the entire campus had been trained up to that point. Mrs. Larson felt that it would somewhat force everyone into the system given that performance evaluations were immediately

Simmons 32

due that January. To my surprise the whole process from start to finish only took six months. People Admin’s goal is to complete this transition within this time frame; as they are very eager to stick to these designated timelines. UMF was given a date of when People Admin wanted to go live with the system, and were expected to coordinate the project accordingly.

Training for the use of the new system was conducted in a live two phase type of process. The first training session incorporated employees, supervisors, department heads and vice presidents. During this training UWF taught employees how to access the system as an employee user; after this training was completed those who were not supervisors, department heads or VP’s were allowed to leave, given that the next training applications only pertained to the remaining few. It was encouraged for everyone to be there for the full training, but it wasn’t required. Everyone has access to the system, but people have different user types. On the performance side, only user types that will work are employee supervisors and reviewing officers. In addition to this, there is a user type called special/evaluation administrator, within this user type each department has a super user that is predetermined by the Dean/department head or VP, which is then granted access to all of the performance evaluations for their given department.

Regarding the systems workflow, employees are expected to start the initial process. Supervisors receive the employee’s portion of the performance evaluation, which then is sent to a reviewing officer. If the reviewing officer is in agreement with the performance evaluation, it is sent back to the supervisor and the supervisor then meets with the employee so that they may have a face to face interaction to discuss the appraisal. After this form of communication is complete, the supervisor is required to send the performance evaluation to the employee to certify; the employee sends it back to the supervisor and then finally it is sent to HR. Mrs. Larson encourages supervisors to adhere to such policies; however, there is no set punishment for supervisors who do not complete evaluations. The way UWF handles this situation when it happens, is to implement a default rating for an employee whose supervisor failed to complete a performance evaluation. What this means is that whatever rating was given prior, will be the default rating for the current period.

Within this system UWF uses one form for several different types of users. The one form UWF uses can do annual appraisals, and special appraisals, which are appraisals that are done out of cycle for excellent or poor performance. In addition, there is a position orientation form: this includes a probationary year evaluation, which initially comes from the same form, but is modified with an added drop down menu that supervisors can choose from if its probation, annual, or special.

Overall users of the new system find the tool to be user friendly and efficient. This can be reflected by recent data compiled by UWF. The first year the system was in place HR received 100 percent of their performance evaluations back. Currently, UWF is in their fourth cycle of

Simmons 33

performance evaluations and are averaging a 95 percent completion rate. The past percentage rate prior to the system being implemented was 78%, which is relatively high, but it is safe to say that the system has had a very positive impact. Mrs. Larson explained to me that people appreciate the ease of the system. The system is paperless, and all of the information like position descriptions and performance evaluations are readily available. Mrs. Larson went on to explain that the system is extremely reliable, and she has never had to deal with glitches because People Admin changed all of the main frames. One benefit of the program is that it is not housed on your schools system, its main frame is web based and all of the information is stored in Texas.

Recommendations for UVM: People Admin. System

Mr. Larson recommendations to UVM’s HR department were to develop expectations on how you expect the process to work before you engage into the process. It is imperative that UVM determines what processes will work for you. Mrs. Larson stated that “People Admin does not fix your problems; but they will however integrate a system for you to complete whatever it is that you want to do”. It is UVM’s responsibility to clearly define what it is exactly that they are looking to get out of the system. It is important to do your research and communicate to People Admin what it is you are looking for. Ways to research and communicate are to perform focus groups on various university populations so UVM can see what various departments need and want from the system.

Once these objectives have been defined, Mrs. Larson recommended that UVM keep their implementation team small. At UWF, their implementation team consisted of three HR officials and one information technology specialist. It is also important to have a clear decision making process that includes where authority lies within the team. Another recommendation Mrs. Larson made to UVM when implementing is to make sure that when you are in the testing phase of the process to make sure you are diligently testing. It is imperative that you do everything and anything you can think of that could possibly go wrong when users are using the system. Some examples of errors users encounter when using the system are: starting multiple documents, not saving documents, and/or routing to the wrong place. The only frustration Mrs. Larson has had with the system is that users can sometimes lose their work if it is not saved properly. However, she mentioned “that it is impossible to jam the system up, it may run slow at times but People Admin is good at notifying you of any problems”. In addition, Mrs. Larson mentioned that the system does not maintain itself, and effort from our implementation team must be put forth to preserve the system.

When designing and catering the system to our university Mrs. Larson strongly recommended that we not try and create a whole new process. She mentioned that if UVM has a current paper process in place that people are using and are familiar with, it is best to try and replicate that paper process into the electronic system. Ultimately if UVM follows this tip it should make the process easier for users and staff.

Simmons 34

Lastly, training is one of the most important aspects of implementing the system. UMF created all of their own manuals; this includes updating them and sending them to People Admin to update them on the website. Mrs. Larson also made cheat sheets with quick tips and simple instructions on how to do a performance evaluation on the system. Demos are also available and Mrs. Larson informed me that she would be happy to oversee a demo for UVM when they are getting closer to implementing the system on their own. To conclude the interview results, my recommendation for UVM is to follow all of the tips and advice that Mrs. Larson suggested. I believe that her experience is valuable and we should take up her offer of giving our university a private demo on the People Admin module. If UVM can fully dedicate its efforts in this area, it is almost inevitable that People admin will help create a more sound performance management process.

Concluding thoughts on Internship:

~Message to Mentors~

Overall this has been one of the toughest assignments I have ever had to do in terms of my schooling career. I never fully knew how much work would go into this internship, but I am proud to have been a part of something that may help benefit UVM in the future. The experience I had will stay with me forever. It is truly rewarding to say that you had a part in something that will help benefit the university, especially after my graduation. Typically with generic classes, assignments are completed, and after the class ends there is not much linkage with the University as a whole. However, with my internship, the work I completed will be used for a greater purpose. Not only did I get experience in my academic concentration and desired field of study, but I was able to enhance my interviewing, communication, speaking and presentation skills. In addition, having an internship enhances my resume and helps increase my chances of getting into graduate school or obtaining a position in my desired field of study. I want to thank you for granting me this opportunity, and I appreciate all of you guiding me through this process. It was challenging to say the least, but we got through it and in the end wonderful results were found.

Sincerely,

Nicole Simmons