• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Susan Alt - Performance Evaluations presentation | 03/09
 

Susan Alt - Performance Evaluations presentation | 03/09

on

  • 726 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
726
Views on SlideShare
726
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Susan Alt - Performance Evaluations presentation | 03/09 Susan Alt - Performance Evaluations presentation | 03/09 Presentation Transcript

    • HR Fundamentals Classified Performance Evaluation Susan Alt Director Employee and Labor Relations March 12, 2009
    • Performance Evaluations
      • Non-Academic Professionals & Administrators
      • Due date: April 15, 2009
        • Human Resources/Affirmative Action
        • 110 Hamilton Hall, 994-2042
        • Marj Brown (marjb@montana.edu)
        • Diane Letendre (dletendre@montana.edu)
    • Performance Evaluations
      • Faculty
      • Due Date: March 31, 2009
        • Faculty Handbook specifies the policies and procedures for annual review of tenurable and non-tenurable faculty
        • Provost’s Office
        • 212 Montana Hall, 994-4371
    • Performance Management
      • Definition : process in which management and employees work together to accomplish the mission, goals and objectives of their organization
      • More than an annual paper shuffle
      • A constant ongoing process (few jobs remain constant)
    • Performance Management
      • Requires continual communication and gathering of information about performance
      • Cyclical process
      • Planning, setting expectations, and communicating
      • Observation and communicating
      • Evaluation and communicating
    • Performance Evaluation
      • Definition : a more involved feedback session, with discussion, covering many aspects of performance over a period of time
      • Formal, Written
      • Done WITH the employee, not TO the employee
      • Communicate, communicate, communicate!
      • No surprises!
    • Purpose, Process, Procedure
      • Purpose – why do it?
      • Process – how to do it?
      • Procedure – how we do it at MSU!
    • Purpose
      • Purpose - Why Do It?
      • Personnel Policy 600 – http://www2.montana.edu/policy/performance evaluation policy.htm
      • An annual performance evaluation is required for classified and contract professional employees; the formal annual evaluation will identify job responsibilities and performance objectives and measure actual performance against identified job duties and expectations.
      • Management Best Practice – aids in making management decisions; ensures that department and unit mission, goals, and objectives are in alignment and being met
    • Purpose, cont’d
      • Provides on-going, two-way communication between employee and the manager
      • Sets clear expectations to employees
      • Employees want to know what is expected of them
      • Facilitates employee development and growth
      • Retain good employees – attract, focus, and keep your most talented employees
      • Satisfactory participation in the performance evaluation process is required before considering a supervisor’s request to award …
      • Flexible Pay Options available through the MUS Staff Compensation Plan
    • Process Tools
      • Updated job/role description
      • Review and/or update duties, tasks, activities
      • Set/establish expectations and/or goals
        • Focus on job related skills or activities – realistic and achievable
        • Work performance and behaviors – objectively observable and measurable
        • Reasonable indicators of successful performance are expressed in terms of quality, quantity, timeliness, cost
        • Performance measures/indicators are subject to change, are not permanent, are not perfect
      •  
    • Process Feedback
      • Definition : information about performance communicated to the employee soon after the performance occurs or the information is gathered
      • Characteristics of good feedback
        • Immediate (delayed)
        • Objective (subjective)
        • Attentive (domineering)
        • Descriptive (evaluative)
        • Specific (general)
      • One of the most effective ways to reinforce or increase productivity involves providing employees with specific feedback about their performance, at a high frequency, immediately following performance
    • Process, Do’s
      • Plan ahead, plan for the desired outcome
      • No Interruptions
      • In writing, face-to face
      • Done WITH the employee, not TO the employee
      • Job related skills and activities
      • Communicate, communicate, communicate
    • Process, Dont’s
      • Formal official document!
      • Do not discriminate on basis of race, sex, ethnic origin, marital status, religion, sexual orientation, or disability
      • Do not focus on personality
      • No surprises!
    • Process Rating Performance
      • Exceeds – Frequently exceeds performance standards for the position. Employee makes unique and significant contributions to the department.
      • Meets – Meets performance standards for the position. Consistently and effectively performs job duties.
      • Needs Improvement – Fails to meet performance standards for the position. Improvement is needed.
    • Process Common Rating Errors
      • Central tendency
      • Leniency
      • Halo effect
      • Devil effect
      • Contrast and similarity
      • Recency effect
      • How To Do Them, the MSU Way!
      • Forms to use – http://www.montana.edu/pps/EmployeeRelations.htm
        • Version 2, historical form
        • If you wish to design an alternate evaluation tool for classified employees, it must be pre-approved by Employee & Labor Relations.
        • Version 1, developed with MPEA – ad hoc labor management committee
      Procedure
    • Procedure, cont’d
      • New this year - cover sheet to facilitate administrative processing
      • Employee’s signature acknowledges that the evaluation was discussed, and has been provided a copy; does not necessarily indicate agreement with the content
      • Submit completed classified evaluations to Employee & Labor Relations, 201 Montana Hall
      • Deadline – no later than April 15
      • Ultimately all performance evaluations will be retained in the employee’s official personnel file maintained by the Human Resources office, 19 Montana Hall
    • Procedure, cont’d
      • Rebuttal process; No grievance process
      • An employee who disagrees with the evaluation of his or her supervisor may submit a written request for review by the supervisor’s supervisor.
      • The written request must outline the specific areas of disagreement and the reasons the employee disagrees with the supervisor’s evaluation.
      • The decision of the supervisor’s supervisor will be the final decision on the evaluation.
      • The employee’s written disagreement will be included with a copy of the final performance evaluation and placed in the employee’s personnel file.
    • FAQ’s
      • Should probationary employees be evaluated during the probationary period?
      • Rec: conduct the discussion immediately upon conclusion of the probationary period
      • My supervisor asked me to fill out my own evaluation. Is this legit?
      • Yes. This method may meet multiple managerial needs.
    • FAQ’s, cont’d
        • A supervisor can’t possibly know about everything employees do. They can’t be constantly be looking over the employee’s shoulder, nor, do employees want this. Yet, the supervisor does need to gather information to determine when and what to communicate to the employee.
        • Aids the discussion
        • Self evaluation by the employee may help establish the thought processes for an effective discussion
        • May help align employee and supervisor understanding of the job duties
    • Thank-you!
      • MSU Human Resources
      • Kathy McNeill
        • Lead Management Trainer
        • Professional Development Center (PDC)
        • State Human Resources Division
        • MT Department of Administration