Best Practices in Evaluating Faculty and Staff

1. Best Practices in Evaluating Faculty and Staff New Administrators Orientation, August 2, 2019 Fatma Mili, Dean, CCI Lori McMahon, AP, AABP

2. Definitions • Diagnostic: offers a baseline • Formative: developmental • Summative: measuring against criteria established in advance

3. Faculty Development(works for staff as well) • A faculty member’s career is an arc: different kinds of professional development are needed at different points in an academic career. • Not all faculty are the same. Each will have different interests, needs, and cultural backgrounds -- even those who are of similar generations and in the same discipline. • The different generations of faculty hires, as groups, differ from each other. • Cultural diversity and inclusion is an essential consideration. • Chairs should review Annual Review expectations and template for the review with new hires within the first month of the fall semester. • Chairs should meet at least annually with assistant professors to communicate promotion expectations.

4. Best Practices • Evaluation is a shared responsibility with mutual accountability between employee and supervisor • Follow university policies, procedures and timelines • Clearly communicate to every employee in advance • Evaluate according to established criteria • Focus on observable, measurable behaviors • Make judgments, don’t just summarize • Employees--all categories--should provide a self-assessment, linked to previously-determined goals • Professional development: align individual, unit goals • Submit evaluations on-time, plan ahead for each phase

5. Face-to-face FeedbackShare where you are on the Continuum • Sometimes part of the formal documented evaluation process, sometimes not • May be more frequent than written evaluations • Encourages productive two-way conversations • Mix positive reinforcement with discussion of areas to approve/by when – give actionable feedback • Be careful what message is being delivered and what message is being heard • Body language and tone matters Informal Formal

6. Written, Annual Evaluations • Staff and faculty should be provided an opportunity for a self assessment • Evaluation should be tied to goals • Is a formal record, often summative • Mix of quantitative and qualitative • Should be constructive (tone, balance) • Less-nuanced than face-to-face feedback

7. Faculty development, tenure, promotion • It starts with search and hiring. We hire for potential • We are partners in professional development • Mentoring team • Goal setting • Acculturation, Inclusion • Support • Accountability

8. Tenure Track Faculty • High stakes --Clear expectations • Frequent and multiple formal and informal feedback • RPT criteria • They are all similar • They are all different • Frequent feedback, annual review– disambiguate, give actionable expectations

9. Faculty Annual Evaluations • Should be a departmental responsibility: chair and tenured faculty can be an effective team • Evaluate according to departmental RPT criteria and timeline • Usually retrospective • Sometimes formative-summative: document what the purpose is (how does this relate to promotion and tenure?) • Note responsiveness to previous evaluations • Offer praise and recognition • List concrete examples for improvement/by when • Set new goals (observable, measurable; PD)

10. Reappointment,Promotion and Tenure,Promotion • Review is summative • Usually prospective • Process must be transparent • Peer review

11. Faculty Evaluations--RPT • Decisions should be consistent • What are the various outcomes? • How do you handle a negative review? • What is the role of faculty leaders? • What is the role of the chair?

12. Promotion to Full Professor:Further Considerations • How is this promotion different from the promotion to associate professor? • How do you take account of the different pathways? • How do the different pathways affect the external reviewers chosen?

13. Lecturers / Teaching Professors(really, All Non-Tenure Track) • What are the requirements of the position? • What are career progression opportunities in your college? • What is the difference between reappointment at the same rank or promotion to the next? • What does peer review mean for this rank? • How can you guarantee adequate governance rights?

14. Staff Evaluations: EHRA NF and SHRA Late STAFF Evaluation submissions have consequences -- Staff evaluations not fully submitted by the deadline may disqualify the employee from being eligible for any Annual Raise Process (ARP), or a Legislative Increase (salary and/or bonus leave).

15. EHRA Staff Evaluations: Due July 31st • Annual evaluation, always retrospective and summative • Now required to use “Niner Stakes” model • May be written letter or use HR Template • Scale of 1-7 ratings; auto scores a final “overall” rating: Not Meeting Expectations Meeting Expectations Exceeding Expectations • Should acknowledge self-assessment elements • Employee/Supervisor discussion is preferred • Employee must acknowledge in system; then goes to Supervisor to submit to “next level approver”; then it goes to HR as “final/complete”

16. Annual Evaluations (SHRA Staff)“Niner Stakes”– Due May 30th • Formative feedback anytime, enter in system as needed citing “where it resides on continuum” • Annual evaluation, always retrospective and summative • Institutional (50%) and Individual Goals (50%) • April: Self evaluations submitted • Discuss, Set new goals (SMART model) as year-to-year link • 2nd-3rd Week May: Supervisor submits to Next-level Reviewer • Note responsiveness to previous evaluations • Offer praise and recognition for growth • List concrete, actionable improvements needed, if any • 2-3 Individual Goals (% of each totals 50%) • 3rd-4th week of May: Employee “Acknowledges”; Supervisor Submits for Next-Level Review, then finally submitted to HR

17. SHRA Institutional Goals (50%) • Pre-set, Clear Definitions in System • Institutional goals establish shared baseline, continuity between all SHRA staff roles • Supervisor determines % (weight) between: • Expertise • Accountability • Customer Oriented • Team Oriented • Compliance & Integrity • Supervision (2 or more direct reports)

18. 3 Rating Levels, per Goal: • Not Meeting Expectations • Meeting Expectations • Exceeding Expectations • Supervisors not required to provide comments as feedback if employee is meeting or exceeding expectations; however, it is best to do so in ”not meeting’ or ‘exceeding’

19. SHRA Staff: Sample Individual Goal

20. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Alignment: Self, team/unit, college, division, institution, profession • EXPIERENTIAL LEARNING • 52% • Job Rotations • New Program Role / Lead • Special Project Assignment • Functional Exposure • Task Force Assignment • SMART GOAL(S) • OUTCOMES –Long term impact • TRAINING • & EDUCATION • 21% • Degree or Mastery Courses (certificates, etc.) • Managerial Leadership • Development Program • Business Unit/Function-specific Training • Technology Proficiency • RELATIONSHIPS • & FEEDBACK • 27% • 360-degree Assessment • Coaching • Career or Contribution Discussions • Development Planning • One-on-One Leadership/Management Networking

21. QUESTIONS?