LONGWOOD UNIVERSITY

ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL FACULTY

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

_________________________

INSTRUCTION BOOKLET

1

Longwood UniversityPerformance Management System

INSTRUCTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART 1 - PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION . . . . . . . . .1

I. GENERAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1A. Forms Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1B. Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1C. Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1D. Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1E. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

II. The PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FORM (for immediatesupervisor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2A. Instructions for the Immediate Supervisor . . . .2

1. Section A (Official Data . . . . . . . . . .2

2. Section B (Position Summary . . . . . . . . .2

3. Section C (Performance Management Factors) .2a. Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2b. Performance Ratings . . . . . . . . . .

2 c. Performance Factor 8 (Results . . . . .

3d. Weight of Performance Factors . . . . .

34. Section D (Overall Performance Level . . . .

2

35. Section E (Narrative Summary . . . . . . . .

36. Section F (Endorsements and Rebuttal) . . . .

4a. Endorsements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4b. Rebuttal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

PART 2 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . .4

I. THE PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4A. Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4B. Capsule Summary of How the Forms are to be

Completed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

II. THE SELF-APPRAISAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

III. SPECIFIC ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE SUPERVISORWISH TO COVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

IV. TIPS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE INTERVIEW . . . . . .5

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

V. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

VI. CHOOSING EXTERNAL RATERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7A. Underlying Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7B. Intended Use of the External Inputs . . . . . . .7C. Selection of External Raters . . . . . . . . . . .7

1. Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

72. Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7a. Colleagues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7b. Customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73. Resolving Disagreements Relating to

Selection of External Raters . . . . . . . .7

4. Timing and Notice to External Raters . . . .8

a. Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

b. The Disappearing External Rater Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

c. Notice to External Raters . . . . . . . 8

4

Longwood Performance Management System

INSTRUCTIONS

PART 1 - PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

*IMPORTANT NOTICE TO SUPERVISORS: Before beginning the process, read instructions thoroughly. All questions should be directed to the Human Resources Office.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION:

A. Forms Packet: All of the forms necessary to complete the evaluation process are available from the Human Resources web site. Human Resources will send the developmental plan for the current cycle if it was submitted. You will need the following items:

1. Performance Management Evaluation 2. External Rating Form3. Performance Management Internal Worksheet 4. Development Plan/External Raters Form (for next

cycle)5. Time Line Chart (identifies critical dates in the

process)

B. Timing: Very close attention should be paid to the Time Line Chart. It is essential that the process be completed in exact sequence and in the time allotted.

C. Resources: Training designed to answer most questions will be conducted prior to the implementation of this process each year. If you have any questions as you work through this process, consult the Human Resources Office for guidance. (Each year the process itself will be reevaluated, so feel free to provide feedback to us on the instrument and the process. It can only make both better).

D. Commitment: There is a direct correlation between the value of the process and the amount of effort put into it. This process requires the commitment of both administrator and supervisor to be meaningful. A great deal of thought has been given to streamlining the process without compromising the necessary ingredients of a good performance management system. At first blush it may not appear that way, but please make the effort and trust the process. The results will be worth the

investment.

E. Confidentiality: Performance evaluations are treated as part of the administrator's personnel file and will not be disclosed to third parties without written permission of the administrator, except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

II. The PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FORM (for immediate supervisor):

A. Instructions for the Immediate Supervisor:

1. Section A (Official Data): This section is to be completed by the supervisor. Take time to review the data in Section A. If any information has changed from the previous year, please indicate by using italicized or bold face type. When the completed form comes back to the Human Resources Office for filing at the end of the process, the changes will be updated on our database as well.

2. Section B (Position Summary): This section is to be completed by the supervisor prior to the interview. Completion of this section is essential for a number of reasons. Administrative positions sometimes evolve and take some unexpected twists and turns. A brief summary capturing the essence of the position as it existed for the cycle being evaluated will create an internal record of the context in which the evaluated performance occurred. Position descriptions are not updated annually as a matter of course, so if major changes are noted in this section of the performance management system from year to year, it should trigger the supervisor's awareness that a job description review might be advisable for the position.

3. Section C (Performance Management Factors):

a. Factors: There are eight (8) performance management factors identified. They are defined by example. Our desire was to allow the factors to breathe to permit maximum flexibility. Obviously, few positions will be able to relate directly to every example. Do not let lack of applicability of particular examples skew your rating for that factor. Rate the factor based only on examples which will directly apply or other relevant, non-delineated considerations you may feel appropriate to that factor.

b. Performance Ratings: These appear immediately to the right of each factor. There are five (5) options. These ratings were selected because of our familiarity with them. They are the ratings that were used in the former Classified Performance Management system. The most important thing to consider in determining which performance rating to select is that they relate directly to the supervisor's expectations for the position.

A note of caution, however. If your expectations are high and the person performs at that level for the current cycle, they have "met expectations". The point is, your expectations must drive your ratings. Your logic will be faulty if you equate high expectations to "exceptional or exceeds expectations". Unreasonably high expectations will lead to evaluations which do not permit administrators possibilities to achieve beyond the level of "meets expectations". This should be a tip off to the supervisor that expectations need to be adjusted downward. Saying your expectations are very high, and if anyone meets them they are exceptional is inconsistent with the philosophy of the process and will skew scores. By the same token, if all your subordinates are scoring "exceptional" because they are all performing well beyond your wildest expectations, this should be a tip off that your expectations need to be a little wilder. An exceptional performer is just that. Webster defines "exceptional" as rare, extraordinary, uncommon.

c. Performance Factor 8 (Results): This factor bears special attention and emphasis. The factor is different than the other seven in the context that it requires major performance objectives to be listed and their status of completion to be noted before a rating for the factor is assigned. The delineation begs the question, what have been the administrator's major assignments for the current cycle and how well has he or she produced.

d. Weight of Performance Factors: Each of the first seven factors are weighted at ten (10) percent. The last factor, "results", is weighted at thirty (30) percent. The rationale for that distribution is the critical importance placed on output or productivity in any organization.

4. Section D (Overall Performance Level): Select the level which best describes the overall performance of this administrator.

5. Section E (Narrative Summary): Many supervisors find it too constraining when instruments have been reduced to check marks. Being able to say something personal or more descriptive about the administrator's overall performance is usually preferred. The summary should be consistent with the tone of the ratings, capturing the essence of the performance in a few short sentences.

6. Section F (Endorsements and Rebuttal):

a. Endorsements: The supervisor and reviewer must sign this section prior to the Performance Management/Development Plan Interview. Parties going into the interview should be open minded, and it is not inconceivable that a supervisor might be compelled by an administrator's comments to change a rating. If an administrator refuses to sign the form because he or she disagrees with the rating, the supervisor should merely annotate the date and time that the interview was conducted and indicate that the administrator refused to sign. The signature of the administrator is only intended to indicate that the administrator saw the ratings and was afforded an opportunity to discuss them with the supervisor.

b. Rebuttal: An administrator who has a good faith belief that the performance management evaluation grossly mis-characterizes his or her performance for the cycle may file a rebuttal. Rebuttals must be filed with the Human Resources Office within 10 working days of the date of the Performance Management/Development Plan Interview. Rebuttals will be stapled to the personnel file copy of the evaluation and shall become a part of the evaluation for that cycle.

PART 2 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN INTERVIEW

*IMPORTANT NOTICE TO SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATORS: The most critical part of the performance management process is a face-to-face dialogue which results in mutual understanding of performance expectations and a shared commitment to engage in specific activities designed to address individual needs and facilitate professional growth. As with completing the performance management instrument itself, there is a direct correlation between the amount of time invested in meaningful dialogue and the value of the process. Bear in mind, however, that standards of performance are set by the supervisor, not the administrator - and while agreement on ratings is beneficial, it

is not always possible.

I. THE PROCESS:

A. Forms(2): 1)The form entitled "Performance Management Internal Worksheet" contains 3 basic sections: a self-appraisal, an area where the administrator can identify issues to be discussed, and an area where the supervisor can identify issues to be discussed. 2) The form entitled "Developmental Plan for Cycle " which contains 2 basic sections: a development plan for the upcoming year and an area where the administrator and the supervisor can identify individuals who will be asked to be external raters during the coming performance cycle.

B. Capsule Summary of How the Forms are to be Completed: Completion of the "Performance Management Internal Worksheet" form should be done as follows: at least two (2) working days prior to the interview, the supervisor should complete the section covering specific issues he or she would like to discuss with the administrator and deliver the instrument to the administrator. Prior to the interview, the administrator should complete the self-appraisal and identify the issues that he or she would like to discuss. At the interview itself, the initial dialogue should relate to significant differences between the supervisor's ratings and the administrator's self ratings. A summary of the external rating scores should also be made available at that time to gain additional insight. The summary should merely be a copy of an External Rating Form with numbers on each rating level indicating where the external plots fell by factor. After the additional issues listed are covered, attention should be turned to the second form "Developmental Plan for Cycle: ", where the development plan should be completed collaboratively, and the results of the process to determine who the coming cycle's external raters will be should be listed in the spaces provided.

II. THE SELF-APPRAISAL SECTION: The purpose of this section is to create a starting point for the performance management discussion.At the interview, large differences in ratings assigned by the supervisor when compared with the self-rating should provide ample food for discussion. The supervisor and the employee should go into the interview process with firm, but not fixed ideas. A firm idea is an idea based on observation and objective understanding. Fixed ideas are unchangeable. Information sharing might predispose the supervisor to change a rating if warranted. This is acceptable. Changes, however, should be the

exception, not the rule. The reviewer should be notified of any rating changes.

III. SPECIFIC ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE SUPERVISOR WISH TO COVER: These last two sections are intended to add structure to the dialogue by providing relevant subject matter for additional discussion germane to performance management issues, not simply work issues in general. The issues are developed in advance, rather than leaving matters to spontaneous interaction during the interview. Since the dialogue is intended to be collaborative, issues from both perspectives should facilitate a balance of discussion.

IV. TIPS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE INTERVIEW:

A. Prepare thoroughly for each interview. If you don't, you will short-change the process.

B. Schedule sufficient time and avoid interruptions during the interview. Select location for privacy, comfort, and the absence of distractions.

C. Expect disagreement to occur somewhere during the interview. Be prepared to give specific, concrete examples to make your points. It is unrealistic to expect total agreement. Be calm, don't be defensive, allow opinions to be shared, and remain courteous to each other - even in disagreement. If things get out of hand, take a break and reconvene after things have cooled down. Battery is a crime.

D. Balance the discussion in relation to the overall rating. An "Exceeds Expectations" Overall Rating should not lead to a discussion consumed by negatives. It should be a pretty positive discussion. On the other hand, if the Overall Rating is near the bottom of the rating scale, a lot of compliments on wardrobe and brand of aftershave or perfume should not dominate the conversation.

E. Listen to each other - intently.

F. When dealing with problems, focus on the problem, not the employee.

G. Use open-ended, reflective, and directive questions.

H. Strive for dialogue, not control.

I. Afterwards, reflect on what happened in the interview and why. Be willing to modify your day-to-day approach to work if necessary. If either party is hearing things in the conversation which shock them, there is a problem with day-to-day communication. Performance management is a daily activity, not an annual event. It's unfair for the administrator to be hearing of performance problems for the first time at the annual performance management interview. It's also unfair for the supervisor to be hearing previously undisclosed reasons for performance problems for the first time at the annual performance management interview. V. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The development plan is a shared commitment between supervisor and administrator. Personal need and professional growth activities should relate not just to individual development, but also to organizational development. Objectives should be challenging but reasonable, and the administrator should be able to expect the support indicated by the supervisor. The parties should be willing to break out beyond the traditional workshops, formal coursework, and remedial training approaches to plan development when possible. Alternatives such as cross-training in different departments or even exchange experiences in other institutions might be possible. Mentorship plans might have merit if a particular senior administrator or senior colleague can be identified to work with an administrator to achieve a particular objective. Collegial plans may also be possible where two administrators may be working on a particular need or growth objective together. The level of support and the aggressiveness of the plan need to relate to the level of need exhibited by the administrator as well. The more collaborative the plan, the better its chances for success.

VI. CHOOSING EXTERNAL RATERS:

A. Underlying Philosophy: The rationale behind multiple feedback performance management is that informed observations of performance beyond the supervisory dimension tend to increase reliability of final ratings.

B. Intended Use of the External Inputs: The external inputs are not intended to be a substitute for supervisory judgement. Nor are they meant to be weighted and factored directly into the performance ratings. They are meant to give the supervisor insight into how the administrator's work and work attributes are perceived by others whose jobs are connected in

some way to the administrator's. Variants of this approach have been referred to as "360 degree feedback instruments, peer reviews, top down and bottom up evaluations". The common theme, however, is they all incorporate multiple input sources.

C. Selection of External Raters:

1. Number: 4-6 are recommended. Any less and the picture will probably be incomplete; any more and the logistics are apt to log jam and overload colleagues with unnecessary administrative burdens. A further recommendation is to balance the number of colleagues and customers from different locations in the organization, in order to get the broadest possible picture; but avoid selecting external raters or colleagues who are too remote or too biased to create an accurate rating.

2. Types:

a. Colleagues: Others in the organization who may or may not be at an exact peer level with the administrator, who regularly interface with the administrator and his or her work.

b. Customers: Most administrative and faculty positions have multiple classes of customers. Some are internal to the College. Some are third parties to the College. Both are customers.

3. Resolving Disagreements Relating to Selection of External Raters: Both the administrator and the supervisor should come to the performance management/development plan interview prepared to proffer up names and rationale behind the external rater choices. This is a part of the process that also works best collaboratively, but should disagreement ensue, two recommendations come to mind. The administrator could select two or three and the supervisor could select an equal number; or those which can be agreed upon could be listed as definite, while the other names might be ranked in a list. Suppose for example, the number of external raters needed beyond those agreed upon is 2. Names could be struck from the list in turns until 2 names remained. The remaining names would be those which would finish out the final list.

4. Timing and Notice to External Raters:

a. Timing: The selection of external raters should take place prior to the coming performance cycle, not after it.

b. The Disappearing External Rater Scenario: It will not be uncommon for external raters to leave employ with the College or cease to have a relationship with the College during a performance cycle. In this case, if the departure will not reduce the number of external raters below four (4), no action need be taken to add a rater. If it will drop the number below 4, a substitute external rater should be identified by the supervisor and the administrator. That person should ideally be someone who has had a working relationship with the administrator for the entire performance cycle to be evaluated.

c. Notice to External Raters: The Human Resources Office should be notified of selected external raters for each administrator. The Human Resources Office will maintain the record of the raters and issue them an introductory letter explaining the process and their role at the beginning of the cycle. The Human Resources Office will also issue the external rating forms to the appropriate external raters at the time form packets are issued to supervisors, near the close of the performance cycle, and be a collection center for completed forms. A summary sheet, indicating how many responses were recorded at each level for each factor, will be provided to the supervisor.