|
|
|
| | Project
Goals | Team Structure and Responsibilities The Project Plan | How Will This Project Affect You? | JIQ Process | FAQs | Contact Us | Main Page Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) |
|
The following are responses to questions asked during the Performance Management training sessions. Q: Is there empirical evidence that suggests such a performance management system works? If so, where can information be located?
· the early 1960s General Electric studies titled “Work Planning and Review” · a study performed by Gary Latham and John Ivancevitch · a second 1990 study by Gary Latham when he teamed up with Edwin Locke; their study was on the topic of ‘goal setting’ and its affect on performance · a 1993 study by the Society of Human Resource Management and the private company, Development Dimensions International (DDI) · a 1994 study conducted by Bob Bretz and George Milkovich · a study conducted by Frank Landy James Farr
Q: How are all these Performance Management forms and the completion of these forms tracked? A: The forms will be tracked as the current or ‘old’ process was tracked. Provisions of the Ohio Revised Code (Civil Service Law) requires that each Classified staff member receive an annual performance evaluation. We have historically retained the original of all evaluations in the employee’s ‘personnel file’—in University Human Resources (UHR). The supervisor will ultimately send the original to UHR. We intend on ‘tracking’ the return of the forms and conducting follow up to the ones not returned or not returned in a timely manner.
Q: What is the appeal process? A: According to UHR practices and principles, an ‘appeal’ implies that a formal grievance is not available. Only two defined issues are not grievable at Ohio University: pay level and annual performance evaluations. An appeal is simply defined as: “an employee availing himself or herself of the chain of command authority until resolution is achieved or the highest level is reached. A grievance is simply defined as: “an employee availing himself or herself of a formally defined e.g., handbooks, policies, etc., dispute resolution mechanism.” We envision the ‘appeals’ and ‘grievances’ process eventually working throughout the Performance Management Program annual cycle as follows: · a person could appeal at any point in the process · a person could grieve only the misapplication of university policy (is the supervisor properly following defined university policy/procedure/protocol)
·
a person
cannot grieve the final performance evaluation Q: What does signing the form imply?
A: Signing the form
simply means: “I have read and/or had the form and results explained to me.” Q: When will the success or failure of the pilot be reviewed?
A: This is not a pilot.
We are implementing established policy and procedures. However, we are
always open minded to changes, appropriate modifications, and new ideas! Q: When will examples of completed documents be available on-line?
A: The completed forms
have been added to the website and can be found at the following link:
www.ohio.edu/comp/Whatsnew5-02.htm Q: When will we know if we are moving to merit pay? Why do we need to include measures necessary to evaluate goals against if we are not moving to merit pay? A: For quite some time (over 18 months) we have been announcing that a merit pay decision for Classified staff would occur between May and August of 2002. The opinion survey that was completed as part of the Compensation Project clearly indicated that Classified staff desired some sort of merit pay system. However, it was also evident that employees did not trust their supervisors to effectively differentiate ‘good’ performance from ‘not so good’ performance. To eliminate the trust gap we designed (and are currently implementing) a new, university-wide Performance Management Program. A 12-member Performance Management Oversight Team is currently being established to evaluate the effectiveness of the new system. We anticipate this Team to remain in tact for one year. Also, the Compensation Project Team is currently working on designing a merit system for Classified staff. The goal is to design several options for executive officers and others to consider. If the Performance Management Program is deemed successful or effective and if the Project Team has designed an acceptable (acceptable to executive officers, UHR, Classified Senate, etc.) merit program then implementation could occur July 1, 2003.
Regarding “measures,” we need to recognize that people
generally measure what they value. We measure matters that are important to
our success. And, for employees to know the affect of their contributions
measures should provide critical feedback. Measures also assist in tracking
trends. Q: When do we stop using current system? Have current forms stopped being sent? A: We have not prescribed to units, departments, or supervisors when or how to stop the current system. There are too many variables to consider to order an absolute plan. However, the new plan goes into effect July 1, 2002. So, the ‘old’ processes should be phased out by then or soon thereafter.
The ‘old,’ or current
forms, are no longer being distributed. They are available from University
Human Resources’ Records department (593-2096 or 593-1650) or may be
downloaded from the website:
www.ohio.edu/comp/FORMS.HTM Q: On the Performance Planning Form (#PM2), who ultimately decides whether to use the Supervisor Feedback Form (#PM3)?
Q: How does the supervisor feedback form support partnership?
A: This form (the
supervisor feedback form) and process (how to allow the employee to provide
detailed feedback) is a challenge! And, it will most likely be the first
topic of discussion with the Performance Management Program Oversight Team.
Q: What are the consequences for not participating in the training or the new Performance Management Program?
A: It is the intention of
university administration to ‘track’ the seven-levels of accountability
outlined in the Performance Management Program training. One level is
required attendance at the training events; and, another level is required
adherence to the policies, procedures, and protocols established by the
Program. Appropriate action will occur when it is discovered that Program
requirements are not being followed. For example, when a supervisor at any
level of the organization is found to not be conducting annual evaluations,
then that person’s supervisor and planning unit head will be notified to
assure compliance. Appropriate action will then occur. Q: Where do you document goals that are not met and areas for improvement? A: Documentation can occur on a separate paper—both the supervisor and the employee need to know and understand the content of the added documentation.
A: Noting the need for professional development is an issue that most likely will be identified prior to the year-end evaluation. Astute supervisors, department heads, and budget heads, will discuss this need on numerous occasions throughout the performance year.
Q: When does the supervisor’s supervisor sign the review form?
A: The signature of the supervisor’s supervisor typically
occurs after the annual review and after the signatures of the employee and
his or her immediate supervisor. Q: What does the employee’s signature mean?
A: The employee’s
signature serves to certify that the supervisor has discussed the document
with the employee. The signature does not necessarily imply that the
employee is in agreement with the evaluation. Q: On the Performance Planning Form (#PM2), section A and C1 seem redundant. How are these different?
A: Section A and C1 on the “Planning” form are not
redundant but in fact distinctly different. Section A refers to the
documentation on the position or job and documentation on the mission,
values, and goals of the institution and whether or not the individual’s job
or position has any impact on the broader institution. Section C1 refers
very specifically to the job-related goals the individual is establishing
for the next review cycle. Q: Does the original review form or a copy need to be forwarded to UHR?
A: The original form should be forwarded to UHR. Q: Which forms do peers or students use as a part of the evaluation process?
A: No separate form has been developed. Individuals may
create a new document.
|
