This document summarizes research conducted as part of a human resources internship at the University of Vermont. The intern interviewed representatives from various academic and administrative departments to gather information about their current performance appraisal processes. The goal was to help enhance the university's performance appraisal process and design a web-based module. The document then provides background on performance appraisals and discusses best practices from organizations like the Society for Human Resource Management and Segal Sibson consulting firm. These include establishing clear performance goals and standards, providing ongoing feedback, involving employees, properly conducting evaluations, and ensuring successful implementation through training and alignment with other HR systems.
Performance Appraisal in HRM Methods, Objective, Characteristics
Internship Research Paper
1. 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.
2. 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
prior to the appraisal what standards the employee will be compared to. It is imperative to clarify
3. Simmons 3
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
actual process is started it is imperative to define what purpose the performance management
4. Simmons 4
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)
Guidelines for Providing Feedback Effectively (Pulakos 19)
5. Simmons 5
• 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)
6. 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
7. 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
8. Simmons 8
that additional training be given in order to show managers how to effectively deliver
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
9. 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.
10. 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
11. 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:
12. 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
13. 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)
14. 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
15. 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.
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.
16. Simmons 16
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.
Question #4 & 5 will be combined together since they are rather similar:
• (4) How frequently are performance appraisal’s conducted? (Annually/Other)
17. Simmons 17
• (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.
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.
18. Simmons 18
• 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
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
19. Simmons 19
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:
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
.
20. Simmons 20
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
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
21. Simmons 21
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
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
22. Simmons 22
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
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
23. Simmons 23
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.
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
24. Simmons 24
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
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,
25. Simmons 25
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.
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
26. Simmons 26
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,
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.
27. Simmons 27
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
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,
28. Simmons 28
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
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.
29. Simmons 29
• 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.
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
30. Simmons 30
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
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
31. Simmons 31
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
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
32. Simmons 32
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
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