Performance Appraisal Instrument Project Summary
Evaluation of Administrator: Director of the Honors Program at Valdosta State University, Dr. Byron Brown Supervising Evaluators: Dean of Arts & Sciences, Dr. Calendrillo, & the English Department Head, Dr. Mark Smith, Honors Program Administrative Staff, Faculty Senate, VSU students, & Self (360-degree feedback system).
Performance Appraisal Forms Used: The main performance appraisal process that is conducted with the Director is a yearly review called the “Professional Annual Review” (sent out by the Dean of Arts & Sciences & returned for placement in the personnel file by March 31), which includes the following additional
evaluations: 1) Evaluation of Director (for the College of Arts & Sciences), 2) Faculty Evaluation (for the Department of English & Faculty Senate), 3) Staff–Observations of Program Director (for the Honors Program via the Director of Human Resources), 4) Student-filled Faculty Evaluation (for the specific classes taught in HONS, PERS, & ENGL course offerings). Other evaluations are also used. Please see Appendix 1. Like Faculty, the Director may submit self-evaluations, which will be read & signed by other peer faculty, the Department Head & Dean. Also included are incident-sensitive material such as mediation service forms, which involve the documentation of conflicts between students & faculty & those between or among professional colleagues.
Performance Appraisal Methodology: Depending on the Form, VSU utilizes both the Graphic Rating Method (for Faculty Evaluations & Staff Observations) & the Behavior-Focused Rating Method (for Director
Evaluations & Student-filled Faculty Evaluations) to describe the aspects of the Director’s behaviors or
performance. These forms are sometimes in the form of bubbling in Scantrons sheets or marked according to a “How-Well-This-Person-Performs” scale. The “Professional Annual Review” is the College of Arts &
Sciences’ formal & structurally st&ard evaluation instrument, but the Honors Program, the English department, & other departments, divisions or committees, develop their own questions, measures, or dimension descriptors for their various evaluations. Please see Appendix 2, 3, & 4. Also used is the Behavior-Focused Critical Incident Form, which identifies Conflict Management concerns.
Performance Appraisal Criteria or Dimensions: The usual dimensions are listed below, but are not limited to the foregoing as sole criteria for evaluation.
Graphical Rating Form Dimensions Behavior-Focused Rating Form Dimensions Adjustment
Capability Productivity
Efficiency
Potential for Future Development Punctuality
Attendance
Fiscal / Budget Management Communication Planning & Vision Professional Behavior Supervision & Leadership
SWOTs
Administrative Change
Director Evaluation Rating Categories: The Director is individually rated in each dimension by how: 1) Good their performance is (No Change Needed), 2) Average their performance is (Some Change Needed), 3) Poor their performance is (Great Change Needed), 4) Irrelevant the category is to their performance (No
Recommendation), & 5) Unknown the category is by the supervisor (No Recommendation).
Purpose of the Evaluations: These Performance Evaluations are used for all employees under the University of Georgia system & primarily helps in administrative decisions to determine qualification for: 1) Promotion, 2)
Transfer, 3) Demotion, &/or 4) Retention. But, they also indicate the need for faculty development with regard to pre-tenure & post-tenure activities, promotion & merit pay which correlate with the annual evaluation, varying levels of recommendations for changes in the program or department, & collegial feedback.
Materials Used in the Evaluation Process: There are several sets of materials used in the evaluation process including: teaching materials (this includes student evaluations & comments), scholarly activities, service activities, an updated curriculum vitae, & other materials which will be forwarded along with the evaluation forms. Please see Appendix 5.
Criticism & Questioning of this Evaluation Method & Process:
• Too simplistic! These forms have not changed since I have been to school here in 1996!! Given the changes that the university has undergone, the measures may be out-dated or irrelevant.
• So many forms may be potentially time-consuming & take away from the main job duties & educational responsibilities of the director.
• Leniency Strategy – Supervisor Subversion of the system. The Honors Program Director was initially a Philosophy Faculty Member, but has evolved over time into subsequent Directors being specifically English Faculty Members. The Dean who will be evaluating & conducting the Annual Performance Review is also an English Faculty Member. Does this create a “writing/literature-intensive” bias & focus in the way the Director’s Performance is measured as it relates to the idea that the Honors Program is an “Interdisciplinary” body of knowledge?
• No room for appeals of the rating! The relative weights of the duties & responsibilities of the Position (as analyzed & detailed in the Job Analysis) are very subjective.
• No room for analysis -- need results quickly! Also, no training for the evaluators! The dates of the performance review are very time-sensitive & must be followed in an efficiently outlined manner – otherwise, the evaluation may be rushed or quickly done which may affect the quality of the evaluation.
• Mixed purposes – feedback vs. administrative. Do these evaluations describe herein describe their performance, behavior, contributions, accomplishments, change & potential entirely & completely?
• How does one assess a curriculum vitae? By the quality or quantity of work?
• Negative impact of criticism, especially if mean comments come from students. How manipulated are the records & materials twisted into a positive light relative to the duties outlined in the Job Analysis?
• Materials & Records may include any papers that have been forthcoming or researched, but may have NOT yet been published!
• Performance is not controllable. With regard to the special circumstances, such as the Critical Conflict Mediation Incident, how much do they affect one’s performance, especially in the event that one’s performance is rated more positively?
• How does one rate other special circumstances such as maternity leave, illness, & tragedy in the family, into the performance evaluation ratings?
• What if colleagues & the Dean have not been keeping in contact with the person & are not aware of the research agenda & accomplishments of the person in review, because everyone is really too busy?
• How does one distinguish between mundane or trivial agenda that have been glossed over versus the highlighted achievements?
• How much does a Student-filled Faculty Evaluation weigh in the scheme or process of things, especially if the Faculty member already has Tenure?
• How effective are post-tenure evaluation forms as feedback for already tenured professors/directors? Is there an “I-don’t-really-care” attitude posited by well-experienced & matured professors/directors who have been overwhelmed by the many number evaluations he or she has had over the years?
• Performance seems unreliable given the Dynamic Criterion. What if performance reviews vary each year according to who the Dean is or whether or not the Director was motivated that year to do a good job? How does the tradeoff balance itself in the ratings?
• Is there any leeway in which the departmental goals are interpreted or met specifically?
• Halo Effect – no room for other evaluations with regard to rank, etc.
An Example of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for an Honors Program Director: Skills which require good coordination & excellent assistance towards Honors Program students participating in a variety of travel activities & experiences.
Task: Chaperoning Honors students on trips / travel to attend Regional, State, & National conferences Well-planned travel
arrangements & conference attendance exceeded student’s expectations!
Planned travel
arrangements & conference attendance met student’s expectation.
Some travel arrangements & conference attendance somewhat met student’s expectation.
Unclear travel
arrangements & a vague underst&ing of conference attendance left the student feeling frustrated & disappointed.
Dashed or no travel arrangements at all made the entire trip an utter failure.
The Director prepared in advance by distributing & making copies of the conference or trip schedules, itineraries, hotel reservations, & other conference / trip forms, assisted & registered students for either their presentation or attendance to the conference, planned detailed travel arrangements, attended as many conference presentations as possible, including the program’s own student’s presentations (if any), facilitated in networking with other universities & met other Honors Program faculty & students, went out for out-tings & shows, checked out the local restaurant & loafing scenes, & helped make the 3-4 day trip fun & exciting!!
The Director prepared for the trip, but only allowed the students to follow what was planned for the conference. Students are chaperoned by the Director as if the Director was babysitting them. Students are only allowed to go to
conference-related events & activities. They end up traveling only according to the strict itinerary of the conference, & then goes back home.
The Director just drove the van to the conference, did not plan for any other travel, did not even attend the conference, did not walk around or about, did not explore with the students, did not bring or prepare for any presentations or conference attendance, did not take the students to a restaurant or dining facility to eat, did not take students to a hotel to rest, & wanted to stay in the van & sleep inside the van. The Director inadvertantly lost all of the students on the trip.
Preferred and Favorite Performance Appraisal Method: Self-Evaluation
Most Effective Performance Appraisal Method for this Position: 360-degree Feedback (Peers, Subordinates, Supervisors, & Self)
• Treating each situation and purpose (promotion, raise, development, change, etc.) with a separate evaluation.
• Being consistent with feedback EVERYDAY (not realistic for 360, but feasible for self-eval).
• Recognizing or checking only for defects and problems in performance.
• Focusing on criterion-related performance, not personal performance, in order to reduce negative impact from criticism.
Appendix 1
Source: VSU Human Resource Policy & Procedures
SECTION 800.00
RECRUITMENT & EMPLOYMENT PROCEDURES (http://services.valdosta.edu/human_resources/policy/recruit.htm#14)
Performance Evaluation
A system of performance evaluation has been established for all classified employees of the University & used in determining those employees who are qualified for promotion, transfer, demotion, or retention.
The following elements are among those used in the evaluation procedure: adjustment, capability, productivity, efficiency, potential for future development, punctuality & attendance. The supervisor or department head shall not be limited to the foregoing as sole criteria for evaluation.
The following describes the nature of performance evaluations currently in use by the University: a. Annual Evaluation
An annual performance evaluation is required on every regular employee of the University. The Director of Human Resources will provide the required forms in ample time for the review to be completed & returned for placement in the employee's personnel file by March 31. Employees having been evaluated during the preceding 30 days are not required to have the annual evaluation completed also.
b. Special Evaluation
A special performance evaluation may be prepared for employees whose overall performance has been determined as unsatisfactory, or who have had specified deficiencies noted in their performance evaluation. Special evaluations should be cleared through the Department Human Resources in advance. The employee should be advised in writing that such evaluation is to be accomplished, the reason for such, the period of time involved, & the potential repercussions should adequate job progress not be made.
c. Transfer Evaluation
When an employee transfers to another supervisor, it is not necessary to complete a performance evaluation if the employee has been reviewed within a 90-day period prior to the transfer.
d. Provisional Status Evaluation
Provisional employees must be evaluated at least ten days prior to the completion of their provisional period of employment, or prior to date of termination, whichever occurs first. The provisional status evaluation is the source document in making the determination to grant regular status or to terminate a provisional employee.
e. Senior Administrator Evaluation
Senior administrative officers of the University, those reporting directly to the President, are to be evaluated at least once every five years by their next level subordinates. This evaluation is meant to provide an open line of communication within an operating area in an effort to enhance area performance & to identify means to better meet or exceed organization expectations.
Appendix 2
Source: VSU Office of the Vice President & Academic Affairs
Faculty Policies & Procedures/Governance Faculty H&book, pg. 117-118
(http://www.valdosta.edu/academic/old/academic/policies/Faculty_H&book.pdf)
EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATOR
Dean/Director
For the information to be reported to the administrator & used by the administrator, each faculty member must identify his/her college/division. My college/division is _______________________.
Mark the appropriate area on the Scantron form for each of the items listed below.
1. On the average, I have contact with this person: a. daily b. weekly c. monthly d. quarterly e. other
Listed below are a number of statements which describe aspects of administrator behavior & performance. Rate the individual identified above by marking the appropriate responses on the Scantron form provided. If you are uncertain about a particular item, mark the category labeled "unknown." If you believe an item is not relevant, mark the category labeled "Not Relevant."
A. ... Unknown/No Recommendation B. ... Not Relevant/No Recommendation C. ... Performance is Good/No Change Needed D. ... Performance is Average/Some Change Needed E. ... Performance is Poor/Great Change Needed
A B C D E
Fiscal/Budget
2. Identifies needs of unit accurately. ... _ _ _ _ _ 3. Establishes budget priorities fairly... _ _ _ _ _ 4. Allocates resources to reflect needs & priorities. ... _ _ _ _ _ 5. Informs faculty of budget needs & priorities. ... _ _ _ _ _
Communication
6. Communicates effectively with faculty. ... _ _ _ _ _ 7. Responds appropriately to faculty input. ... _ _ _ _ _ 8. Informs faculty of budget needs & priorities. ... _ _ _ _ _ 9. Informs faculty of policy decisions... _ _ _ _ _ 10. Communicates faculty concerns to appropriate administrator... _ _ _ _ _
Planning & Vision
11. Articulates a clear plan for the unit... _ _ _ _ _ 12. Involves faculty in planning for changes. ... _ _ _ _ _
13. Consults faculty when implementing plans for change. ... _ _ _ _ _
Professional Behavior
14. Interacts professionally with faculty. ... _ _ _ _ _ 15. Interacts professionally with students. ... _ _ _ _ _ 16. Demonstrates respect for faculty rights. ... _ _ _ _ _ 17. Conforms to VSU policy of professional conduct. ... _ _ _ _ _
Supervision & Leadership
18. Provides effective leadership. ... _ _ _ _ _ 19. Is accessible. ... _ _ _ _ _ 20. Establishes cooperation across the unit... _ _ _ _ _ 21. Is knowledgeable about activities of the unit... _ _ _ _ _ 22. Encourages self-governance. ... _ _ _ _ _ 23. Offers equal opportunities to all faculty members... _ _ _ _ _ 24. My overall rating of this administrator is a. very positive.
b. positive. c. negative. d. very negative.
25. Compared with other administrators with whom I work/have worked, this administrator is: a. one of the best.
b. above average. c. below average. d. one of the poorest.
26. It is important to me for the administrator to share the results of this evaluation with faculty. a. Yes
b. No
27. What would you consider to be the greatest strengths of this administrator?
Appendix 3
Source: VSU Office of the Vice President & Academic Affairs
Faculty Policies & Procedures/Governance Faculty H&book, pg. 106-108 (http://www.valdosta.edu/academic/old/academic/policies/Faculty_H&book.pdf) FACULTY EVALUATION Date of Evaluation: I. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION College: Department: Name:
Highest Degree Earned: Year:
Appointment Year: Appointment Rank:
Present Rank:
Year First Promotion: Year Second Promotion: Total Years at VSU: Years in Present Rank:
II. TEACHING PERFORMANCE
III. NON-TEACHING PERFORMANCE
IV. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
A. Research/Scholarly Activities: B. Professional Activities:
V. ACADEMIC HONORS, ACHIEVEMENTS, & RECOGNITIONS
VI. ADVISING VII. OTHER
VIII. SUMMARY EVALUATION
_______________________ ______ Signature of Evaluator Date
I certify that I have read this evaluation
_______________________ __ ___
Signature of Person Evaluated Date
FACULTY EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS I. Complete the biographical data.
Provide the number of courses taught, the enrollment, the number of new preparations. Include a brief statement of faculty member's teaching performances based on data on student evaluations, peer evaluations, & department head evaluations.
II. Non-Teaching Services:
Provide a brief statement that describes the level of activity in terms of committee memberships at the departmental, school & university level; other teaching institutional activities or services, & non-teaching services outside the institution that are indicative of the applied aspects of one's discipline, training, or expertise.
IV. Professional Development:
A. Research & Scholarly Activities
Summarize research & scholarly activities in terms of publications (refereed journals, books, manuals, case studies, proceedings, etc.); submitted but not yet published articles, books, etc.; papers presented at professional meetings; publications in preparation (books, articles, papers for presentation); research in progress; consulting, reviewing, & editing services; & other scholarly activities not described herein.
B: Professional Activities
Provide a summary statement of memberships, attendance, official posts held, & awards/recognitions.
V. Academic Honors, Achievements & Recognitions:
Provide a summary of honors, achievements, & recognitions (department, University System, & external agencies & organizations not included in other parts of the evaluation).
VI. Advising:
Provide a summary statement on the faculty member's advising load & an evaluation of his/her performance as an adviser. Emphasize any activities that go beyond assistance in scheduling of classes or completing the registration process.
VII. Other:
Provide a summary statement on any activities or attributes not included in other parts of the evaluation instrument.
VIII. Summary Evaluation:
Provide a qualitative statement summarizing the performance of the faculty member. The statement must include areas of strength, areas for improvement, & suggested development activities which address the areas for improvement, especially designed to meet promotion & tenure criteria.
NOTE: The time period for the evaluation should encompass the previous Winter, Spring, Summer, & Fall quarters for returning faculty. The preceding Summer & Fall quarters may be used to evaluate new faculty.
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
