Department Head Workshop on Faculty Performance Review

Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D., CFLE2009

The Need for a Results-based Performance Management

System: Employee Appraisal & Development

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Michael Lane Morris, Ph.D.

Performance Management Parable

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

And God said: “Let there be light”

God separated the light from darkness—calling the light “day” and the darkness “night.”

There was evening and there was morning—the first day.

God assessed His first day’s performance as:

“It is good.”



Parable cont’d

On the second day, God created water and separated it from the sky.

On the third day, God gathered the water into one place and created land. With the land, he created vegetation, plants, trees, seed-bearing fruit.

God assessed His second and third day’s performance as:

“It is good.”



Parable cont’d

On days 4 & 5, God created the seasons, the sun, the moon, and the stars. He also created living creatures to live in the sea, on the land, and in the air.

On day 6, God created male and female in his own image. He told them to rule over all that he had created. He also told them to be fruitful and multiply.

God assessed these three day’s of performance as: “It is good.”



Parable cont’d

Believing that His week’s work had been very productive….

God decided to reward himself with a day off.

This was the 7th day—a day of rest.



Parable, cont’d

On the 8th day —Lucifer, the wicked angel—better known as “Satan”--came to God and asked the following:

“God, this past week, you have worked very hard, you have created amazing things, you have even created humans after your own image---

Why then—have you assessed your own work as.. ― It is GOOD?

Why not something else like:―Great?

―Extraordinary?

―Exceeds Expectations?”



Parable, cont’d

God simply replied—

“Go to Hell-Satan!”



Our Workshop Roadmap

Performance Management Introduction

Two Ways Performance Management Adds Value

Why Many Performance Management Systems Fail

A Results-based Performance Management System

Five Steps in Implementing

Addressing the Legal Requirements

Assessing Our Knowledge & Implementation of Performance Management Systems



Performance Management Intro

“Achilles Heel” ―Highly Personal

―Threatening Process

30% Managers Improves Performance―Reluctant to provide Candid Feedback

―Honest Discussions

40% Employees Clear Goals & Honest Process―Managers Unskilled Discussing Performance

―Ineffective at Coaching & Development


How Performance Management Systems Add Value: 2 Ways

Key Decision-Making

&

Employee Development



Two Purposes of Performance Management

Key Decision-Making Employee Development

Supports Retention & Promotion Positive Growth Oriented Feedback

Goals Established & Measured Motivates Superior Performance

Fairly Distributes Merit & Compensation Counsels & Corrects Poor Performance

Succession Planning Encourages Mentoring & Coaching

Confirms Selection Decisions Training & Development Needs

Legal Defense for Decisions Improve Communication

Revenue Creation Productivity

Cost Containment Force Reductions

Maximize & Realize Employee Potential

Clarify Job Responsibilities & Expectations



Challenge: Blending Decision-making & Development

Decision-making Approach―Too Lenient Inflated Ratings

―Too Focused on Rewards & Recognition

Development Approach―Too Variable Employee Strengths & Potential

―Too Need-based & Not Performance Focused

“Hard to Blend Healthy Conversations Around Wants & Needs”


What are Results-based Performance Management Systems?



What are “Results?”

“Results”—Performance-oriented achievement.―Actual job outputs―Countable results―Measureable outcomes and accomplishments―Objectives, Targets and/or Goals achieved.



What are “Behaviors?”

“Behaviors”—how the individual performed/acted―Traits/Attributes/

Characteristics/Proficiencies

―Personal Style/Manner/Approach

―KASH (Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, Habits)



What is “Development”

―Maximizing Ability

―Unleashing Human Expertise

“Development” Maturation of Talent


Implementing a Results-based Performance Management System

A 5-Phase Model



Performance Management Model

Key Components




1. Performance PlanningSet “job-based” performance objectives.

Establish and communicateperformance standards.

Key Components






2. ExecutionPerform AchieveStretch

Key Components







Key Components

3. Monitor & Develop

On-going FeedbackEncouragementCoach & Mentor

Training







4. AppraisalFormally rate progress toward previously stated objectives

(Employee & Manager)

Key Components



Training







4. AppraisalFormally rate progress toward previously stated objectives

(Employee & Manager)

5. Review & Feedback

Set MeetingReview Year

Reinforce: Rewards & Recognition

Key Components



Training



5 Stages are better than 7 Stages


Phase 1: Performance Planning



Planning Together

“The Dance”--Management and employees are involved in all phases of the process

Key Performance Criteria?

Comprehensive & Fair?

Goal-focused Strength-focused―Individual

―Department

―College

―University



Dilbert on Goals



Getting SMART with Goals

Good performance objectives are SMART!



Establishing Clear/Fair Goals

Performance Competencies/Expectations―What is the Employee to Accomplish/Achieve?

―What Behaviors Count?

Conditions―Under what Conditions are they suppose to Achieve?

Ratings Criteria―What Standards Count?

―What Ratings will be used?



Dilbert & Performance Goals



Teaching (50%)

―Student Assessments (25%)

―Peer Evaluations (25%)

Research (25%)

―Publications (20%)

―Refereed Presentations (5%)

Service (20%)

―Journal Reviews (10%)

―Academy Officer (10%)

Professionalism/Collegiality (5%)



UT-Performance Ratings & Clear Definitions

Outstanding (Excellent)

More than Expected (Very Good)

Expected (Good)

Less Than Expected (Fair)

Unsatisfactory (Poor)

Behavior:

Far exceeds expectations

Behavior:

Exceeds expectations

Behavior:

Meets expectations

Behavior:

Falls short of meeting expectations

Behavior:

Falls far short of meeting expectations

Results:

Highest Impact

Results:

High Impact

Results:

Moderate Impact

Results:

Low Impact

Results:

No or Negative Impact



UT Merit & Performance-based Salary Adjustments

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Needs Improvement

Unsatisfactory

Eligible for significant merit/ performance pay adjustments

Eligible for minimum merit/ performance pay adjustments

Not Eligible for merit/ performance pay adjustments

(Improvement Plan)

Not Eligible for merit/ performance pay adjustments

(Improvement Plan)



Dilbert & Performance Metrics



Expected Distributions & Other Forms of Rating

5-10% 20-25% 60-65% 5-10% 0-5%

Outstanding*

Exceptional

Excellent

Extraordinary

More than Expected*

Exceeds Expectations

Above Expectations

Exceeds Objectives

Expected*

Meets Expectations

Expected Performance

Satisfactory

Fully Met Expectations

Less than Expected*

Below Expectations

Marginal

Needs Improvement

Didn’t Fully

Unsatisfactory*

Unacceptable



Competencies & Weighted Performance Behavior Elements

Teaching Quality

Outstanding

(5)

More Than Expected

(4)

Expected

(3)

Less Than Expected

(2)

Unsatisfactory (1)

Facilitates to Student Learning* (60%)

Classroom Management Skills* (20%)

Exhibits Interpersonal Skills* (20%)

Total Score


Phase 2: Performance Execution



Phase 2: Performance Execution

“Git-R-Done”

Employee’s Responsibility―Follow game plan

―Achieve Measurable Results

Supervisor’s Responsibility―Ensure a Culture that Motivates & Enhances Success

―Confront and Remove Obstacles

―Supportive Feedback

―Motivate, Motivate, Motivate



Dilbert & Motivation



Determine Root Cause(s)

Ability?

Environment?

Motivation?

Fit?

removeobstacles

train /educate

alignfeedback

transition

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

no

no

Is it caused by a problem with…

Breaking Down Performance Problems



16 Reasons Faculty Fail to Execute

Don’t Know Why They Should Do It Rewarded for Not Doing It

Don’t Know How Punished For Doing It

Don’t Know They are Supposed To Anticipate Negative Consequences

Think Your Way will not Work No Negative Consequences

Think Their Way is Better Beyond Their Control

Think Something Else is More Important Personal Limitations Prevent Them

No Positive Consequence Personal Private Problems

Actually Think They Are Doing It Nobody Can Do It



Demotivation…


Phase 3: Monitor & Develop



Phase 3: Monitor & Develop

Regularly measure performance.

Timely Feedback (positive and negative)

Coach and mentor

Development plan Opportunities



Monitoring Performance Goals

Competencies Performance Results

Teaching

Goal #1

Goal #2Research

Goal #1

Goal #2Service

Goal #1

Goal #2Collegiality/Professionalism

Goal #1

Goal #2


Phase 4: Performance Appraisal


Definition of “Appraisal”

An effort to determine “worth.”



Phase 4: Performance Appraisal

Evaluating “how well” the job has been done.

4 Awareness Factors Contributing to Appraisal―Job Analysis, Description, & Assignment

―Job Context

―Job Expectations & Performance Criteria

―Job Holder Issues

Criteria Used: Calibrate, Calibrate, Calibrate!



Common Appraisal Errors

Attractiveness Effect―Assuming attractive people are great performers

Attribution Bias―Blaming failures under the individual’s control externally

Central Tendency―Rate people in the middle of the scale

Initial Impression Error―First impression (positive or negative) that colors or

distorts later information




Halo/Horns Effect―Rate employees the same on every trait

High Potential Error―Confusing future performance with current performance

Negative and/or Positive Skew―Leniency--rank high to avoid conflicts

―Severity--rank low to punish, coerce, threaten

Past Performance Error―Permitting the past to influence the present




Recency Effect―What have you done for me “lately”

Similar-to-Me Effect―Rating candidate favorably because they resemble “me”

Contrast Effect―Rating candidate in comparison to others

Stereotyping―Generalizing across groups and ignoring differences


Phase 5: Performance Review &

Feedback



The Office

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9LLZJFBWdc&feature=related





Phase 5: Performance Review & Feedback

Discussion and Feedback

Two-step Process―Step 1:

Review year’s performance compared to the development plan

Identify successes and unrealized goals

―Step 2: Set a date to create the plan for next year’s goals, objectives,

and development



Employee’s & Supervisor’s Role

Employee’s Role Supervisor’s RoleReport Personal Accomplishments Review Original Goals

Compare with Original Goals Preliminary Assessment

Identify Obstacles Solutions Discuss Accomplishments

(2 or 3 Core Messages)Self-Assessment Prepare Final Assessment

Identify Next Cycle’s Goals Consult Administration

Plan Next Cycle’s Goals



Dilbert’s Self-Appraisal



Phase 5: The Meeting: “Teeing-it-Up”

Welcome employee

Meeting’s importance

Time frame for the meeting

Starting Place: Tell them where you are beginning

Kick-off statement

Invite employee Share their perceptions

Plans for next planning meeting



Providing Effective Feedback

Briefly summarize the conversation’s direction Provide immediate positive feedback―Discuss 2-3 strengths to be continued/enhanced

Areas for improvement―Ask employee’s view What could be done differently?

Explore developmental needs―Ask employee What resources do you need?

Congratulate (offer authentic statement of “hope”)



Simon & Performance Feedback

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DelJrP3P7tA





Delivering Tough Messages Don’t wait. Define your view of the problem Focus on the Problem, not the Person. Work together Solution



Effective Development Discussions

Tailor actions for the employee.

Create a vision.

Blend planning and opportunism.

Support a learning and development- oriented ethic in all action planning.



Writing Employee Accomplishments

Describe ―key performance objectives

―expected results

Include Context

Describe critical incidents employee took

Describe the impact of the accomplishment ―Individual-level

―Department-level



Creating A Developmental Action Plan

Development Areas

Specific Actions Completion Date

Improve student feedback timeline.

Return student written assignments within 2 weeks.

Consult faculty mentor for accountability.

Write due date on calendar.

Next grading cycle



Addressing the Legal Requirements of Performance Management

Suggested Tips



Addressing Legal Requirements

Only evaluate relevant factors ―Appointment/Agreement Letters Starting Place

―Nothing More & Nothing Less

―“Specific” is better than “General”

―Calibrate Criteria Application

Employees must be informed of expectations and standards at the beginning of the cycle.

Document positive and negative incidents.

Be timely in discussing performance-related issues.



More Legal Issues Reviewed by higher-level managers or panel.

Employees need an un-biased appeals process

The appraisal process ―well-documented

―standardized with defined employee and manager roles.

Employee appraisals and subsequent employment decisions must be consistent.―Higher performance ratings Higher merit.



Performance Management Quick Tip Summary

Clear performance expectations and standards.

Continuous measurement and feedback to prevent surprises—no “bowling in the dark.”

Development activities and opportunities.

Performance-based appraisals of job-related results

Accurate attributions of good or poor performance.

Formulation of future plans to promote positive performance.

Be Smart Be Legal



Small Group Sessions: Possible Topics

Evaluating Peers & Colleagues

Feedback for Probationary Faculty vs Tenured Faculty

New UT Performance Scale―Defining Performance Behavior Elements

―Defining Appropriate Weights

―Calibrating Applications

―Implications for Merit Considerations



Thank You & Good Luck!



Assessing Your Performance Management System &

Assessing Your Understanding of the Performance Management System

A Quick Check-up



Assessing Your Performance Management System

Managers are held accountable for doing effective appraisals.

Performance is defined and measured at all levels and effectively communicated.

Individuals know how their performance impacts the performance of their work group and the organization.

High levels of performance are valued, recognized, and rewarded.

The system was designed with input from all levels.

The system measures the right things.

The system measures both results and how they were achieved.

Employees view the system as being fair.




The system is legally defensible and explainable.

Employees understand how the systems works.

The process is simple and not time consuming.

Managers view it as a valuable management tool.

The system appropriately impacts recognition and rewards.

Ratings are very accurate and reflect actual performance.

Managers are timely in conducting and always do them.

Poor performers are provided with developmental opportunities.

Performance problems are dealt with quickly.

Repeated poor performance results in appropriate consequences.




Managers treat appraisal as a continuous process rather than a one-time, end of year, event.

Feedback is constructive and employees know what is expected and how they are doing at all times.

Managers are appraised on well they appraise.

Performance standards are consistent across the unit.

Training in performance appraisal is provided to all appraisers.

All managers are skilled in making appraisals.

Developmental feedback is provided to support appraisal ratings.

There is an adequate appeals process in place.

Ratings are strictly based upon performance—not the person.



Your Knowledge of Performance Management (Williams & Levy, 1992)

I understand the performance management system being used.

I agree with the meaning of the criteria used in the performance management system.

I understand the objectives of the present performance management system.

I have a real understanding of how the performance management system works.

I understand how my last performance management rating was determined.



Your Knowledge of Performance Management (Williams & Levy, 1992)

I understand the criteria used by my employer to evaluate performance.

I understand the standards of performance my employer expects.

I can clearly communicate the objectives of the performance management system.

I would benefit from additional training in the process of the performance management system.

Procedures regarding the performance management system are fully understood by our employees.

An attempt should be made to increase employee’s understanding of the performance management system.



Selected References & Suggested Readings

For a detailed description of the following references and readings, please see Pulakos, E.D. (2007). Performance management: A roadmap for developing, implementing, and evaluating a performance management system. Arlington, VA: SHRM Foundation.




Arvey, R.D., & Murphy, K.R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.

Beatty, R.W., Baird, L.S., Schneier, E.C., & Shaw, D.G. (1995). Performance, Measurement, Management, and Appraisal Sourcebook. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.

Borman, W.C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 2) (pp. 271-326).

Campbell, D.J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13, 302-314.

Cardy, R.L. (2003). Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armony, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Cawley, B.D., Keeping, L.M.,& Levy, P.E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 615-633.

Cedarbloom, D. (1982). The performance appraisal interview: A review, implications, and suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 7, 219-227.

DeNisi, A.S., & Klugger, A.N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129-139.

Engelmann, C.H., & Roesch, R.C. (2001). Managing individual performance: An approach to designing an effective performance management system. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork.




Fisher, S. G. (1997). The manager’s pocket guide to performance management. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Fitzwater, T. L. (1998). The manager’s pocket guide to documenting employee performance. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Ghorpade, J. (2000). Managing the five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 140-150.

Ghorpade, J., & Chen, M. M. (1995). Creating quality-driven performance appraisal systems. Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 32-39.

Gilliland, S. W., & Langdon, J. C. (1998). Creating performance management systems that promote perceptions of fairness. In James W. Smither (Ed.), Performance

Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., Goff, M. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 1-21.

Grote, D. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: American Management Association.

Hillgren, J. S., & Cheatham, D. W. (2000). Understanding performance measures: An approach to linking rewards to the achievement of organizational objectives. Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork.

Hough, L. M., Keyes, M. A., & Dunnette, M. D. (1983). An evaluation of three “alternative” selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 36, 261-276.

Kahn, S. C., Brown, B. B., & Lanzarone, M. (1996). Legal guide to human resources. Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont.

Lee, J., Havigurst, L. C., & Rassel, G. (2004). Factors related to court references to performance appraisal fairness and validity. Public Personnel Management, 33 (1), 61-78.




Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Longnecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.

Martin, D. C., Bartol, K.M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: The growing significance. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 379-406.

Mohrman, A. M., Jr., Resnick-West, S. M., & Lawler, E. E. III. (1989). Designing performance appraisal systems: Aligning appraisals and organizational realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rodgers, R., & Hunter, J. E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 322-336.

Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Influence of top management commitment on management program success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-155.

Schippmann, J. S. (1999). Strategic job modeling: Working at the core of integrated human resource systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Smither, J. W. (Ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures: Fourth edition. Bowling Green, OH:

Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1994). Competence at work. New York: John Wiley.

Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. (1978). Federal register, 43, 38295-38315.




Waldman, D., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360-degree feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Weatherly, L. A. (2004, March). Performance management: Getting it right from the start. SHRM Research Quarterly, 2, 1-10.

Werner, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50 (1), 1-24.

Wexley, K. N. (1986). Appraisal interview. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Performance assessment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 167-185.


Spiritual

Department Head Workshop on Faculty Performance Review