This Section applies to annual performance reviews of all administrative personnel. Administrators of the University are evaluated with respect to all personnel matters on their leadership in developing collaborations and managing resources to build capacity, improve performance, and advance innovation. Annual performance reviews are intended
- To involve administrative personnel in the formulation of objectives and goals related to their college, department, or program and their own professional development;
- To assess actual performance and accomplishments in each area of an administrator's responsibility;
- To promote an administrator's effectiveness by articulating the types of contributions the administrator might make to the University community that will lead to greater professional development, recognition and rewards;
- To recognize and maximize administrators' special talents, capabilities and achievements, including the achievements of those they supervise;
- To identify weaknesses that will be addressed during the next evaluation period;
- To recognize efforts that ensure equal opportunity in hiring and retaining staff, faculty, and professionals, and in recruiting students;
- To advance innovations that better enable units to achieve their strategic goals; and
To provide written records to support personnel decisions.
5.2.01 Annual Performance Review Process
Each administrator's performance will be evaluated in writing on a scheduled basis at least once every 12 months. The administrator's performance will be evaluated with respect to the criteria set forth in Section 5.2.02.
Administrative personnel who also hold non-administrative (i.e., faculty or other) positions will be evaluated on their non-administrative duties according to the same conditions of service as others holding similar positions in their unit.
The administrator's immediate supervisor will conduct the performance review, which will include peer review and input from those whom the administrator directly supervises. Such input may be obtained by the use of a faculty or staff survey developed by the University with additional items developed by an administrator's supervisor in collaboration with the unit. Each performance review will be in writing and contain, at a minimum, a discussion of the administrator's (a) past and present performance with respect to assigned duties; (b) leadership development; and (c) progress towards achieving the strategic goals of the unit.
The following procedures are involved in the annual performance review of administrative personnel:
Input from faculty and staff and other individuals comprising the administrator's unit is gathered along with other information on performance to provide benchmarks for the review.
Using the performance expectations and benchmarks set out for the evaluation period, the administrator will write a self-assessment, reflecting on each of the criteria on which the administrator is to be evaluated.
The administrator's supervisor will prepare a written assessment of the administrator's performance over the evaluation period on the basis of those written criteria and benchmarks, the administrator's self-assessment, and feedback from staff and faculty (if there are faculty in the unit as well as staff). If the administrator has assigned research, teaching, or other non-administrative duties, the administrator's supervisor for these assignments will evaluate these duties as well.
The administrator's supervisor will provide the administrator with the performance review and will meet with the administrator to discuss the review and future expectations, typically by May 15, if possible.
The administrator may add comments to the written performance review before the administrator signs the document and returns it to the administrative supervisor. The signed performance review will become a part of the administrator's individual personnel record.
5.2.02 Annual Performance Review Criteria
Administrators are assessed on their leadership in building trust, fostering collaboration, managing resources, and achieving results. Written evaluation criteria will include consideration of administrators’ leadership skills, including their effectiveness in communicating and responding to coworkers, forging partnerships and building consensus, acquiring and managing resources, , and advancing innovations in research, teaching, outreach, and other aspects of their unit’s mission. The unit’s progress will be assessed using performance benchmarks developed in collaboration with the administrator’s supervisor and the faculty, staff and others in the unit. These benchmarks will be aligned with the University’s strategic plan and may include but are not limited to the following:
- Input from faculty, staff, and other individuals in the administrator's unit;
- Feedback from internal and external collaborators;
- Business and community boards and outreach initiatives as appropriate to the mission of the unit;
- Increases in donations, research revenues, technology transfer, and other types of external funding;
- Management of resources within the unit;
- Efforts to recruit and retain diverse and outstanding faculty, staff, and students as appropriate to the mission of the unit;
- Measures of teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes, where relevant;
- Increases in undergraduate and graduate enrollments, including those from underserved backgrounds;
- Increases in online enrollments, where applicable;
- Improvements in time to degree and graduation rates where relevant;
- National and international recognition for research, scholarship, and creative achievements that are relevant to the mission of the unit;
- Clinical performance, where relevant;
- Performance on professional licensing examinations in units that train medical residents; and
- Success in meeting accreditation requirements, as appropriate and relevant.
5.2.03 Appeals of Annual Performance Reviews
Administrative personnel who disagree with their annual performance reviews may appeal their review to the administrative head at the next level within 30 days after receipt of the written annual performance review. The appeal must state with specificity (a) the findings to be appealed; (b) the points of disagreement; (c) the facts in support of the appeal; and (d) the corrective action sought.
The administrator reviewing the appeal will consider the facts in support of the appeal and develop any additional facts deemed necessary. The decision on an appeal will be completed in writing within 30 days, with copies provided to the employee seeking the appeal and the employee's supervising administrator.
If an administrator also holds a non-faculty appointment and disagrees with the review related to that appointment, the administrator may appeal the review to the next administrative level. If an administrator also holds a faculty appointment of more than 25% of the administrator's total workload assignment and disagrees with the review of the administrator's performance as a faculty member, then the administrator may appeal the review according to the same procedures provided for faculty in Section 3.2.03.