91¸£ÀûÉç

The state of Colorado determines the merit and performance cycles for classified employees. The 91¸£ÀûÉç has developed a performance management program in compliance with the State Personnel Board’s rules and procedures. The performance management program is designed to help employees achieve performance excellence and encourages collaboration between supervisors and employees, with an emphasis on continuous feedback.Ìý

°Õ¾±³¾±ð±ô¾±²Ô±ðÌý

• Classified Staff Cycle: August 1 to July 31
• Evaluations due: September 15
• Performance plans due: October 15
• Coaching Sessions: The performance management process also requires that at least one coaching session/progress review meeting occur within the plan year. If only one coaching session is held, it should be scheduled midway through the plan year.Ìý

Performance management serves as an important mechanism for providing feedback to university staff regarding performance expectations and achievements. Consistent with Regent Law, Regent Policies, and the Administrative Policy Statement on Performance Ratings for Staff, all university staff, including those who are partially or fully grant-funded, must receive an annual performance plan, a performance evaluation, and an overall performance rating for each university staff position an individual employee occupies. Supervisors are not required to complete performance plans, evaluations, and overall performance ratings for retirees occupying temporary university staff positions.Ìý

Ìý°Õ¾±³¾±ð±ô¾±²Ô±ð

• University Staff Cycle: July 1 to June 30
• Evaluations due: September 15
• Performance plans due: October 15

Even though the CU System administration has shifted the merit cycle so that pay raises take effect in January, the performance review cycle is not changing for tenure-track, teaching or research faculty.Ìý The Faculty Report on Professional Activities (FRPA) will continue to be due on Feb. 1 each year. Units will conduct their annual performance reviews on their usual schedule. This cycle better reflects the timing of faculty research and creative work accomplishments that figure into the merit review and pay process, and maintains the timing of the review of merit.Ìý

Shifting faculty performance reviews to the summer or as the fall semester commences would interfere with faculty teaching preparations, fieldwork, and vital preparation time for the academic year.Ìý

In addition, faculty on 9-month positions are technically not on contract between mid-May and mid-August. Standard tenure and promotion raises will continue to take effect the first day of the fall semester.

Definition:

Oversight of the productivity and progress over one or more employees

Key behaviors:

• Uses an appropriate/effective management style;
• Encourages employees to develop to the fullest potential;
• Develops performance plans and conducts annual evaluations in a thoughtful and fair manner and in compliance with university policies;
• Provides honest and on-going feedback;
• Supports employee training, development and recognition;
• Utilizes employee skills effectively;
• Seeks appropriate solutions to resolve personnel issues.

Definition:

Influencing and inspiring employees or an organization to fulfill goals and strategic imperatives.

Key behaviors:

• Promotes professional and ethical work standards and behaviors;
• Cultivates a standard of excellence that inspires and motivates employees;
• Leads by example;
• Develops trust and credibility;
• Fosters positive morale;
• Aligns individual and programmatic goals to the university’s mission and goals.

• Ensures supervisors are well versed in the definitions and application of the rating scale
• Helps supervisors have well thought through reasons as to why they gave a particular rating to an employee
• Helps prepare supervisors to have better performance discussions with their employees; provides supervisors with more confidence in their ratings after discussing the rating in a calibration meeting
• Ensures a more consistent and fair evaluation of an employee’s performance by identifying potential supervisor and reviewer biases
• Provides awell thought out basis for merit increases based on performance
• Provides for better professional development and succession planning as more people managers get insights into the capabilities of employees from other areas

Calibration occurs after an employee has provided self- reflection feedback for the evaluation and the supervisor has completed the evaluation but BEFORE the FINAL evaluation has been presented to the employee and signed by both the employee and supervisor.

Ìý

Step 1

Upon completion of employee evaluations, and prior to holding the evaluation meeting with the employee, the evaluations should be sent to the reviewer. The reviewer is usually the supervisor’s manager, but that may vary in certain colleges and departments.

The reviewer reads each evaluation, looking in particular for constructive supervisory comments and ensuring evaluations are thorough and logical. If the reviewer decides a supervisor should alter a particular evaluation, the reviewer sends the evaluation back and waits for revision.

Once all employee evaluations have been examined and agreed upon by the reviewer – and any necessary changes are made, then a meeting is scheduled between all college/department reviewers. Supervisors may also be in attendance at these meetings if desired. It is up to the particular college and department to determine the level of participation at the calibration meeting.

Step 2

The HR Liaison pulls together the ratings distribution within that college/ department to be discussed in the calibration meeting. The executive Leader holds a meeting with all the reviewers, and supervisors if desired. In this meeting, the participants look at the rating distributions for the entire college/department and ensure the ratings are being consistently and fairly applied to all employees, and that no single supervisor is giving all employees the same numeric rating.

The group may ask questions about specific ratings and may suggest adjustments based on their experience with the employee. Following the discussion, reviewers e