Tulsa Community College Performance Appraisal … Community College Performance Appraisal Feedback Summary. ... • Share final thoughts ... – Extracurricular activities used as

The Persimmon Group LLC ◗ 320 South Boston, Suite 1026 ◗ Tulsa, OK 74103 ◗ ph: 918.592.4121 ◗ fax: 918.584.1425 www.thepersimmongroup.com

Tulsa Community CollegePerformance Appraisal Feedback Summary

The Persimmon Group

• Management Consultants– Bob Schooley– Laura Chadwick– Rachael Crook– Trait Thompson

www.thepersimmongroup.com 2

Agenda

• Discuss survey results• Discuss focus group key findings• Discuss focus group proposed solutions• Share final thoughts


Feedback Summary Process

1. TCC conducted an online survey to Faculty, Administrators and Staff

2. The Persimmon Group conducted separate Focus Groups

Faculty (2 sessions, 3 individuals in attendance)Supervisors (1 session, 7 in attendance)Employees (4 sessions, 12 in attendance)Assistant Deans (1 session, 9 in attendance)

3. The Persimmon Group analyzed the survey and Focus Group comments


Survey – Key Findings

• Strengths– Awareness and understanding of the appraisal process– Clarity of goals and objectives for the next appraisal period

• Opportunities– Merit Pay process (training, communication and self-

appraisal enhancements)– Clarification of “meets expectations”– Timing of the performance appraisals (January-April)


Survey Key Findings


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I attended an education session on the new appraisal process

I completed a self-appraisal on my performance

My supervisor met with me in person to review my appraisal

YesNo

Survey Key Findings –All Employees


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

4. The employee education sessions on the new appraisal process were informative.

5. I understood how to complete my self-appraisal.

6. The appraisal meeting with my supervisor was constructive and informative.

7. Having a discussion of my goals and objectives with my supervisor for the next appraisal period was beneficial.

8. I understand my goals and objectives for the next appraisal period.

9 My supervisor objectively evaluated my performance.

10 I understood how my salary increase was calculated.

11 I have had follow-up discussions with my supervisor on my goals and objectives since my appraisal.

12 I believe the new performance appraisal process was applied consistently across the College.

19% 43% 39%

30% 20% 51%

59% 12% 30%

Survey Key Findings –Administrative / Staff Employees


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13. My supervisor explained what the standards are for “Meets Expectations.”

14. The defined appraisal criteria covered the key components of my job.

15. I understand how merit pay was awarded based on the overall appraisal rating.

16. My supervisor followed the standard that if you were meeting the requirements of the job, your performance “Meets Expectations.”

Survey Key Findings –Faculty

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17. The self-appraisal covered the scope of my position.

18. I understood the criteria for receiving merit pay.

19. The self-appraisal is an effective evaluative instrument for determining merit pay.

20. The appraisal process resulted in a meaningful dialogue and goal setting with my supervisor.


28% 35% 37%

Survey Key Findings –Faculty


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Yes

No

21. Did you apply for merit pay?

Survey Findings –Supervisors


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

22. The training session on the new appraisal process was helpful.

23. The support from my supervisor in reviewing my appraisals before meeting with my employees was beneficial.

24. I felt confident conducting appraisals in person with my employees.

25. I related my employees’ goals and objectives to the department/division objectives.

26. I followed the standard that if an employee is meeting the requirements of the job that they were “Meeting Expectations.”

27. The January-April timing and deadlines for conducting performance appraisals is workable for me.

28. I felt confident that I conveyed to my employees my expectations related to their jobs.

47% 21% 33%

Survey Findings –Supervisors


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

I generally rated higher than the defined standards

I generally rated following the defined standards

I generally rated lower than the defined standards

Which statement best describes your overall use of the ratings guidelines

Survey Free Responses – Key Findings

• There has been relatively little follow-up regarding goals and objectives since the appraisal process.

• Merit pay standards were not consistently applied across the College.

• The appraisal form should be enhanced for ease of use, clarity, and scope of job categories.

• Training on the appraisal process should be increased.

• Increase in communication regarding the merit pay process (i.e. who qualifies, how to apply for merit pay, award of merit pay, etc.) is needed.

www.thepersimmongroup.com13

Faculty Free Responses (Survey)

• Forms– Did not cover scope of responsibilities– Merit categories were insufficient– Extracurricular activities used as evaluators of merit pay

were all weighted the same regardless of commitment level and participation

• Training– Associate Deans were not adequately trained in

administering the performance appraisal process– More training should be given to ensure consistent

application of principles across the board


Faculty Free Responses (Survey) cont.

• Process– There should be more clarity in the process. Respondents were unsure

of the criteria for merit pay or when merit pay was applied once it had been granted

– Supervisors do not understand the jobs performed by their employees and are thus unable to give a fair evaluation

– Standards for merit pay were not applied consistently across the College

• Other Comments– Merit pay standards removes the emphasis from teaching and places it

on extracurricular activities– Extracurricular activities required to obtain merit pay are not funded by

the College– Faculty should be able to review supervisors


Staff Free Responses (Survey)

• Forms– Forms were confusing and vague

• Process– Inconsistent application of standards for merit pay

across the College– Those favored by supervisors are graded higher– No adjustment mechanism for bias


Staff Free Responses (Survey), continued

• Training– There was not enough training or in some cases, no

training at all– Supervisors / ADs should receive more training

• Other Comments– Process was unfair, especially for those whose job

duties did not fit the standard description– Clarification is needed on evaluation criteria


Focus Groups: Key Findings

• No gross negative with the process itself; more about the consistent application of the process

• Rating criteria not consistently applied• Training needs to be more active and include skill building

components• Job description process not complete (no baseline)• Confusion surrounding merit pay; criteria for earning it,

communication of pool available, notification of award, etc.• Timing, rushed implementation and proximity to Mercer

Study adversely affected the creditability of the process www.thepersimmongroup.com 18

Focus Groups: What Worked Well

• People appreciated the opportunity to complete a self evaluation

• Institutional focus; everyone did their appraisals at the same time

• Merit Pay enhanced the meaningfulness of the appraisal process

• Sparked pockets of high quality discussion and support concerning ratings and criteria


Focus Groups: Proposed Solutions

• Consistent application of the process– Increase active, skill-based training

• Scenarios• Role plays

– Develop definitions and examples for all rating criteria by job family; especially meets and exceeds expectations

– Provide on-line help and coaching– Go-to person for help and advice– Facilitate meetings between counterparts to set common

expectations regarding application of appraisal terms



• Ensure alignment between job descriptions and goals– Update job descriptions that accurately reflect employee roles– Use job descriptions in conjunction with effective goal setting

process to provide consistent baseline from which to evaluate performance

– Ensure job descriptions are relevant to current roles and support the baseline for evaluation

– Include goal setting in ongoing training



• Merit Pay– Clear criteria concerning what warrants Merit Pay– Correct the perception that you can not earn Merit Pay based on

superior execution of your standard duties– Notify the recipients of the Merit Pay– Communicate the funding pool earlier in the year



• Timing– The appraisal process took place in the Spring, which is one of

the busiest times for the College – Lesson learned; implement new process at the start of an annual

cycle


Final Thoughts

• Level of participation in both the survey and focus groups suggests no major unrest

• Process needs to be refined, embedded, and allowed to evolve– Training is the key– Quick fixes:

• Online forms• Merit notification letter• General communication


Thank you!


Tulsa Community College Performance Appraisal … Community College Performance Appraisal Feedback Summary. ... • Share final thoughts ... – Extracurricular activities used as

Documents