SPEC Kit 344: Talent Management · 47
Central processing form (established by university) is somewhat rigid and restricting. Inconsistencies between
evaluators. Lack of training in process of performance assessment.
Challenges with variation in scoring by supervisors. Staff positions are covered by collective bargaining agreements and
compensation is not tied to performance. Overall challenge to tie merit increases to performance scores.
Consistency throughout library. SMART goal setting. Alignment of individual goals to organizational goals.
Developing consensus about performance rating levels. Creating an approach for faculty that integrates assessment of
role-related performance and progress toward promotion and tenure.
Differentiating “professional service” (external and elective) from those tasks that are intrinsic to the librarian’s job—
especially when so many “external” organizations (like our key consortia) have committees that behave somewhat like
ALA committees. Staff believe that different supervisors rate inconsistently so that it is “easier” to get a high rating in
some departments. Definitions for the ratings are not understood or applied consistently despite regular training.
Difficult to get supervisors to give constructive or negative feedback. Difficulty to get buy-in for the process when there
are no raises for merit. For support staff, the mandated tool is not adequate.
Documenting who was responsible for positive outcomes and documenting when a person/unit does not contribute to
a project. Inconsistent methodology by managers/supervisors. Outdated faculty measurement models. How to handle
tenured librarians who don’t keep up with new advances in the profession. It is awkward to have many managers
managing staff who don’t understand (e.g., new technology-cost of digital storage of the campus’ lack of a robust
infrastructure) or new teaching methods.
Does not address changing priorities and goals throughout the year. Form is too long and takes too much time.
Individual learning plans and career pathing are inadequate.
Doesn’t achieve any real purpose with performance. Not connected with merit. Does not affect promotion.
Evaluation instruments, though carefully re-designed, evaluate traits rather than performance. Provost level rejection of
supervisor ratings. Lack of completion of evaluations by supervisors.
Failure by managers/supervisors to complete annual performance assessments for employees. Poorly completed reviews
by managers/supervisors, i.e., lack of specific feedback for employees. Lack of SMART goals lack of accountability.
Figuring out how to consistently describe the criteria for ‘meets expectations’.
Forms and procedures provided by university are inadequate. Employees fail to effectively conduct self-evaluation.
Supervisors not adequately trained and evaluated on performance review skills.
Getting them done annual reviews are not done consistently across the organization (even within the same employee
group). Tendency of reviews to downplay performance problems, possibly to avoid confrontation or because reviewer
not skilled in offering constructive criticism.
Grade inflation. Quantitative evaluation not aligned with qualitative evaluation. Introducing a self-assessment option.
Honest evaluations by supervisors. Ability to deal with and resolve performance concerns. Productive evaluation
discussions between supervisors and employees.
Inability to mandate completion of annual appraisals—lack of support from highest level of management. Perception by
supervisors that appraisal is not part of their responsibilities.
Inconsistencies of performance evaluation’s key responsibilities. Evaluations have been paper form, are converting to
electronic version.
Previous Page Next Page