48 · Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
Inflation of results
Leniency/rating inflation. Willingness of managers to confront performance issues when they arise.
Librarians are not evaluated every year. Performance evaluations are not on a number scale and leads to vague reviews.
Inconsistent scoring.
Managers’ reluctance to provide critical assessment. Employees‘ failure to recognize performance level required. Lack of
understanding about goal setting.
Merit programs are either minuscule or absent, and they do not truly reward high performers. Managers do not provide
year-round feedback. Employees do not want to hear truthful feedback.
No post-tenure review of academics is provided for in the union contract.
Norming across units. Rating inflation, particularly with long-term employees. New staff performance management tool
was implemented without much implementation lead time or support.
Not all employees are subject to it (i.e., librarians, library paraprofessionals). Merit pay for faculty is not based on job
performance it is based primarily on research outputs. Faculty feel they are “above” having a performance
assessment it’s their right to not be judged.
Providing meaningful &specific feedback on ways performance has been good and ways in which it might improve.
Following up on improvement efforts. Making certain that employees won’t be surprised by what they find in the
formal assessment.
Rankings applied consistently across entire organization. Large time commitment required of managers to do a proper
job of this.
Rating/grade inflation. Inability to reward performance due to lack of merit funding or bargaining agreements.
Timely submission.
Ratings inflation. Employee morale when evaluation is based in numerical ratings. Inconsistency from supervisor to
supervisor, particularly when trying to recalibrate the ratings across the library.
Required time commitment.
State mandate pay-for-performance system, with no pay increase.
Still a paper process. Large number of high ratings. Consistent practice and tie to strategic plans.
Supervisor discomfort with constructive feedback. Passing underperformers. Lack of self-awareness/competencies in
some staff.
Supervisors being truthful in their evaluations to the employees. Support staff not setting goals because that would
have them doing work outside their job classification. Getting the process completed in a timely manner.
Supervisors waiting until the annual performance assessment before giving negative or positive feedback to employee.
Supervisors not recognizing that poor attendance equates to poor performance. Supervisors who cannot handle what
they see as confrontation when they should be giving employee negative feedback.
Tenuous connection between assessment and raises. Changing rules for tenure track faculty assessment. Numerous
forms, processes, and schedules for review for various staff families.
The online system. Fair calibration of merit. Supervisors unwilling to have difficult conversations with employees.
Previous Page Next Page