UW Gazette, September 24, 1997

Five "values" are at the ocre of how staff members will have their
performances appraised in future, under a proosed form that's being
previewed this month by staff association members.

The new appraisal form is reproduced in the September issue of the
association's newsletter, along with a memo asking for comments by
September 30.

It was devised by the advisory committee on staff compensation in an
effort, the memo says, to find "what changes might better meet the
needs of both managers or supervisors reviewing other staff
members' performance, or as a staff member receiving a performance
appraisal".

The committee announced last spring that it had drafted a new form
and was looking for people to test it and comment on it, but not
many volunteers were heard from, says Karen LeDrew, president of the
staff association.

So the association arranged with the committee to have the whole
document published in StaffNews, along with a renewed invitation
for comments.

If the new form is adopted before appraisals are due next spring, 
all staff will be assessed on the five core factors:

  * client service,
  * collegial relationships,
  * communication,
  * "taking the initiative to make things better",
  * job knowledge.

In addition, "factors relevant to the position" would be selected
from a list that includes "achievement of goals and objectives",
"managing change", "problem solving", "team participation", "time
management" and others. (Says the memo: "The selection of the 
optional factors will be mutually agreed on between the manager and
staff member.")

The new form doesn't include boxes for numerical ratings on the
traditional 1-to-5 system, by which "1" means a staff member is in
big trouble while "5" is "reserved for those few individuals whose
exceptional performance is recognized by all".

Instead, the memo explains, "the ratings section provides a more
descriptive list from which to choose and will be by check-box only
rather than a number".

The proposed form shows 11 possible ratings, ranging from "Performance
was significantly below job requirements in several important
areas" through "Performance met job requirements" up to "Exceptional
performance in all areas of the job requirements which is recognized
throughout the Department/Faculty or broadly throughout the
University".

The memo says: "The check-box does correspond to a numerical rating
based on the 1 to 5 scale but this will not appear on the form. This
has been done in the interests of providing a review less directed
towards the end number and, it is hoped, with more emphasis on
constructive discussion rather than final rating.

"With more choices of performance assessment it may also have the
effect of moderating the gradually increasing overall average rating
(approximately 4.17 in 1997)."