Library Home at The University of West Georgia

MPE Discussions

  1. Develop a process whereby the EC provides feedback on levels assigned

    "The Equity Committee does not assign levels: it agrees consensually to the assignment of individual scores. I assign the levels, and propose to the Director. The levels are based on score ranges, available funds, and an effort to approach a normal distribution curve. Scores, levels, and rates are always finalized at the discretion of the administration/Director."

    "Another thing that occurs to me is that a committee who decides the value of work performance should look at the portfolio each individual is required to compile, or else we should stop compiling them. After putting the time and effort into it, it is insulting for only one person to see it. If that person does not value you, they are unlikely to bring up anything demonstrated in the portfolio that isn't immediately and directly spelled out in the self-evaluation, which is encouraged to be kept concise."

    "The equity committee's practices are too hidden. If they need to adjust our scores, they should have to justify the change on paper, with adequate reasons. I suspect that our rights as employees are being violated, since that information is not going into our file. As far as I know, we have the right to see our personal files, and when changes are made, those changes should and must be documented. How do we know that favoritism isn't at play when our scores are dropped or raised for no apparent reason?"

    "Composition of the Equity Committee needs to be examined. A clear charge needs to be outlined, and their procedures need to be public. Do they evaluate the employees again, or are they evaluating the fairness of the existing evaluations? In other words, are they reevaluating the employee or just making sure proper procedures were followed in the evaluation process? What criteria do they use for their work? Should membership be limited to division/department heads, or should it be all who supervise, or should it be rotating?"

    "The MPE process needs written justification from the Equity Committee for score changes."

  2. Ensure that evaluations include growth/improvement plans

    "Ideally, this process is a time of reflection on past accomplishments and future possibilities. Goal setting should be an integral part of the process."

  3. Clarify evaluation criteria

    "This process lacks consistency in the area of scoring. We need standardized tiers from year to year."

    "One of my primary concerns is quantifying the meaning behind certain scores--we must all agree on what a score in a particular area means. What is a 65? Let's clarify what each range means so that we can score ourselves appropriately."

    "A sensible scoring system, with a specific number range for each level, and a set of criteria that each employee must meet to reach that level."

    "The scoring system is meaningless. There's a lot of cloak and dagger involved, with whispers about what the top score might be this year, and what is acceptable and not acceptable. It is totally inane that we're supposedly using a 1-100 scale, but 50-70 is the only acceptable range. It is even worse that the range of 50-70 isn't even official, but something that we're told, and nobody is ever able to give a logical explanation for it."

    "I know that part of the job of the equity committee is to balance the scores, since one supervisor might score very high and one might score much lower. But that wouldn't happen if we all knew what number stood for "Excellent," and "Average," and "Poor," etc. Currently, some supervisors might give their employees a 70, thinking it means they did excellently, while another might put down 60, thinking the same thing, or another might even score in the 80s. They have all wanted to score an employee as excellent, but since the scoring system is not really a system, they all give different numbers. When the equity committee looks at those numbers, how are they really supposed to know what each employee and supervisor meant by the numbers? They can look at the written evaluations, but then that kind of defeats the point of having a scoring system at all, doesn't it? If there was a good scoring system, the equity committee would only have to levelize scores between the supervisors and their employees,and make sure that the supervisors are scoring their employees fairly based on the written evaluations. The way it is now suggests to the cynical mind that the system is deliberately confusing and that the scoring is deliberately undefined so that the powers that be can give raises or not to whomever they choose. It's hard to trust a system with so many questions."

    "Often, the process itself is not at fault, but rather it is the people implementing the process that cause things to go awry. Without consistency across the library, scores (values) essentially become meaningless."

  4. Revise evaluation instruments/processes as necessary to achieve the above

    "I would like to see a different numbering system or system using words."

    "Since it must be merit-based (per BoR policy), it would be difficult to justify everyone getting the same increase, therefore some method of dividing the pool needs to be in place."

    "I enjoyed writing out a summary of what I achieved or didn't achieve throughout the year. It was good for reflection, and to plan out goals for the next year."

    "I liked using my job description to write my evaluation. It makes sense to give percentages to the different parts of my job and weigh my scores in each area accordingly. It also gives me a chance to see where my job description needs to be changed and updated."

  5. Develop training for those evaluating and for those being evaluate

    "Training has always been encouraged for those who need it. While it is relatively easy to explain the process of writing the portfolio, scoring is another matter and very problematic to explain when the process is unclear to begin with."

  6. Discuss possibility of staff being able to evaluate their supervisors as well as the administration.

    "I also feel that the practice of staff evaluating supervisors and administrators should be reimplemented, and preferably with these evaluations bearing directly on the outcome of those individuals' annual assessment. (For instance, those scores could be averaged with the person's self and supervisor scores if the current system of numbers is retained)."

  7. Discuss the need for staff to be on the EC and for rotating members.

    "I would also like to propose possibly having the Equity Committee consist of a different group than DDs, since some people are currently represented directly by the person who evaluates them, yet others are represented by someone who has less knowledge of their daily work responsibilities.

    Additionally, if the committee that reviews the evaluations rotated, this might not be such a residual problem (having people assign a value to your performance who don't witness said performance). This option would require clearly outlined criteria for reviewing the evaluations, to ensure continuity across years. The current lack of continuity has already proved a problem with a constant membership of the Equity Committee, so it might be that the clearly outlined criteria and some of our other suggestions, will take care of the current problems, while keeping the membership of the committee the same. Rotating membership could also serve to disspell any notion of favoritism. If a new committee is appointed, it would seem only reasonable to have at least one support staff on it."

    General Comments:

    "For an evaluation process to be worthwhile, there must be effort put forth by all involved, otherwise it is a waste of time and a sham. The person being evaluated must give their perspective on their own efforts and work so all praise and correction received have their proper context and there is justification for the score (value) given by the evaluation. The evaluator should also give a written narrative that gives the evaluator's perspective and provides justification for praise and correction given as well as the score (value) assigned. Any other changes to the evaluation must also have written justification for changes to the employee's and evaluator's scores (values). Without this written justification, an appeal of a score (value) is problematic at best."

    "While no system of evaluation will ever be perfect or make everyone happy, I think it is important to assess our performance evaluation mechanism routinely, and consider a wide range of alternatives. Is it meeting its objective? First we need that objective clearly, publicly stated."

Hartman 4/06