APS 5009 - Performance Ratings for University Staff
|Policy Title:||Performance Ratings for University Staff|
|Effective:||April 1, 2009|
|Approved by:||President Bruce D. Benson|
|Responsible University Officer:||Vice President of Employee and Information Services|
|Responsible Office:||Vice President of Employee and Information Services|
|Policy Contact:||Vice President of Employee and Information Services|
|Supersedes:||This revision replaces the APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty, Officers, and Exempt Professionals, issued as effective July 1, 1999, that superseded the APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty, Unclassified Staff/Administrator, and Officers, that was issued on July 1, 1989. A separate APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty will be issued.|
|Last Reviewed/Updated:||April 1, 2009|
|Applies to:||All university staff and their supervisors|
Brief Description: This APS provides a consistent performance rating system for university staff as a critical component of the university's performance management system for effective resource management and employee development.
Reason for Policy: Effective April 1, 2009, this policy statement provides the guidelines for annual performance evaluation and planning in accordance with the use of the revised 5-point performance rating form and continued use thereafter.
Consistent with Regents Laws and policies, the performance of university staff will be evaluated and rated annually. The performance evaluation will be based upon the position description and performance planning between the supervisor and employee. The performance evaluation provides the basis for individual performance ratings and merit and other pay adjustments. The performance rating is the overall summary rating of the individual's performance and constitutes the public record of rating, in accordance with the Colorado Open Records Act.
The following Administrative Policy Statement (APS) ensures that the University has a consistent performance rating system as a critical component of a performance management process that serves university interests in resource management and employee development. The policy does not affect discretion that may be exercised by System Administration and each campus to adopt specific ways to administer the performance management system contained in this APS.
University staff and supervisors of university staff are responsible for understanding and implementing the performance evaluation and annual performance rating process as defined in this policy statement.
II. STATEMENT OF POLICY
- This policy statement moves the university to a 5-point performance rating scale for university staff with revised related forms.
- 2008-2009 OEP rating forms due to the HR offices must be submitted on the new 5-point performance rating form.
- 2009-2010 and subsequent performance plans and goals, and evaluation shall be based on the new 5-point scale as defined in this APS.
- University staff will be evaluated and receive a performance rating on an annual basis. Individual performance evaluations and ratings provide the basis for annual merit and other pay adjustments.
- The rating for university staff will categorize each person's performance with a five to one (5-1) point summary rating. The performance rating will be provided on the University Staff Annual Performance Rating Form.
- The rated employee has the right to append a response to the rating if he or she so desires.
- The supervising authority and rated employee will sign the performance rating form to acknowledge that the rating has been discussed.
- The supervising authority will retain the original signed rating form and provide the rated employee a copy of the signed form.
The University of Colorado University Staff Plan and Evaluation Form or other comparable evaluation form approved by the campus chancellor or designee will document the evaluation process for the individual's annual performance rating.
- The performance rating form will be placed in the employee's personnel file. The performance rating is subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act. Any written justification for the performance rating may also be placed in the personnel file but will not be disclosed to anyone other than the employee and university personnel with a demonstrated business need. Human Resources offices are responsible for approving such access.
- Performance ratings for annual merit or salary adjustment consideration shall be submitted to the applicable Human Resources Office in accordance with individual campus-defined submittal dates.
- The performance rating is only one item of information that may be used, consistent with the Laws of the Regents and University policy, in the annual salary setting process or in comprehensive administrative evaluations.
Italicized termsused in Administrative Policy Statements are defined in the Administrative Policy Statement Glossary of Terms. Underlined terms are defined for the purpose of this APS only.
- Performance Evaluation: Performance evaluation is a collaborative supervisor/employee process that begins with identification of job responsibilities found in a position description, the contract/letter of offer and in the unit's workload policies, includes agreement on a performance planand feedback on defined goals and objectives and concludes with an assessment of performance. During a performance evaluation, documents and comments from a variety of individuals that relate to an individual's performance may be collected and reviewed.
- Performance Rating: A performance rating derived from the evaluation process is a five to one (5-1) point summary rating defined as follows:
- 5 - Outstanding
Far exceeds performance expectations on a consistent and uniform basis. Work is of exceptional quality in all essential areas of responsibility. In addition, makes an exceptional or unique contribution in achievement of unit, department, and University objectives
- 4 - Exceeding Expectations
Always achieves performance expectations and frequently exceeds them. Demonstrates performance of a very high level of quality in all areas of responsibility.
- 3 - Meeting Expectations
Consistently fulfills performance expectations and periodically may exceed them. Work is of high quality in all significant areas of responsibility.
- 2 - Below Expectations
Fails to meet expectations in one or two of the significant/ essential position requirements and improvement is needed in these areas.
- 1- Fails to Meet Expectations
Fails to meet expectations in more than two of the significant/ essential position requirements and improvement is needed in most aspects of position.
- 5 - Outstanding
IV. Related Information and Links
- Initial Policy Effective: July 1, 1989, APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty, Unclassified Staff/Administrator, and Officers.
- Supersedes: APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty, Officers, and Exempt Professionals, issued as effective July 1, 1999.
- Last Amended: Effective April 1, 2009, this policy statement provides for the use of the revised 5-point performance rating form in 2008-2009. It also provides the guidelines for annual performance planning and evaluation using the 5-point performance rating form for 2009-2010 and thereafter. A separate APS on Performance Ratings for Faculty will be issued.
- Reviewed By: Chancellors, vice presidents, human resources directors, and the director of training and development.
- The terms “officer and exempt professional”, “OEP” and “officer/exempt professional” were replaced with the term “university staff” effective November 1, 2014.