SPP 808: Performance Management for University Staff
To provide information about performance development tools and performance review processes for university staff and non-faculty administrators
Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual - 6–510
University staff, non-faculty administrators, and their supervisors
This policy does not require management to utilize any particular tool, step, or series of steps in the performance management process.
Nothing stated in policy or verbally by any supervisor is intended to create an employment contract or to modify the at-will employment status.
ASU seeks to promote a culture where staff contributions are recognized and rewarded, staff development goals are articulated and supported, and effective supervisory coaching leads to a high performing workplace. ASU believes that such a workplace encourages employee engagement, improves service to students and faculty, and greatly aids in the recruitment and retention of the most talented employees.
All ASU administrative and university staff and non-faculty administrators, especially those who lead others, are expected to be familiar with these performance management tools. Supervisors are accountable for understanding and implementing the university’s performance management program.
Office of Human Resources (OHR) will maintain performance evaluation tools and provide training and consultation in support of the program.
OHR recommends the following tools to assist employees in taking pride and ownership of their work experience consistent with ASU’s policies, to remediate performance issues, and to address employee conduct.
All relevant facts, including prior performance history and length of service/experience to the university, should be considered when using these performance development tools. Notwithstanding the use or initiation of any performance development tools, ASU and/or the employee may decide to terminate the employment relationship at any time.
All university staff and non-faculty administrators should receive an annual performance evaluation. The performance evaluation is prepared by the immediate supervisor.
Performance evaluations serve as a constructive tool to identify and review performance against university-defined core expectations, as well as specific job responsibilities. OHR recommends that the annual performance evaluation be completed with care and include the following elements:
OHR maintains performance evaluation templates that include definitions of the university’s core expectations for staff and management and the five-point rating scale.
Supervisors who have not completed performance evaluations for their employees prior to the end of the fiscal year (June 30) should receive no higher than a 3 rating on their own performance evaluations.
It is recommended that the performance evaluation be completed and administered by the end of the first quarter of the calendar year (March 31). Evaluations should be completed and administered no later than the end of the fiscal year (June 30).
Although formal evaluations occur once a year, supervisors are strongly encouraged to discuss performance informally with employees throughout the year, particularly when performance improvement is needed.
The original signed evaluation is forwarded to OHR for the employee’s official personnel file with a copy given to the employee. A copy of the evaluation should also be maintained in the departmental personnel file.
Final performance ratings are to be entered into PeopleSoft by the department representative for all employees who receive a performance evaluation.
An employee who disagrees with his or her performance evaluation may request, in writing, a review by the second-level supervisor (i.e., the immediate supervisor’s supervisor) within three working days after the evaluation has been delivered.
The second-level supervisor will schedule a meeting to discuss the evaluation with the employee promptly, normally within five working days of receiving the request for review. The second-level supervisor will conduct additional inquiry including modifying the evaluation ratings and/or comments if considered appropriate. The second-level supervisor is responsible for communicating the decision, in writing, to the first-level supervisor and the employee.
The second-level supervisor’s decision is final unless unlawful discrimination is alleged to have influenced the evaluation. If unlawful discrimination is alleged, the employee may file a complaint with the Office of Equity & Inclusion.
The following performance improvement tools may be used if, during the annual performance evaluation process, the employee receives a final rating of a 1 or 2 and/or any time during the year when an employee’s performance or conduct falls below acceptable university or unit standards.
When appropriate, an initial performance improvement action should be coaching. The discussion should be specific, honest, and respectful to ensure the employee clearly understands the established standards and expectations with respect to his or her performance or conduct.
A written record of the date and content of the coaching should be maintained in the appropriate files of the supervisor. A fully executed and signed annual performance evaluation can substitute for or otherwise be considered as a written record of coaching, as long as the area of concern is properly documented in the evaluation.
Memo of Expectations
A written Memo of Expectations may be appropriate when coaching or the annual performance evaluation has not resulted in the needed improvement, or if a situation indicates a need for stronger action. The written Memo of Expectations should outline the performance or conduct issue(s) and state expectations needed to improve performance. The Memo of Expectations should be discussed with the employee.
OHR is available to assist department management with the Memo of Expectations. Copies of this memo should be maintained in the appropriate departmental file.
Prior to terminating a university staff or non-faculty administrator, department management must review the situation and appropriate documentation submitted to the Office of Human Resources (OHR) Partners Group.
Dean, vice president, or designee-level approval is always required for a recommendation of termination.
The termination should be communicated to an employee verbally and in writing. Because employment is at will, university staff and non-faculty administrators are not provided a reason for termination. Department leadership is strongly advised to request assistance from OHR in composing the letter of termination. If unlawful discrimination is alleged, the employee may file a complaint with the Office of Equity & Inclusion within 30 days from the termination (see ACD 401, “Nondiscrimination, Anti-Harassment, and Nonretaliation.”)
For additional information, see:
skip navigation bar