Staff Personnel Manual (SPP)

[horizontal rule]

Effective: 5/1/1984

Revised: 7/1/2017

[horizontal rule]
[ASU logo]

SPP 309–01: Classified Staff Performance Evaluation

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

To define the policy, accountability, scope, frequency, documentation, and appeal process for classified employee performance evaluation

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]
Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual - 6–404
University policy

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]
Regular classified employees. Note: This policy does not apply to university staff.

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

All ASU classified staff must receive an annual performance evaluation. The performance evaluation is prepared by the immediate supervisor and must include the following elements:

  1. an evaluation of the employee’s performance against the university core expectations as they apply to the job
  2. a brief summary narrative of performance, accomplishments, or deficiencies in the prior evaluation period. The summary should focus on the employee’s specific job responsibilities
  3. an overall rating based on a five-point rating scale:

    • Rating level 1—Fails to meet performance expectations
    • Rating level 2—Inconsistently fulfills performance expectations
    • Rating level 3—Performance expectations fulfilled
    • Rating level 4—Frequently exceeds performance expectations
    • Rating level 5—Consistently exceeds performance expectations

  4. a brief summary of job-related goals for the upcoming evaluation period
  5. a brief summary of individual development opportunities for the upcoming evaluation period.

The Office of Human Resources (OHR) maintains performance evaluation templates that include definitions of the university’s core expectations (for staff and management) and the five-point rating scale. Units are encouraged to use the template but may develop their own format as long as the format contains all of the elements described above.

Accountability and Scope

Supervisors are accountable for understanding and implementing the university’s performance management program and should be evaluated, in part, based on whether they have provided accurate and timely feedback to their direct reports. The use of timely annual performance evaluations is evidence of performance in that area.

OHR will maintain performance evaluation tools and provide training and consultation in support of the program.

Final performance ratings are to be entered into PeopleSoft by the department representative for all employees who receive a performance evaluation.

Performance evaluations for classified employees are to be used as a constructive tool to identify and review performance against university-defined core expectations as well as specific job responsibilities and must be limited to measurable, observable work outcomes and work behaviors.


Each classified employee must be reviewed on an annual basis. A fiscal year is recommended as the performance evaluation year (July 1 – June 30); a department may use another twelve-month period for business reasons. Evaluations should be completed, delivered, and entered into PeopleSoft no later than the end of the first quarter of the performance year.


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.

Appeal Process

A nonprobationary employee who disagrees with his or her performance evaluation may submit a formal request for a thorough review by the second-level supervisor (i.e., the immediate supervisor’s supervisor) within three working days after the performance evaluation interview.

The second-level supervisor will schedule a meeting to discuss the evaluation with the employee within five working days of receiving the request for review and conduct the evaluation appeal interview with the employee.

After review of the evaluation documents, the second-level supervisor will notify the employee and the first-level supervisor of the appeal decision. The second-level supervisor may modify the rating and comments if deemed appropriate.

If not satisfied with that review, the employee may submit a formal request for another review by the third-level supervisor (i.e., the second-level supervisor’s supervisor) within three working days after receiving the second-level supervisor’s appeal decision.

The third-level supervisor will schedule a meeting to discuss the evaluation with the employee within five working days of receiving the request for review, conduct the evaluation appeal interview with the employee, and modify the evaluation ratings and/or comments if considered appropriate. This decision is communicated to the first- and second-level supervisors and the employee.

The third-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, Office of Human Resources.

[horizontal rule]


[horizontal rule]

For more information on resolving discrimination complaints, see the Academic Affairs Policies and Procedures ManualACD 401, “Prohibition Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation.”

skip navigation bar

SPP manual | ASU policies and procedures manuals | Index of Policies by Title | SPP manual contact | Human Resources Web site

Back to Top

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional