Pay for Performance - Merit Program for Career Development

1) Collaborative Goal Setting. 2) Attainment & Shared Evaluation. 3) Celebrate & Repeat!

Overview

The Pay for Performance (P4P) Program is a merit-based approach and is a result of recommendations and analysis from Systemwide Human Resources and Compensation, as well as, feedback received from staff in the most recent Engagement Survey. These revealed staff’s desire to differentiate pay based on performance and receive more recognition for personal contributions. With proper distribution of performance ratings, managers can differentiate merit awards and appropriately recognize the strongest contributors.

Focus on Performance Training

To support this effort, “Focus on Performance” training has been scheduled to help supervisors complete performance appraisals, engage staff with effective goals and regular feedback. Results are summarized from the recent P4P survey that helped revise the appraisal ratings.  An online performance appraisal tool has been developed to replace existing forms.

  • Focus on Performance: Performance Appraisal Training & Feedback  -  Free
    June 7, 2017; 1:30 - 2:30pm - Kerr Hall, Room 60/62
    June 29, 2017; 1:30 - 2:30pm - Scotts Valley Center, 100 Enterprise Way, SHR Training Room E1101
    July 5, 2017; 1:30 - 2:30pm - Scotts Valley Center, 100 Enterprise Way, SHR Training Room E1101
    July 12, 2017; 1:30 - 2:30pm - Kerr Hall, Room 60/62
    This training introduces the new online performance appraisal form and new rating scale for 2017. This one hour training will help supervisors and managers learn how to use the upgraded tools. The basics of writing and delivering concise, effective appraisals will also be covered. This training is offered in conjunction with "Goal-Setting & Feedback". Sign up for both classes to Focus on Performance.
    Remote participation available upon request; email learningcenter@ucsc.edu to request remote participation.
    Instructors: Bill Parro, Training & Development Manager, Frank Widman, Principal Technical Training & Compliance Analyst, or others
  • Focus on Performance: Goal-Setting & Feedback  -  Free
    June 29, 2017; 2:30 - 4:30pm - Scotts Valley Center, 100 Enterprise Way, SHR Training Room E1101
    July 5, 2017; 2:30 - 4:30pm - Scotts Valley Center, 100 Enterprise Way, SHR Training Room E1101
    July 12, 2017; 2:30 - 4:30pm - Kerr Hall, Room 60/62
    Goal-Setting and Feedback is essential to a high performing organization. Setting goals and clarifying expectations for staff connects the efforts of individuals with the priorities of the organization.  Regular feedback keeps staff on track and engaged in achieving their goals and meeting expectations.  This training is offered in conjunction with "Performance Appraisal Training".  Sign up for both classes to Focus on Performance.
    Instructors: Bill Parro, Training & Development Manager, Frank Widman, Principal Technical Training & Compliance Analyst, or others

P4P Town Hall Series

We are also presenting several demonstrations of the online appraisal tool and are receiving very positive feedback. Town Halls will be held on campus and at Scotts Valley with Zoom access. Employees are encouraged to take advantage of these events. We will be updating the following schedule as events are added:

- June 2nd, 1:30 - 4:30pm - Kerr Hall Room 60
- June 6th, 1:00 - 2:30pm - Scotts Valley Center
- June 8th, 10:30am - 12:00pm - Scotts Valley Center
- June 29th, 1:30 - 4:30pm - Scotts Valley Center
- July 5th - TBD
- July 12th - TBD

Rating Scale

Exceptional
Consistently exceeded expectations
Met expectations
Improvement needed
Unacceptable

Rating Definitions

Exceptional
  •  Surpassed all goals (Including stretch goals)
  •  Performance far exceeded expectations in all key areas of responsibility
  •  Consistently delivered an exceptionally high quality of work
  •  Brought exceptional or unique contributions to organizational objectives
  •  Behavior consistently exemplified the highest values of the organization
  •  This rating is not given frequently (approx. top 10% across campus)

Consistently Exceeded Expectations
  •  Generally exceeded goals (Essential and any stretch goals)
  •  Performance consistently exceeded expectations in key areas of responsibility
  •  Consistently delivered a generally excellent quality of work
  •  Exhibited model behavior that reflected the values of the organization

Met Expectations
  •  Met essential goals
  •  Performance consistently met expectations in key areas of responsibility
  •  At times may exceed expectations
  •  Consistently delivered a generally excellent quality of work
  •  Is dependable, highly reliable, follows through on assignments
  •  Exhibited behavior consistent with the values of the organization

Improvement Needed
  •  Did not consistently meet essential goals
  •  Performance did not consistently meet job requirements
  •  Behavior may not consistently reflect the essential organizational values
  •  This rating would typically follow on-going counselling and coaching for improvement

Repeated overall annual ratings of “Needs Improvement” should not be tolerated. Aside from counselling and coaching, progressive discipline may be used for performance improvement. A plan to improve performance must follow and include clear expectations, deadlines, and formally scheduled one-on-one reviews for measuring the expected improvements

Unacceptable
  •  Failed to meet essential goals
  •  Performance egregiously failed to meet expectations
  •  Lack of improvement would likely be previously documented through progressive discipline
  •  Behavior may be contrary to essential organizational values

Repeated overall annual ratings of “Unacceptable” should not be tolerated. Improvement is essential for continued employment. Progressive discipline is likely being  used for performance improvement. A plan to improve performance must follow and include clear expectations, deadlines, and formally scheduled one-on-one reviews for measuring the expected improvements

Report on the P4P survey results

The P4P survey was sent to 1,481 staff and managers on February 27, 2017.  We received 497 responses (34% response rate).  Extensive comments about the ratings and about many other aspects of the P4P program were provided.

Survey Rating Results

  • 60% favored 5 point scale. Comments indicated that this preference:

    • Allows for better differentiation and is more specific
    • Is more nuanced, with less room for ambiguity
    • Is more motivational

  • 34% favored 3 point scale. Comments indicated that this preference:

    • Is simpler
    • Is easier
    • Is more fair
    • Breaks the current uneven rating dynamic

  • 6% indicated no preference

Salient survey comments summarized

  • The three percent Pay for Performance program will have difficulty motivating staff regardless of the rating scale used

  • The uneven use of ratings across campus is a fundamental problem

  • Training of managers and supervisors is needed

Workgroup Analysis and Conclusions

The uneven use of ratings results from poorly defined levels of expectation, lack of regular feedback and different management standards. Robust training is the most effective current solution to defining goals and expectations and promoting regular feedback. Clear definitions of ratings will help provide clarity, but will not change the root causes of uneven ratings. Forced calibration of ratings would increase fairness, but might temporarily affect morale. Campus managers are not interested in forcing calibration at this time and there is not a campus consensus to require supervisors to attend training.

Conclusions

  • Adopt the five point scale rating scale with clear rating definitions

  • Provide instructions and training for supporting ratings with appraisal language

  • Campaign to achieve broad participation in training of managers and supervisors

  • Build a goal setting and progress tool as companion to the performance appraisal form