Recently the University of Illinois established a requirement that all Academic Professionals (APs) be evaluated in writing by their supervisors at least once a year. The purpose of the job performance evaluation is not only to review the employee's competence at performing currently assigned tasks, but also to promote professional growth.
Evaluators choose from a number of evaluative and review instruments, or they may employ their own previously approved measurements. To ensure consistency, a unit must use the same evaluation to review all its employees. However, there is much latitude in the form and process of the evaluations to permit a good fit with the unit's management style.
While letting evaluators choose the type of evaluations with which they are most comfortable is a good idea, it is also one of the weaknesses of the AP evaluation procedure. An evaluation might consist solely of the evaluator's comments about the employee without giving the employee an opportunity to respond to any statement he/she believes is wrong or unfair. There is no formal procedure to appeal unfair or incorrect evaluations.
Current UIUC guidelines for evaluating APs (University of Illinois Campus Administrative Manual at Urbana-Champaign Personnel Policies, Section IX/C-23, May 1997) provide a limited degree of regulation and consistency. However, they do not stipulate that employees take an active role during the evaluation process, nor do they provide an avenue for the employee to voice disagreement with the evaluation.
Other universities have successfully implemented professional employee evaluations that involve employees and provide them a means of recourse if they disagree with the evaluation. For example, Youngstown State University's agreement with their Association of Professional and Administrative Staff gives the employee the right to address questions and clarify misunderstandings, both orally and in writing, with the evaluator during the evaluation process. After the evaluation is complete, the employee may write comments on it, convey verbal comments, or append a written statement to the document. Also, if the employee believes steps in the evaluation process were irregular or unfair, he/she can file a grievance that goes before a third party. If this entity finds that irregularities did occur, the old evaluation is nullified and a new one must be completed.
The evaluation process should also give employees assurance of their continued employment. Current UIUC procedures state, "It should also be noted that factors other than performance, such as budget, may override even outstanding performance and result in a decision not to reappoint an academic professional." While we understand that a budget crisis might force a unit to terminate even its outstanding employees, there should be some policy for retaining excellent employees within the university system.
We want to make evaluations as fair as possible and useful as a communication tool between managers and employees. Good communication requires dialogue, not monologue. It requires all parties to be comfortable with the procedure and confident in its fairness. The current evaluation process works well with good managers; unfortunately, because there is no stipulation that the employee take an active role in the evaluation, many APs at the University suffer from its one-sided nature.