2005 Performance Development System Survey

2005 Performance Development System Survey

Human Resources Staff MeetingMarch 20, 2006

Has the Performance Development System Made a Difference?

2004 Survey – Baseline date on Performance Management prior to the PDS

2005 Survey – Solicited opinions on: Supervisory performance management

practices Career development and advancement

opportunities Training participation and impact/transfer to

the job Customer Service

The Upside More people participated— up 12.7%

2005 - 1,208 respondents out of 4,004 supervisors and staff (30.2%)

2004 – 1,072 respondents Mean scores increased across the board

The PDS is having a positive impact on employees and Temple University.

“ I am sure this system has played an important role in identifying the duties of various positions and strengthening the communications among employees and

supervisors.“

Significant Improvements

2004 2005 Difference

Formal evaluations each year 2.44 3.49 +1.05TU encourages performance excellence 2.55 3.11 +.56

Setting annual work goals 2.72 3.25 +.53Taking advantage of professional development 3.15 3.48 +.33

Significant Agreement

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Clear on job responsibilities

Know the level of performanceexpected of me

Understand my job's importance

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagreeStrongly disagree Don't know

94%

92%

92%

Mixed ReviewsSupervisor Effectiveness

Supervisor Mean

Employee Mean Difference

Acknowledges accomplishments

3.83 3.17 .66

Gives ongoing feedback 3.56 3.02 .54

Has skills to manage 3.65 3.24 .41

Meets with staff to set annual goals

3.63 3.25 .38

“My work performance isn't managed or acknowledged at all.“

Development/Training

Majority agree that: They receive the training necessary – 78% Supervisor encourages professional development –

83% Take advantage of professional development – 90% Use/apply learning to perform better – 85%

Majority of supervisors agree that: They reinforce what employees learn – 83% They encourage employees to participate – 88% Employee apply what they learn to perform better –

81%

Mixed Reviews on Customer Service

2005 Supvr Mean

EE Mean Diff.

CS has enhanced my ability to deliver high quality service

3.00 3.23 .23

“As far as the customer service focus of the U., in general this atmosphere provides a helpful context, but there has been no direct impact, good or bad, on my department's work.”

2004 Supvr Mean

EE Mean Diff.

I understand importance of CS

3.69 3.81 .12

I have the skills to deliver quality CS

3.70 3.76 .06

2004 Student Questionnaire(1=very dissatisfied, 2=Somewhat dissatisfied, 3= somewhat satisfied, 4= very satisfied)

I feel the Temple offices I interact with provide quality customer service 2.71

In general, I have received good treatment at Temple 3.15

If I had to do over again, I would enroll at Temple 3.16

Overall satisfaction with education received at Temple 3.16

2005 National Survey of Student Engagement

Relationship with administrative personnel and offices (1= unhelpful, inconsiderate, rigid to 7 = helpful, considerate, flexible) Temple first year students 4.16 Temple seniors 3.95 Urban Universities first year

students 4.49 Urban Universities seniors 4.40

2005 National Survey of Student Engagement

How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution? (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=excellent)

Temple first year students 3.01 Temple seniors 3.08 Urban Universities first year

students 3.02 Urban Universities seniors 3.05

2005 National Survey of Student Engagement

If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending? (1=definitely no, 2=probably no, 3=probably yes, 4=definitely yes)

Temple first year students 3.11 Temple seniors 3.04 Urban Universities first year students

3.06 Urban Universities seniors 2.99

Concerns

26%

31%

74%

69%

68%32%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Up-to-date jobdescriptions

Job advancementopportunities

Coaching,counseling, etc.

Disagree Agree

FY 2004/05 FT/Reg New HiresPromotions & Transfers

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All New Hires

Management

Clerical

External Promotions Transfers

36%

25%

26%

Concerns Raised in Comments

337 (28%) staff and supervisors commented

88 supervisors (19%) responded to the supervisors only comment question

Critical of: Management skills of supervisors Monetary rewards, relationship of pay to

performance Applicability to employees in unions and

in research positions

Suggestions Raised in Comments

Employee evaluation of supervisors

Make the PDS more user friendly

Expand training courses and offer more widely beyond Main Campus

Conclusions Good News: Scores are Up! Some performance management is

acknowledged: Clear on job responsibilities Performance expectations Formal evaluations each year Encouragement to pursue

professional development

Conclusions (continued)

Room for Improvement Job Descriptions Supervisors’ Skills in:

Managing and Evaluating Performance

Coaching/Counseling Career Advancement Customer Service

Report Summary and PowerPoint Presentation Available at www.temple.edu/hr

Next Steps

Update job descriptions Key to defining responsibilities Employees expect them HR and Departments collaborate

Coaching and counseling Explain what it looks like Tell your employees when it happens Manage their expectations Attend supervisory/leadership training

Next Steps Job advancement

Provide mentoring and career counseling Manage expectations/communicate successful

internal hiring Identify opportunities

Cross training Developmental opportunities Job rotation

Customer Service Are we any better? How do we change perceptions? How do we measure it?

Implement PDS Web System Enhancements

Planned PDS Web Enhancements

Either supervisor or employee can start a PDP and both can enter comments

Improved print function Easier way to rate all core and selected role

competencies Email notifications Progress notes and/or end of the year

summary comments required for all essential functions and goals

2006/07 Goals required on current year PDP

Change in PDP Weightings of Final Scores

40% for Responsibilities/Essential Functions

40% for Goals 10% for Developmental

Competencies 10% for all Core and Selected Role

Competencies.

Coming Soon to a Training Room Near You

March – Employee Manual Supervisory Training and Information Sessions for Union and Non-Union Employees

April – PDS System Changes and Rules of Conduct