The meeting was called
to order at
The Assembly roll was
called by the Secretary. Assembly
members who were not in attendance were Michael Harris, Missy Long (maternity
leave), Melissa Morris (work commitment), Julie Nolan, and Melvin Smith.
The minutes from the 02/15/05 A&P
Assembly meeting were approved with two corrections, the spelling of April
Staton’s name and the inclusion of report details from the Ad Hoc committee established
to develop nomination and election guidelines for proportional representation.
Comments from the Chair followed.
Harriette Huggins recognized several special guests: Conner
Bailey, Senate Chair, Willie Larkin Past-chair, Rich Penoskovic, Senate
Chair-elect, John Varner, outgoing Staff Council chair, Jenny Swaim, incoming
Staff Council chair, and Tissie Walker, Staff Council chair-elect 2005-06.
Harriette reported on meetings she has attended on the
A&P Assembly’s behalf.
Call for Committee Nominations
Dianne Jay, chairperson of the
Elections & Nominations committee, made a call for nominations for existing
vacancies on A&P committees - see appendix 1. All vacancies, committee descriptions, and the
nomination process are posted online at http://www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/ap/committee_vacancies05.htm
The deadline for submitting nominations for committee
vacancies is
The President’s Office has agreed to
provide A&P representation on these committees, with their terms beginning
immediately upon appointment:
Terms on University Committees
normally start in the fall and runs through
Program
Lynne Hammond, Assistant VP, Human Resources provided us with an update on the
Classification and Compensation Project currently underway. This project is being conducted by AU’s Human Resources and
Hewitt Associates, an outside consulting firm.
Job classification, compensation, and performance management are
areas that will be addressed by this project. Additional information and project updates are
available online at http://www.auburn.edu/administration/human_resources/compensation/ccp/index.html
Focus groups showed that AU
employees find their work to be exciting and challenging, that AU is a family
friendly work environment. They
expressed dissatisfaction with AU’s compensation and review processes. This
project is committed to addressing those concerns.
Current status is that the project
is a bit behind their original completion goal but is expected to be concluded
by the end of this year. Most position surveys have been completed and the job
classification is underway. There are
currently about 1,200 different job classifications and the goal is to
consolidate where possible. Tony and
Trey in HR are currently updating job descriptions. This phase will be the most
time consuming part of the project.
The next step is to design an
improved performance management system to define job families, develop job
descriptions, ready market data, and establish pay structures. A university committee has been established
for this purpose. Martha Taylor has been
representing A&P on this committee for the past year. Their appraisal instrument is almost ready. Another
goal is to provide competitive pay based on current and diverse market data and
to provide performance based pay. The
goal for performance review is to have 100% participation.
Lynn Hammond encouraged us to
provide feedback to them and watch updates on the project’s web page. She opened the floor to questions.
Q: Is there any guarantee that this project will
be implemented and is there money available to make the salary adjustments it
recommends?
A: There is no question that it will be
implemented but we don’t know yet if there will be funds available for salary
adjustments.
Q: Will
performance evaluations be used to determine raises this year?
A: Evaluations are being sent out now. If there are raises this year, some will be
based on merit. HR strongly encourages
the use of evaluations and greater accountability for supervisors.
Q: Will
unique areas be forced into existing job titles?
A: Some non-tenure track faculty positions may
be. This project is attempting to make
position titles more accurate, not less.
Classification is being based on some market data this time.
Q: What is the scope of market analysis being
used to classify positions?
A: Industry standards, standards used at other
academic institutions, and sometimes the local market. The market analysis will be collected based
on relevant recruitment areas for the position.
Q: How large is the team that is working on this
project?
A: There are 2 full time employees dedicated to
this project, including Chuck Gerards, the project leader. There are some consultants and some TES
employees helping with the job analysis.
Q: What kind of market analysis is being used to
classify technical positions?
A: The technical job families are being
evaluated using the data motioned earlier.
These campus positions will be centrally reviewed as well by campus IT
administration.
Q: If we
are unhappy with our results from this project, is there an appeal process
available to us?
A: Yes, there will be opportunity for review and
feedback. Decisions are being made now
based on focus group feedback and that of the subject matter experts in each
area so hopefully you will be satisfied with your results.
Q: In the course of this project, are their
plans to bring all human resources areas on campus together?
A: Yes, there are plans for a unified human
resources division that will bring Facilities and Ag HR together with
University Personnel Services.
Q: Since your objective is to increase job competencies
and provide better evaluation tools for supervisors, are there plans to provide
360 degree evaluations or peer evaluations?
A: We are taking a developmental approach but do
not have plans for 360 degree evaluations, where the evaluation comes from a
variety of sources and not just the supervisor.
The HR industry standard is moving away from these kinds of
evaluations. There is no process for upward feedback for
evaluation of supervisors in this plan but discussions of supervisor
accountability are underway. Pat Deery
is representing A&P on the committee that is considering this issue and
creating improved evaluation forms.
Q: Will there be any changes to our job
families?
A: Some job families are much more structured
than others now. There are developmental
plans for job families associated with his project and we will attempt to make
the structure more equal.
Q: What will be required to fire non-tenure
track faculty?
A: Most of them are considered A&P employees
and A&P use the progressive discipline policy. Some violation of specific work rules can
results in immediate firing for any employee.
Q: When will we begin using the new performance
evaluations?
A: Jan. 2006
Q: Of the currently 1,200 job titles, how many
of those are not being used?
A: There are many that aren’t being used. This project’s target is to reduce the number
of job titles to approximately 700. We
are about 2/3 of the way done now.
Q: Will performance evaluations be linked to
generic job descriptions like they are now?
A: The new evaluations will be specific to your
position.
Q: Is it possible that this project could result
in the reallocation of personnel from one area to another?
A: It is possible but no one will lose their job
or have a salary decrease.
Other questions can be submitted via
the feedback link on the project’s web site.
Other Business
Pat Deery made a motion that the
following resolution (below) asking the Faculty Senate to add an A&P
representative to the Administrator Evaluation Committee be submitted to the Senate. Drew Burgering seconded the motion and the
Assembly voted in support of it.
Whereas,
both faculty and staff are represented on the Senate Administrator Evaluation
Committee, and
Whereas,
there are a number of Administrative and Professional employees who report
directly to administrators,
Therefore, be it resolved, the Administrative and Professional Assembly
respectfully requests that the Senate approve expanding the membership of the
Administrator Evaluation Committee to include a representative from the
Administrative and Professional employee group.
The Senate may have to make some
constitutional changes to add a position on the committee but Conner Bailey
indicated that this request would meet with a favorable response.
Public Forum
Harriette Huggins reminded the
membership of the guidelines:
The floor was opened for comments from
the audience but there were none. The
floor was then opened to Assembly members.
Drew Burgering noted that improved
e-mail lists for each place are in the works.
At present, we have e-mail lists by VP area only.
Maria Folmar reminded everyone of the
Assembly Retreat on March 24 from
Maria also provided a handout to the
Assembly that offered “Suggestions for Consideration Regarding Upward Feedback
at
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted by
Cathy Ramey
A&P Secretary
Appendix 1
A&P Committee
Vacancies
2005
Opportunities To Serve
For a
description of the committee, click on the name below.
A&P
Grievance 4
vacancies
A&P
Welfare 3
vacancies
A&P
Nominations and Elections 3 vacancies
A&P
Professional Development 3 vacancies
University
Campus Heath & Wellness 1 vacancy
University
Intercollegiate Athletics 1
vacancy
University
Persons with Disabilities 1
vacancy
University
Traffic & Parking 1
vacancy
University
Drug Free Campus & Workplace 1 vacancy
University
Campus Planning 1
vacancy
University
Student Academic Grievance 1 vacancy
University
Safety 1
vacancy
Faculty
Senate Administrator Evaluation 1
vacancy
Call for
nominations to fill these committee vacancies will take place at the A&P
meeting on
If you
would like to nominate an A&P employee for one of these positions or would
like to volunteer yourself, please contact Dianne Jay, Chair of Nominations
& Elections committee at jaydian@auburn.edu
This
information is provided online at http://www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/ap/committee_vacancies05.htm
Appendix 2
“Suggestions for Consideration Regarding Upward Feedback at
Presented to the Administrative and Professional
Assembly for Discussion and Consideration
March 2005
It is widely recognized among human resource management professionals
that subordinates are more familiar with the management behaviors of their own
supervisors than anyone else in an organization, and can predict a supervisor’s
future performance almost as well as costly professional assessment
centers.1,2,3 Employees are in a position to witness a supervisor’s good days,
bad days, management style, interpersonal skills, and technical competence. Yet
employee development and performance management at
The Auburn University Department of Human Resources
has stated a commitment to providing employees with programs that will improve
competencies (through Human Resource Development), and to provide an
environment where people can perform their jobs effectively (a process that is
currently under revision by the performance management component of the
University’s Classification and Compensation project). To further enhance the
development of AU employees who are in supervisory positions, and to increase
honest and constructive communication between employees and supervisors, the
following information about upward feedback is presented for consideration.
Terminology:
A variety of
terms are currently used to describe performance appraisal procedures that
collect evaluations from sources other than direct supervisors.
• 360-degree feedback,
multisource feedback, and multirater feedback are
common labels that refer to the collection of evaluations from peers,
subordinates, the supervisor, a self-appraisal, and even customers.
• Upward feedback is
the term often used to describe a less comprehensive collection of information
in which employees provide evaluations of their supervisors, with the option of
supervisors also providing self-ratings for comparison.
At some point in the future, a comprehensive
360-degree approach might be useful for
Potential
Impact of an Upward Feedback Program for
It is
recognized in the management literature on performance evaluation that upward
feedback can be a costly process, and attempts to cut corners can result in
undesirable consequences.4 However, the proper development and administration
of this process (e.g. use of appropriate instruments, support from upper
administration, training for raters, facilitation with the delivery of feedback
and the development of performance goals based on feedback) can result in a
significant return on investment.
An upward feedback feasibility study would gather
information on the costs, potential risks and benefits of this type of
evaluation, and would identify procedures most suitable for our institution.
From a cursory review of the literature on upward feedback, it appears that
• Providing
evaluations from employees who have the greatest familiarity with an
individual’s supervisory behaviors would enhance management learning.
• Measured
behaviors would provide managers with information about the management
behaviors that are expected and valued by the University.
• Feedback about
specific behaviors would help managers to set specific goals for future
improvement.
• There would be
improved communication between supervisors and employees.
• Management
performance can be expected to improve, particularly for managers with low to
medium past performance, provided that the process is handled in an appropriate
manner.5
• As
o Management style can be linked to organizational
citizenship behaviors that include helping co-workers with tasks that fall
outside routine job duties, organizational compliance, conscientiousness, and
offering innovative ideas to improve organizational functioning.6,7
o A perceived improvement in work environments can reduce
undesirable and costly actions that include sick leave abuse, tardiness, theft,
loafing, and turnover.
Study Plan Suggestions: An upward feedback
feasibility study should gather information from a variety of sources including
include vendors, researchers, and universities that currently have an upward
feedback program in place. Several institutions that have already been
identified include the
1 Morgeson, F. P., Mumford, T. V., & Campion, M. A.
(in press). Coming full circle: Using research and practice to address 27
questions about 360-degree feedback programs. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research.
2 McGarvey, R. & Smith, S. (1993). When workers
rate the boss. Training, 30(3), 31-34.
3 McEvoy, G. M. & Beatty, R. W. (1989). Assessment
centers and subordinate appraisals of managers: A seven-year examination of
predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 37-52.
4 Wimer, S. (2002). The dark side of
360-degree feedback. Training & Development, 56(9), 37-42.
5
6 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B.,
& Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical
review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
7 Zellers, K.
L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinate’s
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
1068-1076.