1. 2005 Performance Development System Survey Human Resources Staff Meeting March 20, 2006

2. 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

3. 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.“

4. Significant Improvements 20042005Difference Formal evaluations each year 2.443.49+1.05 TU encourages performance excellence 2.553.11+.56 Setting annual work goals 2.723.25+.53 Taking advantage of professional development 3.153.48+.33

5. Significant Agreement 94% 92%

6. Mixed Reviews Supervisor Effectiveness Supervisor Mean Employee MeanDifference Acknowledges accomplishments 3.833.17.66 Gives ongoing feedback 3.563.02.54 Has skills to manage 3.653.24.41 Meets with staff to set annual goals 3.633.25.38 “My work performance isn't managed or acknowledged at all.“

7. 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%

8. Mixed Reviews on Customer Service 2005 Supvr Mean EE MeanDiff. CS has enhanced my ability to deliver high quality service 3.003.23.23 “ 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 MeanDiff. I understand importance of CS 3.693.81.12 I have the skills to deliver quality CS 3.703.76.06

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Concerns

14. FY 2004/05 FT/Reg New Hires Promotions & Transfers 36% 25% 26%

15. 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

16. Suggestions Raised in Comments  Employee evaluation of supervisors  Make the PDS more user friendly  Expand training courses and offer more widely beyond Main Campus

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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