Evaluation of Administrators and Staff
PDF Version: HR Evaluation Policy
- Authority: C.R.S. § 23-54-102, et seq. (2019) authorizes the Trustees of Metropolitan State University of Denver (MSU Denver) to establish rules and regulations to govern and operate the University and its programs. The Trustees retain authority to approve, interpret, and administer policies pertaining to University governance. The Trustees grant authority to the President of MSU Denver to approve, administer, and interpret policies pertaining to University operations.
- Purpose: This policy states the criteria used to evaluate the performance of University administrators and staff.
- Scope: This policy applies to University administrators and staff exempted from the State of Colorado personnel system in accordance with C.R.S. § 24-50-135.
- Responsible Executive: Chief Operations Officer
- Responsible Administrator: Chief Human Resources Officer
- Responsible Office: Human Resources
- Policy Contact: Human Resources Office, 303-615-0999
III. Policy Statement
- Evaluation of Administrators and Staff
- General Policies
- An effective performance evaluation process recognizes and rewards outstanding performance and addresses areas for improvement. While accomplishing this, and if conducted fairly and objectively, the process will promote a healthy dialogue between the employee and the supervisor, which should provide an opportunity to clarify individual, departmental, and institutional goals; update and revise, if necessary, the job description; emphasize areas of importance and identify new directions; improve individual performance; and provide a basis for planning individual growth and development. If the evaluation process accomplishes this, it should lead to increased productivity and communication while positively improving the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the institution.
- All Administrative evaluations will include input from constituents using a 360 degree evaluation feedback system to assist the supervisor in the overall evaluation of the Administrator. Supervisors shall provide their own feedback as well as obtain feedback from faculty, subordinates, peers, co-workers and customers are applicable. The employee shall provide the supervisor with a self-evaluation.
- Administrators should be evaluated by their immediate supervisor with review and approval by the appropriate next level supervisor.
- Under these provisions, all administrators must be formally evaluated in writing once each year. It is recommended that employees and supervisors meet informally during the year to discuss goals/progress prior to the evaluation.
- The evaluation period shall be May 1 through April 30. Supervisors may conduct a preliminary performance review for a new employee between three and six months after initial employment. However, employees may request a preliminary performance review from their supervisors.
- Performance reviews may be completed at any time under special circumstances, such as a substantial change in the employee’s assignment, a change in the level of performance, disciplinary action, etc.
- Disagreements between the supervisor and the employee will not be sufficient cause to interrupt the evaluation process.
- The Planning and Evaluation Process
- The supervisor and the employee shall participate in at least one meeting for the purpose of planning and evaluation prior to April 30 of each year. A planning and evaluation meeting for new employees shall be held within 30 days after employment begins.
- During the planning process, performance standards shall be established to serve as the basis for the employee’s evaluation. The employee’s job description shall be reviewed and revised if necessary with recommendations forwarded through the appropriate channels.
- During the evaluation process, the supervisor evaluates the employee on each performance standard and discusses with the employee areas of strength and areas for improvement as defined by the performance plan.
- Both parties shall sign the evaluation and the performance plan.
- Performance Standards
- The key to the success of the subsequent evaluation is the determination of performance standards upon which the employee will be evaluated. The University defines core performance standards that employees will be evaluated on during the performance evaluation. In addition, the supervisor may define additional performance standards, which are position specific on the performance evaluation document.
- During the planning process, the importance of each performance will be assigned to the appropriate factor on the evaluation form.
- Performance Review
- At the end of the review period, the supervisor will examine each factor and assign a numerical rating to each in writing.
- The supervisor must provide a written explanation for each standard rating and describe the areas of strength and those needing improvement under the comments section for each performance standard.
- The scale upon which the numerical rating is based as follows:
- Distinguished: Far exceeds performance expectations on a consistent and uniform basis. Work is of exceptional quality in all essential areas of responsibility. In addition, makes an exceptional or unique contribution in achievement of unit, department and the University’s objectives.
- Exceeding Expectations: Consistently achieves performance expectations and frequently exceeds them. Demonstrates performance of a very high level of quality in all areas of responsibility.
- Meeting Expectations: Consistently fulfills performance expectations and periodically may exceed them. Work is of high quality in all significant areas of responsibility.
- Below Expectations: Frequently fails to meet expectations and improvement is needed in these areas.
- Fails to Meet Expectations: Consistently fails to meet expectations and improvement is needed in most aspects of this position.
- Any administrator retained in employment after receiving an overall rating less than Meeting Expectations must have a performance improvement plan developed by his/her supervisor. The supervisor must develop the performance improvement plan within 30 days of the completion of the evaluation process. The maximum period for improvement under a performance improvement plan is six months, at which time a decision on continuation of employment will be made.
- Appeal Procedures: If an employee objects to the overall annual evaluation rating, the employee may appeal in writing to the next higher-level supervisor, stating areas of disagreement, within seven days of the evaluation review meeting. If the supervisor is a Vice President/Provost, the appeal will be directed to the President or the President’s designee. The higher-level supervisor’s decision must be made in writing to the employee within 14 days of the date the appeal was received. All decisions are final.
- Performance Review Records: Upon completion of this process, the completed, signed and dated evaluation document, along with any appeal decisions will be forwarded to the Office of Human Resources for retention in the employee’s permanent personnel record.
- General Policies
- Evaluation of Academic Deans, Provost, and the University President
- Evaluation of Deans
- By the Faculty: All tenured and probationary faculty in a College/School shall be provided the opportunity of evaluating their dean. After completion by the faculty, the evaluations will be submitted to the Provost, who shall share the results with each dean. These evaluations shall be used by the Provost as supplemental information in evaluating the dean. These evaluations shall be filed in the Office of Academic Affairs upon completion.
- By the Chairs: All chairs in a College/School shall be provided the opportunity of evaluating their dean. The instrument to be used for this evaluation shall be determined by the Provost. After completion by the chairs, the evaluation will be submitted to the Provost, who shall share the results with each dean. These evaluations shall be used by the Provost as supplemental information in evaluating the dean. These evaluations shall be filed in the office of the Provost upon completion.
- By the Provost: The Provost shall evaluate all deans in Academic Affairs in writing. The evaluation of the dean will be based on the job description as well as a factor relating to compliance with the Handbook requirement for the evaluation of persons reporting to the dean. The evaluations of the dean by the chairs and by the faculty shall be used as supplemental information in the Provost’s evaluation of the dean. The dean shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on the Provost evaluation. These evaluations shall be filed in the Office of Academic Affairs upon completion.
- Evaluation of the Provost
- By the Faculty: The elected members of the Faculty Senate President’s Council shall be provided the opportunity to evaluate the Provost. It shall be the obligation of these faculty members to gain a knowledgeable basis for assessment through direct association with the Provost, or from input derived from faculty who have a direct association with the Provost. The evaluation shall be based on the job description of the Provost, and shall be submitted as supplemental information to the President to be shared with the Provost and used in evaluating the Provost. These evaluations shall be filed in the Office of the President upon completion.
- By the Deans: All deans in Academic Affairs shall be provided the opportunity to evaluate the Provost. These evaluations shall be submitted as supplemental information to the President to be shared with the Provost and used in evaluating the Provost. These evaluations shall be filed in the Office of the President upon completion.
- By the President: The President of the University shall evaluate the Provost using a narrative format. The evaluation of the Provost will be based on the job description as well as a factor relating to compliance with the University Handbook requirement for the evaluation of persons reporting to the Provost. Evaluations of the Provost by the deans and the faculty shall be available as supplemental information for this evaluation. The Provost shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on the President’s evaluation. These evaluations shall be filed in the Office of the President after completion.
- Evaluation of the President: Evaluation of the President shall be conducted in accordance with Board of Trustees Policy 7.2: Evaluation of the University President.
- Evaluation of Deans
IV. Policy History
- Effective: July 1, 2019
- Revised: This policy supersedes chapters VII.A and VII.C of MSU Denver's Handbook for Professional Personnel, July 1, 2017.
- Enacted: February 2, 2005
- Review: This policy will be reviewed every three years or as deemed necessary by University leadership.