“Employee Reactions to Administration (ERA)” Project Outline"

[Possible Framework for an LCSC Supervisor Assessment Program]

Filling the gap.  LCSC has a feedback process in place to assess the effectiveness of courses and instructors:  the “Student Reactions to Instruction (SRI)” system.  The College also has well-defined processes in place for evaluating the performance of subordinate employees, i.e., Classified Staff, Professional Staff, and Faculty evaluations.  During the past two years’ strategic planning cycles, members of the LCSC community recommended that a system (or systems) be put in place to provide feedback on how well supervisors are managing their subordinates and how well administrators and functional units are serving customers from other units across the college.  The “ERA” ad hoc working group suggests that the following points be the basis for more detailed work on establishing such a process.

§         The working group advises against trying to create a single system to evaluate supervisors as well as gather “cross-campus” survey comments on general support from other units and administrators.  Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment (IPRA) has already been tasked (in a separate initiative) to explore methods for measuring cross-unit support and assess the satisfaction of customers who are not in the direct chain of command of the unit.

§         The ERA should focus on the immediate chain of command of the affected supervisors and subordinates.

§         The process should complement and mirror the systems now in place to assess subordinates’ performance.  The tighter the interlock between subordinate and supervisor evaluation systems, the less likely there will be concerns over fairness and efficiency of the process.

§         The system should permit anonymity (as the rule) for respondents and preserve confidentiality.  Only the individuals in the ratee’s immediate chain of command (subordinates and higher level supervisors) should have access to ERA inputs.

§         The group recommends adapting the current software being used for SRIs as the host for the ERA questionnaires and tracking system.  This will ensure flexibility of formats and timeliness of responses.  The infrastructure is already in place to adapt and apply such a system.  Paper formats can be used as a back-up system, or until an on-line system is developed.

§         The office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment (IPRA) should have responsibility for maintaining the system, gathering inputs, and disseminating results to supervisors and the Human Resources (HR) office.  This should provide independent oversight of the process and checks and balances.

§         A master database (sounds fancy, but probably a simple spreadsheet) should be compiled to provide a current list of each supervisor, the supervisor’s immediate subordinates, and the supervisor’s immediate supervisor. The database should indicate when each supervisor is scheduled to be evaluated by his/her supervisor, so that there is sufficient lead time to solicit inputs from subordinates.  The objective is for ERA ratings/comments to be available as one of the inputs in the supervisor’s own performance evaluation.

§         The group recommends that all LCSC supervisors (Administration, Professional Staff, Classified Staff, and Faculty, where applicable) be included in the ERA system, from the President of the College (inputs provided, in that case, to the President of the State Board of Education) down to the lowest supervisory level.  The working group does not envision that the ERA process would extend to supervisors whose only subordinates are students.

§         Description of the Cycle.  Prior to the evaluation of a supervisor, that individual’s subordinates would be notified to log on to the ERA website and complete an evaluation of the supervisor.  Employee ID numbers would be used to ensure that each employee has a chance (and only one chance) to provide feedback.  After collection, the feedback would be provided to the rated supervisor’s supervisor.  The supervisor’s supervisor would review the information, and provide an information copy to the ratee.  Results on ratees should not be disseminated lower (or laterally) without the ratee’s express permission.  IPRA would also provide a copy of all collected results to the HR office.

§         Information obtained by the ERA process would be used for two primary purposes:  to give useful feedback to supervisors on the effectiveness of their management and leadership, and to provide greater insight to supervisors’ supervisors on how well subordinates are being led.

§         Criteria.   The group recommends that a basic, common set of questions be prepared for all LCSC supervisors.  These questions should mirror the factors used for subordinate performance reviews (i.e., from a top-down perspective, how well the supervisor is communicating, organizing, supporting professional development, ensuring a positive work environment, etc.). “What’s good for the goose....” This short list of fundamental factors would be augmented with a list of functionally-specific parameters (i.e., factors drawn from the faculty, library staff, division, and/or unit evaluation formats used for assessing subordinates).  The question sets could be tailored to units and to types of employees (e.g., adjuncts could have a slightly different questionnaire than regular faculty.)

§         The process should encourage direct interaction between supervisors and their own raters during the evaluation cycle.  For example, the when the Provost meets with a division chair to discuss the latter’s performance, the ERA feedback from that division’s faculty members would be one of the areas covered.

§         Accommodation for assignment changes:  it is envisioned that supervisors should accumulate at least six month’s experience in a position before subordinates rate them in the ERA system (parallels minimum times currently used for evaluating newly-assigned subordinates).  Newly-assigned supervisors should be given access to their immediate subordinate’s ERA information upon assumption of office (to facilitate effective leadership of the people in their units).

§         IPRA and/or HR may observe significant trends as they gather and collate ERA results.  These can be elevated or shared with the campus community in “generic” terms—any practices or events highlighted in such “cross talks” should not impugn specific individuals or units.

§         Retention of Records.  Supervisors will retain ERA results as one of the elements of their subordinates’ files.  HR will maintain backup records.  As mentioned above, the committee recommends that ERA results be handled with the same level of confidentiality and regard for personal privacy as other performance evaluation material. 

§         Documentation:  Once agreed, the procedures for the ERA process should be incorporated in the LCSC Policy and Procedures manual.

§         Implementation Date Target.   The working group suggests that the College aim at testing and adopting an ERA system before the end of the 2003-2004 academic year.

§         Resource Requirements.   The process outlined above would piggyback on existing assessment (performance evaluation) functions currently performed by LCSC employees, HR, and IPRA.  While costs associated with the ERA process should be marginal and manageable, the working group should try to estimate cost impacts, once detailed planning work on the process begins.

§         Oversight and Review of the ERA Process.   A periodic review process should be established to ensure that the ERA process itself is working well and is keeping pace with the needs of the College.  The (draft) LCSC Institutional Assessment Plan (LCSC IAP-1) describes a College-wide assessment council and committee structure, which, in conjunction with standing shared governance committees, could ensure that the ERA process is reviewed and refined, as necessary, on a recurring basis.