Criterion
4: Valuing People
Minutes
9 April 2002
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Jane Salisbury, Diane Arnold, Phil Lootens, Keith Kamerer,
Michael Fleishman, Eileen Thompson (Absent: Terri Jacomet)
Jane clarified
terms—Standards of performance = could be job description
Institutional
goals found in Strategic Guide put out by Dr. Yowell (Oct. 2000)
There are no
official goals by the deans or departmental goal
Personal goals are
set by some Faculty for their dean, but are not required of all employees.
Brad Reed had
suggested to Eileen Thompson that evaluation of individuals should be
based on how well their activities support institutional objectives,
departmental objectives, and personal objectives rather than job
descriptions.
Jane reviewed what
was expected in “F” - “H”.
Discussion
followed about aligning institutional goals with departments and
individuals. Phil stated that that model hasn’t worked here, but what
would work is more dialogue between colleagues in relation to performance
standards. The problem of time constraints for Deans to dialogue with
each person in their division was discussed. A suggestion that faculty
have a different method of dialogue than administrators and classified
staff was introduced since the supervisor/employee ratio is smaller in
those groups. Rather than an iron fist and rules, we should be governed
by principles and that takes dialogue.
The group began to
work on “H” and after much consternation came up with three outcome
measures we might track:
1)
Measurement of improvement and enhancement of
employee morale and satisfaction
2)
Measurement of employee perception of personal
value to the institution
3)
Measurement of the degree to which employees are
rewarded and recognized
After determining
what we want to have as measurable outcomes, we returned to “G” and looked
at the processes we wanted to use to reach these outcomes:
1)
Institutional climate and employee satisfaction
--Baseline survey listed on the 7 year
plan
--Planned personal observations between
colleagues—possibly doing 1 hr. observations of different colleagues doing
their jobs.
2)
Patterns in employee recognition and rewards
--Number of recognition and reward
programs
--Number of employees attending
--Number (and classification) of
employees recognized each year
3)
Employee retention
--Turnover rate
4)
Professional development
--Number of opportunities
--Percentage participating
--Amount of publicity to employees,
especially adjuncts
“I” will be
filled in based on the 7 year chart by Phil.
“J” Possible
approaches for publicity:
1)
Monthly news letters put out on email and paper
version in mail boxes
2)
Create a web page
3)
Use marketing strategies to send out a beginning
information sheet as an overview of the entire process.
4)
Social informational sessions
5)
Jack Creamer—news blurb
“K” Pros
1)
Getting objective feedback from other
institutions
2)
Getting employee buy-in for the project
3)
Presenting a model for other institutions
Cons
1)
Project doesn’t produce the gains anticipated
We will continue
to work on the descriptors for “F” individually and bring them to the
next meeting.
The latest draft
will be given to Jane so that we can have feedback for the next meeting.
Next
meeting—Tuesday April 16th 10:00-12:00
