March 07, 2007
MainCommunications Survey 2006
In July 2006, Lou Wetherbee conducted the Library’s second survey on internal communication. Thanks to all of you who participated. The first survey took place in March 2004. That survey indicated that information flowed fairly smoothly across the library and between departments, but that vertical communication was less fluid.
Lou Wetherbee has analyzed the results of this Summers Survey. In general, she has noted improvements in seven areas:
• Receiving timely information need to do "my job"
• Personal understanding of the role of each staff member in the overall library effort
• achieving broader staff representation on committees
• in the perception of staff that they can freely communicate with Jennifer
• in the perception of the library web site (UL@ND) as a good place to find answers on policy questions or procedures.
• in understanding by staff that communication is a shared responsibility of supervisors and staff members.
• the responsiveness of departments to each other when asked for information.
Although the scores in these areas improved, there seems to be some slippage in other areas.
• staff comfort in communicating with their immediate supervisors and with the associate directors.
• faculty participation in librarywide meetings.
• the comfort of employees in all categories with disagreeing with their co-workers in public meetings.
Of the nine listed actions taken to improve internal communication (and morale) after the last survey, six received very positive ratings. These included: the Town Hall Meetings, the May Institute, the Directors lunches, Open Forums, the Staff Newsletter, and the PEEPS Program.
Other actions were less successful. 34-40% of the respondents didn’t recognize the other three listed actions, (library policy template, committee charge templates, and communication expectations for decision-makers). Among those who did know these items, the opinion about their effectiveness was fairly evenly split .
Some responses were ambiguous. On April 11 (time to be set), Lou Wetherbee will host an open meeting to allow individuals to offer additional input and to suggest specific behavioral changes that could further improve communication . More details will be posted in April.
December 05, 2006
MainStaff Performance Review FAQ
This year, the University is piloting a new approach to performance management. There are two pilot programs: a very broad-based pilot that involves senior leadership across campus and their direct reports and a limited pilot that involves the library and one other department on campus. Six orientation sessions have been offered by Cindy Ewing to introduce this new system and to guide supervisors in the use of the ratings. Below are answers to key questions that came up at or after the sessions.
1. Why is the library participating in this pilot?
*To encourage a more consistent application of performance ratings within the library.
*To better align the library's use of ratings with campus directions.
*To influence the final design of the overall process.
*To respond to concerns raised at LAM or mentioned by staff on the 2006 Recognition Survey.
2. Couldn't we just keep on doing what we have been doing?
This year, we could have used the old form and ratings. By next year, however, we would have had to change – at least for all exempt positions.
3. What are the main changes?
There are two changes. a) We are using three ratings instead of five. b) Each Division will have a calibration meeting at which the AD and the Department Heads will share information in order to develop a common understanding of what evidence is indicative of each performance level (top performer, valued performer, and developing performer). Cindy Ewing will facilitate these meetings. Jo Bessler will also attend to help document the criteria and to promote cross divisional consistency in the interpretation of the ratings.
4. Is the University trying to impose a bell curve or a specific distribution of the ratings?
We have been given no instructions that suggest that any specific number or percentage of the reviews should fall into each category . On the other hand, the use of three ratings and the very design of the rating definitions are likely to create a bigger middle category. The valued employee definition was designed to embrace the large number of employees upon whom the University relies on who regularly demonstrate knowledge, commitment, and cooperation.
5. Will these rating translate into specific amounts of merit?
The ratings will have a significant impact on merit, but we do not yet know the precise nature of this impact.
We do know that the University is committed to offering the most merit to top performers. Valued employees will also receive merit increases. An individual in the "developing" category may or may not receive an increase depending on whether his/her performance is developing as expected or is viewed as problematic.
More details on the distribution of the increases cannot be determined until we receive the budget instructions from the University.
6) How can we offer feedback on this system?
We will solicit formal input after the entire process is complete. You can offer immediate feed back to any of the following:
Cindy Ewing cewing@nd.edu
Jo Bessler jbessler.1@nd.edu
Jo Bessler
September 20, 2006
MainHR News
There is a new ear in the University's Human Resource Department. Actually, the evidence suggests that there are a lot of ears listening on behalf of the Bob McQuade, the Associate Vice President for Human Resources.
Shortly after his arrival in May, 2005, Bob started listening. He gathered input both by visiting individual administrators from across campus and by organizing professionally led focus groups. So far, four significant HR initiatives demonstrate that not only is Bob listening, HR is responding to campus suggestions.
* To offer prompt answers to individuals with general HR related questions, HR has established a hotline at askhr@nd.edu .
* To further improve communication between HR and employees, HR will soon administer a survey (under the banner ND-Voice). This survey will provide HR with a baseline study of Notre Dame employee opinions on a number of topics. The exact details of this survey have not been finalized, but it will be administered by a third party this fall.
* To address concerns about the staff performance management process, HR has analyzed focus group input and alternative performance system models. During the 2006/2007 fiscal year, they will test a modified process with the Officers' Group and their direct reports.
* To foster a productive and positive culture, HR is incorporating the University's core values articulated by Father Jenkin's into the Performance Management Process. These values are: integrity, accountability, teamwork, leadership in excellence, and leadership in mission. (Within the library, we will be introducing and discussing these core values in 2007).
From my perspective, it is great to see Human Resources on the move. Our current Business Partner (Cindy Ewing) has been spectacularly helpful...providing training sessions, offering advice and coaching, and interpreting policies. Although my use of the askhr hotline has been limited, I did receive quick and reliable answers. Early reports suggest that the new Performance Management System will be a major improvement. Although this system won't be ready for us this Fall, I look forward to seeing a polished product in 2007.
Jo Bessler
June 28, 2006
MainThe Rewards Backlash
The Straight Scoop
At the April Town Hall Meeting, a number of people referred to a problem that plagues many institutions – the Rewards Backlash. This rather recently coined phrase refers to a situation when individuals in an organization are unhappy when anyone is singled out for a special reward. This unhappiness can stem from innumerable reasons – three of which are: deeply held convictions about the value of all employees and the subjectiveness of evaluations, distrust of supervisors and/or systems of recognition, and from pent - up stores of personal anger and frustration.
The Library’s 2004 Recognition Preference Survey and the subsequent open meetings indicated that a number of employees felt that their efforts were rarely recognized and that exceptional work often went unnoticed.
As a Library we are now seeking a way to address the desire to recognize and be recognized while avoiding the Rewards Backlash. Here are a few questions and thoughts about addressing the concerns listed above. We will be seeking your suggestions in a Recognition Survey later this year.
1. Are the criteria for awards, merit, and bonuses concrete and clear enough for fair application?
This year, the Salary Issues Working Group is working on further understanding of the criteria for each type of awards. A Human Resources representative will coach all supervisors on using the performance rating system
2. How can supervisors and review committee use recognition in a way that is both objective and fair?
We have not come up with a way to eliminate all subjectivity from the process. Concrete performance expectations and goals statements offer good opportunities for measurement in some areas, but not all. At some point – someone must make a judgment about a performance. Every judgment for rewards or bonuses, however, require support at least twice in the process– once from the nominator, once from a review committee, and in the case of bonuses – once from the Divisional Committee.
3. What should we do about angry and frustrated people who have given up on the system?
I think that we should continually work to improve the system and welcome assistance from those who are dissatisfied. On the other hand, I believe that individuals who do not wish to recognize honorees should direct their expressions of dissatisfaction to a responsible supervisory party (their supervisor, their Associate Director, an HR representative (Cindy Ewing), the campus ombudsperson (Dwight King –Kresge Law Library), or to me (Jo Bessler).
April 03, 2006
MainSpring Salary Budget Update
In February, the University issued its Salary Increase Guidelines as part of the Budget Instructions for Fiscal 2007. Following these instructions and with advice from the LAM Salary Budget Advisory Group, LEC allocated salary funds for 2006-07. Individuals will receive salary notification letters in May (faculty) and June (staff). Some salary-related questions, however, can be answered now.
1.) Q: What was the overall salary increase for staff and faculty positions?
A: This year, there is no general public percentage figure for campus salary increases. The salary funds were distributed to Colleges and Departments as a pool of money rather than as a percentage figure. This approach (suggested by the Deans) encourages a range of distribtuion levels.
2.) Q: What goals guided LEC in the distribution of staff and faculty salary increases?
A: LEC, with advice from the LAM Salary Budget Advisory Group, was guided by the following goals:
*Recognize performance;
*Factor into the raises a consideration of the increase in the cost of living;
*Address the salaries of strong performers whose pay is at the lower end of their pay level range.
3.) Q: What measures were used to judge performance?
A: For staff, the "Overall" rating on the Performance Review was used; for faculty, salary increases were informed by the Fall 2005 annual reviews and the Library Executive Committee's assessment of outstanding performance.
4.) Q: Were any salary adjustments made?
A: In addition to the general merit increase, salary adjustments were made for individual faculty and staff who had an "outstanding" rating and a salary that was low compared to campus or national data. There were also adjustments for a few "special" situations -- such as a counter-offer.
February 13, 2006
MainWe want to hear from you!!!
We want to know what you think about the staff newsletter. It is published bi-monthly with articles, photos, and features for you, the staff and faculty of the University Libraries.
(Issues in 2006: February/April/June/August/October/December)
Thank you for the contributions you have made so far, and we look forward to more pictures, updates, and information from all of the people who make the University Libraries a great place to work!
December 01, 2005
MainBehind the Peeps
Unknown Benefactor Publically Peeped
Behind the Peeps program stands a member of the library faculty. This individual has long appreciated the terrific contributions made by library staff. This “Admirer� is now a regular library donor, whose gifts help support the PEEPs program Although this donor wishes to remain anonymous, a colleague so caring certainly deserves a round of applause.
So today I send a public Peep award to a very perceptive and classy colleague.
P.S. This year the secret donor will provide up to $500 (matched dollar for dollar against any other donation) to support employee recognition. Anyone who might wish to make a donation should contact Kathy Blackstead at kblackst@nd.edu .
Jo Bessler
September 22, 2005
MainSeptember's Scoop
Certain questions seem to surface every season. Others hover – waiting indefinitely for some definitive response. From time to time, I hope to use this space to capture these questions and to document answers. Below are two puzzlers. You are welcome to submit your own queries.
Are funds available for programs offered by the Office of Information Technologies or Human Resources?
Yes. Each Division has some money set aside to support faculty and staff development. An individual who identifies an appealing program should work through his/her supervisor and department head to request funding. Although no one person can attend every class every time, support is often available . This is especially true for programs that relate to one’s position or to one’s job-related learning goals as stated in the Development section of the annual review. Some support is also available for more general programs.
When a Library or University employee is applying for a position in the Library, may the interviewing supervisor see recent evaluations for that employee and speak with that employee’s current supervisor?
Yes. Before the interviewing supervisor determines which candidate to hire, he or she should check the references for that candidate and any other candidate in the final pool The supervisor may contact 221 staff (or HR) to review recent (usually the last 3) performance reviews. As a general courtesy, the interviewing supervisor should inform the candidate before contacting his or her current supervisor – since the applicant may not have yet told that supervisor about the application.
Jo Bessler
August 09, 2005
Main"Lou's" you can use
May 17-19, 2005, Lou Wetherbee led an Institute on Leadership open to all library employees.
The Institute Planning Committee (Jo Bessler, Pascal Calarco, Gay Dannelly, Ross Fergerson, Diana Kennedy, Pat Loghry, Becky Price, and Michelle Stenberg) asked Lou to focus attention on how to improve the effectiveness of our meetings and decision making.
Lou sprinkled her presentations with thought-provoking quotations and observations.
- Vision is a great hope held in common.
- Today institutions are facing "wicked problems" – problems with an evolving set of interlocking issues and constraints, a myriad of stakeholders, and with no definitive solutions.
- Random discussions do not move things forward as efficiently as disciplined discussions.
- Leadership is a set of behaviors that is open to everyone.
- Formal and informal meetings can provide a neutral space where ideas and suggestions can be freely voiced and jointly molded into improved services
- The workplace is a laboratory, an experiment, a journey
Beyond words:
To turn the adages and visions into action, Lou offered individuals and groups guidelines, strategies, and tools. Handouts and readings about "wicked problems," "effective questions," and "decision making tools" are available at:
https://libstaff.library.nd.edu:990/lib_only/lipt/index.shtml .
Individuals can begin today moving conversations to a deeper and more productive level by adopting one or more of the following "ground rules".
To reduce time wasted arguing about mis-perceptions,
1. Test assumptions and inferences.
To come up with a solution that will not be undermined by some undiscussed requirement,
2. Share all relevant information.
To ensure that the listener understands what you are trying to convey,
3. Use specific examples and agree on what important words mean.
To keep the listener from speculating about your motives,
4. Explain your reasoning and intent.
To allow room for negotiation and collaboration,
5. Focus on interests, not positions.
To ensure attention for the interests of both parties,
6. Combine advocacy with inquiry.
To move forward with a plan that is well-supported,
7. Jointly design next steps and ways to test disagreement.
To move conversation to a deeper level (such as, exploring conflicting visions),
8. Discuss undiscussable issues
To make decisions which vary in impact, time frame, political importance, & complexity,
9. Use a decision making rule that generates the level of commitment needed.
-- Jo Bessler