Administrative and Professional Assembly
Thursday, March 17, 2005
2 - 4 pm in 217 Foy Union
approved as corrected on 04/21/05 

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 PM by Chairperson Harriette Huggins.

The Assembly roll was called by the Secretary. Assembly members who were not in attendance were Michael Harris, Missy Long (maternity leave), Melissa Morris (work commitment), Julie Nolan, and Melvin Smith.

The minutes from the 02/15/05 A&P Assembly meeting were approved with two corrections, the spelling of April Staton’s name and the inclusion of report details from the Ad Hoc committee established to develop nomination and election guidelines for proportional representation.

Comments from the Chair followed.

Harriette Huggins recognized several special guests: Conner Bailey, Senate Chair, Willie Larkin Past-chair, Rich Penoskovic, Senate Chair-elect, John Varner, outgoing Staff Council chair, Jenny Swaim, incoming Staff Council chair, and Tissie Walker, Staff Council chair-elect 2005-06.

Harriette reported on meetings she has attended on the A&P Assembly’s behalf.

• At the Staff Council meeting (03/03/05) it was announced that Jenny Swaim is the new chair and Tissie Walker is the new chair-elect. The staff steering committee is in final review stages of the Intimate Relations policy. Afterward, the Senate will review and present the final policy to AU administration.
• At the Budget Advisory meeting (02/17/05) the reported outlook for FY06 was good. AU and University of Alabama are working together to lobby the legislature. According to Dr. Richardson. “It is possible this budget will be the best one for AU in 2 decades.”
• At the University Senate meeting (03/08/05) and the University Faculty meeting (03/15/05), the final review of the Intimate Relations policy and Electronic privacy policies were discussed. Notable remarks from Interim President Richardson included:
• Three finalists for Provost search have been announced with selection expected the week of March 28. The Board of Trustees will consider the appointment for approval on April 22, 2005.
• They are on-target to fill the vacant Dean positions in Library, Liberal Arts, and Education by end of semester.
• He provided an update on the remaining SACS responses to be submitted.
• He noted that the proposed budget for this year includes a poll of about 4% for salary increases in higher education.
• Diversity is a major issue in AU’s strategic plan.
• A space utilization committee has been established.
• The concept of freshmen being required to live on campus was raised.
• Future meeting schedule:
  Mar. 24 - A&P Retreat: Budget Advisory Meeting
  April 5 – University Senate
  April 7 – President’s Cabinet; Budget Advisory Committee
  April 14 - Budget Advisory Committee
  

Call for Committee Nominations

Dianne Jay, chairperson of the Elections & Nominations committee, made a call for nominations for existing vacancies on A&P committees - see appendix 1. All vacancies, committee descriptions, and the nomination process are posted online at http://www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/ap/committee_vacancies05.htm
The deadline for submitting nominations for committee vacancies is March 31, 2005. The terms for A&P committees will run through 09/30/2007.

The President’s Office has agreed to provide A&P representation on these committees, with their terms beginning immediately upon appointment:

• Advisory Committee for a Drug-Free Campus and Workplace
• Campus Planning Committee
• Student Academic Grievance Committee
• University Safety Committee

Terms on University Committees normally start in the fall and runs through 09/30/2008.

Program
Lynne Hammond, Assistant VP, Human Resources provided us with an update on the Classification and Compensation Project currently underway. This project is being conducted by AU’s Human Resources and Hewitt Associates, an outside consulting firm. Job classification, compensation, and performance management are areas that will be addressed by this project. Additional information and project updates are available online at http://www.auburn.edu/administration/human_resources/compensation/ccp/index.html

Focus groups showed that AU employees find their work to be exciting and challenging, that AU is a family friendly work environment. They expressed dissatisfaction with AU’s compensation and review processes. This project is committed to addressing those concerns.

Current status is that the project is a bit behind their original completion goal but is expected to be concluded by the end of this year. Most position surveys have been completed and the job classification is underway. There are currently about 1,200 different job classifications and the goal is to consolidate where possible. Tony and Trey in HR are currently updating job descriptions. This phase will be the most time consuming part of the project.

The next step is to design an improved performance management system to define job families, develop job descriptions, ready market data, and establish pay structures. A university committee has been established for this purpose. Martha Taylor has been representing A&P on this committee for the past year. Their appraisal instrument is almost ready. Another goal is to provide competitive pay based on current and diverse market data and to provide performance based pay. The goal for performance review is to have 100% participation.

Lynn Hammond encouraged us to provide feedback to them and watch updates on the project’s web page. She opened the floor to questions.

Q: Is there any guarantee that this project will be implemented and is there money available to make the salary adjustments it recommends?

A: There is no question that it will be implemented but we don’t know yet if there will be funds available for salary adjustments.

Q: Will performance evaluations be used to determine raises this year?

A: Evaluations are being sent out now. If there are raises this year, some will be based on merit. HR strongly encourages the use of evaluations and greater accountability for supervisors.

Q: Will unique areas be forced into existing job titles?

A: Some non-tenure track faculty positions may be. This project is attempting to make position titles more accurate, not less. Classification is being based on some market data this time.

Q: What is the scope of market analysis being used to classify positions?

A: Industry standards, standards used at other academic institutions, and sometimes the local market. The market analysis will be collected based on relevant recruitment areas for the position.

Q: How large is the team that is working on this project?

A: There are 2 full time employees dedicated to this project, including Chuck Gerards, the project leader. There are some consultants and some TES employees helping with the job analysis.

Q: What kind of market analysis is being used to classify technical positions?

A: The technical job families are being evaluated using the data motioned earlier. These campus positions will be centrally reviewed as well by campus IT administration.

Q: If we are unhappy with our results from this project, is there an appeal process available to us?

A: Yes, there will be opportunity for review and feedback. Decisions are being made now based on focus group feedback and that of the subject matter experts in each area so hopefully you will be satisfied with your results.

Q: In the course of this project, are their plans to bring all human resources areas on campus together?

A: Yes, there are plans for a unified human resources division that will bring Facilities and Ag HR together with University Personnel Services.

Q: Since your objective is to increase job competencies and provide better evaluation tools for supervisors, are there plans to provide 360 degree evaluations or peer evaluations?

A: We are taking a developmental approach but do not have plans for 360 degree evaluations, where the evaluation comes from a variety of sources and not just the supervisor. The HR industry standard is moving away from these kinds of evaluations. There is no process for upward feedback for evaluation of supervisors in this plan but discussions of supervisor accountability are underway. Pat Deery is representing A&P on the committee that is considering this issue and creating improved evaluation forms.

Q: Will there be any changes to our job families?

A: Some job families are much more structured than others now. There are developmental plans for job families associated with his project and we will attempt to make the structure more equal.

Q: What will be required to fire non-tenure track faculty?

A: Most of them are considered A&P employees and A&P use the progressive discipline policy. Some violation of specific work rules can results in immediate firing for any employee.

Q: When will we begin using the new performance evaluations?

A: Jan. 2006

Q: Of the currently 1,200 job titles, how many of those are not being used?

A: There are many that aren’t being used. This project’s target is to reduce the number of job titles to approximately 700. We are about 2/3 of the way done now.

Q: Will performance evaluations be linked to generic job descriptions like they are now?

A: The new evaluations will be specific to your position.

Q: Is it possible that this project could result in the reallocation of personnel from one area to another?

A: It is possible but no one will lose their job or have a salary decrease.

Other questions can be submitted via the feedback link on the project’s web site.

Other Business

Pat Deery made a motion that the following resolution (below) asking the Faculty Senate to add an A&P representative to the Administrator Evaluation Committee be submitted to the Senate. Drew Burgering seconded the motion and the Assembly voted in support of it.

Whereas, both faculty and staff are represented on the Senate Administrator Evaluation Committee, and

Whereas, there are a number of Administrative and Professional employees who report directly to administrators,

Therefore, be it resolved, the Administrative and Professional Assembly respectfully requests that the Senate approve expanding the membership of the Administrator Evaluation Committee to include a representative from the Administrative and Professional employee group.

The Senate may have to make some constitutional changes to add a position on the committee but Conner Bailey indicated that this request would meet with a favorable response.

Public Forum

Harriette Huggins reminded the membership of the guidelines:

1. Allotted time will be fifteen minutes
2. Each speaker will have two minutes
3. No one will speak a second time until all who wish to speak have done so
4. Assembly members will not respond until the Public Forum has ended.
5. Questions raised during the Public Forum will be answered as information is available.

The floor was opened for comments from the audience but there were none. The floor was then opened to Assembly members.

Drew Burgering noted that improved e-mail lists for each place are in the works. At present, we have e-mail lists by VP area only.

Maria Folmar reminded everyone of the Assembly Retreat on March 24 from 11:30 am – 3:00 pm. She thanked members of the Retreat organization committee: Vivian Miller, Cathy Ramey, and April Staton.

Maria also provided a handout to the Assembly that offered “Suggestions for Consideration Regarding Upward Feedback at Auburn University” (see Appendix 2). She asks that this topic be on the Agenda for the next Executive Committee meeting for discussion.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:28 pm.

Respectfully submitted by

Cathy Ramey

A&P Secretary
Appendix 1

A&P Committee Vacancies

2005

Opportunities To Serve

For a description of the committee, click on the name below.

A&P Grievance 4 vacancies
A&P Welfare 3 vacancies
A&P Nominations and Elections 3 vacancies
A&P Professional Development 3 vacancies

University Campus Heath & Wellness 1 vacancy
University Intercollegiate Athletics 1 vacancy
University Persons with Disabilities 1 vacancy
University Traffic & Parking 1 vacancy
University Drug Free Campus & Workplace 1 vacancy
University Campus Planning 1 vacancy
University Student Academic Grievance 1 vacancy
University Safety 1 vacancy

Faculty Senate Administrator Evaluation 1 vacancy

Call for nominations to fill these committee vacancies will take place at the A&P meeting on March 17, 2005.

If you would like to nominate an A&P employee for one of these positions or would like to volunteer yourself, please contact Dianne Jay, Chair of Nominations & Elections committee at jaydian@auburn.edu

This information is provided online at http://www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/ap/committee_vacancies05.htm

Appendix 2

“Suggestions for Consideration Regarding Upward Feedback at Auburn University”

Presented to the Administrative and Professional Assembly for Discussion and Consideration

March 2005

It is widely recognized among human resource management professionals that subordinates are more familiar with the management behaviors of their own supervisors than anyone else in an organization, and can predict a supervisor’s future performance almost as well as costly professional assessment centers.1,2,3 Employees are in a position to witness a supervisor’s good days, bad days, management style, interpersonal skills, and technical competence. Yet employee development and performance management at Auburn University remains a top-down process, with information flowing in one direction from supervisors to subordinates and from trainers to trainees. There is no formal and recurring mechanism in place that allows employees to provide upward feedback to supervisors outside of grievance or EEOC procedures.

The Auburn University Department of Human Resources has stated a commitment to providing employees with programs that will improve competencies (through Human Resource Development), and to provide an environment where people can perform their jobs effectively (a process that is currently under revision by the performance management component of the University’s Classification and Compensation project). To further enhance the development of AU employees who are in supervisory positions, and to increase honest and constructive communication between employees and supervisors, the following information about upward feedback is presented for consideration.

Terminology:

A variety of terms are currently used to describe performance appraisal procedures that collect evaluations from sources other than direct supervisors.

• 360-degree feedback, multisource feedback, and multirater feedback are common labels that refer to the collection of evaluations from peers, subordinates, the supervisor, a self-appraisal, and even customers.

• Upward feedback is the term often used to describe a less comprehensive collection of information in which employees provide evaluations of their supervisors, with the option of supervisors also providing self-ratings for comparison.

At some point in the future, a comprehensive 360-degree approach might be useful for Auburn University. However, only upward feedback (combined with self-appraisals) is recommended for initial consideration. Many HRM professionals recommend that supervisors not be bombarded with feedback from numerous sources when they are accustomed to being evaluated only by a supervisor, and subordinate evaluations are considered to be the best place to start.

Potential Impact of an Upward Feedback Program for Auburn University:

It is recognized in the management literature on performance evaluation that upward feedback can be a costly process, and attempts to cut corners can result in undesirable consequences.4 However, the proper development and administration of this process (e.g. use of appropriate instruments, support from upper administration, training for raters, facilitation with the delivery of feedback and the development of performance goals based on feedback) can result in a significant return on investment.

An upward feedback feasibility study would gather information on the costs, potential risks and benefits of this type of evaluation, and would identify procedures most suitable for our institution. From a cursory review of the literature on upward feedback, it appears that Auburn University could expect to enjoy a variety of benefits from an upward feedback program. Potential benefits include the following:

• Providing evaluations from employees who have the greatest familiarity with an individual’s supervisory behaviors would enhance management learning.

• Measured behaviors would provide managers with information about the management behaviors that are expected and valued by the University.

• Feedback about specific behaviors would help managers to set specific goals for future improvement.

• There would be improved communication between supervisors and employees.

• Management performance can be expected to improve, particularly for managers with low to medium past performance, provided that the process is handled in an appropriate manner.5

• As Auburn University’s supervisory personnel become more self-aware and improve in their leader behaviors, the University could expect to enjoy an improvement in the performance of employees being supervised. For example:

o Management style can be linked to organizational citizenship behaviors that include helping co-workers with tasks that fall outside routine job duties, organizational compliance, conscientiousness, and offering innovative ideas to improve organizational functioning.6,7

o A perceived improvement in work environments can reduce undesirable and costly actions that include sick leave abuse, tardiness, theft, loafing, and turnover.

Study Plan Suggestions: An upward feedback feasibility study should gather information from a variety of sources including include vendors, researchers, and universities that currently have an upward feedback program in place. Several institutions that have already been identified include the University of Virginia, Austin Peay State University, George Mason University, University of Colorado, and University of Idaho. Issues to consider will include, but not be limited to: 1) objectives for the evaluation process; 2) how the upward feedback process will be evaluated for effectiveness; 3) identifying an administration methodology that will maximize acceptance of the process by supervisors at all levels within the institution; 4) how results will be used and how feedback will be presented; 5) rater training; and 6) balancing rater anonymity or confidentiality with rater accountability.

1 Morgeson, F. P., Mumford, T. V., & Campion, M. A. (in press). Coming full circle: Using research and practice to address 27 questions about 360-degree feedback programs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research.

2 McGarvey, R. & Smith, S. (1993). When workers rate the boss. Training, 30(3), 31-34.

3 McEvoy, G. M. & Beatty, R. W. (1989). Assessment centers and subordinate appraisals of managers: A seven-year examination of predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 37-52.

4 Wimer, S. (2002). The dark side of 360-degree feedback. Training & Development, 56(9), 37-42.

5 Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., & Brett, J. F. (2002). Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback. Human Resource Management, 41, 193-208.

6 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.

7 Zellers, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinate’s organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068-1076.