The cycle starts on April 1 and ends on March 31.
Completed Full Cycle Performance Plans are due by May 31.
Once the supervisor has completed an employee's performance plan in Full Cycle Online, it must be approved by the 2nd level supervisor and acknowledged by the employee in order for this step to be considered complete.
Mid-cycle reviews should be conducted between September 1 and November 1. Instructions on completing these steps can be found on the Full Cycle Online tutorial page.
Employees will be able to complete a self-appraisal in Full Cycle Online starting on February 1. Instructions on this process can be found on the Full Cycle Online tutorial page.
No later than April 30.
All permanent SHRA and EHRA non-faculty employees that have been in their roles for at least 6 months as of March 31, 2022 are required to go through the Full Cycle Performance Appraisal process.
At a minimum, a performance appraisal talent conversation should include two parts:
Discuss your employee’s individual goals and talent development plan for the next performance cycle. Determine how frequently you want to meet with your employee for talent conversations throughout the year.
A number of tools and resources are available on the Full Cycle Performance website to assist you throughout this process, including:
In addition to reporting the overall scores for SHRA and EHRA non-faculty employees to the state and Chancellor, our team will be:
Our review of the appraisals is NOT punitive; instead, we are focused on finding areas of success and improvement so that we can continue to offer helpful information and support throughout the Full Cycle Performance process.
For performance cycles PRIOR to 2018-2019, each office is responsible for retaining completed Full Cycle Performance Appraisals for its area. You may choose to keep these files either electronically or in hard copy. For performance cycles including and after 2018-2019, Full Cycle Online will be the official place of record for performance appraisals.
Your employee should not be punished for external circumstances that prevented them from completing an individual goal. You can address this in one of three ways:
The first step to avoid biases is to recognize them. For more useful guidance, read how to overcome your potential biases.
There are three rating options in the Full Cycle Performance Program: Meeting Expectations (2), Exceeding Expectations (3), and Not Meeting Expectations (1).
The narrative method of documenting and reviewing performance involves “writing a story” to describe the performance of an employee, including feedback on institutional and individual goals, as well as the talent development plan. Narratives need not be limited to descriptions of job behavior or abilities, but can also include plans for training and development and results of problem diagnostics and performance problem solving.
When an employee changes job positions, the former supervisor should complete an off-cycle review and forward it along with all current performance management documents to the new supervisor. The new supervisor can factor in the current progress of the employee during the performance cycle into the final overall rating. Individual goals should be adjusted based on the employee's new position.
Individual goals and institutional goals are written at the “Meeting Expectations” level of performance. If employees perform their work most consistently at that level, then their ratings would be “Meeting Expectations.”
Employees should discuss with their supervisors what level of performance would result in ratings of Exceeding Expectations (or Not Meeting Expectations) so that the employee has some markers for achievement.
The Office of Human Resources can offer further guidance on distinguishing between Meeting, Exceeding, and Not Meeting Expectations.
No. Supervisors are charged with providing accurate and honest assessments of employee performance. The University does not have a quota system for the number of ratings allowed at each level.
Performance expectations may “get out of whack” over time due to changes in the job (budget, systems, technology, procedures, staffing levels, etc.) that in turn may change the level of performance required to meet the business need.
At the beginning of each performance cycle, supervisory teams are expected to meet to discuss performance expectations based on current business needs to see if performance expectations have shifted over time. If so, supervisors should discuss with their employees early in the cycle what level of performance would result in meeting, exceeding or not meeting expectations so that employees have time during the rest of the cycle to adjust to any new expectations.
At the end of each performance cycle, supervisory teams are expected to meet to discuss performance ratings to make sure that they are making consistent decisions on ratings.
An overall rating of Exceeding Expectations means that the employee is most consistently exceeding performance expectations in most every aspect of their work.
Ratings for employees may change from previous evaluations due to many factors, such as:
Yes. The “Team-Oriented” institutional goal on the performance plan sets a standard expectation that all employees perform “additional duties when team members are absent, during times of increased workload, or as otherwise requested by management to meet business needs.”
The performance plan has never been expected to include every possible performance expectation for employees. It would be impossible to spell out every aspect of performance (quality, quantity, timeliness, delivery, compliance, etc.) for each task performed by the employee.
The individual goals section of the performance plan defines only the most significant job expectations for the current performance cycle. The institutional goals section provides performance expectations required campus-wide for all aspects of an employee’s work.
Most position descriptions include language that other duties may be assigned as needed, and supervisors are encouraged to include that language in each position description.
Yes. Employees are required to acknowledge their performance appraisal at the completion of the performance review session with their supervisor. If changes were agreed to during the review session, then employees are required to sign the revised performance appraisal once it is provided to them.
The employee acknowledgement step indicates: “I acknowledge that I have received this performance appraisal. I understand that my signature below does not necessarily imply agreement with the ratings given or the comments included, and that if I choose, I may write a response to include with this appraisal document.”
Employees are encouraged to discuss the ratings and comments with their supervisor either during the performance review session or shortly thereafter. The employee can make suggestions for changes and provide additional information that may be useful to the supervisor in deciding if any changes should be made.
Employees can attach a response to the appraisal document providing additional information that they believe is important to include with the appraisal in their personnel file. There is a box on the tool to show that the employee is adding comments. There is no deadline for attaching a response, but normally this should be completed within two weeks of the review session.
Employees can also request a facilitated conversation through Human Resources to address concerns. In a facilitated conversation, a Human Resources Representative meets with the employee and the supervisor to discuss what changes or clarifications might be agreeable regarding the appraisal. Both parties must be willing to participate in the conversation.
The performance plan, off-cycle reviews, individual goal ratings, and written comments on the appraisal are not grievable.
SHRA Employees can file a grievance for a final overall rating of “Not Meeting Expectations” on the annual performance appraisal.
UNC General Administration has established five institutional goals that appear in the performance plans of every SHRA employee. There is an additional institutional goal for supervisors regarding their supervisory responsibilities.
UNCW administration has established six institutional goals that appear in the plans of every EHRA non-faculty employee. There are an additional two institutional goals for supervisors regarding their supervisory responsibilities.
Each job duty in the position description comes with performance expectations that are described in the institutional goals (for example, level of accuracy, quality of analysis, efficiency of process management, the impact of absenteeism, how interactions with others affect the work produced, adherence to policy and procedure, etc.). However, instead of ratings being given for each job duty, the ratings are given for each institutional goal across all job duties.
So, instead of receiving one rating for all aspects of Job Duty #1 (accuracy, efficiency, compliance and customer service), employees are rated on their expertise (quality of work) for all duties, then rated for their accountability (meeting deadlines, etc.) for all job duties, and so on.
The supervisor works with employees to set 3 to 5 individual goals for the performance cycle. These goals are not meant to address every aspect of the employee’s work. Instead, these goals are meant to focus on 3 to 5 work assignments that are particularly important this performance cycle.
Individual goals may be critical-function goals that highlight some of the most critical work needs in the employee’s position. These are usually compliance-related (for example, annual research or budget reports).
Individual goals may also be project-oriented goals that may be regular work that is particularly significant during the time of this performance cycle (for example, implementing new software, completing a phase of a research project, reaching a fundraising goal, etc.).
Most individual goals should be forward-focused. That means that they should align with both the work unit’s and the University’s strategic goals and mission, if possible. For example, if the Chancellor sets an initiative for increased policy compliance on campus, then supervisors might develop individual goals toward increasing policy knowledge and awareness in the work unit or goals to ensure that the work unit is in compliance, such as revising procedure guides or audits of files.
If the individual goal is accomplished, then it should help the organization move forward in some way to make things more efficient, less hectic, more understandable, etc. to help make the work unit work better for employees, supervisors, and customers.
At the beginning of the performance cycle, supervisory teams will meet to discuss goal-setting for the new cycle. In some cases, all employees in a work unit or all employees in a particular position type may have the same individual goals.
Yes. Each employee must have at least one development goal each performance cycle.
The supervisor determines with each employee the appropriate development goal(s) for the cycle. The supervisors are expected to set development goals to address performance deficiencies for employees who received any rating of Not Meeting Expectations on their last performance appraisal.
Off-cycle reviews are formal check-ins between supervisors and employees that happen during the performance cycle. Supervisors also can conduct off-cycle reviews as often as they find necessary. There are several types of off-cycle reviews:
The supervisor is expected to meet with the employee, review the employee’s progress on the individual goals on the performance plan, and discuss how well the employee is meeting the expectations in the institutional goals. The supervisor documents the conversation (at least a paragraph summarizing the employee’s performance so far in the cycle) on the appraisal tool, and both the supervisor and employee initial the review.
Defines what tasks (job duties) are included in the position. The supervisor writes the position description.
Policies, procedures and other resources that give guidance to employees on how to perform their assigned duties.
Defines how well the employee needs to perform job duties on the position description in order to meet performance expectations. It also includes targeted individual goals for the employee: