The institution periodically evaluates the effectiveness of its administrators. (Administrative staff evaluations)
X In compliance Partially compliant Non-compliant
Francis Marion reviews the performance of all personnel annually using the either the Employee Performance Management System (EPMS)  or the Faculty Annual Report . These systems are described in detail in Comprehensive Standard 3.2.9 of this Compliance Report and subsequently in this standard. The EPMS evaluation document provides an evaluative mechanism for officers who report directly to the President to establish performance objectives and review them annually with the President; the Faculty Annual Report, which is submitted during each Spring semester to the Provost, provides a similar evaluative mechanism for chairs and deans to consider their performances with the Provost.
The President is evaluated as described in Comprehensive Standard 3.2.1 and the Provost (who also serves as Dean of the College of Liberal Arts) is evaluated according to the EPMS. Additionally, the President and Provost are evaluated annually by all faculty [3, 4]; chairs and deans are evaluated by faculty in their respective areas . This evaluation process is overseen by the Faculty Executive Committee which is comprised of the Faculty Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. The results of the survey provide the administrators with a precise quantitative measure of performance which can easily be reviewed over an extended period of time. Administrators who teach are also evaluated each semester by their students .
The faculty survey of the President, Provost, and chairs/deans which is administered annually by the officers of the Faculty–chair, vice-chair, and secretary– is described in the Academic Officers section.
The Francis Marion Employee Performance Management System (EPMS), which is approved by the SC Division of Human Resources of the Department of Administration, is located on the Francis Marion Human Resources website. The three components of the EPMS are combined into a single document which is explained to a new staff member at the time of employment by the Human Resources manager:
- Planning document – the supervisor and staff member discuss the Position Description and any changes which will be made during the ensuing year. Goals for the following year are also set when the Planning Document is signed.
- Position description – Specific functions associated with the position are described and weighted according to their relative importance.
- Evaluation stage – In addition to feedback which is given throughout the year staff members receive a written evaluation from the supervisor after 12 months of employment and on each anniversary date thereafter. A rating of 4 to 1 (4-substantially exceeds; 3- exceeds; 2- meets; 1- below expectations) is given for each function described in the Position Description. A weighted rating is calculated for overall performance.
The functions and duties which are described in the position description are accompanied by a series of criteria which must be met to indicate successful performance. A randomly selected annual evaluation of a member of the President’s senior staff is attached . A detailed description of the EPMS is presented in the last section of this document.
Chairs and deans submit the same annual performance review materials as other faculty. This system is outlined in the current Faculty Handbook  which is provided for each faculty member or academic administrator, with faculty status, when appointed. This formal, annual performance review consists of three parts which includes a self-review, summary data from student evaluations, and an annual review by the Provost . Student evaluation of faculty occurs near the end of each semester.
Most academic administrators are also teaching faculty, though they are not considered voting members of the faculty unless they teach at least 6 six credit hours or 9 contact hours per semester . If an administrator teaches any class, he/she is evaluated by his/her students in that class or classes which will be included in his/her performance review.
Administrative staff who teach also include student ratings in their evaluations; however, the performance evaluations are conducted by their administrative supervisors following the standards outlined in the South Carolina Employee Performance Management System. This system functions as an effective management tool within the agency, supports continuous communication between supervisors and employees, and provides a sound process for the evaluation of the performance and productivity of its personnel.
Evaluation of Academic Administrators by Faculty
Academic administrators are evaluated by the faculty annually. The evaluation form is distributed to the faculty by the Faculty Executive Committee in the spring semester of each academic year with the following letter . The committee appoints a person(s) to conduct and present the statistical analyses for each administrator. Each administrator then receives a table summarizing their respective results. These summaries are also stored in the Provost’s office for viewing by those eligible to rate a given administrator [12-scroll down to p. 50]. Additionally, the academic administrators may discuss these data summaries with the appropriate supervisor (Provost, President, or Chair of the Board of Trustees).
The survey  allows chairs/deans to be evaluated by faculty on the following:
- Recognizes and rewards faculty fairly.
- Holds effective and timely department/school meetings.
- Includes faculty in the decision-making process.
- Exercises fairness in making course assignments during fall, spring, and summer sessions.
Performance of Duties
- Develops the departmental/school budget with appropriate faculty input.
- Handles the budget fairly and wisely.
- Supports curriculum changes when needed.
- Evaluates faculty fairly (including annual merit ratings).
- Encourages and supports faculty research and scholarship.
- Assesses department/school needs and set goals.
- Provides encouragement to the faculty members of the department.
- Facilitates obtaining grants and contracts.
- Fosters positive faculty morale as a priority.
- Uses discretion in handling confidential matters.
- Communicates readily and easily with individuals.
- Keeps abreast of ideas and new developments in the discipline and the profession that affect the department/school.
- Acknowledges his or her own mistakes.
- Leads the department/school with input from the faculty and staff.
Status and Progress of the Department/School
- Possesses the skills and knowledge necessary to evaluate teaching.
- Represents departmental/school needs to the University effectively.
- Supports faculty community involvement.
- Exercises leadership in the development of a long-term plan for program enhancement.
Employee Performance Management System Policy
According to the previously referenced Francis Marion EPMS policy, which is posted on the Francis Marion University Human Resources page, the performance appraisal policy is designed to increase efficiency through the planning of job duties on an annual basis, thereby helping employees improve his/her performance through prior knowledge of the expectations of his/her rater and reviewer; provide information to employees, raters and reviewers for use in work-related decisions such as recommendations for salary increases, promotions, reassignments, demotions, and terminations; provide assistance to management in assigning work and delegating responsibility based on mutual understanding of the employee’s skills and abilities; encourage the continued growth and development of all employees; identify training needs; and maintain a documented history of employee performance.
According to the EPMS policy, each new employee in probationary status shall be rated prior to the completion of a twelve-month probationary period. If that employee does not receive a performance appraisal prior to the performance review date, that employee will receive a “meets performance requirements” rating by default and obtain a covered status as a State employee and permanent status in the class. The performance review date marks the beginning of a new review period. The probationary period may not be extended. If an employee is not performing satisfactorily during the probationary period, the employee shall be terminated before becoming a covered employee. Until an employee has completed the probationary period and has a “meets performance requirements” or higher overall rating on the employee’s performance evaluation, the employee has no grievance rights under the State Employee Grievance Procedure Act; therefore an agency is not required to follow the “Substandard Performance Process” to terminate a probationary employee.
All employees shall be given an annual appraisal no more than 90 calendar days prior to the employee’s performance review date. If an employee does not receive an appraisal prior to the performance review date, the employee shall receive a “meets performance requirements” rating by default. The performance review date marks the beginning of a new review period. A covered employee may not be issued an overall “below performance requirements” appraisal at any time during the annual review period without following the “Substandard Performance Process.”
Performance appraisals shall be completed by the employee’s rater who has first-hand knowledge of the work being performed; however, prior to the review being given to the employee, it shall be discussed with the next higher level supervisor, the reviewer. The appraisal must bear the signature of the reviewing official, the rater, and the employee. If an employee refuses to sign an appraisal, a notation shall be made of this on the performance appraisal and, if possible, witnessed by one other supervisory employee as attested by his/her signature below the notation on the appraisal. Performance appraisals shall become a permanent part of the employee’s official personnel file.
According to the EPMS system, all employees must use an agency approved computer generated EPMS form that has been approved in accordance with the State Printing Guidelines established by the State Budget and Control Board. During the Performance Planning Stage which occurs at the outset of each rating period and no later than six weeks after the beginning of the review period or entry into a position, a performance planning stage shall be completed. After conferring with the reviewer (next higher level supervisor), the rater shall meet with the employee and they determine the job functions (job duties and success criteria) or objective/s (objective/s and success criteria) on which the employee will be evaluated at the end of the review period. At the conclusion of the planning stage, the job functions are written on the performance appraisal form and signed by the rater, reviewer, and the employee. The original appraisal form should be forwarded to the Human Resources office. The Human Resources office will send the combined Position Description and Performance Evaluation Form to the respective rater three months prior to the Performance Review Date. In addition, the job functions (job duties and success criteria) shall be determined by a review of the employee’s position description. The rater and the employee shall select duties representing the percentage of the employee’s time and develop success criteria for each job duty. It shall be mandatory for all raters to be evaluated on the timely completion of each employee’s performance appraisal. In those instances where the rater and the employee cannot agree upon the job functions, the rater’s decisions shall be final.
Job functions shall be rated in the evaluation stage based on the four levels of performance. Performance Objectives are optional for all employees. If a rater/reviewer elects to represent a specific objective of a special non-recurring project nature to be accomplished during the rating period, this may be accomplished by adding an attachment to the Position Description and Performance Evaluation Form. If this action is taken, no more than 10 weighted points can be used for the objective. The difference in weighted points would be accumulated in the rating of the job functions. Each objective shall be rated in the evaluation stage based on the four levels of performance.
An employee’s success criteria specify the expected level of performance necessary to obtain a “meets performance requirements” rating. Success criteria are required for each job function.
The Human Resources office will provide each rater with a list of suggested performance characteristics and their definitions. Each performance characteristic shall be defined in EPMS Policy. In addition, the planning stage and rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” in the evaluation stage. The performance characteristic section shall be used as a communication tool to emphasize those performance characteristics that are important to success in performing the job functions and objectives included in the planning document. The performance characteristic section shall not be weighted in the determination of the overall performance rating. It shall be mandatory for all supervisors (raters) to be rated on the performance characteristic of “promoting equal opportunity.” (Promoting equal opportunity includes such areas as hiring, promotion, or placement; level of personal and organizational commitment to equal opportunity; progress toward achieving a fully integrated and representative workforce; and contributions toward minority programs and other social/economic equal opportunity goals.)
The EPMS recognizes these levels of performance:
(S) Substantially Exceeds Performance Requirements – Work that is characterized by exemplary accomplishments throughout the rating period; performance that is considerably and consistently above the success criteria of the job
(E) Exceeds Performance Requirements – Work that is above the success criteria of the job throughout the rating period; Meets Performance Requirements
(M) Work that meets the success criteria of the job
(B) Below Performance Requirements – Work that fails to meet the success criteria of the job.
This rating must be preceded by a “Written Notice of Substandard Performance” which can be obtained from the Human Resources office.
- Employee Performance Management System
- Faculty Annual Report Form
- Evaluation of the President by Faculty
- Evaluation of Provost by Faculty
- Evaluation of Chair/Dean by Faculty
- Student Rating Form
- Administrative Evaluation of Senior Staff
- Faculty Handbook, Faculty Annual Report Materials, p. 10
- Chair/Dean Self-Review Form & Provost Evaluation
- Faculty Handbook, Voting Faculty, p. 3
- Cover Letter to Faculty with Evaluation of President, Provost, and Chairs/Deans
- Faculty Handbook, Policies and Procedures of Evaluating Chairs and Deans, p. 49-51
- Items for the Evaluation of Chairs/Deans by Faculty