E27.0 Staff Performance Appraisal

This policy applies to all staff at RIT. 

All staff employees (hereafter referred to as “staff” or “staff member”) of RIT are expected to receive an annual written Performance Appraisal. A different process and/or format may be utilized for appraising officers and other senior leaders. If a staff member has been at RIT for less than six months prior to the launch of the performance appraisal process, they will not be included in the process. However it is expected that performance goals will be developed for the staff member and that they will receive regular feedback on their performance until the next appraisal cycle.

Performance appraisals are essential for evaluating both individual and organizational performance while fostering a culture of continuous improvement. The appraisal process facilitates open communication between direct managers and staff, ensuring that performance feedback is delivered constructively and in a timely manner. By assessing staff job performance against established expectations, the appraisal process provides valuable insights to align individual goals with broader unit and university objectives. Additionally, performance appraisals will inform the annual merit program.

1. Annual Appraisals
   1. Each division/college will follow either a calendar or academic/fiscal year cycle. The timeline will be shared with staff prior to the start of the annual evaluation process.
   2. All staff are strongly encouraged to submit a self-appraisal within the system. 
      1. The self-appraisal document must be considered by the manager when completing the formal appraisal.
   3. All staff will be appraised on the following scale using the definitions outlined below.  No other scale may be substituted. 

      • Exceeds Expectations

        1. Definition: The staff member consistently performs at an exceptional level, regularly surpassing job requirements and expectations. The staff member demonstrates outstanding initiative and contributes significantly to the university's goals and objectives.​
        2. Examples of Indicators:
           1. Consistently delivers work of exceptional quality, often surpassing goals and targets.
           2. Consistently demonstrates the ability to work independently; proactively identifies and solves problems.
           3. Frequently takes on additional responsibilities and projects.
           4. Consistently receives positive feedback from peers, leaders, and/or students.

      • Successfully Meets Expectations

        1. Definition: The staff member reliably meets job requirements and expectations. The staff member performs their duties competently and efficiently and contributes positively to university’s goal and operations.
        2. Examples of Indicators:
           1. Regularly meets established goals and performance standards.
           2. Regularly demonstrates the ability to work independently; proactively identifies and solves problems with some direction.
           3. Occasionally takes on additional responsibilities and projects.
           4. Receives favorable feedback from peers, leaders, and/or students.

      • Partially Meets Expectations

        1. Definition: The staff member meets some but not all job requirements. Improvement is needed in specific areas to meet the university’s standards and expectations.

        2. Examples of Indicators:

           1. Occasionally misses deadlines or produces work of inconsistent quality.
           2. Requires frequent supervision or guidance to complete tasks.
           3. Demonstrates gaps in the knowledge or skills necessary for the role.
           4. Receives mixed feedback from peers, leaders, and/or students.

      • Does Not Meet Expectations

        1. Definition: The staff member consistently fails to meet job requirements and expectations. Significant improvement is needed to reach an acceptable level of performance.

        2. Examples of Indicators:

           1. Frequently misses deadlines or produces work of substandard quality.
           2. Requires significant supervision and fails to complete tasks independently.
           3. Lacks the necessary knowledge or skills for the role.
           4. Receives negative feedback from peers, leaders, and/or students.
   4. Ratings should be supported by the manager’s comments and will be derived from the Performance Appraisal system, which integrates individual goals to provide an objective outcome.
   5. Direct Managers must meet with each staff member to review and discuss their performance; the written appraisal can be given to the staff member before, during, or after this meeting. Upon receipt of the written appraisal, the employee will be allowed at least two business days to review it before responding to or acknowledging the appraisal. 
   6. The staff member will have the opportunity to include a response to the appraisal that will become part of the official documentation.
   7. Staff who believe that this policy has been unfairly or improperly implemented can bring the situation to the attention of the second level supervisor and/or HR. Other resources that the staff member may consult during this process include the Ombuds Office, Resolution of Conflicts and Concerns among RIT Employees (Policy C06.1) and the Staff Grievance Procedure (Policy E30.0) if the employee believes the documented process was not followed. Final decision making authority lies with the manager, in consultation with the second level supervisor.
   8. Managers and staff will work together to develop goals and objectives, and/or expectations that align with university/department goals. Timing of developing these plans should coincide with the determination of university/department goals for that upcoming year.
   9. The Performance Appraisal (PA) process will include one level of managerial sign-off directly within the system, along with a staff acknowledgment. The process and timeline will also include dedicated time for senior leaders to review and provide feedback on their team’s ratings before holding conversations with staff.
   10. Final appraisals will be saved and stored for both the employee and the manager to access within the Enterprise Resource Platform.
2. Performance Improvement Documentation
   
   Direct Managers should consult with their Human Resources Business Partner (HRBP) for any staff receiving a rating of "Partially Meets Expectations" or "Does Not Meet Expectations" before finalizing and sharing the appraisal for any staff with documented performance concerns.
3. Training
   
   Managers and staff should engage in University trainings related to performance management and the performance appraisal process. 
4. Reports

       After all colleges/divisions have completed the performance appraisal process and cycle, Performance Appraisal statistics will be made available through Human Resources to University Council.

Responsible Office:  Department of Human Resources

Effective Date:  Personnel Policy 5.09 issued June 1, 1984

Policy History
Revised July 1, 1988
Revised September 2004
Revised March 2016

Reviewed and affirmed September 4, 2024

Revisions approved by University Council on February 11, 2026. The revised policy is effective as of this date.