Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1819-5 Supervisory Topics - Performance management (Final 8-27-19)Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Supervisory Topics – Performance Management To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 330-4674 or send email to David.Givans@Deschutes.org Deschutes County, Oregon David Givans, CPA, CIA Deschutes County Internal Auditor PO Box 6005 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 330-4674 Audit committee: Daryl Parrish, Chair - Public member Tom Linhares - Public member Scott Reich - Public member Stan Turel - Public member Patti Adair, County Commissioner Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk James Lewis, Property management Take a survey by clicking HERE Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS: HIGHLIGHTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background on Audit …………..………………………………………………………...…. 1 1.2. Objectives and Scope ………………….……………………………………………….… 1-2 1.3. Methodology …………………………………….…………………………………………… 2-3 1.4. Background • Prior work on span of control …………………………………………………………… 4 • Performance management ………….…………………………………………………… 5 • 2019 Employee survey …………………………………………………………………… 5-7 2. OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS 2.1. Supervisors ………………………………………………………………………………….. 8-28 2.2. Employees (All Staff and Supervisors) ……………..……………………….… 29-33 3. MANAGEMENT RESPONSES RECEIVED 3.1. County Administrator ………………………………………………………….… 33-35 3.2. Human Resources Department ..…………………………………………… 35-36 3.3. Sheriff’s Office …………………………………………………………………..……….. 37 4. APPENDIX - Survey demographics ………………………………………………. 37-40 . Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 HIGHLIGHTS Why this audit was performed: To review the performance management topics of training, goals, communication, and evaluation. What is recommended Recommendations include: • assessing how the County can support departments/offices in improving and sustaining efforts for completing timely performance evaluations; • providing accountability to supervisors at all levels for completing timely evaluations; and • establishing and communicating performance measures that track the success in completing evaluations in a timely manner by department/office and reporting those back to the Elected or Department Heads responsible. Supervisory Topics – Performance management Performance management is the broad collection of activities including setting expectations, measuring employee behaviors and results, providing coaching and feedback, and evaluating performance over time to use in decision making. What was found A thorough confidential employee survey indicated very positive indicators on the performance management areas evaluated. For example, when rating “I feel positive about working for Deschutes County” eighty-six percent (86%) of employees indicated they strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. On performance evaluations, employees had a reasonable strong rating 76% (3.8 out of 5). However, analyses of evaluations indicated a declining trend in completed evaluations with only 19% completed timely for 2018 and 32% of the evaluations not completed. Completion rates have been pretty consistent over the last five years but the not completed rate has been increasing (more than double). This low level of completion was in striking contrast to the supervisors’ survey responses indicating their agreement (at 88%) that “I provided a timely written annual performance evaluation for all of my employees”. Employees’ ratings don’t seem to indicate a concern with not receiving evaluations. “Probation” or “Probationary Period” is a period of trial service during which an employee’s work performance and standing to become a regular employee is evaluated by the County. Probationary evaluations are arguably the most important evaluations. In 2018, forty-one percent (41%) were completed timely, which indicates over half of probationary employees are being released from probation without the probationary evaluation from their supervisor. The timely completion of probationary evaluations was lowest for Elected Officials/ Department heads and smaller size departments/offices. Deschutes County Internal Audit Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 1 1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND ON AUDIT Audit Authority: The Deschutes County Audit Committee authorized the audit of the supervisory topics in the Internal Audit Program Work Plan for 18/19. The first report (#18/19-2) on supervisory topics covers the first objective of analyzing span of control (management). In the context of the audit on supervisory topics, the analysis of span of control sets the stage for the additional work in assessing staff development and expectations for supervisors. This second report (#18/19-5) on performance management, addresses staff performance management topics of training, goals, communication, and evaluation (and does not include discipline). 1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE “Audit objectives” define the goals of the audit. Objectives: The objectives were. Prior report #18/19-2 1) Analysis and assessment of span of control/management by department/office. Current report 2) Assessment of staff development efforts by looking at supervisor efforts with staff performance management topics of training, goals, communication, and evaluation (would not include specifically discipline). 3) Assessment of expectations for supervisors. 4) Be aware of any issues with compliance with federal and state regulations and requirements, as may be applicable for these objectives. Scope and timing: The audit commenced in November 2018 and continued through July 2019. The majority of the work occurred in January through April on these objectives. Staff and supervisory information was pulled as of October 2018. The employee survey was performed over February and March 2019. In some cases, historical information may be presented for context. All County department/offices and the Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 2 911 County Service District are included. Staff information does not include unfilled positions, on- call, election workers, contract employees or volunteers. Evaluations submitted to Human Resources as part of an employee’s file are evidence of supervision. This audit does not address the quality and content of evaluations being provided to employees. Nor does the audit address the myriad of performance related interactions between a supervisor and employee. Supervision is inherently subjective, and supervisors may differ widely in how they rate equivalent performance. Therefore the effectiveness of the current performance management system is not being evaluated. Supervisors are defined as those with the primary responsibility to prepare and sign a subordinate employee’s performance evaluation. We chose this definition because the person doing the employee’s evaluation is also responsible for hiring, assigning and directing work, and managing the employees’ performance. Employee supervisors are being tracked in the County’s Human Resource system (Tyler Munis). These supervisory relationships were those in place around the end of the calendar year 2018. For purposes of the employee survey, survey respondents self-identify if they are a supervisor. 1.3 METHODOLOGY “Audit procedures are created to address the audit objectives” Audit procedures included: • interviewed staff on practices and procedures; • developed and analyzed a survey from employees; o analyzed job descriptions for supervisors; o the survey is not intended to be comprehensive for all aspects of performance management; o the employee survey was performed over February and March 2019. • reviewed County personnel rules, policies and procedures as well as current union contracts; Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 3 This statement is your assurance that this performance audit was performed in accordance with professional standards. • developed, reviewed and analyzed human resource data on staff/supervisors, which included evaluation information; • reviewed articles, literature, reports and studies on performance management concepts; and • analyzed demographic data of employees and added generational information; The survey uses a Likert scale for most questions where respondents indicate for a survey question whether they • strongly agreed, • agreed, • neutral, • disagreed, or • strongly disagreed. The Likert scale is commonly used in survey research. It is often used to measure respondents' attitudes or opinions by asking the extent to which they agree or disagree with a particular question or statement. This is a balanced scale as value statements are centered on a neutral option. For analyses, this scale is converted to a 1-5 scale with 5 being the highest (strongly agreed). This value can be converted to a percentage score if divided by 5. When comparable, survey results are compared to those in the 2015 employee survey performed by the County. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. (2011 Revision of Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.) Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 4 1.4 BACKGROUND CHART I: Average span of control by department size and for County … as span of control increased (more employees per supervisor) there was more variability in the survey outcomes. PRIOR WORK ON SPAN OF CONTROL In the prior report on Supervisory Topics-Span of Control (#18/19-2), the discussion centered around the evaluation of span of control as a means to understanding the management structure in place in County departments. In general it was observed the smaller departments had lower span of controls. Departmental/Office span of control varied from 2.5 up to 13. And span of controls by supervisor ranged from 1 to 25. Interestingly enough, the span of control data in the prior audit report didn’t further illuminate the analyses of the survey results. The employee ratings did not seem to be correlated to their supervisor’s span of control. If there was one observation it was that as span of control increased (more employees per supervisor) there was more variability in the survey outcomes. This might encourage departments to look at addressing situations where supervisors have higher levels of span of control. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 5 The last County employee survey performed was in 2015. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Performance management is the broad collection of activities designed to maximize individual, and by extension, organizational performance. It includes setting expectations, measuring employee behaviors and results, providing coaching and feedback, and evaluating performance over time to use in decision making. Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) – Performance management that makes a difference Performance management topics in this audit include: • goals and planning work to set expectations; • training; • evaluations. • coaching; • communications; 2019 EMPLOYEE SUPERVISION ANONYMOUS SURVEY With over a thousand employees, an anonymous survey was utilized to gather direct feedback from all employees on supervisory performance management topics. The performance management areas included in the survey included: • performance planning • training • performance evaluations • coaching • communication The last employee survey performed by the County was in 2015. A couple of questions were taken from that survey for comparative purposes. The survey tracked certain demographics, including whether they were a supervisor; the size of their department; gender; age group; race; years with the county; and the span of control range of their supervisor. It was important for staff to have anonymity so the survey could be a true representation of the supervisory environment. There was well over 500 responses to the survey which represents a 52% completion rate. There is some demographic information on the overall survey presented in the Appendix. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 6 CHART II: OVERALL response comparison to 2015 Employee survey TABLE I: “I feel positive about working for Deschutes County” survey response ratings by department/ office size and by supervisor/staff A. SURVEY QUESTION 1: OVERALL – I feel positive about working for Deschutes County These overall ratings show a similar overall positive response to the 2015 survey on the positive working environment at the County. There are fewer disagree values and lower strongly agree values. A1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSES: A1-1 By department/office size Size of Department/ Office Staff Staff % Supervisor Supervisor % Overall Overall % Small 4.4 87% 4.8 95% 4.4 89% Medium 4.5 90% 4.5 89% 4.5 90% Large 4.4 87% 4.4 89% 4.4 87% Extra-Large 4.1 83% 4.0 80% 4.1 82% TOTALS 4.3 85% 4.3 85% 4.3 85% Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 7 TABLE II: “I feel positive about working for Deschutes County” survey response ratings by gender and by supervisor/staff TABLE III: “I feel positive about working for Deschutes County” survey response ratings by years with the County and by supervisor/staff These ratings indicate relatively strong values for this overall statement. The extra-large departments/offices have slightly lower overall scores. A1-2 By gender Gender Staff Staff % Supervisor Supervisor % Overall Overall % Female 4.3 87% 4.3 87% 4.3 87% Male 4.2 85% 4.3 85% 4.3 85% Undisclosed 3.8 77% 4.1 82% 4.1 82% TOTALS 4.3 85% 4.3 85% 4.3 85% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for this overall statement. Not much difference in these overall scores by gender and by role. The undisclosed staff, had lower scores. A1-3 By years with the County Years with the County Staff Staff % Supervisor Supervisor % Overall Overall % <1 4.7 93% 4.5 90% 4.7 93% 1-5 4.2 83% 4.7 93% 4.2 84% 6-10 4.3 87% 4.4 88% 4.3 87% 11-15 4.1 82% 4.4 88% 4.2 84% > 15 4.3 86% 4.0 81% 4.2 85% TOTALS 4.3 85% 4.3 86% 4.3 85% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for this overall statement. Our newest employees are the most positive about working for the County. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 8 2. Observations and Findings The audit included procedures to assess the condition with certain supervisory topics. Audit findings result from incidents of non-compliance with stated procedures and/or departures from prudent operation. The findings are, by nature, subjective. The audit disclosed certain policies, procedures and practices that could be improved. A significant deficiency is defined as an internal control deficiency that could adversely affect the entity’s ability to initiate, record, process, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. The findings noted were not considered significant deficiencies. 2.1 SUPERVISORS CHART III: OVERALL supervisor overseeing response A. SURVEY QUESTION 2: OVERALL – I think my supervisor does a good job overseeing me. This overall employee response is pretty universally shared as indicated in the additional analyses below. This particular question wasn’t asked in the 2015 employee survey. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 9 TABLE IV: “I think my supervisor does a good job of overseeing me” survey response ratings by department/office size and by supervisor/staff TABLE V: “I think my supervisor does a good job of overseeing me” survey response ratings by gender and by supervisor/staff A2. DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSES: A2-1 By department/office size Size of Department/ Office Staff Staff % Supervisor Supervisor % Overall Overall % Small 3.9 77% 4.4 88% 4.0 79% Medium 4.1 82% 4.6 91% 4.2 84% Large 4.1 82% 4.4 88% 4.2 83% Extra-Large 4.1 81% 4.0 80% 4.1 81% TOTALS 4.1 81% 4.2 84% 4.1 82% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for this overall statement. Overall by size there are little differences, but supervisors in extra-large departments/offices have slightly lower ratings as do staff from smaller departments/offices. A2-2 By gender Gender Staff Staff % Supervisor Supervisor % Overall Overall % Female 4.1 82% 4.3 86% 4.1 83% Male 4.2 84% 4.2 84% 4.2 84% Undisclosed 3.3 67% 4.1 82% 3.5 70% TOTALS 4.1 81% 4.2 84% 4.1 82% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for this overall statement. Not much difference in these overall scores by gender, except that those respondents who did not disclose their demographics had significantly lower ratings. Supervisors had slightly higher ratings with female supervisors. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 10 TABLE VI: “I think my supervisor does a good job of overseeing me” survey response ratings by years with the County and by supervisor/staff TABLE VII: Employee evaluation survey responses A2-3 By years with the County Years with the County Staff Staff % Supervisor Supervisor % Overall Overall % <1 4.5 89% 4.5 90% 4.5 89% 1-5 4.1 82% 4.3 85% 4.1 82% 6-10 4.1 81% 4.4 89% 4.2 83% 11-15 3.9 77% 4.2 84% 4.0 79% >15 4.0 80% 4.1 82% 4.0 80% TOTALS 4.1 81% 4.2 85% 4.1 82% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for this overall statement. Our newest employees have the greatest opinion of the County. B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS B1. Staff Survey The following are specific questions answered by all employees relating to evaluations provided by their supervisors. This includes supervisors’ opinions on their supervisors. Survey statement Out of 5 As a % My supervisor provides ongoing feedback on my performance. 3.8 76% As compared to 2015 employee survey 3.9 77% The feedback my supervisor provides is appropriate and timely. 3.8 76% My supervisor provides sufficient and periodic recognition when I exceed expectations. 3.7 75% Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 11 TABLE VII.1: Employee evaluation survey responses by supervisor/staff Survey statement Out of 5 As a % My performance evaluations are constructive and fair. 3.9 77% I find value in my performance evaluations. 3.6 71% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for these evaluation statements but these are among the lowest in the survey. The lowest was given to finding value in their performance evaluation. Staff with supervisors with lower span of control as well as younger staff (18-29) gave consistently higher ratings on these evaluation statements. B1-1 By supervisor/staff Survey statement Staff % Supervisor % My supervisor provides ongoing feedback on my performance. 75% 78% The feedback my supervisor provides is appropriate and timely. 75% 79% My supervisor provides sufficient and periodic recognition when I exceed expectations. 74% 79% My performance evaluations are constructive and fair. 77% 79% I find value in my performance evaluations. 71% 72% Supervisors have a much more positive value for these evaluation statements than staff. Female supervisors in general had higher ratings than their male counterparts. Supervisors with 6-10 years with the County also had higher ratings with the lowest ratings coming in from those with >15 years. Supervisors with lower span of control supervisors had higher ratings but those declined as department/office size grew. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 12 TABLE VIII: Supervisor evaluation survey responses TABLE IX: Evaluation types from highest importance to lowest importance B2. Supervisor survey The following are specific questions to those supervisors (Department heads, Managers, supervisors, etc…) that responded to the survey on performance evaluation topics. Survey statement Out of 5 As a % I provide routine and ongoing monitoring and guidance to my employees. 4.4 88% I provide a timely written annual performance evaluation for all of my employees. 4.1 82% I use the evaluation process to improve employee performance. 3.9 77% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for these evaluation statements. About half of the supervisors responded to the survey. The lowest rating was for using the evaluation process to improve employee performance. B3. Evaluation analyses The County has electronic data on all employee evaluations. These are entered by Human Resources from evaluation submittals from all departments/offices. This data can be used to determine whether evaluations are received timely as well as other analyses. There are generally four overall types of evaluations: Survey type Description Probationary These are evaluations that release employees from probationary status. Therefore, these evaluations are the last easy opportunity to release an unsatisfactory new employee. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 13 … the supervisor shall provide an evaluation (at an overall “meets expectations” or better level) prior to completion of probation as well as for merit increases. Survey type Description Non probationary These are usually more frequent pre probationary evaluations called out in a union agreement. These are intermediary evaluations that will help shape a new employee before they reach probation. Annual - merit These are evaluations are required for a merit increase to occur. These merit evaluations provide an employee a raise to the next salary step for their job. Annual-no merit These are evaluations for employees that are at their top step. Most language in the union agreements and personnel rules indicate the supervisor shall (as in must) provide an evaluation (at an overall “meets expectations” or better level) prior to completion of probation as well as for merit increases. The Personnel rules and union agreements do not talk about receiving evaluations after the due date, but there has been some use of the term grace period (45 days) which has no impact on outcomes since Human Resources must act to give employees their action on the due date. This grace is used in these analyses since it is a perceived allowance of extra time. A department may seek to extend probationary period for an employee on probationary status, by requesting an extension from the County Administrator. The analyses on evaluation data provide evaluation performance by when evaluations are received in four groups; timely; within 45 day grace (see above); > 45 days late; and not completed. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 14 CHART IV: Performance trend in evaluation submittals over calendar years B3-1 By year As indicated above, the timely receipt of evaluations represents only 19%-22% of the evaluations and has been relatively consistent over the last five years. The non-completed evaluations has more than doubled in this time period from 15% to 32%. The average days for receipt goes from 17 days (for within the 45 day grace period) to 114 days (for >45 days). These values are in stark contrast from the supervisors’ survey responses in TABLEVIII, above, indicating their agreement (at 88%) that “I provided a timely written annual performance evaluation for all of my employees”. What is surprising is that employees don’t seem to be as concerned with not receiving evaluations as indicated in their responses (at 76%) to this topic in TABLE VII, above. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 15 CHART V: Performance with 2018 evaluation submittals by importance B3-2 By importance (2018) “Probation” or “Probationary Period” is a period of trial service during which an employee’s work performance and standing to become a regular employee is evaluated by the County. Probationary evaluations are the most important and show a sizable improvement in compliance at 41%. That still indicates over half of probationary employees are going without a timely probationary evaluation. The County is releasing employees from probation without the documented evaluation from their supervisor. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 16 CHART VI: Performance trend in evaluation submittals by importance B3-3 By importance by year This probation compliance percentage has trended from 53% in 2014 to 41% in 2018. Not completed probationary reports have doubled from 10% in 2014 to 20% in 2018. Not probationary reports are generally those evaluations required prior to probation are fairly important and fall further from compliance and timeliness. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 17 CHART VI.1: Trend in % not completed by importance CHART VII: Performance with 2018 evaluation submittals by importance and supervisor gender B3-4 Trend of “not completed” by importance The evaluations not completed have doubled over this timeframe for all categories of importance. These rising trends are significant. Arguably, the 45 day grace period and late returns do nothing more than the not completed in satisfying the requirements under the personnel rules and union contracts. B3-5 By importance and supervisor gender (2018) Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 18 CHART VIII: Performance with 2018 evaluation submittals by importance and Department/ Office size “Female” supervisors in 2018 out performed their “male” counterparts in timely and completed evaluations over these three categories of importance. The difference in timely probationary evaluations is 25% higher. As noted in the earlier span of control report (Chart IX), the County has an imbalance in supervisors by gender with only 33% being female (whereas the workforce is 55% female). B3-6 By department/office size and importance (2018) Smaller departments seem to have a more difficult time with completing timely probationary evaluations, but they do seem to do better with timely annual reports, than their larger peers. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 19 CHART IX: Performance with 2018 evaluation submittals by span of control grouping B3-7 By span of control (2018) The above chart does not indicate significant differences in evaluation compliance for supervisors with increasing spans of control. Higher spans of control may indicate a situation where the supervisor has so many staff to supervise that they have a harder time keeping up with the duties of supervision. However, the 2018 evaluations are not moving with increases in span of control. The variances in performance appear to be related to specific supervisors in each grouping. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 20 CHART X: Performance with 2018 evaluation submittals by importance and supervisory group B3-8 By importance and supervisor group (2018) “Department Head” includes deputy department heads as well as Elected Officials. This indicates that “Department Head group” has lower performance in compliance and has higher “not completed” rates than the manager and supervisor groups. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 21 CHART XI: Performance with 2018 evaluation submittals by union affiliation B3-9 By union affiliation (2018) Most union contracts have “shall” language for the receipt of a timely evaluations for purposes of probation and annual evaluations. Supervisors and higher are included in the non-represented category. Most notable is the lack of evaluations completed for staff from the District Attorney’s Association. Public Works 701 has a fairly high non-completion rate. This union has members in Solid Waste and Road departments. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 22 CHART XII: Performance with 2018 evaluation submittals by importance and union affiliation B3-10 By union affiliation and importance (2018) Showing this by type shows some union affiliations might be having an impact on performance. Most notably the District Attorney Association whose members have not received any evaluations during 2018. This is also a by-product of large span of control with one person responsible and who has not completed their evaluations. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 23 Evaluations not completed have more than doubled from 15% to 32% in the last five years. C. ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS REVIEW (2018) A limited review of evaluations performed late and/or not completed, indicated a number of probationary evaluations. There were three employees in 2018 that received a “needs improvement” rating as a late evaluation. One had their probation extended and the other two were allowed to come off of probation with a “needs improvement”. Most of the union agreements and personnel rules require a “meets” or “exceeds” to move off of probation. There were significantly more probationary staff that never received probationary evaluations, so we do not know how they were rated. The absence of timely evaluations or no evaluation defaults them to ‘meeting standards”. D. FINDING Overall evaluation compliance is cause for concern. Performance with completion of evaluations in a timely manner has been consistently low over the last five years at a 20% level. Evaluations not completed have more than doubled from 15% to 32% in the last five years. Probationary evaluations, which rank the highest importance, receive compliance at the 41% level in 2018 down from 53% in 2014. Survey responses from employees to “My supervisor provides ongoing feedback on my performance” were positive at 76%, however, this was among the lowest rated questions in the survey. Supervisors were even more positive with “I provide routine and ongoing monitoring and guidance to my employees” at an 88% level. These responses hardly foreshadowed the evaluation analyses results at such a low level. The survey specifically didn’t ask employees if they had timely performance evaluations as required, since the audit anticipated analyzing the data. Most language in the union agreements and personnel rules indicate the supervisor shall provide an evaluation (at an overall “meets expectations” or better level) prior to completion of probation as well as for merit increases. A department/office may seek to extend probationary period for an employee on probationary status, by requesting an extension from the County Administrator (in most cases). Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 24 No department head, manager, supervisor or employee has any authority to waive, amend or modify the Personnel Rules (Code 3.12.060). These probationary evaluations provide important input and feedback on new hire performance. After probation, government employees have greater due process rights. Annual evaluations involving step increases also involve a greater cost to departments/offices as employees will receive a step increase (which is usually 5% of wages) and additional fringe benefit costs. As indicated in the analyses above, some supervisors are routinely not completing a majority of their evaluations or completing them late without any County mechanism to fix this situation. The County relies partly on departments to establish sufficient systems to assure that County personnel rules and union contracts are adhered to. Human Resources is a collector of information and cannot enforce these rules. The County Administrator is provided periodic reports and can leverage their oversight of departmental leadership to improve adherence. There are no mechanisms to provide greater adherence in elected offices. The personnel rules and most union agreements indicate these evaluations shall be completed in a timely manner. Personnel rules and union agreements do not talk about receiving evaluations after the due date, but past practice has been that there is some grace period (45 days) for receiving evaluations. This has no merit in the Personnel Rules and only the County Administrator has authority to extend probation. Human Resources currently sends reminders to all departments well in advance of due dates. Instructions for evaluation forms further indicate these are due on or before the due date. No department head, manager, supervisor or employee has any authority to waive, amend or modify the Personnel Rules (Code 3.12.060). In the absence of timely evaluations, employees are given the benefit of the doubt and are processed with an end to their probations (usually with an associated step increase) and annuals for employees that haven’t reached their top step are given their next step increase, if applicable. Are supervisors neglecting their responsibilities? Are there issues in the current evaluation form? What systems are in place there to assure documentation of timely evaluations of employees as required? It isn’t particularly clear the reason(s) or causes for the dramatic decline in evaluation completion. It is clear the current track record in performing evaluations is below expectations. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 25 It is difficult to articulate all of the potential impacts from failing to perform timely evaluations. Poor decisions during probation can have lasting effects and increase potential damages to the County. There are direct costs from advancing employees through steps without an evaluation. The County and employees may not be working at their highest level without proper guidance. The employee recognition program is fueled partly by employee evaluations and if employees are not getting evaluations they are not seeing those benefits. This, in turn, could negatively impact morale. The lack of timely evaluations contradicts requirements in union agreements as well as the County personnel rules. It is recommended for the County to assess how they can support departments/offices in improving and sustaining efforts for completing timely performance evaluations. It is recommended supervisors at all levels be held accountable for completing timely evaluations. It is recommended the county establish and communicate performance measures to track the success in completing evaluations in a timely manner by department/office and report those back to the Elected or Department Heads responsible. Note: In 2009, there was a similar recommendation for the County to develop performance measures to monitor and manage expectations for performance evaluations. The routine reporting has been limited to the County Administrator and hasn’t been occurring since changing to Munis in 2019. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 26 TABLE X: Supervisor training survey responses TABLE XI: Supervisor survey training responses E. SUPERVISORY TRAINING E1 Staff Survey (filtered for only supervisors) The following are supervisor responses to training specific questions. Survey statement Out of 5 As a % My supervisor provides sufficient training for me to be successful in my job. (Consider the last twelve months) 4.0 81% This rating indicates a relatively strong value for this training statement and is relatively consistent over the demographic areas. E2 Supervisor survey The following are specific questions to those supervisors (Department heads, Managers, Supervisors, etc…) that responded to the survey on training topics. Survey statement Out of 5 As a % I have taken advantage of County provided supervisor training. 4.1 82% I think the County has provided me with sufficient supervisor training to be effective. 3.9 77% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for these evaluation statements. Supervisors did indicate they could use some more supervisor training. The employees with fewer years with the County rated these the lowest. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 27 E3. Supervisory training analyses The County has supervisory and leadership training offerings as do a number of departments. Analyses of supervisors training indicates a high percentage (94%) have completed some level of supervisory or leadership training in the last five years. The smaller departments/offices had less consistent training amongst their supervisors. TABLE XII: Supervisor expectation responses on job duties (not elsewhere reported) F. SUPERVISORY EXPECTATIONS F1 Supervisor survey The following are specific questions to those supervisors (Department heads, Managers, Supervisors, etc…) that responded to the survey on supervisory expectations. F1-1 Job duties Survey statement Out of 5 As a % I provide appropriate training/onboarding for my employees. 4.3 85% I promote an inclusive and discrimination free workplace. 4.8 95% I am aware of whether my staff work the time they report before I approve their timesheet. 4.6 92% I am aware of employee leave protections. 4.4 88% I am aware of wage and hour protections. 4.3 86% I help staff balance their workload. 4.4 88% I think the number of direct reports I have is appropriate given my level of experience and the nature of our work. 4.1 81% I think my direct reports are my primary responsibility. 4.0 80% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for these evaluation statements. Overall, the supervisors indicated they are aware and doing the things we would expect of a supervisor. They rated themselves pretty highly on having an inclusive and discrimination free workplace. Their Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 28 TABLE XIII: Supervisor expectation responses on hiring duties lowest ratings for themselves related to appropriate level of direct reports (i.e. span of control) and thinking that their direct reports were their primary responsibility. F1-2 Hiring Survey statement Out of 5 As a % I am aware of the County rules regarding recruiting and hiring. 4.2 84% I am aware that veterans must be provided a preference during the recruitment process. 4.6 93% I am aware of the County's equal employment opportunity plan and the areas where there are deficiencies. 4.2 84% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for these evaluation statements. Overall, the supervisors indicated they are aware of the things we would expect of a supervisor around hiring. Their highest rating was around awareness of the veteran’s preference. Male supervisors and older supervisors consistently rated themselves higher with these statements. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 29 2.2 EMPLOYEES (ALL STAFF AND SUPERVISORS) TABLE XIV: Employee performance planning survey responses A. PERFORMANCE PLANNING A1 Employee Survey - The following are specific questions answered by all employees relating to performance planning provided by their supervisors. A1-1 Performance planning Survey statement Out of 5 As a % I understand the expectations set for me in my job. 4.3 85% My supervisor (with my input) has established job goals. 3.9 79% The goals were specific. 3.9 78% The goals were measurable. 3.9 78% The goals were achievable. 3.9 78% The goals were realistic. 3.9 78% The goals were made time sensitive. 3.7 75% My supervisor helps me in balancing my workload. 3.7 73% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for these evaluation statements. A series of these questions relate to establishing what are called “SMART” goals. These are goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time sensitive. The lowest score seems to go with providing guidance on balancing workload. The highest value was understanding expectations for their job. Newer County employees seem to have rated this category a little higher. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 30 TABLE XIV.1: Employee performance planning survey responses by supervisor/staff TABLE XV: Employee coaching survey responses Survey statement Staff % Supervisor % I understand the expectations set for me in my job. 85% 84% My supervisor (with my input) has established job goals. 79% 79% The goals were specific. 78% 78% The goals were measurable. 78% 78% The goals were achievable. 78% 78% The goals were realistic. 78% 79% The goals were made time sensitive. 75% 74% My supervisor helps me in balancing my workload. 74% 72% These rating values are pretty consistent between staff and supervisors. The biggest difference being a lessor value by supervisors on workload, as might be expected by their jobs. B. COACHING B1 Employee Survey - The following are specific questions answered by all employees relating to coaching provided by their supervisors. B1-1 Coaching Survey statement Out of 5 As a % My supervisor effectively coaches and mentors me in my job. 3.7 75% This rating indicates a relatively strong value for this evaluation statement but somewhat on the lower side of the other statements. This rating is highest with new hires and steadily declines as employees stay longer at the County. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 31 TABLE XV.1: Employee coaching survey responses by supervisor/staff TABLE XVI: Employee training survey responses TABLE XVI.1: Employee training survey responses by supervisor/staff Survey statement Staff % Supervisor % My supervisor effectively coaches and mentors me in my job. 74% 78% Supervisors appear to rate the coaching and mentoring they receive higher than staff do. C. TRAINING C1 Employee Survey - The following are specific questions answered by all employees relating to training provided by their supervisors. C1-1 Training Survey statement Out of 5 As a % My supervisor provides sufficient training for me to be successful in my job. (Consider the last twelve months) 3.9 78% This rating indicates a relatively strong value for this evaluation statement but somewhat on the lower side of the other statements. Survey statement Staff % Supervisor % My supervisor provides sufficient training for me to be successful in my job. (Consider the last twelve months) 78% 81% Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 32 TABLE XVII: Employee communications survey responses This rating includes information shown in Table X. This supervisor value is a bit higher than the staff sentiment. D. COMMUNICATIONS D1. Employee Survey - The following are specific questions answered by all employees relating to communications with their supervisors. D1-1 Communications Survey statement Out of 5 As a % My supervisor communicates information to me in a timely manner. 4.0 80% As compared to 2015 employee survey 3.9 77% My supervisor shares information on County and Department strategic direction, vision, mission and values. 3.8 75% As compared to 2015 employee survey 4.0 80% My supervisor takes time to support my development. 3.9 78% These ratings indicate relatively strong values for these evaluation statements. The comparisons to the 2015 employee survey are relatively close. Values were stronger for the communication in a timely manner and slightly lower for sharing strategic information from the County and department/office. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 33 TABLE XVII.1: Employee communications survey responses by supervisor/staff Survey statement Staff % Supervisor % My supervisor communicates information to me in a timely manner. 79% 84% My supervisor shares information on County and Department strategic direction, vision, mission and values. 74% 80% My supervisor takes time to support my development. 77% 81% Supervisors have a consistently better view of communications than staff. 3. Management responses received County Administrator - Tom Anderson Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 34 County Administrator - continued Thank you for completing the "Supervisory Topics - Performance Management" audit. The audit includes numerous positive findings, highlights areas for improvement, and provides solid recommendations to improve the County's performance management program. County Administration fully supports the recommendations and will work with departments to implement them in an expedited fashion. Positive Findings The positive findings that came out of the audit include the following: the survey of employees and supervisors yielded high response rates; employees feel positive about working for Deschutes County; overall, employees think their supervisor is going a good job with supervision; employees reported that supervisors provided ongoing feedback on performance; and employees found value in performance evaluations. These findings are encouraging and demonstrate an organizational culture of positive communication, ongoing supervisory feedback, and employee buy-in to performance reviews. Areas for Improvement The biggest area for improvement is ensuring that performance evaluations are completed and completed on time. The audit found that a large percentage of evaluations are late and an unacceptable percentage are not being completed at all. As an organization, we can clearly do better. For appointed department heads (non-elected department heads), I have made my expectations clear: by the end of the calendar year, departments will complete 100% of the outstanding performance evaluations and keep up-to-date moving forward. For elected department heads, while I do not have the same control as with appointed department heads, I can certainly encourage them to adopt similar expectations for their staff. System Improvements The three audit recommendations relate to system improvements: • It is recommended for the County to assess how they can support departments/offices in improving and sustaining efforts for completing timely performance evaluations. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 35 County Administrator - continued • It is recommended supervisors at all levels be held accountable for completing timely evaluations. • It is recommended the county establish and communicate performance measures to track the success in completing evaluations in a timely manner by department/office and report these back to the Elected or Department Heads responsible. I support these recommendations and look forward to working with HR to provide departments timely and easy to use reports to track performance evaluation deadlines. Performance evaluations for appointed department heads will include an item related to timely evaluations being completed by supervisors in their department. In addition, the County's performance evaluation tool is outdated and stale. I have tasked HR with revamping our performance evaluations. HR will review best practices, solicit department input, overhaul the performance evaluation tool, and look for opportunities to automate the process using the County's Munis software package. Human Resources Department - Kathleen Hinman, Director Interoffice memorandum Delivered via e-mail Date: August 26, 2019 To: David Givans, County Internal Auditor From: Kathleen Hinman, Human Resources Director Re: Supervisory Topics – Performance Management report #1819-5 Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 36 Human Resources Department - continued Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your report, Supervisory Topics – Performance Management Report #1819-5 (the Audit). Human Resources values your review on this important issue and the perspective it provides County Leadership as we look at how we address and support employee performance. HR is glad to see that overall County employees continue to feel positive about working for Deschutes County and think their supervisor does a good job overseeing them. While the survey results indicate relatively strong values overall, our newest employees have the greatest opinion of the County. The audit indicates respondents feel their supervisor provides appropriate and timely feedback, sufficient recognition, and the performance evaluations are constructive and fair; however, the lowest assessment was given to actually finding value in the performance evaluations provided to them. The audit also indicates a trend where less evaluations are being completed annually each year since 2014. Specifically, HR has concern with the percentage of evaluations net being completed having doubled since 2014. HR agrees with the audit recommendations and plans to support these recommendations by • Renovating the County’s performance evaluation system, the evaluation tool, and look to automate the process. • Identifying updated tools and best practices that provide more value to employees and supervisors in the formal feedback process. • Improving the existing reporting tools for departments/offices to use as a resource to ensure supervisors at all levels are held accountable for completing timely evaluations. HR looks forward to its continued partnership with County Leadership and supporting our collective efforts in providing timely and meaningful performance feedback. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 37 Sheriff’s Office – Captain Paul Garrison Thank you for the information you have compiled. We agree that we need to be timely in our evaluations of all Sheriff’s Office employees. We have been reviewing our evaluation process as we knew our current process is not effectively assessing employee performance and is not helping our Office to provide meaningful feedback, coaching, mentoring, training, and other growth opportunities to our personnel. In the last year, Sheriff Nelson tasked us as a command staff to address these issues by researching various evaluation processes and developing a new system to meet DCSO’s needs. The process is continuing. 4. APPENDIX – Survey Demographics A. GENDER All Employees Supervisors A lot less male employees took the survey. There are more male supervisiors than female by 32% and for the survey the difference is only 13%, as more female supervisors responded to the survey. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 38 B. AGE The survey demographics on age is a good match on the anticipated County employee demographics. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 39 C. RACE The County does not have much racial diversity. The most significant observation was having fewer employees identify their race. D. YEARS WITH COUNTY Nearly half of the respondents had less than five years with the County. Supervisory topics –Performance Management report #1819-5 August 2019 Page 40 E. % OF SUPERVISORS BY YEARS WITH COUNTY {End of Report} Please take a survey on this report by clicking on the attached link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Supervisory_Survey_and_Performance In general, this shows our supervisors have often been with the County for many years.