UCI Human Resources | Highlights from Surveys and Focus Groups

78% were aware of new program
Merit web page was #1 source of information
72% met with supervisor to discuss merit award
The program was less than effective at recognizing individual performance
Merit levels (Above Target, At Target, Below Target) accurately reflected performance
14% feel more motivated to perform well; 27% feel less motivated; 59% feel the same

Top five changes staff would make to next year’s merit program
(as identified in the survey and focus groups):

Provide larger fund – last year’s fund not large enough to be effective
Release program information earlier – implementation seemed rushed and confusing
Communicate performance criteria earlier – supervisors should communicate performance criteria for each merit level so employees know what is required to earn merit
Complete performance evaluations before determining merit awards – absence of completed performance evaluation caused confusion regarding what performance period was used to determine merit
Train supervisors – supervisors were knowledgeable about program but unclear about how to evaluate performance, calibrate and communicate with staff

Supervisors believe it is important for them to be able to differentiate merit based on performance
New program did not allow them to recognize top performers very well
81% met with staff to discuss merit awards
80% utilized resources located on merit web page and thought they were helpful
Need more in-person training, more funding, help with calibration, more time and more streamlined information
Schools/Division/Departments managed implementation well
58% feel they had the appropriate level of influence in the merit process

Top five changes supervisors would make to next year’s merit program (as identified in the survey and focus groups):

Provide larger budget – to allow for differentiation
Align merits with performance evaluations – challenging to determine merit awards without performance evaluations completed
Give more time – supervisors should communicate performance criteria for each merit level so employees know what is required to earn merit
Deliver more in-person HR training – need directly from HR on new program, performance management and communication; streamline online training
Include supervisors in calibration process – merit levels changed without notification, felt as though input was disregarded