Administrative Services

Performance Management and Salary Review

Roll-out | Forms | Sample (Completed) Forms | Schedule | Policy | Benchmark Ratings | Salary Review Process |

 

Roll-out of New Performance Review Process

All-Staff presentation - May 2006 [pdf]

Forms (Word Documents)

• Long Form (to be used for six month review also)
• Self-Assessment Form
• Short Form
• Waiver Form

 

Sample Forms (Word Documents)

• Long Forms
  Support Staff
  Administrative Staff
  
  
• Self-Assessment Forms
  Support Staff
  Administrative Staff
  
  
• Short Form
• Waiver Form
  
  

Schedule for Assessment Period and Merit Review

	SUPPORT STAFF	ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Performance Assessment Period	October - December	January - March
Benchmark Ratings Due	January	April
Benchmark Ratings Communicated to Staff	February	May
Salary Letters Distributed	Late March	Late June
New Salaries Effective	April	July

 

Policy

MIT Policy on Performance Evaluations

 

Benchmark Ratings

BENCHMARK RATING	DESCRIPTION
(EX) Exceptional Performance	Performance of responsibilities in most areas regularly surpassed expected levels for the position this past year; work served as an example for others. Demonstrated a thorough and insightful understanding and execution of job responsibilities. This rating indicates an outstanding overall performance.
(ST) Strong Performance	Performance of responsibilities in most areas was strong this past year; in some areas it exceeded expected levels for the position. Demonstrated a comprehensive understanding and consistent performance of job responsibilities. This rating indicates a commendable overall performance.
(EF) Effective Performance	Performance of responsibilities in most areas was at expected levels for the position this past year; there may have been inconsistencies in some responsibilities. Demonstrated a full understanding of the job duties. This rating indicates a satisfactory overall performance with potential for improvement.
(IPR) Improved Performance Required	Performance of responsibilities in significant job areas failed to meet required levels for the position in the past year.  Performance plan for the next year will be required. This rating indicates an unsatisfactory overall performance. No merit increase is awarded.
New	Performance rating deferred until one year at MIT or one year in current position has been completed.
Staff are assigned a single benchmark rating; there are no split ratings as in the past.

 

Salary Review Process

A small portion of the MIT annual merit review allocation is assigned to library departments for distribution among eligible staff, in addition to the allocation by central administration. The purpose of this premium is to recognize special achievement in any area of a staff member’s work, local or system wide. Standards by which departments distribute premium funds is determined by the department in consultation with their Associate Director.

Benchmark Salary Increase:

1. In order to maintain the highest possible increases for top performers and to create the pool for premium distributions, the number of EX level ratings will be capped equally at 25% in each directorate.
   
2. Staff rated at the EX level will receive the full MIT allocation (e.g. 3%) in the regular merit distribution. The percent allocations for staff rated in the middle two levels (ST and EF) will be calculated as in the past.
   
3. Staff rated at the IPR level of the merit review will receive no increase.

Premium Increase:

1. Premium fund dollars per department are calculated on the basis of department headcount. The per capita premium amount is constant across all staff in the salary review; it is not based on the actual salaries in a department.
   
2. Premiums are permanently added to base salaries; they are not one-time bonuses.
   
3. Staff rated EF (Effective) or higher are eligible; staff rated at the IPR level are not eligible.
   
4. Examples of accomplishments which might justify a premium would include (but not be limited to):
significant project leadership or participation
exhibiting outstanding skills in a single area (communication, interpersonal, organizational) within the context of an overall rating of EF
taking on significant extra work due to staffing shortages, etc.

5. Department heads will determine premium distribution among their staff. Premiums can be distributed in various ways, such as:
dividing it equally or unequally among several staff
giving the total to a single staff member
electing to waive local distribution in favor of returning the funds to the central library benchmark pool.

6. Administrative Services will review premium fund distribution to ensure compliance with compensation policies relative to internal equity and salary range maximums.

 

 

MIT Libraries' Public web

MIT Libraries' Staff web