Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Performance Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University committee reviews supervisory-centered performance evaluations and how merit pay is distributed
Summary
Senior director Brandon Sullivan told the Regents’ special committee the university centers supervisors in its performance-evaluation policy, uses a Performance Appraisal Tool (PAT) and offers supervisor training; regents questioned merit-pool mechanics, supervisor accountability and adjunct eligibility.
Senior Director Brandon Sullivan told the University of Minnesota Board of Regents’ special committee on university workforce that performance evaluation at the university is driven primarily by supervisors and supported by central tools and training.
"Supervisors are really centered in this policy," Sullivan said, describing a model that emphasizes clear goals, ongoing conversations between supervisors and direct reports, and a formal annual review recorded in PeopleSoft. He said the university has about 6,000 people with supervisory responsibility and about 27,000 total employees across the system.
Sullivan described central resources that guide local practice, including a Performance Appraisal Tool (PAT) for staff, a faculty works tool from the provost’s office, and supervisor development programs. "If you're doing these other pieces throughout the year, a formal review won't have any surprises," he said.
Regents pressed for specifics about merit pay. Sullivan and staff explained the merit process as a two-part decision: (1) understanding external market pay where the university competes for talent, and (2) fitting increases to available campus or unit budgets. Using a 3% example, Sullivan said units receive a merit pool and then allocate it within that pool; some units award flat percentages while others may use tiered or discrete cash awards for top performers.
Committee staff said OHR runs reports to monitor distribution patterns so units do not simply grant the same percentage to everyone. They acknowledged instances where documented performance issues lead to a zero increase for an individual, but said those cases are uncommon.
On objectivity, Sullivan said the PAT defines performance categories and connects to resources to help supervisors evaluate work, but he acknowledged that units can choose other tools. "That is not required for everybody to do," he said; local autonomy, he added, causes variation in practice. He said supervisors should be evaluated on how they manage performance and that the university is moving to greater consistency through training and manager education.
Sullivan said voluntary turnover across employee segments was roughly 4–12% in 2023 and that university engagement surveys show high commitment, though some employees report frustration tied to administrative processes. He framed the work ahead as identifying local pockets of higher turnover and addressing them.
The committee sought clarity about which employee groups are excluded from merit pay. Vice President Ken Horstman and Sullivan confirmed that employees represented by collective bargaining agreements, including most graduate assistants and term faculty adjuncts, are not included in the current merit pool. Horstman said OHR has begun modeling options and participating in shared-governance conversations about pay approaches for those groups, but that no recommendation is ready to implement.
The committee ended the segment by noting the need to press for transparency in how merit pools are used, to continue supervisor training, and to explore localized fixes where turnover or pay misalignment is concentrated.
