Printed on: 07/16/2025. Please go to policy.umn.edu for the most current version of the document.
University of Minnesota  Administrative Policy

Performance Management for Academic Professional and Administrative Employees

Sidebar

Expand all

Sidebar

Table of Contents

Questions?

Please use the contact section below.

Leave Feedback

Policy Statement

Supervisors, or an interim in instances of supervisory absence, are required to conduct annual performance reviews with written documentation for each academic professional and academic administrative employee who reports to them, providing an accessible version of the documentation to the employee if needed. Beyond this singular event, regular performance feedback should be provided throughout the year that recognizes performance excellence and addresses areas needing improvement. As part of performance management, supervisors are also expected to work with the employee in developing a plan for addressing the employee's professional development goals and needs and align performance expectations and goals around any unit priorities.

Periodic comprehensive or developmental reviews are an important complement to annual reviews, supporting ongoing growth and alignment between leaders and their supervisors. These reviews are required for senior leaders, encouraged for higher-level leader positions, and beneficial for leaders at all levels. Supervisors should ensure consistency in how reviews are aligned with factors such as career stage, expressed goals, and timing across their direct reports. Refer to Appendix: Types of Performance Reviews for Academic Professional and Administrative Employees for a more detailed description of each type of review.

Excluded from coverage under this policy are professionals-in-training, instructional academic professionals, and individuals whose primary appointment is "without Salary". For performance review requirements for these roles, refer to the relevant document under Related Information.

Delivery Format and Procedures

Each unit should use the University’s performance management practices and procedures to support goal-setting, ongoing feedback, and performance reviews. In the absence of University-wide criteria, the responsible authority determines the appropriate practices and procedures.

Evaluations include competencies as part of the performance standards. Employees provide input to their supervisor regarding their performance and may prepare, if desired, a written response to the supervisor’s evaluation. Refer to the Administrative Procedure: Conducting Annual Performance Reviews of Academic Professional and Administrative Employees for further guidance.

For related performance review requirements for instructional or probationary (H) academic professional employees and collegiate departmental chairs or heads, refer to Administrative Policy: Academic Appointments with Teaching Functions and the applicable Collegiate Personnel Plan. For related performance review requirements for Professionals-in-Training employees, refer to guidelines from the specific training program or unit.

Participation in Decisions with Regard to Performance Reviews

University employees are prohibited from participating in evaluating performance of another individual with whom they have a personal relationship, such as marital, familial or other committed relationship, as this would violate Board of Regents Policy: Nepotism and Personal Relationships.

Reason for Policy

This policy implements Board of Regents Policy: Employee Performance Evaluation and Development. The University of Minnesota is committed to performance management practices for academic professional and administrative (P&A) employees that is delivered in a manner that is appropriate to the nature of the work that recognizes and rewards exemplary performance, provides for the growth and development of the employee, and addresses substandard performance. It also serves as a basis for annual merit determinations.

Procedures

Forms/Instructions

Appendices

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is private information and what is public information regarding an individual's performance review?

    Performance reviews are private personnel data but may be shared within the institution where employee job responsibilities require reasonable access to the information.

Contacts

SubjectContactPhoneEmail
General Information or Procedural Assistance
  • Primary: Supervisor
  • Secondary: Local human resources partner
  • Other (as needed): Office of Human Resources specialist or consultant
612-624-UOHR (8647); 800-756-2363[email protected]
Procedural Assistance with Review and Evaluation of Deans and Senior Leaders
  • Office of Human Resources Chief of Staff
612-625-8844[email protected]
Responsible Individuals
Responsible Officer Policy Owner Primary Contact
  • Vice President, Office of Human Resources
  • Senior Director of Talent Strategy
  • See Contacts Table above

Definitions

Academic Administrative Employees

Employees appointed in the 93xx or 9631-9640 classifications established by the Office of Human Resources.

Academic Professional Employees

Employees appointed in the 97xx or 9621-9630 classifications established by the Office of Human Resources.

Nepotism

Actions by a University member that directly or indirectly influence the University employment (e.g., hiring, promotion, supervision, evaluation, and determination of salary) or academic progress (e.g., grading and advising) of any other University member with whom they have a personal relationship. This definition includes instances where there is no direct influence on employment or academics, but the relationship has a negative impact on the educational or work environment.

Performance Management Practices

A process undertaken between supervisors and the employees reporting to them. This process includes communicating, assessing, coaching, developing, and recognizing employee performance, resulting in effective achievement of organizational and individual goals. This includes:

  • Communicating performance expectations to individual employees;
  • Assisting employees in connecting their objectives to the University’s overall mission through goal setting;
  • Adjusting performance expectations as the unit’s business needs change;
  • Conducting an annual review of employee performance with written documentation;
  • Measuring the degree to which expectations are met;
  • Addressing areas needing improvement through training, coaching, and other methods;
  • Providing regular feedback and candid discussion on performance;
  • Encouraging, guiding, and supporting individual development plans in areas of behavioral and functional competence;
  • Addressing substandard performance;
  • Recognizing and rewarding performance.

Personal Relationship

A marital or other committed relationship; significant familial relationship, including, relationships by blood, adoption, marriage, parent, grandparent, child, sibling, first cousin, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, spouse, brother- or sister-in-law, father- or mother-in-law, son- or daughter-in-law, step-parent or step-child; consensual sexual or romantic relationship; a close personal friendship; or a significant business relationship.

Responsible Authority

Responsible authority refers to the individual or group at the highest level within an organization or structure who has the final decision-making power and whose directives must be respected by all other levels of authority, particularly in matters related to performance management.

Senior Leaders

Individuals specified as senior leaders in Board of Regents Policy: Reservation and Delegation of Authority. 

Unit

Refers to any entity within a campus, college, or administrative unit under the authority and oversight of a responsible authority.

Responsibilities

Annual Performance Reviews

Responsible Authority

  • Establishes the unit specific practices and procedures for conducting annual reviews and evaluating performance of P&A employees in absence of University-wide criteria.

Local Human Resources

  • Establishes along with the responsible authority, unit specific procedures for conducting annual reviews and evaluating performance of P&A employees while ensuring adherence to University practices, procedures and tools.
  • In situations where a unit is using a platform other than the University’s, ensures required elements – such as established competencies, goal-setting ongoing feedback, and evaluation criteria – are consistently addressed and upheld in accordance with University policy. Additionally, ensures the completion of all performance evaluations must be tracked in accordance with HRMS business processes.
  • Ensures performance review policy compliance throughout the unit with timely reviews conducted; establishes appropriate consequences for not conducting evaluations; establishes supervisor accountability for effective performance management of employees.
  • Ensures performance evaluations exclude private health information and honor reasonable accommodations and protected leaves of absence.

P&A Employee Being Reviewed

  • Provides annually to the supervisor a written summary of the year's work and accomplishments toward goals.
  • Participates in identification of goals and a professional development plan for the next year.

Supervisor Conducting Review

  • Articulates clear expectations within areas of responsibility and work.
  • Provides regular feedback to employees on their performance.
  • Conducts performance reviews of all P&A employees for which supervisory responsibility is held in accordance with University and unit policy.
  • Works with the employee to develop a set of goals for the next year and any modifications that may be appropriate throughout the year.

Reviewing the Performance of Senior Leaders

Refer to Procedure: Reviewing the Performance of Senior Leaders.

Related Information

History

Amended:

May 2025 - Comprehensive Review:

  • Position University practices and clarifying the highest level of local decision-making authority.
  • Address concerns about bias by emphasizing healthy intentions, clear processes, and consistent practices (e.g., clarify how and why to apply consistently).
  • Increase supervisor accountability in performance management.
  • Isolate merit considerations within compensation policies.
  • Created appendix for bias mitigation in performance management.

Amended:

February 2019 - Review and Evaluating Deans procedure retired, and incoporated into Reviewing the Performance of Senior Leaders.

Amended:

October 2012 - The designation of Senior Leader has replaced the Senior Administrator term as defined in this policy.

Amended:

August 2010 - General edits made for clarification, alignment with current practice, and consistency of format. The appendices were converted into two procedures: Reviewing and Evaluating Deans and Assessing the Performance of Senior Administrators, with revisions made to the procedures for senior administrators. One new appendix was added on types of performance reviews.

Amended:

May 2008 - Policy converted to the new University-wide format for administrative policies.

Amended:

May 2007 - Language was revised to reflect current performance review processes and to align with the recently adopted Board of Regents Policy: Employee Performance Evaluation and Development. The administrative policy: Ex-Spouse Participation in Reviews was incorporated into the language of this policy. Two appendices were added to this policy: (1) Appendix A: Review and Evaluation of Deans and (2) Appendix B: Review and Evaluation of Senior Administrators.

Amended:

October 2002 - Language contained in Performance Appraisals for Academic Professional and Administrative Staff incorporates information on performance reviews heretofore contained in the Academic Professional and Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (Issued February 1984) and the administrative policy on Review and Evaluation of Academic Administrators (Issued January 1992). Edits were made and information updated and expanded. Policy information was put into standard University-wide policy format.

Adopted:

January 1992 - Administrative Policy: Review and Evaluation of Academic Administrators

Adopted:

1984 - Information initially included in the Academic Professional and Administrative Staff Policies and Procedures Manual.

Effective:

October 2002