Performance Enhancement Team

Streamlining the Hiring Process

2

Performance Enhancement Team #2• Pat Bril, Library

• Ruby Cook, BFA/Financial Operations

• Dorothy Edwards, Human Resources

• Sheila Faris, University Advancement

• Rosamaria Gomez-Amaro, Affirmative Action

• Norma Hernandez, University Advancement

• Ellen Junn, Faculty Development Center

• Maria Plimpton, Human Resources

• Curt Swanson, H&SS

• Mary Watkins, Faculty Affairs and Records

• Peggy Atwell, Academic Affairs (Coach)

• Bill Barrett, Administration (Coach)

• Sue Lasswell, Information Technology (Coach)

• Joan Weise, Bolero Associates (Facilitator)

Performance Enhancement Team

Streamlining the Hiring Process

4

5

6

Three Distinct Hiring Processes

• Faculty

• Staff

• Administrators (MPP)

7

18

21

37

55

10

17

16

36

84

11

19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number

Recruitments Hires Unfilled

Tenure-Track Faculty Recruitment 1995 -1998

1998

1997

1996

1995

8

All Instructor Hires, 1995-1998

10 17 1636

58 67 75 79

665688

846

935

733

937

1050

772

Full-Time Tenure Track 10 17 16 36

Full-Time Lecturers and Coaches 58 67 75 79

Part-Time Faculty and TAs 665 688 846 935

Total Instructor Hires 733 772 937 1050

1995 1996 1997 1998

9

Statistical Summary of HR Operations, 1995-1998

148163

188

210

151

182

209

4 515

22

303

350

412

251

483

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Base 1995 1996 1997 1998

Staff Searches(including MPP)

Emergency Appointments

Retired Annuitants

Total Activity

10

1998 Composite Hirings

Full-Time Lecturers and Coaches

5%

Full-Time Tenure Track2%

Retired Annuitants1%

Emergency Appointments16%

Staff Searches(including MPP)

14%

Part-Time Faculty and TAs62%

Grand Total=1533

11

Common Characteristics of the Current State

• The process takes too long

• The process is too complicated

• The process is learned “on the fly”

• The process requires too many approvals

• The process has inherent delays and

redundancies

12

Root Causes (1)

• Information is not consistently communicated and absorbed

• The status of recruitments is often not available

13

Root Causes (2)

• In the current process, the level of staffing involved in recruitment does not meet customer needs

• There are too many levels of approvals and recommendations

14

The underlying issues are two-fold

• “Patchwork quilt of ad hoc band-aid solutions”

• University has not determined the “value added” at each step prior to re-engineering the hiring processes

Our goal is to have a clear, streamlined, universally

understood, and timely process that has shared ownership.

16

The benefits to be gained are...

• We identify and hire the best candidates

• We make the best use of our available time, resources, and energy

• We achieve a higher level of morale and productivity

• We experience improved relationships and increased harmony

17

Team Recommendation: We propose the following...

• A cross-functional team should be charged with a comprehensive revision of all three hiring processes– Representatives from faculty, staff, and

administration should be appointed to the team– A consultant should be hired to guide the

project

18

Team Recommendation (2)

• The project must reflect the University’s Mission and Goals and our desire to become “the best public comprehensive university in the nation”

• The project must be given a high priority and supported as an institutional commitment

19

Team Recommendation (3)

• Role of technology

• Realistic timeline

• Action Plan

Summary

21

Thank You!

Any Questions?