Skip to main content
Sign In

Network: Faculty and Staff Resources, News and Events

Post Doctoral
 

Handling Annual Evaluations

For departments employing Postdoctoral Fellows in Job Code 1438


Annual Postdoctoral Performance Evaluations are required.

Starting with the spring of 2009 all postdoctoral evaluations will be due in conjunction with the cycles for performance evaluations for other job classifications (deadlines and specifics are announced each year in the spring).  Annual evaluations are required by UCD's Postdoctoral Policy.

Process:

NOTE:  Each unit will have its own internal processes and deadlines in preparation for submission to the PDO.  Faculty please work with your administrative processors to complete the evaluative process in a timely way.  

  1. Faculty mentor makes appointment with postdoctoral fellow to discuss performance.
  2. It is recommended by the Postdoctoral Advisory Committee that the postdoc complete and update the UCD Postdoc IDP/ARP form    or  UCD Postdoc IDP-APR form.doc  to help in the discussion of career progress and in planning for the next year.
  3. Evaluation tool used by the department is completed.                                                                          
  4. Public record required for submission to the Postdoctoral Office is completed and signed by both mentor and fellow.  Use this Form:  2013 POSTDOC Annual Performance Rating Sheet - Copy.doc 
  5. Fellow is given copies of all evaluation documents.
  6. If salary increase is recommended, rating sheet is routed for signature to the departmental position authorized to approve salary increases.  Reason for salary increase needs to be identified and marked.
  7. If salary increase is not recommended, reason must be clearly stated or marked.
  8. Rating sheet needs to be checked for completeness and accuracy.
    • Is the EID inserted? (needed for inclusion on Dean’s Postdoc Action Report)
    • Is the unit information included? (so that it is clear which department is submitting for compliance)
    • Is the effective date of salary increase correct?  (must be future) 
    • Is reason for salary decision marked or stated?
  9. Distribution:
  •             Scan of completed rating sheet is sent to the PDO via email attachment.  
  •             ORIGINAL rating sheet is put in the personnel file within the dept. 
  •             COPY is given to the postdoc.     

All written evaluation materials are copied and shall be kept in department personnel files and retained in accordance with University policy on retention of personnel records.

Interim evaluations are encouraged.

As with any employee classification, frequent informal or formal evaluative sessions are beneficial for employee understanding and confidence in the supervisor’s viewpoint on performance. Any formal notes from such conversational sessions should be dated and filed in the department’s employee files. 

Interim evaluative discussions are required before dismissal in the case of poor performance.  Before a postdoc is terminated for poor performance (= below expectations performance rating), best practices dictate that documentation of prior meetings be kept, where undesireable performance is discussed and verbal notification is given that unless performance is improved termination is forthcoming.  Clear expectations need to be communicated, giving a targeted date by which measurable performance improvement needs to be exhibited.  If performance is still not meeting expectations, then a termination notice letter can be generated.  This letter needs to be forwarded to Sam John in HR for review before it is issued to the employee.  A copy needs to be sent to the PDO at the earliest opportunity so that exit procedures are put in place.