Phase 3

Competition: At the senior level our competition will be every other major metropolitan city of reasonable size. This would include places like New York, Los Angeles and Houston as examples. This will also apply to the Economic Development area as well. In the area of Finance and Accounting, the competition is more localized to include most industries of all sizes and government. Human Resources fall under the local area with competition coming from every sector. Transportation, the primary completion would be government entities and firms that specialize in transportation issues. In Marketing the competition falls to most companies that have marketing but in reality we are looking at multi-million dollar firms and marketing agencies who specialize in this area. In the area of Government Affairs the primary competition would be those companies that have dealings with the government and the political action committee types that have a strong lobby effort. We would also see some completion from other government entities as well.

Demographics: 2000 Census Data Chicago Demographics 2000 Census Chicago Data Total population 2,896,016 Population, percent +4.0% change, 1990 to 2000 Population 12,750.3/mi² density Median household $38,625 income (1999)

Illinois

US

12,419,293 281,421,906 +8.6%

+13.1%

223.4mi²

79.6/mi²

$46,590

$41,994

Per capita income (1999) Bachelor's degree or higher Foreign born White Black Hispanic/Latino origin (of any race) Asian

$20,175

$23,104

$21,587

25.5%

26.1%

24.4%

21.7% 41.97% 36.77%

12.3% 73.5% 15.1%

11.1% 75.1% 12.3%

26.02%

12.3%

12.5%

4.35%

3.4%

3.6%

Consumer Price Index: ChicagoGaryKenosha, ILIN-WI

CPI-U, All items (4) 209.053 205.959 207.616 207.367 207.462 207.886

CPI-U, All items, 12month % change (4) 0.6 -0.6 -0.5 -1.0 -1.9 -2.2

Data extracted on: June 05, 2009 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Note: More data series, including additional geographic areas, are available through the "Databases & Tables" tab at the top of this page.

Grade s

Grade Description

1

The work is characterized by highly structured tasks or outcomes, relatively low level or number of skills required, typically repetitive or routine tasks, and direct supervision of worker or results.

2

The work is typically semi-skilled. It involves less direct supervision, perhaps more work variety. Requires some independent exercise of judgment and semiindependent knowledge of the job.

3

The work is typically skilled, requires little direct supervision, requires independent judgment on procedures, has variety and depth. The work includes helping in the training of others and the expectation of contributions toward improvement of the way work is carried out.

4

As with grade 3, the work is typically skilled, requires little direct supervision, allows for independent judgment on procedures, has variety and depth. The work includes helping in the training of others and the expectation of contributions toward improvement of the way work is carried out. Some departments may require grade 4 positions to be more than the minimum hours required to work; if so, the job description should specify this.

5

Must involve supervision, advanced skills, and senior responsibilities for operations. While supervision at grade 4 will typically involve training and supervision of others or be more generally supervision of operations of some type, supervision at grade 5 and 6 must involve training and supervision of others. Must reflect the appropriate skill, responsibility, and learning levels as described for this grade

6

Requires very high levels of technical skill, leadership, and personal integrity. The jobs involve major program leadership including selection, training, and supervision of others. Confers with organization officials to plan business objectives, to develop organizational policies to coordinate functions and operations between divisions and departments, and to establish responsibilities and procedures for attaining objectives.

Pay ranges will be evaluated annually to ensure that maximum annual pay ranges accommodate the pay grade structure to the extent possible. The structure is based on competitive practices and internal equity considerations. The minimum and maximum of each pay range represent the minimum and maximum values, respectively, to all jobs assigned to that particular pay range. An employee’s rate of pay may not normally exceed the respective maximum of the pay range for the job. Grade Salary Minimum

Salary Midpoint

Salary Maximum

1

$35,458

$47,310

$60,500

2

45,528

53,257

75,647

3

54,254

67,347

81,245

4

70,547

82,369

91,654

5

95,247

135,874

225,874

6

250,608

334,151

1,021,827

Job 4: Economic Development Manager – Grade 4 Job 5: Government Affairs Manager – Grade 4 Job 6: Human Resource Manager – Grade 5 Job 7: Marketing Manager – Grade 4 Job 8: Transportation Manager – Grade 4 Job 9: Accounting Manager – Grade 4 Job 10: Economic Specialist – Grade 3 Job 11: GA Specialist – Grade 3 Job 12: Transportation Specialist – Grade 2 Job 13: HR Specialist – Grade 3 Job 14: Marketing Specialist – Grade 2 Job 15: Secretary – Grade 1

Job 1: President – Grade 6 Job 2: Vice President – Grade 6 Job 3: Treasurer – Grade 5

Performance Appraisal Any evaluation process is only as successful as the concerned managers and supervisors evaluating job performance make it. The best performance evaluation instrument is only as good as those using it, and the results are meaningful if the approach to the responsibility is meaningful. Whether any system is effective depends mainly upon the rater and how seriously he or she undertakes this supervisory function. Performance rating is not a substitute for a day-to-day coaching of subordinates or for appropriate disciplinary action. A supervisor's job requires him/her to continually make judgments concerning each subordinate's work performance. Each time the supervisor makes such a judgment; he or she is rating the employee. A supervisor has an obligation to be impartial, objective, and honest in providing feedback in order for their subordinates to clearly understand what is expected regarding their job performance. Effective and skillful review of an employee's performance is not an interruption to management - it is management. It is the policy of the Chicago Organization of Economic Development (COED) to conduct annual performance evaluations on its employees. Performance evaluations are used to improve employee job performance, provide accurate information that may be used in the making of personnel decisions, facilitate communication between supervisors and employees, and assist in identifying and recognizing employees who have demonstrated superior performance. Performance evaluation is directly related to COED’s Wage and Salary program in that for an employee to merit a pay increase it must be directly related to the employee's effectiveness in the job. Except as otherwise provided, no eligible employee may receive a merit increase, unless the employee has received a satisfactory performance evaluation. It is important to realize that the completion of a performance evaluation is one of the single most important responsibilities entrusted to supervisors. Performance evaluations are not only tied to merit increases but also play a decisive role in determining an employee's chances for promotion and are an essential component in calculating layoff retention scores. Consequently, evaluations impact the employee's employment experience and can have far reaching results.

The evaluation process is one of the best tools available to convey, clarify, and reinforce the Organization’s Vision, Mission, Business Plans, Strategic Plans,

Guiding Principles, and Strategic Themes to our employees. The process provides supervisors the opportunity to ensure that employees understand how their job performance is critical to their department's mission and that of the "whole" organization. It reinforces the essential role employee’s play in efficient service delivery and that they are critical to successfully meeting citizens' expectations of this non-profit organization. In other words, taking ownership in the philosophy of, "People's Vision: COED’s Mission."

The following Performance Appraisal form is used for non-managerial positions GA, Transportation, HR, Marketing, and Economic Specialists and Secretarial positions. This type of evaluation form gives the employee an opportunity to participate in the evaluation process from the initial stages by completing a selfappraisal section which is access by his or her immediate supervisor at a later date as a measure to discuss whether the employee has achieved the agreed upon objectives.

Management Appraisal Form The following appraisal form is used for all managerial positions held at the Chicago Organization of Economic Development including the positions of treasurer, president and vice-president. The Management Appraisal Form is comprised of two main assessment areas, Performance Objectives and Management/Executive Performance Dimensions. These areas each have a weight of 50% towards the total rating. The remaining sections are for comments, the calculation of results, and signatures. The form records the individual objectives, their relative weight, and the performance standards by which the achievement of the objectives will be measured. The form also provides for a Statement of Commitment and a Midyear Review to ensure that the agreed upon objectives, weights, and standards are still valid and do not require change. The form is completed at the beginning of the evaluation period where the majority of the effort in this process takes place. This is when relevant Objectives, Standards, and Weights are established in a meeting between the employee and appraiser to develop objectives that reflect COED’s mission and support the Departmental Business Plan. The development of the objectives should be a cooperative effort and should focus upon the most relevant objectives. The Management/Executive Performance Dimensions should also be reviewed to ensure all parties are aware of the expected behaviors contained within the individual performance dimensions listed. The Statement of Commitment (Section 4) is signed by the employee, appraiser, and reviewer to signify that all

parties have taken an active role in establishing the performance expectations for the employee within the specific rating period. Section 1 – Performance Objectives Objectives are precise statements of measurable targets that describe the end results of a service or program that should be achieved in a specific period of time. Objectives should be developed following the “SMART” acronym: Specific, Measurable, Aggressive/Attainable/Agreeable, Results oriented, Time bound. For example: Implement the XYZ system for all COED departments by the end of this rating period (12/31/09)”. Standards Performance standards are quantifiable measures of outcomes, quality, efficiency, etc. and are sometimes called performance indicators. These indicators are usually embedded within the objectives and should measure the progress made in achieving the objective. For purposes of this process, performance standards should be developed for the 1- Unsatisfactory; 3 Satisfactory; and 5 – Outstanding rating levels. For example: •

Level 1 Implement the XYZ system for 50% or less of COED departments by 12/31/09.

•

Level 3 Implement the XYZ system for all COED departments by 12/31/09.

•

Level 5 Implement the XYZ system for all COED departments by 9/31/09.

Ratings of 1 through 5 may be awarded; however, definitions are not required for levels 2 or 4. If for example, the XYZ system were implemented for 75% of COED departments by the end of the rating period, the employee could be awarded a “2” rating. If the XYZ system were fully implemented by 11/31/09, the employee could be awarded a “4” rating. Weightings Although the form should focus upon the most significant objectives, not all objectives will necessarily have the same weight. The weightings should reflect the comparative priority or importance of the objectives developed. The designation of weightings should also be a cooperative effort. The sum of all weightings should equal 100 percent.

Section 2 – Management/Executive Performance Dimensions The Management/Executive Performance Dimensions reflect expected behaviors for all COED employees occupying executive level positions within the areas of: Leadership; Innovation, Creativity, Strategic Vision; Customer Service Focus; Management Skills; and Employee Development/Recognition. Descriptors for the numeric ratings 1, 3, & 5 were developed for these dimensions, however, as with Section 1; ratings of 1 through 5 may be awarded. To simplify the process, definitions need not be developed for the 2 and 4 rating levels. If a department desires to develop more specific expected behaviors for Section 2, they may do so however, this information must be provided to employees prior to the beginning of the rating period. Section 3 - Management Appraisal Overall Performance Rating This section is completed when the evaluation has been finalized. It combines the ratings from sections 1 and 2 into the overall rating. Sections 1 and 2 each have a weighting of 50% towards the total rating. The overall rating is derived by adding 50% of the sum of the weighted ratings from Section 1 and 50% of the average rating from Section 2. Example: If the sum of the weighted ratings in Section 1 is 3.4, this score is entered into the rating column as shown below. The weighted rating will equal 1.7 (3.4 x 50%). If the average rating in Section 2 is 4.4, this score is entered into the rating column as shown below. The weighted rating will equal 2.2 (4.4 x 50%). The overall rating will equal 3.90. Section 3 - Management Appraisal Overall Performance Rating

Section 4 - Comments The comments area has been provided to enable participants in the process to add language related to the evaluation and overall rating as is deemed necessary. Statement of Commitment The Statement of Commitment verifies the agreement between all parties that the objectives, standards, and weightings listed will form the basis of the employee’s evaluation under Section 1 for the specified rating period. The Statement is signed by the employee, appraiser, and reviewer, at the beginning of the rating period indicating that the individual performance objectives were cooperatively developed and have been agreed to unless formally amended. Mid-Year Review Until the actual evaluation takes place, (when the overall rating is awarded), the Management Appraisal Form is considered a working document. The mid-year review is included to allow for adjustments to the Appraisal Form as required by changes that may have occurred during the rating period that impact the Objectives, Standards, or Weightings. These may include budgetary constraints, shifting departmental priorities, unforeseen circumstances such as a major hurricane, September 11, or other operational issues. The purpose of the midyear review is to ensure that the appraiser and the employee meet at least once during the rating period to discuss the employee’s objectives and performance dimensions but certainly may occur more frequently if required. As with the Statement of Commitment, the Mid-year Review serves to verify that the agreed upon elements of the employee’s appraisal are still valid and do not require change.

Merit Pay Grid The desire of the majority of employees to want promotional opportunities within the organization drives the use of a uniform performance rating scale for all Chicago Organization of Economic Development (COED) positions. Chicago Organization of Economic Development (COED) will have options built into the scale for the top performers in each workgroup.

The percentage of employees in their pay range will be as follows: 27% of the employees will be at level 1. 33% of the employees will be at level 2. 20% of the employees will be at level 3. 20% of the employees will be at level 4.

The performance rating scale is 25% get an A, 55% get a B, and 20% get a C. This scale is in line with the example used by Milkovich and Newman. The concept from this sample is demonstrated in the chart below as applied to by Chicago Organization of Economic Development (COED). (Milkovich and Newman, 2008, pg. 362).

1 2 3 4

A .25*.27=.0675 .25*.33=.0825 .25*.20=.05 .25*.20=.05

B .55*.27=.1485 .55*.33=.1815 .55*.20=.11 .55*.20=.11

C .20*.27=.054 .20*.33=.066 .20*.20=.06 .20*.20=.04

The performance measures will be the evaluations done by Chicago Organization of Economic Development (COED) board. These evaluations will

be set up by the board and will incorporate different performance measures along with attendance and customer comments or complaints.

These

performance evaluations will be done every six months to ensure proper training is given to each employee to allow them to score as high as possible.

The pay structure is outlined as follows: First, employees who receive a C performance rating receive a 5% pay increase. Next, employees who receive a B performance rating receive a 7% pay increase.

Finally, employees who

receive an A performance rating receive a 10% pay increase.

In addition to the pay increase, each employee who receives an A performance rating will be given the opportunity for a potential promotion. Employees with the highest performance ratings will be given the opportunity to enter into a training program to learn the skills necessary to promote.