This is an important time of the year for students and faculty members at Augusta University and other higher education institutions throughout Georgia. As the semester wraps up, the students will soon receive their grades for their performance in the Spring Semester. For the faculty, in addition to having to assign students their grades, many have recently received annual performance reviews of their own work. Therefore, performance reviews have been top of mind for me in the last few weeks. Challenges being faced both in grading students and evaluating faculty provide excellent insights into the difficulty of performance reviews and their implications.
A major problem that has been ongoing in higher education is grade inflation. In the over 40 years since I was an undergraduate student, the mean college grade point average (GPA) has risen from approximately 2.8 to over 3.15, while the median GPA has risen from 2.7 to 3.28. Medians are much more instructive than averages or means, as the medians are less affected by extreme values. The median tells us that half of the students matriculating in college have GPAs of 3.28 or higher. This situation was exacerbated during COVID when grading leniency, mostly appropriate, was provided, given the hardships provided by the pandemic. However, at many institutions, GPAs have tended to remain high, not returning to pre-pandemic levels. Beyond the pandemic, what have been the causes of grade inflation, and more importantly, what are the implications of grade inflation?
Many explanations have been provided as potential causes of grade inflation. Pressure from students and parents is commonly heard, particularly as college tuition and debt have increased, and when students must maintain a certain GPA to keep their financial aid, such as the Hope Scholarship. Another common explanation is that instructors may inflate grades to avoid negative student evaluations. However, a recent trend is most concerning to me. As colleges and universities make student retention and graduation rates greater priorities, instructors are discouraged from assigning grades (i.e., D or F) that might negatively impact these rates. While the intent of such an action might be good (i.e., encourage instructors to provide better instruction and support for students to learn), it can result in practices (e.g., lenient grading) that might not be so good.
No matter what the reasons are, the implications of grade inflation are problematic. First, grade inflation makes it very difficult for any audience to evaluate what the student has learned or knows. For instance, whether a student is applying for graduate or professional school or applying for his or her first career job, those evaluating the applicants will find it difficult to distinguish among candidates when they all have high grades. It becomes extremely difficult to accurately assess the applicants’ capabilities. Second, as grades become inflated, instructors tend to lower their standards, resulting in a less rigorous learning environment. This will ultimately make the students less competitive in job markets. Finally, the instructor and the university will lose credibility with businesses and other employers. A grade signifies a certain mastery of the course material, and grade inflation will allow many who have not mastered the material to be assigned high grades.
The lesson here for businesses is that you need to be very careful in potentially inflating your employees’ performance reviews. You might do so with good intentions, providing better performance reviews than the employees deserve in order to retain them. However, this can lead to problems as it will be difficult to distinguish between employees if everyone has strong reviews, and employees will tend to slacken off because they know they will receive a positive performance review no matter their level of performance.
On the other side of the coin, you can overcorrect a performance review system that seems too lenient, and it may become demotivating to your employees. This is a danger the University System of Georgia (USG) may be facing as it introduces a new policy for the performance review of faculty. As an administrator at two institutions in the USG for approximately 17 years, I certainly did my share of performance reviews. I took pride in being fair to all my faculty, and that meant rewarding those who did very well with strong reviews that distinguished them from those who did not perform as well. However, that can be challenging when many of your faculty have always been high achievers in their academic lives.
I believe that USG has seen that there has been “performance review inflation” for the faculty in the system to the point where it has become problematic, similar to grade inflation. Therefore, starting this past calendar year, the USG implemented a new 5-point Likert scale for evaluating faculty on each of their primary performance areas (teaching, research, and service) and their overall performance. The scale is: 1 (Does not meet expectations); 2 (Needs Improvement); 3 (Meets Expectations); 4 (Exceeds Expectations); and 5 (Exemplary). While there is nothing wrong with this scale, the message that has been received by faculty at multiple institutions is that a 5 is pretty much impossible, and 4s will be extremely difficult to attain. While I endorse a more rigorous review policy, I think this might be an overcorrection. If faculty find that their good work is not rewarded with good scores, their motivation will likely be tempered, and their efforts will likely wane. If they feel like, “I am going to get a 3 anyway,” they will likely be less motivated. The good news is that this is the first year of the new system, and over time, the process will likely be improved.
Therefore, I make a similar warning to “over rigor” that I make to “overinflation”. If you do not allow people to distinguish themselves in the review process, you will run the risk of demotivating them. My advice is to be fair and honest in the performance review process. Reward those who are achieving and provide everyone with the feedback they need to do better. This is easier said than done and takes much effort on the part of the supervisor. However, it can be done, and if you can “thread the needle” of a productive performance review, everyone and your business will be the better for it!
