Academic Employees

The following employees can expect to receive a performance review in Workday:

• Classified Staff
• Regular University Staff (UStaff) employees
• A&P Faculty

Employees excluded from completing Academic goal setting and year-end performance appraisals/reviews:

• Academic Wage and Temporary employees
• Professional Research Staff
• Non-A&P Faculty
• School of Medicine and Claude Moore Health Sciences Library Regular and Classified Staff, and A&P faculty members (you are included in the UVA Health appraisal process)
• Employees on New Hire Probation
• New hires in a school or unit participating in the CY performance cycle whose start date or probation end date is after September 30 of the active performance cycle, and new hires in a school or unit participating in the FY performance cycle whose start date or probation end date is after March 31 of the active performance cycle.
• Identified Coaching staff (contact your HRBP with questions on identified positions)

All schools/units follow the calendar year process with the exception of Advancement, Athletics, Audit, and EOCR who follow a fiscal year process. Finance, HR, ITS and McIntire are following the quarterly process. 

Calendar Year 2025 Timeline:

• Dec 1, 2025: Self-evaluations launch
• Jan 09, 2026: Self-evaluations due
• Jan 30, 2026: All incomplete self-evaluations mass-advance to managers
• Jan 30, 2026: Classified Staff manager evaluations due (Classified Staff only)
• Feb 13, 2026: Classified Staff secondary review/approval due (Classified Staff only)
• Feb 27, 2026: All manager evaluations, 1:1s, and acknowledgments due

Employee Acknowledgments: You should acknowledge your review immediately after receiving and reviewing.

You have 10 workdays to appeal your review. If you wish to appeal your review, follow the appeals process outlined here.

The above timelines are suggested: Schools/units may create and adhere to their own deadlines (except for the incomplete self-evaluation mass advancement dates). 

It is highly recommended managers and employees discuss performance regularly throughout the year using our Guide to Regular Performance Check-Ins.

For information on salary increases, please visit the compensation page.

Fiscal Year 2025 Timeline (Advancement, Athletics, Audit, and EOCR):

• Jun 2, 2025: Self-evaluations launch
• Jul 11, 2025: Self-evaluations due
• Jul 31, 2025: All incomplete self-evaluations mass-advance to managers
• Jul 31, 2025: Classified Staff manager evaluations due (Classified Staff only)
• Aug 15, 2025: Classified Staff secondary review/approval due (Classified Staff only)
• Aug 29, 2025: All manager evaluations, 1:1s, and acknowledgments due

5-Exceptional:

Significantly and consistently exceeds expected performance level.

4-Highly Effective:

Consistently achieves and often exceeds expected performance level.

3-Effective:

Consistently achieves expected performance level.

2-Inconsistent:

Inconsistently achieves expected performance level; needs improvement.

1-Unsatisfactory:

Rarely achieves expected performance level; requires significant and immediate corrective action.

Discuss with your manager their specific expectations for each rating. Leaders are strongly encouraged to hold calibration sessions with their teams and departments. If you wish to appeal your rating or quarterly check-in from your manager, follow the appeals process outlined here.

UPDATED: DHRM updated their policy in August of 2025 that included moving to a 5-point rating scale. So there is no longer a conversation for Classified Staff ratings (except for SOM Classified Staff).

The above information is as of January 2026.

Updated: As of August 2025, DHRM no longer requires the Extraordinary Contribution or Notice of Improvement/Substandard Performance forms in performance reviews for Classified Staff.

Notice: Workday Job Aids require you to be on the VPN to access.

• Complete the Year-End Review in Workday (Job Aid)
• Workday Reports for Managers (Job Aid)
• Guide to Regular Performance Check-Ins
• Goal Setting Resources
• Feedback Resources
• Tips for Writing and Conducting Performance Evaluations
• Individual Career Development Plan

Required

Use only UVA-approved AI tools.

Do not upload university work information to unapproved AI platforms. UVA-approved, enterprise-protected tools for Generative AI have the added privilege of enterprise security, meaning what you tell it and upload stays within UVA.

Effective vs. Ineffective AI Use in Performance Management

Effective AI Uses:

• Refining goals and vision: Sharing your organization, department, or team vision along with your initial goals, then asking AI to suggest edits or brainstorm refinements.
• Improving feedback delivery: Drafting feedback you plan to give someone, then asking how it may be received or for tips on delivery.
• Enhancing clarity: Creating bullet points of accomplishments and development areas, then asking AI to improve clarity, conciseness, or flag subjective language.
• Checking alignment: Providing rating criteria alongside your written summary, then asking where the language appears to align.
• Getting permission: Asking your employee or colleague if they are OK with you uploading their created work to AI (self-evaluation, goals, feedback), or transcribing a conversation with AI.
• Transcribing 1:1 notes: Using MS Teams Transcription and Recap features to automatically generate meeting notes.
• Verifying accuracy: Asking AI to provide sources and verify the accuracy of its responses.

Ineffective AI Uses:

• Copy-pasting generic content: Asking AI to write your vision, purpose, or goals, then copying and pasting them as your own.
• Sending unreviewed feedback: Asking AI to draft feedback and sending it directly to an employee or colleague.
• Generating generic reviews: Asking AI to generate a generic performance review about someone.
• Gaming the rating system: Uploading a rating rubric and asking AI to produce a review that matches a specific rating.
• Violating privacy: Uploading someone's self-evaluation or other created work, or transcribing a conversation, without their permission or knowledge.
• Trusting without verification: Assuming AI output is accurate and appropriate.

AI is a tool to enhance clarity and efficiency but should complement authentic, thoughtful input. For questions regarding AI use specific to performance management (reviews, goals, feedback), contact the PM team at AskHR@virginia.edu.