Many staff reported that their roles and responsibilities generally align with position descriptions and that evaluation criteria are understood, reflecting strong overall agreement on role/criteria alignment.
Several respondents described positive, constructive interactions with supervisors or leaders (timely communication, supportive coaching, and fair workload allocation in some cases).
Academic Teaching Staff in particular noted clear and fair processes for teaching assignments and evaluations, and some momentum toward improved clarity and fairness in those processes.

Increase frequency and timeliness of performance feedback year‑round (reduce reliance on the PA as the first/only touchpoint and ensure feedback is actionable).
Improve transparency and engagement around decision‑making, committee functioning, and conflict‑of‑interest disclosures so processes feel more trustworthy and participatory.
Clarify evaluation criteria, reporting categories, and workload allocation for specific role types (e.g., part‑time or teaching‑only ATS, and roles with added responsibilities), and ensure perceived links to compensation and accountability are clearer.

Top priority: strengthen clarity, frequency, and usefulness of expectations and feedback (addressing the low rating for “Expectations and feedback are communicated clearly and effectively,” 64%), since comments focus on limited feedback, minimal engagement, and concerns about committee/decision transparency.

Top priority: clarify and align evaluation criteria and reporting categories with ATS roles (e.g., part‑time or teaching‑only streams) so assessment and workloads match practice; this addresses the group’s lower relative score on “criteria used to evaluate my performance aligned with my roles and responsibilities” (93%) and multiple comments about unclear buckets and FAR applicability.

Top priority: improve ongoing, timely feedback and make the purpose and consequences of evaluations clearer (ties to the lower ratings for “Expectations and feedback…” and “Policies and procedures applied fairly” at 73%), and ensure added responsibilities are reflected in PAs.

Academic Faculty: notable negative themes about transparency, trust, and limited feedback contrast with some mid‑level ratings for policy fairness (73%) and mixed comments about constructive feedback — indicating a disconnect between overall ratings and the strength of negative qualitative concerns.
Non‑Academic Staff: quantitative improvement in perceived alignment of criteria (+24pp to 93%) contrasts with multiple comments reporting little or no feedback, confusion about the evaluation purpose, and feeling evaluations are a “box‑checking” exercise — a clear mismatch between scores and reported experience.
Academic Teaching Staff: ratings are very high for expectations/feedback (100%), yet comments still identify operational gaps (FAR availability/timing, category clarity, and salary equity) — suggesting generally positive ratings but specific procedural issues remain.