RESEARCH ASSOCIATE RATING GUIDE
The descriptions below are NOT meant to be a performance appraisal or a checklist to be added up – they are only meant to inform your overall rating of an employee by providing general examples of
what you might see at each level of performance. They are also designed to help supervisors rate staff more consistently across the School. Please note that every item will not apply to every Research
Associate nor will they describe every important function a Research Associate may perform.
Unsatisfactory (<5%)
Needs Improvement (<10%)
Met/Exceeded Expectations (70% to 80%)
Exceptional (<20%)
Examples
Did not meet key objectives
established. Performance was
below expectations in essential
areas of responsibility, with goals
and objectives missed.
Contribution is typically below
that of peers of incumbents in
comparable positions.
Met most, but not all,
objectives, may be new to
position or need further
coaching and development to
fully meet position
expectations.
Fully met or exceeded all key objectives. Individuals who
achieve this rating are widely recognized as strong and valued
contributors.
Achieved breakthrough
results against
challenging goals; made
a unique contribution to
university, school or dept
objectives; recognized by
all as “stand out”
performers.
1. To what extent did the Research Associate demonstrate scientific knowledge, skills and thinking?
 Training on techniques was
often protracted and
unsuccessful.
 Lacked knowledge to assist in
writing grant applications,
research papers.
 Did not demonstrate any
interest in learning about
research.
 Rigorous training was
required for most new
situations and frequently
required retraining.
 Has good technical
knowledge but did not teach
others or teach them well.
 Demonstrated excellent
bench skills, thorough
understanding of
techniques, procedures.
 Operated and made sure that
equipment worked properly,
e.g., regular calibration.
 Taught techniques,
procedures to postdocs,
staff, students so that they
understood them.
 Collected data for grant
applications, research
papers.
 Kept current with scientific
trends and developments in
research area.
 Conducted literature
searches.
 Demonstrated
understanding of the
underlying science or
premise of what was being
studied.
 Served as an expert in
specialized techniques or
procedures.
 Designed or operated
unique or specialized
instruments or equipment.
 Assisted in writing grant
applications, research
papers
 Researched literature to
compare techniques.
 Initiated and implemented
an idea from start to finish
that resulted in data with the
potential to be publishable.
 Constructed or modified
equipment to meet special
requirements.
 Advanced research effort
through significant
contributions to
publications, presentations.
2. To what extent did the Research Associate assist in planning or conducting experiments or procedures? Did the Research Associate understand “the big picture”?
 Modified protocol without
conferring with PI.
 Didn’t recognize variances or
potential problems or, saw
them but did nothing about it.
 Didn’t inform others of
problems.
612926608
 Didn’t consistently follow
protocol either by error or
lack of knowledge.
 Sometimes missed problems
and failed to inform others.
 Assignments were often
incomplete.
 Consistently performed
daily tasks with excellence,
e.g., given a protocol,
followed it using welldefined procedures.
 Recognized potential
problems or variances and
alerted PI.
 Troubleshot experiments for
minor issues, consulted with
PI when appropriate.
1
 Helped in planning protocol
design.
 Analyzed and evaluated
what went wrong or was
different before reporting
problem to PI.
 When appropriate, adjusted
goals or changed work
based on outcomes, new
learning.
 Provided alternative
research methods,
techniques, or new ideas
which significantly
improved effectiveness.
 Anticipated problems and
created procedures to avoid
future occurrences.
6/27/2016
Unsatisfactory (<5%)
Did not meet key objectives
established. Performance was
below expectations in essential
areas of responsibility, with goals
and objectives missed.
Contribution is typically below
that of peers of incumbents in
comparable positions.
Needs Improvement (<10%)
Met most, but not all,
objectives, may be new to
position or need further
coaching and development to
fully meet position
expectations.
Met/Exceeded Expectations (70% to 80%)
Fully met or exceeded all key objectives. Individuals who
achieve this rating are widely recognized as strong and valued
contributors.
Exceptional (<20%)
Examples
Achieved breakthrough
results against
challenging goals; made
a unique contribution to
university, school or dept
objectives; recognized by
all as “stand out”
performers.
3. To what extent did the Research Associate contribute to the collection, maintenance and compilation of research data?
 Was unable to accurately
compile data or present it
logically or in useful formats.
 Record keeping was often
incomplete, illegible.
 Frequently misinterpreted
data or drew the wrong
conclusions.
 Kept excellent complete
records.
 Maintained data and
monitored it for accuracy
and quality.
 Ensured that laboratory
maintained high research
standards.
 Applied or learned new
computer applications to
compile or present data.
 Monitored documents of
results to ensure underlying
data integrity.
 Gathered data points from
many experiments and
presented them in a
comprehensible format.
 Helped others understand
data – translated complex
information into simpler
formats.
 Defined standards for
collection of data and its
accuracy, validity and
integrity.
4. To what extent did the Research Associate ensure that the laboratory functioned smoothly and was in compliance with University, federal and sponsored funding rules and regulations?
 Lack of knowledge of policies  Knowledge is uneven.
and procedures resulted in
Inconsistently applied
audits, legal action or
policies and procedures.
complaints.
 Did not consistently educate
 Compliance records were
laboratory on safety or
incomplete, inaccurate, or
compliance issues.
nonexistent.
 Records were often
 Department was not in
incomplete or inaccurate.
compliance in multiple areas.
612926608
 Made sure that health and
safety standards were
understood and followed by
laboratory personnel.
 Ensured that purchases of
equipment and supplies
were in keeping with
University and federal
regulations.
 Worked with faculty,
postdocs and staff to ensure
that administrative
compliance work was
complete and accurate, e.g.,
effort reporting.
 Identified resources needed
to conduct experiments.
 Assisted in preparing
budgets.
2
 Acted as resource on
regulatory questions, Yale
procedures.
 Was alert to potential issues
and attended to them before
they become problems.
 Researched and
implemented cost savings.
 Created procedures to help
ensure maximum attainable
compliance within the
laboratory.
6/27/2016
Unsatisfactory (<5%)
Did not meet key objectives
established. Performance was
below expectations in essential
areas of responsibility, with goals
and objectives missed.
Contribution is typically below
that of peers of incumbents in
comparable positions.
Needs Improvement (<10%)
Met most, but not all,
objectives, may be new to
position or need further
coaching and development to
fully meet position
expectations.
Met/Exceeded Expectations (70% to 80%)
Fully met or exceeded all key objectives. Individuals who
achieve this rating are widely recognized as strong and valued
contributors.
Exceptional (<20%)
Examples
Achieved breakthrough
results against
challenging goals; made
a unique contribution to
university, school or dept
objectives; recognized by
all as “stand out”
performers.
5. Describe the Research Associate’s productivity, timeliness and ability to work independently.
 Couldn’t be counted on to get
work done at all or on time.
 Didn’t understand priorities or
understood them and still
didn’t work on them.
 Didn’t anticipate, confused or
missed deadlines completely.
 Required excessive oversight.
All work had to be reviewed.
 Assignments were often
incomplete or late.
 Not seen as someone who
did fair share of the work.
 Didn’t plan for deadlines or
keep others informed when
deadline might be missed.
 Required continual
oversight.
 Assignments were usually
completed and on time.
 Kept people informed when
deadline might missed.
Understands
interdependency of
deadlines on multiple
projects
 Required normal review and
follow-up.
 Did more work than peers
and almost always met
deadlines.
 Knew what results were
priorities and achieved those
results.
 Created more effective and
efficient processes to
complete tasks.
 Independently performed
assignments with general
guidance from PI.
 Always met and sometimes
beat deadlines.
 Shared improvements with
other departments, peers.
 Given a project, created the
entire work plan.
 Little or no follow-up was
required.
Considered the “go-to”
person. Sought for
assistance or advice in
getting work done.
 Fostered strong partnerships
with others that helped
laboratory get the resources
they need, e.g., expertise,
use equipment.
 Team met or exceeded goals
under difficult
circumstances.
 Took charge during difficult
situations, earning the
respect of others.
 Held meetings or other
forums to ensure that
information was dispersed.
 Took leadership role in
correcting existing problems
with other labs,
departments.
 Laboratory exceeded
difficult goals because of
the positive, motivating
work environment.
6. What is the personal impact of the Research Associate on the rest of the Department?
 Performance and/or attitude
 Not viewed as a role model.
disrupted work environment.
 Often didn’t cooperate with
 Did not lead by example, e.g.,
others in completing tasks,
behavior was perceived as
experiments or projects.
being unprofessional,
 Sometimes allowed
unethical or excessive.
personal feelings to interfere
 Perceived as being unfair in
with managing laboratory.
treating people, allocating
 Inconsistently
resources, etc.
communicated information
 Instigated problems with other
– some people did not get
laboratories, or internally with
information that they
peers.
needed to do their job
612926608
Set a positive, productive
example to others.
 Enabled laboratory to
perform at proper level.
 Fostered cooperation and
teamwork within the
laboratory, with other labs,
business office.
 Perceived as making fair
and unbiased decisions.
 Consistently communicated
information up and down
within the organization.


3
6/27/2016