"French universities have undergone recent transformations through reforms inspired by New Public Management. The deployment of a new national budgetary framework (" LOLF ") followed by the LRU law (" Liberté et Responsabilité des Universités ") in 2007 led to the transfer of new responsibilities to universities, including Human Resources Management (HRM): researchers and "professionals" ("BIATSS"). While research work has been devoted to the former, the latter has been studied much less frequently, particularly from the perspective of HRM policies and practices dedicated to them. This research, funded through a CIFRE agreement with Adoc Mètis, aims at understanding the reality of the autonomy of French universities in managing their BIATSS staff. Thus, it takes stock of the effects of the LRU law on this matter, ten years after its adoption. More generally, it can contribute to discussing the reality of public HRM transformations in France, in the light of the model promoted by the reformers: from national and statutory personnel administration practices, the aim is to develop local management based on skills. Conducted within two universities, our research relies on a study of the appraisal interviews conducted by BIATSS staff, at the heart of the desired transformations of public HRM. Our methodology therefore considers appraisal interviewing as a management tool that reveals several HRM processes, linked to the three objectives set out by law: assessment of objectives, management of staff skills and training, and decisions about promotion. Given these aims, we propose to understand the perception and uses of interviewing by staff, both at the local level (within four departments) and at the "central" level (Directorate of Human Resources and promoting committees). Our results first of all question the coherence of appraisal interviews, both internally (lack of consistency of the targets with the assessment methods) and externally (limited integration of the interview with the production of decisions for which specific tools already exist). The interview appears to be a universal clamp of public HRM, which helps explain its sometimes paradoxical and limited effects with regard to its theoretical functions. The analysis of the uses of appraisal interviews suggests that a distinction should be made between several levels, starting with a national level which remains a strong prescriber of university HRM, through its funding to universities and the rules it produces to organize the local management of agents, most of whom are national civil servants. This is the case, for example, with regard to the appraisal interview system itself: while national government intends to develop the autonomy of universities, it is generalizing a system for the appraisal of staff, embedded in procedures and processes for the management of staff stemming from national rules specific to civil servants' bodies. At the local level, both institutions have few specific HRM policies and practices, including the management of their contractual staff. This observation is the result of both internal political resistance and the complex ways in which decisions are produced within university organizations, where different logics confront each other. In so doing, the development of local management, co-produced with managers and based on the local appreciation of objectives and skills, comes up against the persistence of an historical conception of the public service."