Performance and Development Review Scheme. Notes for Guidance

Transcription

1 Introduction Performance and Development Review Scheme Notes for Guidance The following Notes for Guidance are designed to assist and guide both members of staff (the Reviewee) and their line manager (the Reviewer) in completing the staff Performance and Development Review process. Whilst the notes cover as much detail as is practical, they cannot be exhaustive in every respect. Where it is necessary therefore, further guidance should be sought from the appropriate HR Business Partner. The staff Performance and Development Review scheme (PDR) applies to all permanent staff, including permanent hourly paid lecturers (HPLs). It also applies to all staff initially employed on contracts of more than one year. The scheme does not apply to those who have an agreed date of leaving UEL. Those within a probationary period will not have objectives set and assessed via this scheme but will be subject to the provisions of the relevant UEL probationary policy. Following the successful completion of their probationary period, staff will subsequently participate fully in the staff Performance and Development Review scheme. Any staff member who is being monitored under the Capability Policy will not be reviewed under this scheme until the Capability review process has been concluded satisfactorily. It is important that the process is applied fairly to all. For example, the assessment of the performance of part-time staff will take into account how many hours they are contracted to work for UEL and their appropriate output. When assessing performance, Reviewers should also take into account any periods of long-term absence, or whether the Reviewee has a declared disability which impacts on their ability to undertake the role. This is a dynamic scheme, and Reviewer and Reviewee are encouraged to discuss and capture evidence throughout the year. That said, the period in which annual performance and development review meetings are normally undertaken will be from early May to end-july each year. The period to be reviewed will be the previous academic year, i.e. 1 September to 31 August, as well as objective and development Page 1

2 setting for the year ahead. There will also be a mid-year or interim review meeting in January/February to discuss the Reviewee s progress. The staff Performance and Development Review scheme operates on UEL s HR IT system, generating workflows and prompting action (for both Reviewer and Reviewee) when necessary. From time to time, both the Reviewee and Reviewer will receive automated workflow prompts for such activities as setting dates for the end of year and interim review meetings. Both parties can initiate a proposed date which will automatically generate a meeting invitation request via Outlook. Under UEL s staff Performance and Development Review scheme, the Reviewee is required to provide their own input to sections marked for the Reviewee s completion and to contribute to the assessment of objectives by recording their comments. All Reviewees should save and share their contribution with their Reviewer no later than one week before the date set for the mid-year and the end of year Review Meetings. The Reviewer is required to complete all the remaining sections of the form. The Review Meeting will be an opportunity for constructive discussion, and as a result both Reviewee and Reviewer may wish to change elements of the form before signing it off. The following notes for guidance should be read by all Reviewers and Reviewees before they begin the performance review process. The paragraph numbers below correspond to the sections on the staff Performance and Development Review scheme form. 1. Personal Details (Reviewee to complete) When prompted by the automated workflow to do so, the Reviewee should check his or her pre-populated personal details, correcting any out of date information shown in section one, or providing new information through to HR. This should be saved and shared with the Reviewer no later than one week before the date set for the midyear and the end of year Review Meetings. 2. What work or achievements has the Reviewee found particularly successful or satisfying in the last 12 months? (Reviewee to complete) Line managers should normally be fully aware of the objectives that their direct reports have been set in the last 12 months. In almost all cases they should be equally familiar with the achievements of their individual members of staff against these headline objectives. However, there may be occasions when a Reviewee wishes to draw particular attention to a specific piece of work or to an output that has been achieved during the reporting period, particularly if it is something about which the line manager may not be fully aware. 3. What work or achievements has the Reviewee found particularly difficult or challenging in the last 12 months? (Reviewee to complete) Page 2

3 Line managers should normally be fully aware of the pressures or difficult circumstances that their direct reports might have faced in meeting their objectives. There may be occasions, however, when a member of staff has performed in the face of additional pressures, or other factors that they believe should be taken into account when considering their overall performance during the period. This might, for example, include the need to cover the additional duties of colleagues who might have left UEL; it may concern a particular disability or other personal constraint; or it may concern delivery in the face of external pressures. 4. Review of performance against Objectives set for the last 12 months (Both the Reviewee and the Reviewer complete. Reviewer to complete status of Objectives) The Reviewee may wish to provide a self-assessment in the comments box on the extent to which he or she believes they have met their individual objectives. This includes both core and stretch objectives. A stretch objective may start (initially) as being a core objective but be extended to be more challenging in its scope or outcome. The Reviewer will also complete this section before the Review Meeting. The final assessment by the Reviewer will reflect the outcome of the performance review meeting and some assessments may change. Where the Reviewee has exceeded or not met his or her objectives set in the previous Staff Performance and Development Review, the Reviewer should explain the reason for that assessment in the Reviewers Comments box. 5. Competencies in the Role (Reviewer to complete) The Reviewer selects which rating best describes the competencies displayed by the Reviewee over the past 12 months The Reviewer should complete this section and share it prior to the Review Meeting and discuss the assessment with the Reviewee in the meeting. Both Reviewer and Reviewee should provide evidence of their respective views. If the Reviewer feels it is appropriate, an initial assessment by the Reviewer may be changed to reflect the outcome of the performance review meeting. The Reviewer sets out his or her assessment of the Reviewee s demonstrated competencies under each category in the general competency section (N.B. the Leadership & Management section should only be completed if applicable), with an additional five categories required for staff who teach and/or undertake research/knowledge exchange. The competencies to be assessed have been carefully selected to reflect a range of key attributes that are an important feature, albeit to a varying degree, with almost all roles across the University. Page 3

4 The assessment of either room for improvement or outstanding should be used sparingly. Nonetheless, the Reviewer should not hesitate where it is appropriate to award either a room for improvement or outstanding rating where, in his or her judgement (supported by appropriate evidence), such an assessment is justified. 6. Assessment of overall performance The Reviewer selects which rating best describes the overall performance of the Reviewee over the past 12 months The Reviewer is required to provisionally assess the Reviewee s overall performance by indicating one of the five rating boxes. This assessment should be shared with the Reviewee prior to the meeting. Both the Reviewer and Reviewee should provide evidence of their respective views at the Review Meeting. If the Reviewer feels it is appropriate, the initial assessment by the Reviewer may be changed to reflect the outcome of the Review Meeting, To assist Reviewers in their assessment, the types of descriptors that they might consider against each category are shown in the Appendix attached to these notes 7. Career and/or role aspirations (optional for Reviewee to complete) This section of the form is designed to allow the Reviewee to express a future career or role-related aspiration or ambition, such as a desire to be considered for promotion or to express a wish to expand their responsibilities, perhaps by leading on a specific project. A Reviewee might also wish to signal their desire to reduce their hours or even to leave UEL to do something completely different. On the other hand the Reviewee may wish to indicate a desire to remain in their current role for the foreseeable future. No justification for any comment is necessary, although the Reviewee may wish to expand, within the available space, on their remarks. This box may also be left empty if the Reviewee so wishes. 8. Objectives for the next 12 months (Reviewer and Reviewee to agree in the Review Meeting) The Reviewer and Reviewee should agree on the Reviewee s objectives for the next 12 months. Some objectives may be short-term; others may be over longer timescales. They need to describe clearly what key tasks the Reviewee is set and include, as appropriate, milestones and an appropriate estimated timeframe in which to achieve them. Although the number of objectives will vary from role to role depending on the requirements of the job, it is anticipated that most roles will have between 2 and 6 core objectives and a maximum of 2 optional stretch objectives. Such stretch objectives may be agreed to intentionally test a set of individual qualities as part of the Reviewee s professional development. Alternatively the Page 4

5 objectives may reflect particular challenges that will demand a relatively high degree of effort, dedication or talent. The objectives and milestones may change throughout the year, for example, in response to a change in priorities or because of emerging issues outside of the control of the Reviewee. Where possible, objectives should reflect or link to strategic objectives at UEL, School or Service level so that there is a clear alignment between strategic organisational priorities and individual objectives and performance. 9. The Reviewer and Reviewee to agree which best describes the main focus of development within the coming year. The Reviewer and Reviewee should discuss and agree the main focus for development within the coming year. The default choice will be to focus development within the current role or immediate team. By agreement, the Reviewer and Reviewee can also determine that the focus of development could be in the wider School or Service, or within wider UEL or external to the institution. The Reviewer and Reviewee should also agree on how they are going to seek to provide such development opportunities, and must take joint responsibility for making those happen if agreed. 10. Further Support to the Reviewee (Reviewee to complete) There would normally, during the course of the year, be an ongoing discussion between a Reviewee and their line manager about the level of any particular support that may be required for the successful completion of a Reviewee s objectives. Where, however, the Reviewee believes that additional or wider support may be necessary, then this should be noted and discussed. 11. Reviewee to complete only if he or she has a disability (optional) Under the Equality Act 2010, UEL has a duty to ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to working arrangements to accommodate a staff member s disability. If the Reviewee has any requirements in this regard, he or she should raise them with their Reviewer. If the Reviewer or Reviewee require further advice on any aspect of such adjustments, they should contact colleagues in Occupational Health. 12. Personal Development Plan The Reviewer should draft the staff member s Development Plan for the forthcoming 12 months, having discussed it with the Reviewee. The Plan s function is to assist the Reviewee to develop his or her skills and experience and should focus on meeting development needs, which should be discussed in detail at the mid-year and end of year reviews. Page 5

6 13. Narrative Reports The Reviewer s Comments The Reviewer should complete this section following the Review Meeting and save and share the content with the Reviewee. It is important that the performance recorded throughout the Review is based on objectives and performance that has taken place during (and not outside) the reporting period. The written narrative is of considerable importance to the development of the Reviewee and the Reviewer s comments should support, and where necessary, expand, on the assessments against competencies. When drafting their narrative report, and where it is appropriate, the Reviewer should also: a. Provide a brief summary of the Reviewee s overall performance in his or her role, which gives the overall context and key evidence for the performance rating; b. Cover any significant aspect of the Reviewee s performance that might not emerge from the assessments of competencies; for example, any special contributions that they have made within UEL or with other organisations or local community partners connected with UEL; c. Highlight any unusual degree of pressure or difficulties faced by the Reviewee within the reporting period; d. Explain the extent to which the Reviewer may have counselled the Reviewee during the reporting period in respect of his or her performance. The completion of the annual Performance and Development Review is one of a number of occasions during a year when a line manager should take the opportunity to discuss with a member of staff, in broad terms, their overall performance in role and contribution to UEL. Such a discussion should include any coaching on areas of their work or behaviour that can be improved. Similarly staff should be congratulated on their strengths and successes. Reviewee s Comments The Reviewee may wish to comment on any aspect of his or her annual performance report. The Reviewee may disagree with any assessment that they have been given, or simply provide feedback on their report to their Reviewer. They may wish to raise issues in respect of their personal development, or they may wish to make no comment at all. Counter-signer s Comments The Counter-signer (normally the Reviewer s line manager) has a number of functions that vary slightly from that of the Reviewer. The Counter-signer should: Page 6

7 a. Check and compare the assessments, recommendations and remarks, and explain in their narrative any inconsistencies or anomalies that they perceive to exist; b. Resolve where possible any disagreement that may have emerged in the report between the Reviewer and the Reviewee. In so doing, the Counter-signer should focus on the evidence of the Reviewee s performance in coming to any balancing judgement; c. Add to the Reviewer s narrative, as necessary, to underline any key points. 14. Resolving Disagreements The comments of the Reviewer and Counter-signer will be shared with the Reviewee, who will have the opportunity to make any further comments, or to raise any concerns about the review, including the ratings or assessment. The aim is to resolve any issues or concerns informally, initially with the Reviewer, and then with the Counter-signer if there is still disagreement between Reviewee and Reviewer. If the Reviewee, having tried to resolve her/his concerns informally with the Reviewer and Counter-signer, wishes to appeal against their PDR outcome they may do so by following the PDR appeal procedure set out in the PDR Policy. HR Services April 2015 Page 7

8 Assessment of overall performance Appendix N.B. the overall impact and contribution in role will determine the rating, and the following is an illustrative guide Level Descriptor 5 = Outstanding Always performs to a high level within his or her role, with excellent evidence of personal attributes, regularly exceeding requirements and expectations for the role. Goes above and beyond role requirements on a regular basis, setting own stretch objectives and achieving them throughout the year. Regularly challenges self, and shows significant enthusiasm and appetite for personal growth in order to learn and develop further. 4 = Very Good Consistently effective in demonstrating high standards of performance in undertaking their role. Meets all of their key objectives and has a clear understanding of how their work contributes to the overall success of UEL. Demonstrates all of the positive behaviours described in the competencies section, relevant to their role. 3 = Good Generally effective in undertaking their role. Meets most of their objectives and understands how their work contributes to the overall success of UEL. Demonstrates most of the competencies relevant to their role. 2 = Satisfactory Meets the minimum requirements of their role; however there is scope to increase performance of core elements of their role. May meet/partially meet some of their objectives. Demonstrates some of the competencies relevant to their role. 1 = Room for Improvement New or newly promoted or transferred employees may fall into this category. Struggles to deliver basic or core role requirements. Does not demonstrate sufficient evidence of having the technical ability or personal attributes to do the job or of achieving key objectives. May not be in the right position or motivated personally. Performance review and development plan focused on delivering agreed and achievable improvement measures. Page 8