Performance Management Framework Guidance Document (in accordance with Ordinance 41) 1. Introduction and background 1.1 A key objective in the University s Human Resources Strategy is to develop robust performance management systems that reward good performance and deal with issues of under-performance fairly and consistently. 1.2 The responsibility for performance management lies with line managers at all levels. They are required to set standards, provide regular and timely feedback on performance (including via the formal annual appraisal process) and to provide support and guidance to staff as necessary. The standards should be in respect of delivery expectations and should relate to all aspects of a member of staff s contract (e.g. education, research and administration). Clear objectives should also be set in relation to any specific role held by the individual. 1.3 Managers also need to be equipped to deal with under-performance when it arises and to have the confidence to manage a process that could if necessary lead to formal action. It is recognised that support and training in this area needs to be provided to those with staff management responsibilities and the induction and management development programmes are being revised to take account of this requirement. However, it is also acknowledged that the ability to deal with under-performance has been hampered by existing policies and procedures and work is underway to correct this. 1.4 As a first step, the probationary arrangements for academic staff have recently been revised to ensure that: the right level of professional and personal support is provided the expectations being placed on the probationary member of staff are explicitly stated there is equitable and consistent practice across the University 1.5 For grades 1-6 the disciplinary and grievance procedures have been revised and updated and a new capability procedure developed. Grades 7-11 within Professional Services come within the scope of Ordinance 41. 1.6 Ordinance 41 relates to grievance, discipline, dismissal and related matters. The content of the ordinance was previously within the University s statutes and although now sitting within ordinances remains unchanged from the original model statute drawn up by the University Commissioners as part of the Education Reform Act 1988. Although the guiding principles in respect of academic freedom and justice and fairness remain wholly appropriate it is recognised that the ordinance is no longer fit for purpose; it is at odds with employment legislation in places and makes effective staff management rather cumbersome, thereby affecting managers ability to deal with issues in an effective and timely manner. As far back as 1999, the Bett Report recommended (with respect to the Model Statute) that universities should review and seek to amend these complex and drawn-out procedures so as to eliminate impediments to good management whilst ensuring fair treatment for individuals and safeguarding academic freedom. 1.7 The intention is to revise and update Ordinance 41 to reflect a modern employment environment while continuing to protect academic freedom and the levels of employment protection offered to our staff. 1.8 There will be full consultation on the proposed changes and the University will work closely with UCU to ensure the right balance is struck between meeting the needs of the University while preserving procedural safeguards for staff. 1.9 In the meantime, effective performance management can still take place within the existing processes. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the operational application of part III of the existing Ordinance 41, particularly in respect of capability cases. The one small amendment to the ordinance proposed at this stage (see Appendix A) is to recognise the new role of Executive Dean who will be responsible for performance management within their Faculty. 2. Process (reference numbers relate to sections of Ordinance 41)
2.1 Staff should be helped and encouraged to achieve and maintain the required standards, whether in respect of e.g. their conduct, attendance, the quality of their education or research outputs. There needs to be a shared understanding of the level of expectation. 2.2 Performance management should be seen as a continuous cycle. It is a process, not an isolated event. 2.3 For performance to be managed effectively, individual members of staff must know the basis on which their performance is being measured. 2.4 In cases where a problem or shortfall is identified, early advice should be sought from the Human Resources Manager/Officer and an action plan agreed. 3. Informal stage 3.1 Minor faults shall be dealt with informally (Part III, 13(1)). Although there may be occasions when it will be appropriate to enter the procedure at a formal stage due to the seriousness of the misconduct/poor performance, the informal stage is the normal starting point and allows the member of staff to be informed of the shortfall in performance by the Head of Department. 3.2 This may be the member of staff s first awareness that a problem exists. It is important that the Head of Department is objective, presents evidence and provides feedback. They also need to discuss any problems that the member of staff may be having and listen to their concerns or worries as expectations are articulated. 3.3 It is important to ensure that there is no discrimination on the grounds of age, race, sex, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation when managing performance. Consideration may need to be given to reasonable adjustment(s) and the Human Resources Manager/Officer can advise in this area. 3.4 A development plan with specific targets and timescales should be agreed and documented. The plan need not be complicated but should make clear what is to be achieved by when and how the achievement will be measured. Depending on the nature of the issue, consideration may also need to be given to training requirements and/or the option of coaching or mentoring. 3.5 There is no right of representation at the informal stage and the meeting will normally, but not necessarily, be between the member of staff and the Head of Department. 3.6 A review date should be set and agreed, allowing reasonable time for the improvement/change to be made (this will depend on the nature of the requirement but needs to be realistic and achievable). If the timescale for achievement of a particular objective is going to be longer than three months an interim meeting should be arranged to assess progress. 3.7 If it becomes clear that the informal approach has failed to achieve the required improvement it will be necessary to refer to the Executive Dean and to move to formal action. 3.8 The length of time required before moving to the formal stage will depend on the circumstances of the individual case. Most importantly there needs to have been adequate time for the required improvement in performance to be made. This may include the necessity to take account of any relevant external factors (e.g. lead in times for publishing in specific journals). While it is not possible to be prescriptive, a timescale of around six months may be likely although the nature and severity of the concern could in some cases mean a timeline of much shorter duration. 4. Formal Stage 4.1 Stages 1 and 2 of the formal process (Part III, 13 (2)) relate to formal warnings oral and written. Support from Human Resources should always be sought in cases where formal action is being considered. The Executive Dean will lead in any case where formal action is being taken. 4.2 Depending on the nature of the problem and where there is need for further investigation, reference should be made to the University s guidance notes on Conducting Formal Investigations.
4.3 Before any disciplinary sanction is applied the member of staff should be advised of the nature of the complaint or problem (which may include consistent failure to meet the required standard) and given reasonable notice of the meeting where they should be given the opportunity to state their case. The status of the meeting should be made clear in the notification and the member of staff should understand that it may result in disciplinary action. 4.4 There is the right of representation at all formal stages. The member of staff has the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative and should be advised accordingly. 4.5 The member of staff has the right of appeal at each stage of the formal process (see Part III, 13(3)) and should be advised accordingly. Appeals are submitted to the Registrar and Secretary who is then responsible for appointing the appropriate Pro-Vice-Chancellor to hear the case. 4.6 In cases of on-going unsatisfactory performance a formal oral warning will be the normal first level of formal action unless the matter is serious enough to warrant moving directly to a written warning. 4.7 The first formal stage is very similar to the informal process in that it should be clearly documented in writing what the performance issue is, the improvement that is required, the timescale for achieving the improvement, a review date and details of any support (including training if necessary) that it has been agreed will be provided to help the member of staff. 4.8 The member of staff should be informed that the warning constitutes the first stage of the formal procedure and advised what further action will be taken if they fail to make the required improvement. 4.9 Subject to satisfactory conduct and performance, a formal oral warning will be disregarded and considered spent after a period of twelve months. In cases where the performance continues to be unsatisfactory it will be necessary to move to the next stage of the formal procedure (written warning). 4.10 The length of time before moving to the next stage will depend on the circumstances of the individual case but it is likely that another period of around four to six months should be allowed from the issue of the formal oral warning to ensure that there has been adequate time allowed for the improvement in performance to be made. Again, the nature and severity of the concern could in some cases mean a timeline of much shorter duration. 4.11 An ordinance amendment is being made so that a written warning is required to be given by the Executive Dean. 4.12 As in previous stages, the member of staff should be advised of the nature of the complaint or problem (which may include consistent failure to meet the required standard) and given reasonable notice of the meeting where they should be given the opportunity to state their case. The status of the meeting should be made clear in the notification and the member of staff should understand that it may result in further disciplinary action. 4.13 The warning will give details of the continued failure to meet the required standards of performance, reiterate the improvement that is required and again agree timescales. 4.14 The member of staff should be advised that if there is continued failure to meet the required standards of performance a complaint will be made to the Registrar and Secretary in accordance with Ordinance 41 and that that process could result in their dismissal. 4.15 Subject to satisfactory conduct and performance, a formal written warning will be disregarded and considered spent after a period of two years but if there has been no satisfactory improvement following a written warning in the agreed timescale the matter should be drawn to the attention of the Registrar and Secretary in accordance with Part III,14 (1). 4.16 The length of time before moving to the final stage of the formal procedure will depend on the circumstances of the individual case but as the outcome could be dismissal it is crucially important that sufficient time has been allowed for the member of staff to have a final opportunity to make the required improvement. Although it is not possible to be prescriptive, a timescale of around six months from the time
of the issue of the written warning is likely to be a minimum in most cases (although the nature and severity of the concern could in some cases mean a timeline of much shorter duration). 4.17 Any decision to dismiss will be made in accordance with the relevant parts of Ordinance 41 on the grounds of good cause. Persistent under-performance is included within the scope of the definition of good cause. 4.18 Any incapacity or conduct issue resulting from a medical condition will be the subject of proceedings in accordance with the University s Sickness Absence Management Policy and Procedure and Part IV of Ordinance 41. 5. Conclusion 5.1 As the main purpose of this document is to provide guidance on dealing with persistent underperformance it has, by necessity, focused on the procedure to follow when corrective action is required. 5.2 The reality is that in many cases coaching and support will be sufficient to address the areas of concern and there will be no need for recourse to formal action. 5.3 Performance management starts at the time of recruitment and continues through until such time as a member of staff leaves or retires. It includes the formal annual appraisal but extends beyond it. 5.4 Performance management is about establishing a culture in which members of staff: 1 know and understand what is expected of them have the skills and ability to deliver on these expectations are supported by the University in developing the capacity to meet these expectations are given feedback on their performance have the opportunity to discuss and contribute to individual and team aims and objectives 5.5 Performance management is not a negative rather it is a tool to help managers manage more effectively and managing under-performance is just one aspect of it. Sue Endean Director of Human Resources May 2013 1 Taken from Performance management: an overview, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
Appendix A Ordinance 41 Grievance, Discipline, Dismissal and Related Matters Part III Discipline, Dismissal and Removal from Office Disciplinary Procedures 13. 1. Minor faults shall be dealt with informally. 2. Where the matter is more serious but falls short of constituting possible good cause for dismissal the following procedure shall be used: Stage 1 - Oral Warning If conduct or performance does not meet acceptable standards the member of the Academic Staff will normally be given a formal ORAL WARNING. The member will be advised of the reason for the warning, that it is the first stage of the disciplinary procedure and of the right of appeal under this paragraph. A brief note of the oral warning will be kept but it will be spent after 12 months, subject to satisfactory conduct and performance. Stage 2 - Written Warning If the offence is a serious one, or if a further offence occurs, a WRITTEN WARNING will be given to the member of the Academic Staff by the Executive Dean. (For posts within Professional Services coming within the scope of this ordinance a written warning will be issued by the appropriate Head of Section). This will give details of the complaint, the improvement required and the timescale. It will warn that a complaint may be made to the Registrar and Secretary seeking the institution of charges to be heard by a Tribunal appointed under paragraph 16 if there is no satisfactory improvement and will advise of the right of appeal under this paragraph. A copy of this written warning will be kept but it will be disregarded for disciplinary purposes after 2 years subject to satisfactory conduct and performance. Stage 3 Appeals A member of the Academic Staff who wishes to appeal against a disciplinary warning shall inform the Registrar and Secretary within two weeks. The appropriate Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hear all such appeals and his or her decision shall be final.