Performance and Development Review for Reviewees

Riham MoawadHuman Resources

& Andy Wilson

Loughborough University

Purposes of this session To confirm our understanding of the

purposes and procedures of the scheme

To identify how to get the most out of the process as a reviewee.

Structure of this session Review purposes Confirm procedures Discuss your approach

Questions and comments at any time Slides with a green corner disc…

…are identical to those for the reviewers.

Purposes of the scheme To identify an individual’s level of

performance To develop ways of improving that

performance To inform reward mechanisms To model a style of management NB “…should not be used to

address systemic poor performance…”.

Style of management? Management is here to help both

individuals and the University Not soft, but a consultative, listening

style which, in return, expects improvements in individual and collective performance

Not a slavish replication of UK approaches – learn from UK mistakes!

A creative combination of the Egyptian and the British.

Responsibilities in the scheme

Dean determines reviewers with HoDs Dean ensures faculty-level staff

development needs are met HoD makes sure that PDRs happen

and that subsequent departmental support is provided

Staff Development Co-ordinators plus HR address institutional SD needs

Reviewers/reviewees have core role.

Reviews and reviewers Reviews at least annually Reviewer normally HoD, but… …maximum of 10 reviewees “The function of the reviewer will be

to provide clear and constructive feedback, and to help guide the meeting towards a realistic plan of action.”

Stages in the schemePreparation Paperwork from

reviewee Both parties

review evidenceMeeting Assessment Future plans Career and

promotion

Follow-up Note agreed

(ideally) and signed Agreement on

addressing development needs

Needs across and beyond department shared

Actions!

Performance levels Outstanding - exceptional/excellent

performance Very Good - above average

performance in most areas Competent - adequate/acceptable

performance Partially Satisfactory - improvement

essential in some areas Unsatisfactory - below average

performance in most/all areas

Time Plan See separate sheet.

Questions about the scheme?

Reviewers’ skills Encouraging change (telling or

helping?) Giving constructive feedback Helping guide the meeting Producing a realistic plan of action

Remember, this is not about systemic poor performance!

What’s going well? What could go better?

Encouraging changeTelling Giving one-way

feedback Criticising

performance Making

unilateral judgments

Imposing advice

Helping Explaining

context Aiding reflection Identifying

weaknesses Agreeing goals Discussing

options Getting

commitment Supporting action.

A monologue, or a conversation?

Which would motivate you?

If you were considering changes to your working practices…

…which approach – telling or helping – would motivate you more?

Realistic plan of action Help the reviewee confront reality Review the options Get their buy-in to their goals Produce SMART actions Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timed.

What could help you? Use the checklist Be clear about your strengths Consider your weaknesses Identify evidence Evaluate your level of performance Go into the discussion… …knowing what you want to get out

of it …prepared to hear feedback …prepared to offer suggestions Don’t whinge!

Preparation Talk to a colleague or two about how

you can get the most out of your PDR.

Any Questions or Comments?

Reflections What are you going to make a point

of remembering to do in your reviews?