Version 3.0 Annual PDPR Review Guide Good management is dependent on continual feedback and review through one-to-one meetings between Manager/Reviewer and the Role holder. However, as part of the PDPR process, once a year the performance of the role holder is reviewed formally. This enables: A formal review of performance to take place and it ensures that there is a formal agreement of individual objectives A formal assessment is made of the role holder s contribution and performance against the expectations of the role, personal objectives and the University needs. A formal opportunity to identify and collate development needs of staff to facilitate continual performance improvement and inform wider training needs analysis and planning across the University Identification of overall progress and opportunity to engage in conversations around career development and opportunities Performance outcomes and contribution to be linked to pay and reward as part of the University s pay and grading framework Recognition of contributions and achievement. PDPR Review If regular interaction has taken place throughout the year, the review process should not be lengthy or difficult. Assuming that one-to-one meetings have taken place and regular feedback given, the annual review should be a matter of amalgamating details from previous discussions and summarising the feedback to reflect overall performance objectives and standards previously agreed. As a reviewer you should: Assess overall performance against the agreed objectives and requirements of the role Base assessment on evidence and not perception. It would be expected that the role holder will provide significant input Assess any evidence presented against the agreed objectives. (Reference should be made to job family and/or role profile appropriate for the level of position the role holder occupies) Assess the role holder s performance ensuring that it is a true reflection of the whole review period Be open. Discuss with the role holder the assessments you make and evidence you may reference in making your judgement (refer to guidance on giving feedback). Listen to feedback from the role holder, however, final assessment should be made based on tangible outcomes, impact of performance, or marked changes in approach resulting in improved outcomes. It is usually helpful to review any objectives relating to delivery first before moving on to any 'ways of working' objectives, dealing with the separate items in each objective section one-byone. Performance at Work
Each objective should be individually evaluated and rated against the appropriate agreed expected standard for the role at either: above standard standard below standard Reference to Job Family role profile indicators for the levels above and below the role holder s level may help in making this assessment, also assessment against agreed timescales, standards, and anticipated impact will be critical in making an accurate assessment. Above standard does not mean delivered well or worked hard, above standard would reflect the fact that the impact or outcome of delivery has been greater than expected, e.g. an improvement to a process has resulted in 30% increase in efficiency rather than the expected 20%, or the fact that a review and development of customer service behaviour within a team has resulted in a significant increase in positive customer feedback and not just a reduction in complaints by the 10% target. It should be noted that sometimes things happen beyond the control of the individual that may impact on their ability to fully meet the agreed objective. This should be taken into account, however, judgement can also be made as to how the role holder responded to these unexpected factors. Did they just sit and wait or have they attempted to proactively deal with the issues or look for alternative areas to focus on? Going through the objectives one-by-one will provide continual focus for areas of potential improvement for future objectives. (Establish not only what was done or achieved, but also how, also asking the role holder what they have learned from the activity and how it could be improved for the future) Due to timing, some objectives may not be completed. This is normal and an assessment of progress against plans and objectives should be made and rated in the same way as completed areas of work. Having completed a review of the agreed objectives, a performance summary should be agreed with the role holder reflecting progress, achievements, areas of improvement, development and future focus. The performance summary should be supported by an overall rating based on the following indicators and descriptions. This is critical in ensuring that the role holder is given recognition for their performance and achievements and that assessment between individuals is consistent. Page 2 of 5
1 Has performed to an exceptional level demonstrated by the fact that all or most objectives have been delivered to a standard over and above those expected for the role and level. In addition the individual may have taken on and delivered / contributed at a high standard to activities outside the normal scope of their role. Further development may be identified to maximise the full potential of the individual. 2* Has demonstrated through review of objectives, achievements and progress against development plans that they have performed to the requirements of the role and level during the reporting period. Further development may be identified to maximise the full potential of the individual and / or fine tune the skills and behaviours required and expected across the whole role. 3** Has performed significantly below the expectation of the role during the reporting period. Has not met or has not made sufficient progress towards their objectives and the standards agreed. Demonstrating clear areas of performance which require improvement and / or personal development. *2 It is recognised that category 2 is a very broad and it is expected that the Reviewer, through quality dialogue with staff, will provide sound and constructive feedback relating to the individuals progress, level of performance and development needs. It is important that the Reviewer discusses, recognises and documents where individuals have fully met the requirement of the role and level, demonstrated through the achievement of the desired outcomes and objectives. This should also include areas where they feel the individual has demonstrated over achievement indicative of exceptional performance, by the fact that some objectives may have been delivered to a standard over and above those expected for the role and level, as well as areas where potential improvements could be made. In addition to reviewing progress and current performance, it is also important that each individual has a documented personal development plan, ranging from individuals who fully meet the requirements of their current role and therefore have a plan to maximise their full potential with a clear goal to excel within role or develop potential skills for future progression, as well as staff where some areas of development and experience may be required to fine tune the skills and behaviours required and expected across the whole role. **3 Please note that a rating of 3, (with its associated detrimental implications on pay), should not be given unless the role holder has been previously warned about their performance and an improvement plan be in place. For a 3 to be awarded with the associated impact on pay the individual should have: Previously had discussion with their manager as part of the normal management feedback processes (one-to-one meetings) and Had objectives set for the required areas of improvement with a jointly agreed plan implemented to meet them Page 3 of 5
Have been given a realistic opportunity to impact the required improvement objectives. If the criteria above cannot fully be met, (i.e. no improvement plan is in place), but it is believed that the individual has underperformed for the reporting period, they should: Be informed that their performance level is unsatisfactory and that it is in the normal range for a level 3 rating (however due to the conditions above no detrimental action will be taken relating to pay outcome for this review) Have objectives set for required improvement and a appropriate plan agreed to meet them (development needs, change of focus, clearer performance expectations) and Be set and agree a realistic review period for improvement and Be informed that if improvement is not made it may impact future PDPR reviews and could end up in a formal process relating to under performance In all cases, visible evidence of documented under performance must be provided and a record kept of this along with records of all meetings and a copy of the agreed improvement plan (and any updates made to it). The criteria outlined above should be carefully followed before a rating 3 is awarded. Once individual PDPR s have been completed the proposed ratings for the team/area should be reviewed to ensure consistency and appropriateness. Factors that should be considered in this review are: Evidence and justification against the defined expectations of the role Current salary position of staff. It would be fair to expect more from individuals paid more in the scale. Therefore, if a member of staff was currently paid toward the top end of the scale (in the high performance range) even if they are deemed to be highly effective in their role it could be argued that they are already being paid at a rate that reflects this and should be rated as 2 for the rate of salary they are already receiving for the role. Wider pay differentials within the team, are there individuals being paid significantly less than others in the team even through their performance is on a par? Diversity review. Have any staff been directly or indirectly disadvantaged due to irrelevant factor such as gender, ethnic background, age, religious belief, disability, sexual orientation, part-time working or trade union activity Any review quota applied by the University for the pay year based on affordability. This review should be completed before submitting to the areas/schools moderation panel for final agreement. Important Note It should be made clear that a rating 1 from your reviewer does not necessarily have a direct correlation to a guaranteed final 1 rating or extra pay increment. Before pay awards are determined by the University, the performance process has further levels of moderation and financial review by senior managers (moderation committee) and is also constrained by the pay and reward systems employed by the University. As a result, the moderation committee may readjust some level 1 ratings to 2 if deemed appropriate to do so. Page 4 of 5
It is important to emphasise that all the PDPR indicators above refer to consistent performance throughout the whole year. The fact that an individual may have delivered one good project in a year or developed a single improvement would not justify an assessment of 1 and actually may just be a normal expectation of the role. The rating must reflect the evidence available and be consistent with the agreed expectation for the role and objectives set. The University does have additional reward and recognition processes for one off pieces of work or recognising short bursts of contribution over and above the norm including acting up responsibilities, and this type of activity should not be confused with the criteria linked to pay progression. Based on the criteria above, it is anticipated that only in the case of exceptional performance would a role holder meet the definition of the 1 rating (if the process is being applied appropriately and fairly). As such, within the moderation process it is likely that all cases for 1 would be subject to significant scrutiny and the Reviewer and/or departmental managers may be requested to add further justification to their rating and provide further evidence. It would be expected that any further evidence is fed back to the role holder as part of the management feedback process and should be owned by the local management structures. If the Moderation Panel decide that the 1 rating is not justified they will feed this back to the appropriate reviewer, through the School/Department Senior Manager including their justification. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to feed the final review scores back to the member of staff prior to any formal communication via a letter from HR. The PDPR process of regular reviews, supporting day-to-day communications, should seek to ensure that any disagreements can be resolved informally and quickly so that the end of year rating comes as no surprise to the role holder. Page 5 of 5