1. Introduction

As part of the ongoing process of managing the performance and development of staff, all employees are required to have an annual Performance and Development Review (P&DR).  The aim of this review is to:

• Review current job role and responsibilities in the context of the University’s Strategic goals and objectives;
• Reflect on performance during the previous year, with a particular focus on any objectives set in the previous annual review (as determined by University, College, School/Research Institute/Service objectives);
• Identify areas where learning and/or development may be required in the forthcoming year;
• Identify and agree individual objectives aligned with strategic imperatives – this may include identification of the challenges that may have to be overcome in order to achieve these objectives.

It is inevitable that plans agreed during the P&DR cycle will be refined and modified throughout the year as a result of discussion between members of staff and their reviewers.  However, the review meeting provides a formal setting, on an annual basis, to ensure that all staff are able to contribute to the ultimate delivery of strategic goals and objectives and to support, guide and encourage staff in their role, personal and potential career development.

The University is characterised by the quality and commitment of its staff.  To achieve our collective vision of enhancing our position as one of the world’s great universities, the University aims to deliver job satisfaction, staff development opportunities and potential career enhancement. This will lead to increased capability within the workforce through personal development planning linked to our strategic ambitions.

2. The Process

2.1 Annual cycle

The annual Performance and Development Review cycle normally takes place between 1 July and 30 September and should follow the guidelines outlined below.

It is the responsibility of Heads of College and the Secretary of Court to ensure that the annual cycle is duly completed and that all staff have the opportunity to participate in the P&DR process, with each review conducted by the relevant line manager (or nominated deputy).  Staff will be notified of the relevant reviewer through the normal line management structure in advance of the review.  Where concerns are raised in relation to the identified reviewer, an alternative reviewer may be sought through the relevant Head of School/Director of Research Institute/Head of Service. It will be for the Head of School/Director of Institute/Head of Service to decide if this is appropriate.

Where there is more than one reviewer for an individual, the review process will be preceded by a meeting of all the relevant reviewers to ensure consistency of approach.

2.2 Proposed Timetable

The relevant reviewer will normally provide four weeks notice of the scheduled review date.  Should this date be unsuitable, it is the responsibility of the reviewee to arrange an alternative mutually convenient meeting time with the reviewer.

2.3 Prior to the Review Meeting

Responsibilities of the Reviewer:-

It will be the responsibility of the reviewer to prepare for the Review Meeting by reviewing the objectives and plans agreed the previous year, where appropriate seeking further pertinent information from other managers and key individuals with whom the reviewee is working. 

Responsibilities of the Reviewee:-

It will be the responsibility of the reviewee to complete the self-assessment section of the relevant P&DR form. Forms for each staff category and grade may be accessed at:

• Research and Teaching – Grade 8 - 10
• Research and Teaching – Grade 6 & 7
• Senior Administrative Staff - Grade 10  
• Support Staff Grade 4 - 9
• Support Staff Grade 1 – 3

The P&DR form applicable to Research & Teaching staff will include centrally populated information on an individual basis, where available, for research outputs and income generation although this may require to be updated/amended by the reviewee as appropriate. 

The reviewee should be able to refer to the following:

• Current Job Description
• Job Family Role Profiles or Professorial Zone Descriptors as appropriate
• P&DR summary form from previous year

In reflecting on activities with which you have been involved in the past year and in identifying future objectives, it might be useful to refer to the University’s Strategic Plan at Glasgow 2020: a global vision. 

The duly completed self assessment section of the form should be forwarded to the reviewer at least one week in advance of the scheduled review meeting.

3. The review meeting

The review discussion will essentially focus upon a number of aspects:

• review of the past year, with reference to any relevant documentation,
• performance during the review period, including achievement of objectives,
• factors that influenced performance,
• feedback from others, where appropriate,
• personal development activities undertaken in the past year
• identify development plan for the forthcoming year, and
• objective setting for the forthcoming year.

An important element of the P&DR process is discussion and agreement of future objectives to be delivered.

The process will alert the reviewer to individual staff needs such as work satisfaction, opportunity for challenge, growth and skill enhancement.  It will also allow for a discussion on ways to tackle obstacles or other difficulties which have an impact on performance (see flowchart below).  The reviewer will through discussion, provide an indication of their provisional recommendation in relation to the performance level of the reviewee.  In addition, the reviewer will verbally confirm that this is a provisional recommendation that may subsequently be reviewed and moderated at School/College and University level.  Details of the University-wide moderation process for Grade 9 and 10 staff is detailed below.

3.1 Following the Review Meeting

Immediately following the formal review meeting, the summary review section of the P&DR form should be completed by the relevant reviewer, signed by the reviewee and subsequently approved by the Head of School/RI/Service and finally by the Head of College where appropriate.

The information presented as part of the Performance & Development Review process is confidential to the reviewee, the reviewer, the relevant Head of School/RI/Service and beyond through the overall University line management structure up to the Principal.

The full P&DR process should be dealt with as openly and transparently as possible.  Reviewees will be given the opportunity to read and sign the Head of School/RI/Service’s recommendations regarding overall performance assessment prior to concluding the process.

In exceptional circumstances, should there be any disagreement in relation to the recommendation of the reviewer and this cannot be resolved through discussion, the reviewee may elect to attach a statement to the review form to this effect.

The completed P&DR form may inform other processes, e.g. Recognition & Reward.  However, a normal part of the review meeting may be a discussion about progression in the role and, if appropriate, planning for a future promotion application.

4. Moderation

A number of staff have raised concerns at the proposed rapid introduction of P&DR moderation for all academic staff grades: PAG has considered and agreed that a consistent approach should be undertaken across the University in the current year in accordance with the recommendations below:-

• No moderation for staff at grade 8 and below
• Full moderation of 25% statistical sample at Grade 9 – Colleges to identify the sampling methodology which should cover all schools/RIs
• Full moderation at Grade 10

Grade 9 and 10 Staff

The moderation process to be adopted at College/US level will involve a collective approach involving all Heads of Units (HoS/DoRI/HoService) within College/US Management Group forums.  For the avoidance of any doubt, moderation will be conducted at College level by the Head of College, the College HRM, all the Heads of School/Directors of Research Institutes and the College Deans.  College moderation outcomes will be reviewed by the University’s Board of Review.  Moderation for members of staff on College Management Groups will be undertaken by the University’s Board of Review.

In advance of the annual P&DR cycle for all Grade 9 and 10 staff, it is anticipated that Heads of College and the Secretary of Court will discuss and agree with Heads of Schools/Directors of Research Institutes and Heads of Service respectively, the objectives of the College/School/Research Institute/Service aligned with the University’s Strategic Plan.  This will in turn determine consistency of approach in translating this vision to individual performance, through the administration of the annual P&DR cycle.

In relation to performance assessment, it is the responsibility of Heads of College and the Secretary of Court for University Services, to ensure that a consistent communication, scoring and moderation methodology is applied and agreed before the start of the PDR round, within their areas of responsibility.  Each Head of College and the Secretary of Court will require to broadly articulate to their respective Heads of Schools/Director of Research Institutes/ Heads of Service what constitutes performance that is outstanding, excellent, good and below expectation as applicable to the local context, in accordance with the professorial zone descriptors and job family role profiles as appropriate. 

On completion of the P&DR process at local level the Heads of College/Secretary of Court will review and moderate local interpretation of the vision and consistency of approach (with the Heads of School/DRI) in advance of the Principal’s Board of Review at which further moderation may be necessary.  This may result in limited moderation of P&DR outcomes, following which reviewees will be verbally notified of any modification to the original P&DR recommendation proposed by their reviewer, via the line management structure, in advance of formal notification from the Principal.  It is the responsibility of each Head of College/Secretary of Court to determine the manner in which this will be communicated to the reviewee.

5. Outstanding Performance

Where outstanding performance within the role is identified, the Head of School/DRI/Service should consider whether it is appropriate to make a managerial recommendation for any individual member of staff for Recognition & Reward.  Where there is sustained outstanding performance beyond the role, the Head of School/DRI/Service may discuss with the reviewee whether or not an application for promotion/regrading may be appropriate in the future.

6. Performance Below the Normal Level of Expectation

Where performance below the normal level of expectation within a role is identified, the Head of School/DRI/Service should meet with the reviewee to discuss the following :-

• the areas of underperformance
• ways to address these as appropriate.
• set targets with the reviewee

Performance should be monitored on at least a quarterly basis.  In the event of consistent and/or serious under-performance over a sustained period, the University’s Competency Procedure will be applied.

It is inappropriate for an application for Recognition & Reward or Academic Promotion/Support Staff Regrading to be submitted in accordance with the University’s annual cycle where under-performance has been identified.

7. Equality and Diversity

The Performance and Development Review process will be applied fairly and consistently reflecting the University’s Equality and Diversity policies.  It will primarily focus on reviewing individual performance in the past year, based on merit alone, taking into consideration the development needs of the reviewee for the forthcoming year, reflecting the University’s strategic goals in objective setting and addressing any skills gap.

Further information is available at www.gla.ac.uk/services/equalitydiversity/.