Annual staff performance reviews don’t have to be dreaded

The academic year is drawing to a close in many institutions. That means it’s time for dreaded annual staff performance reviews to take place.

The staff performance planning, development and review (PPDR) process is not necessarily one that either the employee or the supervisor looks forward to. Nor is it always effectively carried out. It can be challenging for a supervisor to address an employee’s less-than-satisfactory performance and confronting for an employee to receive that message. The whole procedure can be uncomfortable for both parties.

Done well, however, performance reviews can boost staff motivation and job satisfaction, improve work relations and contribute to successful realisation of the institutional mission and goals.

Formal performance management of staff is something for which most higher education institutions have clearly spelt-out procedures and guidelines for both their employees and those who supervise staff.

Some institutions also include online and-or face-to-face workshops intended to offer further information about expectations for participants involved in the process. Supervisors are usually required to attend training sessions about appropriate management of the process.

In many ways the PPDR process is essentially a ‘contract’ between the staff person and the university.

A constructive conversation

Formal reviews of staff performance are at minimum conducted annually. In some cases, an interim review is conducted, six months after the formal review, to gauge progress against agreed goals or performance areas that were identified as requiring attention.

Prior to any discussion, the staff member is expected to complete a templated document to summarise their performance over the past year, usually under the headings of teaching, research, supervision and professional service. It requests the staff member to suggest goals for the coming year and submit the completed document in advance of meeting with their supervisor.

This document becomes the basis for discussion between the supervisor and staff member. It helps the supervisor to recognise achievements, identify any performance issues and offer advice about the intended next goals.

It also provides an opportunity for the staff member to clarify points made in the document, to offer explanation about issues raised and perceived barriers encountered in meeting performance goals.

A comfortable place for a supervisor to start the discussion is with acknowledging and providing positive feedback about a staff member’s achievements. This can progress onto a constructive conversation covering aspects of staff career planning, mentoring and training needs to further develop particular skills and the exploration of advancement, including incremental progression and-or promotion.

Within that conversation the supervisor should allow the staff member to identify what they perceive to be impediments to them being able to achieve agreed expectations for the following period. It is a chance to address areas of performance that require enhancement and establish clear realistic targets for the staff member to meet.

Institutional mission, goals and values

Something that employees sometimes lose sight of is that their performance must be consistent with the mission, goals and values of the institution and be effectively contributing to the achievement of these. This is difficult when staff don’t have a clear understanding of what the strategic intent of the institution or their organisational unit is and how they fit into helping achieve this.

Review discussions are an opportunity to ensure each staff member knows the direction in which the institution and their unit is heading and to discuss how they can best contribute. The role of the supervisor is to clarify expectations and connect the employee’s individual goals with the strategic goals of their organisational unit.

An area where the process often falls down is lack of regular communication between the staff member and supervisor about performance issues.

Supervisors need to make time to conduct follow-up conversations, which can be informal in nature, to check on progress, establish if staff are encountering any problems that prevent them progressing as agreed and offer reassurance that they are faring well.

A continuous cycle

The whole process should be seen as a continuous cycle of planning, implementing, providing feedback, mentoring or coaching as appropriate and reviewing.

PPDRs done well are a useful tool for both staff and supervisors. They serve to oblige employees to honestly reflect on their past achievements, identify performance weaknesses and plan how they will continue to contribute to the institution’s strategic intent and support their own individual career development. And to ensure they have clarity about their responsibilities and the standard of work expected of them.

By engaging in an open two-way conversation, the process can help motivate staff to improve, knowing their individual improvement will be recognised and rewarded for its contribution to the broader institutional strategic goals.

For supervisors, apart from reviewing staff achievements and overall performance, it is an opportunity to define role expectations and requirements that serve both the individual and the organisational unit of which they are a member. The aim is to ensure staff understand how their performance is essential to the continued positive growth of the institution.

It is also a way for supervisors to get to know employees’ career aspirations, to offer guidance about how they can successfully work towards achieving these and to recognise talent. The process also serves as a chance to listen to staff and solicit feedback about how they can be better supported in their work.

The aim is to create a positive culture of feedback and improvement. The overall result should yield benefits not only to the staff member and the organisational unit but to the university as a whole.

Dr Nita Temmerman has held senior university positions including pro vice-chancellor (academic quality and partnerships) and executive dean in Australia. She is an invited accreditation specialist with the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications and international associate with the Center for Learning Innovations and Customised Knowledge Solutions in Dubai. She is chair of two higher education academic boards, and invited professor and consultant to universities in Australia, the Pacific region, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.