Background

This project entailed a full review of a University’s academic appraisal process, its documentation and its links to other key processes within the University. 

What we did

We established a small project group with academic and HR representatives to agree clear objectives, determine the approach to be used and identify the roles and responsibilities of each project member during the project.

We ran focus groups and conducted interviews with a cross-section of appraisers, appraisees, Union representatives and HR professionals to obtain their views about the purpose and value of the process and how it was working in practice. 

We supplemented this data by using an electronic questionnaire, by reviewing relevant sections of the staff satisfaction survey and by benchmarking the University’s approach against that of five other Universities considered to be “best in their field”.  We also undertook a short literature search to explore contemporary research into best practice in this area.

From the data collection, we were able to establish that whilst there was general acceptance of the concept of appraisal, both appraisers and staff appraised considered that it was disconnected from other key policies and processes that were important to them such as their workload planning, their research programmes, funding mechanisms and their continuous professional development.  In short, they did not feel any ownership of the process nor could they perceive its benefit to them.

How we helped

Having analysed and assessed the data collected we discussed it with the project group and suggested a number of ways to address these issues:

• A re-adjustment of the timing of the process to ensure it supported and aligned sequentially with the other key process of importance to staff.  In this way, outcomes from the appraisal process can clearly be seen to contribute to workload planning and research programmes.

• The creation of departmental learning and development budgets which allow decisions about professional and personal development needs to be made at a more appropriate level within the University.

• A revision of the forms used to make them easier to use.

• The production of guidelines for appraisers and appraisees, simply written and avoiding jargon and “management-speak”.

• Refresher training for appraisers.

These measures addressed both the “head” issues of having a robust, fit-for-purpose process in place and the “heart” issues of culture, values, ownership and empowerment.