Performance and Development Review for Managers Riham Moawad Human Resources & Andy Wilson Loughborough University

Purposes of this session To confirm our understanding of the purposes and procedures of the scheme To identify and practise the key skills of the reviewer.

Structure of this session Review purposes Confirm procedures Identify and practise skills Questions and comments at any time.

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 scheme Preparation Paperwork from reviewee Both parties review evidence Meeting 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 change Telling 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?

Giving constructive feedback Negative feedback has power if there are also positives – the feedback sandwich Any feedback needs to be specific and supported by evidence Feedback needs to allow – indeed to encourage – responses Feedback should lead to action that is owned by the reviewee.

Help guide the meeting Note “help” Agree the agenda Go – generally – at the reviewee’s pace Keep the discussion focused Allow the expression of feelings Listen to what isn’t said Ask questions with purposes Observe – and use – body language The guidance should lead to action.

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.

Let’s practise the skills Scenario Roles Acting Remote controls Stop ~ Pause ~ Rewind ~ Replay ~ Fast Forward Throughout this please reflect on strategy and skills for you.

Reflections What are you going to make a point of remembering to do in your reviews?