Review of the Implementation of the Professional Development Review

Executive Summary

Feedback on the UWA PDR system implementation indicates a smooth and relatively trouble free process that has enabled constructive and regular performance discussions for many staff, including academics. However, the context in which the PDR operates has changed considerably over the last two years, and there is also considerable room for refinement of the system and processes. The changes suggested in this report are designed to increase the accountability and effectiveness of the system, reduce the workload on staff, and increase the usefulness of the PDR outcomes.

The review indicates a clear need to

• shift to an electronic record keeping system rather than a paper-based locally stored record;
• improve the guidelines, models and templates associated with the PDR system;
• create transparent and relevant performance indicators to assist academic performance reviews; and
• develop a rating scale that offers better discrimination on outcomes.

The recommendations highlight the critical need to articulate what is expected of academics and to maximise the use of the PDR outcomes by other review systems. Alignment with these reward and recognition processes would strongly encourage further embedding of the PDR process into the regular cycle of university activity.

Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

That all supervisors record and manage Professional Development Reviews through the Human Resources Electronic Self Serve (ESS) system.

Recommendation 2:

That Human Resources modify the ESS system to create annual prompts for supervisors and reviewees to remind them of the need to complete a review, the prompting to continue until the PDR discussion is completed.

Recommendation 3:

That UWA explore the possibility of employing PDR outcomes to assist with probationary review decisions for all staff.

Recommendation 4:

That, to support effective use of the probationary period, all new staff be registered for a preliminary performance review through ESS on appointment, with a requirement, supported by prompts from ESS to both supervisor and staff member, two months after commencement to follow up.

Recommendation 5:

That faculties and schools establish, through a collaborative process, a framework of explicit academic performance expectations for research, teaching and service.

Recommendation 6:

That Human Resources redesign the Expectations for All Staff documentation to encourage active discussion of how these expectations should be manifested in the reviewee’s work setting.

Recommendation 7:

That Human Resources redesign the Expectations of staff in leadership and management roles guidelines to better assist discussions of leadership and management outcomes during the PDR discussion.

Recommendation 8:

That Human Resources develop guidelines for supervisors and leaders to assist in their reflection and review of supervisory and leadership processes.

Recommendation 9:

That, in the revision of the PDR documentation, Human Resources ensure that the summary section includes a section relating to the agreed goals for the next review period developed during the PDR discussion.

Recommendation 10:

That Human Resources amend the guidelines relating to learning and development in order to provide more specific guidance on sources of support, modes of development, and mentorship.

Recommendation 11:

That Human Resources ensure that the revisions to the PDR record include information regarding planned leave clearances.

Recommendation 12:

That, in the revision of the PDR documentation, Human Resources expand the rating system for satisfactory performance to five performance levels and provide explicit guidance on the interpretation of each level.

Recommendation 13:

That, in the revision of the PDR documentation, Human Resources modifies the rating of poor performance in order to clearly differentiate between staff who are under-performing and are likely to benefit from ongoing development and guidance, and those with more serious performance problems.

Recommendation 14:

That Human Resources develop new guidelines to assist heads to more effectively manage the different forms of poor performance.

Recommendation 15:

That Human Resources remove the explicit listing of rewards from Section 5 and include these in more comprehensive guidelines regarding reward and recognition.

Recommendation 16:

That Human Resources include more explicit guidelines on reclassification processes in the PDR guidelines.

Recommendation 17:

That the University consider a limited permission system to enable access to specified elements of the PDR record by approved parties.

Recommendation 18:

That Human Resources, in the modification of the PDR documentation, more clearly profile the summary statement in the PDR report.

Recommendation 19:

That Human Resources amend the PDR documentation so that either reviewer or reviewee may draft the summary statement.

Recommendation 20:

That Human Resources amend the PDR documentation providing more explicit guidelines on the use and preparation of the summary statement.

Recommendation 21:

That Human Resources provide more explicit guidance on the use of the academic portfolio for PDR purposes, particularly with respect to length and purpose.

Recommendation 22:

That the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education) consider the appropriateness of accessing SPOT data for use in the PDR assessment.

Recommendation 23:

That Human Resources develop a single PDR form available online for use as a preparation, discussion and reporting tool.

Recommendation 24:

That the Director Human Resources, in consultation with relevant parties, develop an Implementation Plan establishing strategies, a timeline and resource requirements within one month.