The Proposed Performance and Development Review System for University College Cork has its foundation in Sustaining Progress, which envisages a modernisation of the public service. In the higher education sector there has been increased pressure reflected in the growing demands on staff. In conjunction with this, there has an increased need for performance and financial management systems to be operational. A focus on the development of a performance and development review system for UCC also arises from the
Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, in which it was agreed that proposals for developmental review would be outlined and determined in consultation with the Partnership
Steering Group. This developmental review will be applicable to all UCC staff, irrespective of role, grade or location.
‘It is essential that modern and appropriate performance and accountability systems are in place, at individual and organizational levels to ensure that the full potential contribution of all those who work in the public service can be realized and to ensure that resources are used effectively in line with defined national priorities. Robust performance and financial management systems are essential in this regard. Where these are not already in place, the parties agree that appropriate performance management systems will be introduced so that developed performance management systems will be fully operating in each sector of the public service by 1 st January, 2005.’ Sustaining Progress 20.7
The enhancement of quality, the development of staff and the embracing of responsibility are pivotal to achieving the agenda for modernisation under Sustaining Progress. This in turn requires an organisational as well as an individual response. The development of staff and the deliverance of a quality service at UCC is a joint responsibility shared by individual staff members, managers and supervisors, and the institution as a whole. Therefore, it is recognised that the responsibility of all managers and supervisors for the development and review of their staff. Equally, it recognises the role of the individual staff member in their own development in line with the strategic priorities of their department and university. The review process should allow self-assessment and constructive discussion within departments leading to the identification of developmental needs and supports. This will facilitate the progression and maintenance of contribution to a quality service at UCC, through the strategic development of staff in line with departmental and university priorities.
1

For the university to make further advances towards its objective of delivering a quality service, it is necessary to both improve communication with employees and further advance staff development. It is necessary to forge even stronger links between individual contribution and the university’s strategic ambitions. A means of achieving this is through a review process of all staff members’ performance and development. It is acknowledged that each member of staff has a contribution to make in improving the service, enhancing their role and themselves in the process. It is also recognised that impediments to delivering a quality service may exist. By engagement in the process these can be identified along with ways towards overcoming them.
It is acknowledged that such a system should complement, not displace, good current practice, e.g. where department heads and supervisors regularly consult their colleagues, but to build on past achievements and support existing excellence through providing a structured review and record of that process. The following paper presents the fundamental principles upon which the system is being developed along with a proposed approach to the operation of the system.
Four general principles underpin the development of a review system for UCC, namely:
1.
Self assessment
2.
Development at university, department and individual levels
3.
Facilitation of staff in reaching their full potential
4.
A means of enhancing quality
2

1.
By review we mean a planned formal process of self-evaluation and structured discussion aimed at personal, professional and individual career development. It is not meant to be a judgmental process but a developmental process driven by the individual. It is an open, regular and systematic discussion of how the individual might enhance their role. The review process should be seen as providing a means by which individual contributions are recognised, to provide feedback on individual performance, to assist members of staff to develop their potential and overcome problems in agreed ways, which they have helped to define. In doing so, individuals take responsibility for their own learning and development, and for their role in the successful operation of the university. Within such a system not all individual needs can be met, given the limited resources available, priority usually being given to clearly related strategic goals. The reviewer’s role is to help the individual staff member to assess their own performance and development regularly and fairly and help set and review objectives, placing a focus on self-review, objective setting and the extent to which objectives were achieved. Where objectives were not met possible reasons can be discussed together in a constructive manner.
2.
One of the main purposes of the review system is to provide a systematic means not only to review past achievements and responsibilities, but also to consider future developments at all levels within the university. At departmental level the review system can help identify, agree and plan staff development activity, which in turn can lead to improved departmental planning. It also can facilitate a better understanding of how all staff members contribute to the department’s activities. By engagement in the process a greater input from all staff can aid improved communication between all staff members. Therefore, allowing development at a departmental level through informed and structured discussion. Reflective of the review process for departmental staff, Heads of Departments will also engage in a review process to enhance their role in the university. Participation of all university staff members in the review process will allow an inclusive framework supporting continuous development by encouraging a culture of ongoing feedback, recognising achievement and promoting development and continuous learning.
3

Staff development at an individual level is an integral part of this process. Fundamentally, it provides a regular opportunity to talk about work, progress, achievements, and future plans.
The review discussion can be an opportunity to give praise and recognition for achievements and positive initiatives at an individual level.
3.
Another fundamental principle upon which the performance review system is being developed is the recognition that all staff, regardless of grade or staff category, have the ability to reach their full potential in their area of work. The university is central to enabling staff to find ways in achieving their full potential in line with the university’s strategic plan.
The review is a forum in which clarification of what is expected in the job can take place. It can also bring about an improved understanding of departmental objectives and priorities and how individual work and responsibilities relate to these.
It is acknowledged, particularly in such a dynamic environment that strengths and weaknesses may exist at the individual, department and university level. The review process can allow the identification of these within a supportive framework. In order to achieve ones full potential a need for help, advice or training may be a way forward identified by engagement in the process. Ways of improving the service the university provides to both its staff and students, identified during the review process, can be shared within departments and across the university. Recognition of abilities and contribution can be imparted through acknowledgement and appreciation at the review. Short-term and long-term career development is crucial to ensuring continued development. The review allows an increased focus on career development and an improved understanding of the context in which the work is undertaken. It is also an opportunity to discuss work-related problems, difficulties that may be in the way of goal achievement. Possible solutions can be identified and implemented together.
4.
The development of staff and the deliverance of a quality service at UCC is a joint responsibility shared by individual staff members, managers and supervisors, and the institution as a whole. The review mechanism is a joint process that enables supervisors and
4

their staff to agree together relevant objectives, which are clearly linked to the university and their department’s goals along with any associated support that is needed.
Commitment to good practice and staff development is underpinned in the University’s
Strategic Plan, its HR strategy and Staff Development Policy. This is seen as an on-going process of continuous improvement. However, it was recognised that all staff need to be given appropriate support and encouragement and allocated reasonable time and resources for this purpose. Following from the benefits of the quality review process the proposed performance and development system will provide an on-going opportunity for each department and their staff members to take time to consider their contribution to the university and how this contribution could be enhanced within a developmental framework.
In essence, it will help people identify for themselves how they are contributing and how they can do this better.
To ensure the on-going value and quality of the review process, its implementation will itself be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it remains relevant to the university and individual staff members.

The timing of reviews wherever possible is aligned with the university’s planning processes to ensure relevance and applicability. Reviews are conducted according to University policy
(currently once every two years and on an annual basis if requested by the staff member) and must be accessible to all staff. Procedures for all categories of staff resemble each other in their core contents, but vary, as necessary, to take account of different responsibilities, management structures, and career aspirations. Where a member of staff is responsible to more than one department s/he is normally reviewed in the department to which s/he has principal responsibility.
A fundamental aspect of a review is objective setting. An objective is a target an individual intends to achieve through a plan. It is an undertaking that supports the department and university’s goals. No matter what type of objective that is set, it is important that it is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and that a clear time frame for accomplishment is specified.
5

In reviewing performance and development a number of specific approaches are possible.
The most common being line-manager review, peer review and 360° review.
 Line manager review - one-to-one feedback and discussion between the reviewee and his/her supervisor.

Peer review – feedback and discussion between a colleague in the same or similar area of expertise.
 360-degree review – feedback is gained from those who work over, with and for the reviewee, i.e. reviewee’s superiors, colleagues, and subordinates.
Having carefully considered possible approaches that can be taken, the Partnership
Committee agreed that employees of UCC should be given the option of choosing between a
Line Manager Review and a Peer Review involving discussion with a ‘Peer Committee’. The
Line Manager approach would involve the reviewee meeting with his/her manager or supervisor. The Peer Committee approach would involve the presence of the person to whom the reviewee reports in an ex officio role, and another person of the department, who may or may not be the Head of Department , in an ex officio role, and at the request of the reviewee, a third member. This third member would be representative of the reviewee’s grade and selected at random from a panel of trained reviewers established through nomination by each staff category.
Initially, a self- review takes place where the reviewee reflects upon their own performance, together with any issues or constraints they have experienced. This is returned to the Line
Manager or Peer Committee. A few weeks prior to the review discussion a date for the meeting is set. The review discussion then takes place reflecting the content of the pre – review preparation documentation ( self review).
The result of the review discussion is a record of clear and specific agreed outcomes. The documented record of the discussion is forwarded to the reviewee for agreement, upon which it is signed and returned it to the Line
Manager or Peer Committee. The Head of Department countersigns to indicate that the objectives and the action plan as set out are acceptable to the department. The Head of
Department then collates the outcomes arising from all reviews and compiles a brief, nonpersonalised, summary of collective needs and issues highlighted by the process. This summary will allow the formulation of targeted interventions such as training. Any disagreements that may arise are referred to the Peer Committee for consideration.
6


In the spirit of a developmental approach to review, there is no direct connection between review and separate policies or procedures, namely: disciplinary, pay, promotion and grading procedures. The review discussion could be an appropriate forum for discussing marginal under-performance in a constructive and helpful way, but there are separate policies and procedures more appropriate to dealing with consistent under-performance – i.e. the
University’s Disciplinary Procedure. In some instances the process could focus thoughts on career advancement and could inform preparation of an application for promotion.
7