Performance Management and

Development Scheme Guidelines

Dublin City University

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 1

 INDEX Page

1. Performance Management in the Third Level

Sector. 3

1.1 Background to the Introduction to a Performance

Management Scheme in the Third Level Sector 3

1.2 Key Principles of a Performance Management

and Development Scheme in the Third Level Sector 3-4

1.3 Key Benefits of the Performance Management and 4

Development Scheme

1.4 Basis of Performance Management and

Development Scheme in Dublin City University 4-5

2. The Performance Management and Development

Scheme Process 6

2.1 Who should be reviewed? 6

2.2 Who will conduct the review?
2.3 When should the Review happen? 6
2.4 Stages in the PMDS process 6

2.4(a) Pre-review Stage 6

2.4(b) The Review Meeting 7
2.4 (c) Post-review Stage 7

3. Who is involved and what is their role? 8-10

a. The Reviewee
b. The Reviewer
c. The Head of Department
d. Human Resources

4. Appeals Mechanism 10

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 2

1. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
SCHEME IN THE THIRD LEVEL SECTOR

1.1 Background to the Introduction of a Performance Management and

Development Scheme.

In accordance with the provision of the current Social Partnership Agreement,

Sustaining Progress, and the previous agreement, the Programme for Prosperity and
Fairness, the University is required to implement a ‘Performance Management
Scheme’ by January 2005. This requirement was also established as part of the Public
Service Benchmarking exercise. In line with the agreement, the University’s
Partnership Forum (http://www.dcu.ie/partnership) has facilitated the development of
a Performance Management and Development Scheme (PMDS) for DCU. Central to
the development of the scheme is the need to meet the development needs of staff
across the University, improve performance, enhance quality and promote a culture of
continuous improvement throughout the University.

Support for the introduction of PMDS has been reinforced by the feedback the
University received from a number of reviews ie. the Shape Report and the POLARIS
Equality and Review Report, in which staff clearly expressed the wish for improved
communication especially in relation to their own performance and development.

1.2 Key Principles of a Performance Management and Development Scheme

in the Third Level Sector

The key principles which underpin the Performance Management and Development
Scheme (PMDS) within a University context are as follows;

• Development of staff to reach their full potential

• Self Review/Self Assessment
• Link to Strategic Planning
• Integrated development at three levels - University, Departmental and
Individual levels
• Enhancement of Quality
• Promoting Equality

The PMDS is based upon a recognition that the University has a key role in ensuring
the alignment of the objectives of the organisation and the development needs of the
staff member within the following broad parameters:

• Setting of individual goals in agreement with a manager

• Review of agreed outcomes
• Identify development needs and agree a development programme with
the manager
• Review of the delivery of the agreed work and career objectives

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 3

Through a process of self-review/self-assessment, the PMDS will provide for a more
structured mechanism for feedback between Heads of Department/Line
Managers/Supervisors and staff members within a supportive framework. Through a
process of self-review/self-assessment, staff will have a sense of ownership and
participation in a process where discussions focus on personal, professional and
individual career development, with objectives and development needs being linked
to the overall University and Departmental objectives.

1.3 Benefits of the Performance Management and Development Scheme

Some of the key benefits of PMDS are as follows:

• Improved communication between staff at all levels

• Improved overall performance due to staff performance and development
being aligned with the departmental and university strategic plan
• Better communication of the university’s goals and values
• Better understanding of how individual staff contribute both departmental
and university activities
• Cultivating a culture of continuous improvement in line with other Quality
Assurance initiatives
• Increased opportunities for organisational learning
• Increased focus on the short-term and long-term career development of the
individual
• Improved planning at individual, departmental and university level.

1.4 Basis of the Performance Management and Development Scheme at DCU

Fundamental to the development of PMDS in the University are the following

principles:

(a) Objective Driven: The PMDS recognises that there must be a strategic
alignment between the activities of its staff with the University’s Strategic
Plan. This is achieved by assessing each staff member’s actual performance
with respect to previously established performance objectives and standards
(which were jointly agreed by the ‘reviewer’ and ‘reviewee’ at the last
performance & development review) having regard to the departmental and
university goals and objectives.

(b) Self-Review/Self-Assessment: The PMDS is a structured review process

which recognises that it is individual staff members that need to drive their
own performance and development. In order for the review system to work
effectively, staff need to take ownership of the process and self
assessment/review will be pivotal to achieving a sense of ownership and
participation. Without self-assessment/review there can be little benefit to the
individual in terms of identifying strengths and areas that need improvement.

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 4

(c) Two-way Feedback: Communication is an essential element to the success of
a Performance and Review Scheme. The PMDS opens clear channels of
communications and promotes ongoing two-way feedback between the
‘reviewer’ and the ‘reviewee’.

(d) Developmental: The PMDS acknowledges the responsibility of both staff

and management in the joint planning of career development. Individuals are
provided with the opportunity to consider their development needs for their
future career plans through the establishment of developmental objectives
which are in line with the overall University and departmental objectives.

(e) Quality: The process of PMDS holds closely the core principles of quality
assurance in that it promotes a process of continuous improvement at an individual,
departmental and University level through a mechanism of self-assessment. The
scheme provides an on-going opportunity for each department and staff
member to reflect upon his or her contribution to the university and provides a
means to improve upon this contribution within a developmental framework.

(f) Relationship to other University Policies and Procedures: The PMDS is a

developmental tool which will help improve performance. Whilst it does not
have a direct link with other University policies such as promotion, pay,
reward or the disciplinary procedure, the implementation and conduct of the
Performance Management and Development Scheme process will be carried
out with full regard to the University’s Equality Policy and its Respect &
Dignity Policy.

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 5

2. THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT SCHEME PROCESS

2.1 Who should be reviewed?

The Scheme applies to all categories and levels of staff across the University.
Staff who hold contracts of less than 2 years or who are in the probationary
process or within one year of retirement are not covered by this scheme.

2.2 Who will conduct the Reviews?

The Review meeting will be conducted by the Head of Department or by one

of a number of appropriately trained senior members of the Department who
have been nominated by the Head of Department in consultation with the
Executive Dean and the Director of Human Resources. The Reviewer will be
a key member of the department who is in a position to adequately review the
reviewee’s work. A reviewer should not conduct more than 8 reviews
annually.

2.3 When should the Review Take Place

The process will normally be conducted on an annual basis during the 4-month
period between May and August. This will help facilitate the planning
processes for training needed for the following academic year. However,
where this timeframe is not suitable for a particular School/Unit, agreement
should be sought from the Human Resources Department to agree a ‘band of
months’ when the reviews can be conducted to suit their particular workload
cycles.

2.4 Stages of the Process

There are three stages in the PMDS. They are as follows:

2.4(a) Planning and Documentation – Pre-Review Stage

Step 1: Notification from Human Resources:

The appropriate paperwork and documentation will be generated by the
Human Resources Department in advance of the ‘review period’.
• to notify the Executive Deans/Heads of Department to ‘kickstart’ the
process
• to notify staff that the process is due to start and provide relevant PMDS
documentation which can be downloaded from the HR website.

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 6

 Step 2: Planning the Process
Upon receipt of the notification from HR a meeting(s) should take place
between the Executive Dean, the Heads of School and the Reviewers to:

™ allocate appropriate ‘reviewers’ to ‘reviewees in each of the

schools
™ set broad parameters around objective setting to establish
consistency and fairness
™ agree the priorities and challenges facing the department for the
forthcoming year in order to set the context for objective
setting.

In the case of the Units, similar meetings will also be held with the
relevant reporting lines.

Step 3: Allocation of Reviewers

The Head of School/Unit will notify the reviewee who will conduct their
review. This will be copied to the ‘Reviewer’ who will initiate contact
with the reviewee to agree a mutually convenient time for the review
meeting to take place.

If the reviewee has a concern about the nominated reviewer, they should
raise this with the Head of Department in the first instance. The
reviewee should outline their concerns in full and in writing to the Head of
School/Unit, who will consider nominating an alternative reviewer if
appropriate.

Step 4: Completing the Self-Assessment Review Form:

The reviewee will conduct the self-assessment/review in advance of their
review meeting. The reviewee should forward the completed self-
assessment documentation to the reviewer ideally one week prior to the
scheduled meeting.

Note: Where a reviewee is going through the PMDS process for the first
time, they should still complete Section I of the self-assessment/review
form. The form should be completed by broadly focussing on the
progress, achievements, future plans as well as work related problems that
the reviewee encountered in the previous 12 months.

Step 5: Considering the Documentation:

The reviewer should consider the self-assessment documentation carefully
in advance of the review discussion

2.4(b) The Review Meeting

Step 6: The Meeting

The review meeting takes place and the documentation is signed off by the
reviewer, the reviewee and the Head of Department. (Please refer to the
PMDS Training Manual for full details about how the review meeting
should be conducted).

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 7

 2.4(c )Post Review Meeting & Implement the Action Plan

Step 7: Summary Report from Head of School

Once all the reviews for the department have been completed, the Head of
School/Unit should collate Section III of the review forms, ‘Planning for
Development’ and should send these to the Training & Development
Department, together with a brief, non-personalised summary on the
training and development needs for the following year.

Step 8. The Follow-Through

In order for the PMDS to succeed, it is important for the both the
University and the Head of Department to follow up on its commitment to
the development of all staff. In addition to this, the staff member also has a
responsibility to follow through on the commitments that s/he has made.

Whatever commitments have been made, it must be understood that not all
individual needs can be met given the departmental and university
priorities at any given time and the time and resources that are available.
The Training & Development Section will facilitate the Reviewer,
Reviewee and Head of Department to deliver upon these commitments.

3. Who is involved in PMDS and what is their role?

The following outlines in full all those who are involved in the review process
as well as their role

3(a) The Reviewee

As reviewees all staff will be fully trained in the PMDS to ensure that they
fully benefit from the process. The key responsibilities of the reviewee in the
performance management and development process are to:

• Contribute to the establishment of their own performance objectives in co-

operation with the reviewer
• Identify training and development needs
• Be prepared to receive relevant feedback on performance
• Act on constructive feedback given by the reviewer
• Provide feedback to the reviewer where appropriate
• Discuss any other issues which may impact on performance
• Reflect on their own performance
• Maximise their potential and help meet your career aspirations

3(b) The Reviewer

The Review will be conducted by the Head of Department or by one of a

number appropriately trained senior members of the Department who have

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 8

 been nominated by the Head of Department and who are in a position to
adequately review the reviewee’s work.

All reviewers will be fully trained in PMDS to ensure that they have a full
understanding and can effectively manage the process. The key
responsibilities of the reviewer in the performance and development process
are to:

• Agree clear priorities, directions and performance standards for the

reviewee
• Jointly agree performance objectives
• Provide guidance and coaching to the reviewee
• Evaluate performance objectives – have they been achieved?
• With reviewee arrange for feedback to be sought from appropriate sources
relating to performance
• Provide satisfactory performance development and career development
opportunities as agreed with the reviewee.

3(c)The Head of Department/ Executive Dean

The Head of Department retains full responsibility and ownership for PMDS
in their own area. Where they have not conducted the review, they still must
sign off on the completed review of each employee in their own area.

All Heads of Department will be fully trained in PMDS to ensure that they get
maximum benefit from the process. The key responsibilities of the ‘head of
department’ will be to:

• Ensure objectives established by the reviewee and reviewer are in line with
the goals and strategies of the Department and the University
• Oversee the reviewers role in relation the scheme and ensure the
nominated reviewers in their area are fully briefed about the priorities for
the Department in terms of setting and agreeing individual objectives and
• Evaluate effectiveness of scheme in their department
• Compile overall training and development plan/summary for the
department for the Training & Development Department
• Ensure PMDS in their department is conducted fairly and equitably
• Ensure that PMDS is conducted in accordance with and is informed by the
stated key values of the University.
• Feed into the ongoing review of the PMDS process by the Human
Resources Department and the Partnership Forum.

3(d) The Human Resources Department

The role of the Human Resources Department will be to co-ordinate the

process. The key responsibilities of the department will be to:

• Provide training for both the reviewer and the reviewee in PMDS

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 9

 • In conjunction with the Partnership Forum evaluate the effectiveness of the
scheme across the University
• Ensure that PMDS is conducted in accordance with and is informed by the
stated key values of the University.
• Collate Section III of the all the review forms, ‘Planning for Development’
which have been forwarded by the Head of Department with a summary
report on the developmental needs to department in the next 12 months.
This is to facilitate a more organise and planned approach to the overall
training and development needs at an individual, departmental and
university level by the Training & Development Department.
• Co-ordinate documentation for the review process

4. Appeals Mechanism
Ideally there should be no need for an appeals mechanism. However, the
reviewee can make an appeal if they do not agree with the objectives that are
being set for the following year. The appeal should be made in writing to the next
most senior member of staff within the department. If the reviewer is the Head of
Department, the appeal should be made to the next most senior member of the
Faculty/Unit. The steps outlined below should be followed:

- If agreement regarding the setting of objectives cannot be reached during

the review meeting, the meeting should be rescheduled for a later date.
This will allow both parties time out to reconsider their options in relation
to the objectives that should be set
- If, following the rescheduled meeting, agreement still cannot be reached,
the Reviewee should put the reason for the non-agreement in writing to the
Head of School
- The Head of School will meet with the Reviewer to discuss the Reviewees
concerns. Following that meeting, the Head of Department will confirm
details of his/her decision in relation to objectives being set.
- Where agreement cannot be reached between the Reviewer and the
Reviewee (where the Head of School is the Reviewer), the appeal should
be made to the next most senior member of staff ie. Executive Dean in the
Schools/Faculties.

If the reviewee or the reviewer does not agree with any other aspect of the PMDS
(other than the objectives and/or the nominated reviewer) they can record their
views in the PMDS documentation.

If a reviewee has a concern about a nominated reviewer, they should raise this
with the Head of Department in the first instance. The Head of Department will
then allocate one of the other nominated reviewers to conduct the review.
However, as the Head of Department has full responsibility and ownership of
PMDS within their own area, they must sign off on the completed review
discussion of each employee, including the reviews which they have not directly
conducted themselves.

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 10

DCU – Performance Management and Development Scheme 11