design

Lancaster University









Designing Methods of Staff Appraisal







Guidance notes for departments and sections who wish to develop their

own approaches to staff appraisal









January 2001









Higher Education Development Centre

Section 1 Introduction



It has been recognised from research carried out in universities across the United Kingdom

that a single method of organising the process of giving feedback to staff will not be

workable. There is a wide variety of jobs in institutions ranging from those with a lengthy list

of responsibilities and a long term perspective, to those with a narrower range of tasks and/or

less need to plan ahead.

Lancaster University recognises this feature of its structure and has decided to encourage

flexibility in the way appraisal is conducted. What is required is a range of appraisal methods

that reflect the different cultures within the University. Departments and other sections who

wish to develop their own approaches to appraising and reviewing staff are free to do so, so

long as those methods are in line with the ‘Purposes and Features of Appraisal’ set out below.

Schemes should be designed in a way that makes them capable of being accessible for all

staff within that department. Through this approach departments can shape their appraisal

systems to make them relevant to organisational needs and credible in the eyes of staff.





Purposes of the Lancaster University Appraisal Scheme



The purpose of appraisal is to:

 provide every employee of the institution with the opportunity to evaluate their work

and to receive constructive and informed feedback on their performance

 clarify the goals and objectives of the department within which the employee works

and to agree personal objective related to those goals

 support individuals’ development to meet the needs of their current and future role,

according to the availability of resources





Features of the Lancaster University Appraisal Scheme



Departments who design their own schemes will need to ensure their appraisal and review

processes will deliver the following:

 all staff should receive feedback and have the opportunity to discuss their

development as part of the annual cycle of events

 all staff shall be properly prepared for appraisal via appropriate training or briefing

 appraisal should become a logical and effective part of the quality

assurance/enhancement process of the university

 all staff should negotiate clear and measurable objectives for the review period whose

achievement will contribute to the results of their department/section

 the appraisal will be managed by a member of staff trained and qualified to lead the

process

 all staff shall receive written confirmation of feedback and of the agreed objectives for

the following review period







2 Higher Education Development Centre

Criteria for Design



The criteria for the design of a method of appraisal have been agreed to be:



 It meets the purposes and features of appraisal as set out above

 It meets the needs of the appraisers by:



- gaining information about how the staff/colleagues are contributing to the

department /section

- providing the ability to conduct/lead an appraisal with confidence

- providing the opportunity to give positive feedback and recognition of

achievement and to deal with difficult issues in a constructive way



 It meets the needs of the appraisees by:



- obtaining constructive feedback on their performance

- being provided with and supported in opportunities for development consistent

with the goals of the department and the university

- actively taking responsibility for their work and their development, and the

achievement of the goals of the department in which they work.









Section 2 Notes for guidance in making a submission



This section describes how a submission should be constructed. The questions below provide

a guide to the type and amount of information that should be provided.



i) What are the Objectives the department seeks to achieve in the forthcoming

academic year?

Experience in other organisations shows that for an appraisal scheme to work effectively staff

must know and understand the Objectives the department seeks to achieve during the

academic year and beyond so that individuals can align their personal objectives to them.

For example, a ‘service’ department might want to:

 run the department within the budget constraints

 recruit one specialist in the area of ..........................

 achieve response rate to queries of 24 hours

 achieve a more flexible working pattern by enabling staff to acquire more skills



An academic department might want to:

 create a new joint honours degree course with department ........

 participate in the marketing project for postgraduate courses with association......



3 Higher Education Development Centre

 provide IT skills in ......... to all academic staff

 provide IT skills in ......... to all assistant staff

 ensure preparation for the RAE is complete by.........



ii) How will the feedback to members of staff be organised?

This refers to the structure of the appraisal within your department. It would be helpful to

draw a diagram showing which staff will receive feedback and from whom. The person

providing the feedback should be someone who has sufficient knowledge of the appraisee’s

job, be acceptable to the appraisee and has the status to provide support for any development

agreed. Please include all staff working in the department even if they are employed by

another section of the University



iii) What will happen at each stage of the appraisal process?

Issues to consider include:

 Timetable for the appraisals

 Meeting the training needs of appraisers and appraisees

 Documentation that may be needed

 Time allocation for interviews

 Confidentiality - who will have access to the appraisal records?

 Post appraisal action by the department – how will the information gained by the

appraisal round be used in departmental planning?



iv) Who will be responsible for managing the appraisal process in the department?

It is often advantageous for the various tasks that make the appraisal process effective to be

allocated to more than one person. The key tasks are:

 Taking overall responsibility

 Organising the allocation of appraisers to appraisees where required

 Setting up a timetable for appraisals, publicising it and monitoring adherence

 Collating the results in the form of the development needs for individuals and the

department as a whole

 Prioritising the delivery of development support and ensuring allocation of funds



Please allocate a name(s) against each task.









4 Higher Education Development Centre

Section 3 Models of appraisal



To enable departments to choose the most appropriate method(s) of appraisal for their staff

three base models are set out below. Each meets the criteria and is capable of being adapted to

meet the needs of departments. Departments are free to draw on these models to create a

method of appraisal for the categories of staff represented in their structure. However, if

departments wish to adopt more innovative approaches they should not feel constrained by

these models. So long as the proposed methods meet the criteria set out in Section 1 then

they will be acceptable to the University.



For example:

In an academic department teaching and research staff and technicians may opt for a version

of Model 2 based on peer feedback, whereas assistant staff may opt for Model 1 carried out

by the Head.

In a service department employing cleaning staff and clerical staff the team may feel that

Model 1 carried out by the immediate supervisors may be suited to their working practices.



Model 1: Line or one to one feedback

Feedback is given by the person to whom the staff member reports within the structure of the

University, for example, a Head of Department, a Manager, or a supervisor. The appraiser

must be someone who has the respect of the appraisee and one who has sufficient knowledge

of the work of the appraisee to provide accurate feedback.

In this model the appraisee submits evidence of achievements and details of difficulties

encountered during the year. The appraiser collects information based on his/her contact with

the appraisee and from others with whom it is agreed the appraisee has had meaningful

contact in that period.

In this way the appraiser can give accurate feedback to the appraisee based on the balance of

the information provided by the appraisee and the persons with whom he/she has worked.



Model 2: Peer Feedback

This model is suitable where individuals work as a team and where there is a significant

degree of interdependence. The appraisee nominates a number of colleagues to provide

information in respect of specific areas of work, and this feedback is collated by a senior

colleague or the supervisor or manager.

The areas of work are the ones agreed to be the most relevant by the department for that role

or type of job.

For example, academic staff may agree that they will ask for and provide comment on:

 Quality of research

 Teaching quality

 Administration

 Quality and range of external contacts

 Contribution to the team/department





5 Higher Education Development Centre

Assistant Staff may agree

 Accuracy of work carried out

 Timeliness of the work

 Staff /student contact - face to face and by telephone

 Contribution to the team/department

Each will agree to make relevant comments against each heading. The comments are collated

by the nominated appraiser and communicated to the appraisee. The agreed achievements and

difficulties encountered in each area are written on the appraisal document.



Model 3: 360 Degree Feedback

This is a complex operation requiring detailed organization and monitoring. Essentially it is a

process by which the appraisee gains feedback from a range of colleagues in the department.

For example, in an academic department a lecturer may nominate a number of peers

undertaking the same roles, the head of department, technicians and assistant staff with whom

he/she works regularly as persons to provide feedback. The feedback is usually in the form of

a standard document asking similar questions to each person and giving space for additional

comments. The information provided may be collated by the person coordinating the

appraisal process for the department and the results given to the appraisee to discuss with the

nominated appraiser.

Departments seeking to use this approach would be advised to seek assistance from HEDC in

setting up the system to ensure that it is manageable and effective



Joe Thornberry

January 2001









6 Higher Education Development Centre