|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2015 9:42:49 GMT
The University has put forward a new capability policy. The document has been circulated to you by email. We would like to have your opinion about this policy and this forum has been set up especially for you to discuss it. Please be considerate and polite in your contributions. This thread is moderated and any offensive posts will be removed. Should you persist in posting offensive material you will be banned from the discussions. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Hayward on Feb 10, 2015 12:49:32 GMT
Some of terms in the section on ‘General Principles’ seem so vague as to allow for rather too much interpretation; for example: the reference in point 4 to ‘ the needs of the faculty …’ As defined without proper reference to academic staff and where they could, conceivably, result in a perceived conflict of interest between these ‘needs’ and a colleague’s professional standards/ethics? The reference in point 6 to being unable to meet objectives agreed .. ‘or communicated via the line manager’ - what does that mean – that objectives can simply be imposed upon colleagues, even if they have serious reservations? And being ‘unable to follow policies & procedures’ is also of concern when such is the volume of new and amended practices at times that individuals are overwhelmed and could easily overlook some latest set of requirements. Some of these policies and procedures are poorly, or not at all, communicated (as, for example, such a crucial procedure as putting a programme into the failing category!). It isn’t sufficient to just copy every colleague into e-mails and claim that everyone should know about every policy & procedure. Let’s not forget the very critical staff survey on the issue of communication. Another concern is in the way Principal Lecturers and above have, over the past year or so, turned into ‘line managers’ with no proper discussion & no description of what that role entails and with little training beyond the tokenistic ‘appraiser training’. Are they to be the ‘line managers’ referred to in this document? I hope not, given the potential conflict with role as appraiser.
|
|
|
Post by Biddy Casselden on Feb 10, 2015 14:03:20 GMT
Re:
6. Examples where performance falls short of standards required includes situations where the member of staff, without relevant reasons, is:
• unable to meet key objectives, which have been agreed at the appraisal or communicated via the line manager. • unable to demonstrate a competent all round performance against the standards set, where the workload is reasonable and balanced. • unable to reach the standard of behaviour expected in dealing with internal and external stakeholders (e.g. good customer service). • unable to follow policies and procedures (e.g. finance or system rules). • preventing colleagues from doing their work. • making significant errors.
I worry that this will depend on the interpretationn of whoever is carrying out this assessment of performance. Customer service is worrying, when we know that our 'customers' are not always rational in their thinking - what they perceive to be poor customer service, may actually be about them not engaging fully - as they are not really 'customers'. I worry that the key objectives set at appraisal are constrined by the new appraisal process, and may be unachieveable. What happens when a 'policy' or 'procedure' is flawed - and has not been introduced with any sort of input from those who are actually affected by it - but simply imposed, as many procedures seem to be? I worry that being unable to follow a potentially flawed procedure is seen as a failing - it may not be?
Therefore - there are a lot of unknowns here - and quite a bit that could potentially be an issue depending on how it is interpreted by a line manager.
|
|