Figure 7.1 gives an overview of all the elements in performance review. This chapter now goes on to analyse another block of questions that sought to ascertain details about the content of performance reviews. Note that some small differences occur between the data in Figure 8.1 and this section. The reason for such differences is unclear. These questions have, for the most part, been grouped together thematically.
8.4.1 Content of performance reviews
When asked about the content of their performance reviews (table 8.1), not surprisingly, research output rated the highest inclusion (91%) followed by student evaluation of teaching (81%). Two items that relate to the development of the academic, namely career development (44%) and skill development (36%), received very low response rates.
Table 8.1 Questions related to the content of performance reviews
Content Statements Generally agree Neither agree nor disagree Generally disagree
Research output forms part of my performance
Table 8.1 Questions related to the content of performance reviews (continued) Content Statements Generally agree Neither agree nor disagree Generally disagree
Student evaluations of teaching form part of
my performance review 80.5% (70) 6.9% (6) 12.6% (11)
Career development forms part of my
performance review 44.0% (37) 10.7% (9) 45.2% (38)
Skill development forms part of my
performance review 35.6% (31) 13.8% (12) 50.6% (44)
8.4.2 Objective setting
Academics were asked about how their objectives were set; did they set them or were they set by either their supervisor or the university. There does however, appear to be an apparent contradiction with the duality of responses to ‘mandated objective setting’ and ‘mutual objective setting’ (table 8.2). This might be explained by comments such as, “ I am not sure one could say there is mutuality of goal setting. I set goals with my supervisor, signed and shook hands on it and then the dean said it was not done properly and suggested some goals that "should” be there. What the hell is that?’ And, ‘The objectives are set by the organisation and despite rhetoric are not mutual in its true sense of the word.’ Another possibility might be that, within the one review, some objectives were mandated but others were constructed jointly by the supervisor and academic or that people were confused or pressured into accepting their goals.
Table 8.2 Items related to objective setting
Objective Setting Is included Don’t know Is not included
Mutual objective setting and review 74.7% (59) 8.9% (7) 16.4% (13) Mandated objective setting and review 60.5% (46) 14.5% (11) 25.0% (19)
8.4.3 Rewards
As evidenced in Table 8.3, a clear majority of respondents indicated that neither financial nor non-financial rewards are included in their performance review. However,
an academic’s work practices and may not have been viewed as fitting within the scope of performance reviews in some universities. As a result they may have appeared elsewhere in the EBA. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that there needs to be a link between performance reviews and rewards (Gomez-Mejia 1990; Henderson 1997; Grant 1998; De Cieri et al. 2007; Smith, 2008). Failure to provide such rewards raises concern about the efficacy of the process as well as acceptance by the participants. However, one form of ‘reward’ that is evident is the link between performance review and incremental salary progression with a large cohort identifying that their performance review links directly to incremental salary progression. What is also interesting to note is that financial rewards appear to be available to some academics, however the nature of those financial rewards could not be ascertained. Bonuses are available to some academics, most probably at senior level, where such things form part of their employment package.
Table 8.3 Items related to rewards
Items related to Rewards
Is included Don’t know Is not included Performance-related pay 17.7% (14) 11.4% (9) 70.9% (56) Bonuses 5.1% (4) 5.1% (4) 89.8% (70)
Links to incremental salary progression 42.9% (33) 11.7% (9) 45.4% (35) Links to financial rewards 21.3% (16) 14.7% (11) 64.0% (48)
Questions related to Non-financial Rewards
Is included Don’t know Is not included
Links to leave entitlements 18.4% (14) 19.8% (15) 61.8% (47)
Conference leave 22.4% (17) 13.1% (10) 64.5% (49)
Conference travel 20.8% (16) 15.6% (12) 63.6% (49)
8.4.4 Employee development
A major tenet underpinning the introduction of performance management for academics was that it should be developmental in focus. Therefore an examination of those elements that support development is important (table 8.4). With the exception of personal development plans and career management to some degree, there is not a lot of evidence to suggest that other employee development items are included in performance reviews (table 8.4). Of the 47 employees who had personal development plans, 25 of them (53.2%)(not shown) also had career management plans. In other words 61.8% had
personal development plans in the performance review but only half of those had career development discussions.
It is interesting to note the large number of respondents who do not have access to employee counselling (63%), coaching and mentoring (63%) links to promotion (50%) and ‘remedial’ assistance (53%) as part of their performance review process. All of these items could be regarded as providing the support or motivation necessary to develop the individual yet they are clearly missing from the reviews; however, some may be available in other forums. Couple this with the large number of ‘don’t know’ responses to these questions and there appears to be a lack of communication between either the supervisor, HR and the academic about the function of their performance review and what is available either directly or indirectly.
Table 8.4 Items related to employee development
Questions related to Employee Development Is included Don’t know Is not included
Coaching and mentoring 28.2% (22) 9.0% (7) 62.8% (49)
Career management 40.3% (31) 9.1% (7) 50.6% (39)
Personal development plans 61.8% (47) 7.9% (6) 30.3% (23)
Links to promotion 30.8% (24) 19.2% (15) 50.0% (39)
Employee counselling 15.8% (12) 21.0% (16) 63.2% (48) Remedial assistance 21.1% (16) 26.3% (20) 52.6% (40)
8.4.5 Discipline
Quite divergent responses were obtained from the items related to discipline (table 7.5). This might be explained by the fact that many universities handle issues to do with ‘unsatisfactory performance’ within the performance review process, while ‘employee discipline’ is addressed outside the performance review process. This provides support to Hoare’s (1995, p 17) recommendation that ‘…decisions on matters such, increments, tenure, contract renewal and the management of diminished or unsatisfactory performance…currently undertaken in a disparate manner, should be brought together’. Half the respondents indicated that unsatisfactory performance is discussed at performance reviews. That is a large number, particularly when the reviews are supposed to be developmental in nature. It may be that either, this group have experienced discussions related to employee discipline as part of their performance
review or know of its inclusion while the remainder have not had such discussions or they did not know if it is included or, assume it is not included.
Table 8.5 Items related to discipline and unsatisfactory performance
Discipline and Unsatisfactory Performance
Is included Don’t know Is not included Employee discipline 23.7% (18) 34.2% (26) 42.1% (32) Unsatisfactory performance 51.9% (40) 32.5% (25) 15.6% (12) 8.4.6 Workloads
With universities now under financial pressure to produce quality research outcomes, it is not surprising that research output appears in 86% of academics performance reviews. Administrative responsibilities also rates very highly with 70% of academics indicating that this is an integral part of their review process. Such administrative responsibilities can be expected to appear in more performance reviews as universities respond to government demands for greater accountability and quality improvement both of which are monitored through agencies such as AUQA. Community work, or Service as it is sometimes referred too, also rates highly in performance reviews while industry placement discussions are rare. As identified previously, while some teaching loads are discussed in performance reviews, many universities have these discussions in other forums, hence the reason for only a 56% response rate to this question. Somewhat surprising was the high response for ‘Other’, the nature of which was not identified in the instrument. However, it is possible that this included Outside Studies Program (OSP) or sabbatical leave neither of which were listed in the question.
Table 8.6 Items related to workloads
Workload Items Is included Don’t know Is not included Teaching loads 56.6% (43) 6.6% (5) 36.8% (28) Research output 85.9% (67) 3.8% (3) 10.3% (8) Community work 61.5% (48) 10.3% (8) 28.2% (22) Industry placement 3.9% (3) 28.2% (22) 67.9% (53)
Table 8.6 Items related to workloads (continued) Workload Items Is included Don’t know Is not included Administrative responsibilities 70.5% (55) 5.1% (4) 24.4% (19) Other 50.0% (6) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2)
8.5 Summary
This study found that the needs of the university predominate performance review discussions. In terms of objective setting, academics indicated that their performance reviews were a combination of both mandated and mutual objective setting. Rewards emanating from performance reviews are mainly limited to areas such as incremental salary progression with more direct financial rewards being limited to a few senior academics. Some universities have attempted to include personal development and career development within their performance reviews but this is not widespread and the support mechanisms that underpin such development, namely, coaching counselling, mentoring and ‘remedial’ assistance, are lacking. It is also evident that a large number of academics are unsure about the content of their performance review, indicating a lack of communication from either HR or their supervisor, about the function of the process. However, a surprisingly high number of academics indicated that unsatisfactory performance was in their performance reviews. Whether this knowledge was from direct experience or knowledge about the process is unclear.
Historically, administrative tasks required of academics were incidental to their teaching and research. Evidence here shows that administrative tasks are now an intrinsic part of an academic’s workload.