Newcastle University is implementing a new ‘Conversations and Priorities’ system to shift focus from performance assessment to staff development. Below I reflect on the opportunities it offers staff, but also discuss how focusing on priorities can be another form of performance management.

Written by Isabel Smallegange, Senior Lecturer at Newcastle University. See here for her previous blog posts.

Performance and development reviews (PDRs) can be a source of frustration for both employees and their line managers if they perceive it as a box ticking exercise with no meaningful or positive outcome. However, a system that focuses on annual consultations, with careful planning, conduct and follow-up, can lead to positive results for all concerned.

‘Conversations and Priorities’ at Newcastle University offer opportunities

‘Conversations and Priorities’ will replace PDRs as Newcastle University aims colleagues “to have timely and relevant conversations that help agree priorities, align contributions, focus development, share feedback, celebrate achievements, build careers and support wellbeing” (see here [internal link]).

The focus of these conversations between a staff member and their line manager is to agree upon priorities. This is a good system for academic colleagues to help identify and achieve the goals that are essential for their career progression. That is, as long as the priorities are aligned with the University Vision and Values and the staff member’s unit’s strategic goals and key objectives. And herein lies the crux.

Setting priorities to strategic goals

By aligning priorities with targets in a strategic plan, Newcastle University hopes to ensure that staff work on what matters and that their goals contribute to achieving the University’s strategic priorities. For example, it sees the conversations as an opportunity for managers to engage their team by giving them direction, motivation and a frame of reference for success. But when discussing a colleague’s academic priorities, is each manager able to, and comfortable with assessing strategic targets against a colleague’s competencies? Even if managers are happy to conduct such assessments, the conversation will also reveal to what extent a colleague’s competencies match the targets of the strategic plan: what happens if mismatches are identified?

How reciprocal are the conservations?

Essential topics to be discussed in a conversation should be workload, feedback to the line manager, career development and, if applicable, teaching, management and supervision of PhD students. Importantly, a conversation should have a reciprocal nature to provide colleagues an opportunity to speak out.

Compared to the old PDR system, Newcastle University emphasizes that the new system “offers a toolkit of resources to help colleagues have a variety of different conversations – from priority and goal setting, career development, wellbeing to simple check ins” (see the FAQs – what is different about this new approach?). Feedback by the line manager on a colleague’s performance is part of this, but not vice versa. If the system does not provide a platform for colleagues to give their life manager feedback, it can quite easily revert back to a performance assessment, especially because of its emphasis on assessing individual priorities against the University’s strategic targets.

Finally

This move to Conservations and Priorities reminds me of when my previous employer, the University of Amsterdam, linked annual consultations to its strategic personnel planning. The conclusion I reached then is one that still holds. Conversations, or annual consultations, can have a significant positive effect on all concerned. But linking individual competencies and priorities to strategic targets means that that these conversations can become a performance assessment, as the reciprocity inherent to an annual consultation falls away. An institute scientific day or retreat can be an effective way to identify new developments and targets in research, teaching and impact. But reaching these targets does not require an annual consultation system. The annual consultation system should remain a tool for (academic) staff to navigate their career path, supported by their line managers, through reciprocal feedback.