Appendix 4 Evaluating the Personal Work Performance of University General Staff
The personal work performance of university personnel is to be evaluated using a scheme based on evaluation methods, factors and an evaluation scale. The impact of personal work performance on employees’ personal wage component will be agreed on in the Collective Agreements for State Employees.
Evaluation methods
Employees’ personal work performance is to be evaluated in conjunction with their annual assessment discussion. The evaluation focuses on the employee’s performance in his/her duties and the objectives set in the previous development discussion. Development discussions are an important part of the work of supervisors and staff in personnel management, as is the interaction between an employee and his/her supervisor.
A successful development discussion requires careful preparation. An employee can prepare for the discussion by evaluating his/her performance in advance, for instance. Time should be set aside for the discussion so that neither party is distracted by other tasks.
The employee and supervisor decide which evaluation scheme for the personal work performance is appropriate. The supervisor is responsible for the evaluation of the employee’s performance. The supervisor records the results of the evaluation and related information on the evaluation form. The employee will receive a copy of this form. If the supervisor’s evaluation does not correspond with the employee’s own evaluation, the employee’s own evaluation and reasons should also be noted. The supervisor will propose a suitable performance level on the basis of the evaluation, and will confirm the performance evaluation and level.
Any disagreement relating to the personal work performance evaluation should be dealt with on the request of the employee or his/her union representative (acting on his/her behalf) with the supervisor or any other representative of the employer responsible for salary system issues.
Evaluation factors
- Proficiency
1.1 Skills, for example:
- overall mastery of the tasks; knowledge, skills, methods and tools
- maintaining professional skills
- ability to focus on what is important
1.2 Focus, for example:
- responding to new challenges and ideas; attitude towards new tasks and practices
- active role in developing the job
- developing professional knowledge and skills
1.3 Multi-disciplinary skills / specialisation, for example:
- special skills or expertise possibly unrelated to the job but beneficial to the work community
- Responsibility and activity in the work community
- 2.1 Initiative, for example:
- taking initiatives at work
- taking initiatives in developing working practices and the work community
2.2 Cooperation skills, for example:
- how the person cooperates within the work community and with outside parties and interest groups
- promoting unity and a good atmosphere
- how the person acts in conflict situations
2.3 Commitment to the job and the work community, for example:
- developing the work community
- observing common practices
- commitment to tasks and the objectives of the work community
- participating in performance of university community tasks
For example the following should be taken into account when evaluating the cooperation skills and commitment of supervisors:
- supporting, encouraging and motivating employees in pursuing their goals
- creating a positive, functioning and productive work community
- Quality and results
- 3.1 Productivity, for example:
- achievement of objectives related to e.g. quantity or schedules
3.2 Quality of work, for example:
- work quality with regard to the requirements and objectives
3.3 Efficiency and effectiveness, for example:
- carrying out tasks in an economical way
- careful use of resources
Evaluation scale
Personal work performance is to be evaluated factor by factor (sections 1.1. – 3.3.) on a scale of 1 – 5.
The employee’s personal objectives refer to the objectives set during the development discussion with their supervisor.
All evaluations are to be justified. If the overall evaluation indicates that a satisfactory level has been attained, or the employee’s performance requires development, the employee and supervisor should agree on practical measures to improve performance.
5 points Outstanding performance. The person’s work performance clearly exceeds all the performance requirements and personal objectives related to the job, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
4 points Above expectations. The person’s work performance meets the job requirements very well. Work performance exceeds the personal objectives related to the job both qualitatively and quantitatively on many counts.
3 points Good; according to expectations. The person’s work performance meets the performance requirements and personal objectives related to the job. High-quality performance in the key areas of the job.
2 points Satisfactory performance. The person’s work performance meets the basic performance requirements and main personal objectives related to the job. However, some aspects of the performance might need to be developed.
1 point Development required. The person’s work performance needs to be significantly developed. The performance does not meet the requirements or performance level that can reasonably be expected.