PERSONAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR TEACHING AND RESEARCH STAFF
Personal performance evaluation
The evaluation criteria / factors
The evaluation scale
The personal performance evaluation system comprises the procedures for evaluating the performance of individuals, the associated evaluation factors and the evaluation scale. The impact of personal performance on the personal salary element is stipulated in the collective agreement.
The evaluation is an important element in the work of supervisors and staff administration, and in interaction between individual employees and their supervisors. A successful evaluation requires careful preparation.
1. Personal performance evaluation
The personal salary element is based on how individual employees have performed the duties assigned to them in a work plan or in some other corresponding manner. An evaluation of personal performance and merits will allow for the operating environment and for the nature and scope of international activities and interaction that the job requires.
The personal performance of teaching and research staff is evaluated as an overall assessment in relation to the work plan. The performance criteria applicable to the individual are determined on the basis of duties, having regard to any individual facts concerning the particular university in question. If the duties of an individual involve only teaching or only research, then performance will be evaluated solely on the basis of these duties.
The evaluation is performed as a joint overall assessment under all of the main criteria on a scale of 1-9, which directly determines the employee’s performance level.
The merits associated with personal performance are collated and documented over at least the past two years to serve as the basis for evaluation. Any specific level criteria applied at individual universities must be determined before beginning the performance evaluation.
The teaching and research staff member will list his or her job-related merits (publications, pedagogical merits etc.) before the evaluation discussion. The supervisor will review the merits and apply them when formulating a proposed evaluation of performance and performance level. Reasons shall be given in particular for unusual evaluations of job performance that satisfy the job requirements. If the performance level is 1 or 2, then measures for supporting improved performance shall be mutually agreed.
The employer will thereafter, in accordance with the evaluation practice of the university, evaluate performance by comparing the merits for positions with the merit levels of other employees working in corresponding fields, in the same job requirement groups, and in positions of a corresponding type. In other words, the merits of an employee working at a certain level will be compared to the merits of other employees working in positions with equivalent requirements.
If the outcome of the evaluation does not accord with the employee’s own view of his or her performance, then the employee will enter his or her own view and the reasons for it in the evaluation summary.
2. The evaluation criteria / factors
The main criteria of personal performance evaluation for teaching and research staff are:
- Pedagogical merit
- Research merit
- University community and social merit
Personal performance is evaluated in relation to duties and to the work plan or to objectives assigned in some other corresponding manner.
Examples of factors to be considered when evaluating the pedagogical merits of an employee:
- teaching skills
- pedagogical competence and training, and its application in teaching
- other acquired competence benefiting teaching and skills gained through teaching experience
- enhancement of teaching and participation in general teaching development duties
- student counselling, progress of studies and degrees completed by students
- creation of teaching materials
- participation in international teaching
- receipt of awards and distinctions related to teaching
- creation, maintenance and participation in networks related to teaching
Examples of factors to be considered when evaluating the research merits of an employee:
- academic or artistic publications (especially refereed publications)
- international research collaboration
- counselled postgraduate studies and doctoral theses
- procurement and management of external funding
- acquired academic or artistic qualifications (degrees or adjunct professorships)
- academic or artistic specialist duties (serving as doctoral dissertation opponent, issuing statements)
- esteem earned in the academic or university community
- receipt of awards and distinctions related to academic or artistic activities
- artistic merit will also be considered under guidelines for the individual university.
Evaluation of the research merits of doctoral students will consider progress in the thesis under the plan of research and other success in preparing the thesis (dissertation, etc.).
University community and social merit
Examples of factors to be considered when evaluating the university community and social merits of an employee:
- commitment to work and workplace
- participation in university community duties
- co-operation skills
- co-operation with stakeholders to the extent required by the position
- specialist duties in society
Employees working in supervisory capacities will be evaluated for success and improvement in supervisory and leadership work (including participation in supervisory and leadership training), for supervisory skills in general, and for the ability to serve as an academic leader. The evaluation will consider how the supervisor supports, encourages and motivates employees to achieve their objectives and how the supervisor fosters a positive, effective and productive workplace.
An evaluation will also be made of overall economy and care in the use of resources in all functions falling with the employee’s sphere of responsibility.
3. The evaluation scale
The evaluation scale is as follows:
||The employee’s performance is excellent and clearly exceeds all job requirements and the quantitative and qualitative objectives assigned to the employee.
||The employee’s performance satisfies all job requirements very well. The performance exceeds the quantitative and qualitative objectives assigned to the employee in many respects.
||The employee’s performance satisfies the job requirements and the objectives assigned to the employee well. Performance attains a high quality standard in key fields of duty.
||The employee’s performance satisfies the basic job requirements and the principal objectives assigned to the employee. Some aspects of performance are nevertheless in need of improvement.
||There is a substantial need for improvement in the employee’s performance.