1/09/2010
PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR)
Policy
1. Commitment to Enhancing Performance
Lancaster University’s ambitious plans mean that we expect consistently high standards of
performance and behaviour from all of our staff. The Performance and Development Review is a
critical process for enhancing individual and organisational performance.
The aim of PDR is to:
 Provide the link between organisational/faculty/departmental & individual goals.
 Clarify role expectations & performance required.
 Facilitate the giving/receiving of feedback.
 Support individuals in planning & fulfilling their ongoing development.
 Offer an opportunity to discuss individual circumstances & wider experiences at work.
 Contribute to the support of individuals and their departments as roles, expectations and
structures change.
For the majority of staff, Reviewers and Reviewees should be engaged in discussions throughout the
year about objectives, performance & development. Regular informal discussions are particularly
important for staff members who are new in post, junior in their career path, working in an area
undergoing significant change, or in circumstances where a Reviewee or Reviewer feel it necessary.
The formal PDR meeting is a culmination of these regular discussions, drawing together the threads
of the ongoing conversations.
2. Eligibility
All Lancaster University staff employed for more than 12 months continuously, including those on
fixed-term contracts, are expected to take part in Performance and Development Review. New
starters in support areas should have objectives set using an ‘Initial PDR form (for new starters)’.
New academic staff should have their objectives set via a Probationary Agreement.
Circumstances may arise that prevent a member of staff from participating in the normal PDR round,
for example, maternity leave, long term sickness absence, transfer to a new role. The Head of
Department will deal with these situations on an individual basis; however, PDR discussions setting
objectives for the future should occur as soon as is reasonably practicable.
3. PDR Cycle
The PDR year runs from 1 August to 31 July. Faculties/Divisions and their departments have
flexibility within this timeframe to schedule their cycle of PDRs. Where significant changes to
objectives occur mid-year, they should be captured in writing (possibly involving the need for a
formal mid-year PDR discussion & document).
4. Identification of reviewers
Reviewers need to have sufficient knowledge of the individual’s general area of work and the
individual’s role, the needs, priorities and resources of the department, and either has the authority
to make commitments, or understands the process for resolution of requests for which they do not
have the authority. For roles that are ‘remote’ or the main interaction is with a stakeholder group,
1/09/2010
Reviewers should request feedback from stakeholders in advance of a Performance Development
Review.
In non-academic departments the line manager will be the reviewer. In academic areas the Heads
of Department may delegate review responsibility to a small pool of reviewers who may be peers of
the reviewee. Generally, a reviewer should be responsible for reviewing no more than 8 staff, but
circumstances and needs will vary from area to area.
Reviewer
Pro Chancellor
Vice Chancellor
Deans
Chief Operating Officer
Directors
Heads of Department (& delegated others)
Principal investigators
Heads of function and line managers
Pro Vice Chancellor
Reviewee
Vice Chancellor
UMAG Members & other direct reports
Academic HoDs and Associate Deans
Divisional Directors
Heads of function
All departmental academic staff and
Departmental Officers
Research staff
All other staff
College Principals
In circumstances where the Head of Department is a Senior Lecturer, and there are Professors in the
department, the HoD should liaise with the Dean, and agree a way forward which could include:
 Supporting the HoD in undertaking the reviews.
 The HoD and Dean identifying another person to be involved in the PDR discussion,
alongside the HoD.
 The HoD and Dean identifying another person to conduct the review discussion, though both
Reviewee and Reviewer should confirm that they are happy with the arrangement.
In exceptional circumstances an individual in an academic area may request an alternative reviewer
to the one they have been allocated, giving their reasons. The HOD will carefully consider such
requests, and make a decision in consultation with their HR Partner.
5. PDR for teams/staff in similar or identical roles
Where a large number of staff undertake similar or identical roles, it may be appropriate to adjust
some aspects of the PDR scheme. This would only normally apply to staff at grades 1, 2 or 3.
HoDs/Functional Managers may identify such situations and raise the prospect with their HR Partner
to agree the appropriate approach and documentation.
A team approach to PDR may include:
 Creating a set of common objectives that apply to all within the group (perhaps
supplemented with one or two objectives regarding specific projects or initiatives charged to
individual members of the team). The reviewer will normally need to shape the objectives;
however, the team or group should feed into this process. This is best undertaken by
bringing the group together, exploring what the team is expected to achieve and how this
could be measured, together with discussion and agreement around the pre-formulated
objectives.
 Undertaking a team review, where the progress of the team is assessed.
If a team approach is adopted, reviewees are still expected to have a tailored development plan that
focuses on their individual needs, and a one-to-one PDR discussion would still take place at the
request of the Reviewee or Reviewer.
1/09/2010
6. Clinical Appointments and Split Appointments
Heads of Department will ensure that performance review and objective setting is conducted in a
manner that satisfies any particular contractual requirements that apply to clinical staff.
Where an individual is employed in two departments but these roles are not linked, each employing
department will conduct a separate PDR process. In circumstances where an individual has a split or
joint post across two (or more) departments, the Heads of Department will agree which department
will take the lead and agree how to collect and share information.
7. PDR Record – Forms & Guidance
The PDR forms are designed to be simple and useable. The emphasis in the PDR scheme is on a rich
conversation with meaningful outcomes; the forms are designed to help facilitate a structured
discussion & act as a record. The PDR form has four parts:
 Review of performance
 Setting Objectives
 Plans for Self-Development
 Summary & Sign-Off
Reviewees will require time both to prepare for the review discussion and to draft and amend the
review document as required. As PDR is a work-related activity, managers will ensure that this time
is provided during normal working hours through temporary release from other duties.
Information that has been recorded within other processes (such as RAE-type exercises, academic
CVs etc), may be summarised and referenced within the review documentation, rather than
reproduced in full. Guidelines on how to use the form, and the roles and responsibilities of
reviewees and reviewers, are provided separately.
What is captured in the finalised PDR document should be agreed between the reviewer and the
reviewee as an accurate record of the PDR discussion. In circumstances where Reviewers feel the
amended form does not reflect the discussion, Reviewers may ask Reviewees to further amend the
form.
In the event that a significant matter, either within the PDR discussion or the record of the
discussion, cannot be resolved, the issue will be documented on the PDR form and will be referred
to the reviewer’s own line manager/HoD. Individuals with concerns regarding their experience of
their PDR that cannot be resolved with their Reviewer or Head of Department, may refer these
concerns to the Dean/Director (or equivalent higher level of management).
8. Performance issues
The PDR meeting should not be used to raise serious performance issues for the first time. Where it
is necessary to move into formal procedures, the University’s Capability & Disciplinary procedures
will be used to help manage poor performance.
9. Ensuring high standards
There is an expectation that Faculties, Division and Departments effectively communicate priorities
& goals so that everyone has the opportunity to understand how their role and performance
contribute, and what is expected of them.
1/09/2010
The PDR discussion should:



Be scheduled to occur when both Reviewee and Reviewer have had time to prepare for the
discussion.
Take place in a private space.
Be sufficient in duration to complete the discussion. A preliminary meeting may be required
where goals/objectives are unclear or where differences in expectation need to be
reconciled.
The Human Resources Division will periodically collect qualitative and quantitative data on
experiences of the Professional and Development Review scheme and take appropriate actions
based on this information.
10. Confidentiality
The detail of the review discussion remains confidential to the reviewee and the reviewer. The
completed PDR form is copied to the Head of Department (and subsequent HoDs), and should be
available on request to the Dean/Director to assist with quality monitoring of the process.
11. Outcomes
On an individual basis:



The Reviewee will take responsibility for updating the PDR document & ensuring that (if
necessary) objectives are amended mid-cycle to reflect changes.
The Reviewee will take forward during the period that follows the commitments/actions
they have agreed .
The Reviewer will take forward any actions they have committed to and update the
reviewee on progress.
On an organisational basis
 The HoD or head of function will feed data resulting from PDR into Faculty/ Divisional People
Planning Processes:
- Highlighting any themes or specific issues arising from the exercise that need to be
actioned at departmental/faculty/divisional level.
- Identifying exceptional performance and/or potential.
- Identifying generic development needs of the department (and enabling a discussion
around how they might be fulfilled).
 Faculties/Divisions will be asked to reflect on the effectiveness of the process at the end of
each round.
12. Monitoring
There will be a ‘stock take’ of PDR uptake at least once a year, in late June/July, which will collect the
number of staff who have been reviewed in each area. Participation rates are expected to be 100%
of all staff eligible.
July 2010
1/09/2010
Appendix
Roles and responsibilities in PDR
Deans and Directors are responsible for ensuring that recruitment, induction, probation & PDR
systems and processes are operating effectively, consistently and fairly across their faculty/division
and will adopt appropriate actions in support of this.
Heads of Departments/Divisional Directors
Before the discussion will:
 Ensure the department’s goals and priorities are made known to all staff
 Facilitate the identification & communication of a designated timeframe for PDR meetings.
 Confirm reviewees and reviewers.
 Help ascertain training requirements & fulfilment (especially Reviewers).
 Confirm extent of reviewers’ authority to agree individual objectives and make
commitments on behalf of the department, before reviews take place. (i.e. requests for
secondments/development activities that incur a cost etc., and agree a way of handling such
requests if necessary).
Following the discussion Heads of Departments/Divisional Directors will:
 Maintain a record of PDR activity (who has had their review discussion + when).
 Facilitate a mechanism to collect informal feedback from Reviewers – high level themes that
have arisen, feedback to Faculty on PDR round.
 Receive a copy of the finalised PDR document for each person whom has undertaken PDR &
file securely (in accordance with maintaining confidentiality).
The Reviewee
Before the discussion will:
 Prepare thoroughly ahead of time.
 Reflect on performance, expectations & development and capture their initial thoughts.
 Draft the PDR document & submit the document to the Reviewer one week in advance.
 Liaise with their reviewer with regards to setting up the meeting. Either party (or a third
party who is assisting in scheduling) may make the arrangements for the meeting.
Following the discussion will:
 Take responsibility for amending the document to reflect the discussion and re-submitting to
the Reviewer for a summary comment and sign off.
 Take forward the commitments/actions they have agreed.
1/09/2010
The Reviewer
Before the discussion will:
 Complete training (provided by the HR Division) prior to conducting any reviews and
attend any further updating sessions as required.
 Endeavour to ensure that departmental plans/expectations are easily accessible to
Reviewees.
 Ascertain own level of authority, or what processes they will need to follow, for signing off
on requests for development/flexible working/reasonable adjustments for staff with
disabilities etc.
 Reflect on what they expect to see on the PDR form (ideally, before they look at the form
submitted by the reviewee), and what to cover in the PDR discussion, for example:
- reflect on the reviewee’s performance and how it might be developed (what has
gone well over past year/things to do differently)
- what objectives they expect to see for the forthcoming period
- what suggestions for development they have for the reviewee
 Read the draft PDR form submitted, and prepare for the PDR discussion.
 Anticipate potential reactions and be prepared to manage them.
Following the discussion will:
 Read the amended form.
 Add comments to the form.
 Sign off on the form if the form stands as an accurate record of the discussion.
 Ensure that individual circumstances that have been raised through PDR are progressed –
such as workload allocation challenges or applications for sabbatical leave, and reviewees
are updated.
1/09/2010
The PDR process
Ongoing conversations & feedback regarding role, expectations, wider experiences etc.
Reviewee
Reviewer
Reviewee reflects on performance,
role requirements & development,
and captures initial thoughts
Reviewee reflects further and
completes PDR form
PDR
discussion
is
scheduled
to take
place
Reviewer reflects on performance,
role requirements & development, &
plans for the conversation
Reviewee sends PDR form to Reviewer
Reviewer reads PDR form & refines
plans for the conversation
If warranted from the perspective of
the Reviewer, a preliminary meeting to
discuss objectives for the forthcoming
year may be instigated
PDR discussion takes place
Reviewee amends PDR document
to reflect discussion
Reviewee sends amended PDR form to Reviewer
Reviewer reads proposed finalised
PDR form & if satisfied is an accurate
record of discussion, adds comments
Reviewer returns PDR form to Reviewee for sign off
Reviewee reads Reviewer
comments and signs off
Reviewer advances any actions they need to
conclude e.g. requests for flexible
working/reasonable adjustments/development
activities that have associated costs
Reviewee sends signed-off PDR form to Reviewer
Reviewer signs off
Reviewer gives copy of finalised PDR form to HoD
Reviewee fulfils commitments as
per PDR (objectives, required
performance, development
activities etc.)
Ongoing conversations & feedback regarding role, expectations, wider experiences etc.
HoD or head of
function keeps
record
Dean or
Director
may sample
to ensure
consistency
HoD or head of function
feeds data into Faculty/
Divisional People Planning
Processes