module 3 – “the moderation process” higher education general managers performance, development...

Module 3 – “The Moderation Process” Higher Education General Managers

Performance, Development and Rewards Training

2© 2009 Ernst & Young Australia. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Module 3 The moderation process focuses on the course objectives outlined below

At the end of this session participants will be able to:

► Describe the purpose of the moderation process and the principles that underpin the process;

► Describe the 4 key steps of the moderation process;

► Understand their role in the moderation process and the role of their direct reports

► Effectively prepare for and participate in a moderation meeting; and

► Apply the guidelines for participating in a moderation meeting through a moderation process case study discussion.


This module focuses on the ‘Conduct moderation process’ step highlighted in red

Draft Performance and Development Objectives

Agree Performance and Development Plan – discussion

Manager Sign-off Employee Performance Plan

Review

Manager Performance Plan Review

Discussion and updates

Manager Sign-off

Employee Performance Review (and rating)

Manager Performance Review (and rating)

Performance Discussion

Performance Review Sign-off Faculty Moderation

Process Higher Ed Moderation

Process Incentive Modelling Final Performance Rating

Sign-off

Conduct Moderation Process

Develop Performance and Development Plan

Performance Bonus Payments

May pay run

Conduct End Cycle Review

Conduct Mid Cycle Review

The PDR Process


Objectives of the moderation process

1. To ensure individual performance assessment outcomes are as consistent as possible in comparison to peers within the same faculty.

► objectives set were not too easy or too difficult to achieve; and

► performance ratings assigned by a Manager are not too harsh or too lenient.

2. To ensure the distribution of performance ratings (at a faculty and division level) are consistent and fair across Swinburne.


Principles of the moderation process

1. All individual performance assessment ratings will be signed off by two levels of management.

2. Individual performance outcomes of stand alone roles will be assessed on an absolute basis and not compared with the performance outcomes of any other roles within a faculty.

3. Individual performance outcomes will not be compared with similar roles across other faculties.

4. Once an individual’s performance rating has been signed off by two levels of management:

a) It will not be compared further with other individual performance ratings; and

b) May only be moderated based on the absolute distributions of the faculty / division.


Some facts about the moderation process

The moderation process:

► Is an iterative process that will be improved year on year as Managers become familiar with and participate in the process;

► Is an opportunity for Managers to discuss, learn from others and to calibrate their judgment accordingly;

► Is a mechanism to check performance ratings are consistent and fair across the University (parity across groups/teams and appropriate distribution of ratings across Swinburne);

► Is an opportunity for Managers to test the process and provide feedback in preparation for the 2009 PDR cycle; and

► Consistently applies the guiding principles at all steps of the process.


Some facts about the moderation process cont..

The moderation process is not:

► An exact science;

► A complicated or detailed exercise in comparing all employees’ objectives and ratings against all peers;

► A forum to introduce hearsay evidence; or

► An opportunity to introduce new evidence (all evidence will have been discussed with employees beforehand).


The moderation process involves 4 key steps

Manager ADirect Report 2

Manager B

Manager C Employee notified of

final rating by Manager

Direct Repor1 1

Direct Report 2

Direct Repor1 1

Direct Report 2

Direct Repor1 1

Manager ADirect Report 2

Manager B

Manager C

Direct Repor1 1

Direct Report 2

Direct Repor1 1

Direct Report 2

Direct Repor1 1

Step 2

Dean of Faculty B

Faculty A

Dean of Faculty A

Step 1

Head of Division

Step 4

Vice Chancellor

reviews performance outcomes

for a division

and signs-off

ratings

Step 3

A series of moderation meetings involving

Heads Of Group/ Team Leaders / Managers/

Faculty Manager*

Moderation meetings

facilitated by the Head of Division with the Deans

Performance Review

Performance Review

Performance Review

Performance Review

Faculty B

* Note: number of moderation of meetings will vary based on reporting levels within each faculty


Step 1 - The moderation process is conducted within a Faculty

Let’s take a look at an example within Faculty A

The moderation process is conducted within each

Faculty

DVC (A)

Dean Faculty D Dean Faculty E Dean Faculty FDean Faculty CDean Faculty BDean Faculty A

ManagerTeam A

ManagerTeam B

ManagerTeam C

ManagerTeam D

ManagerTeam A

ManagerTeam B

ManagerTeam C

ManagerTeam D

ManagerTeam A

ManagerTeam B

ManagerTeam C

ManagerTeam D

ManagerTeam A

ManagerTeam B

ManagerTeam C

ManagerTeam D

ManagerTeam A

ManagerTeam B

ManagerTeam C

ManagerTeam D

ManagerTeam A

ManagerTeam B

ManagerTeam C

ManagerTeam D

10

© 2009 Ernst & Young Australia. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Overview of the moderation process within a Faculty with multiple PDR reporting levels

Refer to Handout provided. Not all faculties have the same reporting hierarchies for PDR purposes. For example one faculty may have two reporting levels, while another may have four (or more) reporting levels.

► Manager A conducts moderation meetings with each of his/her Team Leaders to review the performance outcomes of the Team Leaders’ direct reports.

► Head of Group A then conducts three moderation meetings with each of his / her direct reports (i.e. meeting one with Manager A, meeting two with Manager B etc.

► At this meeting Manager A and Head of Group A discuss:

- the Team Leaders’ performance outcomes (ratings); and

- Manager A’s direct report 1’s performance outcome (ratings).

► The Faculty Dean will conduct 4 moderation meetings. One with each of his / her direct reports to review the performance outcomes of Managers A to H and a final meeting with all of the Dean’s direct reports to review performance distributions of the faculty.

11


How does Step 1 actually work?

Review individual performance ratings at each level:

► At each reporting level, PDR managers collate the individual performance assessments of their direct reports (ratings and evidence of performance where applicable).

► The PDR Manager will meet with his / her Manager to review the performance ratings the PDR manager assigned to his / her direct reports.

► This is a sense check to ensure performance ratings are being applied consistently at each level within a team / faculty.

► It is not a detailed exercise of debating the relative merits of each performance objective or performance ratings of all employees.

► By comparing performance objectives and outcomes the process will provide visibility of soft/hard objectives and/or rating performance outcomes that are either too harsh or too lenient allowing ratings to be calibrated accordingly.

Question: What are some examples of distorting factors that may impact performance ratings?

12


Putting the Step 1 into practice: Case Study Activity Part A

Case Study Activity 1 – Review individual performance outcomes

► Refer to the case study and performance plans provided.

► Work in pairs (10 mins) to answer the following questions:

a) Would you recommend any changes to these performance plans?

b) What changes, if any would you recommend and why?

c) If implemented, would these changes impact on the final ratings assigned?

Discuss your findings with the other participants

13


How does Step 1 actually work? cont..

► Following the moderation meetings the Faculty Dean has with his / her direct reports, a final moderation meeting is held (all direct reports attend) to review the performance distributions of the faculty.

- evidence of team / sub-faculty performance (i.e. performance against faculty plan) where applicable; and

- distribution of performance across your team / sub-faculty unit (i.e. 20% 5’s, 5% 4’s, 70% 3’s etc).

The purpose of this moderation meeting is to:

► Compare broad performance outcomes between teams / sub-faculty units to ensure distributions of ratings that fall outside of the guidelines are justified with evidence of actual team / sub-faculty performance.

► Checks should be made both across team / sub-faculty units and across individual HEW levels to ensure equity and fairness.

The Faculty Dean then prepares for Step 2 of the moderation process

14


Putting Step 1 into practice: Case Study Activity Part B

Case Study Activity 2 – Review performance distributions

► Working in pairs discuss what you would do as the Dean if:

- Darren provided evidence that his team exceeded all the relevant objectives agreed in his faculty plan; and

- It was clear Darren’s team had not exceeded any of the relevant objectives in the faculty plan.

Discuss your findings with the group.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1 2 3 4 5

Performance Rating

15


Facilitation of the moderation process

Moderation meetings will be facilitated by the most senior manager attending the moderation meeting. The facilitators role is to:

► monitor time and interject when necessary to ensure that the meeting flows smoothly;

► ensure the rating guidelines are being adhered to at the year-end process;

► query any rating other than 3 ‘meets expectations”’ to ensure reliable and adequate evidence to support the rating. A baseline of 3 ‘meets expectations’ is assumed unless otherwise supported;

► ensure appropriate and comprehensive feedback is presented by those who have worked directly with the employee; and

► ensure hearsay or other non-documented, informal opinions are not considered.

Note: HR are able to assist upon request.

16


Preparing for step 2 of the moderation process

Let’s take a look at an example across Higher Education:

► The DVC (Academic) head of the division, conducts Moderation meetings with his / her direct reports (i.e. Faculty Deans), and a final moderation meeting which all direct reports attend to review performance distributions across the Division.

• Deputy Vice Chancellor• (Academic)

• Faculty D • Faculty E • Faculty F• Faculty C• Faculty B• Faculty A

• Manager• Team A

• Manager• Team B

• Manager• Team C

• Manager• Team D





















• Moderation Process is conducted within

each Faculty for each equivalent

level

• Faculty G





17


Preparing for step 2 of the moderation process

Faculty Deans should prepare in advance for the moderation meeting:

► Collate information to bring to the moderation meeting including:

- The performance assessment information of their direct reports (involved in the moderation meetings in step 1 of the process) including performance ratings and evidence of performance;

- evidence of team / sub-faculty unit performance (i.e. performance against faculty plan); and

- distribution of performance across the faculty (i.e. 20% 5’s, 5% 4’s, 70% 3’s etc).

► Deans will consolidate faculty performance outcomes (% of ratings at each performance level). For example, a Dean will provide a summary of performance outcomes at the faculty level and provide a breakdown at each team / sub-faculty unit level.

► Where performance outcomes are not in line with performance distribution guidelines, evidence of either over or under performance against the agreed faculty plan should be provided to support the distribution of ratings.

18


Participating in step 2 of the moderation process

The focus of step 2 of the moderation process is to:

1. Review individual performance outcomes:

- The DVC (Academic) will conduct a moderation meeting with each of his direct reports. This process is the same as that conducted in step 1. However performance outcomes of the Dean’s direct reports are reviewed with the Head of the Division.

- Note: With the exception of the Dean’s direct reports, individual performance is not discussed during step 2 of the moderation process.

2. Review performance distributions:

- A single meeting is then convened with the DVC (Academic) and all of his / her direct reports to compare broad performance outcomes between the faculties to ensure distributions of ratings that fall outside of the guidelines are justified with evidence of actual faculty performance.

1. Note: Broad performance outcomes may be calibrated (i.e. at a faculty level) based on a comparison with other faculties within the same division.

19


Step 3 of the moderation process

Review individual performance outcomes:

► The DVC (Academic) will meet individually the Vice Chancellor to discuss and review the performance outcomes of the Deans (two levels of management approval).

Review performance distributions:

► Following the review the Vice Chancellor review the overall performance distribution for Higher Education.

► Following these meetings (and any final amendments) the Vice Chancellor will sign-off the final performance ratings and performance distributions for Higher Education.

20


Step 4 of the moderation process

► Individual performance ratings are entered by the relevant PDR manager into the PDR online tool.

- Note: The 2008 pilot is not tied to rewards.

► The DVC (Academic) and or Dean will inform each Manager in cases where final performance ratings have changed from those originally assigned with clear reasons why.

► Managers should advise each of their direct reports of their final performance rating and any applicable reward.

► Employees will be notified of their final performance rating through the online PDR tool, once their manager has confirmed the post-moderation ratings.

21


A few things to reiterate…..

Summary

► The Moderation process is a 4 step process that is designed to ensure performance ratings are applied fairly and consistently across similar job roles within a faculty.

► Evidence must be provided to justify performance ratings and outcomes, and changes can only be made where evidence exists to support the change.

► This is the first time our managers have participated in a moderation process, ensure you prepare well to contribute fully to during the moderation discussions.

What are your key learnings from today?

22


Let’s review our course objectives to see if we have covered off all required topics

You should now be able to:

► Describe the purpose of the moderation process and the principles that underpin the process;

► Describe the 4 key steps of the moderation process;

► Understand their role in the moderation process and the role of their direct reports;

► Effectively prepare for and participate in a moderation meeting; and

► Apply the guidelines for participating in a moderation meeting through a moderation process case study discussion.

23


Key Contacts

General Project Email: [email protected]

Richard Williams HR Director P (03) 9214 8897 E [email protected]

Eleanor Newington HR Project Officer P (03) 9214 8799

E [email protected]

Other Key ContactsKelly-Ann James (03) 9214 5788

Tamara Sullivan (03) 9214 5424

Jenny McGrath (03) 9214 8223,

Erin Freeman (03) 9214 8827

Melinda Higgins (03) 9214 5369

module 3 – “the moderation process” higher education general managers performance, development...

Documents

employee performance

individual performance

iterative process

moderation meeting

individuals performance

pdr process slide

red draft performance

ernst young australia