Module 3 – “The Moderation Process ” Academic Supervisors

1. Module 3 – “The Moderation Process” Academic Supervisors Performance, Development and Rewards Training

2. 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.

3. This module focuses on the ‘Conduct moderation process’ step highlighted in red Develop Performance and Development Plan The PDR Process • Draft Performance and Development Objectives • Agree Performance and Development Plan – discussion • Manager Sign-off Conduct Mid Cycle Review • Employee Performance Plan Review • Manager Performance Plan Review • Discussion and updates • Manager Sign-off Conduct End Cycle Review • Employee Performance Review (and rating) • Manager Performance Review (and rating) • Performance Discussion • Performance Review Sign-off Conduct Moderation Process • Faculty Unit Moderation Process • Higher Education Moderation Process • Incentive Modelling • Final Performance Rating Sign-off Performance Bonus Payments May pay run (not until 2011)

4. Objectives of the moderation process • 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 PDR Supervisor are not too harsh or too lenient. • To ensure the distribution of performance ratings (at a faculty and division level) are consistent and fair across Swinburne.

5. Principles of the moderation process • All individual performance assessment ratings will be signed off by two levels of management. • 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. • Individual performance outcomes will not be compared with similar roles across other faculties. • Once an individual’s performance rating has been signed off by two levels of management: • It will not be compared further with other individual performance ratings; and • May only be moderated based on the absolute distributions of the Faculty.

6. Some facts about the moderation process • The moderation process: • Is an iterative process that will be improved year on year as PDR Supervisors become familiar with and participate in the process; • Is an opportunity for PDR Supervisors 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 PDR Supervisors 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.

7. 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).

8. The moderation process involves 4 key steps Vice Chancellor reviews the performance outcomes for each Faculty and signs-off ratings Step 1 Step 3 • A series of moderation meetings involving PDR Supervisors, Heads of Group, Associate Deans and Deputy Dean and Dean* Step 2 Direct Repor1 1 Moderation meetings facilitated by the DVC (Academic) with his/her direct reports and additional moderation meeting with all direct reports to review performance distributions of Higher Education Supervisor A Direct Report 2 Performance Review Direct Repor1 1 SupervisorB Head of Group A Direct Report 2 Performance Review e.g. Accounting, Economics, Finance & Law Direct Repor1 1 SupervisorC Direct Report 2 Dean of Faculty A Employee notified of final rating by PDR Supervisor Step 4 Direct Repor1 1 SupervisorA e.g. Management & Entrepreneurship Direct Report 2 DVC (Academic) Performance Review Direct Repor1 1 Head of Group B SupervisorB Dean of Faculty B Direct Report 2 Performance Review Direct Repor1 1 SupervisorC Direct Report 2 * Note: number of moderation of meetings will vary based on reporting levels within each Faculty

9. Step 1 - The moderation process is conducted within a faculty Let’s take a look at an example within “Faculty A” Moderation Process is conducted within each Faculty

10. Overview of the moderation process within a Faculty with multiple PDR reporting levels • Not all faculties have the same reporting hierarchies for PDR purposes. For example Faculty A may have three PDR reporting levels, while Faculty B may have four (or more) PDR reporting levels. • PDR Supervisor A conducts moderation meetings with each of his / her PDR Supervisors (1 & 2) to review the performance outcomes of the PDR Supervisors’ direct reports. • Head of Group A then conducts three moderation meetings with each of his / her direct reports (i.e. meeting one with PDR Supervisor A, meeting two with PDR Supervisor B etc) • At this meeting PDR Supervisor A and Head of Group A discuss: • the PDR Supervisors’ performance outcomes (ratings); and • PDR Supervisor A’s direct report 1’s performance outcome (ratings) • The Dean of Faculty A will conduct 4 moderation meetings. One with each of his / her direct reports to review the performance outcomes of PDR Supervisors A to H and a final meeting with all 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 supervisors collate the individual performance assessments of their direct reports (ratings and evidence of performance where applicable) • The PDR Supervisor A will meet with his / her PDR Supervisor to review the performance ratings the PDR Supervisor A assigned to his / her direct reports. • This is a sense check to ensure performance ratings are being applied consistently at each level within a group / team. • 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 calibratedaccordingly. 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: • Would you recommend any changes to these performance plans? • What changes, if any would you recommend and why? • 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 that Faculty: • evidence of team / sub-faculty unit performance (i.e. performance against faculty plan) where applicable; and • distribution of performance across the 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 unit performance. The Dean of each Faculty 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 of the Faculty if: • Darren provided evidence that his team exceeded all the relevant objectives agreed in his group’s plan; and • It was clear Darren’s team had not exceeded any of the relevant objectives in the group’s plan. • Discuss your findings with the group.

15. Facilitation of the moderation process • Each moderation meeting 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. Step 2. The moderation process is conducted across a Higher Education Let’s take a look at an example across Higher Education: • The Dean of each Faculty meets with the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) to review the performance of his / her direct reports and participates in a final moderation meeting with all Deans to review performance distributions across Higher Education. The moderation process is conducted within each Faculty

17. Preparing for step 2 of the moderation process 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: • Review individual performance outcomes: • The DVC (Academic) will conduct a series of moderation meetings with his / her 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 DVC (Academic). • Note: With the exception of the Dean’s direct reports, individual performance assessment are not discussed during step 2 of the moderation process. • Review performance distributions: • A single meeting is then convened with all Deans 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. • Note: broad performance outcomes may be calibrated (i.e. at a Higher Education level) based on a comparison with other Faculties.

19. Step 3 of the moderation process Review performance distributions: • The Vice Chancellor will convene a meeting with the DVC Academic to review the performance distributions of Faculty. • Following this meeting (and any final amendments) the Vice Chancellor will sign-off the final performance ratings and performance distributions of Higher Education.

20. Step 4 of the moderation process • Individual performance ratings are entered by the relevant PDR supervisor on to the PDR online tool. • Note: The 2008 PDR trial and the 2009 PDR performance cycle are not tied to rewards. • The appropriate Dean and / or Head of Group will inform each PDR Supervisor in cases where final performance ratings have changed from those originally assigned with clear reasons why. • PDR Supervisors 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 PDR Supervisor 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 and faculties. • 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 PDR Supervisors 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: pdr@swin.edu.au Richard Williams HR Director P (03) 9214 8897 F (03) 9214 8565 E riwilliams@swin.edu.au Eleanor Newington  HR Project Officer P (03) 9214 8799 E enewington@swin.edu.au 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