performance management system adopted while doing staff appraisal in the university system as dean of the faculty must be institution-specific. context becomes very important as nothing remains objective these days.

Thank you Dr.Saini,

For teaching, I think the important parameter is the number of hours prescribed in the contract of employment in order to serve and promote  the institution..

For research, I think the important parameter is  number of  publication research papers in scientific refereed journals as defined by the educational institution.

For services, I think to accomplish all the tasks assigned to the staff efficiency and excellence which is serving the mission and vision of institute.

Regards

performance management system adopted while doing staff appraisal in the university system as dean of the faculty must be institution-specific. context becomes very important as nothing remains objective these days.

It is important to remember, regardless of the parameters:

What is measured will result in behaviour changes to reflect what is recognised by the reward system.

That there may be things that people do that cannot be measured readily but may be valuable and failure to recognise this aspect will result in a perception of system failure; this will be compounded further when trying to benchmark equivalent tasks/performance levels between teaching and research.

Setting a system in place is complex and will be dynamic requiring regular review and amendments as the impact is assessed.  Check with care how the system will impact on career development and people's commitments; once in place any changes impacting on career review/progress will cause further problems.

Visit somewhere that a system is in pace and learn from them as much as you can before implementing your own; rushing into this could result in more problems than a more considered approach at the start to get it right.

Consult with staff to assess what they consider to be 'fair' measurements and the rationale for these - that will help benchmark equality and parity across parameters.

People will compare their results; implementation must be entirely transparent and fair for everyone otherwise it will have no credibility.  For those that could do better offer positive support to help them do so; make the system aspirational and achievable for everyone to raise the whole faculty performance.  

Think about the philosophy of your intentions; is your intention to have a system that recognises only 'elite' staff or to recognise everyone that achieves the higher performance?  Try to avoid the former as this is divisive. Consider the short, medium and longer term budget implications should everyone perform at the higher level - after implementation raising the performance measure to fit the budget will not be fair and will be noticed.

Will the system recognise, after achievement, any lack of consistent on-going performance at the level that achieved recognition?  If so, then how will any drop in performance be managed?  

How many factors that are included will actually be within the control of individuals with which to make any difference? Including factors beyond their control will not create successful results.

nice concept. and very good discussion indeed for encouraging people to know more about the topic. The links give a good idea about the topic. Thanks 

Performance management is the survival of the companies these days but its also a double edged sword. and hence requires calibration and balance.

I agree with the views above.