EQUALITY GUIdE - KU Leuven

Chapter 3 ! Career management 163
Illustration: check on the evaluation of the ZAP
What?
It is determined by decree since 1999 that the job performance of academic staff members needs to
be evaluated at least once in every five years. An evaluation has to take place three years after the
first appointment or after every designation or promotion.
Procedure?
The University Board lays down the rules for evaluating job performance and the way in which members
of the Academic personnel work. The evaluation procedure is regulated by the Academic Council.
The University Board laid down a certain procedure: a faculty evaluative commission per faculty
and a general evaluative commission per group was founded. The evaluation is made on motivated
decisions by the authorized general evaluative commission, based on the non-binding, motivated
propositions of the authorized faculty evaluative commission.
The members of the senior academic staff (ZAP) are evaluated based on the way they fulfil their
assignment, educational tasks, research tasks and any tasks of service. The Human Resources Department
is responsible for the preparation of the file in collaboration with the Research Coordination
Office. The member itself is not involved nor asked for input in this preliminary stage of the procedure
due to administrative simplification. The staff member in question is informed of the end result by
letter. The possibility for further feedback is given, which is done orally by the chairperson of the
evaluative commission or by personnel director ZAP of the HR-department. This feedback is actually
asked for.
The percentage of negative evaluations is on the average approximately 0.015%.
Evaluation?
Transparency:
Most of the information above could be found on the website of the HR-department.
For more detailed information, the cooperation of the personnel director ZAP was asked, who kindly
invited us for a personal interview.
The members of the senior academic staff also have access to the evaluation procedure on the website.
However, the member is not asked for input nor involved in the procedure itself. It is also not
clear which criteria are most important and how the evaluation as such is done.
Often, more information is only given during feedback and if asked for.
Objectivity:
The file distinguishes three main criteria, though not every criterion is as important as the other ones.
The two most important criteria are the research output and the education evaluation. As neither
training nor instructions are given to the members of the different commissions, it is hard to guarantee
the objectivity. Each commission can have a different idea on what is a good or bad performance of a
member, between the commissions of each faculty and between the consecutive commissions. Uniformity
should be seen as crucial and is essential to guarantee equal opportunities for all staff.
Effectiveness:
As the evaluation is still in an early stage of execution, it is hard to evaluate the effectiveness at this
stage.
At this moment, the university tries to meet the rules, as determined by decree. In the long term, the
HR-department will use the evaluation as an instrument for further career guidance and performance
interviews.