Heartbeat September 2018

YOUR RIGHT TO BE HEARD
How is the PDR moderation
process fair?
Dear Hearbeat,
I thought that the point of the PDR process
was that we were supposed to be graded
by our managers and given targets for
improvement.
Everyone in my department has done that;
so imagine our surprise when our manager
says that he has been asked by HR to
adjust our scores down as there are too
many people with the same score.
So we can apparently be marked as a 3
by our managers but then be told by HR
that our scores are wrong and need to be
adjusted for what they have decided they
are.
If HR have already decided what all of our
scores are going to be; then what is the
point of managers doing PDRs with staff
at all. Clearly the decision has been taken
regardless of any feedback from affected
departments.
It’s also a massive slap in the face for staff
to be told “HR have decided you aren’t as
good at your job as your manager; even
though they don’t work with you or have
any clue what you do”.
I though the point of PDRs was they were
supposed to show the staff members
who needed support and departments
that needed help; not to put staff in pre
decided categories.
Are we really deciding that departments
can only have so many good members
of staff? Based on what? Are we limiting
good performance to percentages?
Because if we are seriously going to
proceed down this route, then I don’t
know how you except to keep good
staff in the trust. If a department has 10
members of staff in it; can only 5 of them
be scored 3?
For those of us who come into work and
do our best every day; this is nothing short
of an insult.
It also puts our manager in a very awkward
position. Where apparently his opinion is
overwritten on the basis that the figures
don’t match up with what has been either
decided or is expected.
I work hard in my role; my colleagues in my
department and across the trust work hard.
This sends out the clear message not to try
at anything.
On Staff Comms it does say that PDR scores
are being moderated to ensure that they
are fair and consistent. Consistency does
not mean that more than a set level should
not be the same; nor does moderation
mean that the numbers should be changed
to suit a pre-determined agenda or set of
statistics.
What it should mean is that all of the
staff across the trust are held to account
for their actions; that they are expected
to improve and provide goals for
improvement. I’m not sure how changing
PDR scores with no further conversation
can do this.
The only thing that it does do is create bad
feeling. You simply can’t identify the staff
who need help or where there are errors
if you are going to alter the information to
suit a separate agenda.
I would also question why specific PDR
data is being shared around; I completed
my Data Security Awareness recently and it
seemed pretty clear that this is the kind of
thing that shouldn’t be happening.
Thank you.
Dear colleague,
Thank you for taking the time to raise
your concerns about PDR moderation.
I hope that you had a useful PDR
conversation with your manager.
As you know, the new Aspiring to
Excellence performance development
review process is different to previous
PDR arrangements and all managers
have been trained in this new process.
For the first time we are scoring
people’s performance and behaviour, as
well as their potential to develop.
I recognise that there has been some
confusion about the different scoring
levels so I want to reiterate that a score
of 2 is a reasonable score. Someone
who scores a 2 is performing well,
meeting most of their objectives and
with evidence of behaviours that are in
line with our care promises. We expect
in this first year that the majority of
employees would score a 2. To score
a 3 you would need to meet in full all
of your objectives and to score a 4 you
would need to be truly outstanding at
delivering significantly more than your
objectives.
The moderation process has been put
in place to ensure that there is fairness
in scoring across the organisation – so
that all staff are scored against the
same criteria and to allow for scores
to be adjusted if a manager has
incorrectly interpreted the criteria. This
could mean a manager has been too
harsh or too generous in their scorings.
Scores are being adjusted up and down
as a result of moderation.
I want to be absolutely clear that
there is no “quota” or statistics we
are expecting in this process. The
PDR is to ensure people have a good
conversation with their manager
about performance, behaviours and
development and build up the right
support to meet their objectives over
the next 12 months.
I also want to clarify that no-one in
HR is telling anyone what score they
should receive! The moderation panels
are comprised of group and directorate
leads who are checking the range of
scores within their group and seeing
whether any team looks like an outlier
against the rest of the organisation.
The panel will then look into that
team’s scores to judge whether the
scoring has been fair. If not it may be
adjusted based on further information.
This is the first year of the new process
and we, like you, are all learning how
best to deliver the most effective PDR
that supports people’s careers within
this organisation.
We have listened to feedback and
extended the deadlines on moderation
and during October we are holding
structured review workshops to see
how we can improve the PDR and
moderation process for next year.
Best wishes
Raffaela Goodby,
Director of People and Organisation
Development
26
26