Search the Otago Polytechnic website

Salary Review and Promotion SOP - Evidential Requirements

Section
Corporate
To be read in conjunction with

Salary Review and Promotion Policy

Approval Date
1 November 2018
Approved By
Chief Executive
Responsibility
Deputy Chief Executive: People, Culture and Safety
Procedure

In relation to policy Salary Review and Promotion the following procedures should be followed, and the stated evidential requirements should support all applications.

 

  • Committee meets quarterly with details and timeframes published on Tūhono
  • Written letters of application and the following evidential requirements are to be submitted electronically to the DCE: People, Culture and Safety

 

Section A: Evidential Requirements for Academic Salary Review and Promotion

Section B: Salary Review and Promotion: Academic Staff - Guidelines for Gathering and Interpreting Evidence

Section C: Evidential Requirements for Professional Staff Salary Review and Promotion

Purpose

Section A: Evidential Requirements for Academic Salary Review and Promotion
To support a recommendation for salary review/promotion the Head of College/Department (or Academic/Programme Head under delegation) must have cited appropriate evidence in respect of each accountability. Evidence shown in bold is required. Other evidence will reinforce the case for promotion. Evidence of regular feedback on performance is expected.

 

1.       FACILITATING LEARNING

Curriculum Delivery

  • Learner feedback
  • Colleague feedback from experienced and successful teachers who have observed the applicant’s teaching on multiple occasions.
  • Statements from other appropriate persons (for example, of role with diverse learner groups / learners with special needs etc).
  • Related personal qualifications, related personal study, and/or professional development.
  • Self-appraisal - reflective statement, teaching journal or teaching diary.

 

Learner Supervision

  • Learner feedback.
  • Colleague feedback from others who have co-supervised the same learners / learner groups.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Pastoral Care

  • Learner feedback.
  • Colleague feedback re leadership role.
  • Statements from others, e.g., Polytechnic staff, OPSA staff, who have been involved in pastoral care interventions.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Assessment of Learner Achievement

  • Colleague feedback of assessment skills and application of those skills.
  • Assessment products developed and implemented by applicant. The quality of such products should be attested to by an experienced colleague.
  • Related personal qualifications, related personal study and/or professional development.

 

Curriculum development

  • Colleague feedback.
  • Curriculum outputs (including papers/modules). The quality of these outputs to be attested to by Head of College/Department Academic/Programme Head or similar.
  • Products relating to curriculum development. The quality of these outputs to be attested to by colleagues.
  • Related personal qualifications, related personal study, and/or professional development
  • Self–appraisal – applicant’s own statement.

 

Scholarship

  • Self-appraisal – reflections on scholarly activity undertaken.
  • Colleague feedback (possibly external to Otago Polytechnic Ltd).
  • Scholarly outputs, including articles, conference papers and other publications.
  • Professional roles.

 

Quality Outcomes

  • Academic/Programme Head/ Head of College statement.
  • Feedback from AAC, QEC or other internal agencies concerned with quality.
  • Colleague feedback.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Teamwork

  • Colleague feedback.
  • Head of College appraisal.
  • Appraisal from other relevant Team staff.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Administration

  • Department Administrator, Academic/Programme Head, Head of College statement
  • Colleague feedback

 

Health and Safety

  • Academic/Programme Head, Head of College statement.
  • Feedback from Director: Health and Safety with respect to proactivity in Safety and Wellbeing, or as regards incident handling.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Professional Development

  • Summary of own development processes since last promotion or over at least the last 2 years (whichever is greater), relevant to teaching and scholarship criteria, including development pursued in response to learner feedback.
  • Professional development plan for present year.
  • Qualifications obtained/training and development undertaken since joining Otago Polytechnic Ltd, or since last promotion application.

 

2.          RESEARCH

Research activity

  • Research Outputs: Applicants are required to present a summary only of their research outputs – the whole output is not required.
  • Where research outputs are a result of collaborative efforts, attestation as to the staff member’s contribution by the appropriate colleague or manager is required.
  • Evidence of favourable reviews and/or commendations of research including review articles, professional comments, letters of commendation.
  • Evidence of favourable citations of particular research outputs that demonstrate the esteem the work is held by other researchers.
  • Research activity plan and progress log.
  • Self-appraisal, such as reflection on publications and/or conference/seminar experiences.

 

Teaching-Research Interface

  • Self-reflective account.
  • Statements from Otago Polytechnic Ltd colleagues and/or managers (e.g. Programme Heads, programme, or research team members).
  • Statements from external sources (e.g. professional associations, group of teachers or researchers).
  • Learner statement or a summary of learner statements, prepared by colleagues, that demonstrate the teaching- research interface.
  • Summary evaluations of teaching or supervision that demonstrate the teaching-research interface.

 

Professional Development

  • Summary of own development processes relevant to research and scholarship criteria over past 2 years, including development pursued in response to feedback.
  • Professional development plan for present year.
  • Qualifications obtained/training and development undertaken in research practice since joining Otago Polytechnic Limited, or since last promotion.

 

Networking/Collaborative Links

  • Appropriate industry or community feedback referring to the applicant’s contribution to research.
  • Facilitation of disciplinary and research networks (e.g. organising/hosting conference panels, seminars, workshops).
  • Invitations as keynote speakers to conferences/events in NZ or elsewhere.
  • Fellows and/or restricted or elected membership of professional or learned societies or academies in NZ or elsewhere with restricted or elected admission.
  • Research fellowships in research institutions within NZ or elsewhere.
  • Appointments to key disciplinary, research, industry/government bodies including appointment to NZ or overseas bodies, appointment to research selection and funding bodies or committees, and/or appointment to statutory or non-statutory Boards.
  • Evidence of ability to attract and/or host esteemed researchers or decision makers to visit the Polytechnic or New Zealand.
  • Other evidence that demonstrates esteem, recognition, or acknowledgement of the staff member’s research by peers, end users (etc) in the staff member’s own institution, within NZ and/or elsewhere.

 

Research Grant/Awards

  • Demonstrated success in attracting external funding.
  • Research prizes and awards attached to a specific research output, finding or activity.
  • Research prizes and awards that reflect the overall quality and productivity of applicant.

 

Peer review of other’s research

  • Evidence of refereeing of articles, conference papers and other publications and research outputs.
  • Invitations to peer review or act in a quality assurance role in relation to other research activities, processes, or policies.
  • Invitations to mentor.

 

Postgraduate supervision / programmes

  • Feedback from postgraduate learners who have been supervised.
  • Evidence of examiner duties (internal or external).
  • Evidence of ability to attract postgraduate learners.
  • Evidence of sponsoring learners into higher level research qualifications, positions, or opportunities due to applicant’s research reputation.
  • Examples of assisting learners under supervision to publish or produce research output.

 

Staff guidance

  • Colleague feedback – from those colleagues who have been supervised or mentored, attesting to supervisory and/or mentoring skills and helpfulness.
  • Activities contributing to the development of new researchers (e.g., running workshops, seminars).

 

3.          LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE

General Evidence

Contribution to Department/Programme

  • Feedback from Head of College attesting to the nature, scope, and quality of contribution.
  • Feedback from colleagues.
  • Feedback from Formal Leaders, other Heads of College, where appropriate.
  • Examples of resources developed.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Contribution to the Polytechnic

  • Colleague feedback and/or statement from Head of College.
  • Examples of resources developed by the lecturer, either individually or as part of a group, with attestation to the lecturer’s contribution by the appropriate colleague or formal leader.
  • Feedback from Formal Leaders, other Heads of College, where appropriate
  • Statement by committee chair or working party/project team leader or co-member. This statement must confirm the degree of participation and the quality of the lecturer’s contribution.
  • NB: Contributions to the Polytechnic must be significant and go further than attendance of committee/project team meetings.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Contribution to the community

  • Statement from trade/professional body/industry group, or from relevant government or community body. This statement must confirm the nature and scope of the contribution and the quality and impact of the contribution.
  • Appropriate industry or community feedback referring to the lecturer’s contribution and the quality and impact of the contribution.
  • Statement from key PEAC members.

      NB: Contributions to the community must be significant and go further than mere attendance at committee/board meetings.

 

Professional Development

  • Reflective summary of own development processes relevant to academic leadership and service, including development pursued in response to feedback. Self-reflection involves consideration as to how knowledge, skills and attitudes about leadership have been built and how professional development has contributed to this development.
  • Qualifications obtained/training and development undertaken since joining the Polytechnic, or since last promotion application.
  • Evidence of professional development plan for present year, verified by Head of College.

 

Role Specific Evidence

Where the leadership and service role are an embedded organisational role other evidence relevant to the specific accountabilities of the role will be required e.g., an Academic/Programme Head.

 

4.          CONSULTANCY

Consultancy Activity

  • Consultancy reports documenting activities completed.
  • Feedback attesting to the quality of the consultancy work from clients and/or suitably competent peers.
  • Consultancy work in progress log. Ongoing consultancy activity must be demonstrated.
  • Self-appraisal.

 

Consultancy-Teaching Linkages

  • Self-reflective account.
  • Statements from Otago Polytechnic Limited colleagues and/or managers (e.g., Academic/Programme Heads, programme, or consultancy team members).
  • Statements from external sources.
  • Learner statement(s) or a summary of learner statements prepared by colleagues, that demonstrate teaching- consultancy linkages have been made.
  • Summary evaluations of teaching that demonstrate linkages have been made.

 

Professional Development

  • Summary of own development processes and activities relevant to consultancy over past two years, including development pursued in response to feedback.

 

Consultancy Outputs

  • Summary of consultancy outputs (evidence of specific outputs to be sighted by Head of College, Academic/Programme Head).

      Note: Consultancy outputs may also qualify as research outputs.

 

Engagement of Learners

  • Summary of projects involving learners as consultants.
  • Client and/or peer feedback regarding satisfaction with and competency of learner consultants.
  • Learner feedback regarding appropriateness and value of the consultancy experience.
     

Consultancy Funding

  • Summary of funds obtained on behalf of the Polytechnic (if any).

Note: It is acknowledged that consultancy work may be undertaken pro bono.

 

Staff Guidance

  • Colleague feedback – from those colleagues who have been guided, supervised, or mentored, attesting to supervisory/mentoring skills and helpfulness.
  • Activities contributing to the development of new consultants.

 

 

Section B: Salary Review and Promotion: Academic Staff - Guidelines for Gathering and Interpreting Evidence
 

1.          GENERAL

  • The promotion/salary review decision must be evidenced based. The evidence on which the decision is based must be:
  • Credible – collected from appropriate qualified and experienced sources; and for learner and colleague survey feedback, collected through independent parties, with confidentiality assured to those providing feedback.
  • Valid – supporting the key dimension of performance related to the selected criteria. Valid evidence reveals the quality of performance, not merely activity.
  • Reliable – collected from multiple sources and from those who have direct experience of the staff member’s work.
  • Sufficient – so that a reasonable conclusion about performance can be drawn.
  • Evidence of performance in the relevant criteria will usually have been collected over at least two years and will be analysed and reflected upon. Gaps in evidence should be explained and verified. Evidence gathered in the course of employment in another tertiary institution is acceptable provided that evidence has been collected in a manner consistent with Otago Polytechnic Ltd’s requirements.
  • Feedback instruments used to collect evidence to support salary review or promotion must be Otago Polytechnic Ltd’s standard instruments or an approved variation. Standard instruments are available for learner feedback and colleague feedback.

 

2.          LEARNER FEEDBACK

  • Learner feedback to support teaching performance is mandatory and must be representative of the teaching undertaken by the Lecturer.
  • Learner feedback must be collected and summarised through an independent party, not directly by the applicant. Learners must be assured of their anonymity.
  • Sufficient learner feedback must be gathered, to ensure that a reasonable conclusion about teaching performance can be drawn. This will usually be from each type of class taught, e.g. theory and practical, distance and face to face, full time, and part time; with a 75% response expected from small classes (up to 20); 50% response from large classes (over 20). Lower response rates require explanation.
  • Lecturers are advised to address carefully in their self-appraisal significant negative feedback or explain particular contexts in which learner feedback has been less than supportive. In such cases it is helpful to have corroborating statements, e.g., from a Head of College or Programme Head.

 

3.          COLLEAGUE FEEDBACK

  • Colleague feedback to support leadership is mandatory for those who have chosen “Leadership and Service” as their career path, and where leadership is being exercised in formal contexts, e.g., Academic/Programme Head. The standard feedback form covers this dimension.
  • Colleague feedback is mandatory as evidence of teamwork in all cases and of leadership effectiveness where the leadership is being exercised in informal contexts. The standard feedback form also covers these dimensions.
  • Feedback from acknowledged authorities, leaders, experts, or specialists (internal to Otago Polytechnic Ltd or external) is expected in support of claims being made by applicants of specialist skills and expertise, or national/international recognition, e.g., curriculum, research, community service. This feedback will usually be by way of a referee report.
  • Colleagues will generally be people with whom the applicant works on a regular basis (or has worked on a project or Committee, either internal to Otago Polytechnic Ltd or external) and who have been able to observe how the applicant goes about his/her work.
  • Colleague feedback gathered by way of standard survey must be collected through an independent party, not directly by the staff member. Respondents must be assured of their anonymity.
  • Colleague feedback which is in the nature of ‘referee’ reports will be from named and credible parties. These referees shall be provided the option of forwarding a confidential report directly to the Head of College.
  • Feedback must be sufficient to enable reasonable conclusions to be drawn, with the appropriate sample of colleagues agreed between the Head of College and the applicant. At least four (4) colleagues should be included in any general survey; and as a general guide all team members should be requested to provide feedback.
  • Where “Leadership and Service” is the chosen career path and the staff member is in a formal leadership role, feedback is expected from all colleagues for whom the staff member has leadership responsibilities.

 

4.          SELF APPRAISAL

Self-appraisal is expected in the form of a personal statement in which the staff member addresses his/her performance in each of the criteria relevant to their chosen career path. An overall reflective statement should provide insight into the staff member’s personal theory of effective teaching, research, leadership, service, or consultancy practice, as appropriate. The statement should reveal how the applicant has engaged with the scholarship of teaching, research leadership, consultancy, or service.

 

5.          OTHER EVIDENCE

Whilst feedback data is an essential form of evidence, so too are the staff member’s accomplishments as measured by artefacts, reports, creative works, publications, conference keynotes, presentations and workshops, awards etc. The Head of College (or delegate) must be satisfied that such evidence exists and is the staff member’s own work.

 

6.          INTERPRETING EVIDENCE

The Head of College or delegate (i.e., the reviewer) is required to reach a decision having weighed up all of the evidence available. Given the subjective nature of feedback processes, undue weight should not be given to occasional negative feedback, especially where this is at variance with the overall performance.

 

Learner Feedback

In interpreting learner feedback the reviewer is expected to focus on trends and patterns. As a general guide:

  • A feedback profile which shows the majority (e.g., 80%) of learners find the teaching to be satisfactory is expected. This would not support a promotion decision.
  • A feedback profile as above, but also with a high proportion (e.g., 50% or more) of learners finding the teaching to be more than satisfactory will be indicative of advanced performance.
  • A feedback profile with 80% or more of learners finding the teaching to be more than satisfactory will be indicative of outstanding or excellent performance.
  • Negative feedback in excess of 10% of respondents will be indicative of problems with teaching effectiveness. Negative feedback in excess of 20% of respondents would suggest unsatisfactory performance.
  • More weight should be given to recent feedback, especially where the feedback shows an improving trend over a sustained period of time.
  • Where an applicant has been employed by Otago Polytechnic Ltd for several years the reviewer should be looking for evidence that reflects a commitment to ongoing professional development, rather than mere compliance with promotion requirements.

 

Colleague Feedback

Colleague feedback to support the criteria subject to review must be provided. The reviewer should be satisfied this feedback is from people who themselves have the skills and experience to comment credibly on the staff member’s performance. For example:

  • An acknowledged successful researcher should be providing qualitative feedback on research expertise.
  • Those providing feedback on teaching quality should themselves be recognised as excellent teachers, e.g., already promoted to Principal Lecturer, or an experienced and successful Senior Lecturer.
  • Those providing feedback on “Leadership and Service” should themselves be recognised as having relevant expertise with regard to the services being performed.

 

The reviewer should be satisfied that colleague feedback identifies and affirms that feedback indicates excellent performance.

 

Research

When weighing up the quality of research performance the reviewer should look for evidence of recognition by peers and give due weight to reputation, i.e. Polytechnic wide, national, and international standing.

 

Leadership and Service

When weighing up the quality of contributions to “Leadership and Service” the reviewer should be satisfied that these contributions are significant and go further than mere attendance at committee and board meetings.

 

Leadership for the purposes of promotion does not always mean leadership of group endeavour. It can be contribution to a group development or individual creative effort recognised by others as contributing towards group or organisational goals, improvement to systems or to the work of others within the Polytechnic.

 

All staff in their daily work demonstrate leadership with learners and colleagues, but it is when activities go beyond typical expectations of contribution that the case for promotion gains weight.

 

Note: In all cases, evidence must be interpreted in the context of the lecturer’s current role, and whether or not promotion to a higher grade is being contemplated. The Polytechnic’s expectations increase as lecturers progress through the career structures – both as to the breadth and depth of skills, and to the leadership expected. Thus, for example, Senior Lecturers must be evaluated for their performance as Senior Lecturers, and “excellence” is related to the expectations of Senior Lecturers.

 

 

Section C: Evidential Requirements for Professional Staff Salary Review and Promotion
 

Note: Professional Staff Career/Salary structure development is currently in progress and this new structure will inform Salary Review applicants and approvals when finalised.

 

EVIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS:

1.  Your manager must submit a clear letter of recommendation for your salary review indicating what promotion/level you are seeking. To support a recommendation for salary review/promotion the Head of College/Service Area (or Academic/Programme Head under delegation) must have cited appropriate evidence in respect of each accountability. Evidence shown in bold is required. Other evidence will reinforce the case for promotion. Evidence of regular feedback on performance is expected.

2.  A letter of application from yourself.

3.  Full copy of a recent Performance Review.

4.  At least 4 Independent Colleague Feedback surveys – effectively to ensure the Committee receive this amount it is recommended that you send at least a total of 10 surveys. For those in supervisory roles (Academic/Programme Head, Team Leaders) the requirement remains that all members of the team for whom the supervisor is responsible must be asked for feedback. This is the equivalent of the 360o process which Formal Leaders go through. Other forms of supporting evidence can be provided in addition if available.

5.  The minimum requirement for customer feedback is:
     Customer feedback (professional staff) – comprehensive feedback every two years.

 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1.  It is usual for a staff member to signal in a prior IDP (individual development plan) that they are preparing for a promotion. This means they will have set objectives to gather the appropriate evidence over a period of time, rather than rushing it all at once. Mention should also be made in both the TPP and IPP processes.

2.  If a staff member has an automatic increment available to them they will not be considered for a further increase unless performance is outstanding. (Stands out from and exceeds the usual expectations of the role.)

3.  The Committee will not usually consider a salary review/promotion until at least one year after a successful review or promotion.

4.  Your manager should seek appropriate information on anniversary dates / review dates and current salary details from People and Culture prior to preparing your submission.

5.  The position description expectations must be adhered to.

 

Should the evidential requirements of the Head of College/Service Area recommendation letter, recent performance review, colleague feedback customer feedback not be presented with the application, People and Culture shall return the application requesting complete information and the committee will not consider the application until all evidential requirements are met.