The evaluation is closely connected to the Career Development Regulations (specifically to the Catalogue of Job Positions, see the Annex) and helps us define individual job positions at the faculty and the range of activities attached to them. In practice, there may be significant differences between individual employees working at comparable positons. Some of them just teach, but otherwise do not significantly contribute to the operation of their departments. Others carry out a lot of administrative and organisational work in addition to teaching. Some academics publish extensively, others very little. Some of them comment on social and cultural events in the media or are involved in popularisation as experts in the given field. Many of us have seen that only a part of academics contribute to the development of our fields and departments, while others are mostly passive. In addition, it is often unclear how the work of an assistant professor, associate professor and professor differs. All this should now become clearer.

The evaluation monitors who really does what and whether it corresponds to their job position. This will help guarantee that all academics across the faculty work on their positions in a comparable way. This does not mean that all persons working on the same position necessarily have to do the same. However, their activities should be comparable at least in basic aspects, although the centre of their work might be different.

The evaluation does not just map how basic work standards are fulfilled, but also allows us to recognise those academics who do their work better or do relatively more of it. While basic compliance with the standards is rated as “adequate” (i.e. OK), staff who exceed the standards are rated as “very good” or even “excellent”. 

Our goal is that employees with better evaluation results should also have correspondingly higher salaries, as the salaries at our faculty are currently very low. And the evaluation of staff is one of the key prerequisites for addressing this situation by the faculty, as it will allow us to identify and reward outstanding performance. However, subsequent steps by the Ministry of Education and the Rectorate will be needed to improve the overall situation.

The evaluation provides a regular opportunity for academics to sincerely evaluate their work at the faculty and realistically consider its future development. For this reason, the self-evaluation forms should not lead to a mechanical enumeration of one’s activities, but encourage self-reflection by means of comments. Each employee will then receive feedback from their head of department and from the evaluators. This will help us set the overall culture of good quality academic work at the faculty; for example, by defining the principles of good research and teaching.

The heads of departments also play an active role in this process, as they discuss the evaluation results with their staff. The aim of such discussions is to determine suitable ways of one’s career development, whether these involve publishing, project or teaching strategies. But heads of departments are not only involved in the evaluation itself. They should hold regular meetings with their employees and talk about their academic work, their needs and the needs of the department. While this may seem like a given for some, such meetings often do not take place today because there has not been a clear framework for them. This can be particularly harmful in cases where the work of academics is lagging behind (such as repeated postponement of habilitation, i.e. associate professorship procedure). Talking about such problematic aspects is difficult and it is therefore not surprising that heads of departments have not done so too often so far. However, the evaluation will provide them with a suitable framework in which to conduct such talks more easily and according to clear rules.

The faculty will support its employees in their development through a variety of lifelong learning courses – from workshops on publication strategies or grant applications to courses in academic English. Also, they will be able to participate in the improving educational events offered by the CU Centre for Lifelong Learning.

The evaluation will define clear rules for the renewal and termination of employment contracts. Currently, employees with fixed-term contracts cannot be sure whether their contract will be renewed. The evaluation therefore clearly stipulates that academics who perform their work tasks in a standard manner must have their contract renewed (except, of course, in cases where conceptual changes are planned at the department, such as termination of a subject area of a specific branch of study, etc.). At the same time, it will allow us to terminate contracts with academics who do not meet the performance standards – even if they have an open‑ended contract.

The evaluation will also facilitate retirements. Currently, there are no rules in this respect and it is only up to the employee to decide when to retire. The problem is that academics over the age of 65 can no longer be the only teachers of the profiling (core) subjects of a study programme, nor can they fully guarantee study programmes. This may paralyse certain study programmes when it comes to accreditation. The new career development regulations do not stipulate that employees must retire at certain point (doing so would be against the law), but it provides an opportunity for opening and planning this topic. This will make it easier for academics to discuss their retirement plans with their head of department, which now tends to be avoided as it is perceived as a delicate matter. Such discussions may result, for example, in a gradual reduction in workload to the satisfaction of both parties.