The evaluation has several different results that complement each other. Each academic will receive:
L1 and L2 lecturers are evaluated in a similar way, but instead of publications, they obtain a rating for their classes, i.e. their teaching activities (A-E).
Apart from that, the evaluation may also result in:
The employee may object to the evaluation report within 14 days , the objections will be dealt with by the Dean.
The overall publication rating (A-E) is the starting point for academic and research staff, while the overall evaluation of teaching (A-E) is the starting point of lecturers. Based on the assessment of other activities (teaching, creative activities, administrative work), the final rating can be increased or decreased, usually by one grade. In exceptional cases, the rating can be increased/decreased by two grades (if the employee reports exceptional good-quality activities at least in two out of the three non-publication areas, or if their work shows significant shortcomings). In the case of heads of units, who are often very busy in their role and have to limit most other activities, it will be possible to increase the rating by up to three grades, where justified.
Two processes are combined here:
These standards are given by the general job description given in the Catalogue of Job Positions (see the Annex to Dean’s Measure 16/2022) and in the individual career development plan. The job description contains a list of activities in indicative (“teaches”, “supervises and reviews” “sits in committees”, etc.), which means that these activities are necessary and essential. These are distinguished from possible other activities (listed as “can…” or “typically does…”). However, even the essential activities will not be evaluated mechanically, but in relation to the employee’s profile and the total sum or importance of the activities performed. The performance will only be considered problematic when the employee fails to perform several “indicative” activities and this is not compensated by a significant engagement in activities the employee “can” do or “typically” does.
The aim of the evaluation is to verify whether the activities reported by the employee correspond to the standard, i.e. whether the employee is teaching, researching, etc. to the prescribed extent. Most often, we expect employees to meet the standards for their position. Only in exceptional cases, this will not be the case, which might lead to a lower rating. On the other hand, it will not be possible to increase the rating based solely on the assessment of the standards for the position, as the standards only set a baseline, but cannot show the extent to which it was exceeded.
Individual departments vary widely and it is therefore useful to first map the extent and quality of the employees’ activities at each department and assess their place in the context of the department. The advisory voice of the head of department, who knows the staff well, will be crucial in this respect.
In the second stage of the evaluation, the committee will compare staff across departments with at least broadly similar disciplinary focus and similar size (or at least one of these). Respecting the diversity of departments will be particularly important in the case of teaching activities where the nature of the course needs to be taken into account (e.g. whether it is a practical language class or a research seminars on ever new topics).
At this moment, it basically only shows that the employee’s work is or is not found adequate for the given position. This allows the committee to propose a contract renewal, reassignment to a higher/lower position, and in extremely problematic (and exceptional) cases, a reprimand.In general, however, the line between a rating of [C] “adequate” and [D] “adequate with reservations” is key at this moment. On the contrary, a rating of [A] “excellent” and [B] “very good” as compared to [C] “adequate” has no immediate consequences at the moment. In the future, however, our aim is to ensure that differences in these ratings are reflected in salaries. See the section explaining the reason why we conduct this evaluation.
In very exceptional cases of long-term non‑performance, the employee may be reprimanded (= “asked to remedy unsatisfactory performance”). This may be proposed when the overall rating is [D] “adequate with reservations”, while it is compulsory when the result is [E] “non-adequate”.
A reprimand presupposes a clearly demonstrable failure to perform tasks that is perceived as problematic even independently of the evaluation. The role of the heads of the department is crucial in this respect, as they must be able to assign tasks and record their performance or non-performance. Because some employees will only now learn what their binding tasks are, in most cases it will not be possible to propose a reprimand in this zero round of evaluations.
A reprimand must always be confirmed by the Dean (upon approval of the HR and Legal Department, among others). If it is confirmed, the employee receives from the committee a list of “Binding Performance Objectives” from the committee and has eight months to meet them.
After these eight months, an additional evaluation takes place, during which the same committee assesses whether the objectives have been met (the employee, the supervisor and the committee each have 30 days for this evaluation). If the shortcomings have not been removed, the employee is dismissed.
