Guidelines for Decision-Makers on Assessing Achievement Relative to Opportunity

These guidelines apply to decision-makers assessing staff or potential staff for the purposes of:

  • recruitment,
  • confirmation of an academic appointment following a period of probation,
  • performance development, and
  • academic promotion.

Background

The University recognises that staff contribute to its vision of excellence in diverse ways. It also recognises that many staff today have a range of personal circumstances, required working arrangements and career histories that challenge our ideas of the traditional academic worker. Many academic staff:

  • have carer responsibilities for children, elderly parents or ill family members;
  • experience ill-health or have an impairment or ongoing medical condition;
  • require part-time or flexible working arrangements; and
  • have experienced career interruptions relating to parental leave, time out for work in another field and/or late entry to academia.

Traditionally, measurements of merit and achievement within the University have been based on a notional standard of a full-time and uninterrupted career within the academy. This profile no longer matches many modern day employees and imposes standards that are difficult to meet for everyone other than those who fit the traditional notion of the ‘ideal academic’. The retention of these normative expectations (no matter how inadvertently they are applied) could mean that talented staff are precluded from entering and advancing their careers at Monash.

In accordance with the University’s commitment to social inclusion and in recognition of thegrowing diversity within the workforce, Monash is working towards the incorporation of the principle of ‘assessing achievement relative to opportunity’ within all employment-related policies and processes. Historically, University procedures such as the academic promotion procedures have included a “relevant circumstances” clause which provided candidates with the opportunity to outline any circumstances that may have “adversely affected” their achievementsduring the period under consideration. Assessors were then asked to take these circumstances and their impact into account when making decisions about the person’s suitability for promotion. While the “relevant circumstances” clause has provided some leeway for candidates and assessors, the implication is that there is a single benchmark to which all must aspire and that those who do not meet this under-perform. In essence, decision-makers are asked to give “special consideration” to the candidate. This in turn implies a dilution to the appropriate standards of merit. For this reason, applicants may be reluctant to disclose personal circumstances. Conversely, an achievement relative to opportunity approach challenges a singular norm against which the performance of all staff should be measured, instead acknowledging that there are a range of different employment ‘positions’ or ‘practices’ which are shaped by personal circumstances, working arrangements and career histories.

What is “achievement relative to opportunity”?

Achievement relative to opportunity is an evaluative framework in which there is a positive acknowledgement of what a staff member can or has achieved given the opportunities available to him or her. The approach gives more weight to the overall quality and impact of achievements rather than the quantity, rate or breadth of particular achievements which in many instances is directly related to time available rather than talent, merit or excellence. Assessing achievements relative to opportunity involves calculating the overall time available for a given period and then measuring the performance of staff in light of this time. This approach enables a more nuanced and contextual assessment of achievements rather than placing undue emphasis on the quantity, rate or breadth of achievements over a defined period.

How do you assess achievements relative to opportunity?

As a decision-maker, you are responsible for assessing the merit of an application. This includesan assessment of how a staff member’s previous experience and/or past achievements can demonstrate that she or he has the capacity to perform the position to which she or he is aspiring. For example, an academic staff member who has completed his probation period will apply to be confirmed based on his achievements during that period. These achievements will inform the decision-maker of the candidate’s capacity to meet performance expectations in the future.

In applying an achievement relative to opportunity approach, merit should be determined by assessing thestaff member’spast achievements relative to the opportunities available to the individual candidate and his capacity to produce work that reflects the quality and impact expected of a staff member at the levelto which the candidate is aspiring.

Disclosure of relevant information

During recruitment, performance development, confirmation of appointment and promotion, staff should be encouraged to disclose personal circumstances, working arrangements and career histories. This could include current circumstances and/or past circumstances.

You should be aware that some individuals may be reluctant to do this. The achievement relative to opportunity approach challenges the traditional divide between public and private and some staff may see the request to disclose this information as an invasion of their privacy.

Assurances should be provided to the staff memberthat the information disclosed will:

  • only be used for the purposes of assessing performance and will form the basis of a contextual and holistic assessment of the staff member’s achievements; and
  • be kept confidential.

Assessment of achievements

In making an assessment, you should give appropriate consideration to the disclosed circumstances, working arrangements or career histories and the effect they can have or have had on overall time available. Having calculated this, appropriate consideration can then be given to:

  • the quantum or rate of productivity,
  • the opportunity to participate in certain activities,and/or
  • the output produced over a defined period.

Assessing achievement relative to opportunity involves considering productivity relative to the actual time and specific opportunities available to the individual while maintaining a focus on pertinent performance standards, especially those relating to the quality and impact of the work. In this way, the candidate can be assessed on an individual basis in terms of how well they meet the relevant expectations and not on a comparative basis with other individuals in the pool, where the tendency may be to privilege the person with the “most merit”.

Assessing achievement relative to opportunity does not mean that you are “expecting less” of the staff member/candidate. Quantity, rate, consistency and breadth of activities are seen as reflecting amount of time available and not necessarily or only talent, merit and excellence. It means you are placing a greater emphasis on the quality and impact of the work that the candidate has produced and is capable of producing, rather than the quantity and rate at which is it produced.

Assessing achievements relative to the academic performance standards

Academic Strengthening is one of the core themes of the Monash Futures reform agenda. As of 2010, the University has formalised a set of academic performance standards across the three key areas of academic activity – research, education and service. The standards are both qualitative and quantitative.

As a decision-maker,you are asked to assess staff against these performance standards – both for their past performance and their capacity for future performance. For example, a candidate for academic promotion has to demonstrate that he or she has, in accordance with the academic performance standards,been a sustained high performer at thecurrent level of appointment,) and the capacity to perform satisfactorily at the level to which promotion is sought. Assessment of qualitative standards of performance are consistent with the an achievement relative to opportunity approach but the interaction of the quantitative performance standards and achievement relative to opportunity may seem incongruous at first.

In assessing a candidate’s current performance against the quantitative performance standards (or metrics), you should take into account these achievements relative to the opportunities available to the individual. For example, a candidate who was absent on parental leave for a proportion of the year leading up to an application may not have published the number of publications required per annumfor an academic at that level but the publications she did produce were of the quality and impact expected at the level to which she is aspiring.

Assessing achievements relative to opportunity may not come easily at first. Expectations of academic output are typically “metric-driven” and maintaining a balance between the integrity of performance metrics and the quality of the achievement within the context of a candidate’s personal circumstances and individual working arrangements will require a shift in how decision-makers make assessments about performance. The best way to illustrate how it is applied is through an example. The Talent Enhancement Strategyutilised the following methodology to calculate achievement relative to opportunity to select high performing individuals for this prestigious program.

During the 3 year period under consideration, Person A spent 9 months in a full-time, Research Only position. This was viewed as representing 9 months of 100% research opportunity. They then had maternity leave for 9 months which was viewed as representing 0% research opportunity. Upon returning to work, Person A worked part-time in a Research Only position which was viewed as representing 50% research opportunity. The total amount of research opportunity therefore, during the 3 year period was 18 months or 50% research opportunity. Person A produced 3 papers during the 3 years. These 3 papers were then adjusted for opportunity (3/.50) which meant that had this person had 100% research opportunity during the whole period, they would have produced 6 papers. In contrast, Person B, who worked full-time in a Research Only position for the entire 3 years, produced 5 publications.Therefore, Person A’s volume productivity, adjusted for opportunity, was greater than Person B’s volume productivity.

Further examples of utilising an achievement relative to opportunity approach:

A staff member with significant caring responsibilities for a son with a physical disability develops an exciting research proposal as the basis for an Outside Study Programme (OSP) application with the work to be undertaken in Melbourne. The OSP Committee agrees that her application is strong and that her research and the work of her department would be significantly enhanced without travelling overseas.

A female staff member returns to work after 12 months maternity leave. Her research productivity declines during and in the 12 month period after this leave. Upon her return to work, she is actively supported to re-establish research projects and networks through such things as teaching relief and child care support for conference attendance. In her promotion application a few years later, the leave time and the 12 month period following leave is taken into account when her overall productivity for the past 7 years is assessed.

A member of staff works part-time because of caring responsibilities (he has a teenage son with a mental illness). In his annual performance development review and planning discussion, he and his supervisor negotiate ways in which he can continue to be involved in a number of committees, teach on a pro-rata basis and develop his research profile consistent with his academic level and part-time status. It is acknowledged that the quantity of work produced will be less than a full-time staff member and he is not penalised for the reduced breadth of activities.

A staff member with a chronic health condition is limited in his capacity to attend and present at international conferences. This staff member lists a small but appropriate number of publications in good quality journals and has a high citation rate. When being assessed for promotion, the academic promotions committee determines that the applicant has demonstrated the appropriate quality and impact of performance in the overall criterion of “research” and the staff member is not penalised for having a relatively lower output of conference presentations.

A staff member experienced a significant illness for two of the seven years she spent at senior lecturer level. In her application for promotion to associate professor level, the academic promotions committee takes a ‘whole of career’ approach and assesses the application favourably, acknowledging that the candidate has demonstrated performance of a requisite quality although output during the two years of ill-health had been reduced.

This paper was prepared by Sarah Fowler (Manager, Workforce Policy & Performance, HR) and Barbara Dalton, (Coordinator, Women’s Leadership and Advancement Scheme, Equity and Diversity Centre) in consultation the Equal Opportunity for Women Committee subcommittee on Assessing Achievement Relative to Opportunity whose members included Associate Professor Robin Bell (Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences), Dr Anita Devos (Faculty of Education), Associate Professor Julie Fisher (Faculty of Information Technology), Ms Andrea Heyward (Planning & Performance HR) and Professor Kate Smith-Miles (Faculty of Science).

These guidelines were endorsed by the Equal Opportunity for Women Committee on 8 March, 2011

Updated in line with promotion criteria March 2015. 1