York St John University
Guiding Principles for Reviews
This guidance is for colleagues within the University who are to undertake a review of staffing or an exceptional review of provision orservices where existing procedures do not already exist[1].
In conducting any review, the aim is to be thorough, effective, fair and transparent. In furtherance of these principles, prior to starting a review, the following should be determined and agreed:
- The purpose and aims of the review
It is important to state at the outset why it is believed that the review is required and its main purpose. Ideally this should be set out in writing so all staff affected and interested stakeholders (including trade unions) have a clear and consistent understanding of the situation.
The aims of the review should include to establish the facts and gain a full picture of the current situation as well as to make recommendations for the way forward.
- Who will lead and support the review and make decisions about the future
It is important to identify who will lead the review. Whilst a number of people may be involved in gathering information, identifying the lead will ensure those involved and/or affected know who to direct questions and queries to as necessary.
The lead does not need to be based in the area under review; there will be occasions where having someone outside of the area will be beneficial, e.g. to ensure objectivity or to bring ideas from practice elsewhere in the institution. In rare occasions, e.g. where a highly technical viewpoint is required, it may be appropriate for the review to be led by an external individual or organisation.
It will also be important to establish whether the lead will make the decisions about the way forward following the review or whether their role is to make recommendations to someone else who will ultimately make decisions and to specify who they will be.
It may be appropriate, given the type of review, to ask colleagues to undertake aspects of the process as a means of providing support to the review lead. Again, consideration should be given to whether to involve others from outside the immediate area under investigation. In reviews affecting academics, it may be appropriate to include an aspect of peer review to assist the process.
In all cases where there may bestaffing implications a member of the Human Resources teamwillsupport the review.
- Who will be consulted and how
It is important to remember with any review that the process should be two-way and that those affected should be given every opportunity to feed their views into the process. Wherever possible, a collaborative approach between the review lead, the affected staff and trade union representatives should be adopted.
When setting out the purposes of a review, the lead should give detailed consideration to who should be consulted to ensure the most thorough of approaches. The merit of asking people outside of the area affected (and potentially the institution) should be considered. For example, to share good practice approaches.
It should be clear how people will be consulted; will email feedback on a written proposal be sought? Will there be group discussions? Will 1:1 meetings be held? If individuals can provide written feedback, it should be clear where this should be sent.
Whilst people will often be consulted as a group, the needs of individuals will be recognised and everyone affectedwill be given the opportunity to discuss their circumstances and provide feedback on a 1:1 basis either with the review lead and/or HR representative.
Review leads should also be clear about how and when trade union representatives will be consulted and engaged during the process[2]. If to be consulted, trade union representatives should be involved as soon as possible.Trade Unions should advise the review lead which of their representatives will be involved.
- Timescales for each stage of the process and when final outcomes will be known
To ensure everyone involved or affected is clear about the length of the process and when outcomes will be determined and disseminated, a plan with timescales should be agreed at the start of any review. The review lead should monitor the plan as the review progresses and where any adjustments are needed, these should be communicated to relevant parties with details of the new timescales.
- Responding to feedback
In determining the conclusions and recommendations from the review, the review lead will ensure that they consider all feedback provided and provide responses to it as appropriate. Where the review affects a small number of people (four or less) this may be provided on an individual basis where timescales allow. However, where the review affects a larger number of people the response to feedback will be provided through group communications. In all circumstances, the response to feedback will be provided in writing as well as being communicated verbally.
- Interested stakeholders to be kept appraised of progress
With any review, there may be individuals outside of the immediate area who need to be kept appraised of process. This can range from the review lead’s line manager, to the Vice Chancellor depending on the nature and scope of the process. It will be important for the review lead to be clear at the outset how they will manage the interest of stakeholders.
6.Link to other University procedures
Depending on the nature of the review, and the resulting recommendations, other University processes or procedures may be triggered as a consequence of information gathered during the review, e.g. the Job Security Framework, Managing Redundancy Guidance or disciplinary procedures. Where this occurs, with the advice of Human Resources, this will be discussed fully with any staff members affected and their trade union representative as appropriate.
- Communicating the Outcome
Where possible, the outcome of the review should be communicated to all staff affected at the same time. Where this is not possible, arrangements will be made to ensure everyone affected is advised of the outcome within 48-hours. There should be the opportunity for staff to discuss the outcome and/or recommendations of the review process.
Where the outcome of the review places jobs at risk, prior to invoking the Job Security Framework, those staff who wish to challenge the outcomes of the review either themselves or through their trade union representative (s) will be given the opportunity to attend a meeting with the review lead and representative from the HR team.
Reviews: Checklist
Lead for Review (Name and job title)If appropriate, who will support the review lead? (Name and job titles)
What is the main purpose of the review
How and when will the main purpose of the review be clearly articulated to all staff affected and stakeholders?
Who are the stakeholders?
How will the stakeholders be appraised as the process develops?
Which member of the HR team will support the review? (Name and Job title)
Who is to be consulted?
When will the consultation be conducted (dates)?
How will the consultation be conducted (e.g. group discussions/1:1 meetings)
How will feedback be provided (by email, through discussion)?
If individuals wish to provide written feedback, to whom should this be sent?
What is the deadline for written feedback?
Who are the trade union representatives for the review?
Who will make the decision about the way forward following the review?
When and how will staff be presented with the conclusions and recommendations from the review?
S/HR/Principle of Reviews – FINAL(22.2.15)
[1] Existing procedures would include, for example, Subject Reviews
[2] The University’s Recognition Agreements with its recognised trades unions (UCU and UNISON) sets out what the University commits to consulting on.