What moderation is
Moderation is a process where management groups come together to discuss the performance of the individuals in their team, and compare the proposed ratings and bonus nominations. This helps to ensure consistency of approach across the organisation, engage in fair and constructive challenge and highlight any outliers.
Moderations take place at several levels at both pre and post-submission of ratings. These are:
- a moderation of individuals across the directorate is run by the ExCo member and their senior leadership team (SLT)
- a moderation of SLT which is run through with ExCo and the CEO
- an organisational wide moderation to look at trends across the whole of TPR and its directorates which happens with ExCo and the CEO
Depending on the size of directorates, there may also be moderations at a team level, which feed into the directorate level moderation. There are also discussions of the data and indicative organisational picture run within the People team to identify likely training requirements for the coming year, performance interventions for individuals and key themes across directorates.
The purpose and principles of moderation regardless of what level they are occurring at are:
- to ensure performance ratings and bonus nominations are applied in a consistent way across teams and directorates
- that objectives and behaviours are being assessed fairly
- that TPR's Reward principles are considered and adhered to throughout
The purpose of all moderation meetings is to ensure that:
- there is a common understanding of the standards required at each level of the rating scale including what this means across the different grades within the organisation
- line managers evaluate performance in a consistent way
- there is opportunity for meaningful challenge across the organisation and within directorates
- the integrity of the approach is protected
When moderations take place
We expect moderations to take place at four points in the year, linked to the PDA cycle of mid-year and end of year. More details on the roles and responsibilities during these sessions can be found at the end of this document.
September to October
Pre-submission moderations (mid year).
October
Mid-year discussions.
November
Post-submission moderations (end of year).
February to March
Pre-submission moderations (end of year).
March to April
End of year discussions.
April to May
Post-submission moderations.
Overview of moderation stages
At both mid-year and end of year we have pre-submission moderations, and post-submission moderations. Whilst the principles of moderation remain the same, the discussion within the pre- and post-submission moderations will differ in terms of detail.
Pre-submission moderations should take place prior to any 1-2-1 discussions happening and are an opportunity to discuss indicative ratings for individuals based on their performance and 1-2-1 discussions to date. It is also a time for managers to challenge theirs and others' rationale and thinking to ensure it is being consistently applied and understood.
At these meetings, some managers may see that they are applying ratings slightly differently to others and as a result may wish to reconsider their scores or approach. This allows for additional feedback and reflection to either be taken into the 1-2-1 discussion, or for it to be sought ahead of the 1-2-1 discussion, allowing for a more meaningful discussion between line manager and colleagues.
What happens at the different levels of moderations
All moderations, whether they are at Directorate, SLT or ExCo level should involve a level of challenge, particularly around indicative ratings, and where it is felt a rating cannot be evidenced through feedback provided. Discussions around behaviours and people's ability to align how they have achieved their objectives to TPR's behaviour framework should also take place across all levels.
At SLT moderations, particular attention should be paid to strategic outcomes and the regulatory impact of what has and has not been achieved. Behaviours pay a particularly important role at this level, and it is important to challenge the cultural impact of behaviour which is not in line with our expectations.
At pre-submission moderations, where challenge on indicative ratings has resulted in a reconsideration of someone's rating and nomination, this reconsideration and the reasons behind it should be taken into the 1-2-1 discussion. Note that this is why it is important to ensure these pre-submission moderations take place prior to any 1-2-1 discussions.
If consensus cannot be reached on a particular rating, the manager responsible for the individual in question will need to arrange a separate discussion with the relevant managers that are in disagreement with their view to gain further understanding around the lack of agreement.
Ultimately, the line manager is required to make and be accountable for the final decision taken on someone's rating, but they must provide clear justification to their executive director or director, as well as their business partner to ensure this rationale can be provided in the case of any challenges to that rating.
Mid-year pre-submission moderation
- Discuss where people are likely to be scored for their mid-year review.
- How does this view compare with others across the team?
- Is everyone clear on what meeting or exceeding should look like?
- Have we assessed both technical ability and behaviours when considering where people are performing against their objectives?
- Obtain feedback to take into individual discussions.
- How does this compare to where people were at their end of year?
- Do we feel comfortable with the indicative picture of performance we have for our teams at this point in the year?
- What interventions are needed to get people on the right track (for low performers)?
- Who are the high performers and where are they sitting? What talent planning are we doing in this space to retain and motivate these individuals?
Mid-year post-submission moderation
- Looking at the overall picture for the team.
- Are we happy with the data and can we stand by it as fair and consistent, compared to the wider organisation?
- How does the data compare to our end of year data?
- Does the data align to our pre-submission discussions?
End of year pre-submission moderation
- What indicative ratings are we anticipating giving the individuals in our teams?
- Have we assessed both technical ability and behaviours when considering where people are performing against their objectives?
- What feedback have we sourced? Do we need to source more to obtain a balanced view?
- Do the highest performers across the team compare to one another consistently and have they been considered fairly?
- Are we clear on what meeting or exceeding for the whole year looks like?
- What interventions are needed to get people on the right track (for low performers)?
- Who are the high performers and where are they sitting? What talent planning are we doing in this space to retain and motivate these individuals?
- Who will be nominated for a bonus and why?
- What movement have we seen between mid year and end of year?
- Do we stand by the indicative picture of performance we have for our teams?
End of year post-submission moderation
- What is the overall split of bonus nominations and performance ratings?
- What is the grade split across the performance ratings and bonus nominations?
- What is the EDI picture telling us?
- Are we happy with this data? Does this align with the pre-submission moderation data? Can we stand by it as fair and consistent, compared to the wider organisation?
Who should be there and what their roles are
Line managers
Line managers are expected to:
- come prepared to discuss indicative ratings across teams and provide rationale against these
- provide objective challenge to those outside of their direct reporting line, following up with evidence where necessary
- engage in constructive discussions across directorates, listening to feedback when provided
- hold individual conversations following pre-submission moderations with direct reports, integrating feedback from these moderations when appropriate and discussing the performance against agreed objectives
Chair - director, executive director, CEO
Chairs are expected to:
- agree structure and agenda with facilitator
- ensure decisions and feedback are made on the basis of evidence
- lead on raising objective challenge and consistent application of ratings by the managers
- ensure outputs meet TPR PDA expectations
Co-ordinator – ops lead
Co-ordinators are expected to:
- arrange and attend sessions, distributing agenda
- obtain and distribute data and analysis from facilitator
- keep records during the sessions, including the recording of indicative ratings against the staff list in pre-submission moderations
- ensure all data is submitted via the online form by the deadline, following up with line managers regularly after pre-submission moderations
Facilitator – SPBP and talent and succession manager
Facilitators are expected to:
- agree structure and agenda with chair
- facilitate the session, providing objective challenge and raising relevant issues potentially based on People team or ER support provided throughout the year
- support the co-ordinator and line managers as required
- follow up with managers and SLT to ensure all ratings are submitted via the online form by the deadline