A recent conversation with someone who has at some stage been on the wrong end of OFSTED (so much so that they are now no longer in education) left me concerned because they not only felt that they could not face the prospect of an MDR but were willing to withdraw rather than endure or engage with the process. Another conversation left me in no doubt that the possession of the freehold was seen as the means by which the drawbridge could be raised and freedom from the whole 'intolerable interference' (their words, not mine) is assured.
Drawing upon my own experience I found the whole process to be extremely time-consuming and yet quite fun and yet, as another colleague has it, the end result appears to be, "A ticked box and nothing positive, enabling or encouraging! We do it to enable someone up the food chain to say they've done the deed. The whole thing is an exercise in futility and dissipation!" The continued by pointing out that having been invited and having effectively declined they were told that this was a mandatory requirement under their 'terms of service' (and they are of course correct as Regulation 18 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations 2009 confirms).
What these reviews should be doing is to help the reviewed assess their ministry in terms of:
Success - which might be communicated to other as good practice and used to underpin the oft woeful diocesan provision,
Failure - those areas where stock needs to be taken and training, support, encouragement and resources (only kidding!) can be initiated,
Hopes - The things we'd love to do; the dreams and aspirations we have and, having identified them, offering support (and the means of making them real),
Fears - The things that cause those who minister to become fearful and impotent. Ministry should be about more than Parish Share and BoPs (Bums On Pews) and yet, for many, this is a daily debilitating reality.
Training Needs - What does the focus of the review need to make them a safer person, a more effective minister, a happier and contented person? We need to find this and then work at supplying the means to resolve the need/s we've identified.
Potential - Can the person who is the focus of the review offer more to more who could in turn reach more and make the Church grow? The answer is 'probably' and yet my conversations indicate that the review appears to be an end in itself - it's only goal is to exist (box ticked) rather than enable - how very sad!
So here we are - Communion is twenty minutes away (the church is set up already) and so I'll leave you with this opening shot in the whole 'appraising ministry' discussion.
Hope you're less depressed and confused than me over the whole thing - still there's more to come so don't give up yet!
The Ministry Development Review sounds very much like the problematic Armed Forces Annual Appraisal System, which replaced a perfectly good and sound reporting system which had been in place for the first 30 years of my service career. The old system was an annual report on individuals under their command, which judged their performance and personal development, made recommendations for future training, promotion or their potential to fill particular specialist roles. Individual participation was limited to a mid-year interview on progress, and an end of year interview for the report.
ReplyDeleteThe reports were written in a frank and candid way that spelled out the strengths and weaknesses in performance and future potential. You could challenge the report if you felt that it was unfair or biased and it was a system that worked fine for many years.
However, the idea's of various appraisal systems being developed in the civilian HR world were considered and they introduced annual appraisal, which was computer based, via a government system, which not many people had access too or the training to use, yet they were expected to actively participate online in the process. Individuals have to insert agreed objectives for each reporting year, insert their hopes and aspirations for the next role for them and assess and state their training needs for that future role.
It took a good ten years to work through and eventually individual participation, particularly for reservists had to be taken off line as not many had the access to the MOD System that the appraisal system runs on. But it doubled or trebled the work for both individuals, Reporting Officers and particularly unit HR staff who had to input the individuals participants details for them. Completely impracticable and in some cases unworkable. But individual progress was and is reliant on them having a current appraisal report, which makes appropriate recommendations and observations on their potential, qualification or suitability for both their current and any future roles.
It works well for those who have the time to do it, but in any every busier and increasingly less well manned Army, it's an obstacle to them actually doing the job they're paid to do which is to train and prepare to deploy on operations.
In my view, performance appraisal should be current, ongoing and simple and accessible, agreed between individual and manager, with two, relatively short, productive meetings to discuss content and conclusion about twice a year. No need for endless paperwork, supporting documentation or evidence (that can be established by witness of the reporting officer of the work being done) with an outcome agreed before the report is completed and sent wherever needed for HR purposes.
I'm talking a maximum of 2 sides of A4 paper.
Thanks for comments - most helpful insights
ReplyDelete