Further to our invite to the EGM on the 3rd of August, we are writing with some further details regarding the issues to be discussed around Programme Closures and Changes to appraisal / PDR processes.
Unprecedented Programme Closures
The spate of programme closures is suggested by management as “routine” despite being approximately 10 times higher in two months than is typical in an average year. Feedback from members so far shows a consistent pattern – one of unprecedented haste, with many of the University’s own Codes of Practice around timescales and consultation being abandoned in the rush to get these programmes withdrawn and taught-out as soon as possible. We are aware that there may be many more programme withdrawals to come.
Management suggestions that cost savings and timetabling pressures are the reason for the closures are baseless. In the absence of a credible rationale for any short-term gains, we are left wondering as to the long-term motivations of the relatively new leadership at Surrey. We look to whether more sweeping changes may be yet to come, as the recently withdrawn programmes begin to be taught out. Incidentally, graduation of the final cohorts of the closed programmes will coincide with the VC approaching the final year of his current term.
This pattern has already captured press attention: THE Course closures at University of Surrey raise concerns
Changes to appraisal process / Professional Development Review (PDR) – a “Command and Control” management style?
As an outcome of the recent JNCC meeting, we have been informed that Senior management have contrived a change in process that will involve rating more staff as underperforming – unfortunately, this information contained only top notes and did not contain the criteria or quotas of low scores managers will be held to and so we are advising all members to be aware and prepared. Some members with line management responsibilities may already have been briefed about the changes. We are surprised at the toxic and counterproductive approach that risks demotivating and demoralising staff, and which creates a punitive environment in which those who feel they need help to improve are less inclined to ask for it, should they fear making themselves an easy target.
While the rating changes are likely to affect all staff, for those assessed according to the PDR (see *1 for a summary of the background) there is an additional concern based on the minutes from the University Council meeting, November 2025: DRAFT (25/163.4)
“It was noted that staff appraisal scores are not moderated and normalised to create a bell curve of results. Academic staff are more skewed towards the top end and Professional Services staff scores have a more normal distribution. Academic staff appraisal scores are being reviewed, particularly in the context of academic areas which are performing poorly on external benchmarked metrics”.
Aside from an absence of detail in these minutes about external benchmarked metrics is the flawed expectation that a normal distribution curve should result from a skewed scoring scale (*2) – a somewhat surprising misunderstanding from a Council whose membership is supposedly selected from academic and business leaders.
Many other questions are raised by the change in the staff performance processes. We outline a few of these below, and welcome additional comments by email, or at the EGM. We note that many members may hold some form of line management responsibility and will also want to resist pressures to rate their staff with low scores.
Why the contradiction between the statement from the Council minutes – a meeting where the VC was present, and the more outward facing “View from the VC” just a few weeks earlier, which highlighted a need to improve staff recognition for our contributions:
“The results [of the People Survey] also highlight areas for improvement. While these vary across teams, a consistent theme is the need to better recognise colleagues’ contributions and celebrate their successes. An additional finding that particularly caught my attention was that only 44% of respondents felt confident the University would take positive action as a result of the survey.” View from the VC, 31/10/25.
Why, when University managers are keen to extol its achievements against the sector in recent years, would its staff not be expected to be performing well? Why are as many staff expected to be underperforming as performing adequately? Ironically, in a year where staff have been pressured to meet targets that skew student pass rates and good degrees upwards, there is a move for performance ratings to be massaged in the opposite direction for staff. If the Council minutes are to be taken at face value and a bell curve of scores is expected, this would suggest a move where on the PDR 4-point scale, just as many staff will be expected to underperform than to meet expectations.
Why have University managers neglected their responsibility to consult and negotiate with recognised Campus Trade Unions on plans that will affect staff terms and conditions? Scores of less than “meeting expectations” can, at worst, trigger formal performance management processes such as Capability, which may lead to dismissal. A conscious effort to place more staff at risk of this outcome should have been subject to rigorous scrutiny, for reasons summarised below (not exhaustive):
- Fairness– e.g. where some people may be viewed by managers as easier targets in being less likely to challenge a bad score, more isolated by a peripheral role in the team, or other issues around Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. We would have expected an equality impact assessment to have been shared – none has been forthcoming
- Legitimacy of a process change mid-cycle. People will have agreed targets last year, unaware until just a few weeks before being assessed that the scoring of their progress would become harsher than custom and practice would lead them to believe
- Erroneous inclusion of Module Evaluation Questionnaire scores in PDRs – we have an open dispute with management, dating from 2021, because of the numerous ways in which these scores are flawed
- The UKRI funding pause significantly hindered grant submission plans for significant numbers of academic staff – we asked for reassurance at the time that mitigating circumstances would be recognised – it appears that such recognition will not be forthcoming
- There were vast differences in the approach to setting local targets last year, with some areas of the University setting numerous additional targets around e.g. grant income and publications. There was no central oversight of this last year, meaning that people in equivalent roles across the University will be assessed discordantly.
We hope as many of you as possible can join our EGM to discuss these matters in further detail.
Thank you everyone
Surrey UCU
*1 – All staff were, until 2024, assessed under a 5-point scoring system, in which a score of 3 indicated that one was meeting objectives, with two scoring points either side. In 2024, academic staff were switched to the PDR 4-point scoring system with a score of 2 indicating meeting their objectives, with two scoring points below satisfactory performance, but only one above. We commented at the time that such a system made it harder to capture efforts that went above and beyond even if they fell short of the highest possible rating.
*2 Furthermore, the difference between Academic and Professional Services scorings are misrepresented in the Council minutes – data actually show the that scores for the two groups are comparable if measured according to nominal categories of those rated as at least “meeting expectations” compared with those rated below this threshold. Comparison between distributions of data sets measured according against different scoring scales, as Council have done, yields unreliable and misleading conclusions.