Supporting performance and development in Mathematics
08 Dec 2025
The Department of Mathematics has refined its approach to Performance Development Reviews in response to staff feedback
The Department of Mathematics has been evolving its approach to Performance Development Reviews (PDRs) over the past few years. Following feedback from staff, most recently from this year’s colleague engagement survey, Head of Department Professor Andrew Hazel and his leadership team have been refining how line management and career-development conversations are supported. We sat down with Andrew to explore what’s changed, why these changes matter and how they’re beginning to make a difference.
What prompted you to take a fresh look at PDRs in your department?
I wouldn’t say there was a single point that triggered a major overhaul, it was more of a gradual process that we have been working on for some time. Our External Advisory Board strongly encouraged us to consider what effective line management looks like in a department like ours. We had also received feedback from colleagues which made it clear that we needed to strengthen the structure around PDRs and line management to improve consistency.
One of the most helpful changes has been aligning line managers more closely with our academic groups. That makes the conversations more relevant because colleagues are talking to someone who broadly understands their subject area. It has also helped to clarify exactly who is responsible for carrying out a PDR.
So it’s been more about changing the approach and structure rather than the PDR itself?
The process itself felt broadly fine. What needed more attention was how we approached it and how staff and line managers viewed these conversations. I have been encouraging line managers to see a PDR as a supportive discussion rather than yet another task to complete. Ideally, PDRs should be part of a wider pattern of regular conversations throughout the year, not just something that happens once and is then forgotten. PDRs should be a space to talk openly about career development, wellbeing and anything that may be shaping or influencing an individual’s progress towards achieving their goals, particularly things they feel are holding them back. The formal PDR is there to ensure that at least one structured conversation takes place per year, but it works best when it’s part of ongoing discussions.
How have you implemented this across the department?
We have moved towards a clearer and more sustainable structure. The department now has around seventeen or eighteen academic line managers organised within the academic groups. Staff are all line managed by someone within their group. Those line managers report to the Head of Group. The Heads of Group then report to me.
Given that we have more than one hundred academics in the department, this structure provides a more straightforward route for communication and support while preventing any one person from having too many people to manage. All line managers meet quarterly to talk about how things are going generally, flag any problems and indicate what support they might need.
When do you encourage colleagues to have their PDR conversations?
When the University introduced more flexibility to the PDR process last year, we felt it made sense to recommend a preferred time of year for the PDRs. After talking it through with the line managers, we agreed that summer works best. We now encourage colleagues to have their PDR conversations at some point between July and September. People usually have a little more time available, and it fits well within the academic cycle. It also helps those planning for promotion or academic leave because those calls appear in autumn, so that gives colleagues the summer to reflect and prepare.
Who has helped shape this approach?
This has very much been a collective effort. All line managers have been involved in the discussions. I think it is important that people have the chance to contribute to decisions that affect how they work. If something comes from a shared conversation, people feel more able to support it.
We talked about the value of PDRs, how they could work best in a department of our size and what kind of guidance or recommendations would feel helpful rather than directive. That collaborative approach has made a real difference.
How have colleagues responded to the changes in the PDR process?
One of the encouraging signs has been the way career development conversations are now taking place. When we look at promotion cases or talk more broadly about development, line managers are increasingly able to say that they have already had conversations with colleagues about where they are and what they may need to do next. Sometimes those conversations happened in a formal PDR meeting and sometimes they happened more informally, but either way it shows that more dialogue is happening.
Not everyone feels they need a PDR each year especially if they have been here a long time, although I would still say it is worth checking in. For newer academic staff, regular conversations are especially important. They help make sure people know what is expected of them and what support is available. Even for more senior colleagues, taking time to reflect is always valuable.
How did this year’s colleague engagement survey influence your thinking and what other areas are you focusing on as a result?
The survey certainly prompted some useful conversations. One of the questions asked was about whether staff regularly have wellbeing discussions with line managers. Academic colleagues responded that generally they did not, but that was typically because those conversations were not needed. The wording did not capture that distinction and it showed us that some of the results need careful interpretation rather than being taken at face value.
Workload and feeling listened to were also recurring themes. Some colleagues raised concerns about work arriving directly from outside the department without their line manager being aware, which understandably makes it harder for managers to support them. This is something we are continuing to consider as we review our workload allocation principles. We are refining these to ensure that they remain relevant, transparent, consistent and as fair as possible across the different groups so colleagues can see how decisions are made and feel confident about how work is distributed.
We are also looking more broadly at communication pathways across the department and, ideally, the wider University. When tasks or requests bypass line management structures, it can leave both staff and managers feeling disempowered, so improving that flow of communication is a priority.
What principles are guiding you as you continue this work?
A great deal of what we have been doing is about clarity, consistency and making sure that meaningful conversations can take place, as needed. The survey has helped shine a light on areas where colleagues feel supported and areas where we can do more. There is still work ahead, but I feel we are moving in the right direction and I am pleased that the changes we have made are helping to strengthen our culture around line management and development.