ANNEX I

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT (PER)

PART 1: Initial Discussion upon Arrival

SM DETAILS
Family name First name(s) Country of nationality

Post (Position Title/ EK No) Organisation/Component/Unit/(as appropriate)

Arrival Date: Current End of Mission Date:

Staff Regime Reporting Period EULEX ID No.

International From To
Seconde Contracted
d Local

INITIAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE LINE MANAGER AND THE Date

STAFF MEMBER HELD ON:

Duties and Responsibilities

Duties and Responsibilities, including skills and competencies, work objectives and
performance expectations as discussed and agreed upon between the LM and the SM

LMs name and signature Date

Second LM signature Date

1
PART 2 In Year Review

LM Feedback
Select YES or NO, as appropriate
CHECK LIST QUESTIONS YES NO
1 Does the SM know what is expected of him/her?

2 Has the SM developed his/her performance since the last

meeting?

3 Is there a mutual understanding between you and the SM on what

is it to be accomplished in reference to the Duties and
Responsibilities and/or the improvement plan ?
4 Does SMs overall performance meet your expectations?
5 Are there possible areas of SM improvement?
6 Is SM implementing the agreed performance improvement plan
from the last meeting?
7 Do you recommend a performance improvement plan?

SM FEEDBACK
Select YES or NO, as appropriate
CHECK LIST QUESTIONS YES NO
1 Do you know what is it expected of you (clear tasks)?

2 Do you consider that you receive sufficient feedback by your LM

as regards your tasks?
3 Have you met your work objectives since last meeting ?
4 Are there any aspects of your work that need to be improved?
5 Do you agree with your LMs feedback in Part 2?

Comments by the LM

Comments by the SM

2
 Performance Appraisal Discussion Completed on :
(if multiple appraisal discussions take place, additional forms may be attached)

LMs name and Date

signature

Second LM signature Date

SM signature Date

GUIDELINES for PART 2

DESCRIPTION OF COMPETENCIES AND SKILLS AS LISTED IN PART 3 OF THE PER FORM.

In conducting the overall assessment, the LM will take into the account the following:

Quality of work: professional knowledge/skills, understanding of the elements

pertinent to the job, thoroughness and accuracy, analytical ability to access and
synthesize information, creativity in problem-solving, gender-sensitivity and non-
discriminatory language and behaviour (e.g. no sexist or ethnic jokes).

Quantity of work: volume of work, promptness of response, ability to

organize/prioritize and meet deadlines.

Interpersonal skills and teamwork: ability and willingness to work harmoniously

with colleagues in a multi-cultural/ethnic environment with sensitivity and respect for
diversity, ability to establish and maintain external contacts if relevant, ability to work
with peers/in teams.

Independence and flexibility (ability to work with minimum supervision, ability to

adapt to change, willingness to work additional hours when needed)
3
 Working under pressure: ability to maintain quality of work, readiness to accept
added duties, willingness to volunteer when necessary, moral and poise under stress.

Dependability and adaptability: Reliability in working with minimum supervision,

willingness to adapt to new requirements, adaptability to conditions of
hardship/hazard.

Communication skills: ability to communicate clearly in the official language of the

mission and other languages relevant to the job, where applicable, both orally and in
writing.

Computer skills: ability to use available IT-tools as appropriate.

Supervision and managerial skills, if relevant: ability to set and prioritize tasks,
organize available resources, monitor and evaluate SM objectively, motivate them,
delegate work, build and sustain teams, leadership skills. Furthermore managerial skills
such as i) vision; ii) leadership: iii) building trust; iv) judgment/ Decision-making; and v)
empowering others would be valuable to include in the appraisal.

Suitability for the present and/or other assignments.

BASIC APPRAISAL TIPS

1. What a good appraisal meeting looks like

A good and constructive appraisal meeting is one in which:
The SM does most of the talking
The LM listens actively to what the SM says
The LM is encourage to give feedback
There is scope for reflection and analysis so that a two-way communication is possible
Performance is analyzed, not personality
The whole period is reviewed and not just recent or isolated events
Achievement is recognized
Ends positively with agreed action plans or performance improvement plan.

2. A bad appraisal meeting:

Focuses on a catalogue of failures and omissions
Is controlled by the LM
Ends with disagreement between appraiser and appraisee.

3. Giving feedback
Feedback should be based on facts; not subjective opinion and should always be
backed up with evidence and examples. The aim of feedback should be to promote the
understanding of the individual so that they are aware of the impact of their actions
and behavior. It may require corrective action where the feedback indicates that
something has gone wrong. However, wherever possible feedback should be used
positively to reinforce the good and identify opportunities for further positive action.
Feedback is two-way, also from SM and LM.

4
Part 3 - Final Performance Evaluation

Input by the Staff Member

Description of 1. Major tasks, assignments and responsibilities during the reporting
period; 2. Training and supervision received; 3. Self-assessment (expectations,
achievements, interests, difficulties, improvement); 4. Any other relevant issues.

I wish to have my tour of duty/contract extended: Yes No

Assessment by the Line Manager

The Line Manager evaluates the Staff Member's competencies and skills as well as
strengths and areas requiring further improvement relevant for the functions including
the following:
1. Performance (Quality of work, quantity of work, interpersonal skills and teamwork,
independence and flexibility, working under pressure, dependability and adaptability,
communication skills, computer skills, supervision and managerial skills (if relevant); 2.
Staff Member's suitability for the present and/or other assignments; 3. Any other relevant
issues.

Performance related discussion between the Staff Member and the Line Manager held on
(date):

CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION
AWARDED
Truly exceptional and rare performance that far exceeds
Unusual
reasonable expectations, including creativity and initiative,
Contribution
high motivation and strong leadership (if relevant)
Exceeds
Distinctly better performance than reasonably expected,
expectations
inclusive of consistent willingness to undertake additional work
frequently
Competent and adept performance that fully meets
Fully Satisfactory
reasonable expectations.
Performance meets some or even most requirements but is in
Partly satisfactory
need of improvement.

5
Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet reasonable requirements.
Recommendation for Yes Recommendation for future Yes
extension1 No ESDP missions No

1. Justifications together with detailed samples for other ratings than "Fully
satisfactory" and/or non-extension/non-recommendation for future missions; 2.
Explanation if no discussion between the Staff Member and Line Member took place prior
to completing this assessment.

Line Manager's name Position Signature Date

Comments on the assessment, if any, from the Staff Member: I agree

Yes No with the PER

Comments:

Staff Member's signature: Date:

Comments by the Second Level Line Manager

Comments:

Second Level Line Position Signature Date

Managers name

Receipt of a copy of the assessment by the Staff Member:

Following the completion of the assessment the staff member must sign the original report and be
given a copy thereof. The signature acknowledges only the receipt and does not necessarily
indicate agreement with the evaluation contained in the report.
In case of a seconded Staff Member, a copy may be sent to the Seconding State if not refused by
the Staff Member by ticking the following box

Staff Member's signature: Date:

1 The non recommendation for extension or for future CSDP Missions does not prejudice on
the staff member's ability to perform his/her tasks for the seconding Organization
6
ANNEX II
TIME FRAME
FOR PER INITIATION & APPEAL AGAINST PER

DEADLINE WEEKS
for action ACTIONS BEFORE END OF
(within) MISSION

Starting SM initiates PER procedure and receives assessment 17 weeks (4 months)

point from his/her first level LM.

1 week SM raises his/her disagreement to 2nd level LM 16 weeks

1 week 2nd level LM tries to find a common accepted solution 15 weeks

by consulting both LM and SM

4 weeks If disagreement is not resolved , SM launches an 11 weeks

appeal against PER to Head of HR

1 week Head of HR asks LMs to provide full justification and 10 weeks

forwards complete file and appeal to the Advisory
Board

2 weeks Advisory Board review file, consult separately with 8 weeks

SM and LMs, issue a joint written recommendation
and forwards it to the HoM

2 weeks HoM issues decision 6 weeks

1 week HHR forwards a copy of the HoMs decision to the 5 weeks

SM, LM, NCL (for seconded SM)

12 weeks. TOTAL LENGTH