Posted by Fleet Captain Nathan Miller (TECH Lead / EGO) in Process for Reviewing, Improving, and Managing Effectiveness

Posted by Vice Admiral Jack D (President) in Process for Reviewing, Improving, and Managing Effectiveness
Hi all,

As mentioned a couple of days ago, below is a draft of the ‘Process for Reviewing, Improving, and Managing Effectiveness’ bylaw. A few points:

1. I’ve captured the ‘three strike’ process that was previously discussed in command.

2. When writing this, I felt that the process could be used across leadership positions in the club - principally COs, FComms, Directors, EAs and ‘board’ members. However, rather than baking into the bylaw which positions should use this, I’ve written it so the founding bylaws for those positions will point to PRIME. For example, the section in FCOMM regarding removal would require updating to reference PRIME.

3. I’ve tried to keep it away from being called ‘PIP’, as I appreciate that can be emotive.

4. Please do pull it apart! I am keen that we have a bylaw that helps both the ‘manager’ and the member, and reduces the risk of any animosity.

Yours,

Jack

---

Process for Reviewing, Improving, and Managing Effectiveness (PRIME)

1. Purpose

The purpose of this bylaw is to set out the formal Process for Reviewing, Improving and Managing Effectiveness (PRIME) for those members who hold leadership positions within the Club. It provides a structured process to support, review, and ensure the necessary performance levels required of those positions, whilst ensuring members are treated fairly. In particular, it ensures members are:

• Given clear expectations and appropriate support to succeed.
• Provided with structured opportunities for improvement before any formal action is taken.
• Treated fairly and transparently through a warning system.

Whilst PRIME serves as a formal framework for addressing performance concerns, it does not replace the need for continued conversations, coaching, or mentorship between those in leadership positions (for example, between FComm and CO).

1. Roles and Responsibilities

2.1 PRIME Manager

The PRIME Manager is responsible for initiating and overseeing the PRIME process for a member under review. This includes:

• Identifying concerns and engaging in an initial discussion before issuing a warning.
• Issuing formal warnings if concerns persist.
• Creating and tracking the PRIME Improvement Plan for the member.
• Reviewing progress at the end of each improvement period.

Elsewhere the term “review period” is used, and I think that’s a better term. It’s pedantic, but an “improvement period” implies it’s a period in which improvement occurs; but what if it doesn’t?

Good spot - we’ll change this to “review period”

• Deciding whether to escalate, maintain, or resolve the process.

What does “resolve” mean in this context?

I meant it here as ‘closing’ the process (i.e. deciding when someone has ‘passed’ a review). Perhaps ‘close’ is a better word.

The PRIME Manager for each position is defined in the relevant bylaw establishing that position (e.g., FComm for COs).

Is the e.g. here that FComm (the position) is the PRIME Manager for COs; or that FCOMM (the bylaw) is the relevant bylaw which would determine who is the PRIME Manager for COs?

The former. We could go with (e.g. FCOMM would establish the PRIME Manager for COs as the FComm). Or we could actually remove it.

2.2 PRIME Reviewer

The PRIME Reviewer ensures fairness and oversight in the process. Their role includes:

• Reviewing and endorsing formal warnings before issuance.
• Ensuring the improvement plan is appropriate and fair.
• Providing a check on the PRIME Manager’s decisions.
• Reviewing and endorsing any final decision on removal.

1. Process

PRIME follows a three-stage process, ensuring that members receive clear expectations, structured support, and multiple opportunities for improvement** before removal is considered.

What does the two asterisks mean here?

Formatting error - I’ll remove them!

3.1 Initial Discussion (Before PRIME Begins)

If concerns arise about a member’s effectiveness in a leadership role, the PRIME Manager must first engage in informal discussions with the member. The goal of this discussion is to identify challenges, offer support, and find solutions without escalation. However, if concerns persist despite informal discussions, the PRIME Manager may decide to issue a formal warning, triggering the PRIME process.

3.2 Stage One – First Formal Warning

• If the PRIME Manager determines that concerns have not been resolved, a first formal warning is issued.
• The warning must include an individualised Improvement Plan, detailing:
  1. Specific areas requiring improvement.
  2. Measurable and achievable actions the member must take.

This is an area we’re going to need to be sure is being correctly and effectively used. “Reduce AWOLs on your ship” is measurable and achievable, but it is a goal and not an action. We need to be sure it is actions and behaviors being targeted.

We could go with goals (which might actually be better, rather than listing every person that needs to be removed or email). The key bit is that they are achievable and measurable.

1. Available support and mentorship.
2. Details of how the formal warning can be appealed. .

Are there details on this appeals process anywhere? I didn’t see anything in this document.

Good spot! We probably could do with discussing this. We could go with one of two things:

1. Appeals are heard by the PRIME reviewer or;
2. Appeals are heard by someone higher up the Chain of Command (noting that the reviewer will have already reviewed the formal warning).

I think I favour option 1, as I would hope that a reviewer, when facing new evidence, would update their view on whether the formal warning was necessary, etc. If we go for 2, we’d need someone after the President to be the appeal body. Conventionally, I think that’s been either Vice President or EGO. But I’m open for a discussion on it.

• The PRIME Reviewer must review and endorse the formal warning before it is issued.
• At the end of the one-month review period, the PRIME Manager determines if the concerns have been addressed.

Should this be “At the end of the a one month review period…”?

I don’t think it matters; in this context it’s ‘the period associated with the warning’ - but happy to change it to ‘a one month review period’.

3.3 Stage Two – Second Formal Warning

• If the member does not meet the improvement plan requirements, a second formal warning is issued which must include a revised Improvement Plan.
• The PRIME Reviewer must review and endorse the second warning before it is issued.
• At the end of the review period, the PRIME Manager determines whether the member has made sufficient progress.
  

How long is this review period? Is it one month again?

Yes - I’ll make it more explicit.

3.4 Stage Three – Final Warning & Removal Consideration

• If the member fails to meet the expectations of the second improvement plan, the PRIME Manager may:
• Extend the improvement plan, if progress is evident but more time is needed.

Is this a one-time extension, or can this be done potentially multiple times? Is there a reason this second stage can be extended but not the first?

To answer the last question first; moving from 1st warning to 2nd warning doesn’t have any bearing on (for example) the COs position. However, after the 2nd review period, the FComm might be satisfied that the CO has improved enough not be removed, but still needs to be reviewed. For the first question, I guess the options are:

1. 1st warning -> 2nd warning -> Removal
2. 1st warning -> 2nd warning -> (additional 2nd warning) -> Removal
3. 1st warning -> 2nd warning -> (additional 2nd warnings)^n -> Removal

(where the additional warnings are optional). Again, I’m happy either way, as long as we feel that whatever we do is fair. I don’t want to force an FComm to remove a CO if there has been improvement, but not quite enough (if that makes sense).

• Proceed with or recommend removal, following the process outlined in the relevant role-specific bylaw.
• The PRIME Reviewer must review and endorse any removal decision before it is enacted.

1. Sustained Performance Requirement

• If a member successfully completes their Improvement PLan, they must maintain the required level of effectiveness for eight (8) months. If performance declines again within this period, the process resumes taking into account formal warnings previously issued.

1. Applicability

The requirement to use PRIME for positions in the club is set out in the bylaws that establish those positions, along with the PRIME Manager and Reviewer.

PRIME does not negate the ability for members to be removed from position as a result of procedures outlined in other bylaws; for example being declared AWOL or being subject to a Tier 5 punishment under the Governing Rules About Violations, Investigations, And Tier Sorting.

Nathan
TECH Lead

Thanks for the comments Nathan. Quite hard to write these in isolation :)

Jack