the status of performance management in the public service presentation to portfolio committee: 8...
TRANSCRIPT
The status of performance management in the
Public Service
Presentation to Portfolio Committee:
8 May 2002
OBJECTIVES
To present an overview of the state of performance management in the Public Service and the implementation of the new performance management and development system (PMDS) for sms.
HISTORICAL REALITIES
• Before amalgamation and rationalisation in 1994 - many PM systems and procedures in public service, with detailed rules & regulations on appraisal for different categories of staff & for different purposes
• Major reform: 1 July 1999 - new management framework: devolution of management of depts to political & administrative heads of depts
• “One size fits all” approach abandoned. Each dept allowed to develop its own HR policies & systems, within a framework of uniform norms & standards
Putting the Management of Performance in the Public Sector into ContextPerformancemanagement for
By means of Statutory provisions
Departments/Institutions/Public Entities
Standards fororganisationaleffectiveness &efficiency
Public Finance Management Act, 1999;Treasury Regulations, 2001 [s. 27(4), 38(1)(b) &40(3)(a)
Heads of Department Performanceagreement
Public Service Act, 1994 [s. 12(4)]Public Service Regulations, 2001, Part 1 of Annex2
Senior managers (SMS)(levels 13 - 15)
Performanceagreement &from 1/4/02 newPM system
PSCBC Resolution 13 of 1998; Resolution 9 of2000Public Service Regulations, 2001, Chapter 4, PartIIISMS Handbook, new Chapter
All other staff(levels 1 - 12)
DepartmentalPM system(from 1/4/2001)
Public Service Regulations, 2001, Chapter 1, PartVIIIPSCBC Resolution 3 of 1999
PM : levels 1 - 12
Part VIII of Chapter I of the Public Service Regulations, 2001, serves as the primary guide to departments in developing and implementing their departmental performance management systems. Regulation VIII B.1 requires of each executing authority to determine a system for performance management and development for employees in that department (other than employees who are members of senior management). The system had to be in place with effect from 1 April 2001.
STATE OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (Levels 1 to 12)
A survey conducted by the DPSA indicated the following: (2001 information)
• 9 out of 34 national departments have started implementation of systems for staff below SMS
• 1 out of 9 provinces has started implementation
• On the positive side, only 3 national departments and 2 provincial administrations have not made some progress in developing their own PM systems
THREE LEVELS OF PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES
Level Description Categories of issues
Level
1
Performance management specific System development issues
System content issues
System implementation issues
Historical realities - e.g. backlogs
Level
2
Organisational Resource and capacity issues
Managerial issues
Broader systemic issues
Broader organisational issues
Level
3
Environmental Change management & transformation issues
Policy and sequencing issues
Leadership issues (political & administrative)
Interface issues (political & administrative)
Review of the Old Performance Management System for SMS
As part of SMS initiative, DPSA embarked on review of old PM for SMS
Review took place against background of following realities: PA’s only introduced in 1998 When introduced, PA’s not compulsory - although
salary increases & cash bonuses of managers dependent on performance in accordance with PA
Review of the Old Performance Management System for SMS (Cont.)
Departments required to put performance evaluation systems in place by 31/03/2000 to assess managers - for HOD evaluations unique system introduced by PSC
Since 1998, MPSA annually determined parameters for salary increases and cash bonuses - awarding thereof a departmental decision
KEY FINDINGS - STRENGTHS
Shift has taken place from fixation on processes to delivery of outcomes & outputs
Insistence on achievement of tangible results has resulted in improvement of management info systems
Individual performance increasingly being seen within context of org performance
Decentralisation of performance management has resulted in improved ownership
Synergy is starting to develop between strategic, financial & HR processes
KEY FINDINGS - WEAKNESSES
Problem areas PA’s often not adequately linked to
strat & operational plans/ PA’s not reviewed annually
PA’s not part of an integrated perf man process
Often no consequences for poor/excellent performance
Main causes Planning & perf man cycle not yet fully
synchronised
Gaps in policy framework Capacity constraints in developing own perf
management systems Performance standards & indicators not
clearly defined Rating scales undefined/weak linkages to
incapacity processes & rewards Reluctance to address performance
problems Assessment backlogs Financial constraints
KEY FINDINGS - WEAKNESSES
Problem areas Mediocrity sometimes rewarded
Allocation of higher packages done ad-hoc
Training & development interventions often not linked to on-the-job performance
No common base to compare performance across departments & to inform career decisions
Assessments only focus on delivery of short term outputs & not on building the org
Main causes No guidance on distribution of rewards Weak oversight No pay progression system for serving
staff No provision for personal development
plans as part of perf man system
Incompatibility of assessment systems Inadequate guidance on formats
No common understanding & measurement of key managerial responsibilities
OBJECTIVES OF THE NEW PMDS FOR SMS
Linked to the overall objective of SMS of improving attraction, retention & development of high quality senior managers & professionals
Provide a fair and equitable basis upon which to identify under-performance and reward good performance
Provide a framework for performance improvement and development
Creates linkages between individual and organisational performance to improve service delivery
KEY FEATURES
Strongly results based, balances standardisation with flexibility to adapt: standardised management assessment criteria, linked to
competency framework; standardised rating scale; and personal development plans
Clear guidelines for linkages to pay progression and reward
Separate annual cost-of-living increases from performance-based cash bonuses & pay progression
Simplified
KEY FEATURES (cont.)
Only fully effective SMS members to be considered for pay progression
Performance significantly above expectations to be considered for cash bonuses
Decision on number of managers to be granted cash bonuses and extent thereof to be taken by EA’s, based on assessment results and within following parameters: max of 1,5% of SMS wage bill to be utilised for this
purpose; and cash bonus not to exceed 8% of individual’s total package.
The Regulations require of departments to use a single instrument to assess the performance of managers
An assessment instrument has been developed - Departments may customise the instrument to suit their particular needs
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT
CUT-OFF POINTS
<50%Unacceptable performanceProbation extendedEmployment terminated
50 - 64%
Performance not fully adequateProbation confirmed or extendedPerformance improvement measures introduced
65 - 79%
Fully effectiveProbation confirmedPay progression granted
80 - 84%
Performance significantly above expectationsProbation confirmedPay progression grantedCash bonus (between 3 & 5%)
>85%
Outstanding performanceProbation confirmedPay progression grantedCash bonus (between 6 & 8%)
PAY PROGRESSION SYSTEM
All members of the SMS are eligible to be considered for performance related pay increase (package progression) on a bi-annual basis provided that their performance is evaluated to be fully effective.
They also need to have a signed performance agreement. The assessment rating of 65% or higher must be achieved over the last 12 months of the performance management cycle.
PAY PROGRESSION SYSTEM (cont)
The first pay progression can be effected on 1 April 2003 - depending on performance in 2002/03
Future progression cycles will run over 24 months, commencing on 1 April of a particular year
Only continuous service over 24 months on the same level will count for purposes of pay progression
KEY FEATURES (cont.)
HOD evaluation processes to be aligned with new system
Will build in strong data capturing (PERSAL) and reporting arrangements (annual report) - to allow for better monitoring & evaluation
INFORMATION ON STATE OF PA’S IN DEPARTMENTS
The OPSC in 2001 conducted a survey on PA’s in departments countrywide.
• Following the survey, the OPSC is finalising a report to strengthen the monitoring of PA’s.
• A questionnaire was sent to departments
• Interviews were conducted with senior managers
• The finalisation of the OPSC report will ensure the availability of information on the management of PA’s