training impact assessment report 2016-2017 … report final _31 march 2017.pdf · this evaluation...

TRAINING IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT 2016-2017

DIRECTORATE: PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT

DRAFT REPORT

31 March 2017

Authors:

Ilse Eigelaar-Meets

Dr Amiena Bayat

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 4

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................... 5

3. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FOR MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS .................................................... 8

3.1.1 Description of Learning Programme ..................................................................................... 8

3.1.2 Level Two Analysis................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.3 Level Three Measurement .................................................................................................. 11

3.1.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 15

3.2 MANAGING ABSENCE IN THE WORKPLACE ................................................................................. 15

3.2.1 Description of Learning Programme .................................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Level Two Analysis ............................................................................................................... 15

3.2.3 Level Three Measurement ................................................................................................... 19

3.2.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 24

3.3 MEETING SKILLS FOR CHAIRPERSONS AND FACILITATORS .......................................................... 25

3.3.1 Description of learning process ........................................................................................... 25


3.3.3 Level Three Measurement ................................................................................................... 30

3.3.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 34

3.4 PROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT (PAJA) .............................................................. 34

2



3.4.3 Level Three Analysis ............................................................................................................. 39

3.4.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 43

3.5 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR SUPERVISORS .................................................................... 44




3.5.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 52

3.6 PUBLIC SERVICE INDUCTION ........................................................................................................ 52


3.6.2 Level Two Analysis ................................................................................................................... 53


3.6.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 61

3.7 POLICY ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................... 61




3.7.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 70

3.8 RECRUITMENT & SELECTION FOR LINE MANAGERS .................................................................... 70



3


3.8.4 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 80

4 CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 81

4

1. INTRODUCTION

The Chief Directorate People Training and Empowerment (PTE) measures the effectiveness

and subsequent impact of training offered at the Provincial Training Institute (PTI) to

individual learners and client departments within the Western Cape Government through a

Training Impact Assessment (TIA). This happens on an annual basis.

The Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, which evaluates the impact of learning on 4 Levels, was

identified as a suitable model for the TIA process. However, the PTE assessed the impact of

training up to Level 3 only, which refers to knowledge gained (Level 2) and possible

behavioural changes (Level 3) pertaining to the application of gained knowledge and skills in

the workplace.

The aim of this report is to present the findings from the levels 2 and 3 assessments, which

was derived from the completed pre- and post-assessment questionnaires and individual and

group interviews conducted by the PTE Skills Development Facilitators (SDFs) with

approximately 632 learners and supervisors.

The goal of the assessment was to measure the impact of training in the province in terms of

knowledge gained and possible behavioural changes for the period 1 April 2015 - 31 March

2016, in respect of the following learning programmes (LP) offered by the PTI as from 1 April

2015:

1. Progressive Discipline for Managers & Supervisors

2. Managing Absence in the Workplace

3. Meeting skills for Chairpersons and Facilitators

4. Promotion for Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)

5. Performance Management for Supervisors

6. Public Induction 1- 5 (PSI)

7. Policy Analysis, Development, and Implementation

8. Recruitment & Selection or Line Managers

These LPs were regarded as part of the core strategic training needs, identified by the

management team in the Chief Directorate PTE and were delivered by both internal and

external facilitators.

5

The data collection and data capturing processes were undertaken by the Skills Development

Facilitators (SDF) from the People Empowerment (PE) directorate, whilst the creation of the

datasets, analysis of data and formal report writing remained the responsibility of the service

provider. Strong emphasis was however placed on the capacitation of the PE team in

capturing the data in SPSS (Statistical Programme for the Social Scientist), data analysis and

report writing.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK1

This evaluation is based on the Kirkpatric Evaluation Model, also referred to as the Four Levels

of Evaluation. This model has been identified as a suitable model for the Training Impact

Assessment. The four levels of evaluation as defined in this model are: (1) the reaction of the

learner and their thoughts about the training experience, (2) the resulting learning and

increase in knowledge from the training experience, (3) the learner’s behavioural change and

improvement after applying the skills on the job and (4) the results or effects that the

learner’s performance has on the business. Even though the PTE only measures Levels 2 and 3

as part of its TIA, all four levels of Kirkpatrick’s Model are discussed below.

LEVEL 1: REACTION

The measurement in level 1 solicits opinions of the learning experience following a training

event or training. Typical questions will measure the degree to which learners found the

experience valuable and relevant, whether they felt engaged, their assessment of the quality

of the presentation materials and the venue. This level of measurement is viewed as

important, as it aids in understanding how well the training was received by the audience. It

also assists with improving future training as well as identifying further areas or topics that

are missing in the content that needs to be included in future training.

1 Sources for information the Kirkpatrick scale:

1. Kirkpatrick’s Four-level Training Evaluation Model,

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/kirkpatrick.htm;

2. Four Levels of Evaluation, https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/four-levels-of-evaluation.aspx

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/kirkpatrick.htm

https://www.trainingindustry.com/wiki/entries/four-levels-of-evaluation.aspx

6

LEVEL 2: LEARNING

Level 2 measures the degree to which learners acquired the intended knowledge, skills and

attitudes during their training. At this level, the increase in their knowledge as a result of the

training is measured. Measurement on this level is informed by the training objectives and is

typically conducted as pre- and post- measures, although it can also be conducted by means

of a post test only. The objective of measurement on this level is to provide an indication of

what was learned and not learned. This level of measurement leaves the training

administrators and presenters with information on how to best restructure and/or adapt the

training to ensure that the training objectives are met in the future.

LEVEL 3: BEHAVIOUR

Level 3 measures the degree to which the learner’s behaviour has changed as a result of the

training. Behaviour in this context should be understood as the ability of the learner to apply

what he or she has learned in the training to their specific work environment. A note of

caution is necessary here, as it is important to recognise that behaviour can only change if

conditions are favourable. A lack of behavioural change does not necessarily mean that the

learner did not learn anything, but may simply be as a result of the work environment which

does not allow for the application of newly acquired knowledge. On a personal level, a learner

might also simply not have the desire to apply what he/she has been taught.

LEVEL 4: RESULTS

Measurement on level 4 seeks to determine the tangible results of the training impact based

on outcomes that the organisation important for its effective functioning, such as: improved

quality and efficiency, increased productivity, higher employee retention, and higher morale.

As indicated earlier, for the purpose of this evaluation the PTE collected data applicable to

levels two and three of the Kirkpatric Evaluation Model. For measurement on level two i.e.,

assessing the level of learning that took place, learners were requested to complete a pre-

and post course evaluation, prior to and immediately following the completion of the training.

For measurement on level three i.e., measuring the impact of the training on the behaviour of

7

the learner, both learners and supervisors were requested to complete a questionnaire

provided some time after the training was conducted. The data was subsequently captured in

SPSS, cleaned, verified and analysed.

In measuring the impact of the learning programme on the knowledge and behaviour of

participants, respondents were asked to respond to a set of statements by selecting an

appropriate response set on a five point scale commonly referred to as a Likert scale. Dr.

Rensis Likert developed a procedure for measuring attitudinal scales in 1932. The original

Likert scale used a series of questions with five response alternatives: strongly approve (1),

approve (2), undecided (3), disapprove (4), and strongly disapprove (5). He combined the

response from the series of questions to create an attitudinal measurement scale and based

his analysis on the composite score from the series of questions that represented the

attitudinal scale. Individual questions were not analysed2.

Likert scale data is categorised as ordinal scale observations. Ordinal scale observations are

ranked in some measure of magnitude in that numbers are assigned to groups expressing a

‘greater than’ or ‘smaller than’ relationship. However, how much greater or smaller is not

specified, the numbers only indicate an order from high to low or vice versa. Given the ordinal

nature of Likert scale data, descriptive statistics recommended for this measurement scale

include the establishment of a mode3 or median4 for trend and frequencies for variability5.

3. FINDINGS

This section presents the findings for the respective training evaluations. As indicated in the

above section, the evaluation measurement applied in this evaluation study is based on the

Kirkpatric Evaluation Model. Measurement in this report is, however, confined to level two

and three measurement as defined in this evaluation model.

In the discussion, research findings will first be discussed for each individual training

programme, showing (a) the impact it has had on the knowledge gained of participants (level

2 Analyzing Likert Data, Journal of Extension, April 2012, Vol. 50 (20), Article #2TOT2, www.joe.org

3 Mode refers to the response that occurs most often

4 Median refers to the average responses provided

5Analyzing Likert Data, Journal of Extension, April 2012, Vol. 50 (20), Article #2TOT2, www.joe.org

8

2) as reported by the participants themselves and, (b) to what extend the training has had an

impact on the behaviour of participants (level 3) as reported by the participants themselves as

well as their respective supervisors.

Given the ordinal nature of the Likert scale items employed here, analysis will focus on

descriptive statistics. These statistics will describe firstly; the main tendencies as observed in

the data by means of the mean and mode scores and secondly; illustrate variability in

responses by analysing the frequencies of responses within statements.

3.1 PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FOR MANAGERS AND

SUPERVISORS

3.1.1 Description of Learning Programme

The target group for this learning programme include all Government Western Cape

supervisors and managers. The purpose of this learning programme was to equip

supervisors/mangers to effectively implement progressive discipline in the workplace focusing

on the following:

The Legislative framework that prescribes Progressive Discipline in the Public Service

Duties of the parties in the employment relationship

Acts of misconduct

Applying progressive discipline

Applying progressive discipline to acts of misconduct

9

3.1.2 Level Two Analysis

In testing the impact of the training programme on knowledge gained, learners were

requested to respond to a list of statements on two occasions that is, prior to the training

(pre-test) and immediately thereafter (post-test).

In measuring the extent to which learners gained the relevant knowledge as outlined in the

programme objectives, learners were asked to rate their level of understanding of a pre-

defined set of statements prior to and following the completion of the training. Learners were

asked to respond by rating their understanding of each core aspect of the course content as

either Poor (1), Average (2), Good (3) , Very Good (4) and Excellent (5). The core aspects

tested to which respondents had to rate their level of understanding, were:

1. Legislative Framework that Prescribes Progressive Discipline in the Public Service

2. The Principles of the Disciplinary Code and Procedure

3. Duties of Role Players in the Progressive Discipline

4. Duties and roles of the supervisor in Progressive Discipline

5. Duties and roles of the employee in Progressive Discipline

6. Duties and roles of the Trade Union in Progressive Discipline

7. Applying Progressive Discipline in the Workplace

8. What Constitute an act of Misconduct

9. Applying Progressive Discipline to Acts of Misconduct

Seventy respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning programme. The

analysis shows a general increase in the mean and mode scores for all nine defined core

components of the training programme (Table 1.1). Comparing the total pre- and post –test

mean scores, an increase of approximately two ‘points’ is noted, with a total pre- and post

test score of two and four respectively. The higher total post-test score confirms the

accumulation of a great deal of knowledge with a growth in the overall understanding of the

subject matter from an “Average” to a “Very Good” understanding. The same trend is

illustrated for each of the nine individual core competencies.

With regards to the variability in responses Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2 illustrate limited variance

between statements with the frequency analysis clearly illustrating an increase in the level of

10

knowledge for all aspects measured. This outcome strongly supports that the defined training

outcomes and objectives set for this training programme were achieved.

Table 1.1:Pre- and Post-measurements - Progressive discipline for supervisors and managers

Code Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Legislative framework that prescribes Progressive Discipline in the Public Sector 2.26 2 3.84 4

2 Principles of the disciplinary code and procedure 2.33 2 3.99 4

3 Duties of role players in the progressive discipline 2.31 2 3.97 4

4 Duties of Supervisor in progressive discipline 2.54 2 4.06 4

5 Duties of the employee in progressive discipline 2.50 2 4.04 4

6 Duties of the trade union in progressive discipline 2.20 2 3.89 4

7 Applying progressive discipline in the workplace 2.31 2 3.97 4

8 What constitute an act of Misconduct 2.34 2 3.96 4

9 Applying progressive discipline to acts of misconduct 2.13 2 3.93 4

Total means score 2.3 4.0 N=70

Figure 1.1: Pre-measurement - Progressive discipline for supervisors and managers

24.3 22.9 20.0 15.7 18.6 28.6

20.0 15.7 24.3

38.6 35.7 42.9 38.6 35.7

40.0 44.3 47.1

47.1

25.7 30.0 24.3

22.9 24.3

17.1 20.0 25.7 20.0

10.0 8.6 11.4 21.4 20.0 11.4 15.7 10.0 8.6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Pre-measurement

Poor Average Good Very good Excellent

11

Figure 1.2: Post-measurement - Progressive discipline for supervisors and managers

3.1.3 Level Three Measurement

The level three measurement tests the impact of the learning programme on the ability of the

learner to apply what has been learned to their specific work environment. This impact was

tested on two levels, firstly; a subjective reflective measurement (self-evaluation) provided by

the learner and secondly; an objective reflective measurement provided by the supervisors of

learners (supervisor-evaluation).

Measuring the possible impact of the learning programme on the application of the learned

knowledge, both learners and their supervisors were required to respond to a similar list of

statements derived from the defined training objectives. For each statement the two

respondent groups had to indicate their response by means of the following five item Likert

Scale; (1) Skill application poorer than before, (2) Skill application on the same level as before

the training: not on required level, (3) Skill application on the same level as before the training:

on required level, (4) Skill application better than before the training and, (5) Skill application

much better than before the training. In the event where respondents opted for either option

one or two to a statement, they were asked to provide an explanation.

27.1 22.9 27.1 24.3 24.3 27.1

25.7 25.7 30.0

47.1 47.1 44.3

41.4 42.9 40.0 47.1 44.3 42.9

21.4 27.1 27.1 32.9 31.4 27.1 25.7 27.1 25.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Post-measurement


12

The statements to which respondents had to respond to were:

1. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the legislative framework that prescribes

Progressive Discipline in the Public Service

2. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the principles of the Disciplinary Code and

Procedure

3. The incumbent is /I am able to perform the role of the supervisor in the progressive

discipline process

4. The incumbent is /I am able to guide employees in terms of their role in the

progressive discipline process

5. The incumbent is /I am able to explain the role of the Trade Union representative in

the progressive discipline process

6. The incumbent is /I am able to apply progressive discipline in the workplace

7. The incumbent is /I am able to identify an act of misconduct in the workplace

8. The incumbent is /I am able to apply progressive discipline to act of misconduct

Forty seven course participants and thirty seven supervisors completed level three

questionnaires, measuring the impact of the training course in terms of the ability of the

course participant to apply what was learned in the work environment. Table 1.2 compares

the total and individual mean and mode scores for core proficiency in the competencies

defined for the course, as reported by both course participants and their respective

supervisors.

The general scores illustrated for both respondent groups compare well (4.09 and 4.27 for the

supervisor and participant groups respectively) with both exhibiting mode scores four (skill

application better than before the training) for all the core competencies defined. From these

scores it is clear that the learning programme did indeed have a positive impact on the ability

of training participants to perform their job functions.

Figures 1.3 and 1.4 illustrate the variance in the responses by means of the frequencies of

responses to the individual statements as scored by the two respondent groups. From these

illustrations it is clear that very little variance exist between the two groups with the majority

of responses in both groups indicating a better ability to apply all the defined competencies.

13

In the few cases where a respondent did indicate that their skills level were either poorer or

the same than before the training, the reason offered in nearly all cases (N=7) was that the

respondent experienced a lack of opportunity to apply what was learned. One respondent

indicated that the particular competency tested fell outside his/her work description.

Commenting about their ability to apply what they have learned in their respective work

environments, nine course participant respondents6 indicated a particular competency as

either outside their scope of work (N=8)7 or not possible to apply due to a lack of opportunity

to do so (N=43).

Table 1.2: Self- and Supervisor evaluation of impact of training programme

Code Statement

Self-evaluation Supervisor evaluation

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Able to apply the legislative framework that prescribes progressive discipline in the public service 3.64 4 3.65 4

2 Able to apply the principles of the disciplinary code and procedure 3.62 4 3.81 4

3 Able to perform the role of the supervisor in the progressive discipline process 3.66 4 3.70 4

4 Able to guide employees in terms of their role in the progressive discipline process 3.96 4 3.89 4

5 Able to explain the role of the trade union representative in the progressive discipline process 3.70 4 3.76 4

6 Can apply progressive discipline in the workplace 3.89 4 3.86 4

7 Can identify an act of misconduct in the workplace 4.26 4 4.16 4a

8 Can apply progressive discipline to acts of misconduct 3.79 4 3.78 4

Total mean score 3.8 3.8

Self-evaluation (N=47)

Supervisor-evaluation (N=37)

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

6 Department of Education (N=1); Department of Environmental Affairs and Planning (N=1); Department of

Health (N=4) and Department of the Premier (N=3). 7 In this instance the N-value refers to the number of competencies

14

Figure 1.3: Self-evaluation on impact of training (N=47)

Figure 1.4: Supervisor evaluation on impact of training (N=37)

17.0 19.1 21.3 12.8 10.6 12.8

4.3 17.0

17.0 12.8 10.6 8.5

27.7 6.4

6.4

8.5

51.1 55.3 48.9

48.9

42.6

59.6

48.9

53.2

14.9 12.8 19.1 29.8

19.1 21.3 40.4

21.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Self-evaluation

Skill application poorer than before training

Skill application on same level as before the training: Not on required level

Skill application on same level as before training: On the required level

Skill application better than before the training

Skill application much better than before the training

16.2 16.2 18.9 10.8 10.8 13.5

5.4 16.2

18.9 13.5 16.2

13.5 21.6 13.5

13.5

16.2

48.6 43.2

40.5 51.4

48.6 45.9

40.5

40.5

16.2 27.0 24.3 24.3 18.9

27.0 40.5

27.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Supervisor- evaluation






15

3.1.4 Summary

The analysis above clearly shows the positive impact of the learning programme on both

measurement levels, that is the intent to (a) convey a specific set of knowledge and skills to

learners (level 2) and (b) enabling learners to apply what has been learned to their respective

work environments (level 3). The learning programme was further shown to have achieved all

respective defined training outcomes and associated competencies with an overwhelming

majority of learners indicating (i) an increase in knowledge and (ii) a stronger ability to apply

each defined outcome. The impact on the latter measurement was strongly confirmed by

both course participants and their respective supervisors.

3.2 MANAGING ABSENCE IN THE WORKPLACE


The target group for this learning programme include all Government Western Cape

employees on levels four to twelve. The purpose of this learning programme is to equip

managers and supervisors to effectively manage absenteeism in the workplace. The learning

programme focussed on the following aspects:

Leave prescriptions and categories

Absenteeism

Discipline


In testing the impact of the training programme on the knowledge gained, learners were






16


either Poor (1), Average (2), Good (3) , Very Good (4) and Excellent (5). The core aspects

tested to which respondents had to rate their level of understanding, were:

1. Legislative framework and policies that regulate leave of absence in the SA Public

Service

2. Annual and normal sick leave

3. Eight week rule

4. Temporary and Permanent Incapacity leave

5. Acceptance of medical certificates

6. Incapacity due to substance abuse leave

7. Leave for occupational injuries and disease

8. Pre-natal and Maternity leave

9. Special and Family responsibility leave

10. Leave for Office Bearers or Shop Stewards of recognised employee organisations

11. Unpaid leave

12. Process for applying for leave

13. Process for Temporary incapacity leave

14. Process for administration of leave

15. Definition of Absenteeism

16. Forms of Absenteeism

17. Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

18. Roles and responsibilities of employees

19. Establishing a pattern for dealing with abseentism

20. Authorised and unauthorised absence

21. Abscondment

22. Difference between unauthorised absence and being absent without a valid reason

23. Disciplinary process for transgressions regarding absence

24. Sanctions regarding unauthorised absence and non-observance of office rules

25. Sanctions regarding substance abuse

26. Burden of proof

17

A total of thirty eight respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning

programme. The analysis shows a general increase in the mean and mode scores for all

twenty six defined core aspects of the training programme (Table 2.1). Comparing the total

pre- and post –test mean scores, an increase of just less than two ‘points’ is noted, with a

total pre- and post test score of 2.4 and four respectively. The higher total post-test score

confirms the accumulation of a great deal of knowledge with growth in the general

understanding of the subject matter increasing from “Average” to a “Very Good”

understanding. Considering the individual core learning areas for this learning programme,

the analysis shows an increase in knowledge for all the defined core competencies.

With regards to variability in responses, Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 illustrate limited variance


knowledge for all aspects measured. This outcome strongly supports the observation that the

defined training outcomes and objectives set for this training programme were achieved.

Table 2.1: Pre- and Post-measurements –Managing absence in the workplace

Code Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Legislative framework and policies that regulate leave of absence in the SA public Service 2.13 2 3.79 4

2 Annual and normal sick leave 2.97 3 4.29 4

3 Eight week rule 2.66 3 4.26 4

4 Temporary and permanent incapacity leave 2.11 2 4.00 4

5 Acceptance of medical certificates 2.63 2 4.11 4

6 Incapacity due to substance abuse leave 1.97 1 3.76 4

7 Leave for occupational injuries and diseases 2.24 2 3.74 4

8 Pre-natal and maternity leave 2.47 2 4.11 4

9 Special and family responsibility leave 2.76 3 4.32 4

10 Leave for office bearers or shop stewards of recognised employee organisations 2.21 2 3.95 4

11 Unpaid leave 2.42 2a 4.03 4

12 Process for applying for leave 3.00 3 4.21 4

13 Process for temporary incapacity leave 2.26 2 3.79 4

14 Process for administration of leave 2.26 2 3.95 4

15 Definition of absenteeism 2.61 3 4.32 4

18

16 Forms of absenteeism 2.53 2 4.24 4

17 Roles and responsibilities of supervisors 2.61 2 4.22 4

18 Roles and responsibilities of employees 2.74 2a 4.16 4

19 Establishing a pattern for dealing with absenteeism 2.45 2 4.13 4

20 Authorised and unauthorised absence 2.53 2 4.03 4

21 Abscondment 2.24 2 4.21 4

22 Difference between unauthorised absence and being absent without a valid reason 2.26 2 4.13 4

23 Disciplinary process for transgressions regarding absence 2.11 2 4.00 4

24 Sanctions regarding unauthorised absence and non-observance of office rules 1.92 2 3.87 4

25 Sanctions regarding substance abuse 1.89 2 3.79 4

26 Burden of proof 1.95 1a 3.84 4

Total mean 2.40

4.0

N=38


Figure 2.1: Pre-measurement - Managing absence in the workplace

26.3

13.2

26.3

5.3

44.7

26.3

13.2 10.5

23.7 21.1

2.6

18.4 21.1

10.5 15.8

5.3 7.9 15.8

7.9

23.7 21.1 28.9

34.2 36.8 39.5

44.7

31.6

28.9

47.4

50.0

31.6

42.1

42.1

21.1

44.7

34.2

28.9

52.6 42.1

31.6

34.2 47.4

36.8

47.4 55.3

47.4 52.6

47.4

47.4 47.4 39.5

21.1

47.4

42.1

15.8

28.9

10.5 18.4

28.9

52.6

21.1

34.2

39.5

15.8 26.3

44.7 31.6 31.6

36.8

18.4 18.4

18.4 10.5 10.5

10.5 7.9 10.5

5.3

13.2 10.5

10.5

7.9 7.9 7.9 15.8 13.2

7.9 2.6

23.7

10.5 10.5 13.2

18.4 13.2 10.5 13.2 13.2

2.6 10.5 10.5

7.9 5.3 7.9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Pre-measurement


19

Figure 2.2: Post-measure - Managing absence in the workplace



learner to apply what has been learnt in the training to their specific work environment. This

impact was tested on two levels, firstly; a subjective reflective measurement provided by the

participant and secondly; an objective reflective measurement provided by the supervisors of

learners.

In measuring the impact of the learning programme in the application of the learned

knowledge, both learning programme participants as well as their supervisors were required

to respond to a similar list of statements derived from the defined training objectives. For

each statement the two respondent groups had to indicate their response by means of the

following five item Likert Scale; (1) Skill application poorer than before, (2) Skill application on

the same level as before the training: not on required level, (3) Skill application on the same

level as before the training: on required level, (4) Skill application better than before the

training and, (5) Skill application much better than before the training. If respondents scored a

statement as either one or two, that is (1) Skill application poorer than before or (2) Skill

application on the same level as before the training: not on required level, they were

31.6

10.5 10.5

23.7 13.2

34.2 28.9

13.2 10.5

21.1 26.3

13.2

34.2

15.8

10.5 10.5

8.1 7.9 18.4 15.8

7.9 13.2

21.1 31.6 34.2 26.3

42.1

50.0 52.6

52.6

55.3

39.5 52.6

55.3

47.4

47.4 44.7

52.6

36.8

57.9

47.4 47.4

62.2 68.4 50.0

57.9

55.3 52.6

42.1

42.1 44.7

47.4

21.1

39.5 36.8

23.7 28.9

21.1 13.2

28.9

42.1

26.3 28.9 34.2

23.7 21.1

42.1 39.5 29.7

23.7 31.6

23.7 34.2 31.6 31.6

23.7 18.4 21.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Post-measure


20

requested to indicate the main reason for this rating. The statements, to which respondents

had to respond, were:

1. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the legislative framework and policies that

regulate leave of absence in the Public Service

2. The incumbent is /I am able to manage the annual and normal sick leave of my team

3. The incumbent is /I am able to manage the eight week rule

4. The incumbent is /I am able to manage the temporary and permanent incapacity leave

of my team

5. The incumbent is /I am able to determine the validity of the medical certificates

6. The incumbent is /I am able to manage incapacity due to substance abuse

7. The incumbent is /I am able to ascertain when leave for occupational injuries and

diseases will apply

8. The incumbent is /I am able to manage the pre-natal an maternity leave of my team

9. The incumbent is /I am able to mange special and family responsibility leave of my

team

10. The incumbent is /I am able to ascertain when leave for Office Bearers or Shop

Stewards or recognised employee organisations will apply

11. The incumbent is /I am able to manage unpaid leave

12. The incumbent is /I am able to guide the process for applying for leave

13. The incumbent is /I am able to guide the administrative process for temporary

incapacity leave

14. The incumbent is /I am able to perform the roles and responsibilities of a supervisor

15. The incumbent is /I am able to guide employees with regard to their roles and

responsibilities

16. The incumbent is /I am able to identify an absenteeism pattern with regard to the

leave of team members

17. The incumbent is /I am able to distinguish between authorised and unauthorised

absence

18. The incumbent is /I am able to guide the Abscondment process

19. The incumbent is /I am able to differentiate between unauthorised absence and being

absent without a valid reason

21

20. The incumbent is /I am able to follow the disciplinary process for transgressions

regarding leave of absence

21. The incumbent is /I am able to implement disciplinary actions regarding unauthorised

absence and non-observance of office rules

22. The incumbent is /I am able to implement disciplinary actions regarding substance

abuse

23. The incumbent is /I am able to explain the burden of proof principle within

government

Sixteen course participants and twelve supervisors completed level three questionnaires,

evaluating the impact of the training course in terms of the ability of the course participant to

apply what was learned to the work environment. Table 2.2 compares the mean and mode

scores evaluating general proficiency as well as competencies in particular tasks related to the

subject matter, as reported by both course participants and their respective supervisors.

The average mean scores presented for both respondent groups compare well; 3.8 and 3.9 for

the participant and supervisor respondent groups respectively, with both exhibiting mode

scores of four (skill application better than before the training). These scores illustrate that in

general skill, application was better after training than before. From these scores, it is clear

that the learning programme did have a positive impact on the ability of training participants

to perform their job functions. Considering the individual competencies, responses by both

course participants and supervisors consistently indicated a higher competency level than

before the training.



illustrations, it is clear that very little variance exist between the two groups with the majority


Commenting about their ability to apply what they have learned in their respective work

environments, five course participant respondents (Department of Health and Department of

22

the Premier) indicated a particular competency as either outside their scope of work (N=14)8

or not possible to apply due to a lack of opportunity to do so (N=28).


Code Statement

Self-evaluation Supervisor-evaluation

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Able to apply the legislative framework and policies that regulate leave of absence in the Public Service 3.94 4 4.00 4

2 Able to manage the annual and normal sick leave of my team 4.06 4 3.92 4

3 Able to manage the eight week rule 3.94 4 4.08 4

4 Able to manage the temporary and permanent incapacity leave of my team 3.25 4 3.67 4

5 Can determine the validity of the medical certificates 4.00 4 4.00 4

6 Can manage incapacity due to substance abuse 3.38 4 3.58 4

7 Able to ascertain when leave for occupational injuries and disease will apply 3.31 4 3.92 4

8 Able to manage the pre-natal and maternity leave of my team 3.50 4 3.50 4

9 Able to manage special and family responsibility leave of my team 3.88 4 4.08 4

10 Able to ascertain when leave for office bearers or shop stewards of recognised employee organisations will apply 3.63 4 3.67 4

11 Able to manage unpaid leave 4.00 4 3.75 4

12 Able to guide the process of applying for leave 4.25 4 4.08 4

13 Able to guide the administrative process for temporary incapacity leave 3.75 4 4.27 4

14 Able to administer the leave process 4.31 4 4.25 4

15 Able to perform the roles and responsibilities of a supervisor 4.38 4 4.00 4

16 Able to guide employees with regard to their roles and responsibilities 4.25 4

a 3.92 4

17 Able to identify an absenteeism pattern with regard to the leave of team members 4.13 4 4.25 4

18 Able to distinguish between authorised and unauthorised absence 4.31 5 4.33 4

8 In this instance the N-value refers to the number of competencies

23

19 Able to guide the abscondment process 3.50 4 3.75 4

20 Can differentiate between unauthorised absence and being absent without a valid reason 3.88 4 4.25 4

21 Able to follow the disciplinary process for transgressions regarding leave of absence 3.88 4 4.00 4

22 Can implement disciplinary actions regarding unauthorised absence and non-observance to office rules 3.81 4 4.08 4

23 I can implement disciplinary actions regarding substance abuse 3.31 4 3.42 4

24 Able to explain the burden of proof principles within government 3.56 4 3.92 4

Total mean 3.8 3.9


Supervisor evaluation (N=12)



12.5 6.3

25.0 25.0

6.3 12.5

25.0

6.3 12.5

6.3 6.3 6.3 18.8

6.3 6.3 12.5

25.0 12.5 12.5

6.3 12.5

31.3

12.5

6.3

18.8

6.3

6.3

6.3

18.8

6.3

25.0

6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

18.8

12.5 18.8 6.3

25.0

25.0

81.3

43.8

62.5

37.5

75.0 50.0

43.8

62.5

62.5 50.0

43.8

62.5

37.5

56.3 50.0

43.8 56.3

37.5

56.3

68.8 56.3 68.8

43.8 56.3

6.3

37.5

18.8 6.3

12.5 18.8

31.3 31.3 18.8 18.8

31.3 31.3 25.0

37.5 43.8 43.8

31.3

50.0

6.3 12.5

18.8 12.5

6.3 6.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Self-evaluation






24

Figure 2.4: Supervisor-evaluation on impact of training (N=12)

3.2.4 Summary



learners (level 2) and (b) enabling learners to apply what has been learnt to their respective






8.3 16.7

8.3 16.7

8.3 16.7

8.3 16.7

8.3 16.7 16.7

8.3 8.3 16.7

8.3 8.3 8.3 16.7

8.3

8.3

8.3 16.7

8.3

16.7 16.7 8.3

8.3

9.1 8.3

8.3

25.0

8.3

25.0

8.3

58.3 58.3 66.7

66.7

75.0

58.3

66.7

66.7

66.7

50.0 58.3

50.0 54.5 58.3

58.3 58.3

75.0 66.7

50.0

58.3

75.0 66.7

58.3

66.7

25.0 25.0 25.0

8.3 16.7

8.3 16.7

25.0 16.7 16.7

33.3 36.4 33.3 25.0 25.0 25.0

33.3

16.7

33.3

16.7 25.0

16.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Supervisor-evaluation






25

3.3 MEETING SKILLS FOR CHAIRPERSONS AND FACILITATORS

3.3.1 Description of learning process

The target group included all Government of the Western Cape employees on salary levels

eight to twelve, who are chairpersons and facilitators at meetings. The purpose of this

learning programme was to ensure that chairpersons and facilitators understood their roles

and responsibilities in chairing/facilitating meetings effectively to achieve set outcomes. The

programme consisted of three modules:

Module 1: Chairperson and facilitators

Introduction

What is the role of the chairperson/facilitator?

Chairperson and facilitator skills

Different approaches for different meetings

Module 2: Chairperson/facilitator rules during the meeting cycle

Introduction

Preparation for meetings

Conducting effective meetings by achieving the goals set

Conducting meetings

Follow-up actions

Module 3: General tips for chairpersons/facilitators

Introduction

Why meetings fail

List of process points

26

The outcomes of the learning programme are defined as follows:

Plan and prepare a meeting

Demonstrate an understanding of the roles of a chairperson/facilitator to lead and

manage group interactions during a meeting

Demonstrate the use of various methods to achieve meeting outcomes

The target group for this learning programme was supervisors and managers. The

purpose of this learning programme was to equip supervisors/mangers to effectively

implement progressive discipline in the workplace.









either Poor (1), Average (2), Good (3) , Very Good (4) and Excellent (5). The core aspects to

which respondents had to rate their level of understanding was:

1. The role of Chairperson and Facilitator

2. Skills of a Chairperson and Facilitator

3. Different approaches in different types of meetings to facilitate effective outcome

4. Planning and preparation to facilitate a meeting

5. How to set ground rules for a meeting

6. How to determine and structure the rules of procedure during a meeting

7. Facilitation of a meeting using various techniques

8. How to deal with different people in different situations

9. How to help groups reach consensus

10. How to ensure participation

27

11. How to conclude a meeting

12. The importance of follow-up action after the meeting

13. Self assessment to evaluate the performance of the Chairperson

14. Reasons contributing to poor meeting performance

15. Process points that must be followed to conduct an effective meeting

Sixty respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning programme. The analysis

show a general increase in the mean and mode scores for all fifteen defined core aspects of

the training programme (Table 3.1). Comparing the total pre- and post –test mean scores, an

increase of approximately two ‘points’ is noted, with a total pre- and post test score of 2.3

and 4.1 respectively. The higher total post-test score of nearly two ‘points’ confirms the

accumulation of a great deal of knowledge with an increase in the general understanding of

the subject matter from an “Average” to a “Very Good” understanding. The same trend is

illustrated for each of the nine individual core competencies.



knowledge for all aspects measured. This outcome strongly supports the notion that the

defined training outcomes and objectives set for this training programme were achieved.

28

Table 3.1: Pre- and Post-measurements – Meeting skills for chairpersons & facilitators

Code Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 The role of chairperson and facilitator 2.83 3 4.33 4

2 Skills of a chairperson and facilitator 2.45 2 4.15 4

3 Different approaches in different types of meetings to facilitate effective outcomes 2.10 2 3.97 4

4 Planning and preparation to facilitate a meeting 2.62 3 4.27 4

5 How to set ground rules for a meeting 2.53 2 4.43 5

6 How to determine and structure the rules of procedure during a meeting 2.13 2 4.10 4

7 Facilitation of a meeting using various techniques 2.00 2 3.95 4

8 How to deal with different people in different situations 2.23 2 3.93 4

9 How to help groups reach consensus 2.30 2 3.97 4

10 How to ensure participation 2.47 2 4.08 4

11 How to concluded meetings 2.45 2 3.85 4

12 The importance of follow-up action after the meeting 2.45 2 4.22 4

13 Self-assessment to evaluate the performance of the chairperson 2.02 2 3.97 4

14 Reasons contributing to poor meeting performance 2.02 2 4.17 4

15 Process points that must be followed to conduct an effective meeting 2.08 2 4.12 4

Total mean 2.31

4.10

N=60

29

Figure 3.1: Pre-measurement - Meeting skills for chairpersons & facilitators

Figure 3.2: Post-measurement - Meeting skills for chairpersons & facilitators

1.7 3.3

25.0 15.0

8.3 20.0

30.0 18.3 16.7

8.3 8.3 10.0 22.0 25.4 20.3

33.3

55.0

43.3

30.0 46.7

55.0 43.3

51.7 50.0

48.3 46.7 43.3

59.3 49.2 55.9

45.0

35.0 28.3

36.7 30.0

18.3 23.3 20.0 21.7

33.3 38.3 40.0

13.6 23.7 18.6 20.0

6.7 3.3

15.0 13.3 5.0 3.3

8.3 10.0 8.3 5.0 5.0 5.1 1.7 5.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pre-measurement


1.7 10.0 13.3

25.0 11.7 6.7

21.7 28.3 30.0

22.0 15.0

35.0

11.7 22.0

13.6 15.3

46.7

58.3

53.3

50.0

43.3

46.7

48.3 46.7 59.3 61.7

45.0

55.0

54.2

55.9 57.6

43.3

28.3 21.7

38.3 50.0

31.7 23.3 23.3 18.6 23.3 20.0

33.3 22.0

30.5 27.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Post-measurement


30






learners.


knowledge, both learning programme participants as well as their supervisors were required











1. The incumbent is /I am able to execute/perform the role of the Chairperson/Facilitator

2. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the skills as a Chairperson and Facilitator

3. The incumbent is /I am able to apply different approaches in different types of

meetings to ensure effective outcomes of the meetings

4. The incumbent is /I am able to do proper planning and preparation to facilitate a

meeting

5. The incumbent is /I am able to set ground rules for a meeting

6. The incumbent is /I am able to determine and structure the rules pertaining to the

procedures during a meeting

7. The incumbent is /I am able to deal with different people in different situations

8. The incumbent is /I am able to assist groups to reach consensus

31

9. The incumbent is /I am able to involve all participants during a discussion at a meeting

10. The incumbent is /I am able to use various techniques to conduct a meeting

11. The incumbent is /I am able to do follow-up on actions after the meeting

12. The incumbent is /I am able to assess myself on my performance as a chairperson

13. The incumbent is /I am able to identify the reasons that contribute to a poor meeting

performance

14. The incumbent is /I am able to process points that must be followed to conduct an

effective meeting

Fifty-two course participants and forty-five supervisors completed level three questionnaires,



scores evaluating general proficiency as well as particular competencies related to the subject

matter, as reported by both course participants and their respective supervisors.

The general scores illustrated for both respondent groups compare well (mean of 3.8 and 3.9

for the supervisor and participant groups respectively) with both exhibiting an overall mode

of four (skill application better than before the training). From these scores it is clear that the

learning programme did have a positive impact on the ability of training participants to

perform their job functions.





A total of six respondents (DECAS [N=1], Department of Health [N=3], Provincial Treasury

[N=1] and Department of Social Development [N=1]) commenting about the difficulty they

experience in applying what they have learned in their respective work environments. This

was mostly attributed to a competency falling outside their scope of work (N=26) 9 and a lack

of opportunity to do so (N=8).

9 In this instance the N-value refers to the number of competencies

32


Code Statement


Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Can execute/perform the role of the chairpersons/facilitator 3.96 4 3.96 4

2 Can apply the skills as a chairperson and facilitator 3.96 4 3.93 4

3

Can apply different approaches in different types of meetings to ensure effective outcomes of the meeting 3.76 4 3.89 4

4 Able to do proper planning and preparation to facilitate a meeting 4.02 4 4.02 4

5 Able to set ground rules for a meeting 4.02 4 3.96 4

6 Able to determine and structure the rules pertaining to the procedures during a meeting 3.94 4 3.87 4

7 Able to deal with different people in different situations 3.98 4 4.07 4

8 Able to assist groups to reach consensus 3.92 4 4.02 4

9 Able to involve all participants during a discussion at a meeting 3.94 4 3.91 4

10 Able to use various techniques to conduct a meeting 3.85 4 4.02 4

11 Able to do follow-up on actions after the meeting 3.90 4 4.09 4

12 Able to assess myself on my performance as a chairperson 3.75 4 3.84 4

13 Able to identify the reasons that contribute to a poor meeting performance 3.87 4 3.96 4

14 Able to apply the process points that must be followed to conduct an effective meeting 3.83 4 3.93 4

Total mean 3.9

3.7



33



11.5 15.4 29.4

11.5 19.2 25.0 19.6 19.2 13.5 21.2 21.2 26.9 19.2 21.2

57.7 55.8

52.9

57.7 53.8 50.0 56.9 57.7 61.5

61.5 48.1

51.9 57.7 63.5

23.1 23.1 13.7

25.0 25.0 23.1 21.6 19.2 19.2 13.5 25.0

15.4 17.3 11.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Self-evaluation






13.3 13.3 28.9

15.2 26.7 35.6

21.7 15.6 26.7

15.6 15.6 17.8

22.2 24.4

64.4 66.7 46.7 60.9

51.1 42.2

50.0 60.0 48.9

60.0 53.3

60.0 60.0 57.8

17.8 15.6 22.2 21.7 22.2 22.2 28.3 22.2 22.2 22.2 28.9 15.6 17.8 17.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Supervisor-evaluation Skill application poorer than before training





34

3.3.4 Summary









3.4 PROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT (PAJA)


The target group for this learning programme include all Government of the Western Cape

employees, preferably those appointed on salary levels six and higher. The purpose of this

learning programme was to create awareness of the impact of the relevant Acts in the

application of administrative functions. The content of the training programme is as follows:

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

Government

Judiciary

Executive

Administration

35

Promotion of Access to Information Act [PAIA]

Section 32 of the Constitution

National legislation

Purpose of PAJA





Measuring the extent to which learners gained the relevant knowledge as outlined in the




either Poor (1), Average (2), Good (3), Very Good (4) and Excellent (5). The core aspects to

which respondents had to rate their level of understanding, were:

1. Legislative framework relating to PAJA

2. The purpose of PAJA

3. Definition of administrative action

4. Definition of administrative justice

5. The decision making process

6. Preparing for a decision

7. Importance of a paper trail

8. Legal authority to make decisions

9. Delegation of powers

10. Developing a decision

11. Rules of natural justice (procedural fairness)

12. Taking action/ making the decision in terms of PAJA

13. Applying the law to the facts

14. Discretion

36

15. How to communicate the action or decision

16. The judicial review of decisions

17. The public participation process as stipulated in PAJA

Thirty eight respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning programme. The

analysis shows a general increase in the mean and mode scores for all nine defined core

aspects to the training programme (Table 4.1). Comparing the total pre- and post –test mean

scores, an increase of just below two ‘points’ is noted, with a total pre- and post test mean

score of 2.1 and 3.9 respectively. The higher total post-test score confirms the general

accumulation of knowledge with an illustrated growth in the general understanding of the

subject matter moving from a general “Average” to a “Very Good” understanding. The same

trend is recorded for each of the nine individual core competencies with particular strong

growth for two competencies; (1) Rules of natural justice (procedural fairness) and (2) Taking

action/making the decision in terms of PAJA. These two competencies showed above average

increase in knowledge with both showing an increase in knowledge moving from Poor (pre-

test) to Very Good (post-test).



knowledge for all aspects measured. This outcome strongly supports the notion that the

defined training outcomes and objectives set for this training programme were indeed

achieved.

37

Table 4.1: Pre- and Post-measurements - Promotion of Administrative Justice act (PAJA)

Code Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Legislative framework relating to PAJA 1.66 2 3.73 4

2 The purpose of PAJA 2.00 2 4.08 4

3 Definition of administrative action 1.89 2 4.05 4

4 Definition of administrative justice 1.82 2 3.73 4

5 The decision making process 2.21 2 4.00 4

6 Preparing for a decision 2.29 2 3.95 4

7 Importance of a paper trail 2.58 3 4.11 5

8 Legal authority to make decisions 2.24 2 4.11 4

9 Delegation of powers 2.37 2 4.11 4

10 Developing a decision 2.11 2 3.97 4

11 Rules of natural justice (procedural fairness) 1.84 1 3.78 4

12 Taking action/making the decision in terms of PAJA 1.71 1 3.84 4

13 Applying the law to the facts 1.97 2 3.65 3

14 Discretion 2.24 2 3.57 3

15 How to communicated the action or decision 2.32 2 3.95 4

16 The judicial review of decisions 1.78 2 3.78 3a

17 The public participation process as stipulated in PAJA 1.81 1 3.84 3

Total mean 2.05

3.90

N=38


38

Figure 4.1: Pre-Measure - Promotion of Administrative Justice act (PAJA)

Figure 4.2: Post-Measure - Promotion of Administrative Justice act (PAJA)

42.1 31.6 31.6

36.8

15.8 18.4 21.1 28.9 26.3

31.6 42.1 44.7

31.6 28.9 18.9

40.5 43.2

52.6

39.5 50.0

47.4

52.6 42.1

26.3

34.2 31.6

36.8

39.5 42.1

47.4

31.6 43.2

45.9 37.8

2.6

26.3 15.8 13.2

26.3 31.6

31.6

23.7 26.3

21.1

13.2 10.5

13.2

28.9 27.0

8.1 13.5

2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 5.3 7.9

15.8 10.5

10.5 10.5 2.6

2.6 7.9

7.9 8.1 5.4 5.4 5.3 2.6 5.3 2.6 2.6 2.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Pre-measurement


2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 5.4 5.4 2.7

29.7

13.9 18.9

35.1

27.0 29.7

22.2 25.0 24.3 33.3 29.7

29.7

43.2 48.6

32.4

35.1 40.5

59.5

63.9 56.8

48.6

45.9 37.8

36.1 38.9 40.5

36.1

54.1 56.8

40.5 29.7

40.5 35.1 27.0

8.1

22.2 24.3 13.5

27.0 29.7 38.9 36.1 35.1

30.6

13.5 13.5 13.5 16.2 27.0 24.3

29.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Post-measurement


39

3.4.3 Level Three Analysis





learners.


knowledge both learning programme participants as well as their supervisors were required


each statement, the two respondent groups had to indicate their response by means of the









1. The incumbent is /I am able to apply legislative framework relating to PAJA

2. The incumbent is /I am able to explain the purpose of PAJA in the working

environment

3. The incumbent is /I am able to define administrative action and how it applies in the

organisation

4. The incumbent is /I am able to define administrative justice

5. The incumbent is /I am able to follow the decision making process in the workplace

6. The incumbent is /I am able to prepare for a decision

7. The incumbent is /I am able to ensure that a proper trail is created during the decision

making process

40

8. The incumbent is /I am able to determine who has the legal authority to make

decisions

9. The incumbent is /I am able to describe delegation of powers and how it applies in the

working environment

10. The incumbent is /I am able to develop a decision and take action in terms of PAJA

11. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the rules of natural justices (procedural fairness)

in the workplace

12. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the law to the facts provided in a situation

13. The incumbent is /I am able to communicate the action or decision taken to

citizens/clients

14. The incumbent is /I am able to describe the judicial review of decisions

15. The incumbent is /I am able to describe and co-ordinate the public participation

process as stipulated in PAJA

Thirty-one course participants and twenty-five supervisors completed level three

questionnaires, evaluating the impact of the training course in terms of the ability of the

course participant to apply what was learned to the work environment. Table 4.2 compares

the mean and mode scores evaluating general proficiency as well as particular competencies

related to the subject matter, as reported by both course participants and their respective

supervisors.


supervisor and participant groups respectively) with both exhibiting a general mode score of

four (skill application better than before the training). From these scores it is clear that the

learning programme did have a positive impact on the ability of training participants to

perform their job functions.





41

In total, eight respondents indicated a particular competency as either outside their scope of

work or not possible to apply due to a lack of opportunity (Table 4.3). Of these, the majority

were from the Department of Social Development (N=4).


Code Statement


Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Able to apply legislative framework relating to PAJA 3.55 4 3.88 4

2 Able to explain the purpose of PAJA in working environment 3.71 4 4.00 4

3 Able to define administrative action and how it applies in my organisation 3.74 4 4.00 4

4 Able to define administrative justice 3.68 4 3.96 4

5 Able to follow the decision making process in the workplace 3.90 4 3.96 4

6 Able to prepare for a decision 3.74 4 3.92 4

7 Able to ensure that a paper trail is created during the decision making process 3.81 4 4.00 4

8 Able to determine who has the legal authority to make decisions 3.77 4 3.96 4

9 Able to describe delegation of powers and how it applies in the working environment 3.87 4 4.00 4

10 Able to develop a decision and take action in terms of PAJA 3.58 4 3.88 4

11 Able to apply the rules of natural justice in the workplace 3.65 4 3.96 4

12 Able to apply the law to the facts provided in a situation 3.74 4 3.88 4

13 Able to use discretion to make decisions in terms of PAJA 3.77 4 3.96 4

14 Able to communicate the action or decision taken to citizens/clients 3.87 4 3.84 4

15 Able to describe the judicial review of decisions 3.41 4 3.91 4

16

Able to describe and co-ordinate the public participation process as stipulated in PAJA 3.48 4 3.86 3

Total mean 3.70

3.90


Supervisor evaluation (N=25)

42


Figure 4.4: Supervisor-evaluation on impact of training (N25)

9.7 9.7 6.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 6.5 6.7 9.7 12.9 3.2 6.5 3.2

13.8 10.3

29.0 16.1 22.6 32.3

19.4 29.0 25.8 19.4

10.0

29.0 19.4 29.0 22.6

19.4

34.5 37.9

58.1 67.7 61.3

58.1

61.3 58.1 58.1 64.5

73.3

54.8 58.1 58.1 58.1 64.5

48.3 44.8

3.2 6.5 9.7 6.5 16.1 9.7 12.9 9.7 10.0 6.5 9.7 9.7 12.9 12.9

3.4 6.9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Self-evaluation






4.0 4.0 4.0

24.0 28.0 28.0 32.0 28.0 32.0 24.0 29.2 28.0 32.0

24.0 28.0

28.0 24.0 31.8 40.9

52.0 44.0 44.0 40.0 48.0 44.0

52.0 45.8 44.0 48.0

56.0 44.0 48.0 52.0 45.5 31.8

20.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0 28.0

20.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 20.0 22.7 27.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16







43

Table 4.3: Inability to apply a particular competency by department

Course participant Supervisor

Department

No

opportunity

Not my

job Total

No

opportunity

No

resources

Not my

job Total

Community Safety 0 2 1 2 0 1 1

DCAS 0 4 1

DEADP 1 2 1

Health 0 15 1 3 0 12 1

Social Development 7 17 4 2 1 2

TPW 1 14 1 1

Total 8 40 8 3

Total are based on respondents.

a. Group

3.4.4 Summary









44

3.5 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR SUPERVISORS



employees. The purpose of this learning programme was to provide an overview of the

performance management policies applicable in the WCG and to enhance the skills of

supervisors, managers and employees to (i) compile performance measures and standards, (ii)

conduct performance reviews and appraisals more effectively. The learning programme

content was as follows:

Overview of policy relating to the performance management process

o Performance planning, compile measures, monitoring and review

o Personal development & performance appraisal

o Incentives and corrective measures

Conducting performance reviews and appraisals

o How to prepare & what to discuss

o Follow-up after reviews

The three levels of moderation

The link between performance measures and moderation

How to deal with different personalities during the appraisal interview








45


either Poor (1), Average (2), Good (3), Very Good (4) and Excellent (5). The core aspects to

which respondents had to rate their level of understanding, were:

1. The regulatory framework that prescribes Performance Management in the Public

Service

2. The importance of Performance Management in the workplace

3. The integration of performance management with other organisational processes

4. The principles of the SPMS (Staff Performance Management Service)

5. The systematic approach to performance management

6. How to draft key performance areas, measurable outputs, performance measures,

norms and standards

7. Drafting a Personal Development Plan

8. Ho to conduct the review and appraisal interviews with employees

9. The various levels of moderation

10. The non-agreement process

11. Rewarding good performance with incentives

12. Development as part of the performance management process

Fifty-five respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning programme. The

analysis shows a general increase in the mean and mode scores for all twelve defined core


scores an increase of just more than 1.5 ‘points’ is noted, with a total pre- and post test score

of 2.5 and 4.2 respectively. The higher total post-test score confirms the accumulation of

knowledge with a growth in the general understanding of the subject matter moving from

“Average” to “Very Good” understanding. The same trend is illustrated for each of the twelve

individual core competencies.

With regards to the variability in responses, Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 illustrate limited

variance between statements with the frequency analysis clearly illustrating an increase in the

level of knowledge for all aspects measured. This outcome strongly supports the notion that

46

the defined training outcomes and objectives set for this training programme were indeed

achieved.

Table 5.1: Pre- and Post-measurements – Performance management for supervisors

Code Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1

The regulatory framework that prescribes Performance Management in the Public Service 2.33 2 4.15 4

2

The importance of Performance Management in the workplace 3.18 3 4.35 5

3

The integration of performance management with other organisational processes 2.47 2 4.02 4

4

The principles of the SPMS (Staff Performance Management System) 2.66 2 4.24 4

5

The systematic approach to performance management 2.39 2 4.24 4

6

How to draft key performance areas, measurable outputs, performance measures, norms and standards 2.42 2 4.20 4

7 Drafting a Personal Development Plan

2.55 2 4.13 4

8

How to conduct the review and appraisal interviews with employees 2.45 2 4.30 4

9 The various levels of moderation

2.24 2 4.09 4

10 The non-agreement process

2.06 2 4.02 4

11 Rewarding good performance with incentives

2.40 2 4.25 4

12

Development as part of the performance management process 2.38 2 4.13 4

Total mean 2.46

4.18

N=55

47

Figure 5.1: Pre-measurement - Performance management for supervisors

Figure 5.2: Post-measure - Performance management for supervisors

12.7 1.8

10.9 9.4 14.8 10.9 9.1 5.5 18.5

27.8

12.7 14.5

54.5

23.6

43.6 37.7

42.6 47.3 41.8

61.8

50.0

46.3

41.8 47.3

20.0

40.0

34.5

34.0

33.3 32.7 36.4

16.4 22.2

18.5

40.0 23.6

12.7

23.6

9.1 15.1

7.4 7.3 10.9 14.5 7.4 7.4 3.6

14.5 10.9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pre-measurement


11.1 13.0

20.4 13.0 14.8 14.8

24.1 13.0

18.5 25.9

11.3 17.3

63.0

38.9

46.3

44.4 46.3 44.4 38.9

44.4

53.7 46.3

52.8 51.9

25.9

48.1

29.6 40.7 38.9 38.9 37.0

42.6

27.8 27.8 35.8 30.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Post-measurement


48






learners.












had to respond were:

1. The incumbent is /I am able to prescribe the regulatory framework that prescribes

performance management in the Public Service

2. The incumbent is /I am able to integrate performance management with other

organisational processes

3. The incumbent is /I am able to contextualise the Staff Performance Management

System (SPMS) in the organisation through a systematic approach to performance

management

4. The incumbent is /I am able to draft a Performance Agreement (inclusive of

measurable outputs, performance measures and norms and standards)

5. The incumbent is /I am able to draft a Personal Development Plan

6. The incumbent is /I am able to conduct the review and appraisal interviews

49

7. The incumbent is /I am able to differentiate and explain the various levels of

moderation applicable within the Staff Performance System (SPMS)

8. The incumbent is able to advise on and implement the non-agreement process

9. The incumbent is /I am able to explain how and when good performance is rewarded

by means of incentives

10. The incumbent is /I am able to use the Staff Performance System (SPMS) as a

developmental tool as part of the performance management process

Twenty course participants and twelve supervisors completed level three questionnaires,






supervisor and participant groups respectively) with both exhibiting a general mode score of

four (skill application better than before the training). From these scores it is clear that the

learning programme did indeed have a positive impact on the ability of training participants

to perform their job functions.





One respondent from the Department of Health indicated two particular competencies as

outside his/her scope of work. This was confirmed by the supervisor of this respondent.

50


Code Statement


Mean Mode Mean Mode

1

Able to apply the regulatory framework that prescribes performance management in the Public Service 4.05 4 4.25 4

2

Able to integrate performance management with other organisational processes 4.16 4 4.42 4

3

Able to contextualise the SPMS (Staff Performance Management System) in my organisation through a systematic approach to performance management 3.85 4 4.17 4

a

4

Able to draft a Performance Agreement (inclusive of measurable outputs, performance measures and norms and standards) 3.89 4 4.33 4

5 Able to draft a Personal Development Plan

3.80 4 4.17 4

6 Able to conduct the review and appraisal interviews

4.00 4 4.17 4a

7

Can differentiate and explain the various levels of moderation applicable within the SPMS (Staff Performance Management System) 4.00 4 4.25 4

a

8

Able to advise on and implement the non-agreement process 3.40 3 4.00 4

9

Able to explain how and when good performance is rewarded by means of incentives 3.85 4 4.25 4

a

10

Able to use the SPMS (Staff Performance Management System) as a developmental tool as part of the performance management process 4.05 4 4.42 4

Total mean 3.91

4.24




51


Figure 5.4: Supervisor-evaluation on impact of training (N12)

5.3 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0

20.0 15.8

20.0 15.8

25.0 20.0 25.0

55.0

30.0 20.0

40.0 52.6

45.0 57.9 55.0

45.0 50.0

30.0

55.0

55.0

35.0 31.6 25.0 21.1 15.0

30.0 25.0 10.0 15.0

25.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Self-evaluation






8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3

8.3 16.7

8.3 16.7

25.0 16.7

58.3 58.3

41.7 50.0

50.0 41.7 41.7

50.0

41.7 58.3

33.3 41.7 41.7 41.7

33.3 41.7 41.7

25.0 41.7 41.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10







52

3.5.4 Summary









3.6 PUBLIC SERVICE INDUCTION


The target group for this learning programme included all newly appointed public servants

appointed on levels one to five and appointed on probation. The purpose of this programme

was to welcome all new public servants and to ensure that all new public servants understood

the goals, structures and key government policies.

The learning programme consisted of three parts with part 1 focusing on functions of

government and its link to development. Part 2 focused on the effective implementation of

government functions and Part 3 on the rights and responsibilities of public servants. The

different parts carry the following names and sub-sections:

PART 1: WE CARE PART 2: WE SERVE PART 3: WE BELONG

The goals and key programmes

of government

The government structures

and the Public Sector

Building a better public service

53

The defined outcomes for this training programme were;

To understand the challenges government faces, the vision for development and key

programmes

To demonstrate a basic understanding of the Constitution and the three spheres of

government, intergovernmental relations and social partners

To understand Batho Pele, the values of the Public Service and key initiatives to

improve service delivery

To explain the framework for implementation management through basic strategic

planning, performance management and financial management

To understand their rights as employees as well as regulations and benefits









either (1) Poor, (2) Average, (3) Good, (4) Very good and (5) Excellent. The aspects measured

to which respondents had to rate their level of understanding was:

1. Define government and the role of government

2. The main challenges the country is facing

3. Government’s vision for development and programmes to address

4. Understanding of the constitution

5. Spheres of government

6. Benefits and conditions of Service

7. Batho Pele and Service Delivery Improvements

8. Building of Relationships” Co-operative Governance and Intergovernmental Relations

54

9. Government money – where it comes from and how it is spent

10. Role of Public Service and Social Partnerships

11. Corruption and unethical behaviour

12. Legislative framework – laws, policies that govern the public service

13. In determining the impact of this learning programme on the knowledge levels of

participants,

14. With regards to the variability in responses,

Sixty six respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning programme. The

analysis shows a general increase in the mean and mode scores for all twelve defined core


scores an increase of approximately 1.5 ‘points’ is noted, with a total pre- and post test score

of 2.7 and 4.1 respectively. The higher total post-test score confirms the accumulation of

knowledge with a growth in the general understanding of the subject matter moving in

general from “Average” to “Very Good” understanding. The same trend is illustrated for each

of the twelve individual core competencies.





55

Table 6.1: Pre- and Post-measurements – Public service induction

Code Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Define government and the role of government

2.71 2 4.20 5

2 The main challenges the country is facing

2.95 3 4.11 4

3

Governments vision for development and programmes to address 2.65 2

a 3.97 4

4 Understanding of the constitution

2.77 4 4.12 4

5 Spheres of government

2.56 2 4.17 4a

6 Benefits and conditions of service

2.85 2 4.21 5

7 Batho Pele and Service Delivery Improvements

2.97 2a 4.27 4

8

Building of Relationships: Co-operative Governance and Intergovernmental Relations 2.50 2 3.94 4

9

Government money: where it comes from and how it is spend 2.62 3 4.05 5

10 Corruption and unethical behaviour

2.68 2 4.05 4a

11 Corruption and unethical behaviour

2.76 3 4.03 4

12

Legislative framework: laws, policies that govern the public service 2.59 2 3.92 4

Total mean 2.7 4.1

N=66


56

Figure 6.1: Pre-measurement - Managing absence in the workplace

Figure 6.2: Post-measure - Managing absence in the workplace

18.2 12.1

21.2 19.7 24.2 13.6 13.6

25.8 24.2 16.7 18.2

24.2

28.8

19.7

25.8 22.7

25.8

31.8 27.3

27.3 22.7

31.8 25.8 25.8

25.8

40.9

25.8 24.2

24.2 25.8

19.7

22.7 28.8 24.2

27.3 24.2

18.2 15.2 21.2

27.3 21.2

13.6 27.3

19.7 15.2 21.2 19.7 18.2

9.1 12.1 6.1 6.1 4.5

15.2 12.1 4.5 9.1 6.1 9.1 7.6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pre-measurement


19.7 18.2

28.8 21.2 19.7 15.2

12.1

28.8 25.8 22.7 22.7 24.2

36.4 48.5

36.4

40.9 39.4 37.9 43.9

43.9

33.3 36.4 40.9 39.4

42.4 31.8 31.8 36.4 39.4 43.9 42.4

25.8 37.9 36.4 33.3 30.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Post-measurement


57






learners.













1. The incumbent is /I am able to define the role of government

2. The incumbent is /I am able to explain the main challenges the country is facing

3. The incumbent is /I am able to define and identify government’s vision for

development and programmes to address the challenges

4. The incumbent is /I am able to explain the constitution and how it applies in my work

5. The incumbent is /I am able to classify the spheres of government and explain the

spheres I work in

6. The incumbent is /I am able to explain the benefits and conditions of service

7. The incumbent is /I am able to apply Batho Pele and service delivery improvements

8. The incumbent is /I am able to describe what building relationships, co-operative

Governance and Intergovernmental Relations entails

58

9. The incumbent is /I am able to explain where government money comes from and

how it is spent

10. The incumbent is /I am able to define the roles of public service and social

partnerships

11. The incumbent is /I am able to identify corruption and unethical behaviour

12. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the legislative framework – laws and policies that

govern the public service.

13. In determining the impact of this learning programme on the ability of learners to

apply what has been learned to the work environment, the mean and mode scores of

the responses need to be considered.

Thirty-three course participants and thirty-six supervisors completed level three

questionnaires, evaluating the impact of the training course in terms of the ability of the

course participant to apply what was learned to the work environment. Table 6.2 compares

the mean and mode scores evaluating general proficiency as well as particular competencies

related to the subject matter, as reported by both course participants and their respective

supervisors.


supervisor and participant groups respectively) with both exhibiting mode scores between

four and five (skill application better than before the training and skill application much better

than before the training). From these scores, it is clear that the learning programme did have

a positive impact on the ability of participants to perform their job functions.

One respondent from the Department of Health indicated a single competency as outside

his/her scope of work with another official from the Department of Education indicating a

lack of opportunity to apply a particular competency. Responses from supervisors to this issue

were, however, somewhat more pronounced with supervisors of three departments, Cultural

Affairs, Health and Social Development, indicating the inability of course participants to apply

some of the competencies since it either (i) falls outside their scope of work (N=14), (ii) there

is a lack of resources (N=2) or (iii) due to a lack of opportunity (N=5).

59


Code Statement

Self-evaluation Supervisor evaluation

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 I am able to define the role of government 4.39 4 4.39 5

2 I am able to explain the main challenges the country is facing 4.27 4 4.25 4

3

I am able to define and identify government's vision for development and programmes to address the challenges 4.27 4 3.92 4

4 I am able to explain the constitution and how it applies in my work 4.15 4 4.03 4

5 I am able to classify the spheres of government and explain the sphere I work in 4.24 4 3.97 4

6 I am able to explain the benefits and conditions of service 4.39 4 4.14 5

7 I am able to apply Batho Pele and service delivery improvements 4.58 5 4.50 5

8

I am able to describe what building relationships, co-operative governance and intergovernmental relations entail 4.00 4 3.72 3

9 I am able to explain where government money is coming from and how it is spent 4.18 4 4.36 5

10 I am able to define the role of public service and social partnerships 4.30 4 4.03 5

11 I am able to identify corruption and unethical behaviour 4.55 5 4.51 5

12 I am able to apply the legislative framework e.g. laws and policies that govern the public service 4.33 5 4.29 5

Total mean 4.31

4.18



60



3.0 3.0 6.1 15.2 9.1 3.0

21.2 18.2 12.1

3.0 12.1

54.5 57.6 60.6

54.5 57.6

54.5

42.4

48.5 45.5

45.5

39.4

42.4

42.4 36.4 33.3 30.3 33.3 42.4

57.6

27.3 36.4 42.4

57.6 45.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Self-evaluation






11.1 11.1 27.8

16.7 22.2 30.6

5.6

41.7

16.7 25.0

8.6 14.7

38.9 44.4

44.4 63.9 41.7 25.0

38.9

36.1

30.6

30.6

31.4

41.2

50.0 41.7 25.0 19.4

30.6 44.4

55.6

19.4

52.8 38.9

60.0 44.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12







61

3.6.4 Summary








both the majority of course participants and their respective supervisors.

3.7 POLICY ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION



officials on salary levels eight to twelve, who are involved in the analysis, development and

implementation of policies within departments. The purpose of this learning programme was

to equip officials with the relevant information to analyse, develop and implement policies

within departments. The learning programme consists of the following components:

Nature of public policy

What is public policy

Who makes public policy

Types and levels of policies

Policy agenda setting

Problem identification

Structuring

Prioritisation

62

Policy design and option generation

Policy goals and objectives

Generation of policy options and policy selection

Feasibility testing

Policy processes

Policy implementation

Implementation styles

Participation styles

Constraints strategies, implementation constraints

Policy monitoring, evaluation an analysis

Monitoring policy implementation

Policy analysis methods and techniques

Review of existing and previously developed organisation policies

Evaluation issues and strategies









either (1) Poor, (2) Average, (3) Good, (4) Very good and (5) Excellent. The aspects measured

to which respondents had to rate their level of understanding, were:

1. The context of public policy analysis, development, implementation and

evaluation in the public service

2. Define public policy and policy types within the public service

3. The application of public policy within public service

63

4. The policy life cycle and the policy process

5. The methods and techniques used for policy analysis and development

6. How policy goals and objectives are set in the public service

7. How to generate policy options and do policy selection

8. The structure of a policy and how to structure a policy for the public service

9. Define and explain policy implementation management in the public service

10. Monitoring and Evaluation of public policy used within the public service

Thirty seven respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning programme. The

analysis show a general increase in the mean and mode scores for all ten defined core aspects

of the training programme (Table 7.1). Comparing the total pre- and post –test mean scores

an increase of approximately two ‘points’ is noted, with a total pre- and post test score of

1.96 and 3.87 respectively. The higher total post-test score confirms the accumulation of

knowledge with a growth in the general understanding to the subject matter moving from

“Average” to a “Very Good” understanding. The same trend is illustrated for all the core

competencies, with the exception of one, How to generate policy options and do policy

selection. For this competency the increase in knowledge gained is stronger than for the rest,

moving from an initial Poor understanding to a Very Good understanding.





64

Table 7.1: Pre- and Post-measurements – Policy analysis, development, implementation

Code Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 The context of public policy analysis, development, implementation and evaluation in the public service 2.22 2 3.86 4

2 Define public policy and policy types within the public service 2.08 2 3.92 4

3 The application of public policy within the public service 2.46 3 3.97 4

4 The policy life cycle and the policy process 2.00 2 3.97 4

5 The methods and techniques used for policy analysis and development 1.78 2 3.92 4

6 How policy goals and objectives are set in public service 1.86 2 3.89 4

7 How to generate policy options and do policy selection 1.68 1 3.76 4

8 The structure of a policy and how to structure a policy for the public service 1.78 2 3.81 4

9 Define and explain policy implementation management in the public service 1.78 2 3.76 4

10 Monitoring and Evaluation of public policy used within the public service 1.92 2 3.81 4

Total mean 1.96

3.87

N=37

65

Figure 7.1: Pre-measurement - Policy analysis, development, implementation

Figure 7.2: Post-measure - Policy analysis, development, implementation

27.0 27.0 18.9

30.6 40.5

32.4

48.6 40.5 37.8

32.4

35.1 40.5

24.3

44.4

45.9 51.4

37.8 43.2 48.6

48.6

32.4 29.7

51.4

19.4

10.8 13.5 10.8 13.5 10.8 13.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pre-measurement


27.0 24.3 24.3

32.4 35.1 35.1 37.8 21.6

40.5 29.7

51.4 59.5 54.1 37.8

37.8 40.5

48.6 59.5

43.2 51.4

18.9 16.2 21.6

29.7 27.0 24.3 13.5 13.5 16.2 16.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Post-measurement


66






learners.













1. The incumbent is /I am able to contextualise public policy and differentiate between

various types of public policies used in the public sector

2. The incumbent is /I am able to apply various types of public policies in my current

occupation

3. The incumbent is /I am able to apply various policy processes in terms of the policy life

cycle in my current occupation

4. The incumbent is /I am able to apply various methods and techniques as part of the

policy analysis and development process

5. The incumbent is /I am able to set policy goals and objectives in the work context

6. The incumbent is /I am able to apply various generate and select policy options based

on organisational goals and objectives

67

7. The incumbent is /I am able to apply various structure policies for the organisation,

according to public service guidelines/principles

8. The incumbent is /I am able to manage the implementation of policies in the

organisation

9. The incumbent is /I am able to monitor and evaluation policies in the organisation

Thirteen course participants and supervisors completed level three questionnaires, evaluating

the impact of the training course in terms of the ability of the course participant to apply

what was learned to the work environment. Table 7.2 compares the mean and mode scores

evaluating general proficiency as well as particular competencies related to the subject



supervisor and participant groups respectively) with both exhibiting mode scores of between

three and four for the respective competencies tested (Skill application the same than before

the training: on required level and Skill application better than before the training). These

overall scores are not particularly positive since a score of 3 (Skill application the same than

before the training: on required level) is really an indication that the training provided no real

added value to the working environment.

Considering the individual scores in table 7.2 and figures 7.3 and 7.4, there seems to be

disagreement between the ability to apply what has been taught by the training participants

and supervisors. Consistently, course participants rate their ability to apply what they have

learnt as either lower (in most cases) or higher than what their supervisors do.

Commenting on their ability to apply what has been learnt during the training, three

respondents, each from different departments (Department of Agriculture, Department of

Human Settlements and Department of the Premier) indicated some learning competencies

to fall outside of their scope of work [N=12] 10 with other not possible to apply due to a lack of

opportunity (Department of Agriculture [N=4]).

10

The N-value refers to the number of competencies

68


Code Statement


Mean Mode Mean Mode

1

Able to contextualise public policy and differentiate between various types of public policies used in the public service 3.69 3 3.46 4

2

Able to apply contextualise public policy and differentiate between various types of public policies used in the public service 3.23 3 3.62 4

3

Able to apply various policy processes in terms of the policy life cycle in my current occupation 2.92 3 3.38 4

4

Can apply various methods and techniques as part of the policy analysis and development process 3.00 3 3.38 4

5 Able to set policy goals and objectives in my work context 3.33 4 3.54 3

6 Able to generate and select policy options based on organisational goals and objectives 3.25 3

a 3.38 4

7

Can structure policies for my organisation, according to public service guidelines/principles 2.92 3 3.15 4

8 Able to manage the implementation of policies in my organisation 3.69 4 3.23 3

9 Able to monitor and evaluate policies in my organisation 3.31 4 3.31 3

Total mean 3.26

3.38




69



7.7 7.7 8.3 8.3 7.7

7.7 7.7 16.7

8.3 15.4

46.2

61.5

69.2 61.5

41.7

41.7

66.7

30.8

38.5

38.5

30.8

15.4 23.1

50.0 41.7

16.7

69.2

46.2

15.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Self-evaluation






7.7 15.4 15.4 15.4

7.7 15.4

30.8

7.7 15.4

38.5 15.4

30.8 30.8 46.2 30.8

23.1 61.5 46.2

53.8

61.5

53.8 53.8 30.8

53.8 46.2

30.8 30.8

7.7 15.4

7.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9







70

3.7.4 Summary

The analysis above clearly shows the positive impact of the learning programme on

particularly the level of knowledge gained (level 2). In terms of the level three analysis, that is

the ability to apply what has been learned, the findings illustrates that training participants

are in general not confident that they are better equipped to apply what they have learned,

although the feedback from supervisors paint a more positive picture.

3.8 RECRUITMENT & SELECTION FOR LINE MANAGERS


The target group for this learning programme include all line managers employed on salary

levels seven to twelve. The purpose of this learning programme was to enhance the

recruitment and selection knowledge and skills of line managers, so as to to promote

uniformity with regards to recruitment and selection practices in the PGWC. This learning

programme consisted of the following components:

Recruitment

What does recruitment involve

Legislative and policy framework with regard to recruitment

Compiling an advertisement

Selection

Defining selection

Legislative and policy framework with regard to selection

Compiling a grid (short listing)

Roles of panel members (secretariat)

71

Appointments

Appointments

Promotions

Contract appointments

Transfers

Resettlement

Probation

Probation

Induction

Calculation of date of confirmation of appointment





Measuring the extent to which learners gained the relevant knowledge as outlined in the




either Poor (1), Average (2), Good (3), Very good (4) and Excellent (5). The aspects measured

to which respondents had to rate their level of understanding was:

1. Define and understand the recruitment process

2. The legislative and policy framework that regulates recruitment in the Public

Service

3. Compilation of a Job brief

4. Request to advertise a post

5. The role of a manager in the recruitment process

6. Defining and understanding the selection process

72

7. The legislative and policy framework that regulates selection in the Public Service

8. Compiling a short-list and participate in panel interviews

9. The steps in selection process and the role of line manager in the process

10. Competency Assessments (Western Cape Government Competency Policy, 2012)

11. Defining appointments, promotions and transfers

12. The legislative and policy framework that regulates appointments, promotions and

transfers in the Public Service

13. The legislative and policy framework that regulates probationary appointments in

the Public Service

14. The role of line manager in the appointments and probation process

15. Compiling induction programme

Twenty-three respondents completed a pre- and post-test for this learning programme. The

analysis shows a strong increase in the mean and mode scores for all fifteen defined core


scores, an increase of approximately two ‘points’ is noted, with a total pre- and post test

score of 2.34 and 4.29 respectively. The higher total post-test score confirms the

accumulation of a great deal of knowledge with growth in the general understanding of the

subject matter from an “Average” to a “Very Good” understanding.

With regards to the variability in responses, Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2 illustrate limited

variance between statements with the frequency analysis clearly illustrating an increase in the

level of knowledge for all aspects measured with the strongest growth illustrated for the

following core components:

The legislative and policy framework that regulates appointments, promotions and

transfers in the Public Service (Poor to Excellent)

Request to advertise a post (Average to Excellent)

Defining and understanding the selection process (Average to Excellent)

The steps in selection process and the role of line manger in the process (Average to

Excellent)

Competency Assessments (Poor to Very Good)

73

The legislative and policy framework that regulates appointments, promotions and

transfers in the Public Service (Poor to Very Good)

This outcome strongly supports that the defined training outcomes and objectives set for this

training programme were indeed achieved.

Table 8.1: Pre- and Post-measurements – Recruitment & selection for line managers

Count Statement

Pre-test Post-test

Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Define and understand the recruitment process 2.73 3 4.48 5

2 The legislative and policy framework that regulates recruitment in the Public Service 2.14 2 4.26 4

a

3 Compilation on a Job brief 2.09 1 4.13 5

4 Request to advertise a post 2.23 2 4.26 5

5 The role of a manager in the recruitment process 2.76 3 4.32 5

6 Defining and understanding the selection process 2.67 2 4.35 5

7 The legislative and policy framework that regulates selection in the Public Service 2.14 3 4.13 4

8 Compiling a short-list and participate in panel interviews 3.00 3a 4.39 5

9 The steps in selection process and the role of line manger in the process 2.55 2 5.74 5

10 Competency Assessments 1.82 1 4.00 4

11 Defining appointments, promotions and transfers 2.48 3 4.22 4

12 The legislative and policy framework that regulates appointments, promotions and transfers in the Public Service 1.95 1 4.00 4

13 The legislative and policy framework that regulates probationary appointments in the Public Sector 2.10 2 4.00 4

14 The role of line manager in the appointments and probation process 2.36 2 4.22 4

a

15 Compiling induction programme 2.14 1a 3.82 4

Total mean 2.34

4.29

N=23


74

Figure 8.1: Pre-measurement - Recruitment & selection for line managers

Figure 8.2: Post-measure - Recruitment & selection for line managers

13.6 22.7

36.4 27.3

9.5 9.5

31.8

9.1 18.2

45.5

23.8

36.4 28.6

9.1

31.8

27.3

45.5 27.3

36.4

28.6 38.1

27.3

22.7

31.8

27.3

23.8

31.8 38.1

50.0

31.8

36.4

27.3 27.3

22.7

38.1 28.6

36.4

31.8

27.3

27.3

33.3

31.8 28.6

36.4 27.3

18.2

4.5 9.1

13.6 23.8 23.8

4.5

31.8

22.7 19.0

4.8 4.5 9.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pre-test


4.3 4.3 4.3

4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 8.7 8.7

9.1 8.7

8.7 8.7 4.5 4.3

13.0 8.7 4.3

21.7

8.7 17.4 13.0

4.3

39.1

43.5 39.1 39.1

40.9 39.1

47.8

30.4 34.8

43.5

47.8

52.2 47.8

43.5

54.5

56.5

43.5 43.5 47.8 50.0 52.2

34.8

56.5 56.5

30.4 39.1

26.1 30.4

43.5

27.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Post-test


75






learners.

In measuring the impact of the learning programme in the application of the learnt












1. The incumbent is /I am able to perform all the steps involved in the appointments

process of an employee

2. The incumbent is /I am able to compile a job brief The incumbent is /I am able to

3. The incumbent is /I am able to write a submission to request the advertisement of a

post

4. The incumbent is /I am able to perform the role of a manager as prescribed in the

regulatory framework in the recruitment process

5. The incumbent is /I am able to perform all the steps in the selection process

6. The incumbent is /I am able to participate in panel interviews

7. The incumbent is /I am able to compile a short-list

76

8. The incumbent is /I am able to perform the role of a manager as prescribed in the

regulatory framework in the selection process

9. The incumbent is /I am able to explain the Competency Assessments (Western Cape

Government Competency Policy, 2012)

10. The incumbent is /I am able to perform all the steps involved in the appointments

process of an employee

11. The incumbent is /I am able to perform as manager in the appointment, promotion

and transfer process

12. The incumbent is /I am able to apply the regulatory framework that regulates

appointments, promotions and transfer

13. The incumbent is /I am able to perform the role of the line manager in the probation

process as prescribed by the legislative and policy framework

14. The incumbent is /I am able to compile an induction programme for an employee

Twelve course participants and nine supervisors completed level three questionnaires,






supervisor and participant groups respectively) with both exhibiting general mode scores

between three and four (Skill application the same than before the training: on required level

and Skill application better than before the training). The overall mean and mode scores are

not particularly positive since a score of 3 (Skill application the same than before the training:

on required level) is an indication of no real added value to the working environment.

However, considering how the individual scores are presented in table 8.2 and figures 8.3 and

8.4 respectively, course participants do indicate a stronger ability to apply newly learned

knowledge on most of the defined competencies, with the exception of four competencies:

Ability to write a submission to request the advertisement of a post

Ability to perform as manager in the appointment, promotion and transfer process

77

Ability to explain the competency assessments

Ability to perform the role of a manager as prescribed in the regulatory framework in

the selection process

The scoring of supervisors is more conservative, illustrating a lack of added ability to apply

newly learned knowledge on most of the defined competencies, except in the case of four

competencies that were allocated a score of four:

Ability to compile a job brief

Ability to explain the Competency Assessments

Ability to perform all the steps involved in the appointment process of an employee

Ability to perform the role of the line manger in the probation process as prescribed

by the legislative and policy framework

Commenting on their ability to apply what has been learnt during the training, eight

respondents, each from different departments (Department of Cultural Affairs, Department

of Health and, Department of the Premier) indicated some learning competencies to fall

outside of their scope of work [N=28] 11 with other not possible to apply due to a lack of

opportunity [N=32]12 and finally due a lack of resources [N=1]13 (table 8.3). This was

confirmed by the supervisors from these departments who explained the limits to applying

what has been learned in the training programme as a direct consequence of a lack of

opportunity to do so.

11

This N-value refers to the total number of competencies selected by all respondents 12

This N-value refers to the total number of competencies selected by all respondents 13

This N-value refers to the total number of competencies selected by all respondents

78


Code Statement


Mean Mode Mean Mode

1 Able to perform all the steps in the recruitment process 3.83 4 3.33 3

2 Able to compile a job brief 3.55 4 3.56 4

3 Able to write a submission to request the advertisement of a post 3.30 3 2.78 3

4

Able to perform the role of a manager as prescribed in the regulatory framework in the recruitment process 3.55 4 3.00 3

5 Able to perform all the steps in the selection process 4.08 4 3.33 3

6 Able to participate in panel interviews 4.08 4 3.67 3

7 Able to compile a short-list 4.17 4 3.67 3a

8

Able to perform the role of a manager as prescribed in the regulatory framework in the selection process 3.42 3

a 3.00 3

9 Able to explain the Competency Assessments 3.45 3 3.63 4

10 Able to perform all the steps involved in the appointment process of an employee 3.91 4 3.38 4

11 Able to perform as manager in the appointment, promotion and transfer process 3.55 3 3.13 3

a

12

Able to apply the regulatory framework that regulates appointments, promotions and transfer 3.55 4 3.13 3

a

13

Able to perform the role of the line manger in the probation process as prescribed by the legislative and policy framework 3.58 4 3.44 4

14 Able to compile and induction programme for an employee 3.91 4 3.67 3

a

Total mean 3.71

3.34


Supervisor-evaluation (N=9) a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

79



8.3 9.1 9.1 9.1 8.3 8.3 9.1 20.0 18.2 8.3

9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 8.3

25.0 36.4

40.0 27.3

25.0 16.7

8.3

33.3 45.5 18.2

45.5 36.4

16.7

27.3

41.7

45.5 30.0

36.4

41.7 58.3 66.7

33.3 36.4

36.4

18.2 36.4

50.0 54.5

25.0 9.1 10.0

18.2 33.3

25.0 25.0 16.7

9.1 27.3

18.2 9.1

16.7 18.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Self-evaluation






11.1

33.3 25.0

11.1 22.2

12.5

25.0 25.0 25.0

11.1 11.1

77.8

33.3

55.6

50.0

55.6

55.6 44.4

55.6

25.0

25.0

37.5 37.5

33.3 33.3

11.1

44.4

11.1

25.0

22.2

22.2 44.4

22.2

50.0

37.5

37.5 37.5

55.6

33.3

11.1 11.1 11.1 22.2

11.1 12.5 12.5 22.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14







80

Table 8.3: Inability to apply a particular competency by department

Department No opportunity No resources Not my job Total

Cultural Affairs and Sport 3 0 0 1

Health 3 1 24 4

Premier 26 0 4 3

Total 32 1 28 8

Percentages and totals are based on respondents.

a. Group

3.8.4 Summary

The analysis above clearly shows the positive impact of the learning programme on

particularly the level of knowledge gained (level 2). In terms of the level three analysis, that is,

the ability to apply what has been learned, the responses by course participants and

supervisors do not concur, with the majority of course participants confident that they are in

general able to apply what they have learned in contrast to the responses by supervisors who

illustrate the same competency than before the training for most of the listed competencies.

This does, however, not necessarily imply that the training programme is effective, but rather

that course participants were left more confident to conduct specific tasks, although they

level of performance was always good, and thus the lower rating by supervisors.

81

4 CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In general the evaluation on the impact of these eight learning programmes is clearly positive

with the majority of respondents, both learners and supervisors, highlighting the positive

effect of training in the work place. The measurement of Level 2 data is presented as more

pronounced illustrating all the learning programmes as effective in transferring new

knowledge to the general course participant. It is, however, the impact on Level 3, that is, the

behaviour of the learner or in this case the application of the taught skills and competencies

in the work place, where the results are somewhat more complex.

In spite of this, the data collected was able to provide a reliable account of the impact

showing that in the majority of cases, the effect of the training did work its way through to

the work place thus leaving participants more capable of conduct their daily tasks as well as

leaving them feeling more confident in the execution of their work.

The analysis of the respective learning programmes did, however, also reflect on the need to

re-think and re-consider some objectives, specifically in the inclusion of training on specific

skills and competencies that might not be relevant to the bigger participant group.

training impact assessment report 2016-2017 … report final _31 march 2017.pdf · this evaluation...

Documents