OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION

1. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION’S PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION REPORT ON MANAGEMENT OF POOR PERFORMANCE IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE Date: 7 November 2007

2. OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION • Introduction • Objective of the study • Research methodology • International Trends • Findings and Observations of the study • Recommendationsand Conclusion

3. INTRODUCTION • Perceptions of poor levels of service delivery by and within the Public Service proliferate. Such views stem from deep-rooted perceptions that public officials are generally incompetent and are not held accountable for performance. • Various measures have been introduced to improve service delivery, including more effective recruitment practices, intensive capacity building, and the introduction of performance management tools, (PMDS). • Much of the focus on performance management is on rewarding work performance as opposed to management of poor performance in Public Service. • Management tends to shy away from the unpopular practice of managing [poor performance. • The PSC’s Investigation aimed at assessing what is being done to manage below average or poor performance.

4. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY • Investigate the management of poor performance in the Public Service. • Identify the key ethical issues and problems related to the management of poor performance. • Identify the nature of remedial interventions to assist poor performers and the extent to which these are yielding the desired results. • Investigate the extent to which incapacity and/or inefficiency measures are instituted. • Provide a clear factual basis for effectively identifying and managing individual cases of poor performance, allowing for suitable sanctions to be implemented in appropriate cases. • Make recommendations to improve the management of poor performance in the Public Service. • Develop a practical, user- friendly toolkit aimed at assisting managers and supervisors to deal with poor performance.

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY • The scope of the research covered, the National Department of Education and five provincial administrations with a sample of two departments each, in respect of the Departments of Education and Housing (Local Government and Housing) • A literature study was conducted which included an assessment of international trends on management of poor performance. • Questionnaires were designed and used during structured interviews with managers and supervisors responsible for managing poor performance. • Structured Focus Group discussions were held with employees and union representatives. • Feedback on the questionnaires were analysed and outcomes of various focus group discussion were collated after comparing the responses. • Information obtained from Focus Group discussions and the questionnaires were measured against information gathered from the literature study. • The findings on the research will be used to develop a Toolkit on Management of Poor Performance in Public Service.

6. INTERNATIONAL TRENDS • Research indicates that management of poor performance is an issue in most countries. • Factors that affect the ability to manage poor performance include: • Resistance to change in the Public Service • Strength of union movements • Lack of clear objectives • Issues relating to the communication of objectives or targets • Lack of comprehensive job descriptions • Unrealistic targets • Lack of resources to perform • Non-compliance with performance management system • Capacity of the HR department to provide support and assistance • Poor performance record keeping and the capacity of management to manage poor performance

7. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY • Two thirds of managers in the sample believe that poor performance not to be a problem. • Managers are unable to identify poor performance to be able to address it. • Identification of causes of poor performance was attributed to among others, work culture, job and employee mismatch, lack of skills, no performance standards. • Management skills coupled with lack of capacity, and the will to manage poor performance were raised as factors contributing to poor performance in the Public Service. • The management of poor performance is perceived by 65% of sampled employees as unfair and subjective.

8. FINDINGS CONTINUED • HR Components do not co-own and oversee management of poor performance in the Public Service leading to abdication of responsibility by managers. • Managers address poor performance when it is a crisis and has to be handled in terms of labour relations processes. • The Managers’ willpower in managing poor performance is inhibited by the need to make unpopular decisions, and personal and political relationships that conflict with management responsibilities. • The lack of willingness to manage poor performance correlates with a distorted view of performance management. It is seen as a disciplinary process rather than a developmental process and the opportunity to address poor performance constructively is lost.

9. FINDINGS CONTINUED • Management of Poor Performance hardly occurs and when it does, it is not within a common framework. • On paper managers are held accountable for poor performance, in practice not. • Management of poor performance is not carried out as an integral part of management of performance.

10. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS • Management capability – training of management need priority attention. • Recruitment and supporting processes – ensure that the right people, with correctly aligned competencies, are placed in the right jobs, and receive the necessary development and support to do their jobs. • Work Culture – promoting work attitude changes through recognising and rewarding value-adding activities and penalising behaviours that erode values. • Monitoring – non-compliance with the PMDS must be dealt with harshly and PMDS should be implemented in a fair, rigorous and consistent manner. • PMDS – development of a common understanding of the objectives of the PMDS; regular coaching and mentoring; ensuring performance management process is evidence driven to minimize subjectivity.

11. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS • Consideration of other training – to support management of poor performance departments should invest in structured regular training to address critical skills gaps like inter-personal skills. • A person-to-post mismatch - associated lack or misplacement of skills. • Lack of performance standards – Required set standards can only be attained if employees are aware of them and they are in fact applied. • HR’s Strategic role - not fulfilled both as a strategic partner to the departments, and in respect of owning, driving, and supporting the performance management and management of poor performance processes, as departmental custodians thereof. • Disjuncture between theory and practice – PMDS is not properly implemented even though some managers of its necessity.

12. RECOMMENDATIONS • Senior management must lead by example and drive the business case for formally managing poor performance through regular communication to managers. • Managers need to be held accountable in order to ensure that the management of poor performance occurs. • HR should play a strategic monitoring role and report non-compliance to Senior management. • HR Components should develop a standard process for managing poor performance. • Change management communication to raise levels awareness and understanding of performance management generally and in particular poor performance management has to be prioritised. • Rigorous Recruitment and Selection process must be geared towards placement of candidates with correct skills and competencies to relevant posts.

13. THANK YOU!