CS Performance Appraisal within the Context of HRM : An Integrated Approach

1. CS Performance Appraisal within the Context of HRM : An Integrated Approach Adérito Alain Sanches Seminar on Civil Service Performance Appraisal Vilnius, 23-24 May 2006

2. A few HRM Concepts to be Remembered • CS Performance Appraisal : “Yes, but …”

3. I. A few (basic) HRM Concepts to be Remembered 5Factors which influence Performance 5Requirements for Performance Appraisal

4. 5 Factors which influence Performance Performance depends on 5 main factors : • Level of Adjustment of the Work Force • Quality of Organization • Levels of Motivation • Levels of Know-how • Quality of the Leadership P = f ( A, O, M, K, L )

5. A - Adjustment of the work force : “ Right Size ” Adjustment of the work force : • Size : numbers • Deployment : distribution (regional - by sectors & units) • Recruitment and Selection Policy / Practices • “Structural Adjustment” Policies / Practices A : HRM Policies / Practices

6. O - Organization : Well Orchestrated Jobs. “ I can& I may do my job well ” Adequate organization : • Mandates & missions / Job descriptions : Tasks - Standards - Levels of autonomy -Work flows • Resource allocation : resource/cost structure • Space for action : Delegation - Empowerment (“deburocratization”, “deconcentration”, decentralization) • Leadership Practices : Planning - Intelligent Control - M&E O : HRM Policies / Practices

7. M - Motivation : “ I want to do my job well ” Motivation : • Quality of life at the workplace : physical environment, social environment, rhythms of work • Immediate compensation : payment, image • Leadership style : levels of participation & trust • Long term advantages & benefits : professional advancement, social security, retirement, other benefits & guarantees M : HRM Policies / Practices

8. K - Know-how (competence, knowledge, skills) : “ I knowhow todo my job well ” Adequate know-how : • Deployment / Redeployment • Training • Leadership style / Institutional culture K : HRM Policies / Practices

9. L - Quality of leadership : “ I know what I am expected to do (and not to do), I am assisted and encouraged in doing (or not doing) it, my work and my performance are correctly assessed, I trust my “boss” ” Good leadership : • “Managerial” competence (strategic, HRM) • Spec.: Listening and communication capacity • Spec.: Sound assessment/ evaluation practices • Senior CS Reform Policy L : HRM Policies / Practices

10. 5 Requirements for Performance Appraisal Sound performance appraisal require : • Well Defined Objectives • Reliable assessments of the “ Space ” left for Action (Resources & Assistance, Time, Room for manoeuvre) • Reliable assessments of the External Conditions & Forces • Accurate and relevant Indicators • Reliable and adequate Points of Reference (Terms of Comparison) PA(requir) = g (O, S, C, A, R )

11. O - Well Defined Objectives Well defined objectives are : • Specific • Measurable • Achievable • Realistic • Time-bound • Good objectives are also : • Negociated (and accepted) • Not too easy to achieve • Open • Flexible • Evolutive • Rewarded with fairness O : Management Practices / Style

12. S - Assessments of the “ Space for Action ” “ Adequate space ” means : • Adequate resources and assistance • Fair payment and compensation • Well defined and fair rules (for everybody) • Adequate levels of autonomy& responsibility • Clear guidance and appropriate environment • Fair acknowledgment of the quality of performance S : Management Practices

13. C - Assessment of the External Conditions External conditions are : • The usual Environmental Conditions • Exceptional Environmental Opportunities&Threatens • Favorable / Unfavorable Forces operating Inside and Outside the Organization C : Management Practices

14. A - Accurate and relevant Indicators Well chosen (sets of) indicators are : • Relevant (giving the right picture) • Accurate (precise and reliable) • Coherent (integrated) • Easy to use (practical) A : Management Practices

15. R - Reliable and adequate Points of Reference Adequate points (and systems) of reference may be given by : • Before-After (B-A) comparisons • Relevant (“synchronic”) comparisons between Persons / Teams / Units • Comparisons based on a Norm or a Target R : Management Practices

16. II. CS Performance Appraisal : “ Yes, but …” Performance Appraisal ? :“ Yes ”.Why ? “ Yes, But … ” :Lessons of Experience

17. Performance Appraisal ? : “ Yes ”. Why ?(1/2) If we don’t do it : • A lot of “ undesirable events ” happen, or may happen (imagine them). • In Particular: There is no possibility to monitor and evaluate conveniently the advancement and the quality of the results (products, real impact versus expected impact), or to monitor and evaluate efficiency (the right / responsible use of resources). • It becomes more difficult to approach fairness in compensation, and to assist and advise the agents in their jobs.

18. Performance Appraisal ? : “ Yes ”. Why ?(2/2) If we do it (properly) : • Then, yes : it becomes easier to monitor and evaluate the advancement and the quality of the results (products, impact), and also the right use of resources. • We also may more easily try and approach fairness in compensation and assist / advise agents in their jobs.

19. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(1/8) CS Modernization Programs including Performance Appraisal (PA) measures may be, in practice, costly, time consuming and difficult to implement. They may face or induce resistance from civil servants and/or unions and create unrest and institutional problems. Their acceptance requires a well-established results-oriented and trust-oriented culture. According to the country (or institutional) situation, a feasibility study (including a description of the context, a measure of the level ofacceptability and a cost-benefit analysis) may give useful indications about the measures that might be implemented, and how they could be taken and scheduled.

20. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(2/8) As most decisions aimed at changing an institutional culture, new CS-PA measures should take into account the requirement of progressive acceptance (by the agents and by the evaluators). Another very important aspect pertains to the way the measures are taken. New CS-PA measures are better accepted when : - they are clearly motivated and explained (when the need for them is made obvious by a sensitization campaign, stressing the users / clients and taxpayers legitimate expectations) - the appraisal methods are openly discussed / negotiated (and improved) with concerned agents, groups and unions.

21. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(3/8) Even when CS-PA measures are culturally accepted and/or wanted, different reasons may make it difficult to successfully implement them. One important reason is linked to methodological difficulties (performance is not always easy to assess). Other difficulties have to do with financial / institutional constraints. Another frequent reason pertains to the lack or neglect of an integrated approach. This may be illustrated through three kinds of observations : 1. As we have seen, performance depends closely on several main factors, such as motivation and trust. Side-effects of the measures taken to assess performance on one or the other of these factors, either directly or indirectly, may result, by a “ricochet effect ”, in a drop of performance.

22. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(4/8) When the side-effect result of a disputed set of measures taken to assess performance is a degradation of the social climate, motivation and trust - and therefore performance - may be affected on a more long-time basis. Performance appraisal measures may finally lead, this way, to a performance fall. There is a need to carefully integrate and take into account all key components of HRM policies. Examples and illustrations.

23. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(5/8) 2. Moreover, and even more obviously, PA is only one of the instruments used to set up a results-oriented culture. This (potentially useful) instrument is very closely linkedto and dependent upon other key HRM instruments, such as : - appropriate and consistent (modern) job descriptions - renewed management style (results-oriented MBO, more communication sensitive practices of management, … ), in connection with Senior CS Reforms - compensation (reward, motivation) policies and practices - recruitment, selection and professional advancement policies and methods - training and institutional communication policies and practices.

24. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(6/8) Therefore, again it becomes clear that there is a need to closely and intelligently coordinate the measures taken to appraise CS performance with the other measures taken and instruments chosen to organize and manage the work and the workforce within the Public Administration units. Again, this may be illustrated with a few examples.

25. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(7/8) 3. Finally, if we look carefully at the 5 “OSCAR” requirements that should be taken into account for sound and fair Performance Appraisal methods to be set up, we may see that good practices of Performance Appraisal require, not only an institutional capacity to manage by objectives, and to build upM&Esets ofadequate indicators and systems of reference directlyrelated to the results, but also a capacity to take into account (and therefore to assess): - the level of autonomy and facilities awarded to the performing agent (within his or hers department / unit) (an assessment closely linked, in particular, to delegation and empowerment practices) - the weight of the external conditions affecting the agent’s level of performance (an assessment related to risk management).

26. “ Yes, but … : Lessons of Experience(8/8) So, national and institutional efforts to introduce CS-PA methods and measures should carefully take into account all these links and interdependence constraints. Only when these precautions are taken can we hope to take full advantage of the - important, and desirable - benefits procured by better Performance Appraisal managerial practices. As a final thought, allow me to remember here an old word of wisdom of Hippocrates to his fellow doctors, an useful recommendation for reforms in this area : Primum non nocere ! (First, do not harm !)