 The status of performance management in the  Public Service Presentation to Portfolio Committee: 8 May 2002

OBJECTIVES To present an overview of the state of performance management in the Public Service and the implementation of the new performance management and development system (PMDS) for sms.

HISTORICAL REALITIES Before amalgamation and rationalisation in many PM systems and procedures in public service, with detailed rules & regulations on appraisal for different categories of staff & for different purposes Major reform: 1 July new management framework: devolution of management of depts to political & administrative heads of depts “One size fits all” approach abandoned. Each dept allowed to develop its own HR policies & systems, within a framework of uniform norms & standards

Putting the Management of Performance in the Public Sector into Context

PM : levels Part VIII of Chapter I of the Public Service Regulations, 2001, serves as the primary guide to departments in developing and implementing their departmental performance management systems. Regulation VIII B.1 requires of each executing authority to determine a system for performance management and development for employees in that department (other than employees who are members of senior management). The system had to be in place with effect from 1 April 2001.

STATE OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (Levels 1 to 12) A survey conducted by the DPSA indicated the following: (2001 information) 9 out of 34 national departments have started implementation of systems for staff below SMS 1 out of 9 provinces has started implementation On the positive side, only 3 national departments and 2 provincial administrations have not made some progress in developing their own PM systems

THREE LEVELS OF PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES

Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) for SMS

Review of the Old Performance Management System for SMS  As part of SMS initiative, DPSA embarked on review of old PM for SMS  Review took place against background of following realities:  PA’s only introduced in 1998  When introduced, PA’s not compulsory - although salary increases & cash bonuses of managers dependent on performance in accordance with PA

Review of the Old Performance Management System for SMS (Cont.)  Departments required to put performance evaluation systems in place by 31/03/2000 to assess managers - for HOD evaluations unique system introduced by PSC  Since 1998, MPSA annually determined parameters for salary increases and cash bonuses - awarding thereof a departmental decision

KEY FINDINGS - STRENGTHS  Shift has taken place from fixation on processes to delivery of outcomes & outputs  Insistence on achievement of tangible results has resulted in improvement of management info systems  Individual performance increasingly being seen within context of org performance  Decentralisation of performance management has resulted in improved ownership  Synergy is starting to develop between strategic, financial & HR processes

KEY FINDINGS - WEAKNESSES Problem areas  PA’s often not adequately linked to strat & operational plans/ PA’s not reviewed annually  PA’s not part of an integrated perf man process  Often no consequences for poor/excellent performance Main causes  Planning & perf man cycle not yet fully synchronised  Gaps in policy framework  Capacity constraints in developing own perf management systems  Performance standards & indicators not clearly defined  Rating scales undefined/weak linkages to incapacity processes & rewards  Reluctance to address performance problems  Assessment backlogs  Financial constraints

KEY FINDINGS - WEAKNESSES Problem areas  Mediocrity sometimes rewarded  Allocation of higher packages done ad-hoc  Training & development interventions often not linked to on-the-job performance  No common base to compare performance across departments & to inform career decisions  Assessments only focus on delivery of short term outputs & not on building the org Main causes  No guidance on distribution of rewards  Weak oversight  No pay progression system for serving staff  No provision for personal development plans as part of perf man system  Incompatibility of assessment systems  Inadequate guidance on formats  No common understanding & measurement of key managerial responsibilities

OBJECTIVES OF THE NEW PMDS FOR SMS  Linked to the overall objective of SMS of improving attraction, retention & development of high quality senior managers & professionals  Provide a fair and equitable basis upon which to identify under-performance and reward good performance  Provide a framework for performance improvement and development  Creates linkages between individual and organisational performance to improve service delivery

KEY FEATURES  Strongly results based, balances standardisation with flexibility to adapt:  standardised management assessment criteria, linked to competency framework;  standardised rating scale; and  personal development plans  Clear guidelines for linkages to pay progression and reward  Separate annual cost-of-living increases from performance-based cash bonuses & pay progression  Simplified

KEY FEATURES (cont.)  Only fully effective SMS members to be considered for pay progression  Performance significantly above expectations to be considered for cash bonuses  Decision on number of managers to be granted cash bonuses and extent thereof to be taken by EA’s, based on assessment results and within following parameters:  max of 1,5% of SMS wage bill to be utilised for this purpose; and  cash bonus not to exceed 8% of individual’s total package.

 The Regulations require of departments to use a single instrument to assess the performance of managers  An assessment instrument has been developed - Departments may customise the instrument to suit their particular needs ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

CUT-OFF POINTS <50% Unacceptable performance Probation extended Employment terminated % Performance not fully adequate Probation confirmed or extended Performance improvement measures introduced % Fully effective Probation confirmed Pay progression granted % Performance significantly above expectations Probation confirmed Pay progression granted Cash bonus (between 3 & 5%) >85% Outstanding performance Probation confirmed Pay progression granted Cash bonus (between 6 & 8%)

PAY PROGRESSION SYSTEM  All members of the SMS are eligible to be considered for performance related pay increase (package progression) on a bi-annual basis provided that their performance is evaluated to be fully effective.  They also need to have a signed performance agreement. The assessment rating of 65% or higher must be achieved over the last 12 months of the performance management cycle.

PAY PROGRESSION SYSTEM (cont )  The first pay progression can be effected on 1 April depending on performance in 2002/03  Future progression cycles will run over 24 months, commencing on 1 April of a particular year  Only continuous service over 24 months on the same level will count for purposes of pay progression

KEY FEATURES (cont.)  HOD evaluation processes to be aligned with new system  Will build in strong data capturing (PERSAL) and reporting arrangements (annual report) - to allow for better monitoring & evaluation

INFORMATION ON STATE OF PA’S IN DEPARTMENTS The OPSC in 2001 conducted a survey on PA’s in departments countrywide. Following the survey, the OPSC is finalising a report to strengthen the monitoring of PA’s. A questionnaire was sent to departments Interviews were conducted with senior managers The finalisation of the OPSC report will ensure the availability of information on the management of PA’s

 Questions?  Comments?