Transcript Civil Service Performance Appraisal in Portugal General framework and the specific experience with

Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
 Civil
Service Performance
Appraisal in Portugal:
General framework and the
specific experience with
parliamentary staff
 Isabel
Corte-Real, Vilnius 24
May 2006
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP*
Structure of the presentation






Introduction
Why a new appraisal system
SIADAP: Principles; requirements ;features; rating system,
quotas; forms; appraisers and other interfering entities; process,
managers; transparency ;strengths and weaknesses
Appraisals systems are complex; appraisal systems are useful.
Key points for a successful appraisal
Specific experience with parliamentary staff: specific features;
other parliaments experiences; inspiring principles; system
features; grading system; forms ;first year experience
Conclusion
*Sistema de Avaliação de Desempenho da Administração Pública(
performance appraisal system for the civil service)
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
Why a new system?
Breaks with a discredited
previous system from1983
 Responds to new management
needs (Efficiency; Quality
Management; pay bill control)
 Integrates the service (s) annual
management cycle

© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
General principles







Performance appraisal is results/objectives
oriented
SIADAP is an universal system , applicable
to the civil service as a whole
Enhances managers and subordinates
responsibilities;
Staff contributions to the service and
motivation are better perceived
Differentiates levels of performance
Aims at transparency
Integrates HRM system
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
Requires:

Annual planning for the next year
l
(taking into account strategic objectives, government programme,
)
Annual setting of service objectives
Annual setting of individual objectives
( civil servant or team)
Annual reporting
Performance appraisal( against
individual objectives)
service competences and assignments




© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
Main features
 Applicable
to the Civil Service as
a whole
 Main components:
 Objectives
 Competences
 Personal Attitudes
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
Objectives




Each service sets its own objectives
Objectives( no more than five , no less than three)
must be agreed upon each subordinate and
immediate superior, depending one of them on
shared responsibility (team or group)
Each objective has its own weight for the final mark
(no less than 15%, no more than 20%)
Grading system:
 Level five- Exceeds largely the objective
 Level three-Meets the objective
 Level one- Does not meet the objective
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
Competences
Set up against job requirements
( for each professional group)
 No less than four, no more than
six
 The weight of each competence
shall not be less than 10%

© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Personal Attitude
Evaluates how the job
was performed, including
aspects as effort, interest
and motivation
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Rating system







Rating of each component: from one to five
The final appraisal of each component
corresponds to the following rating:
Excellent :from 4,5 to 5
Very good: From 4 to 4,4
Good: From 3 to 3,9
Needs development: from 2 to 2,9
Unsatisfactory :from 1 to 1,9
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Final appraisal
results from the weighted average of
each component according to the
following weight
Group
Objective Compet.
Attitude
Graduate
staff
60%
30%
10%
Administrat.
assistants
50%
40%
10%
Blue collars
40%
50%
10%
Supporting
staff
20%
60%
20%
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
Quotas ( forced distribution)
Very good: No more than 20% of
the staff
 Excellent : No more than 5 % of
the staff

© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Forms
Forms are legally predefined for the all civil
service
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Who interferes in the
appraisal system
Superiors( appraisers)
 Performance appraisal
coordination committee
(P.A.C.C.)
 Director General ( top manager)
of each service

© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Appraisers( immediate
superiors) assignments
Set up objectives and
conduct appraisals
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Performance appraisal
coordination committee
(P.A.C.C.)
Chaired by the D.G.
 Composed by other managers
 Assignments:
 Sets up orientations
 Guarantees a selective system ( has
to validate excellent and very good )
 Advices the D.G. on claims
 Proposes the Minister specific
system (s) , according to the law

© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Appraisal process
Phases







Self appraisal
Previous appraisal( by the superior)
Harmonization of ratings by the P. A C. C.( the
highest ratings have to be signed by all members)
Appraisal interview( between superior and
subordinate)
Final appraisal approval by the D.G.
The subordinate has to acknowledge the final
appraisal. In case of disagreement ,he can present a
claim to the D.G. The P.A.C.C. gives advice on claim
(s)
The subordinate can still appeal to the minister
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Managers( intermediate level)
appraisals
 Objectives
are weighted :75%
 Competences are
weighted:25%
 No forced distribution is
established
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP
Transparency



A list of names , organized according
final grades( Excellent , Very Good,
Good, Needs development ,
Unsatisfactory) is publicized
A SIADAP data base is set up in the
Directorate General for the Civil
Service
Services can also be assessed
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAP- Strengths and
weaknesses
Strengths
 Result/objective oriented
 Set up within the context of
TQM and MBO
 Breaks with a discredited
previous system( inflation of
high ratings)
 Responds to the need of
controlling a high pay bill
Weaknesses

Time consuming process for setting up
objectives ( from Government Program
to individuals) specially within
instability scenarios

In 2004 only 18% of services
conducted PA . In 2005 no data are
available; a new system is being
prepared

Heavy work load and paper work( too
demanding, ,considering a cost/benefit
relationship)

Forced distribution creates inequity
and conflicts ( quotas are always
fulfilled not on a merit basis .They
result from internal negotiations )

Managers and staff had a modest
contribution to the system

System misses flexibility ( too
universal)
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Appraisal systems are
complex




In many organization performance measurement and
management systems are little more than human
resources bureaucracies , with forms, rules and
review layers. These paper-driven systems are
burdens to managers and hence are completely
marginally, if at all. They are typically seen by raters
as extra work and by ratees as at best irrelevant, at
worst demotivating ( Schneier, Shaw and Beatty)
Inflation of high ratings in civil service is common as civil
service has no profit/market regulation
Heavy paper work load and bureaucracies are often
associated
The emerging management of conflict takes time and
energy
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Appraisal systems are
useful






Recruitment and selection ( validates selection
procedures)
Integration of staff in the organization( asses
adaptation to the organization)
Training (identifies training needs)
Promotion: performance appraisal is a promotion
requirement ( promotion without merit can not
receive support and contributes to civil service
discredit)
Mobility: Can recommend mobility
Career and payment : is the basis for different
tracks in career( slower or faster) with payment
impact
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Key points for a successful
appraisal scheme
British Advisory and Conciliation Arbitration Service





Make sure senior managers are fully
committed
Consult with managers employees an
d trade unions
Give appraisers adequate training(
setting objectives and interviews)
Keep the system simple and straight
Monitor and update system(s)
© OECD
Parliaments special features
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Specific experience with
parliamentary staff



General system is not directly applicable to
Parliament. Legislation provides for specific
rules and regulations
Parliament has no political planning for the
legislature ( contrary to what happens with
government programme). Main activities
come from political/parliamentary control of
government performance
Therefore, there is no cascade strategic
planning for the services, the departments
or the individuals
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Other parliaments
experiences





Civil Service general system is not used
The general system is adapted in some
cases (Netherlands)
Some parliaments have their own model (
France and U.K.)
No system is used in some cases ( Spain
and Luxembourg)
Annual interviews are conducted to set up
individual objectives , in order to developing
h.r.( Denmark and Finland)
© OECD
SIADAR*
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
New inspiring principles to pursuit








Development of competences. The main reason for
appraisal is the further improvement of performances
Decentralization in H.R.M.
Motivation and performance improvement
Appraisal :does not replace other demanding H.R.M.
techniques and practices ( specially recruitment)
Compensation performance related system
Prevention of high ratings inflation and paper overload
Clear and straight system
Managers role
*Sistema de Avaliação de Desempenho da Assembleia da
República- Portuguese Parliament Performance Appraisal
System)
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAR
Features









Corresponds to P.A. principles and H.R.M. needs
P.A.C.C. sets up annual criteria for appraisals
Sets up annual individual objectives by mutual agreement(
subordinate/immediate superior). An Individual Plan for
Development of Competences (IPDC) is established . The IPDC
is the basis for development of competences and appraisals
Annual interview
Annual appraisal report. The subordinate acknowledges the
Report
General principal: good performance, with an average impact
in career compensation schemes (ordinary appraisal)
Management takes the imitative for exceptional
performances appraisal( positive or negative)
P.A.C.C. validates exceptional appraisals
Exceptional merit is awarded by the Speaker in a public
ceremony
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAR grading
(no marks)



Good performance- ordinary appraisal
scheme. It is the rating required for
standard career development
Insufficient- extraordinary appraisal when
the performance is beyond required
Very Good –Excellent performance(
reduces six months for promotion), awarded
on the basis of facts and/or particular
events. In some cases an exceptional
merit rating can be awarded. In these
cases P.A. reduces one year time required
for promotion and abolishes competition
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Forms
Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Job description; missions ; objectives to meet
Difficulties encountered by the appraised
Results achieved against objectives
Strengths and weaknesses related to attributes (skills and knowledge;
organization and implementation capacity; adaptation and
continuous improvement; planning capacity ;team work and
coordination; responsibility and commitment; personal attitude
such as effort, interest and motivation) .Grading of each attribute :
Exceeds objectives, Meets objectives, Needs development,
Unsatisfactory
Individual Plan for Development of Competences (IPDC) , agreed
upon appraiser and appraised. Encompasses the following items:
objectives and results to be achieved next year; conditions for
developing competences , including training; evolving projects
The forms are different for ordinary appraisal ( good performance) and
exceptional appraisal ( Excellent or unsatisfactory) and they have
attached a performance appraisal guide both to the appraised and the
appraiser
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
SIADAR
First year






System design in consultation with Managers, Staff,
Trade Union and also ( for approval) with Board of
the A.R. and M.P.(s)
Training (appraisers /appraised)
Reduced paper work (simple forms, no marks,
simple appraisal criteria; simple attributes)
Impact in career( no forced distribution)
General principle of good performance was adopted
by the P.A.C.C. No exceptional appraisals were
conducted
Second year is now being run. It will be the first
appraisal year, taking into account objectives set up
by mutual agreement
© OECD
Union, principally financed by the EU.
A joint initiative of the OECD and the European
Performance
Management
The ICL Way
Performance management is the way
forward- for every individual and for
the company as a whole. It is
therefore vitally important that every
individual as a clear understanding of
his/her work objectives and
responsibilities, because
performance will be measured
against them
© OECD