Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants

1
Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants

• Presentation on the background paper
• prepared by
• Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration
• Ahmedabad

2
Background of the paper

• Department of Administrative Reforms and Public
  Grievances, Govt. of India, New Delhi, selected
  SPIPA as its Knowledge Partner for preparing the
  Background Paper on Performance Appraisal of
  Civil Servants
• Panel of experts for the paper
• Prof. T.V. Rao, Chairman, TVR Learning Systems
  Ltd. and Adjunct Faculty IIM Ahmedabad.
• Prof. Biju Varkkey, Faculty Member HRM, Indian
  Institute of Management Ahmedabad.
• Mr. Hasmukh Adhia, IAS, Principal Secretary to
  Government of Gujarat.

3
Structure of the paper

• A Theory of Performance Appraisal (PA) and
  Performance Management System (PMS)
• B Existing ACR System of PA in Government
• C Views expressed by Stakeholders in meetings on
  March 28, 2008.
• D Suggestions for discussion

4
A Theory of Performance Appraisal (PA) and
Performance Management System (PMS)

• PMS
• Focus is on continuous performance management,
  where rating is an outcome.
• Continuous process with quarterly or periodic
  performance review discussions
• Emphasis is on performance planning, analysis,
  review, development and improvements
• KPIs and/or KRAs are used as planning mechanisms
• Linked to performance improvements and through
  them to other career decisions as and when
  necessary.

• PAS
• Focus is on performance appraisal and generation
  of ratings
• Annual exercise - periodic evaluations are made
• Emphasis is on ratings and evaluation
• KRAs and KPIs are used for bringing in
  objectivity
• Linked to promotions, rewards, training and
  development interventions, placements etc.

5
B Existing System of PA in Government

• The existing system of PA is in the form of
  Annual Confidential Report (ACR) through a
  prescribed format different for different
  services and levels.
• ACR formats use a mixture of competences and
  attitudes to measure the performance.
• No objectively laid out goals/ expectations for
  performance evaluation.
• Self appraisal is limited to a small section.
• Most items in the format are either yes and
  no or pen picture, with a column for final
  grading in 5 categories starting from
  Not-up-to-mark to Outstanding.
• Cont.

6
B Existing System of PA in Government

• There is no need to disclose the contents of the
  ACR (except in the new PAR system for IAS),
  unless there is an adverse remark against a civil
  servant.
• ACR has mostly 3 levels of scrutiny at present -
  Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and
  Accepting Officer.
• Overall grading can be changed at either of the
  two levels above the Reporting Officer.
• ACRs form the basis of promotions for most
  Government employees.

7
Difficulties involved in performance measurement
in Government

• Difficult to fully quantify work performed by all
  government servants.
• Difficult to bring full role clarity due to
  antiquated work processes and objectives.
• Span of control and reporting relationships are
  complex, indirect and numerous.
• Lacking in basic enablers for work (including
  physical infrastructure).
• Competency development is often missing in
  government.
• Systemic aberrations like difficulties in
  rewarding and punishing based on performance and
  fear of backlashes on account of demanding
  accountability leads to supervisory inaction.

8
C Views expressed by Stakeholders

• Key opinions of Eminent Citizens
• Performance should be defined and communicated
  across all four classes.
• Along with setting targets, it is also important
  to provide financial and infrastructural
  resources (enabling environment) to ensure that
  work is performed productively.
• The term "confidential" should be done away with
  in the ACR.
• Competency based performance should be promoted.
• Punishment clause should be brought into
  performance management system to increase
  accountability of staff towards their
  performance.
• Performance management should cover behavioral
  aspect while appraising the individual.
• 360 degree appraisal should be adopted.
• Changing the mindset of civil servants should be
  the priority

9
C. Views expressed by Stakeholders (Cont.)

• Key Opinion of Civil Servants
• There is no clear cut job description.
• ACR system is a failure because of non
  transparency, lack of quantifiable targets,
  subjectivity, lack of training, lack of proper
  monitoring, non-discrimination between good and
  bad performer, lack of participation of assessee,
  insensitivity of appraising officer etc.
• There is no numerical grading in the current
  appraisal system.
• Appraisal of the performance should be done
  against quantifiable set targets with proper job
  charts for each employee.

10
C. Views expressed by Stakeholders (Cont.)

• Suggestions to make performance appraisal
  effective
• Appraisal of the performance should be done
  against quantifiable set targets.
• Performance should be measured at both individual
  and group level
• Performance appraisal system should be to
  distinguish performers and non performers and
  tackle poor performers proactively.
• Appraisal should be two pronged - (a) appraisal
  of performance based on quantitative measurement
  against clearly defined realistic targets (b)
  appraisal of aspects of personality having impact
  on productivity and image of the organization.

11
C. Views expressed by Stakeholders (Cont.)

• Role of two-way communications is very important
  in understanding of roles, setting targets,
  mechanism and strategy of achieving it, periodic
  reviews and rewarding the employee.
• Quarterly appraisal system may be introduced.
• Numerical grading of subjective aspects.
• Mandatory time limit should be there for
  completion of appraisal and disclosure of
  comments/ grading after the completion of review.

12
D. Suggestion for Discussion

• Three objectives of civil service PMS
• A system of measuring the performance of each
  civil servant which can be used for assessing
  him/her at the time of promotion or for any
  Performance linked Remuneration Scheme (PRIS).
• A continuous feedback mechanism for civil
  servants to improve performance with focus on
  training and development requirements.
• To improve accountability of civil servants
  vis-à-vis stakeholders and citizens.
• We propose a three-tier structure to meet the
  above three objectives of performance of a civil
  servant.

13
Proposed structure to meet objectives of
performance of a civil servant

• Instrument 1 Annual Performance Appraisal
  Reporting (PAR)
• Instrument 2 Performance Notes for Improvement
  (Quarterly)
• Instrument 3 360 Degree Feedback for development

14
Instrument 1 Annual Performance Appraisal
Reporting (PAR)

• Some form of target setting and performance
  planning is inevitable (balance scorecard
  approach)
• Identifying competencies and incorporating them
  is also essential
• Each Ministry and departments to develop its own
  performance indicators
• Assessments to be shared with the appraisee after
  remarks by the reviewing authority
• Self appraisal to be an integral part of PARs of
  all civil servants
• Reporting and reviewing authorities to be
  rationalized

15
Instrument 2 Performance Notes for Improvement
(Quarterly)

• A system of giving a quarterly performance note
  to all civil servants.
• Such notes should not be counted as formal input
  for Annual Performance Appraisal.
• advisable to have a personal discussion of 15 to
  30 minutes on the advisory by the immediate
  supervisor.
• Competency development system (like training,
  self learning, mentoring etc.) has to be
  integrated to PA.

16
Instrument 3 360 Degree Feedback for development

• Stakeholder (both internal and external)
  involvement in assessing the performance of the
  civil servant is a must.
• 360 Degree Feedback for development in the
  Government can include
• Peer feedback
• Subordinate Feedback
• Self and immediate supervisor (s) reports
• Employee Satisfaction Survey (in case of
  supervisory roles)
• Citizen/ Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey
• Data from external assessors available with the
  department may also be shared

17
Instrument 3 360 Degree Feedback for development
(cont.)

• Introduction of the Sevottam Award Scheme of
  Department of Administrative Reforms has already
  made the beginning of the process.
• It may be advisable that all civil servants
  should have chance to go for a 360 evaluation and
  feedback once every three years.
• The results of such surveys should not be part of
  Annual PAR for promotion.
• We also recommend to set Assessment and
  Development Center (ADC) for civil servants.
• ADC will help in training people about
  performance appraisal system and developing the
  competency.

18

• Let us discuss now
• Thank You