Performance Appraisal System An Action Plan

1
Performance Appraisal System- An Action Plan

• Dr Sibichen K Mathew IRS

2
My presentation is based on the following

• Performance appraisal system followed in several
  countries
• Review of Studies in this area
• Feedback gathered by me from a sample
• Critique of the background paper on the topic

3
It should..
4
What to measure?

• Technical Attributes Knowledge and Application
• Achievement
  of targets
• 
  Other quantifiable results
• Soft Skills Leadership and goal
  clarity
• 
  Relationship Management
• 
  Communication
• Personal Traits Honesty, Integrity,
  Sincerity
• 
  Morality, Ethical standing
  

5
Global Practices and the Lessons

• Analysis of more than 15 countries where
  innovations introduced
• No system is fool-proof
• No system with exclusive measurable objective
  indicators
• Subjectivity is INEVITABLE. The challenge is to
  have subjective assessments which can convert to
  broad objective parameters
• PAS/PMS should be formulated considering the
  uniqueness of Indian bureaucratic system

• Canada
• Australia
• USA
• New Zealand
• Mauritius
• Korea
• China
• Singapore
• Thailand
• Indonesia
• Malaysia
• Cambodia
• Maldives

6
What is wrong with existing CR?

• Studies done in various departments
• Study done in Forest Dept in AP
• -ACR System has lost its relevance in Forest Dept
• -It is possible to objectively quantify the
  performance parameters
• -It is possible to measure the performance
  objectively
• -There is no correlation between the evaluation
  based Performance appraisal formats designed for
  the purpose of the study and the evaluation based
  on ACR.

7
Pilot study done in Income Tax Department

• 40 of officers feel that current ACR System
  cannot correctly assess the performance of the
  subordinates
• 85 of officers feel that the report should be
  communicated
• 20 of officers admit that they will be more
  careful in writing the appraisal, if it is to be
  communicated
• 92 of officers feel that current CR system has
  no positive impact on officials
• 78 of officers feel that current CR System is
  not suitable for linking to Performance Incentive
• 65 of officers agree to appraisal of
  subordinates about the superiors
• All disagree with appraisal by colleagues (Peer
  evaluation)
• 40 of officers state that taxpayer feedback
  should not be part of the employee appraisal
• 60 of the officials feel that weightage for
  superiors report should be at 75, even if 360
  degree feedback is introduced.

8

• Current CR System is not comprehensive enough to
  capture the performance
• The CONFIDENTIALITY kills the Purpose, to a
  greater extent, though it has certain advantages
• Only makes the work of DPC easy and no other use

9
If Civil Service should excel

• There should be unambiguous performance
  indicators separately set for each wings within
  the department and at each functional and
  structural levels
• The performance appraisal should be invariably
  linked to PAY and other non-monetary incentives

10
Some disagreements with the suggestions in
background paper

• Quarterly performance note for improvement
• Balanced Score Card and Role Effectiveness Score
  Card
• Span of control and Multiple supervisors
• to be reduced

• If left as an informal evaluation of superiors,
  it will become ineffective
• No relevance for Individual Appraisal
• Needs drastic functional and structural
  redesigning, which will be a complex exercise and
  will affect the requirements

11
disagreements with the suggestions in background
paper

• 360 degree feedback absolutely essential in govt

• 360 degree feedback has only very limited
  application and in many departments totally
  irrelevant

12
Suggestions

• There should be three levels of Performance
  Appraisals
• LEVEL-1
• Bi-annual performance appraisal by the immediate
  boss, which will be communicated back to the
  employee in the seventh month
• No review by the next superior
• (As against the INFORMAL performance note
  suggested in background paper, bi-annual
  appraisal should form annual appraisal)

13
LEVEL-2

• Annual CONFIDENTIAL Report (in a comprehensive
  format quantitative and qualitative)
• Written by immediate superior and Reviewed by
  next superior
• Confidentiality is important for various reasons
• Annual CR should cover the progress on the basis
  of bi-annual appraisal
• ACR rating need not be communicated. However a
  annual feedback report cum advice note can be
  given to the employee by the superior
• Rating should be communicated if any action is
  contemplated

14
Level-3

• -Comprehensive appraisal of the overall
  performance of the employee every three years
• -To be done by a team
• -Analysis of bi-annual appraisal reports, ACRs of
  three years and 360 degree feedback
• -Should be communicated to employee
• -Basis for future postings, promotions and
  monetary incentives and appreciations

15
Appropriate weightages
16
Weightages depend on the Department and nature
of work

• From subordinates (10 to 20)
• From peer group (only when in a functional peer
  network not for supervisory level officers
  functionally not connected) (0 to 10)
• From customers/clients (Front-end work 20 to
  30 Back-end work 0 to 10)
• From superior officers (50 to 70)

17
Action Plan-1

• Designing the broad framework for Performance
  measurement by an expert committee consisting of
  policy makers, civil servants from various
  departments and specialists
• Preparation of an exhaustive list of objective
  indicators and subjective parameters
• (should be devoid of jargons and out of
  context application of concepts)
• No blind adaptation of Private Sector
• On the basis of broad framework and the
  guidelines prepared, structure of appraisal may
  be formulated by concerned departments
• Extensive brainstorming and consultations within
  for each category
• Should be vetted by an expert committee
  constituting senior experts from government and
  outside specialists.

18
Action Plan-2

• Well laid out FORMAL procedure for bi-annual
  appraisal, its communication, reply and weightage
  for the same in ACR and during the comprehensive
  appraisal every three years
• Re-structuring of the CR format as mentioned in
  Action Plan-1
• Finalizing the structure and functions of the
  Teams for doing the comprehensive appraisal for
  each category of employee every three years
• Decide on the weightages to be adopted for each
  category of officials

19
Action Plan-3

• Well laid out procedure to get feedback from the
  customer/client/stakeholders
• To decide what are the areas to be covered to get
  the feedback
• To decide whether the same has to be done by a
  wing of the concerned department or an
  independent agency
• The procedure for distributing the questionnaire
  and collecting the data and analysis thereof

20
Action Plan-4

• To link the results of the comprehensive
  appraisal to PRIS
• To decide on the weightage for the individual
  performance (as against the collective
  performance) for deciding the PRIS
• To have a comprehensive non-monetary recognition
  system
• To decide on the nature of punitive measures for
  under-performers

21
Bottlenecks in Revenue/Enforcement Depts

• Budget Collection criteria
• Revenue collections can be TREND driven than
  Performance driven
• Assessment of back-end work (50 of manpower)
• Team work with less significance for individual
  initiative

22

• Customer/taxpayer feedback
• Customer/client feedback on performance of the
  Tax assessing officer/Investigator- what can be
  expected?
• Service delivery (processing of returns/refunds)
  increasingly technology driven and less public
  interface
• Many functions ( where public interface) have
  been outsourced
• Grievance redressal can be a component

23

• Peer appraisal
• No relevance at officer level as functions are
  not networked
• Colleagues have no data or exposure to assess the
  performance of other colleagues
• Will result in unhealthy relationships when the
  appraisal is made public

24
Summary

• Current ACR System is grossly inadequate
• There is a need for comprehensive appraisal
  system
• both closed and open components are necessary
• Three levels of appraisals are suggested
• Should be implemented after detailed research and
  analysis
• Should be not only department specific, but also
  unique with respect to different structural and
  functional levels

25

• Thankyou