Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants : SPIPA, Ahmedabad

1,656
-1

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,656
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants : SPIPA, Ahmedabad

  1. 1. Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants Presentation on the background paper prepared by Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration Ahmedabad
  2. 2. Background of the paper <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Panel of experts for the paper: </li></ul><ul><li>Prof. T.V. Rao, Chairman, TVR Learning Systems Ltd. and Adjunct Faculty IIM Ahmedabad. </li></ul><ul><li>Prof. Biju Varkkey, Faculty Member HRM, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. </li></ul><ul><li>Mr. Hasmukh Adhia, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government of Gujarat. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Structure of the paper <ul><li>A: Theory of Performance Appraisal (PA) and Performance Management System (PMS) </li></ul><ul><li>B: Existing ACR System of PA in Government </li></ul><ul><li>C: Views expressed by Stakeholders in meetings on March 28, 2008. </li></ul><ul><li>D: Suggestions for discussion </li></ul>
  4. 4. A: Theory of Performance Appraisal (PA) and Performance Management System (PMS) <ul><li>PMS </li></ul><ul><li>Focus is on continuous performance management, where rating is an outcome. </li></ul><ul><li>Continuous process with quarterly or periodic performance review discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis is on performance planning, analysis, review, development and improvements </li></ul><ul><li>KPIs and/or KRAs are used as planning mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Linked to performance improvements and through them to other career decisions as and when necessary. </li></ul><ul><li>PAS </li></ul><ul><li>Focus is on performance appraisal and generation of ratings </li></ul><ul><li>Annual exercise - periodic evaluations are made </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis is on ratings and evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>KRAs and KPIs are used for bringing in objectivity </li></ul><ul><li>Linked to promotions, rewards, training and development interventions, placements etc. </li></ul>
  5. 5. B: Existing System of PA in Government <ul><li>The existing system of PA is in the form of Annual Confidential Report (ACR) through a prescribed format different for different services and levels. </li></ul><ul><li>ACR formats use a mixture of competences and attitudes to measure the performance. </li></ul><ul><li>No objectively laid out goals/ expectations for performance evaluation. </li></ul><ul><li>Self appraisal is limited to a small section. </li></ul><ul><li>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’. </li></ul><ul><li>Cont. </li></ul>
  6. 6. B: Existing System of PA in Government <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>ACR has mostly 3 levels of scrutiny at present - Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer. </li></ul><ul><li>Overall grading can be changed at either of the two levels above the Reporting Officer. </li></ul><ul><li>ACRs form the basis of promotions for most Government employees. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Difficulties involved in performance measurement in Government <ul><li>Difficult to fully quantify work performed by all government servants. </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to bring full role clarity due to antiquated work processes and objectives. </li></ul><ul><li>Span of control and reporting relationships are complex, indirect and numerous. </li></ul><ul><li>Lacking in basic enablers for work (including physical infrastructure). </li></ul><ul><li>Competency development is often missing in government. </li></ul><ul><li>Systemic aberrations like difficulties in rewarding and punishing based on performance and fear of backlashes on account of demanding accountability leads to supervisory inaction. </li></ul>
  8. 8. C: Views expressed by Stakeholders <ul><li>Key opinions of Eminent Citizens </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance should be defined and communicated across all four classes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Along with setting targets, it is also important to provide financial and infrastructural resources (enabling environment) to ensure that work is performed productively. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The term &quot;confidential&quot; should be done away with in the ACR. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competency based performance should be promoted. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Punishment clause should be brought into performance management system to increase accountability of staff towards their performance. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance management should cover behavioral aspect while appraising the individual. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>360 degree appraisal should be adopted. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changing the mindset of civil servants should be the priority </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cont. </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. C. Views expressed by Stakeholders (Cont.) <ul><li>Key Opinion of Civil Servants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There is no clear cut job description. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There is no numerical grading in the current appraisal system. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Appraisal of the performance should be done against quantifiable set targets with proper job charts for each employee. </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. C. Views expressed by Stakeholders (Cont.) <ul><li>Suggestions to make performance appraisal effective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Appraisal of the performance should be done against quantifiable set targets. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance should be measured at both individual and group level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance appraisal system should be to distinguish performers and non performers and tackle poor performers proactively. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. C. Views expressed by Stakeholders (Cont.) <ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quarterly appraisal system may be introduced. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Numerical grading of subjective aspects. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mandatory time limit should be there for completion of appraisal and disclosure of comments/ grading after the completion of review. </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. D. Suggestion for Discussion: <ul><li>Three objectives of civil service PMS </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>A continuous feedback mechanism for civil servants to improve performance with focus on training and development requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>To improve accountability of civil servants vis-à-vis stakeholders and citizens. </li></ul><ul><li>We propose a three-tier structure to meet the above three objectives of performance of a civil servant. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Proposed structure to meet objectives of performance of a civil servant <ul><li>Instrument 1: Annual Performance Appraisal Reporting (PAR) </li></ul><ul><li>Instrument 2: Performance Notes for Improvement (Quarterly) </li></ul><ul><li>Instrument 3: 360 Degree Feedback for development </li></ul>
  14. 14. Instrument 1: Annual Performance Appraisal Reporting (PAR) <ul><li>Some form of target setting and performance planning is inevitable (balance scorecard approach) </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying competencies and incorporating them is also essential </li></ul><ul><li>Each Ministry and departments to develop its own performance indicators </li></ul><ul><li>Assessments to be shared with the appraisee after remarks by the reviewing authority </li></ul><ul><li>Self appraisal to be an integral part of PARs of all civil servants </li></ul><ul><li>Reporting and reviewing authorities to be rationalized </li></ul>
  15. 15. Instrument 2: Performance Notes for Improvement (Quarterly) <ul><li>A system of giving a quarterly performance note to all civil servants. </li></ul><ul><li>Such notes should not be counted as formal input for Annual Performance Appraisal. </li></ul><ul><li>advisable to have a personal discussion of 15 to 30 minutes on the advisory by the immediate supervisor. </li></ul><ul><li>Competency development system (like training, self learning, mentoring etc.) has to be integrated to PA. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Instrument 3: 360 Degree Feedback for development <ul><li>Stakeholder (both internal and external) involvement in assessing the performance of the civil servant is a must. </li></ul><ul><li>360 Degree Feedback for development in the Government can include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subordinate Feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self and immediate supervisor (s) reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employee Satisfaction Survey (in case of supervisory roles) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Citizen/ Stakeholder Satisfaction Survey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data from external assessors available with the department may also be shared </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Instrument 3: 360 Degree Feedback for development (cont.) <ul><li>Introduction of the Sevottam Award Scheme of Department of Administrative Reforms has already made the beginning of the process. </li></ul><ul><li>It may be advisable that all civil servants should have chance to go for a 360 evaluation and feedback once every three years. </li></ul><ul><li>The results of such surveys should not be part of Annual PAR for promotion. </li></ul><ul><li>We also recommend to set Assessment and Development Center (ADC) for civil servants. </li></ul><ul><li>ADC will help in training people about performance appraisal system and developing the competency. </li></ul>
  18. 18. <ul><li>Let us discuss now…… </li></ul><ul><li>Thank You </li></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×