This presentation by Dr. Damian West from the Australian Public Service Commission, was made at the joint meeting of the Senior Budget Official Performance and Results Network and the Public Employment and Management Expert meeting on 26 November 2015. For further information, please see http://www.oecd.org/gov/pem/.

1. Developing High Performance:
Performance Management in
the Australian Public Service
Dr Damian West

2. An agenda for system reform
The Strengthening the Performance
Framework Project:
• Commenced in 2010 as a
research partnership between the
APSC and several leading
Australian universities
• Developed the High Performance
Framework, a model of the key
areas of focus that are important
for successful attainment of high
performance through any
performance management system
• Laid a pathway for change across
several areas, including legal
reform and softer initiatives (core
skills training etc)
High performance

4. Reconceptualisation of high
performance

5. What the agency research is telling us
General malaise
In-depth research into performance
management within individual agencies
shows:
• Performance management is
frequently not seen as core
business
• There is little perceived benefit
• Supervisors and employees alike
are often reluctant to engage with
their agency’s processes
• There is often little consequence
for not attending to performance
issues
• Numerous attempts at reform over
several decades have yielded little

6. What the employee data is telling us
Room for improvement
The APS employee surveys tells us
that we continue to have a problem
with performance management:
• There is a significant gulf
between what supervisors think
of the value of the feedback they
provide, and what employees
think of it (chart 1)
• Employees consistently report
that their agency struggles to
deal with underperformance
(chart 2)
Qualitative evidence from agency
reviews support these findings, and
paint a general picture of poor
capacity
21% 18% 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011-12 2012-13 2014-15
Chart 2. APS employee agreement with
the statement ‘my agency deals with
underperformance effectively’ – whole of
Service by year
2010-11 2011-12 2013-14
44%
77%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
employees supervisors
Chart 1. APS supervisor & employee
perceptions of the value of performance
feedback provided and received
I feel confident that the formal performance feedback I provide to
my staff has a direct benefit. Agree and strongly agree
Do you agree that your most recent formal performance review will
help you improve your performance? Agree and strongly agree
* ^
*
^

7. Employees who agree their agency deals with underperformance well
2015
21%
2014
20%
2013
18%
Employees who agree their most recent performance review would help improve their performance
2015
48%
2014
44%
2013
42%
Employees who receive formal perfomance feedback
2015
83%
2014
88%
2013
82%
Agencies require all employees to have a formal performance agreement
2015
95%
2014
96%
2013
92%
APS State of the Service Reports

8. APS Legal and regulatory framework
Public
Service
Act 1999
• New APS Values and the Employment Principles were introduced
to the Public Service Act 1999 through a 1 July 2013 amendment
• The Employment Principles include a statement that the APS is a
“career-based service that requires effective performance from
each employee”
APS
Commissioners
Directions 2013
• New Directions for performance management were introduced on
1 July 2015
• The Directions include information on how agency heads,
supervisors and employees are expected to uphold the effective
performance Employment Principle
Other
relevant
sources
• Fair Work Act 2009 – includes rights and obligations around
dismissal and industrial instruments
• Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 –
stipulates conduct of institutional performance

9. Obligations incumbent on each party
Most of the obligations are distinct
between the three responsible parties.
Examples include:
• Agency heads must ensure that
their agency's performance
system is periodically reviewed
against APS best practice
• Supervisors must manage and
assess the performance of
employees under their
supervision, and
• Employees must engage
constructively in clarifying work
expectations, and in resolving
unsatisfactory performance
Separate obligations

10. Research and case study findings
Implementation issues
ratings scales , timing, usage
Highly dependent on managerial
competencies and skills – often lacking
Not a priority or ‘core business’
Viewed as a compliance exercise
Little perceived benefit
Pejorative term: synonymous with
managing underperformance

11. Why are we here?

12. Span of control is a factor – in performance management
• Operational agencies have more
employees without performance
responsibilities.
• They also have more instances
where one manager has
responsibility for managing 11 or
more employees.
• This may translate into more
informal feedback provided to
employees but not necessarily into
performance management that is,
for the employee’s perspective,
helpful in improving performance.
• Suggests a lack of experience
maybe a factor
• Building the capability of the small
number of employees who
manage the performance of
others may have a dramatic
impact.
None
1‐2
employees
3‐5
employees
6‐10
employees
11 or more
Specialist 56.44 20.49 13.71 5.89 3.47
Regulatory 67.48 10.94 12.29 5.73 3.56
Policy 56.61 19.58 13.38 6.98 3.45
Small Ops 62.65 14.01 11.39 6.9 5.05
Large Ops 68.56 11.61 9.07 5.46 5.29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Per cent
How many people are supervised?

13. • The more employees under
supervision the more likely the
manager perceives they don’t
have enough time to manage
performance
• Is the time to manage people is
important – is it valued
appropriately?
• To what extent does this reflect
the way that management work
is structured rather than the
competence of the individual
leader?
Str Agree Agree Neither Disagree Str Disagree
1‐2 employees 3.8 19.99 28.54 41.34 6.34
3‐5 employees 5.39 23.69 26.48 38.24 6.2
6‐10 employees 6.8 26.73 25.09 35.74 5.64
11 or more 10.18 27.45 25.47 30.99 5.92
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Per cent
I do NOT have sufficient time to manage the performance of employees
Is employee management valued?

14. Does the current practice of performance management
improve performance…
• Not all performance management is done well –
less than half (48%) of employees believe that
performance management will actually help
them improve their performance.
– 45% thought it was not constructive
– 35% thought it was too generic
– 19% thought their supervisor didn’t take it
seriously

15. How do managers set performance agreements?
• Managers set individual specific work goals for
employees (over 80% of managers).
• Local business plans were important for 60%
of managers, while Agency strategic plans
were important for almost 40%.
• Setting specific behavioural standards were
considered important by just over 60% of
managers.

16. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Your last performance
agreement
Agency strategic plan
Business area plans
Discussion with your
manager
Your job description
Specific work goals
Specific behavioural
standards
Existing performance
evidence
Per cent (To a very great extent/Quite a lot)
How important were the following in
developing your performance agreement
………..Employee responses
Source 2013 APS employee census

17. Factors that have a positive influence on the quality of
performance management…
• The extent to which managers see performance management to be a core
management activity that contributes to improving whole of organisational
performance
• The extent to which there is a clear accountability mechanism for
performance improvement in the organisation
• The capacity of managers to clearly describe what high performance in
terms of the job and the context
• The amount of time (resources) available to managers to do performance
management
• The quality of the performance management conversation (the quality of
what is exchanged between the manager and the employee)

18. Done well performance management has a range of
positive outcomes…
• Performance management has a positive impact on employee engagement
• Increases role clarity for employees
• Provides consistent understanding of expectations and contribution for both
managers and employees
• Provides a consistent approach to clearly articulating and managing
expectations
• Provides a focus for improving performance at the individual and
organisational level
• Builds workforce adaptability through ability to understand and respond to
change

19. Performance Management
… a mechanism that underpins and
integrates other management
practices

20. END
Damian West
Damowest@hotmail.com