Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Performance Appraisal of Civil Servants : SPIPA, Ahmedabad


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

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>