This is pilot study on performance appraisal for one public institution in Ghana.

1. Welcome

2. Performance Appraisal System
2
HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
GHANA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

3. 1974
Started with the review of Annual Confidential Reporting
System (ACRS) to allow Appraisees the right to read and
comment on their performance appraisal reports.
Introduction of Performance Evaluation System (PES),
however this was for only Deputy Directors and
equivalent/analogous grades.
Reviewed PES into the Performance Agreement System
(PAS) to include Senior Members.
Introduction of New Performance Management System
(PMS) Policy Framework to include all employee of the
Civil/Public Service.
1992
1997
2008
Background
HR – G.A.E.C

4. 4
Every individual, unit,
department/division in
the public service is to
be held accountable
for money/resources
entrusted in his/her
care;
ACCOUNTABILITY
Setting of targets
and assessment of
outcomes should be
discussed between
Assesse and
Assessor;
TRANSPARENCY
There should be no
discrimination with
respect to gender,
ethnicity, etc.;
EQUITY OWNERSHIP
Both Assesse and
Assessor agree on
targets and
assessment out
comes;
The policy framework has four key principles:-
HR – G.A.E.C
New PMS

5. 5
HR – G.A.E.C
New PMS Framework Process.
Decision –
Making
(December)
Phase 4
Review and
Assessment
(November)
Phase 3
Progress
review (June)
Phase 2
Planning
(January)
Phase 1
ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL
CYCLE

6. 6
ANNUAL
PERFORMANC
E APPRAISAL
CYCLE
• Review and Assessment
(November) Evaluation of
Appraiser's performance, strengths
and areas for development - Core
competencies
• Decision – Making (December)
Deciding on courses of action, i.e.
recognition/reward, training plans,
promotion prospects, career
development plans and counseling
and sanctions.
• Progress Reviews (June)
Discussion and communication
between Appraiser and Appraise on
progress of work, and adjustment
of targets if necessary, through the
provision of formal feedback-
Review Form.
• Planning (January)
Planning and setting of individual
performance targets through work
plans derived from the
organization’s strategic plans and
objectives set at the corporate,
divisional, departmental and unit
levels.
Phase
One
Phase
Two
Phase
Three
Phase
Four
HR – G.A.E.C
New PMS contd.

7. Corporate
Objectives
Departments
and Section
Objectives
Employee
Objectives
GAEC Strategic
Corporate Plan
Institute Strategic
Business/Corporate
Plan, Action Plans,
Centre Objectives etc
Individual Job
descriptions,
role and
responsibilities
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 1 – Target Setting

8. APPRAISEE'S JOB OBJECTIVES/WORK PLAN/TARGETS
N
O
.
TARGETS
WEIGHT
ASSIGNED % ACHIEVEMENT APPRAISER’S
APPRAISER'S
COMMENTS
APPRAISEE’S
COMMENTS
(May vary) (Appraisee) SCORE
PERFORMANCE
RATING
60% % %
What factors might have affected/contributed to your personal effectiveness during the period under review (Appraisee)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Course(s) attended during the period under review (Appraisee)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
List your own training requirements which would assist you in meeting your career objectives
(Appraisee)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......................................
Assessor and
Assessee
agree on
weight on
target
Assessor and
Assessee
agree on
weight on
target
Assessor
assigns scores
to target
(Phase 3)
Assessor and
Assessee
provide
comments on
scores (Phase
3)
Comments on
the End
Scores above
(Phase 3)
8
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 1 – Apraisee work plan/Targets Form

9. 9
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 2 – Progress Review
Appraiser and Appraisee discuss progress of
work in relation to targets set, one target
after the other. If conclusions reached at the
meeting necessitate changes or adjustment
in the targets, these modifications should be
specified on the mid-year review form;
Appraiser and Appraisee discuss the extent to
which competencies are being demonstrated; one
competency after the other;
Appraiser and Appraisee agree on
additions and deletions to targets and
modifications where necessary;
Appraiser records the changes if any and
comments on the Mid-year Review Form;
Appraiser and Appraisee sign the mid-year Review
Form;
Appraiser and Appraisee take copies and the
original document sent to the HR.

10. 10
Mid – Year Review Form
This is to be completed in June by the Appraiser and Appraisee
Progress has been discussed and agreements has been reached as detailed below:-
MID-YEAR REVIEW FORM
NO TARGET PROGRESS REVIEW REMARKS
Add to target!
Delete target!
Modify target!
Change in objectives, job description,
promotions, transfer, new projects,
study leave, fellowships etc…
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 2 – Progress Review (Mid-Year Review Form)

11. Appraisal Process - Performance Assessment
3 key areas of performance are assessed;
11
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 3 – Review and Assessment
This is the End-of-year Review and Appraisal stage which is done in November.
Its in two parts:-
After the Interview (Appraiser fills the form within 3 working days and invites the Appraisee to read,
provide comments on the appraisal and sign the End of Year form )
Before the Interview (Communication and preparation for meeting)
During the interview (Discuss targets achieved and not achieved)
The End-of-year Review
The process is in three parts namely;
Performance on Targets 60%
Performance on Core Competences 30%
Performance on Non-Core Competences 10%
Total Overall Score 100%

12. 12
Explanation
5. Exceptional, Has consistently demonstrated this behaviour competency and always encouraged others to do same. Four (4) or more examples
can be evidenced to support this rating.
4. Exceeds Expectations: Has frequently demonstrated this behaviour competency and sometimes encouraged others to do same. Three (3) or
more examples can be evidenced to support this rating.
3. Meets Expectations: Has demonstrated this behaviour competency and at least two (2) examples can be evidenced to support this rating.
2. Below Expectation: Has rarely demonstrated this behaviour competency and two (2) or more examples can be evidenced to support this
rating. Demonstration of requirements of this behavioural competency was below expectation.
1. Unacceptable: Has not at all demonstrated this behaviour competency and three (3) or more examples can be evidenced to support this rating.
Demonstration of requirements of this behavioural competency was unacceptable and did not meet any expectations.
A. CORE COMPETENCIES (30%) Weight
(W)
Score on Scale
(S)
0.002(S)
(Appraisee)
0.002(S)
(Appraiser)
(a) Organization and Management:
 Ability to plan, organize and manage work load.
 Ability to work systematically and maintain quality
 Ability to manage others to achieve shared goals.
0.03
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5-
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5-
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5-
(b) Innovation and Strategic Thinking:
 Etc…………………
0.03
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5-
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5-
-1- -2- -3- -4- -5-
TOTAL CORE COMPETENCIES 0.3
Performance on Core and Non-Core Competences
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 3 contd. Assessment Process

13. 13
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 4 – Decision Making
85
49
69
84
39
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Poor
Average
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Overall Performance Assessment Score:
Column1 Series 2 Series 1

14. 14
HR – G.A.E.C
Phase 4 – Decision Making
Excellent: 85%
Very Good: 70% - 84%
Good: 50%-69%
Average 40%-49% Some areas of weakness – training and development
identified. A staff who is still relatively new in an
appointment and whose performance can be better
given time and training.
A sound and acceptable performance-the standard to
meet the requirement of the job.
Meet and sometimes exceeds the requirement of the job
Extremely exceeding requirement of job
Poor: 39% and below Unsatisfactory

15. Comparative Analysis
(Key findings and conclusions)
HR – G.A.E.C

16. HR – G.A.E.C
TOTAL BNARI RPI NNRI RAMSRI SNAS
HEADO
FFICE
GSSTI NPI
Number of Centres/Directorates submitted 18 0 6 6 0 2 3 0 1
Number of Centres/Directorates NOT
submitted
71 10 4 5 10 10 21 6 5
Total number expected 89 10 10 11 10 12 24 6 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
NUMBEROFCOSTCENTRES
PARTICIPATINGINTHEAPPRAISAL
Distribution of Cost-Centre participation in the
performance appraisal - 2016

17. HR – G.A.E.C
594, 64%
335, 36%
Staff Participation in Appraisal
Staff participated Staff NOT particpated

18. TOTAL NNRI BNARI SNAS GSSTI RPI NPI
HEADOF
FICE
RAMSRI
Completed 132 69 0 11 0 19 0 33 0
Uncompleted 462 38 94 22 12 13 1 257 25
Total submitted appraisal 594 107 94 33 12 32 1 290 25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
NUMBEROFSTAFF
Distribution of completed/uncompleted appraisals
HR – G.A.E.C

19. HR – G.A.E.C
TOTAL NNRI BNARI SNAS GSSTI RPI NPI HEADOFFICE RAMSRI
Series1 594 107 94 33 12 32 1 290 25
594
107
94
33 12 32 1
290
25
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
NUMBEROFSTAFF
Distribution of Staff who submitted
targets - (Phase 1) - January 2016

20. 12
11
12
12
13
12
12
12
12
12
21
21
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
(a) Organization and Management:
(b) Innovation and Strategic Thinking:
(c) Leadership and Decision Making
(d) Developing and Improving
(e) Communication (oral, written & electronic)
(f) Job Knowledge and Technical Skills
(g) Supporting and Cooperating
(h) Maximizing and Maintaining Productivity
(i) Developing/Managing budgets and saving cost
(j) Work Output
Staff Scores on Core-Competencies
more than 1.5% Less than 1.5%
HR – G.A.E.C

21. 15
12
11
12
12
17
20
21
20
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
(k) Ability to Develop Staff
(l) Commitment to Own Personal Development and Training
(m) Following Instructions and Working Towards Organizational Goals
(n) Respect and Commitment
(o) Ability to work Effectively in a team
Staff Scores on Non-Core Competencies
more than 1.5% Less than 1.5%
HR – G.A.E.C

22. 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
20
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
(a) Organization and Management:
(b) Innovation and Strategic Thinking:
(c) Leadership and Decision Making
(d) Developing and Improving
(e) Communication (oral, written & electronic)
(f) Job Knowledge and Technical Skills
(g) Supporting and Cooperating
(h) Maximizing and Maintaining Productivity
(i) Developing/Managing budgets and saving cost
(j) Work Output
Staff Scores on Core-Competencies
more than 1.5% Less than 1.5%
HR – G.A.E.C

23. 20
15
20
19
16
12
17
12
13
16
0 5 10 15 20 25
(k) Ability to Develop Staff
(l) Commitment to Own Personal Development and Training
(m) Following Instructions and Working Towards Organizational Goals
(n) Respect and Commitment
(o) Ability to work Effectively in a team
Staff Scores on Non-Core Competencies
more than 1.5% Less than 1.5%
HR – G.A.E.C

24. 20
15
20
19
16
12
17
12
13
16
0 5 10 15 20 25
(k) Ability to Develop Staff
(l) Commitment to Own Personal Development and Training
(m) Following Instructions and Working Towards Organizational Goals
(n) Respect and Commitment
(o) Ability to work Effectively in a team
Staff Scores on Non-Core Competencies
more than 1.5% Less than 1.5%
HR – G.A.E.C

25. No. ACTIVITY RESP. JAN FEB MAR APRI MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
1 Workshop and Sensitization at Institute level
on setting SMART Targets
Finance,
HR Staff,
DOA,
Directors,
HODs
10 -13
2 Cost Centres Set Targets All Staff 16-30
3 Data entry of targets HR Staff,
Data Assistants
1-28
4 Prepare forms for mid-year review HR Staff 27-30
5 Workshop and Sensitization at Institute level
on mid-year review of targets set in January
HR Staff,
Finance,
DOA,
Directors,
HODs
22-26
6. Cost Centres Review targets All Staff 1-15
7. Data entry of reviewed targets HR Staff,
Data Assistants
19-30
8. Workshop and Sensitization at Institute level
on Assessment and Evaluation of Appraisee
HR Staff,
Finance,
DOA,
Directors,
HODs
1-30
9 Assessment and Evaluation of Appraisees All Staff 1-15
10 Data entry of scores HR Staff,
Data Assistants
16-30
11 Data Analysis and report 1-8
12 Management decisions 11-15
HR – G.A.E.C

26. HR – G.A.E.C
 The HRMIS project as initiated by management
should be completed before November 2017 to be
used for data analysis and reporting since the exercise
is cumbersome and requires lots of analysis with a
staff strength of over 900.
Recommendations
 Staff may be further enlightened on how to set
SMART targets
 The HR Prepare job descriptions for existing staff
members
 Management support is further boosted to afford
the seriousness that the exercise requires from all
staff members
 A sample size may be derived from the year’s
assessment for management decision and a full
scale implementation done in 2017.
 Management allot budget for workshops,
sensitizations and honoraria for data assistants etc.
 The performance appraisal tool needs to be reviewed
and a much more concise and user friendly format
adopted.
 The performance appraisal tool needs to be reviewed
and a much more concise and user friendly format
adopted.

27. HR – G.A.E.C
Thank You