A proposal for reforms in the Philippine Civil Service for the establishment of a Competency Standards in the bureaucracy, a regular Competency Assessment System and the employment of a team-based Integrated Performance Evaluation System

1. HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 1
HPM

2. Objective
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 2
Sustainability
Consistency
Competence
Why the need for Reforms?
PHILIPPINES
BUREAUCRACY

3. Competence and Performance
Job Performance
Observable
Behavior
SKILL
ATTITUDE
KNOWLEDGE
Reference: UNESCO/UNEVOC-TVETpedia website 3HILARIO P. MARTINEZ
How can a
person be a good
performer if he/she is
not gauged as competent?
How can a
person be gauged
as competent if there is
no established standard?

4. What is the value
of Civil Service
“Eligibility”?
Eligibility does not mean you
are competent to do a
particular Job!
Eligibility does not mean you
are qualified for the Job!
Eligibility does not guarantee
that you are going to do a
good Job!
Eligibility does not mean you
are qualified as a public
servant
4HILARIO P. MARTINEZ

5. Incomplete/
Substandard
Work
Subpar
Performance
Wasted
Logistics/
Resources
Delay in
Delivery of
Public Goods
/Services
Probable
Irregularity/
Fraud Alert
What about
ELIGIBILITY? Does
it serve anything
similar to these?
5HILARIO P. MARTINEZ
Non-Compliance to Competency
Standard could indicate …

6. Essentials for a Public Service Provider
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 6

7. Public Service is all about CHARACTER
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 7

8. Q.A.- A Distinct Personnel
Selection Process
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 8
* See “Differentiated Selection of Public
Servants” at www.slideshare.net
RELEVANT
TO AGENCY
MANDATE?
APPLICANT’S
EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATION
NO
YES APPLICANT’S
INTELLIGENCE
QUOTIENT
I.Q.
EQUAL
OR GREATER
THAN
80?
NO
YES
APPLICANT’S
TEAM PLAYER
PROFILE
IS TEAM
PLAYER STYLES
ACCEPTABLE
?
APPLICANT’S
MEDICAL
REPORT
YES
NO NO
YES
APPLICATION REJECTED
PROCESSING TERMINATED
NO
FOR
APPOINTMENT
/ORIENTATION
END
IS
APPLICANT
MEDICALLY
CLEARED
?
IS
APPLICANT
CERTIFIED AS
JOB COMPE-
TENT?
APPLICANT’S
COMPETENCY
ASSESSMENT
START
YES

9. ESTABLISHING THE COMPETENCY
SYSTEM IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 9

10. Establishing a Competency System*
STANDARDIZARTION
FUNCTIONAL
ANALYSIS
COMPETENCY
DEVELOPMENT
J
O
B
S
WORK-
PLACE
10
DEP’T A
DEP’T B
DEP’T C
DEP’T D
DEP’T N
...
COMPETENCY
STANDARDS
TRAINING
STANDARD
ASSESSMENT
INSTRU-
MENTS
TRAINORS
ASSESSORS
• See “Eligibility or Competency” and
“Differentiated Selection of Public
Servants” at www.slideshare.net
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ
F
E
E
D
B
A
C
K
U P D AT E
U P D AT E

11. Competency Standards Development
and Standardization of Job Titles
Salary Grades 01 to 33
(NGAs, LGUs, GOCCs, GFIs)
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 11
 Clarity in Generic and Agency-
peculiar Job Titles
 Enhancing Portability of skills
 Rationalizing standard
operating processes

12. Pro-Forma of
a Unit of
Competency
Standard
• Unit Title
• Unit Description
• Elements and Performance
Criteria
• Range of Variables
• Evidence Guide
– Critical Aspects of Competency
– Underpinning knowledge
– Underpinning skills
– Underpinning attitude
– Resource Implication
– Method of Assessment
– Context of Assessment
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 12
NOTE:
1 Competency
Standard for a
Job Title:
2 Units 7 Units
UNITS OF COMPETENCY
Min. Max.

13. Composition of Competency Assessor
Teams (C.A.T.)
Public Sector Assessors per Level *
Competency
Assessors for
Level 1(from level 3)
Competency
Assessors for
Level 2(from level 1)
Competency
Assessors for
Level 3(from level 2)
Composition per Team **
Civil Service
Commission
Representative
Representing
Public Sector
by Level (1,2 & 3)
Representing
Private Sector
per Level (1,2 & 3)
Agency HRMD
Unit as
Secretariat
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 13
** Team membership is subject to annual rotation
of agency assignment to ensure impartiality
* From different government line agencies
See “Competency Assessment System in the Philippine Civil
Service” in www.slideshare.net for more details

14. Competency Assessment is Binary:
it is either ONE or ZERO
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 14
EMPLOYMENT
RETENTION

15. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
A 5-in-1 DEMERIT-APPROACH MEASURING SYSTEM
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 15
See “Integrated Performance Evaluation
System” in www.slideshare.net for more details

16. 5-in-1 Performance Criteria
•the technical specifications of planned outputQUALITY
•the numerical quantity of planned output vs
actualQUANTITY
•adherence to planned date of program/project
implementation
SCHEDULE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
•application of allocated funds corresponding to
programs/projects in accordance to approved cash
flow
USE OF FUNDS
•staff man-days available for program/project
implementation net of all types of absences, tardiness
and undertime, including study leaves
USE OF STAFF
MAN-DAYS
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 16

17. HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 17
INDIVIDUAL
ACCOMPLISHMENT
≈
1
n
th of an
OPERATING
UNIT’s/TEAM’s
PRODUCTION,
INDIVIDUAL ≈
1
n
th of an
OPERATING
UNIT/TEAM
INDIVIDUAL
PERFORMANCE
≈
1
n
th of an OPERATING
UNIT’s/TEAM’s
PERFORMANCE
= OPERATING UNIT/TEAM
Individual Members with varying and
complementing Skills and RolesΣ2
n
i …
… and …
•
• •
The Individual and the Operating
Unit/Team
The Performance Rating of the Team/Unit is the Rating of each Member

18. Comparative Graphical Analysis of
Performance of an Operating Unit
QUALITY =
QUANTITY =
IMPLMTN SCHEDULE =
USE OF FUNDS =
STAFF MANDAYS =
Actual
21.875
15.5
23.5
18.5
9.5
Max
25.0
20.0
25.0
20.0
10.0
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 18

19. Weighing the Result of Performance
RESPONSIVENESS?
AGENCY RESOURCE
UTILIZATION?
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 19
•••
100% RESOURCES AVAILABILITY AT YEAR
START, DIMINISHING TOWARD YEAREND

20. Head of Agency
Deputy 1
Dir A Dir B
Div 1 Div 2 Div 3 Div 4
Deputy 2
Dir C Dir D
Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div 8
20HILARIO P. MARTINEZ
NOTE:
Planning – Top-down
Evaluation – Bottom-up
88.875 89.025 86.354 87.63489.832 87.389 86.973 89.059+ + + +
88.950 88.093 87.511 88.016+ +
88.521
88.142
+
Average of
scores of
immediate
subordinate
Units & Unit
Members
BASIC SCORES – FRONTLINE LEVEL
Subor-
dinates’
Average
Subor-
dinates’
Average
AGENCY’S
RATING
87.763
All for One, One for All
(A roll-up Process of Determining Agency Rating)
Division level – the real face of
Management effectiveness
Together
Everyone
Achieves
More

21. D
E
V
T
M
G
T
What does unresolved under-
performance indicate?
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 21
Team Leaders of
underperforming Units
PRODUCTION
PLANNING &
CONTROL
May have over
abundance of paper
qualifications but
may be lacking
competence in …
IMPROVING &
MAINTAINING
QUALITY
STANDARDS
FUND
MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
PLANNING &
MGT

22. MAINTAINING COMPETENCE AND
BETTER PERFORMANCE
A Practical Management Tool
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 22
to QUALITY to QUALITY
See “CAPE-GPS” in www.slideshare.net
for more details

23. COMPETENT INCOMPETENT
A Theory wanting to be challenged!
INCOMPETENCE, on the
contrary, results in unacceptable
Job PERFORMANCE
If a measured COMPETENCE in a
Job connotes good
PERFORMANCE in such a Job,
the lack of it will most likely spell
dismal PERFORMANCE, there-
fore, contribute as LIABILITY
If individuals w/ complimenting
COMPETENCIES most likely results
in better team PERFORMANCE,
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 23

24. Frequency of Competency Assessment
and Performance Evaluation
Competency Assessment/
Revalidation – 3-year cycle/level
Annual Team Performance
Evaluation
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 24

25. The CA x PE Scores Reference Matrix
The Equivalent scores of
Performance Evaluation and
Competency Assessment
The Resultant scores for
Competency Assessment x
Performance Evaluation
OPTIMUM
ZONE
CONTROLLED
DEVIATION
WARNING
ZONE
FAIL ZONE
CA x PE CA x PE
97.50 0
95.00 0
92.50 0
90.00 0
87.50 0
85.00 0
82.50 0
80.00 0
77.50 0
75.00 0
72.50 0
PE
Upper Limit
CA PASS
(Value = 1)
CA FAIL
(Value = 0)
97.50 1 0
95.00 1 0
92.50 1 0
90.00 1 0
87.50 1 0
85.00 1 0
82.50 1 0
80.00 1 0
77.50 1 0
75.00 1 0
72.50 1 0
HIGHLYUNACCEPTABLE–FAILC.A.RESULT
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 25

26. Management and HRD decisions
required due to CA & PE results
PE rates CA PASS rate PE rates CA FAIL rate
Deserving of recognition,
qualified for more sensitive
tasks, higher responsibilities,
and additional incentives
Qualified for higher responsi-
bilities, coaching and
commensurate reward/s
Requires more coaching from
superior officials, closer
monitoring, and job rotation
Requires in-depth review, staff
reshuffling/reassignment, or
replacement/separation
These cases may
not be tolerable
situations and
therefore contrary
to sound
governance policy;
likewise, it probably
warrant a red flag
and farther
investigation of
concerned
operating unit/s
and members
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 26
97.50
95.00
92.50
90.00
87.50
85.00
82.50
80.00
77.50
75.00
72.50
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0
CA x PE = 0

27. Illustrating a Frontline Unit with Good Annual
Performance Rating but with a Member Failing a
Regular Competency Assessment
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 27
CA = 1CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
CA = 1
Office Performance
Rating
88.875 = Very Satisfactory Individual Performance
Rating= =
CA x PE = +/0
(1/0) (+/F)

28. The Breed of Workforce that should be
retained in the Bureaucracy
Only the COMPETENT …and…
GOVERNMENT
SERVICE
PORTAL
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 28
the Good
PERFORMERS

29. R A T I O N A L I Z A T I O N
JOB TITLE STANDARDIZATIONCOMPETENCY STANDARDIZATION
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM
INSTITUTIONALIZATION
INTEGRATED PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
SALARY STANDARDIZATION
Synchronized Reform Implementation
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 29

30. The Future Public Service Providers
HILARIO P. MARTINEZ 30