Presentation at Regional Hub of Civil Service Workshop Astana, Kazakhstan October 2013.

Presentation at Regional Hub of Civil Service Workshop

Astana, KazakhstanOctober 2013

Performance Management

Performance Management & Development System in place since 2000

Agreed with Staff associations

In 2005 integrated with increments, promotions and higher pay scales

5 point rating scale

Government Programme

3 year Strategic Statements for each Ministry, Office or Agency

Annual Business Plans

Divisional Plans

Individual role profiles

Individual goals and objectives

Planning Meeting where objectives are set and agreed

Interim Review at mid-year where progress and issues are discussed

Review at year end

Objectives, actions, tasks and timelines are outlined

Training & development plan for 12 months outlined

Self assessment by employee at mid year and at year end

Assessment by supervisor and rating given

Signed off by second supervisor

Recently formalised within the process to facilitate upward feedback where employee has the opportunity to comment on the support received from supervisor

Many managers are uncomfortable with giving feedback, will take time.

1 23

4 5

Great opportunity for achieving clarity around role and objectives

Opportunity to identify blockages or issues that need to be addressed

Opportunity to identify training needs

Points

People at the top must show leadership, support the process and should participate

Importance of training for all involved

Keep documentation simple

Completing paperwork and ticking boxes can become the focus, seen as additional task

Look at “motivating for performance” rather than performance management (OECD)

Open and frank dialogue is key to success

Process should not inhibit authentic dialogue

Need for regular and ongoing dialogue between supervisor and employee

Tendency to over specify formal training & development solutions

New approach being taken to rating system

Calibration across grades within organisation to ensure more even and more realistic distribution of ratings

85.1% compliance across Ministries

Concern about ratings for 2012:

5 Outstanding (6.4%)4 Exceeds Expectations (53.1%) 3 Fully Acceptable (39.6%)2 Needs Improvement (0.8%) 1 Unacceptable (0.1%)

Annual Output Statements

Performance Indicators

Customer Surveys

Customer/Citizen Panels

Value for Money Audits

Clarity of my role, objectives, priorities and timelines

Feedback on how well or otherwise that I am doing

Supports or training available to help me to improve