Practicing Masterful PT: The Case of the Minister’s Cabinet

6

Performance Improvement, vol. 52, no. 1, January 2013©2013 International Society for Performance ImprovementPublished online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21281

WHAT DOES A CPT DO?

PRACTICING MASTERFUL PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY: THE CASE OF THE MINISTER’S CABINET

Steven J. Kelly, CPT Tanja Georgievska, CPT Fatmir Besimi, PhD

This contribution to the What Does a CPT Do? series is a dynamic case study from the Ministry

of Economy, Macedonia. Two certified performance technologists provide an insightful analysis

of the highlights of a complex international development human performance technology

assessment and subsequent performance interventions. Told from the personal point of view of

the consultants, with brief insights from the client minister, the focus is on key issues such as

team alignment, strong client partnerships, balancing political versus effectiveness issues, and

providing sustainable solutions with durable results.

THIS ARTICLE IS a reflection on a performance improve-ment intervention in the country of Macedonia. Under a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)–funded Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) program (USAID, 2009; USAID EGAT, 2010), the contractor World Learning started implementing performance improvement approaches in 2005. Projects completed had used a classic methodology within each institution partner; however, the approach used with the Ministry of Economy was a somewhat different story. This is a tale of responding to the client and to the specific situation, while keeping true to the principles of perfor-mance dynamics.

Unlike many other institutional partners, the leader-ship of the Ministry of Economy openly recognized its performance challenges and requested a comprehensive assessment of the Minister’s Office (secretariat). There were performance problems and a need to improve min-isterial operations quickly.

When the donor shared the Ministry request, there was a slight problem in how to go further on behalf of the (consulting) team. The former World Learning perfor-mance improvement professional, Tanja Georgievska, had

worked on several HICD projects. However, this case was different; it did not fit “the box” of the usual approach. The Minister’s Office seemed to be only one single unit of many within the Ministry—it became a question of how to assess the Minister’s Office separately because it clearly did not function in isolation. At the same time, having implemented the human performance technol-ogy (HPT) models in other institutions, Tanja knew that a systems approach was required to achieve high-quality and sustainable results.

World Learning decided to bring in a senior perfor-mance expert to lead the assessment team. After a com-petitive procurement process, Steven Kelly from KNO Worldwide was contracted to lead the team. Because he had worked intensively with government reforms in most Eastern European countries, his profile indicated he had the experience and skills needed to achieve the ambitious project goals. Given the very limited budget available for the assessment, there was a need to conduct an intensely focused effort within a few weeks’ time. For the remainder of the case study, the personal reflections of the two pri-mary team members will portray some of the challenges and successes of this fast-track assessment effort.

PFI21281.indd 6PFI21281.indd 6 1/10/13 6:59:45 PM1/10/13 6:59:45 PM

Performance Improvement • Volume 52 • Number 1 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 7

ON THE ROAD AGAIN: STEVENHere I was, sitting in an airport again, on my way to an institutional performance assessment—a new client in a new country. My flight was delayed, so I had a 4-hour wait. For several days I had been grappling with an issue concerning this assignment—not how I would approach it, but how to explain to the client the way I would approach the task. The work I do is relatively sensitive, as with all such contracts. In the description that fol-lows, I have disguised the situation somewhat to fulfill my personal commitments to confidentiality, but all the elements are true.

FIRST, SOME BACKGROUNDThis was not a business client; this was one of those “cli-ents within a client” situations. By that I mean I was hired by a donor agency (in the development sphere it might be World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, or USAID, among others). The donor pays and therefore has its own demands and measures, but I actually work inside a “target institution” that has been selected for “assistance.” This, of course, creates potential conflict and added levels to align.

My client was an organization—a governmental unit called the Ministry of Economy—that had been selected to receive free (to them) assistance in an effort to develop and institutionalize its capacity. Institutionalization is the capacity that most projects miss, having no mandate for organizational dynamics. The effort to reinforce technical assistance with performance improvement has focused on governmental units, nongovernmental organizations, or sometimes a university—on whichever the policy mak-ers decide to invest. The end goals in all cases are Mega, as Roger Kaufman (2009) uses the term—not code for “really, really big” but meaning adding measurable value to our shared society, helping to build the economy, mod-ernizing health care systems, and promoting civil society. Nowadays, the effort should be clearly aligned with the donor’s security, political, or economic agenda.

With all its likely constructs, this case was a little out of the ordinary. In many instances, the consultant might be brought in to look at a specific service process or processes. I use an HPT approach (ISPI, 2012) among one of many available system tools and approaches (see Figure 1).

At the same time, I would consider the best practices in capacity building for transitional society institutions (Kelly, Coughlin, & Novak, 2011; World Bank—OECD, 2004). If there were adequate budget (although there never is), I would lead the team to complete a methodical process audit, discover and confirm gaps, and recom-

mend solutions (called intervention packages in this world). All this was straightforward, except that it never really is. Often the consultancy is “free” to the target institution, and perhaps “suggested as needed” from the funding agency without the target institution’s proactive request. There can develop a certain reluctance from the institution’s management, obviously, in addition to the usual change-resistance issues (Wigboldus, Lee, Brouwer, & Hijweege, 2010). Actually implementing sug-gested changes with management follow-through and embedding the changes into the organizational policies and practices once the consultant leaves rarely happen. The issue is one of sustainability (Novak & Kelly, 2007, 2010)—sustainability of the institution, sustainability of the technical and process interventions, and sustainability of the outcomes that have been solemnly agreed on.

A DIFFERENT SITUATIONThis situation looked to be different. Here was the top agency manager, who had himself approached the donor for help. Not only that—he wasn’t asking for help deep into the organization to solve some problem, he was asking for help to increase performance within his own personal secretariat. He wanted better internal secretariat performance, improved communication between his office and 20 departments, a look at improving the public relations approach, and, of course, thoughts on building better communications with the external stakeholders. These stakeholders numbered 15 peer government min-istries and the ultimate customer impact on businesses. The Ministry responded to 100 large firms, 500 medium-sized firms, and 35,000 entrepreneurs (IBRD, 2007).

It goes without saying that there were further complica-tions. This manager, a minister, is a political appointee and is not from the majority party controlling the Premier’s office and the parliament. His party represents an ethnic minority that had gained enough votes to be awarded the control of a larger, more visible ministry. The political environment was highly charged. Reshuffling of political appointees is a common tactic. Everyone protects his or her own back. It

Institutionalization is the capacity that most projects miss, having no mandate for organizational dynamics.


8 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • JANUARY 2013

is the only way to survive in a country with a population of about 2 million and numerous political parties.

And who protects the minister’s back? Of course, the personal secretariat or cabinet. Often made up of a combination of political fellow travelers and technical experts, they are there to drive forward the political agenda for the minister. It is a very private team with the ultimate goals of protecting the minister and facilitat-ing progress of the political program: more jobs, grow-ing economy, foreign investment, public safety, higher standard of living, maybe higher public office—normal government mandates.

A LITTLE MORE INTERESTINGTo make it more interesting, the Ministry of Economy seethes with further challenges. There was an agreed-on strategy in place; however, the minister’s top two manag-ers (his deputy and chief administrator/state secretary) are both appointed directly by their political party leadership

and do not belong to the same party as the minister. The Prime Minister is the power in the country as he heads the majority party. And in the Ministry of Economy, although the minister leads the agency, by law all employees report directly to the State Secretary. As mentioned, the State Secretary is appointed from outside the organization. Complications? Think about communications, align-ment, and to whom success or failure accrues.

All the unit managers that conduct the work under the State Secretary are appointed by the minister, at his dis-cretion. Each minister creates a whole new organizational scheme, to his or her preference. It is a time-honored tra-dition (Lessons Learned, 2008). There can be a wholesale purge of the previous leadership. This includes shuffling unit heads. Of course, because there is a civil service code, no one may be easily fired. Therefore, former unit heads are moved into worker slots, often under their former staff. Additional political realities confuse the performance pic-ture; alas, we cannot consider all the interesting details. You empathize: This is not a typical hierarchical organization.

Organizational Analysis of:

• Vision, Mission, Values

• Customer Demands

• Goals and Strategies

• Critical Success Issues

Environmental Analysis of:

• World (Society, Stakeholders, and Competition)

• Culture (Societal Ideas, Beliefs, Customs, Values)

• Regulatory and Laws

• Workplace (Resources, Tools, and Human Resources Policies)

• Work (Work Flow, Procedure, Responsibilities, and Ergonomics)

• Worker (Knowledge, Skill, Capacity, Motivation, and Expectations)

Performance Analysis of Need or Opportunity

Actual

Performance

Interventions may include:

• Goal/Strategy Alignment

• Structure and Function

Adjustment

• Process Reengineering

• Communication and

Feedback Strengthening

• Information Technology

Upgrades

• Financial Procedures and

Audit

• Job Analysis/Work Design

• Performance Support

- training, job aids, coaching

Intervention Selection,

Design, and Development

• Formative (Level 0)

evaluation of inputs-process-

outputs

• Performance Analysis phase • Selection-Design- Development phase • Implementation- Maintenance phase (as needed)

• Summative (Level 1-2) evaluation of immediate

• Reaction; • Knowledge/Skill • Attitude and Confidence • Commitment • Adoption

Confirmative (Level 3-5)

evaluation of long-term

• Application • Sustainability • Accomplishment • Return on investment

Meta Evaluation/

Validation of

• Formative, Summative, Confirmative inputs- processes-outputs

• Success stories

• Lessons learned

Evaluation

Change Management

Desired

Performance

Gap

Analysis

Cause Analysis of:

• Environmental Factors

- Information

- Feedback

- Environment Supports,

Resources, and Tools

-Consequences,

Incentives, or Rewards

• Individual Factors

- Skills and Knowledge

- Individual Capacity

- Motivation and

Expectations

Intervention

Implementation and

Maintenance

Success requires:

• Leadership Commitment

• Stakeholder Steering

• Partnering and Alliances

• Process Consulting

• Employee Engagement

• Focused Communication

• Change Initiatives

• Move from Program to

Daily Operations

© 2004 by The International Society for Performance Improvement and Wiley. Adapted for international development purposes by S. Kelly, 2011, from Van Tiem, D.M., Moseley, J.L., and Dessinger, J.C., Fundamentals of Performance Technology, 2nd ed., p. 3, San Francisco: ISPI/Wiley.

FIGURE 1. 2004 HPT MODEL



And to throw in one more curve, the Ministry has about 120 employees and also includes three semi-independent units focused on somewhat aligned missions.

Once again, here is a summary of the goals of this assessment: work with the minister, in a highly charged political environment, to assess performance and sev-eral key processes. The assessment needs to be done in such a way that there is no political fallout. Oh, and yes, these secretariats are usually staffed with the minister’s personal friends (whom they can trust) and various people rewarded for political services. And if this minister cannot get this sorted out quickly and quietly from a highly visible political seat, he may be caught in an under-tow and jerked under the politically turbulent waters.

Yep, looks like a typical performance assessment! Luckily, there were excellent resources available to draw from for assessment methods and tools.

THE RESOURCES AVAILABLEAll this became known from a few days of desk study of relevant documents and talks with the host coun-try support team. The timetable was already preset: a 6-week time window and the need to start in 2 weeks once your proposal has been selected competitively. This meant that less than a month was available for one expert, including all preparation, travel, and report-ing time. The budget limits were predetermined in the master plan, not based on the situational need. In addition, I was assigned a junior local team I had never met, who offered local knowledge and labor, while I was “expected”—required, contractually—to coach them and improve their skills during the engagement. There was the standard “final report of findings and recom-mendations” (usually taking three or four days to write) plus various pre-, mid-, and post-update briefings for the donor that had to be fitted into the month. The cli-ent did not work weekends, although I invariably had to. The daily rate was fair.

BACK AT THE AIRPORTAgain, here I was delayed at the airport—4 hours on my hands and a coupon for lunch. I was about to walk into this project in a few hours. How would I bring this local team on board quickly? I knew that they had previously been on process assessments with other consultants. I also knew that these jobs were more “traditional” assignments that offered more time for research, larger analyst teams, and longer time frames. I also knew that this assignment would be different and even more challenging than orga-nizations usually are in such environments.

I found a table in the snack bar. I plugged in the notebook and started pounding out what became the first draft of my approaches to applying HPT in this environment (Kelly, 2010). I knocked it out in about an hour and took a close look at it. I wondered—was I properly explaining my approach? I wrote it as a com-mentary on the framework of my approach; it was just a description of how I work and how I personally apply the technology of human performance in this environment. It would help me to get organized and to brief my new colleagues.

I knew that the team members had workshops on various HPT approaches—Rummler’s (2007) anatomy of performance model, behavior engineering models (Gilbert, 1978), the six boxes model (Binder, 1998), and basic relationship and process mapping. They had attended workshops focused on the USAID HICD approach for assessments and capacity building based on HPT principles (USAID EGAT, 2010). Likely, they had also participated in previous assignments with other performance experts. That might be good, or it might serve as a distraction. My experience showed that it can be frustrating trying to meld different consulting styles, even if the content and results were all in accor-dance with the same validated performance principles and methods.

Sitting there in the airport, I collected my thoughts. I had coffee and a sandwich. My flight was called. Three hours later I was sitting at a conference table in Skopje meeting my new team. We had started.

A FOUNDATION THROUGH PREPARATION: TANJADeeply engaged in implementing interventions with another target institution, I learned from the donor that there was another public institution to be supported by the USAID HICD program—namely, the Minister’s Office of Economy. The news seemed challenging as the request to conduct a performance assessment of the Minister’s Office was a request by the top management of the insti-tution itself, not a usual donor’s recommendation.

Quite a different starting point! A quick glance at the organizational structure of the Ministry on the Internet showed that the Minister’s Office is one unit within a large complex structure of 12 departments. My first reac-tion was that this cannot be assessed separately, given that the office does not function in isolation within the organi-zational structure. In addition, from an HPT perspective my concern related to the sustainability of the project; in that respect, taking a systems approach was inevitable for achieving high-quality and sustainable results (Novak &



Kelly, 2010; Pershing, 2006;). Agreeing on all this, yet with a clear focus on the Minister’s Office, World Learning signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Economy to conduct a comprehensive performance assessment of the Minister’s Office.

PREPLANNINGThe preparation started even before the MOU was signed—a review of all documents and issues we could find on the Ministry of Economy. This helped us concep-tualize the peripheral stakeholder survey, which involved individual interviews with seven institutions that were cooperating with the Ministry of Economy on a daily basis but were not direct beneficiaries of its services. This served as an introduction before we took on the internal assessment. It also made the project public.

As with any other assignment, this was yet another big undertaking that required a systematic and careful approach in its planning. Moreover, the project team that was formed to work with the Minister’s Office was a new one.

SELECTING A PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT EXPERTThrough a competitive bidding process, we contracted an experienced performance improvement (PI) expert, who submitted a strong proposal for this assignment with quite a proven track record of HPT knowledge and expe-rience, as well as experience in this political and economic environment. Still the concern I had was whether the for-eign PI expert would quickly grasp the local context that overburdened the institutional integrity with politics and political party affiliations.

As a local office, World Learning staff had been very much exposed to HPT approaches, using various assess-ment frameworks and implementing various perfor-mance solutions. Still, the question was posed: How could we apply HPT to the local context—specifically to the public sector—and ensure sustainability?

Once the PI expert arrived, we begin immediately. It took us a couple of days to get to know each other as a team and to agree on the roles and responsibilities in practice. Differing expectations at the beginning surfaced and were brought to a common understanding. At the

same time, our working styles seemed complementary as we moved forward. We started with a long list of meetings with the Ministry officials, much longer than with any other institution with which we had previously worked. We had a very intense timetable, which required a certain amount of independent action.

BUILDING A HYPOTHESIS AND CONFIRMING PERFORMANCE GAPS OBJECTIVES: FATMIRI believed that good training and support in organizing the cabinet would help improve the performance of the cabinet. Therefore, I asked for external expert support for the team. However, my concern was on the choice of the experts—whether they would be well accepted by the team so that there could be honest and frank discussions to identify the bottlenecks.

The key was to create a good basis for further progress (i.e., how to transfer challenges into opportunities).

INTENSE KICKOFF: STEVENThe assessment kicked off well. The local consultant team was fully engaged, and the senior member, Tanja, was well-versed in HPT concepts. Ivana, as a junior consultant, sup-ported logistical issues and handled structured interviews. Although the environment was complex, the cabinet was a quite small unit. Our point of contact, the Head of Cabinet, was enthusiastic about our support. A key issue of concern had been access to the minister, Fatmir Besimi. This turned from a concern to a strength as the minister was fully avail-able. Importantly, he was fluent in English so an interpreter was not needed. A key element is establishing rapport, and this is always harder to establish when a third party is involved. The minister confirmed the focus of the assign-ment and agreed to informal feedback sessions.

After just 2 days of intense observation and key interviews, our hypothesis concerning the critical performance bottle-necks was formed. We approached this using Rummler’s anatomy of performance model (Rummler, 2007). We sketched a preliminary relationship map and identified the core processes (value chain) of the cabinet (see Figure 2). There were several. An important internal one was process-ing documents for ministerial review, approval, and dis-tribution. The external issues focused on communication. They were divided into two: (1) relationships and reaction to media sources and (2) public communication to the business community and potential investors.

Several observations were confirmed by evidence. As we mapped the document-control process, severe

The preparation started even before the MOU was signed.



bottlenecks appeared, including lack of comprehensive tracking and lost papers. However, it also became appar-ent (but called for further verification) that several of the staff members were not performing at adequate levels. Using the six cells of the behavior engineering model (Gilbert, 1978), our analysis indicated that it was not primarily an issue of environmental support (informa-tion, resources, incentives). Rather it seemed to be an issue of the knowledge and skills required for successful job performance and perhaps even an individual’s capa-bility to do the job after further coaching and training.

The team made a short list of bullet-point findings (two pages). I met with the minister mid-afternoon in a quiet café. As we reviewed the findings in 15 minutes, he expressed amazement that we had discovered so much in a few days. He suggested a few more people within the organization to speak to, and during the next couple of days, the team moved forward to validate our hypothesis. An important portion of the data collection was meeting with external stakeholders. The team developed a struc-tured questionnaire, and the local team moved forward to interview both media figures and local business people.

NEXT STEP: TANJAAs a team, we kicked off the first meeting with the Minister of Economy. The minister, being aware of the present situation and the challenges that both his office

and the Ministry were facing, was very open and com-mitted to changes.

A common characteristic for the team members was their focus on being practical and expedient. This is what I liked about this team. In fact, that was also what the minister expected from each of us.

Steven and I started interviewing the Ministry staff. I led a meeting that helped us to finalize the relationship map of the Ministry. At the beginning the key work-ing processes seemed not that complicated, but this perception soon changed as we talked to staff and, with some follow-up research, identified unnecessary steps, bottlenecks, and duplications. We delved deeply into an analysis of a large sample of the 150 specific cases related to processing documents for ministerial review, approval, and distribution. We produced a graphic of the key working processes that displayed the gaps, areas of underperformance, and improvement potential. At this point, I already had a large amount of accumulated data to analyze during the daily team debriefing sessions at the World Learning office.

VERIFICATION AND ANALYSISWe then proceeded with further verification and analysis by measuring the level of the Ministry’s client’s satisfac-tion. The team developed structured questionnaires and conducted a sample target audience survey with the

RESOURCES

Government Economy Culture Society

RESULTS

Products

and

ServicesCore Processes

M O N I T O R I N G

E V A L U A T I O N

Ministry of EconomyMinister’s Cabinet

Support Processes

Strategic Processes

Cabinet Staff

Suppliers

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Political Parties

Accurate and Timely PublicInformation

PoliciesReviewed

and Approved

© 2010 by KNO Worldwide. Used with permission.

FIGURE 2. MINISTRY OF ECONOMY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL MODEL



Ministry’s closest audience—the media and the business community.

Determining client satisfaction with what and how information is provided was a circular and iterative task when we talked to media representatives, because they influenced politics in their daily operations and were reporting actions and outcomes as well. This was quite evident. Therefore, media response to our questionnaires required complex analysis, and their levels of satisfaction needed to be interpreted differently. The survey revealed a positive image of top management, recognition that there was no communication system in place, a reactive approach by the Ministry, little coordination with the business community, and almost no feedback on issues that concern the business clients.

PARTNERSHIP IN PROCESS: FATMIRI was glad to see during the meetings with Steven, Tanja, and others how quickly well-structured information was presented as findings and suggestions for improvements. Also, I found very impressive the techniques, both formal and informal, they used with the cabinet team for data collection. Very important were the continuous briefings we had during this process, so I could react immediately to maximize the benefits of this support for the cabinet.

A BRUSH WITH REALITY: STEVENIt became clear that as we moved forward into the sec-ond week that the minister was already taking action in line with our briefings and suggestions—thus lending a dynamic, continuing analysis with immediate change that is ongoing. As well, I had to be careful not to get drawn in beyond the scope of the engagement (especially into per-sonnel issues). An interesting puzzle to unravel was how to suggest potential staffing changes while being aware of both political and trust issues. It seemed that there was management talent available to solve several of these problems within the Ministry. The question was how to bring about a matching of performance role require-ments and political realities.

As with most other performance assessments, along with the process mapping and strict focus on job roles and outputs, there is the element of the human placed in the web of the system (Kelly, 2010). Broken trust and hurt feelings, substance abuse dependencies, long-term relationships based on loyalty, and general burnout in such a politically charged environment all take their toll. Part of this engagement began to involve “what-if” nego-tiations to rebuild confidence and reopen doors for staff reassignments.

There was a need to shift key staff into new roles. As well, there were important supporting processes that had to be addressed: defining job descriptions, building a professional public communication function, con-sidering ways to simplify an overly complex document tracking and processing procedure. A critical element now came into the mix, one not previously considered a function of the cabinet: a new focus on and resources for internal communication. Our assessment had indicated numerous filters in the management information flows. Building new channels of interministry communication flow would be highly supportive of the minister’s aggres-sive strategic agenda.

Much of this can be done by the minister with exist-ing resources. Other elements can be put into place only with extra follow-up funding and specialized help. The final few days of the assessment analysis were spent on identifying the proper definition and sequence of inter-ventions to address the root causes that have created the performance gaps. And these needed to be in a form use-ful for the minister as well as one that met the procedural requirements of the donor.

MOVING TO ACTION: TANJAThe team provided constant briefings for the minister. The briefings were clear and to the point. This built an even stronger relationship with the institution and resulted in implementation of quick wins on behalf of the institution, long before the final report of detailed find-ings and recommendations was produced. After an exten-sive analysis of gaps and their root causes, we presented the recommendations report along with an intervention package and a performance measurement and manage-ment plan (Kelly, Georgievska, & Strihic, 2009).

Major recommendations focused on reorganizing the Ministry organizational structure with an emphasis on the minister’s office, improving the communication internally and externally by establishing a sustainable system for communication, and streamlining the key processes. I saw quite an ambitious intervention package (i.e., solutions) to implement taking into consideration the limitation in time and budget and the need for a full participatory approach not only from the minister’s office staff but from the Ministry of Economy staff overall.

HAND OVER: STEVENMy role in this project was completed after the first month assessment. The final deliverables of recommen-dations and detailed designs for supportive interventions were clear, politically realistic, and affordable. Tanja and



her team worked closely with the minister and his staff to move forward to action in the following months.

SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS REQUIRES SYSTEMIC APPROACHES OVER TIME: TANJAThe implementation of the interventions was a year and a half journey full of different challenges and opportu-nities. Once the second MOU was signed, the biggest challenge was to establish a core team in charge of com-munication with other sectors within the Ministry and communication with the external audience, including the most distant one: citizens. I had established a great rapport with the head of the Minister’s Office, when he suddenly decided to attend a professional development program abroad. Based on my previous experience with other public institutions in the country, I viewed this as taking several steps backward. I talked to the minister, and he assigned a replacement to ensure continuity and progress.

Yet other challenges emerged. A new person joined the Ministry office staff, an employee who was not familiar with the public sector and could not quickly adapt to the organizational culture. Still, the plan was on; we formed the team, conducted extensive training on communi-cation management and effective public relations and coaching for the communication team members, pro-vided on-the-job consulting on daily media monitoring and reporting to the minister, and developed strategy for internal and external communication.

Then we concentrated on the workplace level and work level; we established clear roles and responsibilities and redesigned the organizational structure. Support was provided to employees’ organizational skills development across the Ministry. Shortly after, we witnessed concrete outcomes of the communication team; they included an all-staff event for the 115 members for the first time in the Ministry’s history, an electronic bulletin for the Ministry, and several team-building and motivational events.

Apart from keeping track on the performance moni-toring plan during this journey, I conducted two surveys at the end of the project. The internal survey measured progress on implementation of the interventions, and the external one measured the increase in the level of satisfac-tion of clients from the Ministry’s Office services.

Results showed increased satisfaction by the media rep-resentatives from the availability of the communication team, the quality of responses provided by the Ministry, and the increased efficiency of the Ministry communica-tion team in its public relations activities (Georgievska &

Strihic-Dojchinovska, 2011). Also, the Ministry web page became fully functional, providing clients with current information about the Ministry’s activities, national regu-lation, and public procurements opportunities.

The team conducts analyses of the media cover-age related to Ministry activities on a daily basis. The Ministry team has developed and is implementing com-munications strategies that help the team contribute to a smoother flow and exchange of information across the Ministry and improve its reputation and public image.

PROJECT IMPACT: FATMIRThe holistic approach of the Human and Institutional Development Program contributed to the establishment of a system that will be sustainable. The Ministry of Economy has already made evident progress in the area of public relations and internal communication.

Furthermore, the development of procedures for com-munications has significantly improved the performance of the newly established sector and the Ministry over-all, which directly influenced the improvement of the Ministry’s organizational structure.

Inspired by the key principles of the program—focus on results, value, systemic solutions, and partner-ship—we continue working to achieve the goal of the Ministry of Economy: improving the standard of living of Macedonian citizens and thereby creating a better eco-nomic outlook for the Republic of Macedonia.

THE FINAL WORD: STEVENSeveral years later, I was in Skopje and met the minister again; he had been now newly appointed as the min-ister of defense. I asked him about what he considered important evidence of results of our work. Smiling, he pulled out his cell phone. As a portion of his ongoing transparency campaign, every journalist in the city has his number. During the early days of the assessment, it rang seemingly nonstop, requiring him to devote valuable time to media requests. Jubilantly he exclaimed to me, “It is silent now, very infrequent calls—it is now fully handled by staff! I have gained several hours a day to refocus on the key issues of management.”

And this has carried over into his new job as sec-retary of defense where he has implemented a similar approach. The new Minister of Economy has continued to work closely with the communication team that was established and trained while Minister Besimi was in charge of the Ministry. Specifically, four professionals whom the minister considered key people in his cabinet still hold the same positions under the new Minister



of Economy—very unusual in this politically charged environment. It is a great demonstration of the sus-tainability of results and efforts made to improve productivity.

References

Binder, C. (1998). The six boxes: A descendent of Gilbert’s behavior engineering model. Performance Improvement, 37(6), 48–52. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4140370612

Georgievska, T., & Strihic-Dojchinovska, I. (2011). Exit evalu-ation report of human and institutional capacity development of the Ministry of Economy. Skopje, Macedonia: World Learning.

Gilbert, T. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

IBRD. (2007). Doing business 2008 Macedonia, FYR. Washington, DC: IBRD, World Bank.

ISPI. (2012). What is HPT. Retrieved from http://www.ispi.org/content.aspx?id=54

Kaufman, R. (2009). Mega thinking and planning: An introduction to defining and delivering individual and organizational success. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 5–15.

Kelly, S. (2010). Practicing masterful performance technol-ogy. Performance Improvement, 49(9), 15–23. doi: 10.1002/pfi.20176

Kelly, S., Coughlin, P., & Novak, M. (2011). Sustaining best-practice international capacity development with human performance technology (white paper). Bratislava, Slovakia: KNO Worldwide. Retrieved from https://acrobat.com/app.html#d=HOsgoYHEvB3qPui1-Yr-mA

Kelly, S., Georgievska, T., & Strihic, I. (2009). Final report: Ministry of Economy, ministry cabinet, performance assessment. Skopje, Macedonia: KNO Worldwide.

Lessons learned on effective public administration in Macedonia. (2008). Analytica. Policy paper. Skopje, Macedonia. Retrieved from http://www.analyticamk.org/files/ReportNo19.pdf

Novak, M., & Kelly, S. (2007). Performance issues in interna-tional donor-funded development: A starting point for the HPT or PI professional. Performance Improvement, 46(1), 33–39. doi: 10.1002/pfi.037

Novak, M., & Kelly, S. (2010). Applied performance technol-ogy gets results in donor-funded development. Performance Improvement, 49(3), 35–40. doi: 10.1002/pfi.20136

Pershing, J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, and potential (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Rummler, G. (2007). Serious performance consulting according to Rummler. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

USAID. (2009). Human & institutional capacity development policy paper, mandatory reference for ADS Chapter 201. Washington, DC: US Agency for International Development.

USAID EGAT. (2010). Human and institutional capacity development handbook: A USAID model for sustainable per-formance improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development.

World Bank—OECD. (2004). Emerging good practice in man-aging for development results: Source book, First issue. New York: World Bank.

Wigboldus, S., Lee, J., Brouwer, H., & Hijweege, W. (2010). Critical success factors in capacity development support. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Centre for Development Innovation.



STEVEN J. KELLY, CPT, has 35 years’ diversified experience as a senior team leader in performance improvement, capacity development, program evaluation, project management, and workforce development. He has conducted numerous field assessments, defined evaluation strategies, and deliv-ered technical assistance in 25 countries in regional and federal government reform, higher educa-tion, SME development, finance and economics, environment, conflict resolution, and agriculture. He has led numerous development projects funded by USAID, the World Bank, EU Leonardo, and the Peace Corps. He has completed coursework for doctoral studies in international relations and has an MA in human relations/management. He has been a Certified Performance Technologist (CPT) since 2003 and currently serves as a director on the board of the International Society for Performance Improvement. He may be reached at [email protected]

TANJA GEORGIEVSKA, CPT, currently works for Deloitte Consulting LLP. She has extensive experi-ence in managing and implementing institutional performance projects that involve conducting com-phehensive performance assessments using various assessment frameworks, organizational and job design, performance monitoring and measurement systems and evaluation. She has also delivered numerous interventions related specifically to change management, communication management, strategic planning, and public procurement. She is currently finishing her MBA studies. She is a Certified Performance Technologist (CPT) and is a member of the ISPI EMEA Conference Committee. She may be reached at [email protected]

FATMIR BESIMI, PhD, is currently Minister of Defense of the Republic of Macedonia. He served twice as a Minister of Economy of the Republic of Macedonia. In 2010, he acquired a membership in the elite company of the best young global leaders and is one of the three European ministers for 2010 who were distinguished by their professional achievements, exceptional leadership capabilities, and dedication to society, on the traditional selection of the World Economic Forum. His academic engagements include teaching graduate and post-graduate studies at universities in Macedonia and Kosovo. He was engaged as an economist in the World Bank Office in Kosovo in 2007 and 2008. He is author of two books and several professional and academic articles in the field of economics and politics published in journals in Macedonia and abroad. In the framework of his public and state functions, he led several governmental projects and activities in the area of business environment reform, institutional strengthening, and reforms in the energy sector. His areas of interest include economics, development, economies in transition, developing economies, international economics, monetary economics, finance and banking, and European integration. He holds a PhD in economics. He may be reached at [email protected]


Practicing Masterful PT: The Case of the Minister’s Cabinet

Documents