Chapter 5
Chapter 5
Performance Management and Staff Development
5.1
Human capital is the greatest
asset of any organisation. For
the Civil Service, maintaining a
high standard and good quality
workforce is key to good governance
and delivery of services to the
community. The Commission
supports the adoption of a holistic
approach to staff development
that encompasses a structured
career progression plan as well as
suitable job exposure underpinned
by appropriate training for civil
servants at all levels.
Performance Management in the Civil Service
5.2
Over the years, the Commission
has been joining hands with CSB
to strengthen the Civil Service
performance management system
with a view to better realising
civil servants’ performance and
development potential. The
Commission’s observations on
areas requiring enhancement are
relayed either directly to B/Ds or
through CSB in parallel if
updating of policy guidelines and
procedures forms a part. Where
appropriate, we would advise B/Ds
to solicit the assistance of the Civil
Service Training and Development
Institute (CSTDI) to address
them. During the year, CSTDI had
collaborated with two departments
to respectively enhance their
performance/staff management practices and re-design out-dated
appraisal report forms to
reflect modern human resource
management (HRM) principles
and requirements. To equip grade
managers with the necessary staff
management skills, we have advised
CSTDI to formulate tailor-made
human resources training
programmes that best suit the
manpower profiles and management
needs of the targeted B/Ds. The
Commission looks forward to the
implementation of such programmes
in the coming year.
5.3
In the meantime, CSTDI has
continued to provide performance
management workshops on an
on-going basis in 2019. As noted,
CSTDI had organised over 30
training courses for various
levels of officers on performance
management principles and
performance appraisal writing skills.
In addition, CSTDI had arranged
37 customised training/briefing
sessions on performance management
and 84 performance appraisal
writing workshops in English and
Chinese for 31 B/Ds.
Observations on Performance Management Issues
5.4
The Commission will continue to
identify areas that call for
improvement as they come to
our attention. Some noteworthy observations are set out in the
ensuing paragraphs.
Timely completion of performance appraisals
5.5
Performance management is
an integral part of a comprehensive
HRM strategy and serves as the basis
for HRM decisions. Throughout
the process, it is important for
supervisors to closely monitor
their subordinates’ performance
and provide them with timely and
constructive feedback. To this end,
performance appraisal is an essential
tool to support and assist in staff
development. Late completion of
performance appraisals undermines
this very purpose and deprives
officers of an early opportunity of
being apprised of their strengths
and where weaknesses are identified
for improvement to be made. The
Commission has always stressed that
staff appraisal, as a performance
management tool, should be
completed promptly. Late reporting
undermines management efforts in
promoting best practices of staff
management. It also has a knock-on
effect on the convening of promotion
boards. Timely advancement of
deserving officers and staff morale
in general may also be affected as
a result.
5.6
Although improvement was
observed, and in some cases markedly, the problem of late
reporting still persisted in 2019.
While recognising the competing
priorities and commitments of
appraising and countersigning
officers, managing staff and their
performance is also an inseparable
part of their duties for which they
will be held to account.
5.7
While late completion of staff
appraisals has remained a recurrent
problem, the Commission notes that
difficulties in compliance are more
pronounced in ranks and grades
with the operation of Assessment
Panels (APs). The Commission
appreciates that the work of APs
has to be completed before
reviewing officers could be invited
to complete their part, all within
three months as required under the
Performance Management Guide.
The Commission has therefore
suggested to CSB to adjust the
requirement by allowing an extra
month for APs while keeping the
timetable for conducting promotion
exercises at six months from the
end date of the reporting cycle.
Having considered the matter,
CSB supported our proposal
and in November 2019 promulgated
a revised guideline to that effect.
The Commission hopes that with
more time given to the APs,
appraising officers, countersigning
officers and reviewing officers
could collaborate closer and together strive for full compliance
of timely reporting.
Performance assessment standards
5.8
Performance assessment requires
honest reporting which is fair and
objective. Over-generous appraisals
especially given to a large number of
staff will likely blur the differences
among officers’ performance and
make it very difficult for a promotion
board to identify the real performer
and justify its recommendation on
the basis of the officers’ performance
records. In the course of examining
the promotion board submissions
of a few grades during the year,
the Commission noticed that the
percentage of appraisal reports being
given an overall rating at the top
level had, as in the previous years,
remained on the high side. The
tendency of rating the performance
of a great majority of eligible officers
at the same level still persisted in
some other B/Ds. In one other
promotion exercise, the appraisals of
all eligible officers were rated at the
same level throughout the four-year
review period.
5.9
Although performance ratings
should not be taken and read
in isolation but in totality with
the detailed written assessment,
ranking the performance of all or
almost all eligible officers at the
same level will make it difficult to compare and differentiate
the relative merits of individual
officers. General comments on
an officer needing to excel in
performance without pinpointing
the weaknesses or the competencies
falling short are likewise insufficient
to satisfy the Commission
that the recommendations or
non-recommendations of a promotion
board are well-justified. On top of
inviting B/Ds concerned to review
the assessment standard and seek
adjustment of the appraisal ratings
where necessary, the Commission
had asked GMs to impress upon
all supervising officers the virtue
of candid reporting and the need
to be more critical to distinguish
officers of different abilities so that
the relevant promotion boards could
have a more solid basis to assess
individual appraisees’ suitability for
advancement. In a particular case,
we have called upon the department
to give serious consideration to the
setting up of an AP to address the
persistent problem.
Comprehensive and candid reporting
5.10
Performance appraisal is a two-way
process between the appraising
officer and the appraisee. An
appraisee needs to be made aware of
areas requiring improvement and the
appraising officer should be candid in
making assessment. For appraising
officers sitting on promotion boards to make remarks on an appraisee’s
performance not borne out in
the appraisal reports is unfair on
the appraisee. Such practice also
undermines the credibility of the
promotion board. The Commission
has therefore urged the concerned
B/Ds to guard against such pitfalls
and impress upon all appraising
officers to follow the Performance
Management Guide in completing
performance appraisal.
5.11
In examining the performance
appraisals of a probationer being
recommended for an extension of
the probationary period, the written
assessment given by the supervising
officers in five consecutive reports
were found to be almost identical.
Such practice defeats the purpose
of the performance appraisal system
and is unhelpful to the appraisee.
We have advised the department to
remind the appraising officer of the
need to give a distinctive account of
the appraisee’s actual performance
and progress made during the
different appraisal periods.
Assessment Panel
5.12
APs are set up to ensure
consistency in assessment
standards and fairness in appraisal
ratings (including ratings on
performance, core competencies and
promotability) within a rank. They
are tasked to undertake levelling and moderating work among appraisal
reports in circumstances where
there are differences in assessment
standards. B/Ds are encouraged
to establish APs in circumstances
where over-generous /stringent
assessment standards are frequently
observed and the reviewing officers
have to make comments on the
assessment standards adopted by the
appraising/countersigning officers
in the appraisal reports.
5.13
The Commission is pleased to
observe in some promotion
submissions from a department
that the APs have discharged their
functions admirably. The APs
not only gave specific and useful
recommendations on the assessment
standard but also provided the
appraising and countersigning
officers with constructive advice
for improving their writing and
presentation skills in completing
respective parts of the appraisals.
The detailed observations and
comments they made on the
appraisal reports reflected their
good understanding of the job
nature of the ranks assessed and the
standard of performance expected
of the appraisees. The GM had
also duly filed and relayed the APs’
observations/adjustments to all the
relevant parties for feedback and/or
necessary action. The Commission
commended the APs for the job
well done.
Proper use of appraisal report forms
5.14
The Commission supports the
adoption of a competency-based
approach in performance
management, as it enables an
appraising officer to assess how
far an appraisee is from meeting
the competency requirements
of the next higher rank, so that
competency gaps, if any, and
training and development needs can
be identified and addressed. It also
facilitates more precise assessment
of an appraisee’s potential and
promotability as a basis for career
posting, advancement or promotion.
Over the years, the Commission is
encouraged to see that more and
more grades have adopted the use of
a new competency-based appraisal
form. The Commission has advised
B/Ds to plan the migration from
one reporting form to another
carefully and conduct proper staff
consultation thoroughly. Otherwise,
confusion may be caused and if not
properly managed, the conduct of
promotion exercises may also be
affected as illustrated in a case the
Commission examined in the year.
In the submission, the Commission
noted that the department adopted
a competency-based appraisal
form with a new set of assessment
criteria different from the old one
used in the middle of an appraisal
cycle. It was unclear whether the new assessment criteria and their
associated rating scales were used to
cover the whole period or from when
they were adopted. The presence of
two sets of assessment criteria in the
same appraisal cycle not only made
it complicated for appraising officers,
the work of the relevant promotion
board in comparing the merits of
individual officers was rendered even
more difficult. The problem was
further exposed as appraisal reports
with different cut-off dates were
involved. While new initiatives
to enhance the performance
management system are welcomed,
the Commission has advised the
department to assess fully the
implications and implementation
details before adoption.
5.15
According to the Performance
Management Guide, if an appraisee
has taken up a long-term acting
appointment on the recommendation
of a promotion board, the appraising
officer should prepare a separate
appraisal report covering the acting
period. As a general principle, the
appraisee’s performance on each
role/responsibility/objective should
be assessed against the requirements
of the acting rank, while core
competencies and fitness for
promotion should be assessed against
that of the substantive rank in order
to facilitate the promotion board’s
consideration of his/her promotion
claim. In one case, the department was found to have incorrectly used
the appraisal form of a rank to
assess the performance of an officer
who was only acting in that rank.
In another case, the appraising
officer had used an appraisal form
for a lower rank to assess the annual
performance of an officer already
promoted to a higher rank in the
middle of the reporting cycle. In
both cases, the guidelines for
completion of performance appraisal
had not been followed. To ensure
appropriate and fair assessment,
the Commission has reminded
the concerned departments to be
vigilant in adopting the correct
report form, competency profile
and assessment standard to assess
appraisees’ performance.
Performance management of officers on probation/trial
5.16
Officers on probation or trial
should only be confirmed for
passage of probation or trial bar
when they are considered suitable in
all respects. To facilitate the proper
administration of the probation/trial system, HoDs/HoGs should
closely monitor the performance
of officers on probation or trial,
provide feedback to them on a
regular basis, and initiate necessary
actions (including coaching,
counselling, or termination of
the probation/trial service if
appropriate) as early as required. Timely completion of appraisal
reports and honest reporting on the
officers’ capability and competence
are key in determining the officers’
suitability for passage of the
probation/trial bar.
5.17
In examining a recommendation
to refuse passage of the trial bar of
an officer, the Commission noted
from the appraisal reports that
despite deficiencies being detected
very early on of the trial period,
neither the appraising officer nor the
countersigning officer had reported
them in the first trial report. No
advice/counselling was recorded to
have been given to the officer. It
was till the last month of the trial
period that the management finally
decided to take action to terminate
the trial. In another case involving
a probationer, while weaknesses
and performance deficiencies were
reported in the fourth probationary
report, the officer was only informed
by the supervisor of the need to
make improvement three months
after the end of the report period.
Subsequently, the arrangement of
calling special quarterly appraisal
reports was put in place for closer
monitoring. In both cases, the
departmental/grade management
should have taken the necessary
action earlier. The delay in taking
management actions weakens the
effectiveness of the performance
management system and risks undermining the appropriateness
of the management actions.
The Commission has urged the
departmental/grade management to
take prompt management actions
whenever an officer had shown signs
of deterioration in performance or
whose performance was persistently
substandard. In addition, interviews
and advice given to an officer on
specific areas for improvement
should also be properly and clearly
documented to facilitate subsequent
follow-up actions.
Staff Development and Succession Planning
5.18
Staff development is an integral part
of HRM. The Commission
advocates a holistic approach in
drawing up staff development plans
that encompasses a structured career
posting policy and a systematic
training plan for staff at different levels. A robust staff development
plan could help enhance staff ’s
capacity, prepare them for a wider
range of responsibilities and build
up a pool of talents for smooth
succession. The Commission
considers that the GMs should
regularly review the training and
development needs of their grade
members and equip them with
skill-sets that can meet changing
service needs and new challenges.
5.19
During the year, the Commission is
pleased to note that the GM of a
grade has taken on board our advice
to formulate a career development
plan including posting arrangements
to broaden the knowledge and
exposure of members of the grade.
The Commission commends the
GM for the positive response and
has encouraged the GM to continue
its efforts in finalising the career
development plan.