Performance Management and Staff Development

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.