Performance Management and Staff Development

Maintaining a high quality civil service is key to good governance and a progressive and motivated workforce pivotal to effective service delivery. The Commission supports the Government’s human resource management strategy in staff development and through them achieving the organisational goals.

The Civil Service performance management system seeks to maximize staff’s performance and development potential. A good performance management system should facilitate an objective and fair assessment by management and enable staff to receive frank and constructive feedback. It is also a management tool used to identify staff training needs. It is thus fitting for the Commission to provide comments to HoDs and GMs on aspects of the staff appraisal process including the appraisal form itself to facilitate their work. For the sake of consistency, objectivity and comparability, rating scales are pre-determined for assessment with clear definitions adopted for each. The ratings should enable the appraising officer to indicate clearly whether the appraisee’s performance has met, exceeded or fallen short of the performance norm. The same consideration applies to assessment scales for promotability. The rating should be consistent and when read together would provide a good basis for promotion boards to evaluate the promotability of an officer. Arising from some cases in the year where inconsistency in rating was noted, we have invited the Civil Service Training and Development Institute (CSTDI) to collaborate with five departments to review the design of and rating scales in the appraisal report forms. Training programmes were arranged for two other departments to help supervising officers and departmental management strengthen their performance management skills. Noting that officers at different ranks are appointed as grade managers in their professional or technical grades, the Commission has also asked CSTDI to formulate custom-made human resources training programmes to develop their expertise in the performance of their special roles. The Commission is pleased to note that the first seminar targeted at departmental grade managers was conducted in January 2021, where good practices of human resource management were shared. CSTDI has undertaken to continue to organise such seminars.

In parallel, CSTDI has continued to conduct performance management workshops on an on-going basis in 2020 and, adapting to the social distancing measures required, with some turned into webinars. As noted, CSTDI had organised over 20 training courses and launched two online learning platforms for various levels of officers to acquire or refresh their knowledge on performance management principles and performance appraisal writing skills. In addition, some 22 customised training/briefing sessions on performance management and 35 performance appraisal writing workshops in English and Chinese were organised for 23 B/Ds.

The Commission will continue to identify areas that call for improvement as they come to our attention. Some noteworthy observations and advice we have tendered are set out in the ensuing paragraphs.

Performance management is an integral part of a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) strategy and serves as the basis for HRM decisions. It is a formal and two-way process requiring supervisors to closely monitor their subordinates’ performance and provide them with timely and constructive feedback. Thus, the performance appraisal system has to be adhered to closely in staff management. 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 timely completed. Late reporting compromises the legitimacy of warranted management actions and undermines the credibility of the whole performance management system. 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.

In 2020, because of the implementation of work-from-home arrangements, we have seen more reports which were completed late. Nevertheless, a majority could still be completed within the target completion time of three months from the end of the respective appraisal cycles. At the initiation of the Commission, CSB had promulgated new guidelines to allow an extra month for completion for ranks with the operation of assessment panels (APs). As observed, there was general improvement in the problem of late reporting for these ranks.

In a department, we noted the arrangement of an “Initialling Officer” (usually the division/section heads of the appraisees) being requested to comment on the performance of each and every grade member before the appraisal reports were passed to the APs for moderation. Such arrangement departs from the established three-tier structure stipulated in the Performance Management (PM) Guide (viz. the appraising officer, the countersigning officer and the reviewing officer) and as a result, lengthens the whole appraisal process. As the role of the Initialling Officer is unclear and unnecessary, the Commission has advised the concerned department to rectify the anomaly.

Performance assessment requires frank and explicit 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 recommendations on the basis of the officers’ performance records. Ranking the performance of all or almost all officers at the same level is just as undesirable for the same reason. While it is encouraging to note the success of a department in addressing this perennial problem and gradually reducing the number of top-rated reports over the years having regard to the Commission’s advice, the problem has persisted in some other B/Ds. We have advised them that extra efforts are needed to impress upon supervising officers the virtue of candid reporting. Senior management can also play their due part to adjust the appraisal ratings as necessary.

In a few ranks with a relatively high percentage of top ratings without the establishment of APs, the reviewing officers can play a significant role. With their intimate knowledge of the responsibilities and job requirements of the rank, they are well-placed to set and maintain a performance standard against which the individual performance of an officer is measured and assessed. It is incumbent on them to adjust any unjustified rating. They should also inform the supervising officers of the adjustments made and advise them of the appropriate assessment standard to be adopted. In a promotion submission, the Commission noted that the reviewing officer, when faced with two different and seemingly opposite assessments on an appraisee, had made a perplexing remark that both were agreed. Such ambivalent assessment is unhelpful and reflects a total lack of understanding of the role of a reviewing officer. We have asked the HoD to appropriately advise the reviewing officer concerned.

In a number of promotion exercises conducted last year, the Commission observed some inconsistencies in the assessment of promotability of eligible officers given by their supervisors, the APs and/or the reviewing officers. We are not sure whether the different ratings given are due to the descriptions of the rating scale being not clearly defined or that there should be one or more tiers to be added to the scale. In either case, there is a need to take a closer look by the HoD or HoG so that inconsistency could be eradicated. In the meantime, we have asked these departments to advise the APs and/or reviewing officers to adjust the appraisal ratings if justified and review the assessment standard as necessary.

In another case, the Commission noted from the appraisal form adopted by a department that the performance of officers acting for less than six months was assessed against the acting rank whereas those acting for six months or more were measured against the substantive rank. In our view, the adoption of assessment standards solely based on the length of the acting period is arbitrary, confusing and the rationale unclear. The concerned department admitted that the ambiguities were caused by the design of the new appraisal form. To ensure proper and fair assessment, we urge B/Ds to be vigilant when introducing new features to their appraisal system. For the present case, the Commission has asked the department to rectify the anomaly in consultation with CSTDI.

Performance appraisal is a two-way process between the appraising officers and the appraisees. An appraisee needs to be made aware of areas requiring improvement and the appraising officer should be candid in making assessment. Apart from timeliness, objective and comprehensive reporting are equally important to allow the appraisees to get frank and constructive feedback promptly for improvement and development. However, time and again, the Commission has observed the tendency of some supervising officers repeating the same assessment or making largely identical written assessments on the same officer. During the year, the Commission noted that in two cases, different supervising officers had made almost identical written assessments on the same probationer in a series of appraisal reports. Such practices negate the very purpose of the performance appraisal system and reflect the inadequacies of the supervising officers concerned. The identical assessment fails to give a distinctive account of an appraisee’s overall performance, strengths and weaknesses during the specified appraisal period. The Commission has requested the relevant departments to remind the concerned supervising officers of the pitfalls and to arrange appropriate refresher training to them.

APs are set up to ensure consistency in assessment standards and fairness in appraisal ratings within a rank. They are tasked to undertake levelling and modulating 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. Once established, the APs should exercise due diligence in performing their role properly according to the PM Guide.

During the year, the Commission was glad to note that APs have largely been run smoothly and effectively. The APs in one department had taken heed of the Commission’s previous advice by making actual adjustments to performance ratings of the appraisal reports with remarks clearly recorded to explain the adjustments. In some other cases however, we have found that the adjustments made by the APs had not been properly recorded. AP’s comments should also be filed in the appraisees’ staff report files which has not been done in a case of another department.

Another case concerning the AP assessment standard was found in a department’s promotion exercise. With clearly substantiated evidence of failure in following the departmental guidelines in carrying out the assigned duties, the promotion board had found the concerned officer unfit to continue to perform the higher rank duties and therefore ceased the officer’s acting appointment. Being aware of the incident, the AP should have adjusted the performance rating to indicate that the officer’s standard of performance was way below the expected standard of the rank. The Commission has advised the department to review the assessment standard adopted by the AP and ensure its proper operation before launching the next promotion exercise. In another case, the AP did not make adjustment to the appraisal ratings despite knowledge of the officer’s inadequacies because the officer’s post was a new and non-mainstream one. Clear guidelines are provided in the PM Guide for an AP to discharge its moderation work based on the appraisal assessment standard and panel members’ knowledge about the work requirements for the rank. The Commission has advised the concerned department to remind the AP of its role. If in doubt, the AP should seek advice from the HoG or HoD.

While line managers are best placed to observe and assess the performance of their subordinates, the GM has an important role to play in overseeing the management and development of the grade as a whole. For grades with a large number of members being deployed to different B/Ds, the demand on GM to proactively liaise and coordinate actions with the departmental management, though challenging, cannot be overemphaized.

Equipping GMs with the knowledge and expertise to exercise their grade management functions is essential. The Commission has therefore requested CSTDI to conduct specific training for GMs. Conducting periodic career interviews enables GMs to understand the development needs of their grade members. Where management actions have to be taken to tackle non-performing staff, resolute decisions of the GM are required. In a case of termination, the Commission is pleased to note the proactive action of a GM in steering and working with a user department. In another case, the GM took early action to interview the officer when signs of deterioration in his/her performance were detected. The officer concerned was clearly notified and left in no doubt that improvements in the identified areas were required and expected. Forewarning was also given on possible termination. However, no improvement was observed despite the provision of intensified coaching. With a solid basis for management action, the GM was satisfied that the officer was unsuitable for continuous appointment and his/her service should be terminated. In both cases, early intervention of the respective GMs had proved to be pivotal in the prompt and resolute actions taken. With detailed consideration and action properly documented, the termination of service of the officers concerned was well justified. The Commission has conveyed our appreciation to the GMs and by including these two cases in this report, we hope they could serve as good examples for others.

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 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.

While FE could be a stop-gap measure to deal with temporary manpower shortage, it should not be taken as a convenient way or measure to address succession problems. In the case of one department, it had to resort to FE for two consecutive years after failing to recruit sufficient officers to fill the vacancies through open recruitment or in-service appointment. The Commission has impressed upon the department to review its recruitment strategies and explore measures to attract suitable talents. In another department where succession problem in a grade was particularly acute, the Commission was sympathetic and had supported FE applications flexibly to tide over the manpower gap. We have urged the relevant policy bureau and CSB to consider in justified cases initiating grade structure reviews to enhance the competitiveness of the Civil Service grades. Providing junior officers with training opportunities and giving officers with potential an early opportunity to try out for greater responsibilities should also be pursued as part of succession planning.