Performance Management and Staff Development

Management of staff performance and development of staff potential are key to maintaining a high quality Civil Service for effective service delivery. The Civil Service performance management system seeks to maximise staff’s performance and development potential. It is also an important management tool used to identify staff training needs.

The development of a responsible and efficient civil service cannot do without a robust performance management system. With the key principle of fair and objective assessment embodied in the performance appraisal system, supervisors at all levels have the duty to set appraisal standards and monitor the performance of their staff. It is also their responsibility to carry out comprehensive and timely appraisals. As appraisal reports are submitted together with recommendations for promotions for our scrutiny, the Commission has the regular opportunity to review how far and well the performance appraisal system is carried out. While we would direct specific comments and advice to the B/Ds concerned, we had also tendered suggestions to CSB and the former Civil Service Training and Development Institute (CSTDI) to review and explore new measures to bolster the functions and purpose of the system.

As reported in the 2020 Annual Report, the former CSTDI had acted on the Commission’s advice and collaborated with five departments to review the design of and rating scales in the appraisal report forms to reflect and better suit the needs of the grades concerned. Last year, four more departments had joined hands with CSTDI to revamp their appraisal forms. The revised rating scales they have adopted are now more clearly defined and should enable appraising officers (AOs) to assess and distinguish the performance of different officers. Customised training sessions were arranged for 19 departments with the focus of helping supervising officers to strengthen their performance management skills. Two tailor-made training programmes were also conducted specifically for departmental grade managers with the emphasis on enhancing their communication and man-management skills.

Managing performance is an on-going concern and a prime management business at all levels. As noted, some 190 training courses on performance management principles and performance appraisal writing skills were conducted for some 4 600 staff. About 20 such courses were conducted as webinars in view of the need to maintain social distancing during the epidemic. In addition to the launch of two online learning platforms in 2020, one new platform was introduced in November 2021 to facilitate various levels of officers to acquire or refresh their knowledge on performance management related matters. The Commission is pleased to note the positive feedback from participants who had found the courses relevant and useful.

The Commission will continue to identify areas that call for improvement as they come to our attention. Some noteworthy observations and advice we tendered in 2021 are set out in the ensuing paragraphs.

To put the performance management system into effective use, AOs have to make candid and independent assessment based on facts and objective observations. In a promotion exercise, while an officer was accorded with a top rating on overall performance after a relatively long acting period, the board was not satisfied that the officer had possessed the qualities and competencies of the higher rank and that the officer needed to be further tested. Such assessment was in great contrast with the very positive comments the AO had made on the officer’s performance. It was only in the response to our enquiry that the department had explained clearly that the AO, being a member of another grade, had in fact little knowledge of the core responsibilities and the competencies required of the grade and rank. The AO’s assessment was largely based on the officer’s performance in handling the daily and routine duties in a non-mainstream job setting without sufficient communication with the GM. The Commission accepts that the GM has to set a uniform performance standard to assess all members of the grade. Given the fact that its grade members may be posted to work in different B/Ds, the grade manager has to ensure that the supervisors of these officers are well aware of the requirements of the rank. As staff deployment of similar nature is not uncommon in the Civil Service, the Commission would like to call upon all grade managers to take reference from this case and establish an appropriate way to ensure proper performance appraisal on their grade members regardless of whether they are under the GM’s direct supervision or working under a supervisor from a different grade.

In scrutinising another recommendation involving the cessation of an officer’s AFAC appointment, the Commission had found inconsistency between the performance ratings and the adverse narrative comments given by the reporting officers in the appraisal reports. It was only upon the provision of further elaborations on the officer’s acting performance by the board that the Commission was convinced of the board’s recommendation. The Commission had asked the concerned department to brief the relevant AO and countersigning officer (CO) and remind them to follow the assessment standards in assessing the acting performance of the officer. The reviewing officer (RO) had also a part to play in monitoring and maintaining an across-the-board assessment yardstick. Where necessary, adjustments should be made and fed back to the reporting officers.

Good quality appraisal reports serve not only as a main reference for promotion boards, they are the basis lending support to the boards’ recommendations. The Commission was impressed by the assessment work done across a rank in one department. All the appraisal reports were duly completed with cogent and well-written narratives provided by the AOs and COs. The performance ratings were substantiated with evidence in support. The Commission has recorded our appreciation and commended the good work of the officers concerned.

HoDs/HoGs have the overall responsibility to ensure the effective management of the staff/grades under their purview and to take early action to deal with sub-standard performers especially when the performance was affected by special health conditions. Managers charged with supervisory responsibilities should monitor staff interface at a workplace and tackle conflicts proactively. Taking disciplinary action is not the only means to correct the behaviour or misconduct of a staff. Supervisors should look into the root cause and identify an appropriate course of action to help the officer concerned. In the year, a department recommended taking formal disciplinary action against an officer who was found to have repeatedly broken and caused damage to the property of the office. While the act itself was criminal in nature and unacceptable at the surface, there was a deeper cause related to the officer’s special health conditions which the management had overlooked. After investigation, the department concerned agreed with the Commission that there were strong mitigating grounds not to hold the officer concerned totally responsible for his damaging acts. No punishment was meted out after careful consideration. We had urged the HoG to enhance the personnel management skills of frontline supervisors and advise them to alert their seniors of anything untoward that warrants early intervention by the management.

On review of the officer’s past appraisals in the above case, the Commission noted that the concerned officer had consistently been given satisfactory performance ratings with no mention of the officer being put on light duties due to special health reasons for several years. The supervisor had failed to give an accurate account of the extent to which the officer had achieved the job requirement and had not presented a full and true picture of the officer’s competence and performance. The officer was left not knowing his deficiencies let alone given guidance to make improvement. The Commission had advised the department to remind not only the supervisor concerned but to arrange training for all supervising officers to improve their staff management and appraisal writing skills.

Under CSR 236(2), when staff changes take place, a report in memo form should be completed by or for an officer before he vacates his post if the posting occurs three to six months after the previous report; and a full report should be made if the period since the last report is more than six months. In a selection exercise, we had found a full annual report having been written on the appraisee who had only worked under the AO’s supervision briefly for a few months. There was no indication that any former supervisors had been consulted nor a separate report had been called to cover the earlier performance as required. Separately, paragraph 2.1.7 of the Performance Management Guide provides that for an appraisee who has more than one AO during a reporting year, at least one of the appraisal reports should be completed in a full report form to facilitate a thorough assessment on his performance, competencies and potential. As observed in a promotion exercise, several appraisal reports were found to have been completed by different AOs during a reporting year but all were in memo form. The Commission had reminded the concerned departments to remind AOs and their supporting administrative staff to refresh their knowledge and understanding of the relevant guidelines in arranging the completion of staff appraisals.

To ensure proper administration of the performance management system, HoDs/HoGs should closely monitor the officers’ conduct and performance, provide feedback to them on a regular basis and initiate necessary actions (e.g. issue of advisory letter, institution of summary or formal disciplinary punishment, termination of service, etc.) as early as required. On those officers having taken up long-term acting appointments as recommended by promotion boards, the management should be particularly critical in assessing their acting performance. While they should be allowed sufficient opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities at the higher rank, their supervisors have the duty of coaching and guiding them to meet the required standards and, when weaknesses or areas requiring strengthening are identified, the management should advise them clearly and promptly so that the officers will not be left in doubt. Proper documentation should be kept to enable the management to take appropriate management actions and in planning the officers’ development needs.

During the year, upon examination of the recommendation of a promotion board for ceasing the AFAC appointment of an officer, the Commission observed that the advice claimed to have been given on the officer’s weaknesses had not been recorded properly and in detail despite sound justifications had been provided in the board report in support of the recommendation. Incomplete documentation runs the risk of being challenged by the staff concerned and is not conducive to staff development. The Commission had advised the concerned department to take appropriate follow-up actions and career counselled the officer concerned. In comparison, the Commission was glad to note that another department could properly document the series of management actions taken on a probationer who had a record of sub-standard performance. As observed, as soon as early signs of inadequacies surfaced, prompt action was taken by the supervisors to steer the officer to make improvement. In addition to verbal guidance and counselling, the officer was advised in writing pinpointing areas requiring improvement. Special appraisal reports at shorter intervals and performance interviews were conducted with stoppage of increment to underscore the management’s dissatisfaction with the officer’s performance. With the incremental and comprehensive management actions taken, the case for requiring the officer to serve a longer probationary period was solidly made. The Commission had conveyed our appreciation to the department concerned.

Assessment Panels (APs) are set up to ensure consistency in assessment standards and fairness in appraisal ratings within a rank. According to the Performance Management Guide, APs should undertake levelling and moderating work among appraisal reports in circumstances where there are differences in assessment standards. APs should also provide specific comments on the adjustments made to the original assessment ratings. Comments on individual appraisals should be properly documented with a copy placed in the appraisee’s staff report file.

In 2021, the Commission is delighted to note that APs had generally operated effectively and smoothly. In some cases, the Commission would like to see APs taking the necessary step of making actual adjustments and not just recording a sheer comment that a given rating was over-rated. In a few cases, the CO/RO had made adjustments to the ratings made by the AO without reasons provided. In our view, a brief account for the adjustment could be offered to help the management understand the rationale behind the difference in assessment. The concerned department had responded positively to our suggestion and undertook to implement measures to strengthen the operations of the AP.

To support and complete the functions of APs, it is imperative for management to take timely and appropriate follow-up actions on the observations and recommendations made by APs. While an AP of a department had conscientiously given its assessment and recommended that clarifications should be sought from the relevant reporting officers, the Commission was concerned that the AP’s recommendation had not been acted on and followed up. The Commission considered it unsatisfactory as the observations made by the AP might have a bearing on performance assessment given in the appraisal reports. While the department had responded to our specific enquiries on the candidates, we had advised the department to bolster the functions of APs as a vehicle to ensure that individual performance assessment by AOs were in full accord with the standards set for the rank.

The Commission has been advocating a holistic approach to staff development that encompasses a structured career posting policy and a systematic training plan for staff at all levels. A robust staff development plan could help enhance staff’s competencies, prepare them for a wider spectrum of responsibilities and build up a pool of talents for smooth succession. In the process, GMs have the duty to see to it that staff are posted for career development as well as for gaining exposure and experience.

During the year, the Commission noted that some officers in B/Ds had stayed in the same posts for a long period of time. While service exigencies and operational needs are often the cause, the Commission believes that more could be done by GMs. In some cases, it was the staff themselves who were reluctant to accept a new posting. As posting is a management prerogative, the Commission considers that GMs should review cases where the officers have expressed a preference to stay in a particular job despite having been in the post for an inordinate length of time. While GMs should maintain dialogues with grade members to understand their aspirations, the management prerogative of directing postings to serve operational and service needs should not be compromised. GMs should impress the officers concerned of the benefits of career postings and motivate them to widen their exposure and enhance their competitiveness for advancement.