Promotion

Promotion is a well-established mechanism for filling vacancies at the higher ranks in the Civil Service. It also provides opportunities for civil servants to develop their career and make advancement. Promotion in the Civil Service is premised on the principles of meritocracy and fair competition. The selection process is based on the objective criteria of ability, experience, performance, character and prescribed qualifications, if any. Promotion has to be earned and is not an entitlement nor a reward for long service. It is a recognition given to deserving officers who have demonstrated their capability and suitability in all respects for assuming the more demanding responsibilities at the higher ranks. Needless to say, the selection process has to be conducted properly and objectively and that the fair claims of all eligible officers are duly and fully considered.

Maintaining a credible and equitable promotion system is crucial to the attraction and retention of talents in the Civil Service. The Commission advises and assists the Government to ensure that only those best suited to the job are promoted through a transparent and fair selection process. The Commission Secretariat is bound by the PSCO in its work and has to follow the rules and standards set by the Commission. In scrutinizing each and every recommendation for promotion, the Commission needs to be satisfied that the promotion exercise has been properly conducted, and that all applicable CSRs and guidelines have been complied with. To uphold the integrity of the promotion system, the Commission has suggested to CSB to require the availability of completed performance appraisal reports on all eligible candidates before the conduct of promotion boards. In the past year, the Commission is encouraged by the continued and generally high level of compliance by B/Ds. In a number of cases where slight anomalies were spotted, we have conveyed our advice and suggestions to the B/Ds concerned. In this Chapter, we have included them and some other noteworthy ones for general reference and in particular for officers responsible for promotion matters and/or sitting on the promotion board to take note.

Promotion/selection boards should normally be convened within six months from the end date of the last appraisal cycle on completion of the annual performance appraisals. In face of the on-set of the fifth wave of COVID-19 pandemic requiring the implementation of various anti-epidemic measures affecting the community and the Civil Service alike, the Commission had agreed with CSB to provide some flexibility for B/Ds to schedule or re-schedule planned promotion exercises. While the work-from-home arrangements had posed constraints to the conduct of promotion board meetings, the Commission is pleased to note that with the aid of computer technology and the secure arrangement of virtual meetings, no promotion exercise had to be aborted and work on all promotion exercises were carried out as planned.

To realize the potential of capable and suitable officers to take up higher responsibilities, B/Ds are encouraged to utilize all available openings and promotable vacancies to promote deserving officers at the earliest opportunity. All eligible officers at the lower rank should be considered irrespective of the terms of their appointment. If a vacancy cannot be used for substantive promotion, a selection exercise should be held to identify a suitable officer to fill the vacancy by acting appointment. This also applies to time-limited vacancies and others likely to last over six months. Permanent vacancies arising in the first six months of the next appraisal cycle should also be included. Counting of vacancies has to be done accurately lest it should run the risk of over-establishment. In examining the recommendations of promotion exercises conducted in 2022, we found two Departments to have omitted conducting selection exercises in the previous year despite the availability of vacancies arising from the retirement of the incumbents which could be used for acting. The explanation given by one of the Departments was that the selection exercise could be deferred as the anticipated vacancy would arise very close to the end of the six-month period. In the other case, the management of the Department decided not to conduct a selection exercise as it took the view that some eligible officers’ short in-rank experience would render them unsuitable for advancement. The Commission has advised the Departments to bear in mind that whether and which officers would be selected for advancement is a matter for the selection/promotion boards to deliberate and the management should follow the Guidebook and have suitable officers selected in time to fill the vacancies as they arise. This will also serve to facilitate planning on staff succession and early identification of any officers with potential for trying out.

Apart from general compliance, the Commission also attaches importance to the quality of promotion board reports. In coming across submissions which stand out and can serve as examples, the Commission will, as a measure of encouragement, give recognition to the B/Ds concerned for the good work done. Common to all good quality reports, we have found the deliberations on the claims of candidates detailed clearly with reference to the assessment given in the appraisal reports. Comparison of the relative merits of close contenders was clear, thorough and well-supported with elaborations.

Although promotion boards are facilitated with access to the appraisal reports of all eligible candidates during their deliberations, summaries of performance prepared by board secretaries on each candidate can serve as handy reference. They should thus be prepared meticulously and faithfully capturing the officers’ performance in the immediate past three years. Among the 746 promotion board reports we examined in 2022, we have noted some pitfalls in the summaries of performance for illustration. Some summaries of performance were too brief and general while others were copied word-for-word from appraisal reports. Inadequacies that might have hampered the advancement of candidates were either not reported or left out. The Commission was thus pleased to see the report of a promotion board providing succinct summaries of performance covering both the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. The Commission was also encouraged by the marked improvement in the quality of the promotion board reports submitted by a number of Departments reflecting well their responsiveness to the advice we have tendered to them previously. We have forwarded some typical cases to CSB for incorporation as training materials and were advised that they had been used for experience sharing at training workshops.

The foremost task of a promotion/selection board before proceeding is to ascertain the total number of vacancies and determine whether they could be used for substantive promotion or long-term acting appointment in accordance with the governing principles laid down in paragraph 3.5(a) of the Guidebook. As advocated over the years by the Commission, it is incumbent upon the management of B/Ds to seek prior policy approval for the conduct of the promotion exercise and to accurately report the number of vacancies to be filled. Miscalculation or under-counting is not conducive to meeting service and operational needs nor is it in the interest of staff development.

Last year, one Department was found to have failed to seek the approval from the policy Bureau to fill a promotable vacancy arising from an officer’s resignation before the conduct of the board. Another Department had, due to oversight, omitted an existing acting vacancy consequential to an opening at the higher rank. Two other Departments had under-calculated the number of vacancies available for long-term acting appointment. In the end, with corrections timely made, no adverse impact was caused to the recommendations of the promotion exercises. Nonetheless, it is imperative for both the management and personnel charged with the responsibility to acquaint themselves fully with the guidelines in counting vacancies for promotion and/or acting.

According to paragraph 3.21 of the Guidebook, where the pool of eligible candidates in a promotion exercise is large, a promotion board may devise shortlisting criteria relevant to the performance of duties in the promotion rank to reduce the number of eligible candidates to a more manageable size. It also enables the board to focus its deliberations and expedite the proceeding of the promotion board to achieve administrative efficiency. Observing consistency with previously adopted shortlisting criteria aside, the Commission has advised promotion boards to be prudent and critical in devising them to avoid using an artificial ratio of the number of vacancies vis-à-vis the size of the pool of candidates as a consideration. Also, promotion boards have to be mindful not to exclude exceptionally meritorious candidates who meet the eligibility criteria but not the shortlisting criteria. Rather, promotion boards should review the need for shortlisting afresh in each exercise after regard to all relevant factors, not least the need to allow reasonable competition to select the best suited.

In earlier years, we had advised some promotion boards to refrain from using overall performance ratings to shortlist candidates for detailed examination. In the first place, the ability of a candidate as reflected in the performance appraisal report is already a well-established selection criterion stipulated in the CSRs. It follows that regardless of the rating given, it has to be given serious consideration by the promotion board. Second, assessment of a candidate’s ability and suitability for advancement should not be based solely on a single rating as the rating has to be read in totality with the evaluative comments provided in the appraisal report. Third, predetermining a rating level for advancement might distort fair and objective appraisal and bring pressure on AOs when making the assessment. In 2022, we still observed such usage by some promotion boards although they were fully aware and mindful not to leave out the non-shortlisted but exceptional ones. In view of such recurrences, we have written to the concerned Departments to remind them again of the Commission’s views above.

To prepare for the conduct of promotion boards, board secretaries are responsible for compiling a list of eligible candidates as well as providing their appointment details, staff report files and summaries of performance for the board’s scrutiny. Such data and information are crucial in facilitating the work of promotion boards and have to be accurate and up-to-date. On our part, the Commission has tasked the Commission Secretariat to cross-check and seek clarification if in doubt. The time and efforts so spent had proven to be necessary as illustrated in the following cases. In one case, although an officer had already been confirmed to the higher rank after completing his acting appointment with a view to substantive promotion, he was still listed as an eligible candidate in the 2022 promotion exercise. A manual error was spotted in another case where the promotability rating in respect of a candidate was wrongly inputted in the board report. In some other cases, errors such as wrong age, performance ratings, appointment terms and retirement schemes of candidates were spotted in the board reports of the related promotion exercises. These were human errors made out of sheer carelessness. However mundane or trivial, sloppy work does not sit well with the professionalism expected of staff assigned with the task. They are embarrassing or may undermine the credibility of the promotion boards. Subsequent to the Commission Secretariat’s queries, the errors were rectified and in the end the Commission was able to lend support to the recommendations made by the boards after receiving and considering their explanations and elaborations. Obviously, the extra time taken could have been saved. The Commission has reminded the Departments concerned to be more vigilant in ensuring the accuracy of all data and information provided to the boards and to the Commission to uphold the propriety of promotion exercises.

As set out in paragraphs 3.27 and 3.30 of the Guidebook, a promotion board should base its deliberations primarily on the track records of officers as portrayed in their appraisal reports. While hearsay or unsubstantiated comments should not be given any weight, it is not uncommon to see some board members who have personal knowledge of the candidates supplement and offer views on the candidates during the board deliberations. Such supplementary information is acceptable provided it is clear to the board that they do not override the appraisal reports which are transparent to the appraisees.

Last year, the Commission noted from several promotion board reports that certain comments made about the inadequacies of some candidates were not borne out in the appraisal reports. The Commission was concerned about the credibility of the performance management system and had requested the management to conduct post-promotion interviews to provide feedback and clear advice to the officers concerned so that they were made aware and could work to improve. In our view, the shortcomings of an officer, if any, should have been captured in the appraisal reports. The relevant supervisory officers should thus be reminded to be candid and comprehensive in appraisal writing to truly reflect and fully apprise the boards of the performance of their subordinates. Where necessary, the boards should seek clarifications with the relevant appraising or countersigning officers to clear any doubts with a view to making an informed decision.

It is a stipulated rule that promotion should not take effect anytime earlier than when an officer is considered suitable for promotion in all respects, including integrity and conduct. The final decision on which candidates should be promoted is vested in the AA. In considering the promotability of an officer who is recommended by the promotion board for promotion or acting appointment but is subject to on-going investigation of a complaint/disciplinary/criminal case, the AA should carefully balance the need to be fair to the concerned officer and the need to uphold the integrity of the Civil Service before making the final decision. There are stipulated guidelines promulgated by CSB for B/Ds to observe in handling promotion exercises involving officers with on-going complaint/disciplinary/criminal cases.

In processing one promotion submission, the board report only showed a remark against an officer recommended for substantive promotion to the effect that an investigation into a complaint was being undertaken. There was no indication of whether the AA had reviewed the recommended promotion. It was only upon the Commission Secretariat’s query that it was then done. The AA ultimately decided not to implement the board’s recommendation in respect of the officer under complaint. The Commission has reminded the Department concerned to be vigilant in processing promotion submissions and follow closely the CSB guideline. As a rule, promotion boards are not apprised of complaints against a candidate nor the investigation actions being undertaken. This is so that promotion boards can assess the performance and promotion claims of all eligible officers objectively without prejudice. However, by the time the promotion board report is submitted, the Commission will expect to be informed of any complaint and a clear decision by the AA on whether the board’s recommendation is accepted or set aside pending the outcome of the investigation.