Performance Management and Staff Development

In any organisation, talent development is a propelling engine for corporate growth and performance management a quality assurance tool for sustainability. Managing staff performance is an on-going concern and particularly so in the Civil Service as public interest and accountability are at stake. With the Civil Service being the backbone of the Government in implementing government policies and providing services to the public, an effective performance management system is all the more important in the present day in creating an impetus for the fleet to move with the times and strive for continuous improvement in governance and public service delivered.

To implement a robust performance management system effectively, departmental and grade managements have the duty to set appropriate appraisal standards for fair, objective and comprehensive assessment of their staff. It is also the responsibility of supervising officers at all levels to carry out timely appraisals according to the set standards and monitor staff performance closely. In scrutinizing B/Ds’ promotion submissions accompanied by the candidates’ appraisal reports, the Commission has the regular opportunity to observe how well the performance appraisal system is run and whether there is scope for further improvement. With greater emphasis being placed on staff training, we have suggested to CSB to review whether staff found to be deficient in managing their subordinates and in appraising their performance should be mandated to attend specific training courses designed for these purposes.

As an integral part of managing performance, the Commission has also suggested some Departments to review outdated performance appraisal forms and better define the descriptions of the performance ratings to facilitate fair and objective assessment by the AOs. Last year, five Departments had revised the promotability rating scale in their performance appraisal forms, while seven more Departments were reviewing the design of or rating scales in the appraisal report forms to better reflect the nature and requirements of the duties concerned.

In 2022, the Civil Service College conducted some 160 training courses on performance management principles and performance appraisal writing skills for some 6 600 officers. Of these, 48 were customized training/briefing sessions arranged for 21 Departments with the focus of helping supervising officers to strengthen their performance management skills. More than 50 of the courses were conducted as webinars in view of the need to maintain social distancing during the epidemic while the effectiveness in interacting with participants was retained. The content of online learning resources launched in 2020 and 2021 was enriched continuously. Moreover, a training course first introduced in 2021 to facilitate various grade managers to acquire or refresh their performance management knowledge was conducted again in 2022 as an on-going endeavour. The training courses targetting at grade managers are in accord with the advice the Commission has given, and we are pleased to receive feedback that they are found to be useful and well-received.

The Commission has continued to provide feedback to B/Ds on areas identified to have room for improvement as they come to our attention. Some noteworthy observations and advice we tendered in 2022 are set out in the ensuing paragraphs.

Performance management is an on-going process requiring comprehensive reporting on appraisees’ performance and potential to support effective staff development and selection of the most deserving officers for advancement. In this connection, requirements were laid down in CSR 236 to ensure that all appraisees are duly appraised throughout a reporting cycle amid staff changes¹². However, in scrutinizing a Department’s promotion submissions, the Commission noted that the previous supervisor had not written a report on an officer’s performance as required before the officer’s transfer to take up an acting appointment while the new supervisor had only covered the officer’s acting performance in writing his report, thus leaving a gap of over five months not assessed in the latest reporting cycle. In another grade of the same Department, no reports were written on two officers before the departure of their former supervisors whose views were eventually consulted when the successors tried to cover the gap period of over six months when completing the annual reports. The absence of assessment for a prolonged period is not conducive to comprehensive performance appraisal. While the related promotion boards were able ultimately to make a considered judgement on the advancement claims of the respective officers by comparing their track records and latest performance as supplemented by the personal knowledge of board members, such gaps in report writing had added difficulty to the boards’ deliberations. Given the recurrence of similar problems, the Commission had advised the Department to take appropriate steps to review its practice and requirements on AOs to complete appraisal reports before leaving their posts.

Staff reporting is vital and instrumental to effective performance management as a means to provide feedback and direction to appraisees for continuous improvement and development. By gauging staff achievement and development at different stages and identifying their strengths, weaknesses and potential, it also serves as a basis for selecting suitable officers to take up different jobs. Unfortunately, many supervising officers are not sufficiently trained with the report writing skills, and in some cases, almost identical ratings and written assessment were given to an appraisee over different periods of time. We have heard arguments that with no changes in the appraisee’s principal duties in the past year, the AOs have little new comments to make. The Commission considers that aside from general comments, AOs could cite examples and include evidence of the extent to which the appraisee had carried out the assigned tasks to support the assessment. The appraisee’s character and motivation and whether he/she could engender team work are also key aspects not to be overlooked. It follows that the more senior the positions, the more is required to substantiate a given assessment. Without a distinctive account of the appraisee’s performance, it will make it difficult to justify a recommendation for advancement. In one appraisal report, an officer’s overall performance was rated to have progressed from “Very effective” to “Outstanding” but the narrative was exactly the same as that given in the last two reporting cycles. There was no elaboration on what led to the top rating and in what way the officer had progressed. The Commission was especially disappointed to find in another case that the same AO whom we had asked the concerned HoG to follow up had continued to make largely identical narratives in two officers’ reports last year.

HoDs / HoGs have the overall responsibility to set appraisal standards and apply them consistently in making, countersigning or reviewing performance assessment as given in the appraisal reports. The three-tier appraisal system places responsibilities on the Countersigning Officers (COs) and Reviewing Officers (ROs) to make candid and independent assessment based on facts. The Commission therefore naturally expects that they would exercise their judgement to make adjustments when they come across over- or under-assessed appraisals and, as required under the Performance Management Guide, state the reasons for making the adjustment and have them conveyed to the AOs and appraisees. Only in this way could the management deliver the mandate of fair and objective reporting on staff performance. The promotion boards could then have a solid basis to assess the relative merits of all eligible candidates and select the best and the most suitable for promotion adding credibility to the Civil Service promotion system.

As observed over the past years, over-generous reporting remains and continues to be a concern to the Commission. Very often, we have found high incidence rates of top-tier overall rating in various grades/ranks of B/Ds. Some “Outstanding” reports were given as a recognition of the good service rendered rather than an objective appraisal of performance. In other cases, weaknesses or deficiencies of the considered candidates were not reported or they only came to the attention of the promotion boards when supplemented by members of the boards or in some cases by the Chairmen who had personal knowledge of the performance of the candidates concerned. AOs being direct supervisors have the duty to acquaint themselves with the performance standard of the rank and in making assessment. In one case, the AO had wrongly adopted the assessment standard for the lower substantive rank in assessing the acting performance of an officer. In many other cases, the narratives were found to be inconsistent with the overall performance ratings. We have drawn these to the attention of the relevant HoDs and HoGs and invited them to review whether these were due to the personal assessment standard of the AOs or the ratings in the performance forms that have affected their ratings. If the latter, joint efforts should be undertaken with CSB to review and update the forms to reflect the present day job requirements. In proposing any changes, we appreciate that staff consultations are an indispensable part before implementation.

Apart from ROs, Departments are encouraged to set up Assessment Panels (APs) to ensure consistency in assessment standards and fairness in appraisal ratings within a rank. APs are particularly useful for large B/Ds or grades where many different AOs and COs are involved in the appraisal of staff performance. APs are also advisable if appraisees are seconded/posted to other B/Ds and are appraised by officers of another grade, who may not be familiar with the assessment standards adopted by the parent grade of the appraisees. Even within the same Department, because appraisees of the same rank are involved in a wide variety of work responsibilities and there are variations in assessment standards applied to these responsibilities, APs can help level and moderate the appraisal reports.

In the year, the Commission noted in one case that despite noting the CO’s comment that the officer needed to improve on one important aspect of competency, the AP had not levelled the assessment or adjusted the top rating. While promotion boards are generally required to take into account the observations/comments made by the AP, the promotion board in the present case went along with the CO and decided that more time was required to further observe the performance of the officer and did not recommend the officer for substantive promotion. In another case, while the RO considered that the overall rating of an officer should be adjusted downward and that the assessment had been communicated to the AO, CO and appraisee as affirmed by the Department, the adjustment was not recorded in the appraisal report, nor was there any documentation of such communication in the staff report file. As a good practice and for avoidance of any subsequent dispute, the Commission had advised the Department concerned to take remedial actions to document and place the action taken for record. In comparison, the Commission is pleased with the work of an AP of another Department. We are particularly impressed by the methodical approach it has adopted and the specific comments/observations it gave on the appraisal assessments.

Staff development is an integral human resource management process for an organisation to improve employees’ existing skills and competencies and develop new ones to support its goals, such that it could remain competitive in its niche and stay on the cutting edge. The same goes for the Civil Service. Developing a workforce of civil servants well-informed on business trends and best practices is important for B/Ds to achieve the corporate goals. With an adaptable and professional workforce possessing global/regional outlook, they can improvise solutions to handle ever-evolving circumstances effectively and meet the challenges ahead. A good staff development prospective not only enables B/Ds to attract the best talents, but also cultivates a strong sense of staff commitment and self-motivation. In the end, a solid pool of talents can be built for smooth succession.

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. While directorate succession planning is personally steered by the Secretary for the Civil Service in conjunction with all Permanent Secretaries and HoDs on a regular basis, the Commission will see to it that no like efforts are spared in respect of other ranks. We have advised departmental and grade managements to identify promising officers for early grooming and to widen their exposure through postings and dedicated training. In some cases, taking bolder steps may be necessary such as pulling up officers with good potential for testing.

The Commission is pleased to note that our advice is well heeded and is gratified to see dividends of these efforts in achieving a breakthrough. The following example is a case in point. To address the lack of qualified officers for consideration for advancement four years in a row, the Department formulated a tailor-made training programme and re-shuffled some duties to create a pathway for officers to obtain the pre-requisite qualification. As a result of the vigorous efforts sustained over these years, there is now a pool of eligible candidates ready to be deployed to take up the higher rank duties. The Commission wishes to commend the measures undertaken by the GM in developing the expertise of its grade members. The well-designed on-the-job training and cross-stream posting arrangement were key to the successful outcome. Another Department also responded positively to our advice on the aging problem of a grade as seen in the marked drop in the percentage of eligible officers approaching their retirement age in the last promotion exercise. The improved age profile was attributed to the Department’s implementation of more vigorous measures, such as arranging additional career postings to broaden the knowledge and experience of its staff. In the case of another Department which has been suffering from acute aging and succession problems in two of its departmental grades and needs to resort to FE as a means to sustain its operations and service, the Commission was pleased to see it easing with continuous improvement. With intensified recruitment exercises launched, the roll-out of a robust grooming strategy and career development plan featuring the provision of training in Hong Kong, the Mainland and other places, the Department is able to enlarge its pool of talents steadily in recent promotion exercises. Last year, the Department had managed finally to identify a sufficient number of officers to take up all vacancies in various promotion ranks of the grades and only one more FE exercise needs to be conducted at the top two ranks signifying the fruitful outcome of the efforts employed.

For other grades/ranks that were noted to have been facing succession issues, the Commission had continued to tender advice and invited the early attention of the Departments. In the course of scrutinizing a number of promotion submissions from one Department, we noted with concern that a significant number of vacancies were left unfilled. The Department has offered two reasons. One was that officers at the lower ranks were reluctant to undergo further training to attain the requisite professional/technical qualifications for advancement, while the other was due to some qualified ones opting out for consideration of advancement. The Commission has advised the GM to proactively ascertain the reasons behind their lack of aspiration and consider enriching the job content to motivate them for personal and career progression. More guidance and assistance may help those who had suffered a setback with some unsuccessful attempts in getting the qualifications in the past. The Department assured the Commission that efforts were being made to arrange departmental training courses more frequently and time them when staff had accumulated sufficient in-rank experience. We have encouraged the Department to keep in view the effectiveness of the measures undertaken and explore more innovative ways to motivate its staff to pursue career advancement.

Another Department faces the same problem of not having enough qualified candidates to fill all vacancies. In this case, the Department is limited by the training capacity offered by the accredited training agency. To address this, we have suggested to CSB to work with the Department and its policy Bureau to explore other alternatives and avenues.

In the case of another grade, we noted that over one-third of the more experienced officers had indicated the wish to remain at their present rank in the last exercise. In a grade of another Department, the percentage of eligible officers opting out for consideration of advancement at two promotion ranks had even surged to 40% and 50% respectively last year. High opt-out rate impedes the management’s manpower and staff deployment plans and is not conducive to maintenance of quality service delivery. The Commission had requested the Departments concerned to focus attention and explore more effective means to motivate its officers for progression and fast track those with potential for development with heightened training and posting.