Chapter 4
Chapter 4
Promotion and Human Resource Management
4.1
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 which is conducive to staff succession and smooth operation in their B/Ds. Premised on the principles of meritocracy and fair competition, promotion has to be earned. It is neither an entitlement nor a reward for long service. The Commission advises and assists the Government to ensure that deserving officers are promoted through a transparent and fair selection process.
Promotion Submissions Advised in 2023
4.2
In 2023, the Commission advised on 763 promotion submissions which was a new high level in recent years. The promotion submissions were largely clear and well-written. The Commission was also pleased to note the continued maintenance of general compliance with the relevant CSRs, as well as prescribed rules and procedures by B/Ds. The number of promotion submissions advised by the Commission in the past five years is shown below –
Human Resource Management
4.3
Human Resource Management (HRM) is a planned and strategic approach to managing staff performance. Good HRM practices are instrumental in helping achieve corporate goals as well as enhance service productivity and quality. In the process of examining promotion submissions, the Commission will give advice on HRM practices adopted by B/Ds when inadequacies are observed. In this Chapter, some specific observations made by the Commission are provided as a reference for B/Ds.
Optimal use of available vacancies
4.4
Promotion is a recognition given to deserving officers who have demonstrated their capability and suitability in all respects for assuming more demanding responsibilities at the higher ranks. It also serves as an incentive for officers with aspiration to strive for continuous improvement. To realise the potential of capable officers and to meet staff expectations, it is imperative that promotion boards should make optimal use of the available vacancies to promote deserving officers at the earliest possible opportunity.
4.5
The Commission appreciates that in some promotion exercises, a small number of vacancies might remain unfilled due to valid reasons, such as the lack of sufficient suitable candidates. However, we will follow up with those Departments not having sound justifications for not filling up all promotable vacancies in a timely manner or leaving a marked portion of promotable vacancies unfilled in their promotion exercises. For example, the Commission noted that there had been confusion in a Department in determining appropriately the effective date of promotion. As a result, the promotable vacancy was left unfilled for a prolonged period and the recommended promotee was kept waiting unnecessarily. Upon the Commission Secretariat’s enquiry, the recommendee concerned was ultimately promoted on an earlier date. The Commission has asked the Department concerned to remind subject officers to fully familiarise themselves with the policy and rules governing the conduct of promotion exercises in future.
4.6
In some other cases, the Commission was particularly concerned about the considerable number of vacancies left unfilled at the promotion ranks in consecutive promotion exercises despite the availability of eligible and capable candidates. Cases 4A and 4B illustrate the relevant issues which need to be resolved by the relevant departmental managements.
Case 4A
The promotion boards for two ranks of a grade had not identified an adequate number of officers to fill all available vacancies in the past few years. The problem persisted in 2023, with more than half of the higher rank vacancies left unfilled in both promotion exercises of the two ranks.
Notably, there was a pool of eligible candidates who had demonstrated meritorious performance during the review period but were not even recommended for testing at the respective higher ranks. Moreover, the Department had previously arranged a number of these unrecommended candidates to take up short-term acting appointments intermittently, lasting for six months on each occasion, to meet the manpower gaps. It was unclear why these candidates did not earn a positive recommendation from the promotion boards.
With the Commission’s concerns raised, the promotion boards, having revisited the claims of the unrecommended officers, had subsequently recommended additional candidates to be tested for undertaking the higher rank duties. Although the number of unfilled vacancies was reduced, the Commission has asked the departmental management to seriously review its HRM practices and avoid, as far as possible, arranging intermittent acting appointments without going through a proper selection process as required under CSRs. The future promotion boards should also review the selection standard such that more meritorious candidates with potential should be recommended for testing at the higher ranks so as to fill up the vacancies as early as possible.
Case 4B
In several promotion exercises of another Department, the number of unfilled vacancies remained substantial in 2023, reaching as high as 50% of the total number of available vacancies, despite the availability of meritorious eligible candidates. The Commission noted that one of the reasons for this situation is a considerable proportion of these unfilled vacancies were posts newly created for implementing various initiatives in the past few years, and hence the Department concerned might not be able to fill up all vacancies in one single promotion exercise. However, the Commission also noted that the Department had imposed a training requirement as one of the promotion criteria. As a result, more than 50% of officers at the lower ranks were not able to meet such a requirement and hence restricting the pool of candidates eligible for consideration for advancement and worsening the problem.
Similar to Case 4A, the Department in this case had arranged the unrecommended candidates to take up acting appointments to fill the unfilled promotable vacancies so as to meet operational needs of individual offices. The Commission noted that for operational reasons, such acting appointments would usually last for a rather long period, i.e. until the conclusion of the promotion exercises to be held next year.
Upon the Commission’s advice, the relevant promotion boards had recommended additional eligible candidates deserving for long-term acting after reviewing their claims. This would help reduce the need of arranging a large number of unrecommended officers to act up the unfilled vacancies for an unduly long period of time.
Taking heed of the Commission’s advice, the senior management of the Department has responded positively by enhancing its HRM practices and undertaking to reduce the percentage of unfilled vacancies progressively in the upcoming promotion exercises. It has also augmented measures to encourage and facilitate its grade members to attain the requisite training requirements in order to enlarge the pool of eligible candidates. The Commission has commended the good efforts made by the Department.
Senior management should not lose sight of the far-reaching consequences of leaving vacancies unfilled in the promotion process which is not conducive to staff development, succession planning and staff morale.
Staff development
4.7
Staff development is an integral part of HRM. 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 the performance and competencies of staff, prepare them for a wider spectrum of responsibilities as well as build up a pool of talents for succession purpose.
4.8
In 2023, the Commission observed that some promotion boards had quoted the lack of work exposure or challenges in their postings as the reason for not recommending candidates for advancement despite their good potential and capabilities. Notwithstanding that operational needs may occasionally impede timely career postings, it is incumbent upon the GMs to strive for a good balance between individual officers’ career development needs and the operational expediency of the Departments. As illustrated in Cases 4C and 4D, promotion boards should not put undue emphasis on posting history of a candidate when assessing his claim.
Case 4C
The promotion board recognised the outstanding potential of a candidate to discharge higher responsibilities. However, the board did not recommend him based on the reason that he had not been tested fully on the aspect of staff management due to the lack of subordinates in his current posting.
As posting to enhance the exposure of an officer is a management responsibility, the promotion board should not put excessive emphasis on the lack of assessment on untested aspects of an officer in considering his claim for advancement. At the request of the Commission, the promotion board had revised its recommendation for the candidate to be tested at the higher rank in which his staff management skills could be assessed whilst acting.
Case 4D
In another promotion submission, the Commission noted that a group of close contenders were not recommended on grounds of their limited exposure or less demanding job responsibilities despite the availability of vacancies.
Same as in Case 4C, the Commission holds the view that an officer’s eligibility for advancement should not be unduly affected by insufficient work exposure or less demanding duties, which is within the control of the management rather than the concerned staff. Following the Commission’s invitation, the promotion board reviewed these officers’ claims and subsequently gave them positive recommendations for testing at the higher rank.
Grade managements should draw up comprehensive posting plans to provide their grade members with fair and equal opportunities for gaining exposure to various areas of work and different job settings so as to groom sufficient talents for advancement.
4.9
In the course of scrutinising another submission, we noted with concern that the promotion prospect of most of the officers in a particular rank was limited by their lack of the required expertise and competencies as assessed by the promotion boards. Case 4E is relevant.
Case 4E
Given the high level of responsibilities and competencies required of a grade, the promotion board concerned considered that only officers with clear potential and the required attributes should be selected for trying out at a promotion rank of the grade. As assessed by the supervising officers, many eligible officers needed consolidation at the substantive rank despite their meritorious performance, scoring an overall performance rating of “outstanding” or “very effective” (i.e. the first two tiers of a six-rating scale) in their latest appraisals. Without disputing the assessment, the promotion board concerned did not recommend any of them for long-term acting resulting in a large portion of vacancies unfilled.
The Commission also noted that the percentage of unfilled vacancies at the promotion rank concerned rose from about 30% in 2020 to a high level of 70% in 2023. While we did not dispute the professional expertise and competencies required of the grade, the Commission was concerned why eligible candidates with meritorious performance were not offered the opportunity to test their capabilities at the higher rank given the availability of vacancies.
The phenomenon of leaving a marked portion of vacancies unfilled at lower promotion ranks in consecutive years will have an adverse impact on succession planning for the higher ranks, underscoring the inadequacy of the concerned Department’s grooming efforts. While appreciating that the Department has been providing potential officers with intensive coaching, suitable posting or more challenging tasks so as to enhance their readiness for higher responsibilities, the Commission has advised the Department to closely monitor its manpower situation and follow through the measures undertaken to meet its succession needs.
4.10
Occasionally, we have observed instances of individuals opting out in promotion exercises, leading to a reduced number of eligible candidates for consideration. The Commission considers that the GMs concerned should not underestimate the impact of such opt-out cases. They should proactively ascertain the reasons behind the lack of aspiration of the concerned staff and strive to motivate them for personal and career progression.
Succession planning
4.11
Succession planning is another integral part of a comprehensive HRM strategy. Good succession planning is imperative to ensure smooth succession, in particular, at the directorate levels of B/Ds. High percentage of eligible officers approaching their prescribed retirement age and having insufficient time to demonstrate their suitability for higher positions limit the selection of capable officers in promotion exercises. We noted the acute succession predicament encountered at the directorate levels in Case 4F.
Case 4F
A severe succession problem was observed in a Department where five out of six serving officers at Directorate 1 level and above would retire within a mere ten months, thus limiting the pool of eligible candidates for consideration for succeeding at the senior directorate levels. Upon the fruitless result in one relevant promotion exercise and the impending retirement of the directorate officers concerned, the Department was compelled to conduct an FE exercise expeditiously to consider extending the service of officers approaching retirement so as to meet operational and succession needs.
Such a situation is highly undesirable which could have been avoided if the Department concerned had taken heed of the Appointment Authority’s repeated advice to conduct its promotion exercises in a timely manner. The acute succession problem also reflected that there was room for improvement in planning for the directorate succession.
The Commission has advised the senior management of the Department concerned to work out a vigorous training and career development plan to speed up the grooming of more junior officers with potential. The Commission has also reminded the relevant housekeeping Bureau to closely monitor the Department’s directorate situation.
As grooming talents takes time, senior management should exercise good foresight and take early steps in planning staff succession.
Performance management
4.12
Performance management is an essential element in HRM. HoDs/HoGs have the overall responsibility to ensure that the performance management system for the staff/grades under their purview functions effectively, and there is timely, accurate, comprehensive, candid and objective reporting of staff performance. Both over-generous and over-stringent reporting distort the performance management objectives.
4.13
During the year, the Commission noted from the promotion submissions of a few grades that the percentage of appraisal reports with an overall rating at the top level had remained on the high side as in the previous years. In some other B/Ds, the tendency of rating the performance of a great majority of eligible officers at the same level still persisted.
4.14
The Commission appreciates that performance ratings should not be taken and read in isolation but in totality with the detailed written assessment. However, ranking the performance of almost all eligible officers at the same level will make it very difficult for a promotion board to identify the real performers and justify its recommendations on the basis of the officers’ performance records. Appraisees should be evaluated on an incremental basis by making good use of a multiple-level rating scale in order to commend distinctive accomplishments and identify gaps in performance. In this way, officers can better know where they stand at the rank and strive for improvement. The Commission has, therefore, asked the relevant B/Ds to impress upon the supervising officers the virtue of comprehensive and candid reporting.
4.15
The appraisal system in the Civil Service is a three-tier structure under which the Appraising Officers (AOs), Countersigning Officers (COs) and Reviewing Officers (ROs) are required to make their timely, candid and independent assessment based on facts and observations. Onus is on the HoD/HoGs to ensure that AOs/COs/ROs are clear with the set appraisal standards and apply them consistently in making, countersigning or reviewing performance assessment as given in the appraisal reports. During the year, the Commission, however, noted some incidences of inadequacies as illustrated in Cases 4G and 4H.
Case 4G
In examining the submission of a promotion exercise in which only one promotable vacancy was available, the Commission noted that the RO had only rated one appraisee “Ready for shouldering the next higher rank duties” in his latest appraisal, while all others were rated “Not yet ready”, including two other officers who had been awarded top ratings on all assessment items by their AOs and COs. With such inexplicable assessment on these two top-notch performers without any shortcomings revealed, one might feel perplexed on what was still required for their advancement.
The assessment on fitness for promotion should be based solely on the performance, core competencies and potential of an officer. It should be a true reflection of his level of attainments in the appraisal period to enable B/D’s proper implementation of various HRM strategies including talent grooming and succession planning. Other irrelevant factors, such as the seniority of appraisees and the lack of vacancies, should not be factored in rendering a top performer under-assessed.
Case 4H
In another case, an officer had been supported by his AO and CO as “Displays clear potential for responsibility at next higher rank” for a few years, whereas the RO considered him “Not yet ready to perform duties at the next higher rank” consecutively. The appraisee had, however, not been made known of the RO’s view all along and became much aggrieved for not being recommended in the annual promotion exercises.
A transparent appraisal system requires the RO or the management to put across their alternative views, if any, to the appraisees. Had this been done in the first place, unnecessary suspicions and contentions could have been avoided by far.
Frank communication is pivotal to the success of staff management. By providing timely feedback, officers can be steered for development and growth.
4.16
Upon the Commission’s request, CSB wrote to all B/Ds in January 2024 impressing upon them, among others, the important role of ROs in performance management and the proper way in handling disagreement in assessment by ROs. ROs are best-placed and duty-bound to administer the appraisal system in an effective manner. We trust that B/Ds will continue to work in tandem with CSB on fostering a culture of meritocracy in the Civil Service.
