1. MAF VII Assessment of Values & Ethics (AoM 1) and People Management (AoM 10) MAF VII Launch September 29-30, 2009

2. 2 Purpose Describe & explain the evolving approach to the assessment of Values & Ethics and People Management Identify Key Performance Indicators / Lines of Evidence and their supporting Measures / Sources Introduce the new look: Scorecards & Dashboards

3. 3 People Management Drivers for a High Performing Public Service

4. 4 People Management Drivers

5. 55 Indicators and Measures The building blocks are: Assess – a subset of key indicators and related measures used in scorecards for Deputy Head assessment Key Status – linked to people management performance drivers and additional status indicators to support departmental planning and management through departmental dashboards Status – the full realm of possible information held and available for analysis, typically associated with employee or other administrative records or with survey/study results Will be adjusted in accordance with emerging issues and trends KEY INDICATORS (Assess) Key Status Status indicators … to provide the centre with a holistic view of People Management, while driving performance in key areas

6. 66 Overview of This Approach 1. Values and Ethics and People Components of the Management Accountability Framework (VE & PCMAF) are being replaced with a new set of performance and status indicators. 2. The key performance and key status indicators were selected by the PS Renewal and PS MAC committees and approved by COSO in February 2009.

7. 7 Overview of the This Approach (cont.) 3. Departmental scorecards will deliver the departmental assessment data on values and ethics and people management to the MAF VII portal in the spring 2010. 4. This approach has been consulted and approved by: HR Council, and the PSMAC & PS Renewal Deputy Minister Committees. OCHRO delivered information sessions in July on this new approach. More information will shortly be available on the OCHRO Publiservice site.

8. 8 V&E Scorecard CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION SCORECARD Department of Administrative Affairs Values and Ethics (AoM 1) Performance - STRONG Lines of Evidence/ Key Performance Indicators Absolute Indicator Ratings Average (Equal Weightings) Relative Indicator Rankings vs. ALL Relative Indicator Rankings vs. Comparable Size Relative Indicator Rankings vs. Last Year Lines of Evidence/ Key Performance Indicators VE1 : The organization demonstrates a culture of respect, integrity and professionalism VE2: Senior management demonstrates values-based leadership * measures adjusted to reflect MAF policy decision and results of survey analysis (See Annex 1)

9. 9 People Management Scorecard KEY STATUS Indicators S1 to S8 CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION SCORECARD Department of Administrative Affairs People Management (AOM 10) Performance – ACCEPTABLE Lines of Evidence/ Key Performance Indicators Absolute Indicator Ratings Average (Equal Indicator Weightings) Relative Indicator Rankings vs. ALL Relative Indicator Rankings vs. Comparable Size Relative Indicator Rankings vs. Last Year Lines of Evidence/ Key Performance Indicators P1. Employee engagement P2. Leadership P3. Employment equity P4. Employee learning P5. Performance management P6. Integrated HR and Business Planning P7. Staffing P8. Official Languages *Indicators and measures adjusted to reflect results of survey analysis and direction from TBS Secretary

10. 10 Departmental Context No reporting is required for AoM 10 Opportunity to contextualize the departments situation via a context piece The Portfolio/Departmental Liaison team exists to provide this function.

11. 11 Separate Employers Invited to self-assess against the established Key Performance Indicators/Lines of Evidence and associated measures Survey methodology will be applied and ratings generated by OCHRO, subject to separate employer agreement Templates will be provided to separate employers, in order to capture assessed administrative measures Scorecards will be produced by OCHRO, to reflect separate employer data, and displayed on the MAF portal

12. 12 Micro-Agencies Will be assessed like any other department, as no reporting required for People management Subject to privacy concerns, Scorecards may only display ratings Slight difference with Values and Ethics – for those measures with a reporting requirement, the micro- agencies will default to the questionnaire

13. 13 AoM 1 – Values & Ethics AREA OF MANAGEMENT 1 - VALUES AND ETHICS Lines of Evidence/Key Performance Indicators MeasuresSource VE 1. The organization demonstrates a culture of respect, integrity and professionalism a. A composite index of culture of respect, democratic service, culture of integrity and respectful workplace: Culture of Respect – Employees who report that overall their department or agency treats them with respect Democratic Service - Employees in my department or agency give impartial advice Culture of Integrity – Employees can count on their immediate supervisor to keep his or her promises Respectful Workplace - Employees who report that their department or agency works hard to create a workplace that prevents harassment and discrimination b. The total % of harassment complaints + harassment grievances per employee a. AES b. Departments report statistics on harassment complaints and harassment grievances through MAF VII system VE 2. Senior management demonstrates values-based leadership a. A composite index of commitment to V&E and ethical behaviour: Commitment to V& E - Employees who report that their department/agency is strongly committed to ethics and integrity Ethical behaviour – Employees who report that senior managers in the organization lead by example in ethical behaviour b. The organization has V&E plans and these have been implemented. a. AES b. Departments submit V&E planning docs through MAF VII system

14. 14 AoM 10 – People Management AREA OF MANAGEMENT 10 - PEOPLE MANAGEMENT (formerly AoMs 10, 11 & 21) Lines of Evidence / Key Performance Indicators MeasuresSource P 1. Employee engagement a. A composite index of commitment and satisfaction: Commitment - Employees who would prefer to remain with their department or agency, even if a comparable job was available elsewhere in the federal Public Service Satisfaction with organization - Employees satisfied with their department or agency Job satisfaction - Employees who overall like their job Work satisfaction - Employees who get a sense of satisfaction from their work b. Retention - % of people leaving their job within initial 12 months of appointment for deployment or for a promotion outside of their department a. AES b. Incumbent data files P 2. Leadershipa. A composite index of confidence, effectiveness, communication and commitment: Confidence - Employees who report that they have confidence in the senior management of their department or agency Effectiveness - Employees who feel that senior management in their department or agency makes effective and timely decisions Communication - Employees who report that their immediate supervisor keeps them informed about the issues affecting their work b. Leadership stability - % of managers (from EX minus 1 to EX-05) leaving their job within 2 years a. AES b. Incumbent data files P3. Employment equity a.Respectful workplace - employees who feel that in their work unit every individual, regardless of race, colour, gender or disability, would be/is as an equal member of the team b.Employment equity - representation in each designated group in comparison to WFA a. AES b. Incumbent data files, EEDB

15. 15 AoM 10 – People Management (cont.) AREA OF MANAGEMENT 10 - PEOPLE MANAGEMENT (formerly AoMs 10, 11 & 21) Lines of Evidence / Key Performance Indicators MeasuresSource P4. Employee learning a. A composite index of training and development opportunities: Training - Employees who report they get the training they need to do their jobs well Development opportunities - Employees who report that their department or agency does a good job of supporting employee career development. b. Commitment to formal training - The proportion of the budget spent on training and educational services vs. proportion spent on personnel a. AES b. Public Accounts P5. Performance management a.A composite index of performance feedback, assessment clarity and addressing poor performance: Performance feedback - employees who feel that they receive useful feedback from their immediate supervisor on their job performance Assessment clarity - employees who feel that their immediate supervisor assesses their work against identified goals and objectives Addressing poor performance - employees who feel that in their work unit, there are effective mechanisms in place to deal with poor performers. (applicable to Supervisors only) b. Rigorous performance management regime – The extent to which (% difference) the departments performance ratings for executives diverges from the established bell curve a. AES b. Departmental performance ratings * Non-assessed –Will be shown for information only – already assessed as part of P7 a.

16. 16 AoM 10 – People Management (cont.) AREA OF MANAGEMENT 10 - PEOPLE MANAGEMENT (formerly AoMs 10, 11 & 21) Lines of Evidence / Key Performance Indicators MeasuresSource P6.Integrated HR and Business Planning a. A composite index of workload and planning effectiveness: Workload - Employees who report that they can complete their assigned workload during their regular working hours Planning effectiveness - A composite index of: a. Employees who feel that priorities are constantly changing in their department or agency b. Employees who feel that there is a lack of stability in their department or agency c. Employees who feel that there are too many approval stages in their department or agency b. A composite index of overtime and succession planning: Overtime - Overtime hours per employee Succession planning - % of employees who were promoted internally (after at least 12 months in the position) a.AES b. Incumbent data files, Entitlement and Deductions System, and Extra Duty Reporting System

17. 17 AOM 10 – People Management (cont.) AREA OF MANAGEMENT 10 - PEOPLE MANAGEMENT (formerly AOMs 10, 11 & 21) Lines of Evidence / Key Performance Indicators MeasuresSource P7. Staffinga.Composite measure reflecting PSC SMAF assessment, including number of areas needing attention b.* Average time to staff a position (number of calendar days between the advertisement date and the date of first notification of appointment in Publiservice, for processes with a first notification falling within the period) c.* Satisfaction with staffing time (candidates; managers) d.* % of candidates (successful and unsuccessful) who believe that staffing is fair e.* Manager satisfaction with quality of overall HR services a. PSC DSAR b. PSC appointment file c.PSC survey d.PSC survey e.PSC survey P8. Official Languages a.A composite index of freedom for written and oral communication in the official language of the employees choice: Written communication - Employees who report that when they prepare written materials, including electronic mail, they feel free to use the official language of their choice Oral communication - Employees who report that when they communicate with their immediate supervisor, they feel free to use the official language of their choice b. Bilingual supervisors - % of supervisors who meet the language requirements of their position a. AES b. Incumbent data files

18. 18 Summary of Changes - MAF VI to MAF VII MAF VI 1. Four Areas of Management (AoMs) 2. 13 lines of evidence across 4 AoMs 3. Emphasis on process measures 4. Rating methodology varied by individual measures across the 4 AoMs 5. Narrative, process-oriented reports provided from departments 6. Minimal comparability between departments 7. No ability to benchmark or target set. MAF VII 1. Two AoMs (Values & Ethics, People Management) 2. 10 lines of evidence across 2 AoMs 3. Outcomes based measures; process measures as checkpoints if administrative data not available 4. Standardized rating methodology. Each Line of Evidence is assessed by combining two measures: a. survey data; and b. administrative data. 5. Reporting burden significantly reduced 6. Relativity between departments possible 7. Year over year benchmarking and target setting

19. 19 Contacts - OCHRO Departmental Liaison Team Provided is a list of departments/agencies subject to MAF VII and the initials of the Liaison team member to contact for each. InitialsEmail JAJeffrey.Ayoub@tbs-sct.gc.ca NGNatacha.Godbout@tbs-sct.gc.ca JRJennifer.Rooney@tbs-sct.gc.ca ARAnna.Rowland@tbs-sct.gc.ca