1. Christoph Demmke Gerhard Hammerschmid
First HRWG Meeting Lisbon, 17th September WORKSHOP Leadership and Challenges in Performance Assessment
Christoph Demmke Gerhard Hammerschmid

2. Question 1: Lack of Incentives
Even those managers who take appraisals seriously and devote much time to it do not receive positive feedback and reward. Consequently managers do not have enough incentives which could motivate them to carry out better appraisals or invest much time in such activities.
What could be appropriate motivational incentives for managers?

3. Question 1: Lack of Incentives
Ireland: „Unless manager´s time is freed, PMDS will be considered as an add-on responsibility rather than a core management activity“

4. Question 1: Lack of Incentives
On the other hand:
Poor leadership and lack of motivation in the assessment process is rarely sanctioned
Also, Managers are less frequently evaluated negatively
If Performance contracts are not achieved managed rarely suffer from „sanctions" in case of poor performance

5. Question 2: Managers Pay the Price
While many organisations are successful in simplifying their PA systems, managers have more and more workload and responsibilities in discussing, defining and reviewing performance objectives as well as in assessing individual performance.
What can be done to avoid additional bureaucracy?

6. Question 2: Managers Pay the Price
Bureaucracy – “myth and reality”? We all want less bureaucracy – is there a trend towards more bureaucracy in PA?
Managers are „made responsible for carrying out a complex performance appraisal procedure in which evaluations, feedback, target enhancements, developments, education plans, decisions on salary increases (...) are carried out ...and this overload is becoming more and more unrealistic“ (source: Tom Coens/Mary Jenkins)

7. Do you think the workload of those involved in carrying out appraisals is increasing or decreasing?

8. Generally speaking, would you agree that the introduction of new appraisal systems will produce more or less bureaucracy?

9. What does „bureaucracy“ mean?
Case Slovenia: „It demands a lot of time and intellectual efforts to set objectives, to transform them into concrete tasks, to discuss them with employees. Afterwards the work must be checked and evaluated...“
Case Austria: „Though annual staff appraisals are a useful instrument, they result of course in an increasing workload; all appraisals have to be prepared carefully and the specific interests and skills of each member as well as options for career development have to be discussed“
France“ More bureaucracy s´il faut entendre par là une plus grande individualisation du management et un meilleur suivi des agents...“

10. Positive Experience: Hungary/Ireland
Case Hungary: „We introduced a web based evaluation system that is transparent, easy to use, saves time of the superior, and it makes the process faster without paperwork“
Case Ireland: „The workload has dropped owing to streamlined processes“ (IRL)

11. Question 3: Structural Distrust
Managers structurally overestimate themselves and their PA-capacities. On the other hand, employees structurally distrust the mangers.
Can training and development make a difference?

12. Question 3: Structural Distrust
„A remarkable high number of superiors have a distorted view of their own performance and overestimate their competency and skill“
Many employees are dissatisfied with their superiors
Many employees criticise their superiors in order to exonerate themselves of their own poor performance

13. Question 4: No immediate effects
The practical relevance of good performance is limited. Good performance is rarely rewarded immediately (and consequently not having immediate motivational consequences).
What are the most relevant means to reward good performance? (monetary rewards, non-cash material awards, symbolic rewards, provision of work/home balance programs, career progress, access to specific learning/development opportunities, ….)

14. Question 4: No immediate effects
Evaluation report from Ireland:
Most employees/managers/technical staff in the public service (94%/72%) are of the opinion that there is no alignment between performance ratings/scores and rewards.
Thus, often evaluation have no direct motivational effects.

15. Question 5: Difficulties in Managing Bad Performance
Managers have no incentive and no interest to assess people negatively. Also they lack the necessary tools to sanction bad performance.
What could be the most relevant means to sanction and improve bad performance? (formal/documented coaching and counselling discussions, symbolic sanctions, training and personnel development in order to overcome competence deficits, reprimand/admonishment, monetary sanctions, disciplinary measures, transfer to different job/position, dismissal, ….)

16. Question 5: Difficulties in Managing Bad Performance
Case UK: „So far poor performance is not handled effectively“ „...a large number of staff do not place people management high on their list of priorities, even though the impact of poor management is so great“
Case Ireland: “All grade group categories indicated that underperformance was not appropriately dealt with by managers“ Managers shy away from open, honest and constructive feedback during performance reviews

17. Question 5: Difficulties in Managing Bad Performance
Case Romania: „In the Romanian civil service, most of the performance appraisal are overevaluated...“
Do Leaders shy away from giving realistic rates?
because this will shed hight on their own (bad) performance as a Leader?

18. Question 6: Bureaucracy and Hierarchy Remain Important Features
Despite all rhetoric of “flatter hierarchies” and debureaucratisation reforms, organisational structures are still rather hierarchical. Consequently, performance objectives are not agreed upon and set in a cooperative process. Instead they are decided by the hierarchy. How can such difficulties be overcome?

19. Question 7: Alignment of Organ. and Indiv. Performance Objectives
The alignment sounds good in “theory”. However, practice shows that it is very difficult to combine both. Often, individual objectives change throughout the year. In addition, organisational objectives are often too broad, too vague and not practical. How can we secure the alignment of individual and organisational objectives?

20. Question 7: Alignment of Organ. and Indiv. Performance Objectives
UK case: „Too many managers are still setting poor quality objectives or worse still, not agreeing objectives formally with their staff untl very late in the reporting year. As a result there is poor linkage to departmental goals...“

21. Question 8: Thin evidence about effectiveness of systems
Only few organisations undertake systematic evaluations about the effectiveness of assessment systems. Consequently little is known as to the effects of PA systems on individual/team performance, organizational performance, motivation, equity, public sector ethos etc. What evidence has been brought forward in your country?

22. Question 9: Assessing Line Managers
Do we need different procedures, practices and criteria to assess managers themselves or should there be a common system for all hierarchical levels?

23. Question 10: National Differences
Do we observe different challenges / difficulties between position- and career-systems or alternatively do only “individuals” and “managerial issues” matter?

24. Christoph Demmke Gerhard Hammerschmid
First HRWG Meeting Lisbon, 17th September WORKSHOP Leadership and Challenges in Performance Assessment
Christoph Demmke Gerhard Hammerschmid

25. Rewarding one or all? Leaders want to be good – to all !
Official Policy: Country X has introduced PRP. PRP should be paid to top-performers in order to reward and to motivate them.
Reality. P. is performing very well. Consequently the Director-General suggests that he/she should receive the yearly bonus. However, the manager is anxious that such a measure would de-motivate the other colleagues who would not receive any bonus. Consequently, he/she convinces the DG that the bonus should be equally distributed and shared amongst all four colleagues in the unit. Is this „motivating“?

26. Avoiding managing poor performance
The Unit „Internationalisation and Modernisation of Public Services“ has ten employees. 2 are performing very well, 4 are performing well, 2 are average and 2 are under-performering. As to the average- and the under performers the Unit Head decides to give a good rating since a negative or average rating may shed a bad light on his/her leadership qualities.
Could this happen in your organisation? What are the consequences?

27. Rating
Your organisation operates a five scale rating system: „excellent“, „very good“, „good“, „average“ and unsufficient“ etc. Do you think your superior can handle these distinctions?
Or, would it be a better idea to design other rating approaches, e.g. qualitative ratings („has exceeded his/her targets“ etc.)