1. Dr. Christoph Demmke, Professor of Comparative Public Administration
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT – WHAT DO YOU THINK ? QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION IN THE PLENUM
Dr. Christoph Demmke, Professor of Comparative Public Administration
HR-Group, 6 February 2006

2. Growing importance of a Professional Performance Appraisal – The link with pay – good idea ?
Imagine, performance related pay would be introduced in your organisation. According to the rules, in case of a very good appraisal you are entitled to receive an 8% bonus on top of your monthly salary. You are rated “Very Good”. Also, during the next year you are rated “Very good”. During the third year – and mostly due to personal circumstances (you have an accident in the family) - you are rated with “Good”.
Do you think that such a system will create more motivation or more de-motivation?
Would you trust your superior in his/her ability to carry out a professional and objective evaluation?

3. Discrimination
Imagine: Your Director-General (male, very charismatic), your colleague (female, has come back to work after a one year parental-leave), another colleague (ethnical minority, still some language problems), a 63 old colleague and a female part-time colleague (20 hrs) will be appraised.
Do you think these persons could be – unintentionally – positively or negatively discriminated?
What is done in your organisation in order to avoid this?

4. Leadership
Often, superiors have to carry out more (complex) appraisals. Studies show that – often – they overestimate their capacities in carrying out appraisals. Often, they lack motivation to carry out appraisals. On the other hand, employees – structurally – overestimate themselves and criticise their superiors.
How can superiors be better motivated to carry out appraisals and to evaluate individual performance?

5. Need for less Bureaucracy and Simplification. But how to do it?
In the past, often personnel appraisals were carried out
not regularly, not for all categories of staff, not annually.
Today, they are carried out:
more regularly, for all categories of staff, adapted to individual objectives and performance contracts, split into mid-term interviews and appraisals.
Question: When looking at this process, how can we simplify the process and relieve the superiors from the workload?

6. Subjectivity?
In the past, performance appraisal systems were highly detailed and bureaucratic. Like this they should achieve a maximum of objectivity. However, this bureaucratic approach often produced rather more subjectivity.
Today Member States try to simplify their systems. On the other hand, appraisals are more important than ever because they linked to pay, promotion and job security
What do you think is the best approach in order to reach a maximum of objectivity?
More training?
More Transparency?
More staff involvement in the design of the systems?
360 Degree Rating?,
Team Rating, Self-Assessment?
Reducing the number of notes?

7. Performance contracts, annual objectives/targets
More and more civil servants are evaluated on the basis of agreed performance contracts and annual objective setting (SMART). This process has advantageous and disadvantageous.
Studies show that hierarchical and bureaucratic organisation have difficulties with this cooperative approach. Evidence shows that annual targets are not set in a cooperative process. In addition, Managers have little experience in setting and measuring targets.
Do you think cooperative approaches work in your administration?

8. Individual Performance Contracts are not simply good – or bad
Individual Performance Contracts are not simply good – or bad. Pro´s and con´s of
Employees want to be treated as individuals
May lead to more communication
May enhance performance
May enhance commitment
May bring fairer pay
Clarifies Work Priorities
Often not set in a cooperative process
Bring difficulties in comparing performance
Difficulties in measuring achievement of objectives
Often, too complex objectives – difficult to measure
Brings individualistion – difficult role for Trade Unions
Possibility for unfair pay
Need for good management skills

9. Measuring performance in the public service – is this special?
Work in the public service is very complex. Like this, individual performance is difficult to measure. It is influenced by political issues, organisational issues, leadership, colleagues, working conditions, own motivation, trust and fairness issues etc. Do you think that individual performance in the public sector is more difficult to measure than in the private sector? Think about the work in the field of justice, police, ministries, fire works, education and research etc.
If yes, should the consequence be that PRP should not be introduced in these sectors?

10. Honesty and Trust in an appraisal – can it be?
If performance appraisal systems are linked to so-called “hard” factors” like pay and promotion, it is necessary to separate the performance assessment process into two parts. The main reason for this is that employees will not be honest if they know that there will be “material” consequences: Therefore, the performance assessment cycle should be divided into two parts: One part should be a performance assessment with a link to “hard factors” and one part should be an (annual) interview which clarifies so–called “soft factors” like development- and training needs, communication, personal- and work related issues) issues. Is this distinction strictly applied in your organisation. If not, why not?

11. Poor Performers Policy
Would´nt it be better to focus more on poor performers policies instead of high performers policies?
What is happening to poor performers in your organisation? Is there an effective policy in place – also for top-officials?

12. Setting priorities – on what? Do you agree ?
Reforms focus on technical issues (reform of appraisal formulars?, number of notes, performance criteria etc.) but not on Management issues (time, trust, motivation, communication, integrity, professionalism, skills - how to carry out appraisals,)
Unfortunately, the latter issues are much more important

13. Is Reform leading to the better?
For decades, new performance management techniques and new appraisal systems have come and gone. However, little effort has been devoted to rigorous empirical verification of the impact of new performance management systems
Do you think that the current Performance Appraisal Systems in place in your organisation are better (fairer, transparenter, more objective, professional etc.) than those – say – ten years ago?
If yes, in which ways?
If no, why?

14. And at the end....what do you say about your own experience...
Ever since notes exist they are subject to criticism. Still they exist. Are you in favour of rating (excellent, very good, good etc.) or do you think that other performance measurement instruments should be found, e.g. qualitative ratings („has exceeded his/her targets“ etc.)
Do you think it is possible to have a fair and professional rating system which enhances motivation and performance?