THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION’S PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION

REPORT ON MANAGEMENT OF POOR PERFORMANCE IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Date: 7 November 2007

OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION

• Introduction

• Objective of the study

• Research methodology

• International Trends

• Findings and Observations of the study

• Recommendations and Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

• Perceptions of poor levels of service delivery by and within the Public Service proliferate. Such views stem from deep-rooted perceptions that public officials are generally incompetent and are not held accountable for performance.

• Various measures have been introduced to improve service delivery, including more effective recruitment practices, intensive capacity building, and the introduction of performance management tools, (PMDS).

• Much of the focus on performance management is on rewarding work performance as opposed to management of poor performance in Public Service.

• Management tends to shy away from the unpopular practice of managing [poor performance.

• The PSC’s Investigation aimed at assessing what is being done to manage below average or poor performance.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY• Investigate the management of poor performance in the Public

Service.• Identify the key ethical issues and problems related to the

management of poor performance.• Identify the nature of remedial interventions to assist poor

performers and the extent to which these are yielding the desired results.

• Investigate the extent to which incapacity and/or inefficiency measures are instituted.

• Provide a clear factual basis for effectively identifying and managing individual cases of poor performance, allowing for suitable sanctions to be implemented in appropriate cases.

• Make recommendations to improve the management of poor performance in the Public Service.

• Develop a practical, user- friendly toolkit aimed at assisting managers and supervisors to deal with poor performance.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY• The scope of the research covered, the National Department of

Education and five provincial administrations with a sample of two departments each, in respect of the Departments of Education and Housing (Local Government and Housing)

• A literature study was conducted which included an assessment of international trends on management of poor performance.

• Questionnaires were designed and used during structured interviews with managers and supervisors responsible for managing poor performance.

• Structured Focus Group discussions were held with employees and union representatives.

• Feedback on the questionnaires were analysed and outcomes of various focus group discussion were collated after comparing the responses.

• Information obtained from Focus Group discussions and the questionnaires were measured against information gathered from the literature study.

• The findings on the research will be used to develop a Toolkit on Management of Poor Performance in Public Service.

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS

• Research indicates that management of poor performance is an issue in most countries.

• Factors that affect the ability to manage poor performance include: Resistance to change in the Public Service Strength of union movements Lack of clear objectives Issues relating to the communication of objectives or targets Lack of comprehensive job descriptions Unrealistic targets Lack of resources to perform Non-compliance with performance management system Capacity of the HR department to provide support and assistance Poor performance record keeping and the capacity of management

to manage poor performance

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Two thirds of managers in the sample believe that poor performance not to be a problem.

Managers are unable to identify poor performance to be able to address it.

Identification of causes of poor performance was attributed to among others, work culture, job and employee mismatch, lack of skills, no performance standards.

Management skills coupled with lack of capacity, and the will to manage poor performance were raised as factors contributing to poor performance in the Public Service.

The management of poor performance is perceived by 65% of sampled employees as unfair and subjective.

FINDINGS CONTINUED

HR Components do not co-own and oversee management of poor performance in the Public Service leading to abdication of responsibility by managers.

Managers address poor performance when it is a crisis and has to be handled in terms of labour relations processes.

The Managers’ willpower in managing poor performance is inhibited by the need to make unpopular decisions, and personal and political relationships that conflict with management responsibilities.

The lack of willingness to manage poor performance correlates with a distorted view of performance management. It is seen as a disciplinary process rather than a developmental process and the opportunity to address poor performance constructively is lost.

FINDINGS CONTINUED Management of Poor Performance hardly occurs and when it does,

it is not within a common framework. On paper managers are held accountable for poor performance, in

practice not. Management of poor performance is not carried out as an integral

part of management of performance.

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS • Management capability – training of management need priority

attention.• Recruitment and supporting processes – ensure that the right

people, with correctly aligned competencies, are placed in the right jobs, and receive the necessary development and support to do their jobs.

• Work Culture – promoting work attitude changes through recognising and rewarding value-adding activities and penalising behaviours that erode values.

• Monitoring – non-compliance with the PMDS must be dealt with harshly and PMDS should be implemented in a fair, rigorous and consistent manner.

• PMDS – development of a common understanding of the objectives of the PMDS; regular coaching and mentoring; ensuring performance management process is evidence driven to minimize subjectivity.

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

• Consideration of other training – to support management of poor performance departments should invest in structured regular training to address critical skills gaps like inter-personal skills.

• A person-to-post mismatch - associated lack or misplacement of skills.

• Lack of performance standards – Required set standards can only be attained if employees are aware of them and they are in fact applied.

• HR’s Strategic role - not fulfilled both as a strategic partner to the departments, and in respect of owning, driving, and supporting the performance management and management of poor performance processes, as departmental custodians thereof.

• Disjuncture between theory and practice – PMDS is not properly implemented even though some managers of its necessity.

RECOMMENDATIONS• Senior management must lead by example and drive the business case

for formally managing poor performance through regular communication to managers.

• Managers need to be held accountable in order to ensure that the management of poor performance occurs.

• HR should play a strategic monitoring role and report non-compliance to Senior management.

• HR Components should develop a standard process for managing poor performance.

• Change management communication to raise levels awareness and understanding of performance management generally and in particular poor performance management has to be prioritised.

• Rigorous Recruitment and Selection process must be geared towards placement of candidates with correct skills and competencies to relevant posts.

THANK YOU!