The revue in public performance appraisals

You may have had your performance for the last given period evaluated if you are a public servant. Chances are that you and your supervisor last discussed your mihigo a year or so ago and when the supervisor said it was time for guhigura (performance appraisals) you were unsure what to expect. Your supervisor demanded that you sign before you hand in your performance contract and when you met for the appraisal he/she wrote and wrote and then he/she said it was over; you could go. If you remember well there were no documented references to which your supervisor referred to when he/she filled your performance appraisal forms. Some of the things the supervisor said were new to you and in fact some had nothing to do with your job description. He/she said you are supposed to have done ABC which you had not done. The appraiser asked things that were archly meant to intimidate you. You may have filled both the performance contract and the performance appraisal form on the same day. Welcome to the revue that performance management is in public service. Performance management, in simple terms, is a process which contributes to the effective management of individuals and teams in order to achieve high levels of organizational performance. It creates shared understanding of what is to be achieved, approach and people development to ensure “what” is achieved. It is a strategy that relates to every activity of the organization set in the context of its human resources policies, communication system, identity and culture and may vary from organization. Performance management should be about broader issues and longer-term goals linking the various aspects of people management, individuals, teams and the core business of the organization. Performance management requires that systems, processes and structures are arranged carefully according to laws of behavior to support the requisite direction, skills, resources and motivation people need to a job well at all levels and industry. The gist of performance management should be to improve performance, employee productivity and effectiveness not to settle personal scores. There are different types of performance management: Self appraisal where the employee is asked to evaluate his/her work; peer appraisal where staff of equal rank within an organization are asked to evaluate the employee; team appraisal where employees are asked to evaluate their work, assessment centers where employee’s performance is evaluated by professional assessors; full circle or 360-degree where an employee’s performance is appraised through gathered input from supervisor, peers, subordinates and clients where applicable; while some organizations combine different methods where for example competencies such as skills, knowledge and abilitiesa are assessed. Why is it that public servants are condemned to one-employee-one-supervisor system where you are summoned to your supervisor’s office where he/she dictates like a primary school Headmistress to a primary school pupil? The fact that appraisals take place in the Bosses’ offices is intimidating enough, the fact there are “no third parties” makes it even worse. For the performance management system to succeed, employees should have; a clear understanding of what is expected of them, regular feedback, advice and steps for improving performance and expect rewards for good performance. For a system to succeed: job descriptions should be updated, specifically defining what is expected of the employee, goals and relations with peers and customers; clear parameters (guidelines) of what excellent, good, average and poor performance; trained evaluators who can conduct nonjudgmental, fair and consistent evaluation to avoid subjectivity; guidelines for improvement whether training or mentoring; employee input to accommodate employee concerns and issues raised and known form of reward or penalties for excellence or otherwise. It is incredible that most supervisors recommend dismissals because a public servant was “given” less than 50%. In some cases evaluators have been known to base their award of grades on such things as one’s hairstyle, dressing in Jeans or personal relations. Unless there is a known established code of dressing and grooming embedded in performance management, performance evaluation should be based on performance indicators known by both the evaluator and the evaluated. As supervisors in public service, and any other sector, chastise their hapless subordinates and even recommend harsh penalties there ought to be recourse for those employees who feel their performance has been unfairly and subjectively evaluated, the management system and its application examined and the competency of evaluators evaluated. Leaders of Institutions should not carry out performance management because it is required by government, rather because when properly carried their employees will be more effective and their productivity will increase. Performance management should not be used to “get at”, “fix” or “hit at big headed” or “those who do not bend low” among subordinates but to identify areas that need improvement, equip employees with the needed skills and tools to perform better and reward those who truly perform in accordance with agreed performance indicators. It will be unfortunate if results of previous or current performance evaluations, are based on to carry out drastic changes that may affect public employees because many of them and supervisors do not understand the exercise and many of those who know and understand the purpose do not use them to achieve the stated objectives but what they want to achieve. How many public employees received their confirmation letters on completion of their probationary period on time? If public employers do not follow the law, why do they expect employees to respect the results of evaluations many of which are subjective and do not fulfill what constitutes acceptable performance evaluation standards. Many supervisors and subordinates equally loathe performance appraisals as an exercise in futility or time to “do what the government requires”. It is only when both the employees and supervisors truly understand and value performance management, that their results should be used as basis for changes that may affect their employment, work, lives and the lives of their dependants. Otherwise performance evaluation in public service is a possible tool to improve productivity and employee development may be turned into revues and theatricals for criminals to cover their activities. Ends