Candidates selected to serve as Commissioners for Public Service Commission; Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) results implementation: DPME briefing

Meeting report

Report on candidates selected to serve as Commissioners for the Public Service Commission (PSC)

The Acting-Chairperson noted the report by the Portfolio Committee of having identified the best candidates, male and female, to fill the three vacancies of Commissioners for the Public Service Commission. The conclusions by the Committee were a three-fold report. Firstly, the rules and criteria to undergo the process were confirmed at the first meeting. The criteria had initially been set when the shortlisted candidates were approved and it served as the guiding template. Another guiding template, agreed upon, entailed usage of the curricula vitae; questions drafted by administration with possible responses expected from the candidates; follow-up questions by Members derived from individual curriculum vitae, and instead of using the scoring mechanism, it was agreed that the suitability of individual candidates would be deliberated. The interviews had been embarked on. Unfortunately, the interview processes coincided with the Three Line Whip, of which was advised at much too short notice to have rescheduled. However, the Portfolio Committee was granted permission to spread the interviews into a two-day process (15 and 16 November 2016). Since the candidates had already planned one day for the interview process; the Sub-Committee had apologised to the candidates whose interview was outstanding on the first day; and requested of them to sleep overnight and bear with the Parliamentarians, because the adjustment was due to obligations beyond their control. Notwithstanding the inconvenience it caused. The same principle of appointment was applied to the remaining six candidates whose interviews were conducted on the second day. On the first day, it was requested that Members leave their files behind. On the second day, the interviews went smoothly, as the candidates were given sufficient time to present. Selection of the preferred best-performed candidates was decided on 23 November 2016.

The Acting Chairperson elaborated that the process that would result in the final decision was reviewed. The Sub-Committee agreed upon a well-used approach of appointment that did not entail extensive discussion of each of the fourteen candidates. Each Member was expected to submit their preferred names in an orderly form after which the common names would be identified, and each Sub-Committee Member identified no less than three preferred candidates. Also, the tool of the curricula vitae informed the selection of the preferred candidates. In conclusion, the three preferred names, in no specific order, were Mr Richard Khaliphile Sizani, Ms Clara Phumelele Nzimande and Dr Tholumuzi Bruno Luthuli. The Sub- Committee had not voted themselves, but agreed upon the consensus of the three names, which were highly commended. Thus, this report was a collective report. There were six Sub-Committee Members present for the selection processes, and for the sake of transparency, Mr Sizani achieved five votes from the six Members (5/6), whilst Ms Nzimande and Dr Luthuli both achieved a vote from each of the six Members (6/6).

Programming entailed a need for a unified guiding template regarding how interviews were to be conducted or embarked upon. The points raised by Members as recommendations were the need for a document process that would assist the interview processes of Parliament; the time-allocation for interviews should be reasonable enough, and the programming should assist the scheduling of the day chosen for interviewing, since by nature it was event- orientated and should be deemed as a priority, so that Members would not be taken out of the House should there be a Three Line Whip. Specifically, to the interviews conducted, Members had raised the need to send a letter of apology to the six affected candidates requesting pardon for the disturbances in their interview processes. The administration had captured the points raised by Members, which would be circulated before its submission to the House of Parliament, viz. the Committee of Chairpersons and the Programme Committee, as recommendations by the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration. Lastly, the report was presented to the main Committee, which would present the report for formal adoption, as well as conduct the formal processes of tabling, as it was to be completed before the end of November.

The Acting- Chairperson asked Members if there were additions or queries they would have wanted to make.

Mr F Marais (DA) requested to sign the attendance register, so that the seven present Members would be reflected when feedback was reverted from the Sub- Committee to the current Committee.

The Acting-Chairperson requested the parliamentary support staff to have separate attendance registers for the two sittings. It was pleasing that the Sub-Committee had risen to the occasion. On the briefing by Department to follow, Members should take cognisance that its purpose was to highlight areas that required attention, which was not limited to Departments that were serial offenders. In the last Budget Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) process the Portfolio Committee had made recommendation to the House of Parliament that National Treasury and the Department should devise a manner to ensure that the report on the Management Performance and Assessment Tool (MPAT) results should be received two weeks prior to the deliberation of the BRRR processes. Such recommendation would be repeated, but for the interim it was pleasing that other Portfolio Committees had started to invite DPME for review of MPAT during their BRRR processes.

DPME on the implementation report on the Management Performance Tool results

Dr Ntsiki Tshayingca- Mashiya, Deputy Director-General, DPME, said the report was two-prong; it comprised the results of the case studies that were conducted over five years, and the 2015 results of impact. The DPME had started initiatives to support the departments that were struggling with improving their MPAT results, as well as submitted to Cabinet proposed interventions for the departments to be elaborated upon. MPAT had been implemented to facilitate reforms in management practices in government departments. Many viewed MPAT as a tool for compliance, but it was beyond that, because whilst management practices were assessed, DPME had also designed improvement plans and had reverted to inquire if changes had occurred in the management practices of departments in error. It actually designed the tool to compliment the systems approach, i.e. the outcomes approach, of Government to ensure a capable public service that could deliver on the long-term objectives of Government. Since the first version of the MPAT there was an agreement that it was not an overall bad public service, because there were areas of which good practices could be identified. Also, it was acknowledged over the years that other areas suffered poor management practices in Government, which meant that Government had not yet operated at the desired level of public service. The lessons learnt from MPAT case studies showed that managerial leadership weaknesses still persisted in the public service, and the Committee should highlight that such problem was as though there were a white elephant in the room, because even though poor managerial leadership was understood as the cause of poor service delivery no-one had actually wanted to confront the issue in a systematic manner. DPME highlighted the need for a holistic approach towards managerial leadership to improve performance in service delivery. The document submitted to the Portfolio Committee noted that there had been various interventions expressed by Government; for example, DPSA, National Treasury and the Public Service Commission. However, since those interventions were short-term and disintegrated it had not yielded the desired results.

Key findings from the case studies included weak managerial leadership practices that were not only prevalent but seemingly persistent, because there were departments which after being identified as poorly performed, received interventions sometimes even by inter-ministerial Committees that attempted to assist as well as task teams were specifically arranged to assist, and yet its poor departmental performance persisted due to the weak managerial leadership from the top. The DPME, therefore, argued that evidence shown that management practices combined with good leadership skills equated to high performance and service delivery in Government.

Key findings also included departments that were pockets of excellence as a result of the case study. The departments were the National Department of Trade and Industry; National Department of Environmental Affairs; South African Police Services; Western Cape Department of Transport; Western Cape Department of Health; KwaZulu-Natal Treasury; Gauteng Department of Social Development, and Free State Department of Education. The DPME had highlighted those departments, because it was encouraging a culture of community that comprised of the departments doing well to have supported the departments that were struggling. For instance, if the Health Department of the Eastern Cape was struggling it should appeal to the Health Department of the Western Cape to enquire what was done differently to have yielded results of excellence. Such culture would ensure learning from each other by having shared the best practices. DPME decided that by naming the departments that were doing well, its indication would probe other departments to appeal to work with them. The aim was to infuse a culture of learning from each other and it encouraged shared best practices.

DPME recommended six points to upgrade the quality of management, of which its focus would improve service delivery, viz.:

1. Lead with commitment and consideration
2. Build an accountable and responsive service and work culture
3. Strategise and operationalise transformation in delivery outcomes
4. Allocate and utilise human, financial and physical resources
5. Integrate plans, resources, budgets and performance review systems up, down and across
6. Review performance, report progress and respond to challenges

Dr Tshayingca- Mashiya noted these six steps resulted from the various case studies undertaken by DPME, and it was advised that struggling departments start to resolve by the implementation of those basic six steps.

1.  Lead with commitment and consideration: the case studies had shown that where the leader, whether the Accounting Officer; Head of Department (HoD) or Director–General (DG), was not merely appointed to the role, but the individual showed commitment to the role and actually led with consideration of the subordinate staff members, the operational environment would be conducive for the staff members to perform, staff members engaged with the performance of the organisation and were motivated to be productive, as well as willing to learn further. It contributed to overall service delivery.
2. Build an accountable and responsive service and work culture: organisational theories were clear that culture could be evasive, and it could actually affect performance and service delivery in departments. Even the case studies proved evidence that in the departments which have had evasive culture, when the officials were engaged with, they faltered to have defined the culture of their department as responsive or inclined to high performance. However, when the performance of their targets was reviewed their results reflected an evasive work culture.
3. Strategise and operationalise transformation in delivery outcomes: whilst it was noted in the MPAT results that strategic management as a Key Performance Area (KPA) was seen to have improved over the years, the point was made that regarding operationalisation there was a disjoint. The disjoint was in terms of the good strategic plans and the actual operationalisation of it, viz. human resource planning, human resource management, human resource and financial management. Thus, DPME advocated that there should be the ability of operationalising the strategies to ensure its integration and delivery of transformation outcomes.
4. Allocate and utilise human, financial and physical resources: The case studies proved that it was not merely the allocation of resources, but the ability to use the resources appropriately. Whilst departments may have resources allocated to them, sometimes they were warranted expanded budgets, if the resources were not utilised pertinently, the organisational culture would not support performance neither improvement in service delivery. DPME then advised managers to utilise their resources appropriately, both financial and human resources. The DPME had not conducted satisfaction surveys, but it sensed the organisational climate in the departments that were doing well in the MPAT, and have compared it to the departments that were struggling. In the latter, the organisational climate had contributed to staff members not committing to work and impeded on the drive to change as well as improvement.
5. Integrate plans, resources, budgets and performance review systems up, down and across: the ability to integrate it all, such as the finances, systems and processes, to harmoniously work together. The case studies showed that the leadership in departments that excelled ensured that there were systems in place that integrated with the processes, and it had not merely tasked one person or a few executive members as responsible for implementation, but productivity was institutionalised. Consequently, they had performed better not only in the MPAT results but regarding service delivery and better organisational culture that was responsive to challenges.
6. Review performance, report progress and respond to challenges: it was critical that the departments respond with agility to issues that required resolve. The departments, which were doing well, had systems in place ensuring that challenges or issues would be responded to with resolve or attention. Yet within struggling departments, even if the Auditor-General (AG), DPME or the DPSA brought issues to the forefront, the departments refused to change and reflected yet again poor managerial leadership or commitment of the leaders assigned in the department. In exceptional cases, it had resulted due to non-leadership.

DPME had noted that even the DG were not on par with each other regarding quality, as there were those who achieved good results; then there were others who delegated the functions pertaining to the role of Director-General within the running of the organisation and had struggled to harmonise it to improve both the managerial aspects as well as service delivery. Hence, the DPME had devised the six steps and took it to the forum of DG to advocate its instutionalisation by its implementation to those who had difficulty performing. The focus of this was not only on the DG, but also on the entire leadership, for example: the Deputy Director General, Senior Manager and Chief Director. Director Generals had been engaged by DPME as well as some National Departments too. It should be emphasised that the six steps were not far-fetched recommendations, but were a direct result of the case studies conducted over five years 2011-2015- it was the first section of the report, as Mr Serfontein would elaborate on the second section, which were the results of impact for 2015.

Mr Henk Serfontein, Chief Director: MPMES, DPME, referred to slide 6: comparison of National and Provinces from 2013-2015. Notably, the Provinces were enlisted individually, but amongst it was a graph depicting combined National Departments. The trend of the Provinces depicted an overall improvement of performance. Even though on an annual basis DPME reviewed their standards, raised the bar and added additions for improvement, unfortunately, there existed different rates of improvement. Provinces of concern were yet the North-West Province, Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga. However, the North-West Province had recently reached a point of stability with their HoD, thus, improvement was anticipated from them. Cognisance should be taken that it was easier for departments to have improved from a lower base. However, in spite of the improvement, a thorough positive picture could not be painted, because, admittedly, the things that were measured were basic administrative matters. Thus, even though it seemed theoretically that an improvement in Government had occurred, in-depth the administration of Government and its systems in place was not healthy practically. Also, it was misconstrued that National Departments/ Government (NG) was better than Provincial Departments/Government, because NG have had an average level of operation.

With reference to slide 7: MPAT trends of National Departments from 2013-2015, an improvement amongst the National Departments could be seen. Within the last session, DPME highlighted the Correctional Services, Public Works and the Military Veterans as the lowest scoring departments. Notably, Correctional Services continued to operate at a fairly average level and had incurred regression. DPME had engaged with Correctional Services with limited success. The National Department of Public Works (NDPW) achieved improvement in the year that elapsed. When the Military Veterans was engaged, it was discovered that there was a process of intervention by means of an inter-ministerial task team already in place and DPME had not interfered by introducing new structures. Likewise, in the case of Public Works if there were turnaround strategies in show improvement. Those were the departments that previously faulted and continued to do so. However, a new low scoring department was the Department of Women. The National Department of Independent Police Investigative Directive was a low scoring Department too. Admittedly, improvement was also owed to the Portfolio Committee of Public Service and Administration, which had invited departments, highlighted by DPME as having difficulty performing, to have accounted for their challenges. As the Acting- Chairperson had cited, DPME had also briefed some Portfolio Committees about the struggling departments, of which such awareness contributed to the oversight of their situations for improvement. Yet, the MPAT results for 2015 showed overall improvement.

MPAT Key Performance Areas (KPA) 2012- 2015 was calculated on four areas, viz. Strategic Management; Governance and Accountability; Human Resource Management, and Financial Management, as reflected on slide 8. The average level of 3 denotes compliance to the KPA. The impact of Strategic Management for 2015 resulted with compliance throughout, because each department had plans of performance within their annual reports and quarterly reports, but there was limited evidence that the strategic plans were management tools of informing and assisting with proper implementation. Even regarding the KPA, the various departments were improving at different rates. Human Resource Management seemed not to be taken seriously and it was questionable whether it was supporting the departments to achieve its goals. Whilst statistic improvement showed it was yet an area that remained the lowest performing in more than 80% of departments in National Government and Provincial Government, it was quite a crucial aspect and roughly over 40% of Government expenditure was spent on human resource.

Mr Serfontein elaborated that DPME had done an analysis of the four KPA and had compared it to the pronouncements on how well the departments were achieving their targets as a performance measure made by the AG. The AG would compute that if the APP targets were performed the relevant department was audited as successful, because such was the only universal measure of performance. DPME compared the four KPA and how they related to achieving the APP targets. It was discovered, as reflected on slide 9, that not all KPA directly contributed towards achieving the target neither success for the departments, but it may work through each other. Strategic Management entailed where the department was heading and what was expected. Governance and Accountability entailed how it would be achieved within an accountable framework. Strategic Management impacted Financial Management and Governance, then Governance would impact Financial Management and Human Resource. However, it was highlighted that there seemed, statistically, to be a lack of relationship between Strategic Management and Human Resource Management. A previous Statistician- General was hired to assist with the statistical formulation. Subsequently, due to the statistical absence of relation, the DPME had investigated the matter, and discovered that when the sessions of strategic planning of departments were reviewed, Human Resource Management was usually left last on the agenda for deliberation should there be time to consider it. Not being a priority on the agendas had contributed to the current HR profiles that the departments had. It was witnessed that departments would, indeed, commit to APP targets, but the HR profile was not in place to actually support the delivery of the targets. Thus, it was desired that the Strategic Planning would consider HR, plan what was possible, as well as HR Management have had to actively work towards repositioning the HR and changing the skill profiles to suit the new strategic directions of the department.

It was concluded that DPME had witnessed many different interventions as earlier cited. If there was an issue with Financial Management, the thinking was to have fixed the Finance division of the department, of which the financial practitioners would be retrained, but the major contributor that ultimately undermined performance was the issue of weak managerial leadership. However, DPME, DPSA and National Treasury had initiated a process together to try and identify or get consensus of which departments experienced difficulty of performance and develop analysis to have resolved it. Based on the case studies results and the six steps that management should focus on, the DPME had started a series of executive leadership conversations to have sensitise or made people aware of what was required of their DG in the Public Service and what ideal characteristics would the DG comprised of, to kick-start the process of change of current behaviour. Current work was conducted with DPSA, the PSC and the School of Government to collective devise a holistic support programme.

Discussion

Mr A van Der Westhuizen (DA) said from personal experienced it was agreed that the core problem of departmental underperformance was weak managerial leadership, as emphasised by DPME. This Portfolio Committee had a dual character, since it also served the Department of Public Service and Administration too, thus, the question posed was, how could the right managers be allocated to the right departments so that they could create the difference that was much needed? The appointment processes in Government may not always lead to the fact that the person who could make the biggest contribution would go to the worst department to incur a difference. Reference to a saying, ‘I want to farm on a farm that has good soil and good rain’ was made to indicate that if there were options for candidates, and if the candidate/s were ambitious she/he would preferably choose a department that already had the basics in place and/or did not require much logistical difference. Since the cause of departmental underperformance was rightly identified, what were the proposals from DPME to resolved it?

Mr Marais expressed grievous concern for ill appointments made for such a senior position as the Director General. Wrong appointments were made for some DGs, in spite of the particulars of the interview process. Which rectifying measures would DPME recommend during the interview processes to resolve ill appointments and decipher if the candidate lacked the necessary leadership capacity, because the entire department would suffer and fall prey to ineffectiveness, due to weak managerial leadership? Not only would an ill appointment of such a senior position suffer the department on hand, but would disadvantage the taxpayers who were responsible for their salary package.

Mr S Motau (DA) revised that DPME noted the lack of linkage between Strategic Management and the Human Resource Management, as though HR was an independent element. How did DPME propose to influence the leadership in the departments to appreciate the fact that it was HR, in other words the people, that needed to be at the heart of any planning, particularly the APP? Notably, the Financial Management had improved annually for 2011- 2015; what had been done to achieve that? Financial Management was a difficult area, thus, could cognisance be taken from it and be applied to HR?

Ms W Newhoudt- Druchen (DA) appreciated the presentation and requested an example of resources not used appropriately as cited. The Public Service Commission presented on 9 November 2016 that within Government, staff would be sufficiently qualified for the position that they were appointed to, but had failed to apprehend how to use those qualifications, especially relative to the functions of the department that had recruited them. Since awareness of such situation was known, how would a struggling staff member or official be assisted to translate their qualifications into skills that would yield the expected results of service delivery in the role that they were appointed for?

Mr M Ntombela (ANC) appreciated the presentation and requested how the first principle, i.e. to lead with commitment and consideration, would be inculcated within the department that lacked it? What would be done to address specific objectives in terms of the basic steps cited? There might be times that the department had realised that their organisational climate was not conducive for performance by having identified the causal factors for it, as well as enforced the particular remedial actions for resolve. For instance, the North-West Province may have measures in place, by now, to have assisted its recurred underperformance. Therefore, what specific measures were put in place to have invoked the change of such departments? Also, it was indicated that Government was at a basic level regarding its administrative developmental pertaining to its goals for 2030. Should the measures put in place to have addressed the problems highlighted prove resolve by 2030? Or would the measures sufficiently coerce change by the departments, which would ensure some sort of progress, should the goals of 2030 not be realised by then? What exactly had the inter-ministerial task team implemented and what had invoked as a result of their existence? In hindsight, when the remedial actions would be reviewed, it could be empathised that in spite of such intervention difference had failed to be made. What had the inter- ministerial task team done differently from the other measures of intervention and yet had not succeeded? It did not seem proper that year after year the serial offenders were deliberated, for example, the Correctional Services and the Military Veterans. Did those departments attend the training offered and or show interest for recommendations warranted? What was the level of participation; had they participated with an attitude of wanting to improve and had they structures in place that reflected the recommendations previously warranted? He suggested that the departments and their DGs, which were serial offenders, should be called to account as a matter of urgency by the Portfolio Committee of Public Service and Administration. Then they could explain what their constant difficulties were and what they had enforced for change in the future.

The Chairperson commented that even though the Department of Public Works had shown slight improvement, it should not be taken out of the red rating, but should continue to reflect its need for developmental progress, so that the Minister of Public Works should firmly appeal the need for change. The departments could be called to account to the Committee, but ultimately their performance was the responsibility of the Executive Authority. The Inter-Ministerial Committees (IMC) provided support as well, but Committees merely provided oversight and had not dealt with the hardcore issues. It was hoped that the departments called to account by IMC were not defensive. The Departments of Public Works, Women, Military Veterans and the Correctional Services should be invited to account. The Department of Correctional Services was absent for the last invitation and there seemed to have been a misunderstanding, because the Department of Justice was present, which was not the serial offender. Thus, the Committee had not had a platform with the Department of Correctional Services to date. Which other mechanisms, besides administrative, did the Principal Systems Engineer of DPME recommend as pursuit?

Dr Tshayingca- Mashiya replied that there was a pending report for the frontline service delivery monitoring, which revealed other mechanisms apart of administrative as recommendations, which would be presented to the Portfolio Committee when ready. However, it was witnessed that the issues presented by frontline monitoring were issues that had recurred for years, for instance the issue of infrastructure. If a lack of infrastructure existed, it would be noted as a concern in its report, but a department not having its own building would contribute to long queues and impede on its service delivery, therefore, it was deduced that such issues could not be resolved by managers in the front-line, but were issues of public works that should be considered from a higher level. The issues had since been consolidated and presented to the Minister of Public Service and Administration with proposals that it be taken to task by the Inter-Ministerial Committee so that the relevant Ministers could address their departments. For instance, the Minister of Public Works could address the Department, since on a provincial level the infrastructure or accommodations of public institutions were dealt with by the National Department of Public Works, of which in turn its resolve would influence improvement of service delivery for other departments. When frontline monitoring was reviewed the same issues and concerns arose, for instance the shortage of staff. The causal factor was the delegations. The policies for the delegations were drafted by the Department of Public Service and Administration. Thus, by informing the IMC, the Minister of Public Service and Administration would also be tasked to ensure that the issues within delegations would be addressed at a level of policy. This approach may even resolve the concern of appointing the right managers. Since, ultimately, the issue was that the recruitment system had not measured the qualities appropriate for a competent manager within prospective candidates. Prospective candidates would be eloquent in speech within interviews, but the verbal fluency was not a measurement of the candidates’ capability to lead, neither had the interview analysed the candidates’ attitude or work ethic, because only after the appointment was made had it been realised that the wrong person was chosen. Hence, why there were instances of Director Generals who led by intimidating their subordinates, of which the officials responded in fear. Those led by intimidation had confided to DPME for the sake of the case studies. It should be empasised that a position or portfolio did not equate the ability to lead.

The Acting- Chairperson requested clarity whether administration of appointment had not included psychometric tests and other assessments, which would surface the attitude of the prospective candidate?

Dr Tshayingca-Mashiya clarified that those psychometric tests assessed the candidates’ ability to judge and make decisions as a result of intellectual aptitude, but it had not measured the Emotional Intelligence (EQ) of the candidate neither the ability to discern as a result of character. For instance, there were managers who spoke before they thought. The issue was, which tools, therefore, should be used to address the shortage of EQ? Secondly, a concern was posed for the managers who were already in the system but experienced difficulty of performance. Sub-intervention strategies to have supported them were investigated. The DPME noted that in the system of Government the institutionalised structures that existed to support the Director- Generals were not sufficient, comparably to other countries. In Canada, there was a School of Government that fully- functioned to have accommodated Director- Generals and dealt with specific topics that pertained to such role. That would address the concern of having educated officials who could not translate their qualifications into their role of work. It was also evidenced in other countries that formal education rewarded the degree, on whichever level such as Masters etc., which evoked entry for recruitment, but once employed other characteristics became relevant; such as the ability to lead, coordinate and supervise, all of which were characteristics that were theoretically studied but required practical execution once the candidate was appointed. The candidate’s personality and attitude outweighed the theory that she/he was taught for competence in the position. Again, in the School of Governance of Canada, they had dealt specifically with a conduit that would assist the graduates to have utilised their education. They were upfront with DPME that formal education was used for purposes of recruitment, but once the candidate was recruited it was put aside and the ability to run the organisation was enforced as paramount. The current entrenched recruitment system had helped Government with attraction of suitable candidates, but had not provided in-depth analogy of the candidates’ character and ability to cope within the positions. Thus, as requested, proposals going forward made to Cabinet based on the case studies results, would include that if MPAT was integrated in the Performance Agreement of the DG, it would incur change of departmental performance. It would also enlighten the DG that she/he was not merely measured on his/her ability to plan; but Strategic plans (Strat plans), APPs, work on the AG audit report was expected, as well as compliance of the Annual Plan to specifications expected by the AG. Should the MPAT scores be integrated in the performance as well the DG would be made aware that they were assessed on the functionality of the department, in order words, how well they had run their departments. Such expectation would compel the DG to be a versatile manager, and its proposal was made to Cabinet, of which referred to the need that all of the Ministers should condone such integration into the Performance Agreement first. The DPME believed that its integration would assist with departmental performance, because it would contribute to different expressions of how the subordinate officials were managed in the department and the DG should be measured on the organisational climate. In the private sector a 360-degree assessment existed, but within the public sector managers supervisors assessed each other without warranting their subordinates the opportunity to assess their style or ability of management. There existed no platform of opportunity for the officials to express that their managers led poorly or intimidated them within the HR system of Government. The DPME had wanted that those whom they led should assess their leaders.

Additionally, it should be empathised that this problem was not limited to Government, but existed across society in South Africa, especially since consequence management was lacking, as even when managers were assessed with low scores for their leadership no-one above the manager was taken to task to have dealt with the shortcomings or implement resolve. Within all levels of Government from the Executive to the administration, everyone should be made aware that there would be consequences for maladministration or improper functioning of the roles appointed. Assistance from the Portfolio Committee for the implementation of strict Consequence Management was appealed for by DPME. Currently, the management system that existed in the country was already adopted, by having strategies for delivery for instance, but the real test was when people needed to do what was required of them. The culture of service delivery should be induced as the substance of society. The change of mentality should start with Government, and that could be achieved by institutionalising the MPAT within the Director-Generals Performance Agreements, after which assessments would be done and then the Performance Assessment of the DG should be centralised as policy proposed. The policy had proposed that there should be performance assessment done of DG or Head of Public Service regarding the policy, so that subjectivity would be eliminated. The example of Canada was used regarding the impact of MPAT, because they used a similar tool called Management Accountability Framework (MAF) The results of their MAF tool used were not generalisations of governmental, but the results reflected specific Director Generals who faulted, after which those DGs had to account why their scores were low or lacking structures in their people management etc. It was not the Minister of the Department that addressed the DG regarding error; it was the Head of Public Service, whom was called The Clerk. Subjectivity was then eliminated, because the Clerk would address the DG on his/her performance review and those executive conversations were based on the MAF tool that everyone in Government agreed upon and understood, similarly to the MPAT, but the MPAT had not yet progressed to that level of individual accountability. Hence why DPME had proposed in the interventions that the call was first for a leader who knew his/her place as leader to have been able to call out other DG who was witnessed to have difficulty performing. As a result of such executive conversations the first response should be to support the struggling DG to achieve improvement, but the DG should not evade consequences for having allowed his/her department to underperform. In Canada, Consequence Management included a replacement of the faulting DG, because it was a simple matter that the person may be ill-suited for the department, for instance if a DG was appointed in Education, but the standard depleted in the country it meant that the DG was the wrong person for the job. Therefore, the DPM took the step to prohibit serial offenders by having investigated the causation, and it was discovered that poor managerial leadership was the cause of departmental underperformance. In fact, it was popularly slandered that within the public sector poor leadership existed. Hence, the DPME had wanted to know, what exactly about leadership had projected weaknesses and in which areas they had inability, thus, the intervention strategies were devised.

A response to ‘where there was no leadership with commitment and consideration’ would entail understanding that the DPME did not do climate surveys or satisfaction surveys, but after interacting with officials DPME could ascertain that the officials felt unwelcomed. HR Management driven by DPSA did accommodate exit interviews to determine what the causal factors were for the officials to have left, but the information was merely collected by DPSA and not utilised beyond that. Exit interviews may not give a complete picture, but it could contribute to comprehension. Some officials could emancipate themselves by exiting, whilst other officials remained unhappy, but trapped in such situation due to no alternative employment. Skills that were sought after would make officials employable elsewhere, for instance scarce skills, but basic administrative skills were not on high demand, worsening the situation was that if officials were not developed and neglected within the poor organisational climate, the lack of assistance for development would inevitably evoke a trapped situation of employment. The Portfolio Committee should request of DPSA to deliberate on the statistics and information garnered by the exit interviews, it would enable DPME to acquire such information from the Committee. The Statistician- General of Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) had offered the expertise to provide statistical evidence of climate surveys within departments of Government should StatsSA be granted permission to conduct it.

Mr Serfontein responded to the query of how Government would get HR to function well. In 1999 the New Public Service Regulation was issued, of which the entire intent of it was to move away from administration to HR management, but there were many HR units found in the public service that were not yet focused on administration. An example of admin-focused HR Management was the recruitment processes. Also, Finance Management was improving at a higher rate than HR, because there was more attention given towards and focus warranted for its progress than Human Resource. In fact, the Chief Financial Officers received more airtime at management meetings and they were listened to. Understandably so, since extent of progress of the strategic planning were informed by the division of finances. Another query was about the resource allocation, and the following example was discovered; in some agriculture departments in certain provinces a decision was taken that farms would no longer be state-owned and, subsequently, the state-owned farms were sold, but 10-15 years later the farm workers were yet listed on the public service work structure. Other departments would make decisions that they could not recruit professional engineers full-time and would then opt to out-source such expertise instead, but then the outsourcing would continue for much longer than initially contracted for. There were also instances when the DG had committed to deliver particular statistical analogy, but as the public service Government could not hire on the basis of bias or might not have had sufficient budget for salaries in addition to the current workforce to evoke changes. Hence, some Director Generals had committed to ideals that they did not have the resources specifically for. Also, the ability to transfer the skills acquired by education into the function necessary was contingent on the culture of the department and its leadership. It beckons the question- does Government allow people to make mistakes in the Public Service Sector? The current step within the induction of public servants did not allow room for officials to make mistakes. There was evidence that workers attended courses or had the suited public service qualifications and entered the public service with good ideas to provoke change, but they were not permitted the space to implement their ideas or incur error as differences were being made. A changed management process would inculcate the six principles, and the first step was to create awareness, which DPME had done by means of the case studies, once identified further information and assistance for change should be extended. Thus, the School of Government and their executive programmes, such as the Mentorship and Coaching Programme by DPSA, would enforce the six principles too. Many avenues of support were grafted to help executive and top management.

The Acting- Chairperson thanked DPME for their presentation and commented that it was water under the bridge, but quite useful. She appealed to Members to confirm that upon return after the recess of Parliament in 2017, the Portfolio Committee would invite the National Departments of Correctional Services, Military Veterans and Public Works, as well as the Provincial Department of North West. Upon invitation, their Principals should be invited too, as it was of no use to have called the Director Generals into account, but they were not responsible for the drafting of policy. Secondly, how would the Portfolio Committee become champions of alleviating general organisational performance, as the AG had alleviated the financial performance due to their audit reports? Both the Portfolio Committee and DPME should strongly enforce standardisation within the areas that showed underperformance. This was a PR exercise, and at least 2016 saw the recommendation occurring, but in of 2017 oversight of the processes of the engagements with the six principle recommendations would take place.

Mr van der Westhuizen requested clarity of the tool used by DPME for the KPA measurements. Was it available electronically or would it be possible to electronically forward the tool to the Portfolio Committee? It would assist to view what exactly was measured when the KPA was referred too. 

Dr Tshayingca- Mashiya proposed that DPSA, DPME and National School of Government (NSG) should convene for a joint meeting with the Portfolio Committee of Public Service and Administration/ Monitoring and Evaluation. It would ensure clarity amongst the public service sector, because disintegration kept occurring. For instance, the Public Service Commission had advocated the professionalisation of the public service workforce, and in order to accomplish it the signing of performance agreements was advised. As a result, focus within the public service would be diverted to performance agreements, which would perpetuate disintegration within Government structures, because DPME had noted differently that weak managerial leadership contributed to underperformance and DPSA may advocate the entrenchment of the Public Service Act to resolve it, all of which may compound problems due to the lack of harmonised expectation. The elements that should support the public service should be confirmed, and its confirmation could be achieved in a joint meeting. Therefore, it could be explicitly state that based on the Public Service Act the following be adhered to, it would also then address the weak managerial leadership within the public sector and so create a conducive environment for professionalisation of the public service sector etc. Since the recommendations of each were advocated for the sake of reform, it harmonisation would entail excellence in the Public Service sector. 

Mr Motau commented that should the 360 degree assessment tool be employed for those at Senior Management Level and, consequently results would directly impact their bonuses; it would be inevitable that the departments’ underperformance would quickly turnaround to success.

Mr Ntombela agreed that a joint meeting was essential and queried the comparison between the 360 degree tool and MPAT?

The Acting- Chairperson commented that before becoming a politician, she had disputed her seniors in her other line of work, because she had accomplished her duties, but they failed to comply with their function. Also, regarding the managerial character, she had requested of her subordinates at departmental meetings to express concerns of her leadership or suggest change. For instance, a weakness highlighted was the approach taken when someone was late, because it was not taken kindly. Another example was, if someone had consented to do something, but changed their mind regarding it or circumstance prohibited them from doing so, and they had not communicated the change, it was not appreciated and provoked a reaction. Departmental underperformance bordered on staff morale that was depleting, and they should be given forums to express their concerns.

Dr Tshayingca- Mashiya noted that within the public service sector, there were Director Generals who seemingly abused their power, because they may be intolerant of officials arriving late to meetings, but may be notoriously of arriving when she/he pleased. It was correct that should the 360 degrees be implemented as having an impact on the bonuses, it would provoke every Senior Manager to upgrade their quality of leadership. The DPME had a meeting with the DPSA for them to have assessed the aspect of compliance with MPAT, so that how the elements were used for change could be reviewed. Also, the MPAT already had elements of 360 degrees, although not all of it, but the difference could be incorporated within the managerial leadership practices in Government.

Committee business:

The Acting Chairperson said two items required consideration, the first was the COSATU letter/ petition that the Committee had received, of which deliberation highlighted areas pertaining to the Committee. The Workers’ Petition received was also circulated amongst the private sector and Government. The Committee had identified areas within the petition that pertained to it, but moving forward, there might be a need to engage with COSATU. There was progress. However, further progress would, hopefully, not require of the Committee to overtake the responsibilities of the Department of Labour neither the oversight function of the Portfolio Committee on Labour. The relevant departments would be contacted for response.

The other item for consideration was the letter sent to the Acting- Chairperson by PSC, because they had done a business re-engineering, and requested permission for a meeting in 2017 to brief the Committee about it. It would showcase the difference between the proposed amendments surveyed and the business model. Before Mr Marais had joined the Portfolio Committee, PSC had expressed in the past as well as when engaging on their quarterly reports that they were uncomfortable in their location/house, because it was expected of PSC to execute oversight over DPSA, whilst they were housed in the same location. Copies would be made of their letter and circulated among the Members.

The House Chair, Mr Frolick, sent notification that the Committee was in order. However, there was a complaint that when meetings were cancelled fruitless expenditure incurred and such should cease. Mr Frolick had noted that they would call the offenders to account, and it was hoped that the Portfolio Committee of Public Service and Administration should not be amongst them. It was also requested that regarding the attendance of Committee meetings, Members should be mindful of the administrative and financial implications involved, such as the hotel decided upon for instances of sleep over, consideration of pick-up time etc., because being insensitive to the arranged logistics would incur more expenditure of time and money. Also, Members should assist one another regarding the programme and it was requested of Members to try their level best to respect programmes that were adopted. Lastly, amendments regarding Bills that were deliberated should be processed as soon as possible, so that by 2018 no Committee would be inundated with the pressure to implement its amendments as though it was unforeseen.

It seemed that the Portfolio Committee of Public Service and Administration/Monitoring and Evaluation was on the right track. There wold be a Management meeting on 24 November 2016 and next week a draft programme for 2017 wold be presented to the Committee. If the Members had suggestions it was advised that they should send it to the Committee of Chairpersons for formal tabling and consideration.

Mr Marais noted that there were outstanding minutes to be reviewed.

Mr van der Westhuizen noted that in addition to the outstanding minutes there were outstanding attendance registers, since he had asked of the Performance Development Management System, but it seemed that the process was adoption of minutes first and then assistance with the attendance registers would be offered, but it currently appeared as though the Committee Members were absent the entire year and that posed a concern. He questioned the delay with the Public Service Commission Amendment Bill, as it protracted since September 2015 and it was recently confirmed that it was a Section 76 Bill, which affected the Provinces. Had feedback been received from the Provinces, as it could not be recalled that the Committee had ever considered feedback from the Provinces and neither was it reflected on the programme for the balance of the year to consider for adoption. Did this imply that adoption of the Public Service Commission Amendment Bill would be postponed to 2017?

The Acting- Chairperson responded that the Public Service Commission Amendment Bill was scheduled for adoption on 30 November 2016 due to the Legal Services having had to capture the input of the Committee on it, but had not done so yet. It was requested of the DPSA to have captured the issues raised by the Committee as they were in agreement with it as well. Legally, the Committee could not include amendments that the Department had not agreed upon.

The minutes were scheduled for adoption on 7 December 2016.

The meeting was adjourned.