AN UPDATE OF THE EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENT IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION

07 MARCH 2007

1. INTRODUCTION

Heads of Department (HoDs) are evaluated in terms of the Guidelines for the Evaluation of HoDs. These Guidelines are issued annually by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and contain a legal Framework issued by the Minister for Public Service and Administration (MPSA).

The presentation focuses on the implementation of this Framework during evaluations for the 2003/2004 financial year, but also reflects on progress made since the first implementation in 2000/1.

2. BACKGROUND

HoDs have a responsibility to ensure the achievement of governments' priorities and objectives. Key to this task is to ensure that government departments are able to optimally deliver services to the citizens of the country. HoDs are effectively the administrative drivers of governments' programmes. They should therefore be held accountable for the achievement of objectives that are within their scope of responsibility.

The Performance Management of HoDs is one of the key mechanisms through which to promote accountability for the achievement of performance objectives. Performance management helps to clarify responsibilities, priorities and performance expectations between the senior manager and the supervisor concerned. It is also the basis for managing the performance of HoDs by the relevant Executing Authority (EA). When done properly it helps create a sound basis for decisions by an EA to reward good performance and deal with underperformance.

The PSC has been involved in facilitating the performance evaluations of HoDs since 2000. It also provides the Secretariat for all evaluation panels and acts as Chairperson during such evaluations. In the process the PSC has gained valuable insight on the performance management process of HoDs in the Public Service. One of the key concerns observed in this process has been the declining momentum in the implementation of performance management for HoDs.

This presentation provides an analysis of progress and challenges encountered in the process of facilitating the performance of HoDs. The presentation further provides recommendations on how to deal with the challenges identified.

3. EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF HODS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

The Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs in the Public Service was adopted by Cabinet in November 2000. In terms of this Framework, EAs are responsible for evaluating the performance of their HoDs at the end of each financial year.

The Framework requires EAs to set in motion the process of evaluating an HoD by appointing a panel that will assess the HoD, and advise the EA on the level of performance of the HoDs in a specific financial year and point out developmental areas that must be attended to.

The EA must also provide documents to be used for the evaluation. These documents include the Annual Report, the Performance Agreement (PA) of the HoD, and the verification statement (VS) signed by both the HoD and the EA. On receipt of these documents the PSC prepares a summary to facilitate the deliberations of the panel. The summary also raises key questions of clarity for discussion during the panel meeting.

4. PROGRESS MADE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRAMEWORK

The first implementation of the Framework took place during evaluations for the 2000/2001 financial year. The Framework has been applied every subsequent financial year since the first implementation in 2000/2001. There was good progress in the implementation of the Framework in the first two evaluation cycles. From the third evaluation cycle, there was notable decline in the number of HoDs evaluated. For example, only 50% of qualifying HoDs were evaluated for the 2003/2004 evaluation cycle compared to 80% evaluated during the preceding cycle.

The 2004/2005 evaluation cycle was also a cause for concern with only 59% of all qualifying HoDs evaluated. Table 1 below shows trends of the evaluation process.

Table 1: No. of HoDs evaluated since the implementation

	2000/2001	2001/2002	2002/2003	2003/2004	2004/2005
National	12	23	21	12	13
Provinces	23	38	31	32	30
Totals	35	61	52	44	43

The PSC is concerned about the increasing number of qualifying HoDs who do not get evaluated. There is also a disturbing trend of departments whose HoDs have never been evaluated since the first implementation of the Framework.

5. CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED IN THE IMPLEMETATION OF THE FRAMEWORK

5.1 Role of Executing Authorities

A major challenge remains the declining numbers of HoDs being evaluated at the end of each financial year. At the center of this problem is EAs who do not initiate the assessment of their HoDs as required by the Framework. The PSC believes that this is the primary reason for the non-evaluation of qualifying HoDs. EAs need to commit themselves to evaluating their HoDs at the end of each financial year.

5.2 Filing of Performance Agreements

Another key challenge has been HoDs who fail to file their PAs with the PSC. A decision was taken by Cabinet in November 2002 that all PAs of HoDs must be filed with the PSC.

A PA is a basis for evaluating the performance of an HoD and creates a common point of reference for the HoD and EA in the entire performance management cycle.

5.3 Quality of Documents used during the Evaluations

Another challenge consistently observed by the PSC has been of the content of documents submitted for the evaluation process. The Verification Statement (VS) is a document that details achievements by the HoD / department during a financial year to be evaluated. A VS should be based on a PA and should be agreed to, rated and signed by both the HoD and the EA. There have been VS submitted without ratings or signatures by either the HoD, EA or both. Even more worrying is that some VS were not even aligned to the HoDs PA. This may be a symptom of a bigger problem of EAs and HoDs not sufficiently talking to each other when VS are being prepared.

5.4 Feedback to HoDs and the PSC

The cycle of performance management and development cannot be complete until the EA, as supervisor, has provided feedback from the evaluation process to the HoD. In the experience of the PSC such feedback is not always provided. HoDs had on occasions approached the PSC informally to enquire about the outcome of their evaluation. This suggested that the EA had not communicated the outcome as is required.

Failure to communicate the outcome of an evaluation means that the HoD is not being informed of the developmental areas that need to be attended to. It also suggest that where performance incentives are due they are being with held without explanation to the HoD, or when interventions are required to deal with poor performance, they are simply not being initiated. This compromises the potential of the PMDS to promote candid dialogue between the EA and HoD.

5.5 The Role of Evaluation Panels

Panel members have played a critical role in the implementation of the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs. Other than availing themselves for the evaluation meeting, panel members must make time before such a meeting to read through the documents provided for the evaluation. Whilst many of the people appointed into panels have busy schedules, they have availed themselves for the meetings and prepared themselves well to provide insightful inputs during such meetings.

However, the PSC has noted with concern a few incidents where panel members did not seem to play their role of critically reflecting on the HoDs performance in order to inform their advice to the EAs. The concern of the PSC is that such incidents may compromise the integrity of the evaluation process should they develop into a trend.

5.6 Trends in Performance Ratings

Since the implementation of the Framework for the 2000/2001 evaluation cycle, the ratings awarded to HoDs suggest that there is generally a high level of satisfaction with their performance. The majority of HoDs have obtained performance ratings of significantly above expectation (level 4) and outstanding performance (level 5). Incidents of poor performance have been very few in the five cycles up to now.

An important consideration for the PSC is how the performance of these HoDs would compare to the performance of the departments they are responsible for.

6. ANAL YSIS OF REASONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE

It is the view of the PSC that the main reason for noncompliance with the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs is that Performance Management and Evaluation is not accorded high priority.

There could also be poor administrative support in the Offices of EAs and HoDs from their Human Resource components. Such support is particularly important for new EAs and HoDs who may not be familiar with the Framework and its requirements.

There could also be fundamental differences between EAs and HoDs which are not mediated and which may be a cause for the late or non-signing of PAs.

However, the PSC has not ruled out the possibility of non-compliance being as a result of HoDs who are not performing well simply delaying the process because it would not be in their interest.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to improve the implementation of the Framework for the Evaluation of HoDs, it is important that EAs play their role and initiate the process to evaluate their HoDs. Without a strong commitment from EAs there will continue to be a high number of HoDs not evaluated despite qualifying for evaluation. Executing Authorities can also ensure that PAs are entered into and filed with the Commission timeously.

There is a need to standardize the management of career incidents of HoDs. In this instance, Premiers who have not delegated this function to their MECs should put in place a mechanism to avoid delays in evaluating HoDs. It would even be better if such a mechanism is prescribed as a regulatory instrument by the MPSA.

It is important that the performance of departments is taken into account when assessing the performance of HoDs. A framework has been developed by the PSC and will be piloted during 2007.

There needs to be a round table with EAs to further discuss the above challenge. This roundtable could also explore practical measures that can improve the process.