THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

1

• THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS PRESENTATION TO
  THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND
  ADMINISTRATION
• REPORT ON MANAGEMENT OF POOR PERFORMANCE IN THE
  PUBLIC SERVICE
• Date 7 November 2007

2
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION

• Introduction
• Objective of the study
• Research methodology
• International Trends
• Findings and Observations of the study
• Recommendations and Conclusion

3
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 PSCs Investigation aimed at assessing what
  is being done to manage below average or poor
  performance.

4
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.

5
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.

6
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

7
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.

8
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.

9
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.

10
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.

11
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.
• HRs 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.

12
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.

13
THANK YOU!