What happens when most of the employees receive outstanding
ranking (9 or 10 out of 10) from their supervisors?
What happens when these ranking are given without even a
face-to-face meeting between the appraise and the appraiser?
What happens when most employees feel that Performance Appraisal
(PAR) system is neither fair nor objective?
What happens when despite high performance ratings received
by the employees, their department’s performance shows decline?
It’s enough indication that something is fundamentally
flawed in the system or the system itself is flawed. That’s what the Department
of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has come to a conclusion regarding the PAR of
the Civil Service officers under various ministries. All the above symptoms
discussed above were visible.
The Solution
DoPT suggest embracing a Singaporean model that is stated to
be far more fair and rigorous. The
proposed system will hold the supervisors more accountable for the ratings that
they give to the rates and necessitates them to support their ratings with
evidences. The proposed system also recognizes the fact that promotions are not
only a outcome of past performance but also dependent on the Current Estimated
Potential (CEP) or simply the officers’ expected performance in the higher role.
The CEP will allow accelerated promotions to deserving officers and links the
pace of promotions to an estimation of the highest level of work an offence can
competently handle before his retirement and considers the official's
intellectual qualities, result orientation and leadership qualities for
appraisal.
The Hitch
The diagnosis of a faulty PAR by DoPT is correct. The
solution suggested based on Singapore model is also a noble thought. The suggestion
however fails to recognize that the success of any initiative, such as these,
require ‘design’ interventions. The highly politicized environment,
bureaucratic set-up and a deep-set culture of entitlement could come as a major
roadblock to the new PAR.
Research has proven more than once that such one-of measures
do not work. Copying ‘best-practices’ from successful organizations and
imposing them on another organization, assuming that it will be solution to all
the ills that plague it, is nothing more than wishful thinking. They are
cosmetic reliefs that do not last long. The true face will come out sooner or
later as the problems will persist.
