Agenda Item 8Executive Board Meetingmemo No 7/178 March 2017

Agenda Item 8Executive Board MeetingMemo No 7/178 March 2017

Performance Management

Purpose

1. The purpose of this paper is to inform the Executive Board of changes to the Civil Service approach to Performance Management (PM) and seek their agreement on proposed changes to our current Performance Management System (PMS) to bring it into line with that approach

Background

2. The current Civil Service (CS) wide performance management approach was introduced in 2012 and included the introduction of the assessment of “how” people did their work through behavioural competencies and also guided distribution across the marking classifications (10% NFE, 65% GP and 25% TP). The Executive Board agreed to implement the new system along with the introduction of the new Civil Service Competency Framework. It was also agreed that guided distribution would not be included as the FC did not operate performance related pay.

3. Permanent Secretaries have now made a collective decision to move away from a single system and process to a new CS wide Performance Management Framework in order to provide departments with some flexibility to tailor their approach to reflect their own business needs and drivers. One of the most significant changes for the wider Civil Service is the removal of guided distribution.

New Common Framework

1. The new framework is based on eight mandatory core elements and departments must be able to demonstrate how their PM approach conforms with those elements. Consistency across departments will be maintained bya continuing focus on the things that have made the current approach successful. These are:

• Continue to be differentiated with a mechanism for identifying top and poor performers and providing appropriate support and effective management;
• Continue to take account of the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ and ensuring that all staff are clear on what standards and expectations apply to them;
• Continue to identify and address any PM differences for diversity groups.

1. The eight core elements of the new framework are:

• Leaders accountable – for effective performance management in their area.
• ‘What’ and ‘how’ receive equal focus
• Development focused
• Differentiates performance – departments must be able to identify individuals who are high performers and/or high potential, along with poor or under performers
• Poor and underperformance addressed – Departments must ensure timely action is being taken and that progress is being tracked.
• Diversity & Inclusion addressed
• Functional, professional and departmental translation – approach to PM must be developed with inputs from relevant professions to ensure comparable professional standards are being applied
• Maintenance of coherence and consistency – departments should co-ordinate developing their approaches to performance management. Further guidance is due out on this area.

Next Steps

1. A comparison of our existing PMS against the new framework has been carried out (see appendix 1) and considered by the HR Management Board. The HRMB agreed that our current systemrequires additional work in a number of areas in order to satisfythe eight core elements. These are

• Leader’s accountability- Reinforcing the importance of the leader’s role in performance management through increased emphasis on relevant training courses and wider communication.
• Differentiating performance – we already identify different levels of performance and we could identify potential through the adoption of a 9 box grid approach (see appendix 2)
• Improving diversity and inclusion by the introduction of training on unconscious bias for all reporting officers.
• Engage with other departments and CS Employee Policy to ensure comparable professional standards and consistency are achieved and maintained.

1. An Assurance Framework has also been produced by CS Employee Policy to enable departments to demonstrate how they are meeting the requirements of the new framework. Whilst we produce much of the data required we will need to review our management information to ensure we can adequately report at the end of the 2017/18 reporting year.

Resource Implications

1. Previous changes to our PMS have been led by our Shared Service teams but with the transition of Learning & Development (L&D) and Equality & Diversity (E&D) to the countries, a more collaborative approach will be required this time:

• Leaders accountability - Country L&D teams will need to work together to identify, revise and deliverrelevant training and wider communications to improve leader’s accountability
• Differentiating Performance –Through the HR Policy Group we will need to identify the mechanism and process for gathering and using data on potential. The Country L&D teams will need to work together to develop the training for the introduction and use of the 9 box grid by reporting officers.
• Improving diversity and inclusion - Country E&D teams will lead on the wider introduction of unconscious bias training for all reporting officers.
• Departmental translation and consistency - Central HR Policy team will undertake liaison with ourHeads of Profession, other departments and CSEP, and update our performance management policy and procedure where required.

Risk Assessment

1. Failure to undertake the work identified in para 6, particularly in differentiating performance will result in us being unable to provide assurance to the Cabinet Office that our PMS meets the requirements of the eight core elements.

Evaluation Proposals

1. Completion of the Assurance Frame work at the end of the 2017/18 reporting year will provide the necessary information to demonstrate that we are satisfactorily meeting the needs of the new performance framework. Evaluation of specific training by the L&D teams will also provide additional feedback on the effectiveness of some of our planned actions.

Recommendations

1. The Executive Board is asked to agree:
2. Reinforcing the importance of the leader’s role for performance management is carried out through training and wider communication.
3. Further work on how to introducethe 9 box grid to facilitate the identification of potential as part of individual staff assessment and how that data will be collected.
4. The wider introduction of unconscious bias training for all reporting officers.
5. Liaison with Heads of Profession, other departments and CSEP to ensure common departmental translation and consistency

Colin Sobota

Deputy HR Director

20th February 2017

Appendix 1

Core Element / PMS – Current position / Proposed Actions
Leaders accountable – for effective performance management in their area. / In our current system leaders have a key role in ensuring that PMS is applied and common standards of assessing and reporting levels of performance are achieved within their area / Further communication and training to continue to develop a culture where performance management is seen to be taken seriously and led by our leaders across the organisation.
What’ and ‘how’ receive equal focus / Clearly meets this element with the reference to outputs and competencies. In fact our FJP’s specifically refer to the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ / No specific further action required
Development focused / The Individual Learning Plan is already an integral part of our PMS. / No specific further action required
Differentiates performance – The framework states that departments must be able to identify individuals who are high performers and/or high potential, along with poor or under performers / Our current system identifies Top Performer, Good performer and Not fully effective but does not identify high potential. / In order to identify potential we should consider the adoption of the 9-Box grid and identify the process for gathering the data at country and organisational levels
Poor and underperformance addressed – Departments must ensure timely action is being taken and that progress is being tracked. / Our current system clearly states what should happen if somebody is marked NFE and this will enable us to demonstrate action taken and progress made. / No specific further action required
Diversity & Inclusion addressed / Our annual monitoring of PMS enables us to identify the existence of potential diversity issues. / Widen the understanding of unconscious bias amongst all reporting officers through training
Functional, professional and departmental translation – approach to PM must be developed with inputs from relevant professions to ensure comparable professional standards are being applied / Only aware of HR setting agreed professional standards for all roles across HR / Further discussion with our heads of professions to confirm what has been done in other professional areas. Engage with other departments and CSEP to ensure consistency and collaboration
Maintenance of coherence and consistency – departments should co-ordinate developing their approaches to performance management. Further guidance is due out on this area.

1 | | 12/06/2018