SMC paper.doc
Management proposals for a revised Performance Management System
June 2014
Introduction
1. For many years the UN Secretariat has been trying to strengthen its performance management system in order to ensure the highest performance by our staff, and to support and develop them as required. Performance management is a critical area of management reform, not least because of its link to continuing appointments, downsizing/retrenchment exercises and mobility. The General Assembly also requested, in Resolution 68/252, that the Secretary-General submit a comprehensive performance management proposal to the 69th Session of the General Assembly.
2. The Secretariat promulgated a new policy in 2010 but our system has retained some key challenges, which are mainly cultural, behavioral and bureaucratic, rather than technical.
3. These challenges mirror, for the most part, those of other organizations and the private sector. Other entities in the UN system, as well as public and private sector organizations and companies, are constantly changing their own performance management systems in pursuit of the best formula but none have yet found the ‘holy grail.’ Based on our research, we have concluded that our performance management system is generally consistent with best practice. We are not, therefore, proposing to overhaul the current system entirely. Rather, we are targeting specific areas where our system needs improvement.
Staff-Management engagement on performance management
4. Performance management was a key agenda item at the last two sessions of the Staff Management Coordination Committee (SMCC) and the first two sessions of the Staff Management Committee (SMC I and SMC II). The SMC Working Group on Performance Management and Development, (the “SMC Working Group”) had been thoroughly reviewing the performance management system since 2009. In 2013, the Working Group made a number of recommendations for improving the system, taking into account the recommendations of the Global Joint Monitoring Group, also a staff-management body.
5. OHRM has also researched best practice in other organizations, including in the UN Agencies, Funds and Programmes. Using this background information, as well as the recommendations of the SMC Working Group, OHRM consulted with senior management and Member States, following SMC II, on specific areas for improvement.
6. SMC II recommended that Management prepare and circulate a revised ST/AI. The proposals below set out the key elements of such a revised ST/AI, as well as the broader performance management system.
Proposed approach
7. The extensive consultations conducted with Staff, Management and Member States have clearly shown that there are four key areas where our performance management system requires urgent reform. These are the need to (1) increase accountability; (2) simplify the policy and tool; (3) improve the management culture; and (4) address underperformance and reward excellent performance. The key elements of the proposed approach are summarized below.
(A) Increasing Accountability
8. Many of the issues raised by the SMC Working Group, as well as at various SMCC and SMC meetings, related to the need for greater managerial and senior leadership accountability for performance management. Senior management and Member States have agreed that, to improve the fairness and credibility of the system and improve compliance, there needs to be greater senior management engagement, clearer roles and responsibilities for Senior Leadership/Management, Second Reporting Officers, First Reporting Officers and the individual staff member.
9. At the Senior Leadership level:
· Heads of departments/offices/missions will be required to take a more proactive role in performance management. They will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the policy, and compliance with deadlines is now an indicator in the Senior Leader Compact. They will also be responsible for ensuring consistency and fairness in the distribution of ratings. In order to fulfill these responsibilities the Senior Management Team (SMT) in each department/office/mission will be mandated to meet between January and March each year to provide guidance on ratings distribution and compliance.
· As an additional measure, the Management Committee will review compliance and ratings distribution across the Secretariat twice a year.
· Finally, compliance rates and ratings distribution for departments/offices/missions will also be published annually on iSeek.
· Aside from increasing compliance and accountability, these measures are expected, over time, to help address the cultural issue in the Secretariat of inflated or inconsistent ratings.
10. At the managerial level:
· Managers will be specifically assessed, in their own performance evaluations, on the fulfillment of their managerial responsibilities
· Additionally, second reporting officers (SROs) will be required to engage with first reporting officers (FROs) on all evaluations (including comments and ratings). Only after agreement between the FRO and the SRO will the FRO hold the end of cycle discussions with their staff.
· These measures will ensure that managers are held accountable for the proper management of their staff and that SROs take a more proactive role in performance management, including ensuring fairness and consistency in evaluations.
11. Staff:
· The role of staff members in ensuring personal accountability for their performance, and the performance-management processes, will be clarified and reinforced.
12. Strengthened Global Monitoring
· At previous SMC sessions, concerns were raised that local Joint Monitoring Groups (JMGs) are not being consistently established and that senior management have not been adequately engaged with them. Despite efforts to press missions and offices to establish these groups, JMGs have not met in sufficient number and local offices have indicated that they do not have the capacity or resources to carry out these tasks in a meaningful way. As a result, data is not being consistently captured. The various proposed actions (enhanced role of heads of Heads of Departments/ Offices/ Missions, SMTs, Management Committee and publication on iSeek) should greatly improve compliance and consistency of ratings. Also, in place of data that was supposed to be provided by local JMGs, OHRM will improve the data gathering capabilities of the Inspira tool and provide the SMC with annual updates on compliance data, ratings and significant trends for its consideration.
(B) Streamlining the Policy and the Evaluation Process
13. The policy will be streamlined, with a sharper focus on the essential steps of performance evaluation and a clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Senior Management Team, SROs, FROs, staff members and Human Resources personnel. This will improve compliance by both staff and managers.
· Instead of writing elaborate work plans in the ePerformance tool, staff will be asked to identify their 3-5 key objectives for the year. This conforms to best practice and the notion that detailed work plans are not intended to remain stagnant for 6 – 12 months at a time; rather, they are meant to evolve based on needs and priorities. The work plan, therefore, will no longer reside in ePerformance.
· The midpoint review, which has extremely poor compliance rates across the Secretariat, will be removed and replaced with ongoing dialogue. This recognizes that a single conversation in the middle of the cycle (which, in any case, generally does not take place at present) cannot substitute for ongoing feedback.
· Instead, managers will be required to have regular performance-related dialogue with the staff they supervise and will be provided clearer guidance on how to do this.
· Values will be removed from the performance evaluation, in accordance with best practice (i.e. if a staff member does not demonstrate the values of the Organization, this should not be addressed through a performance evaluation). Additionally, there will no longer be a requirement to individually rate the competencies. This will reduce the evaluation to two comment boxes (three for managers) and a single rating, making it more focused and less cumbersome.
· The ePerformance tool will be significantly shortened and will require only electronic signature, making it easier for staff and managers to complete evaluations. (See Annex 1)
· The development plan, which is not linked to the Organization’s learning and career support work/capacities and is thus infrequently and inconsistently used, would be removed from ePerformance. Staff members’ development remains critical for the Organization, however, and the FRO would still be asked, as part of the evaluation, to include any development needs or opportunities they recommend/support for the staff member. Additionally, OHRM will focus more efforts on training managers to have the capacity to develop staff members properly and to give staff members actual tools (through a revised approach to career support) to pursue their career aspirations. Finally, in terms of staff members – as well as managers and the Organization – being able to track learning activities, OHRM will continue to explore the full potential of inspira, including the learning management system.
(C) Improving performance management by improving the management culture of the Secretariat
· The Organization will clarify its expectations of managers, which will include the expectation that they manage performance in a fair and effective manner. Managers will be explicitly evaluated against these expectations in their own performance evaluations. To further improve leadership and managerial capacities, a regular, confidential multi-rater (“i.e. a 360 degree evaluation” for development purposes) will be introduced for USGs/ASGs and, resources permitting, phased in for managers at all levels (instead of doing a 36o degree evaluation only once or twice in a career, in connection with the MDP or LDP).
· To better support managers, OHRM is enhancing its management training and developing a “managers’ toolkit”, to include concrete skills and guidance required to manage and assess staff effectively (including proper work-planning, links to organizational goals, provision of ongoing feedback, managing in a multicultural setting, holding difficult conversations, knowledge of key policies, etc.).
· Comprehensive guidelines will be issued for each step in the performance management process, including on how to recognize staff who perform well and how to evaluate staff fairly.
(D) Addressing underperformance and rewarding excellent performance
14. For the 2013/2014 performance cycle, approximately 1% of staff across the Secretariat received a rating of “partially meets” or “does not meet” expectations. The principal aim of a revised policy and ePerformance tool would not be to address this small group, but to simplify the steps, which most staff agree are currently confusing and complicated, and better equip managers to deal with difficult situations when they do arise. The following measures also address the need to reward excellent performance.
· Clearer Policy: The revised policy will clarify that managers must engage in ongoing dialogue with staff and provide meaningful feedback throughout the cycle and that underperformance must be dealt with as soon as possible. The policy will also clarify the steps required in dealing with underperformance, such as how and when a performance improvement plan should be implemented. Finally, the policy will stipulate that during the implementation of a performance improvement plan, the current performance cycle is suspended. The performance improvement plan will have a final rating, so managers do not have to wait an entire cycle to take further action.
· Enhanced Guidelines: The policy will be complemented by guidelines, which will give clearer directions to managers on issues such as providing feedback and having difficult performance conversations, to reduce unnecessary conflict in these discussions.
· Greater Accountability of the SRO: The FRO will consult the SRO and the SRO will be responsible for guiding the FRO in cases of underperformance, thus placing more accountability on the more senior manager. In cases where there is no SRO, the Executive Office/HR Office will assist.
· Greater clarity on Performance Improvement Plans: In addition to the streamlined procedures set out above for PIPs, a specific template and guidance for the use of PIPs will be developed.
· Increased HR Advice: Human resources and executive office staff will be trained and better-equipped to provide guidance and support to both staff and managers on the performance management processes.
· Rebuttal process: The rebuttal process will be improved through simpler steps to avoid the long delays currently experienced. In response to staff concerns about the level of rebuttal panel members, it is proposed that only one of the three panel members would need to be at the same level as the FRO. The staff member would select the Chair and one panel member, while the FRO would select the third panel member. In addition, panel members will be trained to ensure they carry out their responsibilities properly. Also, in response to staff requests and to increase fairness, panels that overturn a rating will have the ability to delete some or all of the FRO’s comments related to the overturned rating.
· Earlier support: It is anticipated that these changes will encourage managers to put in place measures aimed at developing the staff member and improving performance at the earliest opportunity. In cases where performance still does not improve, these measures would allow the use of sanctions for underperformance, such as withholding of the salary increment and/or the non-renewal or termination of an appointment for unsatisfactory service.
· Awards and Recognition. Staff, managers and Member States agreed that the performance management policy must not be built around a minority of underperformers; rather, its primary purpose should be to encourage excellent performance and ensure it is rewarded. The SMC Working Group finalized a draft paper on rewards and recognition and briefed SMC II on this. An Awards and Recognition framework will be the next important step in recognizing the great work of our staff and will be promulgated once the changes and improvements to the performance management system have been implemented.
Other Points for Consideration
15. Bell Curves. Some parts of the Secretariat seem to impose a de facto bell curve (i.e. requiring managers to rank their staff using a forced distribution) while others do not. This contributes to rating inconsistencies across the Organization. It has been agreed that the UN Secretariat does not currently have, and should not institute, a bell curve policy, which is more appropriate for organizations where top ratings are used to determine bonuses, salary increases and promotion. It should be borne in mind, however, that the ICSC is considering the introduction of a “pay for performance” scheme for the UN system, which may compel us to reconsider this. In the meantime, OHRM will issue revised guidelines on evaluating staff, which will clearly define the ratings and clarify, for example, that a rating of “exceeds performance expectations” is to be reserved for truly remarkable performance. Concerns that high ratings are the only means of rewarding good performers will be addressed in the training and guidance. For example, managers will be shown better usage of the comments boxes to recognise the great work of their staff.