Performance Management and Development System: Public Service Commission Report on Implementation in Eastern Cape and North West Provinces

Meeting report

Public Service Commission (PSC) presentation
Professor Stan Sangweni, Chairperson of the PSC, introduced the PSC delegation to the committee. He was accompanied by Mr Squire Mahlangu, PSC Commissioner North West Province; Mr Mzwandile Msoki, PSC Commissioner: Eastern Province; Dr Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko , PSC Commissioner: National Office; Ms Odette Ramsingh, PSC Director-General; and Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, PSC Deputy Director-General.

Professor Stan Sangweni indicated that the presentation would also focus on the reports of the survey on the implementation of the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) for Senior Managers in the Eastern Cape and North West Provinces, and on other research studies on the PMDS. These were the performance report of research conducted in 2004 and the report on focus studies conducted in 2006 and 2007 in relation to the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), Department of Labour (DOL) and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). All these studies indicated that PMDS related to mechanisms or instruments designed to ensure accountability and service delivery in Government departments.

Mr Mashwahle Diphofa gave the presentation on the reports on the implementation of the PMDS for Senior Managers in the Eastern Cape and North West Provinces. He noted that the Performance Agreements (Pas) were essentially intended for performance evaluation. Challenges arose in that they were supposed to be signed before the end of April, yet were always signed after this period. Non-adherence  to the PAs was a consistently serious issue across the board. PAs were not being used as reference points for managerial performance and results assessments, even after being signed.

In the Eastern Cape it had been found that the implementation of the PMDS and PAs was unsatisfactory. A common challenge was that the PAs did not distinguish between the Key Result Areas (KRAs) and the Core Management Criteria (CMC). The implementation of the PMDS is unsatisfactory, with performance reviews and appraisals not being conducted as required by the PMDS. Some of the reviews were conducted during the year or at the end of the year. There were at times no record of PAs, yet the Senior Management were being paid.

In North West province, a common challenge was that the PAs did not adhere to Chapter 4 of the SMS handbook. The Department of Education was found to be 100 percent non-compliant on the inclusion of personal developments plans (PDPs) in the PAs of Senior Managers analysed in the study.

Discussion
Mr M Matsomela (ANC) commented that it did not make sense that PAs were supposedly signed yet they could not be found and therefore could not be used.

Mr Matsomela asked why SMS (Senior Management System) members were not given handbooks leading to the inability to manage their performance.

The Chairperson asked if the PSC found the explanation given by Senior Managers that they were not given handbooks acceptable.

Ms P Mashongoane (ANC) commented that the challenges indicated in the presentation painted a very gloomy picture of the PMDS.

Ms Mashongoane commented that SMS members not complying with the PMDS requirements for the Pas, or not signing the Pas, were being given the option not to do so. She added that they should not be given this option.

Ms Mashongoane aired her concern over the non utilisation of the PAs on ongoing performance management after being signed.

Ms Mashongoane asked to know the yearly feedback and performance of the departments and SMS members who either signed the PAs or did not do so at all.
 
Commissioner Mahlangu replied that in the case of the Department of Education (DOE) the PAs were not signed, which could have been related the lack of improvement in the departments’ performance. He added that the number of SMS members had increased and the Committee needed to enquire whether this had improved anything.

Ms Mashongoane referred to the PSC recommendation that departments ensure that training on the PMDS does take place. She asked to know if training had not been taking place before.

Commissioner Mahlangu replied that training on the PMDS was taking place although more detailed information was unavailable.

Commissioner Mxakato-Diseko  added that other studies had been conducted which focused on capacity needs and so forth. She added that there was a problem with training not being conducted and arbitrary spending of funds since there was non-compliance with PMDS. The Committee needed to correlate the State of the Nation Address (SONA) imperatives and previous years’ Annual Reports with the PAs. She suggested that the Committee summon  departments and ask them to explain how they managed to complete their Annual Reports without signing PAs.

Mr M Malahlela (ANC) asked to know if there were other findings from the studies not mentioned in the presentation since Executive Authorities were only mentioned in the recommendations section of the presentation, and not the challenges section. He further asked to know if diplomacy had been used in the presentation by not mentioning them under challenges.

Mr Malahlela asked to know whether it was not a requirement for incumbents to download documents when they were recruited. He further asked if the induction and orientation process after recruitment did not include this. This should be compulsory at the Executive Level.

Mr B Mthembu (ANC) commented that  if managers were to be assessed on their performance then the Head of Departments (HODS) should ensure that an agreement on performance measurements, including the PAs, was signed. If there were no such agreements signed then there would surely be problems experienced in the future. He added that the Executive Heads of the Departments of Health and other departments not complying with the requirements for the PMDS for SMS should be held accountable.

Mr Mthembu commented that the PMDS and the PAs were imperative to efficient service delivery. The compliance in the departments was clearly strategic but not substantive compliance. He asked to know whether the system was not implementable or the problem was incapacity and insolence.

Mr Mthembu suggested that there be further studies on departments that were found to be compliant with the PMDS requirements in order to ascertain whether there was a correlation between compliance and performance.

Professor Sangweni concurred with the suggestions to have further studies on departments found to be complying with the PMDS.

Mr K Minnie (DA) suggested that the Committee summon the Executives and HODs to account for the poor compliance  and problems identified by the study.

The Chairperson commented that the PSC had provided the Committee with tools to use in its oversight role and mandate. Individuals were being rewarded, regardless of whether they were compliant or non compliant with the PMDS requirements. He concurred with Mr Minnie’s suggestion that the Committee exercise its oversight role and summon the Executive HODS to account for their department’s non-compliance with PMDS. The Committee programme included the need to have an imbizo to interact with provincial legislatures and department officials. There was a crucial need to include the PMDS as an agenda in the imbizo.

Mr Minnie commented that service delivery was of high importance and individuals were taking advantage of the government by ignoring the mechanisms to ensure efficient and expedient service delivery. The individuals not complying with the PMDS were still getting paid and receiving bonuses. The Annual Reports further indicated poor service delivery. The Committee needed to execute its oversight role and ensure that civil society received optimum service delivery.

Professor Sangweni commented that the suggestions made by the Committee Members on further studies were crucial to rectify the problems and challenges identified by the PSC. He added that the PSC could not do anything beyond implementing the PMDS, and it was indeed necessary for the Committee to exercise its authority to ensure compliance. The non-compliant departments should indeed be summoned by the Committee to account for their poor compliance with the PMDS.

Commissioner Mahlangu stressed the importance of service delivery in government departments. He added that service delivery was a problem that the entire country was facing and could be partly addressed through ensuring that PAs were signed in the requisite time. Planning on the PAs needed to take place at the end of the year, in preparation for the next year in which they would be implemented. The Committee should emphasise strategic planning when it was exercising its oversight and monitoring role.

A Member concurred with Commissioner Mhlangu’s suggestion and added that the Committee should not only address the anomalies identified by the PSC but should in addition take a holistic approach that included the State of the Nation Address (SONA).

Ms L Maloney (ANC) commented that the PSC report appeared to indicate that no justifiable reasons were given for not signing the PAs, which was unacceptable.

Ms Matsomela suggested that the Committee meet with the provincial commissioners and be given more detailed briefings on the studies conducted in order to prioritise issues. The HODs should be convened afterwards to indicate the specific challenges they were facing in relation to the PMDS. This would allow the Committee to address the problems and challenges from an informed position.

Mr Minnie referred to the Eastern Cape findings, indicating that out of the 437 questionnaires distributed to SMS members only 132 (32 percent) were signed. He commented that the other 68% SMS members who did no sign the questionnaire needed to be summoned and asked why they had not signed them.

Mr K Khumalo (ANC) commented that the non-compliance with the PMDS requirements and the challenges identified by the PSC were all political, and needed to be addressed from that perspective.

The Chairperson commented that the PSC had met the expectations of the Committee by providing information on the status of PMDS compliance. It was necessary to meet all relevant clusters and parties, specifically the HODs and provincial committees, to address all the issues identified in the meeting including induction and orientation. He added that the Committee would get back to the PSC

Performance Measurement and Monitoring: Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) briefing
Professor Richard Levin, Director General, DPSA and Ms Collette Clark, Deputy Director-General: Human Resources Management and Development, DPSA, gave a presentation on Performance Measurement and Management.

The presentation focused on the Policy Context for Performance Management, Key Questions, Performance Measurement and Management, Employee performance management and Organisational Performance Measurement.

Ms Clark outlined the history behind performance management. This had started with the White Paper for human Resource Management, which showed the need for increased delegation of managerial responsibility and authority to departments and within departments, for decentralisation of HR and a decentralised implementation of policy that was made at a central level. Macro-organisation and certain aspects of job evaluation should be centralised, but departments could develop certain defined policies. This had come into effect in 1999.

In terms of the Public Service Regulations of 1999 departments were required to  determine their human resource management policies and practices, and ensure that there were adequate institutional and managerial mechanisms in place. Performance management was devolved to each executive authority (EA), which was required to determine a system for performance management and development of employees.

The Baskin report of 2000 identified some problems, including high turnover rates and problems in recruiting and retaining skilled senior personnel, poor levels of performance and skills among some senior staff, poorly developed performance management systems, and insufficient attention to training and development. The SMS was therefore developed in 2001. This required the signature of performance agreements, and the development of a PMDS, which was implemented from 2002. The Public Service Commission administered an Evaluation Framework for HODs.

The benefits of performance measurement to stakeholders and internally were outlined, including the improvement of accountability, strategic planning and goal setting, decision making and long term goals and objectives. The organisation, its head, senior managers, and other employees should all be measured. Employee performance was a continuous process, aimed at positively influencing employee behaviour for the achievement of strategic goals. It would determine the correct activities, enhance efficiency and understand and manage performance within an agreed framework of planned goals, objectives, indicators and support incentives. The objective of timely submission of Pas was to ensure that early in the financial year the executive and head of departments clarify performance expectations as well as development needs for the year. It was critical that the HOD sign in order to cascade down other performance agreements.

In October 2006 the DPSA reported that 85% of departments responded to the survey, 78% had signed PAs in national departments, and 80% in provincial departments. Reasons for non-signature included the fact that they were in the process of being signed, leave of members, changes in the establishment, disagreement on key result areas, and non-availability of supervisors to sign. 

In the most recent State of the Nation Address 24 “APEX” projects were listed, and Project 15 was a response to the findings of the surveys. The DPSA, Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC) and Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) were required to implement this project, ensure that all currently vacant Director General, DDG and CFO and Municipal Manager positions were filled within six months. By 30 June and 31 May each year thereafter all SMS members must have submitted signed performance agreements.

A report shortly to be submitted to Cabinet would deal with effective use of resources, and consistent ouputs, the correlation of organisational performance against its goals and the impact of organisational performance. Greater emphasis was required on organisational performance as a system, with employee performance management (appraisal systems) as sub-systems. There must also be linkages between integrated planning, implementation and reporting, and performance management. The Auditor-General’s performance auditing of departments would promote good governance through accountability. The PSC was piloting an organisational performance assessment template in selected national and provincial departments.

The Department of Public Service and Administration currently had a public management watch, an indicator-focused initiative that diagnosed the working environment within the Public Service thereby enabling government to implement proactive measures. It was also leading a project to develop an organisational performance management system for public service departments. It would utilise the work that was already underway in central departments and the PSC. A draft framework would be submitted to Cabinet Lekgotla in July with an organisational performance management system to be developed by July 2009.

Discussion
The Chairperson commented that the DPSA presentation had provided important information on the policy context of Performance Management.

Mr Malahlela commented that the presentation had explicitly stated the importance of Executive Authority (EA), in particular that a critical success factor was managements’ ability to undertake people management.

Mr I Julies (DA) commented that the presentation had importantly reiterated the importance of ensuring that PAs are signed and submitted on time.

Mr B Mthembu (ANC) commented that the presentation clearly stated that responsibility and authority for the PMDS was with the EA, who should be held accountable for the non-compliance and poor performance.

Commissioner Mxakato-Diseko  commented that the Committee had the Public Service Act (PSA) at its disposal to use for compliance with the PMDS.

Ms Clark commented that another important issue needing revisiting was the scoring grid of the PAs. She added that the sole use of self-assessment was inadequate and there was a need to have the direct supervisor of an incumbent managing the performance assessment.

The meeting was adjourned.