Performance ratings must be fair.
Every employee is entitled to a fair assessment of their performance and the award of a performance rating which they have achieved. The DWP People Performance end-of year rating process must not be misused to deliver predetermined quotas. Each employee’s performance over the whole reporting period must be individually evaluated on the basis of:
- the ‘What’ (delivery of objectives) and
-the ‘How’ (demonstration of behaviours, competencies and values) achieved by the employee
- against known performance expectations, with equal weighting between ‘What’ and ‘How’ and assessed on three final ratings: “Exceeded”; “Achieved” and “Must Improve”.(Procedure 9.1)
The guided distribution ranges, Exceeded 20-25%, Achieved 65% and Must Improve 10% must not be misused to predetermine performance ratings.
The procedures for rating performance do not require managers to meet the guided distribution ranges but do insist that ratings will not be changed or forced simply to fit the distribution. (Procedure 9.3)
Known performance expectations
The performance management process must assess individuals against known expectations of performance. These performance standards for the achievement of objectives and demonstration of competencies should have been shared at the start of the performance year. The Performance Wave is a tool which shows how differing levels of achieving the “what” and “how” impact on the performance level. The Performance Wave can be used in performance discussions “to highlight where an employee is plotted within the span of the rating.” (Procedures 9.6 & 11.1 first bullet point)
Distribution ranges not quotas
Distribution ranges have been introduced but are qualified by the procedural instruction that ratings will not be changed or forced simply to fit the distribution. (Procedure 9.3). Guided distribution ranges provide a framework for setting known performance expectations or standards. People Performance has a procedural requirement that ratings must be consistent with known performance expectations (Procedure 12.1). There is no requirement to meet the distribution ranges.
Civil service competency framework
The Civil Service Competency Framework has been used for People Performance purposes since 1st April 2013. The DWP Intranet Performance Management site includes access to the Framework.
Consistency checking
Countersigning managers will do a “light touch” consistency check of distribution ratings across the peer group and ensure the consideration of the employees’ performance is objective and consistent against known performance expectations. They will ensure one person’s evidence has not been over-or under-estimated compared to that of other employees doing similar work. Countersigning managers will also ensure that employees are not forced into a performance rating simply to meet the distribution. (Procedures 12.1–12.3)
Branch Briefing DWP/BB/037/14 covers revised ‘How to’ guidance for consistency.
Validation meetings
Ratings for staff in grades HEO to Grade 6 will be subject to a formal validation process following the countersigning managers “light touch consistency check”. Branch Briefing DWP/BB/038/14 covers revised ‘How to’ guidance for Validation. Outcomes will be reviewed in relation to the distribution ranges but unlike the Performance and Development System (PDS) and the Civil Service Employee Policy (CSEP) there is no procedural requirement to meet the distribution.
The Chair’s responsibilities include ensuring that:
- the performance ratings of employees are justified on the basis of achievement of objectives and demonstration of competencies in relation to known performance expectations for the peer group
- all decisions have been reasonable, fair and unbiased and non-discriminatory.
- employees are not forced into a performance rating simply to meet the distribution ranges
- the performance distribution outcome is explainable and the reasons recorded.
This process should provide outcomes that are transparent, justified and open to scrutiny. (Procedures 12.4 -12.6)
Must improve ratings
The terms of the “Must Improve” rating clarify that this rating may be a proportionate response where performance has required improvement during the reporting period. People Performance Procedure 9.7 confirms:
9.7 The Must Improve rating includes employees whose performance requires improvement and those employees who are being managed under formal unsatisfactory performance procedures. This rating may also be appropriate for others whose performance has required improvement during the reporting period, where this is a proportionate response. Mid-year and end-of-year ratings will always be based on a
balanced consideration of the employee’s personal performance over the entire period
and decisions must be transparent, fair and reasonable.
Balanced consideration of performance
Ratings must always be based on a balanced consideration of the employee’s personal performance over the reporting period. The use of the Must Improve rating as a proportionate response means that the rating is not predetermined where improvement has been required during the reporting period and it should not be an unfair, disproportionate response to a relatively minor or isolated issue.
Right of appeal
The right to raise a formal grievance and appeal under the normal Grievance and Appeal Procedures is available. It is usually best practice to try to resolve disagreements informally but there is no strict requirement to do so. (Procedures13).
Guidance for members
PCS guidance for members on discussing and agreeing objectives has been provided in Briefing DWP/MB/002/14 and on preparation for end-of-year reviews in DWP/MB/005/14. Further guidance will be provided.
http://www.pcs.org.uk/download.cfm?docid=F7BFF2D0-37E4-46B5-9A6CCACABCF8E7EF
No comments:
Post a Comment