Since at least August 2013 the Branch was complaining to District and Regional Management that members were not being given explanations of what the expected performance standards were for their peer group to differentiate between an Exceeded, Achieved or Must Improve ratings. This is despite it being a requirement under the People Performance Policy.
Our concern arose from personal cases where it appeared that some Managers were forcing people into the Must Improve rating in order to meet the ‘guided distribution, despite DWP repeatedly issuing reassurances that these did not have to be met, or because of relative performance compared to others.
We were also stated our deep concerns at reports that members were being told that the performance marking was because of comparisons to others performance, rather than against the performance expectations.
When we asked for the 2013 End of Year results by peer group we were told that “There is no intention to release any more detailed breakdowns of this information below national level”. In other words they have the information but won’t share it.
It was therefore a surprise to be sent a copy of a ‘Standards’ paper in late January 2014 claiming to be a re-issue. PCS replied stating that not only was this the first time we had seen the document but that if we had then we could not have agreed to it being used. Our significant concerns included:
That it was unclear as to what grade of staff the paper relates to as many of the behaviours listed are not applicable below the HEO grade according to the Civil Service Competency Framework.
The repeated reference to performance in relation to others in the peer group is not consistent with DWP Policy. Assessing compared to others in the peer group indicates that the focus in on ensuring the guided distribution curve is met rather than an assessment of achievement against known and appropriate performance expectations;
The approach being taken is at best a validation process for all grades and at worst a return to direct relative assessment as under the PDS system. This is not consistent with DWP Policy.
That we cannot accept an expectation that in order to merit an 'exceeded' rating a member of staff must often demonstrate for the grade above, and believe that this is not consistent with DWP Policy.
That whilst we could accept that a willingness to volunteer may be relevant as evidence for an achieved or exceeded rating we cannot accept that a reluctance to volunteer is evidence of a must improve rating.
PCS asked that the paper either be modified, taking these comments into account, or withdrawn completely. Unfortunately the District has insisted that it intend to use the ‘Standards’ as a “steer” for Managers.
We have therefore escalated this matter to the NW Group Director requesting, that as performance expectations were not clearly explained at the start of the reporting year, that all appeals against disputed end of year performance markings in this District will be supported on procedural grounds.
However, only an optimist would expect the Group Director to see sense over this issue.
The Branch is also aware of some ‘conduct’ issues being used as reasons for a Must Improve in other parts of the NW. These we believe are due to the pressures being put onto Managers to meet the ‘guided distribution’, something the DWP repeatedly claims is not required. Reasons have included such things as:
Wearing allegedly inappropriate clothing
Being unhappy following a bereavement
Being new to the job
Making an alleged negative comment when in fact it was constructive
Making a personal telephone call
In all of these cases the Must Improve was overturned on Appeal with PCS assistance.
The Branch is therefore reminding members that they can contact their local PCS rep should they be dissatisfied with their end of year Performance Rating. We will then ensure that you are represented during any appeal.
Steve Finch
Branch Secretary
