Sharpening the focus: Managing performance in the APS

APS experience

A number of agencies have reviewed, or are in the process of reviewing, their approaches to performance management. Formal analyses have also been conducted by the ANAO and through State of the Service Reports.

An audit of 63 agencies conducted by the ANAO in 2004 found that the application of better practice principles across APS agencies was variable, and that there was scope for improvement in demonstrating that performance management systems, strategies and plans were consistent with the framework outlined by the MAC. In relation to the key features of the strategic framework outlined by MAC the following observations were made:

The alignment of performance management systems with goals and organisational priorities was variable, driven in some cases by factors other than the business needs of the agencies or government outcomes. Limited assessment of the organisational impact of performance management systems makes it difficult to determine whether performance management has been successful in achieving business outcomes.
There is a need to address credibility issues surrounding performance management. These include lack of clarity on what constitutes good performance, the value of rewards, perceived unfairness in decisions about and distribution of performance rewards, the management of underperformance, and the effectiveness of performance management in assisting staff with evaluating and improving their performance.
The integration of performance management systems with the overall corporate structure was progressing. However, there are improvements to be made in recognising those people who manage staff well, assisting those who do not, and identifying the learning and development needs of staff¹⁰.

The use of performance agreements is mandatory across nearly all APS agencies. The State of the Service Report 2004-2005 (SOSR)¹¹ found that the majority of employees felt the links between their agency´s business and their work were made clear in the development of their performance agreements (although there was some reduction, 65% down from 72% in 2002-2003). Seventy-three per cent of employees also understood the standards used to evaluate their performance. However, there were some concerning results that only 43% of employees felt their most recent performance review would help them perform better, suggesting that there are issues with the effectiveness of performance management systems.

With regard to the management of underperformance, the SOSR found that in the last 12 months one in five Senior Executive Service (SES)/Executive Level (EL) employees were involved in supervising or managing an employee that consistently underperformed¹². Of that group of SES/ELs who managed underperformance, the most common challenges faced were: managing the impact of the underperformer on team members/ colleagues (72%); time required to deal with the underperformance issues (60%); unwillingness on the part of the underperformer to try and improve his/her performance (55%), and dealing with health related and/ or personal issues (51%). In dealing with these issues this group of SES/ELs identified support from their manager (44%) and support from the human resource area (25%) as the most helpful support mechanisms in managing the underperformer. However, 23% of this group found nothing particularly helpful in dealing with the situation.

Both the ANAO report and the SOSR are consistent in their emphasis about the challenges facing agencies and that there is still some way to go to achieve effective implementation across the service.

Downloads:

Contents:

In this series :

On our site:

Other sites:

Legislation:

Site help

Site menu

Sharpening the focus: Managing performance in the APS

APS experience