Difficulty measuring performance, dealing with unions make practice less common at government workplaces
Despite years of discussion and debate about the importance of creating more modern and efficient government workplaces, the evidence suggests public-sector employers still struggle with what is widely accepted as one of the most important components of improving organizational performance: performance management.
A study by the Conference Board of Canada last year concluded about 87 of all Canadian employers use some form of performance appraisal rating system, while a 2001 study for the Canadian Policy Research Network, Changing government workplace, determined that only about one-half of government workplaces use formal performance measures to evaluate work.
The evidence is well-documented and most people have seen the literature about the importance of tying individual and organization performance to rewards. But there are a number of unique factors that continue to make performance management in the public sector difficult, says Ray Deck, a senior labour relations consultant with the Saskatchewan Public Service Commission and past-resident of the Canadian branch of International Personnel Management Association.
For one thing, performance management is tough because in many government departments and agencies, it is difficult to measure the outcomes for the organization as a whole, which in turn makes it tough to measure individual performance, he says.
On top of that, there are political pressures not felt in the private sector. As a rule, the public tends to believe civil servants are paid enough as it is and don’t like to hear they are getting bonuses, he says.
Government ministers don’t want to read in the paper that their departments gave out a large number of bonuses to employees. Because of that, “there is a lot of resistance to any kind of incentive plan.”
And undoubtedly, one of the largest hurdles for HR departments trying to introduce performance management programs is the much higher unionization rate in the public sector.
Unions are unlikely to agree to any pay-at-risk system, says Deck. At the Saskatchewan Public Service Commission, about 85 per cent of the workforce is unionized, making performance management programs virtually a non-starter for the majority of the workforce. And so, at the moment, there are not plans to introduce such a system, he says.
There may be annual reviews, but they are less effective if there is nothing to motivate employees to improve their performance.
As for the non-union employees for whom performance management is more readily used, lump sum cash awards are rare. Rather, employees who meet their goals are more likely to be rewarded with a unique assignment or an executive development course. If lump sum payments aren’t an option, you just have to be more creative, he says.
Judy Hemmingsen, a senior consultant with GSWconsultants, also says the high degree of unionization is one of the greatest complicating factors when it comes to public-sector performance management.
Many public-sector managers are reticent about trying to correct employee performance problems because of the likelihood of union involvement, she says.
“If it is a highly adversarial relationship (between management and the union) the manager realizes it takes a lot of time and energy to work with performance problems.”
They realize that if they were to have a meeting with an employee about a performance problem, it’s likely a union steward will be called in.
Hemmingsen worked in the federal government in the past and saw first-hand how some managers dealt with under-performing employees.
In some cases, when the manager is already busy completing her own work, the most she can do is try to minimize the damage a problem employee can cause, or wait until the behaviour begins to have a high impact on the organization, she says.
In other instances, the manager may try to push the troublesome employee onto someone else.
“They basically encouraged employees to move to other departments because they wanted to unload themselves of the problem.”
One alternative for managers is to try an interest-based approach, so that the employee wants to correct the problems too, she says.
Performance issues aren’t always caused by a lack of motivation, she says.
“There could be systemic factors or things might be going on within the structure of the organization that are inadvertently rewarding poor behaviour or punishing good behaviour. For example, if someone is a good worker and works hard they get more work. There are people who learn they can do the bare minimum and get away with that. These are systemic issues,” she says.
And because the public sector often can’t offer the financial incentives available in the private sector, managers have to be very good at figuring out what intrinsic values to the job are most meaningful to employees and how the role can be enriched to improve employee satisfaction, she says.
“Public-sector managers have to be better coaches. They have to be very good at diagnosing root causes of performance issues,” says Hemmingsen.
Deck says that in those cases where performance management programs are in place, public-service HR departments have not always done a good job of helping managers implement the programs effectively. When an employee moves into management he needs help to understand the importance of managing employee performance, he says.
“I don’t think we have done a good enough job in that transition, giving managers the tools to coach people and assess people. That can have an impact on performance management.”
A study by the Conference Board of Canada last year concluded about 87 of all Canadian employers use some form of performance appraisal rating system, while a 2001 study for the Canadian Policy Research Network, Changing government workplace, determined that only about one-half of government workplaces use formal performance measures to evaluate work.
The evidence is well-documented and most people have seen the literature about the importance of tying individual and organization performance to rewards. But there are a number of unique factors that continue to make performance management in the public sector difficult, says Ray Deck, a senior labour relations consultant with the Saskatchewan Public Service Commission and past-resident of the Canadian branch of International Personnel Management Association.
For one thing, performance management is tough because in many government departments and agencies, it is difficult to measure the outcomes for the organization as a whole, which in turn makes it tough to measure individual performance, he says.
On top of that, there are political pressures not felt in the private sector. As a rule, the public tends to believe civil servants are paid enough as it is and don’t like to hear they are getting bonuses, he says.
Government ministers don’t want to read in the paper that their departments gave out a large number of bonuses to employees. Because of that, “there is a lot of resistance to any kind of incentive plan.”
And undoubtedly, one of the largest hurdles for HR departments trying to introduce performance management programs is the much higher unionization rate in the public sector.
Unions are unlikely to agree to any pay-at-risk system, says Deck. At the Saskatchewan Public Service Commission, about 85 per cent of the workforce is unionized, making performance management programs virtually a non-starter for the majority of the workforce. And so, at the moment, there are not plans to introduce such a system, he says.
There may be annual reviews, but they are less effective if there is nothing to motivate employees to improve their performance.
As for the non-union employees for whom performance management is more readily used, lump sum cash awards are rare. Rather, employees who meet their goals are more likely to be rewarded with a unique assignment or an executive development course. If lump sum payments aren’t an option, you just have to be more creative, he says.
Judy Hemmingsen, a senior consultant with GSWconsultants, also says the high degree of unionization is one of the greatest complicating factors when it comes to public-sector performance management.
Many public-sector managers are reticent about trying to correct employee performance problems because of the likelihood of union involvement, she says.
“If it is a highly adversarial relationship (between management and the union) the manager realizes it takes a lot of time and energy to work with performance problems.”
They realize that if they were to have a meeting with an employee about a performance problem, it’s likely a union steward will be called in.
Hemmingsen worked in the federal government in the past and saw first-hand how some managers dealt with under-performing employees.
In some cases, when the manager is already busy completing her own work, the most she can do is try to minimize the damage a problem employee can cause, or wait until the behaviour begins to have a high impact on the organization, she says.
In other instances, the manager may try to push the troublesome employee onto someone else.
“They basically encouraged employees to move to other departments because they wanted to unload themselves of the problem.”
One alternative for managers is to try an interest-based approach, so that the employee wants to correct the problems too, she says.
Performance issues aren’t always caused by a lack of motivation, she says.
“There could be systemic factors or things might be going on within the structure of the organization that are inadvertently rewarding poor behaviour or punishing good behaviour. For example, if someone is a good worker and works hard they get more work. There are people who learn they can do the bare minimum and get away with that. These are systemic issues,” she says.
And because the public sector often can’t offer the financial incentives available in the private sector, managers have to be very good at figuring out what intrinsic values to the job are most meaningful to employees and how the role can be enriched to improve employee satisfaction, she says.
“Public-sector managers have to be better coaches. They have to be very good at diagnosing root causes of performance issues,” says Hemmingsen.
Deck says that in those cases where performance management programs are in place, public-service HR departments have not always done a good job of helping managers implement the programs effectively. When an employee moves into management he needs help to understand the importance of managing employee performance, he says.
“I don’t think we have done a good enough job in that transition, giving managers the tools to coach people and assess people. That can have an impact on performance management.”
