‘No proper system of assessment’ in the civil service

meglome

THE PROCESS OF assessment in the civil service has come under fire today, after it emerged that only nine out of almost 18,000 workers were given the lowest rating last year.

Former TD, minister and leader of Fine Gael Alan Dukes said today that “we don’t have a proper system of assessment in the public service”. He was speaking on RTÉ Radio One’s Marian Finucane show in response to a Sunday Times report.

Mark Tighe reports in the paper that a rating system which was introduced to improve to improve performance is failing. The Sunday Times has learned that only nine civil servants out of 17,728 received the lowest rating possible – one out of five.

Staff who are given two or more out of five are entitled to a pay increase, and those who earn three or more out of five can apply for promotion.

Dukes – who is now the chairman of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation – said that “we need a far better system” and said he was concerned about a culture of self-assessment, which he said was equivalent to “no assessment”.

Merit pay

He detailed a scheme of merit pay which was brought in in the civil service a few years ago, whereby those who were deemed to have performed particularly well would be given bonus payments. Dukes said that only in one department was the scheme was implemented “seriously” and a small number of the senior civil servants got merit pay. He said that in all other departments every civil servant received the bonuses, leading to “mutiny” in the one department were the scheme was properly implemented.

The Sunday Times also reports that managers in the civil service do not tackle under-performance, fearing a backlash from unions, while Alan Dukes said it was likely that unions would ‘kick against’ an attempt to reform the method of assessment.

ICTU’s Paul Sweeney said today that he’s not a fan of merit pay, and said it should only be given in exceptional circumstances. He said that it’s important that the public service is efficient and that he believes bonuses should not be given unless they’re deserved.

http://www.thejournal.ie/no-proper-system-of-assessment-in-the-civil-service-272854-Nov2011/

I know we're all stunned. When I worked for an American software company anything less than a 3 out of 5 and you'd have questions to answer. A two and you'd be fired. Bottom line though everyone got honest reviews.

A friends mother works for the HSE and when she tried to give some bad workers bad reviews she was taken aside and warned off.

thebman

That does sound mad TBH. 3 on any out of 5 scale should be considered average.

How 2 can be considered worthy of a payrise escapes me. It is basically an under performing bonus.

murphaph

When I worked for IBM it was a '1' - '4' system with '1' being the best.

A '4' was an automatic written warning (2 in a row and you'd be fired).

A '1' was considered well above average but there was no guarantee in any year of a pay rise or bonus. If corporate decided there would be bonuses, the figure would be based on your business unit (if you worked for a poorly performing business unit you'd not be expecting a bonus or much of a bonus even if you got a '1') and rating.

It wasn't a perfect system but generally the harder working staff did get rated better than the wasters. The number of '1's was generally very low in any given year.

Dukes is only saying what we've all known-there is no real assessment of PS staff taking place.

Bergkamp 10

meglome wrote: »

I know we're all stunned.

Sadly we're not anymore, that's the sad part.

Jaysoose

But surely the Croke Park Agreement is tackling these issues...isnt it?

meglome

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Sadly we're not anymore, that's the sad part.

Sorry sometimes it's difficult to show irony or sarcasm.

Jaysoose wrote: »

But surely the Croke Park Agreement is tackling these issues...isnt it?

hahahahaha. Sorry hahahahaha.

meglome

I wasn't eavesdropping, says woman who heard about €3.6bn error in bar

National News Home

Monday November 07 2011

THE woman who discovered the Department of Finance's €3.6bn accounting error whilst drinking in a bar in Dublin's Shelbourne Hotel has denied she was eavesdropping.

Caroline Twohig, a presenter with TV3's sister channel 3e, told RTE Radio's John Murray Show this morning that she was actually having a drink with friends "and the conversation came up in my company about some money that had been miscalculated and immediately my ears pricked up when I heard the figure.

"I didn't really believe it at first to be honest - who would? - and after choking on my drink I asked a few follow-up questions to the tune of "What! What did you just say?."

"I brought it into work and we eventually got it confirmed by the Department of Finance and TV3 ran it on the Midday News."

She denied to say how well she knew the people who revealed the information but said she had spoken to them since and "There's no problem. They know I won't give them away."

She also said that - unlike outgoing Department of Finance head Kevin Cardiff - they had not got into any trouble as a result of the controversy.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/i-wasnt-eavesdropping-says-woman-who-heard-about-euro36bn-error-in-bar-2927544.html

seamus

You can apply for a promotion with a 3 out of five?

What's a four out of five? Automatic promotion? Five out of five? Early retirement on full pay?

Not only ridiculous that so few people got the lowest score, but even more so when the ratings are so heavily weighted in favour of the employee.

Management were probably "discouraged" from giving a low rating, because they know the unions would start screaming bloody murder that anyone would have the audacity to honestly evaluate a staff member's work and give them a poor rating.

swordofislam

What would Alan Dukes know about anything ever?

murphaph

swordofislam wrote: »

What would Alan Dukes know about anything ever?

It doesn't matter what Dukes does or doesn't know about anything. The figures (shocking as they are) speak for themselves. 9 people out of 18,000? It's patent nonsense.

amen

9 people out of 18,000. It's patent nonsense.

not really as the CS/PS are so fond of telling us they higher the best and most of them have degrees they must be very good at what they do so hence why so few only get 1 out of 5

mikemac

seamus wrote: »

Management were probably "discouraged" from giving a low rating, because they know the unions would start screaming bloody murder that anyone would have the audacity to honestly evaluate a staff member's work and give them a poor rating.

Or maybe management didn't want to hand out bad ratings and honest evaluations as then the top brass above them would start to do the same for the managers

ardmacha

Or maybe management didn't want to hand out bad ratings and honest evaluations as then the top brass above them would start to do the same for the managers

You've hit the nail on the head. Everyone is going on about unions and the like. Management in the PS doesn't want evaluation, or at least only want evaluation for the little people. God forbid that management itself should be evaluated.

Riskymove

ardmacha wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head. Everyone is going on about unions and the like. Management in the PS doesn't want evaluation, or at least only want evaluation for the little people. God forbid that management itself should be evaluated.

I am not so sure...as mentioned in the ariticle there really is no support for managers who attempt to tackle problem employees....therefore no incentive to do it

whats needed is a widespread reform of the culture where people are expected to perform and are tackled and punished if they don't and a HR system that supports managers doing that

You can apply for a promotion with a 3 out of five?

Under the system a 3 means you are carrying out your duties fully

why wouldn't someone like that be able to apply for promotion?

btw No rating system is ever perfect tbh and the current PMDS one certainly isn't

seamus

Riskymove wrote: »

Under the system a 3 means you are carrying out your duties fully

Under any system, a 3 would mean, "You carry out what you are required to do, to the expected level of quality".

In other words, a 3 should be for people who do their job as adequately as expected.

That wouldn't qualify someone for a promotion in my eyes. A promotion should be awarded where someone displays skills and ability above the required standard for their position.

Of course, "Entitled to apply for a promotion" should apply to everybody. That is, everyone should be entitled to apply for a promotion, regardless of rating, where a position exists to be promoted to.

I get the impression in the PS that promotions are handed out whether or not a position actually exists to be promoted to, so in that case I don't think that someone who just does their job adequately should have any entitlement to apply to go up a scale because they haven't demonstrated any reason why they should be promoted.

Riskymove

seamus wrote: »

That wouldn't qualify someone for a promotion in my eyes. A promotion should be awarded where someone displays skills and ability above the required standard for their position.

the 3 only entitles you to apply

Of course, "Entitled to apply for a promotion" should apply to everybody. That is, everyone should be entitled to apply for a promotion, regardless of rating, where a position exists to be promoted to.

well it doesn't under PMDS, less than 3 cant apply

I get the impression in the PS that promotions are handed out whether or not a position actually exists to be promoted to

well you'd be wrong (in CS anyway)

markpb

Riskymove wrote: »

the 3 only entitles you to apply

Why bothering letting people apply if they only manage to just about do their jobs? Being mediocre isn't a great way to get promoted.

Riskymove

markpb wrote: »

Why bothering letting people apply if they only manage to just about do their jobs? Being mediocre isn't a great way to get promoted.

your perception is part of the problem

a 3 means you are doing what is expected of you fully in your job

not that you are doing a mediocre job

seamus

Riskymove wrote: »

a 3 means you are doing what is expected of you fully in your job

not that you are doing a mediocre job

The problem might be in the definition of "mediocre". It can either mean "average" or sometimes it can mean, "inadequate".

I think the point is that if you are getting a 3, you are just doing what is expected of you fully in your job. This is no reason to be additionally rewarded. Why reward someone for doing what they're expected to do? That's like tipping a waiter for taking your order and serving your food. That's their job, it's the minimum you expect.

Manach

I'd imagine the ideal rating would be a bell curve. The CS one seems slightly lop-sided.

Jaysoose

Manach wrote: »

I'd imagine the ideal rating would be a bell curve. The CS one seems slightly lop-sided.

When you have an organisation that provides increments based on time served rather than performance the system of measurement becomes redundant, where is the incentive for the managers to mark people down when it will make zero difference to the employees wages?

There is no encouragment to do more than the bare minimum of work when there are no consequences, a number of firms i have worked in used the same scale and a mark of 4 was needed for wage increases. This encouraged people to work harder and more efficiently if they wanted to see more money.

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

When you have an organisation that provides increments based on time served rather than performance the system of measurement becomes redundant, where is the incentive for the managers to mark people down when it will make zero difference to the employees wages?

Increments are dependent on a certain level of performance

There is no encouragment to do more than the bare minimum of work when there are no consequences, a number of firms i have worked in used the same scale and a mark of 4 was needed for wage increases. This encouraged people to work harder and more efficiently if they wanted to see more money

I'd agree with this idea in principle....certainly all needs to be reformed

Jaysoose

Riskymove wrote: »

Increments are dependent on a certain level of performance



I'd agree with this idea in principle....certainly all needs to be reformed

Would it be the bare minimum? If everybody is getting the same marks regardless of how well they perform bar these 9 public servants then surely the increments are paid unilaterally. Could this be further expanded to explain the perceived lack of productivity within the service as one guy that works hard gets the same reward as the waster beside him that does jack.

murphaph

Riskymove wrote: »

Increments are dependent on a certain level of performance

What do you need to get on the PMDS scale to not be eligible for an increment?

Would it be the same rating that only 9 out of 18,000 CS staff got last year, or would more than that have been ineligible to an increment based on too low a PMDS rating?

Riskymove

Jaysoose wrote: »

Would it be the bare minimum? If everybody is getting the same marks regardless of how well they perform bar these 9 public servants then surely the increments are paid unilaterally. Could this be further expanded to explain the perceived lack of productivity within the service as one guy that works hard gets the same reward as the waster beside him that does jack.

murphaph wrote:

What do you need to get on the PMDS scale to not be eligible for an increment?

Would it be the same rating that only 9 out of 18,000 CS staff got last year, or would more than that have been ineligible to an increment based on too low a PMDS rating?

well exactly, thus its not always the system (although I think its far from perfect) but the management culture and practice

I can tell you that some managers would love to tackle problem staff, stop increments, not renew contracts etc

Unfortunately, anyone trying this usually tries once and is left so disheartened that they dont bother again

Management practice is what needs to change with proper HR systems and backup

mikemac

Riskymove wrote: »

I can tell you that some managers would love to tackle problem staff, stop increments, not renew contracts etc

Do managers go through the same evaluation process?

I suppose what I'm asking is does everyone go through PDMS, including the senior managers.

Most of the comments in the thread are about problem staff but what are problem managers?

channelsurfer2

Jaysoose wrote: »

When you have an organisation that provides increments based on time served rather than performance the system of measurement becomes redundant, where is the incentive for the managers to mark people down when it will make zero difference to the employees wages?

There is no encouragment to do more than the bare minimum of work when there are no consequences, a number of firms i have worked in used the same scale and a mark of 4 was needed for wage increases. This encouraged people to work harder and more efficiently if they wanted to see more money.

encourages people to work harder? more like screws the person and makes em jump over backwards to get a few euro of an increase...

markpb

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

encourages people to work harder? more like screws the person and makes em jump over backwards to get a few euro of an increase...

Jesus. Communist Russia is dead.

MadsL

This is the heart of the entitlement culture in the PS. If we cannot fix this, and I predict we won't - then Ireland is very, very screwed well into the future. We will see mass emigration increase and the PS bizarrely also increase (look at the Defense Forces) as a means of propping up 'the system'.

Root and branch reform is decades overdue. Which party has the balls to fix what will be a bigger problem for Ireland long-term than the banks.

Fix it. Now. Brutally and quickly.

fliball123

MadsL wrote: »

This is the heart of the entitlement culture in the PS. If we cannot fix this, and I predict we won't - then Ireland is very, very screwed well into the future. We will see mass emigration increase and the PS bizarrely also increase (look at the Defense Forces) as a means of propping up 'the system'.

Root and branch reform is decades overdue. Which party has the balls to fix what will be a bigger problem for Ireland long-term than the banks.

Fix it. Now. Brutally and quickly.

It will never happen I am afriad..as a matter of interest auld kev cardiff must of got a 7 out of 5 but its alright he measured his own performance and is getting a nice promotion and pay rise...The PS is in a complete parrellel universe where increments are still going on and where people like cardiff are not held responsible for complete and other fcuk ups...and the really sad part about this is that the general public have come to accept it...

Jaysoose

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

encourages people to work harder? more like screws the person and makes em jump over backwards to get a few euro of an increase...

So in your opinion expecting people to work harder and contribute more to their own careers and companies before giving out payrises is screwing people over? Im glad your view on this is very much in the minority.

This is how the public should be operating instead of handing out payrises to everybody, yes i said payrises as calling it an increment doesnt hide the fact that the so called pay freeze is a down right lie by the goverment and the public service.

Then we get public servants coming on and blaming management, there is no accountability and to be honest its perfectly clear that the public service and the unions will drag this country down with them at all costs.