INVOLVEMENT IN THE APPRAISAL PROCESS

A very important question in performance appraisal is who is involved in the actual process. Appraisals are primarily the responsibility of the civil servant’s immediate superior or manager. Our findings also show that all of the countries continue to rely on performance appraisal designs grounded in high involvement and supervisory judgements of an immediate superior (head of the department, line manager), with the exception of the Netherlands where only the manager of the immediate superior is involved.

FIGURE 6: INVOLVEMENT IN THE APPRAISAL PROCESS (N=30)

SOURCE: Staroňová, K. (2017) Performance Appraisal Information in the EU Member States and EC The second most involved group beside

the immediate superior is the manager or supervisor of the immediate superior who

is involved in the performance appraisal, mostly to validate the proposed ratings.

This is followed by HR department

0 10 20 30 40

immediate superior only immediate superior manager of immediate superior human resource manager most senior CS in organization member of trade unions PA committee political nominee other

representative. In these terms, the results are not surprising and are very similar to those from 2007 (Demmke et al 2008).

However, what has changed since 2007, is the reliance on the immediate superior as the only actor who is strongly involved in the process: the number dropped from 43,5% (Demmke et al 2008) to 23% (in Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). In Ireland and Latvia, reliance on the immediate superior is only in case of the regular civil service.

In case the performance appraisal is conducted for the top managers, the

process is overseen by more actors. In Latvia, the committee needs to be set up, either from other top managers, minister or political advisor of the minister, or in some cases from social partners. In Ireland, Minister to whom the Secretaries General (Heads of Government Departments/Offices) report is part of the appraisal process. Also, a Performance Review Group, comprising the Secretary General Dept. of the Taoiseach, Secretary General, Dept. of Public Expenditure and Reform and an external member oversees the Secretary General appraisal process.

In Cyprus, the appraisal team must consist, where possible, of up to 3 officers including the line manager and the administrative supervisor of the employee. The third member may be either the Head of the Department where the employee serves or is subject or a person who is hierarchically more senior than the line manager or has a higher paid post in the organisation where the employee serves and has a direct/indirect connection to the employee’s job tasks.

If the responsibility for performance appraisal is shared, the immediate superior is assisted either by the manager of their superior (executive level) or the HR department of the organisation. In 2007 (Demmke et al 2008) 41% of the responding countries had an immediate superior plus the top executive level as two actors who are involved in the process. In our survey, this number has dropped to 16% (three countries which have two actors from the immediate superior plus his/her manager and two countries of immediate superior and his/her most senior civil servant in the organisation). Out of these five countries, France involves additional actors if top managers are concerned in the

performance appraisal. Additional five countries instead of involving two actors of immediate superior and the manager (executive level) involve other superiors in the hierarchy and/or representatives from employee level and/or trade unions. In the Netherlands, for example, additional informant from among the ranks of civil servants can be asked for participation in appraisal of another supervisor.

Yet, another increasing trend which was not mentioned by Demmke’s study (2008) at all, is the involvement of specific appraisal committees (see also Section 3.7. on Accountability Mechanisms). In our survey, six countries have established such specific committees in order to

safeguard the whole appraisal process:

Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal. For example, in Denmark an appraisal process involves relevant local parties and representatives from both

manager/superior and

employee/subordinate level, however, in case of alterations in design, framework or substance, the Joint Consultation Committee will typically be involved and/or union representative. In Lithuania,

for example, political nominee formally accepts an order of the implementation proposed by the decision of Evaluation Commission that has its findings based on the conclusions drafted in the PA report by the immediate superior. Thus, several actors are involved in the process:

immediate superior, senior superior, HR manager, a member of the trade unions and a political nominee.

In Italy, a central role is played by the “Independent Performance Evaluation Units – OIV” appointed within administrations with the task to ensure the correct implementation of the performance management cycle and focus their attention on the better use of management instruments in the administration. OIV are composed of external experts entered in a Public List at the Department for Public Administration.

HR department is involved in 30% of the countries, a number that rose from only 13% HR staff members involvement in 2007 (Demmke et al 2008). The HR involvement is either as one of the two actors with immediate superior (Sweden) or as an assistance to existing two actors of immediate superior and his/her manager (executive level), such as in Belgium, Finland, Spain, Serbia, Germany, Switzerland and Lithuania. In Germany, the process also involves equal rights representative, staff council representative and representative of the severely disabled persons. In Switzerland, preliminary evaluations that are collected by HR are discussed in so-called harmonisation talks in management meetings in order to establish common PA standards.

Trend discussed above indicates an effort of the individual countries to professionalise and standardise performance appraisals across departments in their organisations. To that end, the performance appraisal process includes, to a much bigger extent, professionals from the HR department, lesser reliance on one sole actor of immediate superior. Validation by other actors, such as managers of the immediate superior, members of the trade unions, other employees and/or even creation of committees to safeguard the whole process is another new trend to be seen.

4.7 ACCOUNTABILITY