The Framework for the Evaluation of
Heads of Department (HODS)
13 September 2000
Thank you ladies and gentleman for the opportunity to brief
you on the development of a framework for the evaluation of
heads of department (HODs) in the South African public
service. The background to the development of this framework
is as follows:
BACKGROUND
A system of performance agreements was implemented in 1998
for senior managers (including HODs) in the public service.
However, there has been no systematic and coherent process
through which these performance agreements have been
assessed. The result was that the performance of only 14
Directors-General of national departments were evaluated
during 1999. Ministries are too stretched in capacity to
manage the evaluation process in a meaningful way. Many HODs
have indicated that they do not receive systematic and
comprehensive feedback on their performance. In addition,
Government has also not received systematic feedback on the
achievement of its priorities.
Against this background, the Public Service Commission (PSC)
was tasked by Cabinet to develop a framework to assist
executing authorities with the evaluation of their HODs. The
development of this framework by the PSC, as an independent
body, falls within its constitutional mandate to propose
measures to improve performance and service delivery in the
public service
The PSC, in the development of the framework, conducted
research to determine how the evaluation of HODs is dealt
with in the public services of Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, Singapore and the United Kingdom. We have drawn the
following lessons from the experiences of these countries
which have informed our approach to the evaluation of the
HODs:-
-
Evaluation of the Directors-General/Chief
Executives/Permanent Secretaries, the elite of the public
service, is a very high profile event, accorded top
priority.
- It is located at the highest office in government i.e. Prime
Minister’s Office (President in our case), and led/driven by
high level functionaries from the Prime Minister’s Office
and Public Service Commission.
- It is linked to the appointment process through a
performance management instrument of one kind or the other.
A total of three alternatives were developed by the PSC and
written inputs were obtained from executing authorities and
HODs. The responses received indicated support for a
structured process through which the performance of HODs
could be evaluated. The various options were also discussed
with the Governance and Administration Cluster of the Forum
of South African Directors-General whereafter it was
discussed and approved by Cabinet.
THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKThe legislative framework that guides the performance
evaluation of heads of department is complex and requires an
understanding of the broad legislative context within which
it is contained:
- Section 3(B)(1) of the Public Service Act, 1994 entrusts the
President with the power to undertake and manage the
appointment and other career incidents of Heads of
Department of National Departments and Premiers to deal with
the appointment and other career incidents of Provincial
Heads of Department. The President has delegated the powers
entrusted to him, except those in relation to the deployment
of heads of department, to the Deputy President and
Ministers.
- The power to award salary increases in accordance with the
performance of heads of national departments has been
delegated to Ministers as executing authorities for
departments. This power must be exercised in accordance with
the bases provided by the Minister for Public Service and
Administration after consultation with the Minister. The
Minister for Public Service and Administration determines
the framework for salary increases and cash bonuses for
heads of department.
- Section 12(4) of the Public Service Act stipulates that an
employment contract may include any term and condition
agreed upon between the relevant executing authority and the
Head of Department as to, inter alia, specific performance
criteria for evaluating the performance of the Head of
Department. An employment contract for heads of department
is also prescribed in Annexure 2 to the Public Service
Regulations (attached as Annexure 1). This contract includes
terms and conditions where the entering into a performance
agreement and managing salary increases are prescribed.
- All salary increases of heads of departments depend on their
performance as agreed to in their respective performance
agreements, which can then be increased within the
provisions of the framework provided by the Minister for
Public Service and Administration. A performance agreement
can serve as evidence in instances where measures for
termination of service based on inefficiency are involved.
Two issues of importance to the development of a framework
for the evaluation of HODs emanate from our legislative
framework:
- Firstly, the authority to evaluate HODs is vested solely in
executing authorities and cannot be delegated. Any framework
to evaluate HODs must therefore be aimed at assisting the
executing authorities during the evaluation process and not
take over the evaluation of HODs.
- Secondly, the basis for the evaluation of HODs must be the
performance agreements concluded between themselves and
their executing authorities.
OBJECTIVES WITH THE FRAMEWORK
The framework developed by the PSC proposes uniform but
flexible structures and processes according to which the
performance of all HODs can be evaluated by executing
authorities. The evaluation framework aims to achieve the
following:
- To provide the bases upon which the government and executing
authorities are informed on the extent of achievement of
objectives.
- The identification of developmental needs of HODs.
- Feedback to HODs on their performance and organisational
effectiveness.
- The bases upon which executing authorities can award salary
increments and cash bonuses or take any steps deemed
necessary to address poor performance.
KEY PRINCIPLES
The following key principles have underpinned the
development of the evaluation framework and processes in
South Africa:
A performance agreement is the most important element in the
evaluation of a head of department. It contains the details
of what a head of department will be evaluated against. The
basis for evaluation in most of the countries/states studied
by the PSC, is performance agreements (or similar
instruments) reached between either the relevant executing
authority and the head of department or the Head of State
and the head of department. Performance agreements allow
monitoring and review of HODs’ performance against agreed
accountabilities. Clear performance criteria are also
normally included in performance agreements which simplifies
assessment of performance .
- Whilst primarily aimed at the evaluation of the individual
HOD, the evaluation process should facilitate assessment of
institutional effectiveness.
Executing authorities are themselves measured against the
delivery of services by their respective departments.
Accordingly, the evaluation of HODs against the objectives
contained in their performance agreements should provide
insight into the service delivery of their departments.
Annual departmental reports and reports of the
Auditor-General may further be used during the evaluation of
HODs. These reports provide insight into institutional
effectiveness and efficiency.
-
Inputs into the evaluation process should wherever
practicable involve independent role-players as well as
peers. Executing authorities should, however, remain
responsible for final decisions.
It was observed that many of the countries/states studied by
the PSC make use of what is referred to as peer assessment
during the evaluation process. In some countries the actual
evaluation committee comprises of peers of the chief
executives that are being evaluated eg. New Zealand and
Singapore. In other instances peer assessment takes place as
a key phase of the evaluation process as a whole eg. Canada.
A further development that was observed is the introduction
of 360 degree evaluation as part of the methodology used to
evaluate HODs eg. Singapore. This involves inputs into the
evaluation process by clients, other executing authorities,
peers, staff as well as other persons who in the opinion of
the evaluating body have insight into the performance of the
relevant HOD. The involvement of such persons during the
evaluation process should be limited to the provisioning of
assistance to executing authorities. They can by no means be
involved in final decisions that emanate from the evaluation
process. As discussed in the legislative framework, the
authority and responsibility to take such decisions remains
that of the executing authority.
The systems used in the majority of the countries studied
provide clear instructions to HODs on the manner in which
they will be evaluated. Guidelines are normally circulated
early in the year which sets out the process of evaluation
to be followed in that particular year. The advantage of
providing guidelines is that it-
-
ensures that the information submitted to an evaluation
committee is consistent;
- simplifies the task of processing information in an
appropriate format to facilitate evaluation committee
meetings; and
- ensures that the participants in the evaluation process know
exactly what is expected of them and by when.
-
The framework should provide an indication of the level of
performance, alert to inefficiency and facilitate decisions
on the granting of salary increases and cash bonuses.
The first objective with any evaluation system is to provide
a clear indication of the level of a subject’s performance.
Annexure 2 to the Public Service Regulations states that the
employment contract of a head of department is directly
linked to his/her performance agreement and that the
employer may deal with a head of department in accordance
with the applicable collective agreement reached in the
Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Chamber and the
relevant labour legislation if prescribed
objectives/milestones are not achieved. The results of the
evaluation process of heads of department based on their
performance agreement can therefore also trigger a process
aimed at termination of service based on inefficiency (with
due regard to labour legislation).
Resolution 13 of the PSCBC further provides that salary
adjustments and cash bonuses may be awarded in accordance
with guidelines provided by the Minister for Public Service
and Administration. A framework for the evaluation of HODs
must therefore also facilitate advice to assist executing
authorities in deciding whether salary increases and cash
bonuses (in accordance with pre-determined categories) may
be granted.
- The constitution of the evaluation panel should be flexible
to respond to the uniqueness of departments or sectors.
Executing authorities are in the best position to determine
which role players have insight into the performance of
their HODs. A rigid framework which predetermines the full
composition of evaluation panels will undermine the ability
of such panels to accommodate the uniqueness of departments
or sectors.
- An integrated approach should be followed, aligned to
planning and MTEF cycles.
From a practical point of view it will be beneficial for
executing authorities and HODs to link the evaluation
process to other regulated reporting and planning
requirements. The majority of cycles are linked to financial
years, hence the proposal to link our HOD evaluation to the
MTEF cycles. It is up to the HOD and the executing authority
to determine whether one or more annual cycles will be used
as the time frame for the evaluation.
METHODOLOGY
With due consideration to the principles that have been
discussed, the following methodology to be used for the
evaluation of HODs was decided upon:
Evaluation panels
Executing authorities must appoint evaluation panels to
assist them with the evaluation of their HODs. The
nomination of members to serve on evaluation panels is left
to the discretion of executing authorities. The evaluation
panels can reflect all stakeholders as dictated by the
nature of the department concerned and may also involve the
peers of HODs. All executing authorities will be directly
involved as part of the panel during deliberations on their
HODs’ performance.
Each evaluation panel appointed by executing authorities for
HODs of national departments will be chaired by either the
Chairperson or Deputy-Chairperson of the PSC. Panels
appointed for provincial HODs will be chaired by the
Commissioner resident in that province or, in their absence,
by one of the nationally nominated Commissioners (other than
the Chairperson or Deputy-Chairperson). The involvement of
the PSC on these panels is to ensure, as independent role
player, that the evaluation process is fair and equitable
and that the same norms and standards are applied to all
HODs in terms of procedures. The involvement of the PSC
should ensure a level of consistency across the board.
The role of evaluation panels will be to advise executing
authorities on the performance of their HODs.
Secretariat
All evaluation panels will be supported by a secretariat to
be appointed by the executing authority. For this purpose
executing authorities can make use of staff in their own
offices/ministries or appoint external consultants. The PSC
is also willing to make the services of its Office available
to executing authorities to act as secretariat to their
evaluation panels.
The role of the secretariat will be to collate and process
all information received from HODs and executing authorities
into a reporting format for the evaluation panels and to
take minutes of proceedings during meetings of the
evaluation panels.
Executing authority
All executing authorities will participate in discussions of
the evaluation panels and will provide input when deemed
necessary or when required by the panel. The advice
emanating from the evaluation panel will not be binding on
executing authorities and they will still be responsible for
the final decisions emanating from the evaluation process.
Evaluation process
The evaluation of HODs will be aligned to the planning and
the MTEF cycles. It therefore follows that evaluation
periods will be linked to financial years. Executing
authorities and their HODs may decide on the number of
financial years to be covered by an evaluation. The minimum
period to be covered by an evaluation will be one financial
year. Should an evaluation period cover more than one
financial year, salary adjustments and cash bonuses will be
cumulatively payable where necessary.
HODs and their executing authorities will have to complete
negotiations and sign performance agreements by the end of
April of each year. Progress made in relation to the set
objectives in the performance agreements must be reviewed on
a regular basis as agreed to between executing authorities
and their HODs.
The information to be used during the evaluation process
must be forwarded to the designated secretariat by not later
than 30 June of the year in which the evaluation period
agreed to between the executing authority and HOD has been
completed. Minimum information that will be prescribed for
use during the evaluation process will be the following:
-
The performance agreement, the department’s business and
strategic plan, the budget and expenditure report for the
relevant financial year and the department’s annual report.
This will facilitate an assessment of institutional
performance.
- A verification statement to be completed by the executing
authority and HOD detailing the achievement of targets and
outcomes provided for in the performance agreement.
360 degree evaluation
In addition to the prescribed information, executing
authorities may also make use of 360 degree evaluation,
balanced scorecard or any other credible assessment
metHODology. An example of an evaluation instrument that can
be used by evaluation panels will be provided to all
executing authorities by the PSC.
The Secretariat
The designated secretariat will collate all information
submitted to it and forward it to the evaluation panel for
consideration. During the evaluation process, evaluation
panels will obtain inputs from both the executing authority
and HOD.
After the evaluation panel has considered all information
submitted to it, it will provide advice in writing to the
relevant executing authority. The executing authority, with
due consideration to this advice, will make decisions on
salary increases, cash bonuses and other actions to be taken
in terms of the performance of their HODs. The dates of
annual salary adjustments for HODs will be linked to that
applicable to the rest of the senior management service. The
results of the evaluation process must be forwarded to the
President in the case of national HODs, and Premiers in the
case of provincial HODs.
Review
Where a HOD is dissatisfied with a decision of the executing
authority regarding the evaluation she/he may request a
review of the matter. The performance agreements of HODs
provide for a dispute settlement procedure according to
which a person is identified to which disputes must be
referred for mediation. As a first step disputes emanating
from the performance evaluation of HODs must be referred to
the agreed person. If, however, the dispute cannot be
resolved by such a person, the matter can be referred to a
Review Committee. A national HOD may lodge his/her
dissatisfaction with a Review Committee consisting of the
Deputy President and the Minister for Public Service and
Administration or their nominees.
In cases where Premiers have not delegated their authority
regarding the career incidents of HODs to members of
executive councils (MEC’s), the same review procedure will
have to apply to both heads of national and provincial
departments. In cases where Premiers have delegated their
authority, the Review Committee will consist of the relevant
Premier and a MEC nominated by the Premier or their
nominees.
Implementation
The implementation of the framework will as a first step be
made compulsory for the evaluation of all heads of national
departments. Premiers will be advised by the Minister for
Public Service and Administration to adopt the same
approach.
The implementation of the framework will be facilitated
through prescripts to be captured in the Public Service
Regulations as well as guidelines to be issued by the PSC.
Guidelines to be provided by the PSC on an annual basis will
contain details of additional information that can be used
during the evaluation process as well as possible evaluation
instruments to be used by executing authorities and the
evaluation panels.
SUMMARY
The role of the PSC in the evaluation process should be
viewed against the backdrop of its Constitutional mandate to
promote the principles of sound public administration. It
should further be noted that the involvement of the PSC as
part of the evaluation panels will be limited to the
provisioning of advice. The PSC will in no way be party to
any decision emanating from the evaluation process.
The evaluation of HODs will provide important feedback to
government on progress in the public service and will also
facilitate accountable decisions regarding the careers of
HODs. These important issues have been neglected in the past
and for this reason the PSC is willing to make the services
of its members and Office available to executing
authorities.
Prior to the implementation of this framework the evaluation
of HODs has not been regulated to a similar extent in the
past. The framework as a totally new concept will therefore
be subject to careful scrutiny during its first few years of
application in order to identify and iron out deficiencies
and to effect the necessary amendments. It can be expected
that the system as introduced will not be perfect, but it
represents a significant step towards the enhancement of
professionalism and service delivery in the public service.
Ladies and gentleman, I thank you.
|
