Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 47: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the date on which the 2012 Performance Management and Development System cycle ends; if the newly published PMDS forms are being used during the current cycle and for interim reviews; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28728/12]

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 48: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if, in view of the newly published Performance Management and Development System form which describes a Performance Management Development System of three as fully acceptable and a rating of two as needs improvement, if it is his intention to increase the qualifying threshold for an increment to three; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28729/12]

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 49: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is considering implementing forced distribution as part of the rating of staff under Performance Management and Development System; and if not, the other measures he is considering to ensure that the commitments made in the Croke Park Agreement linking incremental pay to performance are met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28730/12]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 47 to 49, inclusive, together.

The new PMDS form came into use for the 2012 cycle which commenced on 1 January 2012 and replaces the three separate Role Profile, Interim Review and Annual Review forms which were in use previously. The 2012 cycle of the Performance Management and Development System ends on 31 December 2012. The central aim of any performance management system is to support managers and employees in improving the performance of the individual and, in turn, the performance of the organisation. The most important element in how effective performance management will be in an organisation is the skills and talent of line managers. My Department is developing a range of tools to support line managers in developing good management skills. In addition to the skills of line management, it is also critical that the performance management system itself is designed in such a way as to support management and staff in delivering high performance levels.

My Department carried out a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the performance management and development system used in the Civil Service in 2010. The Evaluation of PMDS Survey 2010 identified a number of problems with how PMDS is currently operating. My Department has been working with management and unions, in accordance with commitments in Croke Park to strengthen performance management in the Civil Service, and has agreed changes to performance management. In 2011 changes were introduced aimed at improving the operation of PMDS. This involved streamlining the paperwork associated with PMDS primarily to create space for more discussion about performance between staff and managers. Critically, we are increasing manager accountability for managing performance giving a low rating to managers who do not manage the performance of their staff proactively i.e. a manager who has not been managing their staff (including the completion of PMDS for their staff) should not get a rating above 2.

My Department alongside management of the Civil Service and unions is now engaged in a process of identifying ways to improve more fundamental problems with PMDS. The Evaluation of PMDS Survey 2010 highlighted that one of the main underlying problems with PMDS is a perceived lack of fairness and consistency in the application of the system. In this regard, my Department has given a discussion paper to the unions which outlines a broad range of options aimed at improving fairness and consistency and the operation of PMDS from both a management and a staff perspective. The paper outlines possible changes to the competency framework; the ratings and the distribution of ratings; the rating scale used in PMDS; and with whom (i.e. what level of manager) the responsibility for overall fairness and consistency should lie. This paper follows on from an agreement in November 2011 that the PMDS Subcommittee of General Council (management and unions) would address all of these fundamental issues.

This discussion paper forms the basis of consultation and debate with the unions. It presents a range of options commonly used in organisations to help to ensure fairness and consistency in performance management systems. In any paper addressing fairness and consistency in performance management, one would expect to see a proposal to introduce mechanisms such as calibration or forced distribution. While there are undoubtedly a number of issues with the forced distribution option, it does facilitate management within organisations to identify and differentiate their top performers; to identify developmental needs for more moderate performers; and to identify staff whose performance is below the standard expected. The paper also contains a proposal to stop paying increments where an individual staff member gets a rating below 3. This is based on the already agreed principle in the Civil Service that increments should only be awarded on the basis of a positive assessment of performance and commitment throughout the year. The ultimate aim is to ensure that the PMDS system itself will support the improvement of individual and organisational performance across the Civil Service and that it is applied in a more fair and consistent manner.