Performance management for public personnel: multi-analysis approach toward personnel.

Introduction

The most important characteristic of public personnel is to provide public service. A government agency is considered to be effective if the target mass is satisfied with the services. However, according to the modern understanding of government, agencies--the budgets of which are formed by the taxes paid by citizens--should seek to be efficient as well. (1) Therefore, the performance of public personnel should be considered in public administration.

Reform works on the implementation of performance management in Turkish Public Personnel Management were initiated in Turkey five years ago in line with the recommendations mentioned in the 1997 annual report of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2) The aim was to prevent favoritism, corruption and bribery, and to give added importance to equality, impartiality, merit, career and efficiency. The first field the reform covers is related to the newcomers. There is an entrance exam required for public personnel. The exam is conducted once a year by an autonomous and specialized center. The second field of reform covers the existing public personnel. The "Regulation on Advancement" No. 12647 enacted in 1999 envisages that public personnel should receive 75 hours of training and succeed in the exam (attain a score of at least 70%) in order to be promoted. Finally, with the Council of Ministers Resolution of 2000 (2000/1658), 3,576 government agencies (including 110 central, 101 autonomous, 3,328 local governments and 37 State Economic Enterprises or "SEEs") are required to reorganize according to performance management and to establish the most appropriate standard posts. This paper explains the process of restructuring according to performance and of establishing standard posts both in scientific ways and in ways observed by the author at some government agencies regarding how analysis required by the resolution are being carried out.

Performance Management

Performance management can provide the link between "what's" (objectives, targets and performance standards) and "how's" (behaviors, competencies and processes) of personnel performance. (3) Figure 1 shows how, in a performance management system, departmental-level objectives will be derived from business strategy and objectives, which will then be translated into team and individual objectives. (4) Often, companies use the acronym SMART to help set effective objectives: (5)

S Specific or Stretching

M Measurable

A Agreed or Achievable

R Realistic

T Time-bound

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Performance management can be defined as "a strategic and integrated approach of increasing the effectiveness of organizations by improving the performance of the people who work in them and by developing the capabilities of teams and individual contributors," and also can be seen as "a continuous process involving reviews that focus on the future rather than the past ..." (6) Performance management is not simply the appraisal of individual performance: it is an integrated and continuous process that develops, communicates and enables the future direction, core competencies and values of the organization, and helps to create a horizon of understanding. It identifies who or what delivers the critical performance with respect to business strategy and objectives (7) and ensures that performance is successfully carried out. Hence, performance management is a holistic process that ensures that the following are developed and effectively carried out: (s)

1. Setting of corporate, department, team and individual objectives

2. Performance appraisal system

3. Reward strategies and schemes

4. Training and development strategies and plans

5. Feedback, communication and coaching

6. Individual career planning

7. Mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of performance management system and interventions.

Figure 2 outlines the steps of systematic and integrated performance management. It is argued that for performance management to be effective these activities should be carried out throughout the year as a normal part of the interaction between personnel and manager, and not simply through the annual performance appraisal. (9)

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Although the detractors of performance management do have valid evidence as to the flaws of the system, other researchers claim that the positive aspects of performance management significantly outweigh negative aspects. (10) On the other hand, an analysis of the positive aspects as proposed by performance management system promoters is necessary. (11) The following is a list of asserted benefits of an effectively implemented and monitored performance management system: (12)

* Improved personnel work performance (13)

* Personnel with potential for advancement are identified (14)

* Planning for future HR needs is augmented (15)

* Business objectives are realized (16)

* Improved morale (17)

* Improved customer satisfaction (18)

* A clear linkage between pay and performance is achieved (19)

* A competitive advantage is obtained (20)

* Improved quality of supervision (21)

Performance measurement has been touted as an improvement for government for decades. Agencies have not, however, always built the capacity for measurement that can highlight both progress and the need for critical investments to a range of stakeholders--citizens, businessmen, legislators, interest groups, etc. (22) Furthermore, the question of the applicability of performance management in the public sector prevails. However, rather than seeking an answer to this question, one should prefer to develop rational performance-enhancing strategies in public administration (23) because those strategies are substantially grounded in well-developed literature on performance measurement. Furthermore, the most innovative and productive agencies, as evidenced by the cases described later, do not simply execute one good program. Rather, they integrate advanced management techniques into a comprehensive approach to productivity improvement. Productive government agencies stress multiple measures: internal capacities, outputs produced and outcomes achieved. They use performance measurement and evaluation to help establish goals and measure results, estimate and justify resource requirements, reallocate resources, develop organization improvement strategies and motivate personnel to improve performance. (24)

Cost utility analyses may be conducted in public services for public interest or effectiveness may be measured directly. These, however, are radical political preferences. Taking on a performance management-based approach, performance measurement helps to objectively answer questions such as the following: (25)

1. Is an agency doing its job?

2. Is it creating unintended side effects or producing unanticipated impacts?

3. Is it responsive to the public?

4. Is it fair to all or does it favor certain groups, either inadvertently or deliberately?

5. Does it keep within its proper bounds of authorized activity?

6. Overall, is it productive?

In the process of providing answers to those questions, productive governments stress multiple measures: internal capacities, outputs produced and outcomes achieved. They use performance measurement and to help establish goals and measure results, to estimate and justify resource requirements, reallocate resources, to develop organization improvement strategies and to motivate personnel to improve performance. (26)

Public managers and policymakers now have performance measurement tools to help carry out their responsibilities to deliver and improve services. These tools encompass at least eight different strategies: (27)

1. Establish goals and measure results

2. Estimate and justify resource requirements

3. Reallocate resources

4. Develop organization improvement strategies

5. Motivate personnel to improve performance

6. Control operations

7. Predict periods of work overload or underload

8. Develop more sophisticated capacities for measurement

The first are particularly important to building confidence in government's operations among its private and public sector stakeholders.

The performance of all resources of an organization should be enhanced in performance management. However, the most important organizational resource among those is human resources. Therefore, performance management in terms of human resources can be defined (in the most coherent and stretching manner) as follows: (28)

"Performance management is the process of establishing a common understanding in the organization of the organizational goals to be achieved and of the performance to be put forth by the personnel in this context; and guiding personnel so as to enhance the degree of contribution they shall make by working for the common efforts paid to achieve such goals; and the evaluation, remuneration, appraisal and development of personnel."

To successfully complete this process the planning of the human resources of the organization should be based on performance. Secondly, performance should be monitored according to a plan. Thirdly, the planned and monitored performance should be measured, or in other terms, evaluated. Within this explanation, organizations can take a broad view of how the performance management process encompasses the way people are managed and elements are included in it. The process could embrace: (29)

* Strategy and objectives

* Job definition

* Objective setting