The need for better performance has been acknowledge by the government by showing this in different policy notes and the multi-annual Development Plan
The elements for an effective implementation of performance management to improve the performance of the civil servants of the Ministry of Home Affairs are not present. These seven elements are not found on the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Budget limitation
The lack of incentives and sanctions for performance management is a problem. The department heads are willing to implement for performance management.
The GOS has no clear framework to implement the aspects of performance management and intentions as mentioned in the policy plans.
Performance management, based on targets as included in the „goal approach‟ is not an option, because this approach requires clear targets at the highest level in the organization.
The interviewers are not familiar with the concept of performance management.
Recommendations
The government of Suriname should give Performance Management a high priority. Not just on paper, but by taking appropriate actions and raising actors‟ awareness about the improvement of Performance Management. It must be placed high on the agenda of the Ministry of Home Affairs as the major actor in improving the quality of public services.
To cope with the unfamiliarity with the concept of performance management within the administration, it is advisable that the GOS establishes a Performance Management Team to plan, executes, monitor and evaluate an awareness process.
It is also important that the government have a good information system to monitor and evaluate the planning of their activities.
A pilot project in one of the departments of the Ministry of Home Affairs could be a good initiative to a result focused government. A part of a structured implementation strategy, a „system resource approach‟ should be considered. This places more emphasis on the existing, limited resources and means. For instance, on the level of the pilot department, the monitoring and evaluation and performance appraisal characteristics could be applied without the requirements of overall goals and targets of the „goal approach‟. Despite the fact that the overall objective is not or unsatisfactorily formulated, still every department should formulate its own objective.
Based on this strategy, the Ministry of Home Affairs could train the department heads in the various aspects of target setting. After this there should be a formal process to define objectives per department, based on the limited sources. The Ministry should also improve the quality of the civil servants. This could be done based upon the results of the process of target setting per department. Of course these should be basic management information in place to monitor the existing and required competences. Even though it is not possible to give the departments more financial autonomy, they should be involved in the annual budget cycle. The monitoring and evaluation system should be start at the level of the departments‟ objectives and not the overall objective.
Because the general practice is to use performance appraisal as a method to promote civil servants every three years, I recommend starting with simple performance evaluation for instance two or three time a year.
The challenge is to incorporate and translate the department objectives for the civil servants. This can be solved by special training for the managers.
A mayor challenge is the lack of incentives and sanctions. Because financial incentives are not really feasible, other alternatives should be implemented such as employee of the year award, provision of transportation, computer or laptop also for private use and training.
It will be not easy, but for better performance is essential.
In my position as head of a department I must start and inspire by the pronouncement of the President Obama: Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we‟ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek!
References
Black and Upchurch (1999) Public Sector Employment in g. Hollinshead, P. Nicholls and S. Tailby(eds) Employee Relations. London: financial Times Management
Boorsma, P.B.(2001), Modern public management, in theory and practice, with special reference to the Netherlands, Twente University, department of Public Administration
Brown. K.2004 Human Resource Management in the Public Sector
De Turck. M. 2008. HRM Strategy includes Organizational assessment of HR sevices. Surinam. Public Sector Management Strengthening Program.
Doorewaard Hans en Willem de Nijs(2004). Organisatieontwikkeling en Human Resource Management. Lemma bv, Utrecht.
Legge K.2005 Human Resource Management. Rhetorics and Realities. Anniversary edition
Mendonca.M. and Kanungo. R.N. 1996. Impact of culture on performance management in developing countries. International journal of Manpower 17 (4/5): 65- 75
Polit, C. (2003), The essential public manager, Open University Press, Manchester
Price J, The Study of Organizational Effectiveness The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter, 1972), pp pp. 3-15
Ramaswamy E.A. (1999) Managing Human Resources. A Contemporary Text.
Schiphorst F. 2001 . Performance Development. Part of Schiphorst, F B. et al (2001)‟ Consultancy Report Work Re- Organization & Performance Development: Findings & Recommendations, Volume One, The Labour Sector‟ Dubai: Ministry of Labour & Social Affairs.
Storey. J. Human Resource Management. A critical text.1992/ 1993
Waal A.A. Kerklaan. L. (2004) De resultaatgerichte overheid.
Mc. Court. W. and Ramgutty-Wong. A. Limits to strategic HRM: the case of the Mauritian civil service. Int. J. of Human Resource Management 14:4 June 2003 600-618
Kramar R.(1986) The Personnel Practitioner and Affirmative Action, Human Resource Management Australia.
Mendonca.M. and Kanungo. R.N. 1996. Impact of culture on performance management in developing countries. International journal of Manpower 17 (4/5): 65- 75
Swindall. C. 2007. Engaged Leadership Building a Culture to Overcome Employee Disengagement.
Multi Annual Plan 2006-2011 Suriname Road map 2008-2015
Policy plan Ministry of Home Affairs 2006-2007
Evaluation report 2007 till the first part of 2008- (MOP 2006-2011) Actualizing Rewarding structure government
Civil Servants Development Program (CSDP)