THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - THE STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE

(1)

7 November 2008 Human Resources Presented by Gretchen Arangies

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT -

THE STELLENBOSCH

UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE

HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION

(2)

Performance management is a systematic approach to

managing people, goals, measurement, feedback and

recognition with the purpose to motivate staff to reach their

full potential and at the same time realise the organisation’s

goals.

(Mark Bussin, People Dynamics, March 1992)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(3)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

1990

– started with performance evaluations at SU

based on attributes/behaviour

1998

– New Remunerations Policy approved and

adopted performance based remuneration

2004

• Council approved PM policy

• started with work agreements based on KPA’s

and measurable outputs linked to the goals of

the environment

• Allowed environments to use own system with

certain requirements

(4)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

4

Appointment Category 267/ 35% 486/ 65% 1 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 No o f ob s 267/ 35% 486/ 65%

(5)

5 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Work Agreements 575/ 77% 175/ 23% 1 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 No o f ob s 175/ 23%

(6)

6 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Familiar with PE process

77/ 10%

151/ 20%

405/ 55%

99/ 13%

6/ 1% Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree NA 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 No o f ob s 77/ 10% 151/ 20% 405/ 55% 99/ 13% 6/ 1%

(7)

7 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Satisfied with PE process in environment

164/ 22%

248/ 34%

274/ 37%

42/ 6%

12/ 2% Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree NA 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 No o f ob s 164/ 22% 248/ 34% 274/ 37% 42/ 6% 12/ 2%

(8)

8 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance Discussions 640/ 85% 110/ 15% 1 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 No o f ob s 640/ 85% 110/ 15%

(9)

9 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Corrrect answer = 3 6/ 1% 12/ 2% 224/ 30% 346/ 46% 161/ 21% 1 2 3 4 5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 No o f ob s 6/ 1% 12/ 2% 224/ 30% 346/ 46% 161/ 21%

(10)

10 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Effective management of poor performers

36/ 13%

89/ 33%

110/ 41%

12/ 4%

22/ 8%

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree NA 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 No o f ob s 36/ 13% 89/ 33% 110/ 41% 12/ 4% 22/ 8%

(11)

11 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

PDP 18/ 7% 58/ 22% 159/ 59% 16/ 6% 18/ 7%

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree NA 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 No o f ob s 18/ 7% 58/ 22% 159/ 59% 16/ 6% 18/ 7%

(12)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

2007/2008

• Evident that application not optimal

• Link to other management practices

• HR committee request for bigger differentiation in

annual increases based on performance marks

2009

– new drive in respect of PM training

(13)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

Context

(Why)

Content

(What)

Processes

(How)

(14)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Criteria-based goals

• On completion of the workshop line managers/staff

members should:



Be familiar with the

rationale

of performance

management at SU



Be familiar with the

content

of performance

management at SU



Be familiar with the

process and flow

of performance

management at SU

(15)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(Content)



Be able to

draw up a work agreement



Be able to

design a PDP

(16)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(Processes)



Be able to

use work agreements to appropriately

contract

with subordinates regarding performance



Be able to

monitor performance

continuously



Be able to

evaluate performance and give

effective feedback



Be able to

calibrate performance marks

in own

environment

(17)

17 Human Capital Performance Management Model

SERVICE

CONTRACT

COMPETENCY

FRAMEWORK

WORK

AGREEMENT

ROLE

DESCRIPTION

PERSONAL

DEVELOPMENT

PLAN

(PDP)

HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION Presented by Louis Siebert

(18)

Strategic Focus Areas

• Vision

• Mission

• Strategy

Goals/business plans

• Performance outcomes

Work agreements

• Line managers

• Personnel

Performance

monitoring

Performance evaluation

Results

• Recognition

• Manage poor performers

PDP

(19)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

WORK AGREEMENT

KPA: KPA weight KPA point

Performance indicators Goals/Standards Point attained (5-point scale)

Weight Performance point

(20)

CONTRACTING

KPAs of SU and environment shared with staff members

Work agreements developed by staff members

KPAs allocated to staff members

Contracting/negotiating between line manager and staff members

KPAs cascaded and fairness ensured by line manager

Appeal process – 2 levels and/or arbitrator

No agreement

Agreement

Signed by both parties

Performance monitoring

Performance evaluations

PERFORMANGE MANAGEMENT

(21)

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Evaluate performance of environment

Communicate environment’s performance

Staff member monitors individual/own performance

Pro-actively identify environment/individual problems and opportunities

Pro-actively renegotiate

Ongoing performance evaluation discussions between line managers and staff

Recognition of good performance/performers

Manage poor performers

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(22)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

360˚/Multirater Assessment

Self Appraisal

First Level

Supervisor

Second Level

Supervisor

Subordinates

Clients/Students

Peers

22

(23)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

5 POINT RATING SCALE:

• 1 – Work performance completely unacceptable

• 2 – Work performance mostly unacceptable

• 3 – Work performance complies with contextualised norms

• 4 – Work performance above average in some respects

• 5 – Work performance is excellent

(24)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS (INTERVIEWS)

Preparation phase

Introduction phase

Comparison phase

Analytical phase

Renegotiation phase

Development phase

Calibration phase

I

N

T

E

R

V

I

E

W

PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

(25)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CALIBRATION)

Clarify goals of evaluation process

Clarify evaluation scale

Calibrate marks of individuals in environments

Calibrate marks of individuals between environments

RMT calibrate marks

Finalise marks

Communicate adjusted marks to individuals

Line heads motivate “over-achievers”

Performance evaluations

C

A

L

I

B

R

A

T

I

O

N

P

R

O

C

E

S

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(26)

MANAGING POOR PERFORMANCE

To whom does the policy apply?

This policy applies to

all

employees

who cannot comply with

the

required

performance

standards

because

of

incompetence, such as lack of the necessary skills, training or

aptitude.

It does not apply to employees who are capable of

meeting the necessary performance standards but refuse to

do so or fail to do so because of negligence or carelessness.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(27)

MANAGING POOR PERFORMANCE

Transfer

Decrease

(job/remuneration

)

Dismissal

Performance enhancement process

- > 3 months

- Monthly evaluations

Acceptable

Not acceptable

Agreement

No agreement

Recognition/support

Identify under-performing staff member

Informal session(s) to discuss improvement process

Recognition/support

Arbitration

Formal evaluation

Appeal

Acceptable

Not acceptable

Formal evaluation

Disciplinary action

(28)

28 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Link to remuneration

General increase

Overarching performance mark = 5; Remuneration adjustment = 1 x X%

Overarching performance mark = 4; Remuneration adjustment = 1 x X%

Overarching performance mark = 3; Remuneration adjustment = 1 x X%

Overarching performance mark = 2; Remuneration adjustment = 0.5 x X%

Overarching performance mark = 1; Remuneration adjustment = 0 x X%

Rector’s Award for Performance

Compensation Workbench

(29)

STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP)

NAME : JOB TITLE : JOB LEVEL : UT NUMBER : SECTION :

PRESENT JOB APPOINTMENT DATE : HIGHEST QUALIFICATION :

OTHER QUALIFICATIONS : LINE MANAGER :

MENTOR (S) :

Staff member in possession of the following updated documentations (date) :

ROLE DESCRIPTION WORK AGREEMENT COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT (Last 12 months) INTERVENTIONS COMPLETION DATE

SHORT TERM (Present job) LONG TERM

(Career development)

(30)

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP)

GOALS COMPETENCIES REQUIRED (PRIORITY) INTERVENTIONS/DATES/COSTS APPROVED COMPLETED DATE

OJT = ON JOB TRAINING

SC = SHORT COURSES (Intern/ Extern) FQ = FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS

Short term

(skills/knowledge & attitudes needed for the optimal

functioning in present job)

Long term

(skills/knowledge & attitudes needed for career

path/development link to talent

management/success or planning)

STAFF MEMBER : DATE : LINE MANAGER : DATE :

(31)

BUSINESS PLAN

• in line with the SU plan

• staff opportunities for input

• includes vision and mission

• consists of KPAs, KSFs, action plans, standards, goals and responsible persons

• signed

ROLE DESCRIPTION

• all staff with updated role descriptions

• indicates clear responsibilities and tasks for specific role

WORK AGREEMENT

• all staff in possession of their WA

• in line with environment plan

• consists of KPAs/ KSFs/standards/weights

• in line with job level and role description

• updated and

signed

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP)

• environment development plan reflects individuals’ PDPs

• all staff in possession of an updated and signed PDP

• PDP in line with WA, competency framework and RD

• PDP discussion on ongoing basis

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CHECK LIST

(32)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

• ongoing monitoring of environment and individuals

• ongoing feedback of the results

• 360° evaluation process

• ongoing discussions with one formal feedback discussion with every staff member

• final evaluation report signed

• Calibration

PERFORMANCE RECOGNITION

• staff informed of process

• allocations acknowledge performers

• poor performers are managed in line with required process

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

• staff are satisfied with the way performance is managed in environment

• the process from finalising the business plan up to the recognition process

is open and fair

• knowledge and skills of management and staff as required

• performance management included in management’s KPA and PDP

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CHECK LIST

(33)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

• 74 Performance Management workshops

presented since Sep 2009

• 1 086 attendees (from Deans, HOD’s to

general staff)

(34)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Number of staff members evaluated:

2008

2009

2010

2011

1 768

2 233

2 627

2679

(35)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

TOP PERFORMERS

Guideline – 20% of employees

2008

2009

2010

2011

Mark 4

29.04

37.00

31.52

37.43 Mark 5

8.14

3.45

2.62

1.90

(36)

36 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance evaluation cycle: Jan - Dec

September/October – Proposed general increase known

By 15 December – Feedback discussion and performance marks of poor

performers captured on system

1 January - Remuneration increment

December to March – Feedback discussions with other staff and finalize

work agreements for next cycle

By 31 March – Final performance marks on Oracle

31 May – Payment of Rector’s Awards for performance

(37)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Monitoring of PM System

• 3 month interview with new appointees

• Spot checks on work agreements and

PDP’s

• Annual audit by external auditors

(38)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

ROLE OF GOVERNING BODY:

• Council

• Remunerations Committee of Council

• Audit and Risk Committee of Council

• HR Committee of Council

• VCMT

(39)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Stellenbosch University

PERFORMANCE

MARK 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

NUMBER % NUMBER % NUMBER % NUMBER % NUMBER %

1-1.99 2 0.08 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.17 0 0.00

2-2.99 60 2.50 47 1.96 33 1.26 30 1.34 33 1.26

3-3.99 805 33.58 1105 46.09 1697 64.60 1296 58.04 1697 64.60

4-4.99 730 30.45 696 29.04 828 31.52 826 37.00 828 31.52

5 171 7.13 195 8.14 69 2.62 77 3.45 69 2.62

(40)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

0.08 0 0.17 0 0.04 2.5 1.96 1.34 _1.26 0.67 33.58 46.09 58.04 64.6 59.96 30.45 29.04 37 31.52 37.43 7.13 8.14 3.45 _2.62 1.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

P

ER

C

EN

TA

G

E

ST

A

F

M

EM

BE

R

S

YEAR

1-1.99

2-2.99

3-3.99

4-4.99

5

40

(41)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Faculty of Agrisciences

PERFORMANCE

MARK

NUMBER 2009

NUMBER

2010

NUMBER

2011

PERCENTAGE

2009

PERCENTAGE

2010

PERCENTAGE

2011

0-1.99

-

1 -

-

0.54 2-2.99

-

7

3 -

3.76

1.63 3-3.99

93

179

137

65.96

96.24

74.45 4-4.99

47 -

43

33.34 -

23.38

5

1 -

-

0.70 -

-HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION

(42)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

0 0 65.96 33.34 0.7 0 3.76 96.24 0 0 0.54 1.63 74.45 23.38 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1-1.99 2-2.99 3-3.99 4-4.99 5 P ER C E N T A G E S T A FF M E M B E R S PERFORMANCE MARK

FACULTY OF AGRISCIENCES

2009 2010 2011

42

(43)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Executive Director: Operations and Finance

PERFORMANCE

MARK

NUMBER

2009

NUMBER

2010

NUMBER

2011

PERCENTAGE

2009

PERCENTAGE

2010

PERCENTAGE

2011

0-1.99

-

-2-2.99

6

8

6

1.79

1.85

1.36 3-3.99

285

370

85.07

85.65

84.09 4-4.99

44

54

64

13.14

12.50

14.55

5 -

-

-HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION

(44)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

0 1.79 85.07 13.14 0 0 1.85 85.65 12.5 0 0 1.36 84.09 14.55 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1-1.99 2-2.99 3-3.99 4-4.99 5 P ER C E N T A G E S T A FF M E M B E R S PERFORMANCE MARK

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: OPERATIONS AND FINANCE

2009 2010 2011

(45)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Key elements for implementation:

• Buy-in and support of governing body and

management

• Communication

• Training of managers and staff

(46)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

New developments:

• 360˚ degree assessments for all staff

• Electronic assessments

• Bigger differentiation in annual increases

based on performance marks

(47)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

CHALLENGES:

• Avoidance of conflict

• Insufficient management of poor performers

• Insufficient link to training and development

needs (PDP)

(48)

48 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

http://www0.sun.ac.za/hr/english/

Performance Management Policy and Remuneration Policy under

Policies and Procedures

Work Agreement Template, Personal Development Plan Template

and Checklist for Audit Purposes under

HR Forms

(49)

THANK

YOU!