People Performance

People Performance

To all members;

Given that we are over half way through the reporting year, and mid-year reviews should by now have been completed, it seems an opportune time to take a look at how the new appraisal system is working. This note is a response to some of the feedback we’ve received as a branch.

Guided distribution is not a quota

Everyone will be aware of the “guided distribution”, and in particular the expectation that 10% of jobholders will receive a “Must Improve” marking is causing concern. Unfortunately, judging by some of the feedback we have received, a number of line managers appear unable to make the distinction between guided distribution and a quota.

The guidance is clear – no-one should be artificially placed into a particular marking in order to match the guided distribution. Paragraph 9.3 of People Performance Procedures states:

“Ratings will not be changed or forced simply to fit the distribution”

This is not Relative Assessment. There is no need to assemble a ‘league table’ to rank individuals and allocate them to markings according to a pre-defined distribution. Q9 of People Performance Advice asks “As part of the validation process, should employees be ranked against each other?” The answer includes the statement:

“There is no requirement or recommendation to rank employees”

And just in case anyone still doesn’t get it, under Procedures (paragraphs 12.3 and 12.6), Countersigning Managers (in the case of consistency checks) and Chairs (in the case of validation meetings) are obliged to, amongst other things, ensure that:

“Employees are not forced into a performance rating simply to meet the distribution ranges”

There is therefore no excuse for allowing the guided distribution to drive markings. Jobholders should receive the mark they deserve, regardless of whether the expectation is met. Where members are concerned that their mark has been influenced by the need to meet the guided distribution, or have evidence that such an approach is being employed, they should contact their PCS representative.

Taken by surprise

If the process works properly, no-one should be receiving an unexpected marking. People Performance involves jobholders and their line managers “…having regular performance discussions throughout the year” (Procedures 7.1). These discussions should be “open, unbiased and factual, supported by examples” (Procedures 7.2). There’s no reason therefore why any concerns a line manager might have should not have been discussed with the individual, giving them the opportunity to comment and either contest or address, depending on whether they are valid.

If the first time someone hears they have an indicative “Must Improve” marking is at their mid year review, then something is awry with the process. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case in a number of instances reported to this branch, where either there has been no indication of concerns over performance or no discussion at all. It is unreasonable for staff to be put in this position and if your line manager is not having these discussions with you we recommend you raise it with them, and your PCS representative if necessary.            

It ain’t (just) what you do it’s the way that you do it…

A feature of PP is the increased focus on how things are achieved, rather than just what. Unfortunately there is feedback that in some cases suggests this is being interpreted in an oppressive way. We have received rather disturbing reports that, where individuals have voiced concern over DWP policy or the way work is undertaken in their area, this has had an effect on their marking, even where it has had no impact on how they approach their work.

We do not believe that PP should, or was intended to, have the effect of denying an individual the right to an opinion. This apparent attempt to turn people into unthinking machines is a very negative way of managing. A more constructive approach might be to listen to concerns and consider ways of addressing them. Most importantly, it should be recognised that questioning the way we do things does not prevent someone from demonstrating the behaviours and competences expected of their grade.

We are very interested to hear further examples of where this has occurred. If that’s you please speak to your representative

Equality takes a back seat

Members may have seen the media coverage, particularly in the Guardian, of the disproportionate effect of appraisal in the Department for Education on certain groups, including those defined by race, age and disability. Staff appraisal there is not dissimilar to ours.

We have been approached by a significant number of DWP members who are unhappy with their mid-year marking assessment. It’s a worrying feature of these cases that there is a similarly unequal impact.

Now we’re not claiming that this represents a scientific finding from which we can draw definitive conclusions, but it is sufficient to give cause for concern. It remains to be seen whether People Performance results in DWP raise any equality issues (assuming proofing data is collected and published – it’s notable that in the DfE the information only became available because it was leaked), but our view is clear – if a process discriminates, whether intentionally or otherwise, it is not fit for purpose. If you are concerned about equality issues or anything else in this note, please speak to your PCS representative.

DWP Head Office Branch

December 2012