The Hindu Business Line : New system makes the grade

The `Performance Appraisal Report', a new annual scheme for assessing IAS officers, will replace the Annual Confidential Reports in other public services too.

"Performance Appraisal (n): given by someone who does not want to give it, to someone who does not want to get it."

— E. Berman et al, 2001

IT is universally acknowledged that a poorly implemented performance appraisal system can often become part of the problem. The present system of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for Indian Civil Servants is a case in point.

Unlike the private sector, performance appraisal for upstream government jobs is often subjective. All the talk of ACRs being used as "a tool to assist officers in improving their performance" is just that. It seldom forms the basis of postings/transfers to key positions.

New method of grading: Recently, the Prime Minister approved of a new annual scheme for assessing IAS officers. Called, `Performance Appraisal Report' (PAR), it will soon replace the ACR in other public services. The appraisal will be done on a 1 to 10 scale (the higher the better) against 15-20 indicators. The overall grade will be the median of the scores for the various indicators. Will this reduce the degree of subjectivity in performance appraisal?

The scoring can still be arbitrary, bearing little relation to an officer's actual accomplishments. Nevertheless, the new system may be an improvement over the ACR in two respects.

First, the superiors are now required to rate an officer on each of about 15-20 indicators.

This is likely to involve relatively greater application of mind than the single final grading (Outstanding/Very Good/Good/Satisfactory/Poor) given under the present system. Second, the new system gives scope for normalisation of PAR scores across States (in the same way as the UPSC normalises the marks scored by candidates appearing in different subjects in the Civil Services Examination).

This normalisation is necessary because performance assessments are often culture-specific. In some States, the `Outstanding' grade is given liberally while in some others, it is given rather grudgingly. This places officers from the `conservative' States at a disadvantage during the process of empanelment for the posts of Joint Secretary and above in the government. By comparing the median PAR scores for each State with the All India median score, the scores of officers from different States can be scaled up or down suitably if considerable inter-State variations are noticed.

Assessment by an Eminent Persons Group: There is often a wide gulf between the `public reputation' of an officer and the ratings given by his superiors in the ACR. The new system proposes to bridge this gap through an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) that will ascertain the officers' reputation in terms of integrity, competence and personal qualities by seeking confidential inputs from their peers, juniors, and intelligence agencies.

But safeguards need to be incorporated to keep this system intact. The EPG should comprise unbiased persons who are of impeccable integrity. The confidential inputs should not be sought in an unscientific and haphazard manner. The EPG should not form its opinions behind an officer's back nor be influenced by orchestrated petitions or campaigns against him.

Each officer should be given an opportunity to make a 30-minute presentation before the EPG indicating his accomplishments in the past five years.

This should be followed by another 30 minutes of structured interview during which the EPG can clarify with the officer any complaints received about his competence, integrity or temperament.

The members of the EPG are to be selected by a committee including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. But this responsibility is best entrusted to an independent Constitutional authority such as the UPSC. Over the years, the UPSC has been doing a commendable job and is already being consulted in all disciplinary matters relating to civil servants. It is only proper that its role be expanded to include the appointment of Central/State EPGs .

The tenure of an EPG is stated to be five years. This is fine if the EPG is constituted by the UPSC. But if it is to be constituted by a committee involving politicians, then it may be desirable to make the EPG's tenure co-terminus with the tenure of the government that appointed it.

If the results of the annual PAR and the EPG's assessment vary,. equal weightage should be given to scores secured under each mode of appraisal.

Participative appraisal: International practices in performance appraisal require it to be participative, involving the officer and his superior in setting goals at the beginning of the rating period and in appraising results.

Under the ACR system, the goals are not set at all or are set unilaterally by the superior(s). Further, the superior's comments and the overall grading are kept confidential unless there are certain adverse remarks, in which case, they are communicated to the officer and he is given a chance to represent against them.

This is bad practice because giving feedback, positive or negative, is critical to motivating officers to improve their performance.

Omission of the word `confidential' from the nomenclature of the proposed PAR system seems to suggest that it will be an open and transparent system.

It would be a big disappointment if things were otherwise.

Further, the new system promises to involve the officer examined in goal setting, though it remains to be seen if this will be put to practise.

It is not clear under what circumstances an officer would be allowed to represent against the grading he has received.

In my opinion, representations against scores of 7 or less out of 10 may be allowed. The Prime Minister deserves kudos for attempting to reform this difficult area of human resource management.

Although the proposed system does not address all the deficiencies of the current one, it is definitely a step forward.

It is important to realise that the reform will work only if officers have stable work tenures.

If an officer goes to two or three posts in a year, and if he has an equal number of superiors in this period, then no meaningful performance appraisal is possible.

A minimum tenure of two years, and an average of three in a post, is the pre-condition to delivering best performance.

(The author is an IAS officer of Tamil Nadu cadre. He can be reached at shetty25@gmail.com)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Foreign forays

Mergers and machismo — Are takeover chiefs acting rationally?

Openness for efficiency

A future without oil

New system makes the grade — Assessing IAS officers

OTC drugs

Cash transaction tax