Federal Government Performance Management Directive
Performance Management little more than common sense ? but is there a hidden agenda?
On May 28, 2013 the Federal Government released a Directive on Performance Management. The fact that this directive was released on the same day as a speech to the APEX (Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada) says something in itself: ?Here?s what you?re going to do and to make sure you do it here is a directive.?
I read the directive and it is nothing more than a common sense approach to human resource management. Most departments are already complying with this directive in one form or another. If they?re not, then why the heck not? An effective performance management system is a valuable human resource tool in any sophisticated organization. Thorough performance reviews are an indication of effective communications between manager and employee. You shouldn?t need directive to understand this.
What should concern every employee is not the content of the directive, but the political spin around it including Minister Clement?s pathological obsession with the numbers. In his speech to APEX he claims that the dismissal rate for unsatisfactory performance in the private sector is estimated to be between 5 to 10% of the workforce. In the Canadian Public Service it is 0.06%. This is a big difference but let?s dig a little deeper.
What Minister Clement is saying is that the private sector does a much better job of firing non-productive employees. Here?s the truth: fewer private sector employees have the same protection as public sector employees because unionization rates are much lower. It is reasonable to expect terminate rates to be higher in a non-unionized environment.
Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that the ratio of ?non-performers? in the public service is the same as the private sector to begin with. After all, don?t we have the Public Service Commission and a myriad of rules and regulations to ensure only the best people are hired? And if the actual number of ?non-performers? is the same as the private sector, then what purpose does the Public Service Commission actually serve?
This unhealthy obsession with self-serving facts will have a detrimental impact on morale in the public service. It can?t be any other way. You can?t claim to be focused on employee performance if your only measure of success is the discharge rate. It makes one wonder if there a quota system under development.
My advice to all members: pay close attention to the content of your performance reviews. I?ve never been a fear monger but this government has you in their sights. If there is something in your performance review you don?t understand then ask questions. If there is something you disagree with then object to it. If the manager didn?t follow the process then grieve it. It?s your opportunity to hold management?s performance to account.
In Solidarity,
Daniel J Boulet
Business Manager / Financial Secretary