Give public servants the tools for a high performance culture

Before plans to build a public sector culture of effective service delivery, the question that needs to be answered is: Is the country’s public service is equipped with the management tools required to develop a high-performance culture? Unfortunately, at present, the answer is a resounding, ‘No’, argues Sandra Burmeister, CEO of Landelahni Business Leaders.

In his recent ANC roadmap address President Jacob Zuma emphasised that bolstering local government is a priority. He admitted that systems in many municipalities are characterised by problems such as “ineffective professional administration” and “weak performance management”.

To build a new public sector culture for effective service delivery, he said: “Where people are found to be incapable of performing the tasks assigned to them, we must work with speed to either capacitate such people or replace them with more capable people”. Across all levels of government, he vowed to ensure “that there are consequences for incompetence, corruption and lack of accountability”.

“These sentiments must be applauded. However, before they can be implemented by government, one must first ask the question: Is the country’s public service is equipped with the management tools required to develop a high-performance culture? Unfortunately, at present, the answer is a resounding, ‘No’,” Burmeister says.

Management tools include the ability to hire people, reward them for good performance by way of remuneration, bonuses or promotion, and to fire them – having followed due process – when they under-perform. “However,” says Burmeister, “public service institutional processes make it difficult to for managers to hold employees accountable for performance.

“Service non-delivery is not only about having good people. It’s often about structures, policies and processes that are not conducive to delivery. Often competent public sector employees are hamstrung because they don’t have the tools and necessary authority to carry out their responsibilities. Managers in government do not have the same level of authority as their private sector counterparts. The time is ripe for a review of the legislation and policies currently in place.”

The Public Service Act of 1994, states that the “executive authority” is responsible for all employment decisions. The executive authority is defined as the state president, a member of parliament, member of executive council or mayor who, in the private sector, would be equivalent to the board of directors. The executive authority may delegate employment matters up to mid-management level to the “accounting officer”, namely a director-general or city manager, the equivalent of a CEO in the private sector.

“In practice,” says Burmeister, “only the president or a minister may hire or fire members of the executive and senior management team. In effect this means that no senior executive in government can hire or fire the people immediately reporting to him. This system cascades throughout all three tiers of government. While the Act does make provision for some delegation of power, in practice this seldom happens.

“Imagine if CEO Cynthia Carroll were the only person in Anglo American who could hire and fire staff up to mid-management level, with no authority to make employment decisions above that level. The organisation would cease to function effectively.

“Public service institutional processes do not support good leadership. While the public service legislation was forward-thinking in its attempt to create equality in the workplace, it fails to recognise that equality should be tempered with sound global management practices, focused on the desired outcome of the organisation.”

Unlike the broad remuneration frameworks and clear delegation of authority that are standard in the private sector, the Public Service Act dictates all conditions of employment by job level across the entire public service, with no provision for any deviation whether for exceptional performers or for the payment of scarce resources, resulting in the loss of skilled people, which in turn must impact on service delivery.

According to Burmeister, “The question we should be asking ourselves is whether, in our search for equality, we have in fact settled for mediocrity?

“Managers need both the authority and the appropriate management tools to do their jobs. They must be able to use the carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot typically would include performance bonuses or non-cash rewards such as funding further education or travel and promotions for high performers. The stick would typically include performance counselling, demotions and dismissal for poor or non-performance.

“However, the public service not only dictates an overall annual increase, but has rigid bands for remuneration at each level, so it is almost impossible for managers to reward good performers above average performers. Moreover, it is not possible to reward outstanding performance with a promotion, since every position must be advertised and anyone has the opportunity to apply. This makes it impossible to create a long-term career path for people in government.

“In addition, managers may only recommend a bonus. A panel made up of managers, most of whom have no contact with the individual, reviews the suggestion and makes a decision. Often a bonus is paid for simply showing up and doing a job, and no provision is made for stretch targets.

“Similarly a manager may only recommend a dismissal. The executive authority must sanction this recommendation, which may take months to action, while the employee is enjoying full pay and benefits.

“Before entering any poor performance process, non-performing staff must be put through a training and development programme. The manager needs to identify where they are not performing, what the gap is, train them, and allow them time to put training into action. Then only may he initiate a poor performance process. In the private sector, it is a given that you hire employees for their skill and should not have to train them, especially at senior or specialist levels.

“Since there is no direct link between an employee’s performance and the reward or remuneration they receive, high performers become discouraged and often exit government. Poor performers, on the other hand, flourish for long periods of time, without any direct consequence and, in some cases, are rewarded handsomely by paying them large settlements to leave, if they leave at all.

“One of the core leadership competencies is the ability to exercise sound judgement and make appropriate decisions. In the public service, we demand these competencies, but managers are not given the opportunity to exercise it. We are not providing the basic management tools to drive a high performance culture throughout government. Accountability without the requisite authority and discretion will continue to hamper service delivery.

“It’s time to give leaders and managers in government the authority that goes with responsibility. Then they can be held unequivocally accountable for the consequences of their actions. Only in that way will the state public service be able to deliver on President Zuma’s declared commitment to service delivery.”

(Article supplied by Landelahni Business Leaders)

• Add New
• Search

Comments (0)

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Comment:

Title:

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta2