There is no record in the public service for supervisors who gave their favourite subordinates high scores for the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS).
This was said by Public Service and Administration Minister, Ms Noxolo Kiviet, in her reply for written reply to the National Assembly recently.
“In terms of the department’s PMDS for employees on salary levels 2 to 12, the following steps are followed in the Assessment Process:
“If there is consensus between the supervisor and employee on the rating, the rating becomes a Provisional Assessment Rating (PAR).
“All employees’ PARs are submitted to the Chief Directorate Assessment Panel for assessment, informed by evidence/motivation, where assessment/moderating is conducted.
“If there is a disagreement that cannot be resolved between the employee and the supervisor on the scores, the employee and supervisor must each note their reasons on a form,” she said.
Minister Kiviet further said the higher-level supervisor may be engaged on the matter, if unsuccessful, this must be submitted to a mutually agreed mediator for mediation.
The process of assessment moderation
Chief Directorate Assessment Panel (CDAP), consisting of the Directors in the environment, moderates the ratings of all employees in the relevant Chief Directorate and plays a critical role in assessing/moderating the provisional assessment rating of employees.
Each supervisor on salary level 9 and above presents the rating scores allocated to employees in that unit to the CDAP and shall substantiate such scores, especially in cases of below-average performance or where a performance bonus may be granted.
If the CDAP does not accept the final rating agreed to between the employee and the supervisor, the supervisor must report back to the employee on the outcome of the CDAP recommendations.
The CDAP may request the supervisor to rescore with the employee and revert to another sitting of the CDAP.
If there is no change to the original final score that was sent back to the employee and supervisor, the CDAP makes a recommendation.
The final recommendation of the CDAP is sent to the Branch Validating Committee (BVC) to be noted for final recommendation.
The BVC is chaired by a Deputy Director-General of a Branch and comprises of Chief Directors within the Branch.
Minister Kiviet said the BVC reviews validates quality assured Annual Performance Assessments based on evidence of the Annual Performance Plan, Annual Operational Plan, Performance Agreements and Workplans to recommend revision or approval.
She said the BVC also verifies consistency and fairness in application of ratings across Chief Directorates and validate appropriate scoring/rating.
“Departmental Moderation Committee (DMC) is chaired by the Director-General and comprises of Branch Heads (Deputy Director-Generals) in the department.
“The DMC ensures that the annual performance assessment is done in a realistic, consistent, and fair manner.
“The DMC further monitors the performance assessment process by obtaining an overall sense of whether norms and standards are being applied consistently and realistically to employees on the same level and validate the assessment overall across the branch for purposes of evaluating ratings and develop an overall view of the results of the process,” she said.
Decision Making
Minister Kiviet said it is only after a Performance Assessment of an employee on salary level 2 to 12 has been subjected to assessment moderation by the CDAP, BVC and DMC, the outcome of the assessment is processed to the Director-General for approval.
