Effective performance management systems help civil service managers achieve their objectives by aligning their employees’ actions with the goals of their teams, organisations and the whole civil service. These processes support talent management and employee development by identifying leadership potential and/or skill gaps across the civil service. When implemented effectively, performance management incentivises employees by linking their efforts to organisational goals and outcomes for the public. Aligning reward and recognition mechanisms to performance in this way helps managers to uphold principles of fairness and merit in promotions and pay decisions. Finally, by supporting transparent communication of performance information, performance systems can also create accountability to the public and elected officials.
The index on standardised performance assessments in central administrations captures how widely performance assessments are used, including whether standard tools are in place, and how frequently they are applied. The average score across OECD countries is 0.52 (on a scale of 0 to 1), suggesting that regular, mandatory performance assessments are common. However, countries vary considerably, with individual scores ranging from 0.03 to 0.9 (Figure 14.4). Most OECD countries with information available (28 out of 35, 80%) have mandatory formal performance assessment of all or most central government staff, regardless of their grade. In Finland, performance assessment is mandatory for senior managers but not for all staff. In those OECD countries where performance assessments are not mandatory (5 out of 35, 14%), they may be carried out at the discretion of the organisation, as for example in Denmark, Hungary or Sweden (Table 14.2).
The use of standard tools to measure performance across all ministries and agencies improves the comparability of information, supports mobility and enables system-wide initiatives to develop performance management capabilities, particularly among managers. Most OECD countries (29 of 35, 83%) have at least one standard method for assessing performance across all ministries, although the number of common tools varies. While using multiple tools can help build robust performance data, their effectiveness depends on the capabilities of the managers who use them, both in assessing performance and in acting on the outcomes of these assessments. Timely feedback is important for recognising, motivating and developing staff, and supports the efficacy of performance assessment regardless of the tools used. Across OECD countries, the most widespread performance assessment tools in regular use (i.e. at least once a year) involve a manager and typically occur on an annual basis. These include individual meetings or check-ins (used in 26 out of 35 countries, 74%) and written feedback (21 out of 35, 60%). Conversely, 360-degree feedback is least likely to be in regular use (4 out of 35 countries, 11%) (Table 14.2).
