Individual Performance Management for Executives
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK • The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 • The White Paper on Local Government, 1998 • The Local Government Municipal Structures Act, 1998 • The Local Government Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (MSA) • Code of Conduct of Municipal Staff members • The Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 • LG: Municipal Performance Regulations for MMs and managers directly accountable to MMs, 2006 • LG Regulations on the appointment and condition of employment of senior managers, 2014
LG: MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT SECTION 54A • Appointment of MMs and acting MMs SECTION 56 • Appointment of managers directly accountable to municipal managers SECTION 57 • Employment contracts for MMs and managers directly accountable to MMs Performance agreement (PA) • Individual Performance Plan (IPP) • Personal Development Plan (PDP) •
INDIVIDUAL PMS IN ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY Section 57 (54A & 56) Executives : Individual Performance Management MSA Framework For Executives- PME • City Manager (CM) or (MM) Regulations For S57 • Deputy City Managers (DCMs) Non-section 57 (54A & 56) Executives (Task 19 and above) : • Heads of units • Deputy Heads • Senior Managers • Project Executives • Corporate Executives Employees on PMS (Task 18 and below): PM Policy For Staff-HR • Middle Management • First Line Management • Permanent Staff
Corp rporate St Stru ructure of eTh Thekwin ini i Munici icipali lity City Manager (CM) DCM: DCM: DCM: Human DCM: DCM: CM: Office of the Community & Economic Settlements, Corporate & Governance & DCM: Finance DCM: Trading City Manager Development Engineering & Emergency Human International Cluster Services Cluster Cluster & Planning Transport Services Relations Resources Cluster Cluster Authority Cluster Cluster Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Unit (PME) Departments, Sections and Branches
IPM POLICY FRAMEWORK • Applicable to section 54A, section 56 employees, and Senior Management on the Executive Payroll of eThekwini Municipality • Outlines the IPM process for executives, from planning to performance review and reporting • Details the annual implementation process including: Alignment of OPM and IPM • Preparation & submission of PAs, IPPs & PDPs • Mid-term reviews and annual assessments • Evaluation panels •
ALIGNMENT OF PROCESSES IDP BUDGET SDBIP IPP
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS & IPPs • All employees must sign a PA within 60 calendar days after assumption of duty, and annually within one month after commencement of the new financial year • Employment contract and PA of s54A & 56 managers must be submitted to MEC: COGTA in the relevant province, and national minister responsible for LG, within 14 days after concluding the documents • IPPs set out KPAs, performance objectives, targets and timeframes within which they must be achieved
CONTENT OF IPPs • National Key Performance Areas (KPAs): 1 . Municipal Institutional Development and Transformation 2. Basic Service Delivery 3. Local Economic Development (LED) 4. Municipal Financial Viability and Management 5. Good Governance and Public Participation 6. Cross cutting • IDP 8-point plan – IDP Matrix • Strategic Focus Area (SFAs) • Alignment of the SDBIP with the executive’s IPPs • Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) • SDBIP • Compulsory KPIs • Additional KPIs
IDP MATRIX
SDBIP
IPP
COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE (CFS) • Applies to s54A & 56 employees only • The CFS in 2014 Regulations replaces the Core Competency Requirements (CCRs) i.e. Regulation 26(8) of the 2006 Regulations • 6 leading competencies which comprise 20 driving competencies that communicate what is expected for effective performance in LG • Further 6 core competencies – act as drivers to ensure that the leading competencies are executed at an optimal level • Section 54A & 56 to include all CFS as part of the IPP (no selection as previously applicable to CCRs) – allocate weighting • Makes up 20% of the final assessment score
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS
STRUCTURED REVIEWS • 1 st & 3 rd quarter • Verbal • 2 nd quarter • Recorded • Status report on performance • 4 th quarter • Recorded • Status report on performance • Panel assessment • Rating of performance (1-5)
EVALUATION PANELS MUNICIPAL MANAGER Regulation 27 (4) (d) of Municipal Performance Regulations for MMs and managers directly accountable to MM, 2006 • Executive Mayor or Mayor • Chairperson of the performance audit committee (PAC) or the audit committee (AC) in the absence of a PAC • Member of the mayoral or executive committee (EXCO) or in respect of a plenary type municipality, another member of council • Mayor and/or municipal manager from another municipality • Member of a ward committee as nominated by the Executive Mayor or Mayor - Manager responsible for HR must provide secretariat services
EVALUATION PANELS MANAGERS DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER Regulation 27 (4) (e) of Municipal Performance Regulations for MMs and managers directly accountable to MM, 2006 • Municipal Manager • Chairperson of the performance audit committee (PAC) or the audit committee (AC) in the absence of a PAC • Member of the mayoral or executive committee (EXCO) or in respect of a plenary type municipality, another member of council • Municipal manager from another municipality - Manager responsible for HR must provide secretariat services
EVALUATION PANELS HEADS OF UNITS • The Deputy City Manager (DCM) of the cluster • The DCM appointed by the City Manager DEPUTY HEADS OF UNITS AND BELOW • The DCM of the cluster • The Head of the unit • The Deputy Head if deemed necessary (in case of incumbent reporting to the Deputy Head) SENIOR MANAGEMENT ON EXECUTIVE PAYROLL REPORTING DIRECTLY TO CM • The City Manager
EVALUATION PANELS • Senior management who, for any reason, have no supervisor at the time of performance review or assessment – CM/ delegated authority will decide on the constitution of the panel • Performance assessments undertaken by panels not constituted as per legislation or the Council-approved IPM policy framework, will not be valid • Any deviations must be approved by CM prior to the assessment being undertaken • CM/delegated authority – moderates and approves assessment scores for senior management below s56
ASSESSMENT PROCESS Step 1: Self-assessment score • KPIs in the IPP are rated on a scale of 1- 5 • KPI scores are then multiplied by the weight of the KPI = weighted score • Weighted scores are summarised into totals per KPA • Section 54A & 56 – assess CFS • Weighted total scores are transferred into the score sheet
ASSESSMENT PROCESS Step 2: Panel Assessment Score • Executives must provide POEs for all KPIs • Executives are afforded the opportunity to substantiate their self-assessment scores to the panel, and provide any clarity required by panel members • Panel reviews the self-assessment score for all KPIs • Panel should consider performance on the SDBIP • S54A & 56 are assessed on the CFS • Panel members must agree on a final consensus score
ASSESSMENT PROCESS Step 3: Final Score Section 54A & 56 : 80:20 split of the KPAs and CFS to determine the final score Non-section 54A & 56 : 100% of scoring for KPAs to constitutes the final score i.e. no CFS
ROLE OF PME IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS • Providing guidance in respect of the assessment process • Provision of performance-related information • Preparation of files for the evaluation panel members for CM & DCM’s assessments • Logistical arrangements • Finalisation of assessment documentation after the assessment • Submission of assessment scores to EXCO, Council and COGTA
RATING GUIDE Level Terminology Description 1 Unacceptable Performance does not meet the standard expected. The review/assessment indicates that the employee performance has achieved below fully effective results for the performance criteria/indicators as specified in the performance agreement/plan. The employee has failed to demonstrate the commitment or ability to bring performance up to the level expected in the job despite management efforts to encourage improvement. 2 Performance not Performance is below the standard required for the job. Performance meets some of the standards fully effective expected for the job. 3 Fully Effective Performance fully meets the standards expected in all areas of the job. The appraisal indicates that the Employee has fully achieved effective results against the significant performance criteria/indicator as specified in the Performance Agreement/Plan 4 Performance Performance is significantly higher than the standard expected in the job. The appraisal indicates that the Significantly above employee achieved above fully effective results against the performance criteria/ indicators. expectations 5 Outstanding Performance far exceeds the standard expected of an employee at this level. The appraisal indicates that Performance the Employee has achieved above fully effective results against the performance criteria/indicators as specified in the Performance Agreement/Plan.
Recommend
More recommend
