Personel Performance System

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arunaselam Rasappan on September 11, 2008 at 11:20am

Dear Que - sorry for the delayed reply - somehow I did not see your question which was submerged in the topics/discussions.

I want to thank you for a question that is looking at MfDR and IRBM from a slightly different perspective i.e from a PAR angle.

PAR is a multi-faceted initiative with focus on reforms in one or more aspects of public administration and personnel performance system is one of the aspects that is included in the PAR initiatives.

As you may recall from the PAR experience in Vietnam, one of the reforms that was undertaken and which is still now being subjected to change and improvements, is the personnel system in the country. Similarly, many PAR initiatives include PPS as an integral component.

However, I should also add that the IRBM system and approach not only covers the PAR aspects but in reality goes well beyond the focus under the PAR process. One good example is the development planning and M&E aspects under that - many PAR initiatives seldom focus on development planning and related aspects. They do however touch on "M&E" as part of the requirements for monitoring and evaluating PAR initiatives but they seldom touch on or give adequate attention to the importance, relevance, and integration of development planning for improving public sector performance. Secondly, the focus of M&E under PAR is generally on the M&E requirements for the PAR initiatives/projects and not on M&E as a critical component of managing for development results.

In my opinion, PAR remains an important initiative for bringing about change and improving public sector management but it's usefulness will continue to remain of limited utility until and unless it is systematically included and strategically positioned within an integrated results-based management system.

I hope the above is useful in addressing your question. Please do not hesitate to raise any further questions or share any real-life situations/experiences from your country on this or other related topics.

Thank you once again for your interesting question.

Aru Rasappan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goaba Mosienyane on September 13, 2008 at 7:16am

I am interested in this discussion as people are a critical determinant of the success of reform. I will just add a couple of issues further. My experience in Botswana has been that focus has been largely on addessing planning, measurement and targets. Not as much attentioin has been on the capacity of individuals to match up to new targets and new expectations, based on the desire to do better. I think that the presonnel linkage should cause reflection on capabilities as well as the soft aspects relating to new ways of working. In many cases, the system that would have been used to promote individuals may not have been IRBM compliant and it is expected that leaders will produce new types of results in the same hierarchy. What is the best way to deal with this? On the soft aspect, I think that, whilst the plan can demonstrate the need to link programmes and activities, how people may have to work together across agencies (linkage & integration) seems left to people to figure out what the new process implies for their working relationships. Another challenge is the assumption that managers have as much control over people as they do budgets. Are there good examples of good alignment between authority over personnel and results that are expected?
Regards
Goaba Mosienyane

• ▶ Reply