Capacity needs in terms of skills and resources in the Public - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Capacity needs in terms of skills and resources in the Public Service Nkhabele Marumo Clinical Psychologist Consultant from Siyeluleka Capacity, skills and resources Why is lack of capacity a recurring theme in the public service?
“Capacity”
resources?
act?
3
Khaedu Development Programme by PALAMA, directly linked to the Core Management Competencies for SMS members = “compulsory, customised solution and development/
Skills Development Act Skills Development Levy Workplace Skills Plan NEW: National School of Government
Why is this resource not being used?
Our finding: Only 20% of SMS had completed this programme – most at Director level
– Rollover for 3 years in a row – Whole year devoted to “identification of training needs”
– Critical skills – Key vacancies
– “Wish list” from PDPs – no way to interrogate real needs
they needed in their own PDPs”
– Attention to those with scores less than 100 in PAs – to avoid possible labour disputes later – Plan vs actual – little resemblance – Multiple errors in submissions to SETA and DoL – Need for audit of actual amount spent on training
“Lack of capacity” given as the reason for non-delivery of multiple items in progress reports to Parliament
“State of management practices in the Public Service: Results of management performance assessments for the 2012/13 financial year.”
Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, July 2013
“Management Performance Assessment Tool”
Measures only whether a Department can actually deliver against basic legal/regulatory standards
Purpose:
Levels: 1: Not compliant 2: Partially compliant 3: Fully compliant 4: Going beyond compliance Human Resource Management 73% of all Departments did not meet minimum requirements
ND’s that met none of the min requirements Military Veterans Public Works Traditional Affairs Water Affairs Women Children and Persons with Disabilities
33% 22% 43%
0% 50% 100% Strat Mng Accountability HR Mng Fin Mng
MPAT: Overall performance for sample ND
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Note: 100% below the line for HR Management
Poor data credibility:
Job descriptions
a. Out of date b. Confusion re post names c. Match with PAs?
Training reports
Management reports
“I just delete the Management report when it comes.” EXCO member
Organogram
eFiling protocols?
Missing data for SMS:
CV's* Competency Assessments % missing 58% 65% *for SMS appointments since 2010 “Non-compliance by managers” 26% of Performance Agreements outstanding
Position: CD Projects Appropriate Qualification: No Appropriate Experience: No Competency Assessment: Not at required level Decision: Appointed as CD Projects No recruitment policy
25% 38% 38% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Both appropriate qualification and experience Either qualification
Neither qualification nor experience
Appointments in HR Department
% of SMS that do not meet selection criteria % vacancy rate DG’s Office 33% 25% Dept A 22% 44% Dept K 40% 22% Projects 43% 23% Dept I 0% 40% Dept E 23% 33% Policy 25% 17% Corporate Services 45% 14% Finance & SC 14% 50% COO's office 60% 22% Regions 32% 32% Total 33% 29% Combination of poor skills and high vacancies
N recruitment policy
At date of appointment
Note: When asked to rate themselves on management competencies ALL rated themselves as meeting requirements
3.7 3 2.8 4.5 4 3 2 3 4 5 DDG CD Director
Ave for management competencies - by job level
Current Ave Required Ave
13
What is the impact
productivity and teamwork?
14
Expectation from DPSA: Approx 15% to 20% above 130 60% are above 130
8% 52% 40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% >150 (Outstanding) 130 - 149 (Significantly above ave) 100 - 129
Distribution of SMS assessment scores
n = 97 assessment scores received
Lack of self awareness? Arrogance? Delusion? Lack of accountability?
15
Improved capacity will lead to better service delivery Improved service delivery requires better decision making Basis for good decisions is judgement Starting point for developing judgement is critical self awareness
16
“This circular serves to remind all Heads of Department of Cabinet’s decision, of 26-28 July 2006 regarding the compulsory implementation of competency assessments for the Senior Management Service (SMS) by December 2008.” “The SMS competency assessment battery is used for developmental purposes. However it can also be used at recruitment/selection to identify the developmental needs of an individual prior to appointment.”
Why is this resource not being used?
17
76% of Public Sector participants below required level for senior management 92% have the potential to reach the required level
24% 52% 10% 14% 0% 22% 34% 27% 17% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Measured Thinking/Decision making levels Senior Managers (reqd level = 3)
Public Sector Company S 0% 7% 71% 14% 7% 2% 34% 27% 37% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Potential Thinking/Decision making levels Senior Managers (reqd level = 3)
Public Sector Company S
18
Comments from CD: HRM
Reports are not given to managers as there might be discrimination against some Affirmative Action appointees on the basis of the results Assessments are done for compliance
Reports are often poorly written and seem to just be “cut and paste” exercises that can’t be trusted Can’t take this up with DPSA as you never know who in DPSA is involved in
appointed service providers.
1.Assessment results not being used
for recruitment for development
for transfers in and promotions not done where appointments are “political” sometimes done only after appointment – so not used for appointment decisions
known
The individual does not get feedback The HRD unit does not get to know what the results were Cannot add to skills development plans Managers don’t receive the reports or feedback
21
Full psychometric assessment
Thinking/ decision making EQ Personality / behaviour
360 assessment
12 factors in specially developed Competency Model and 360 questionnaire
Feedback (individual and
Individual Manager HR MD
Development reports
HRD interventions, including training, appointment of coaches, special placements and projects
Re-evaluation
After a year
Development
profiles” and cut-off points Deliberate steps to
22
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 AnAnalyticalApproach BigPicture Checking Clarification Complexity HolisticApproach Integration LogicalEvidence NeedForPrecision PreciseandSystem SelfDirectedFocus Strategising
Development areas (no of managers)
72% need to develop judgement 66% need to clarify their thinking and plan how to address problems 58% tend to jump to conclusions, make sweeping assumptions, rely
evidence Judgement Short term No below 50 % No below 30 % No below 50 % 129
72%
62 35% 104
58%
23
3.0 5.9 3.0 4.9 7.7 2 4 6 8 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conformity
Personality attributes at work Company S
All GMs 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110
Total EQ Intrapersonal Interpersonal Stress Management Adaptability General Mood 109 107 106 105 109 106
EQ Factors - Company S Reqd level 100 – Current ave 109
All GMs Non GMs
Cognitive profile:
Required level for GMs = 3 Current ave for all GMs = 2,4 Potential ave = 3,0
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 Operational Business awareness Leadership focus Intra- & interpersonal
Leadership competencies
Required levels for GMs
24
Opportunity for
81% 73% 78% 83% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Operational Business awareness Leadership focus Intra- & interpersonal
360 evaluation - Company S
Required level Self Supervisor
25
In depth assessment of the existing capabilities and potential Deal with inappropriate placements Fill key vacancies with the correct people