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? – Research findings

• National Development Plan • MPAT • Our own

• Why are available resources not helping? – HR systems – Competency assessment – Training

“Capacity”

-Ability?

-Availability of resources?

-Willingness to

act?

Training as a resource to improve capacity

3

Khaedu Development Programme by PALAMA, directly linked to the Core Management Competencies for SMS members = “compulsory, customised solution and development/ orientation programme”

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

• Lack of follow through in strategic plans – Rollover for 3 years in a row

– Whole year devoted to “identification of training needs”

• No focus on areas of priority – Critical skills

– Key vacancies

• WSP – “Wish list” from PDPs – no way to interrogate real needs

• HRD “hoped that individuals had been given feedback and they would include what they needed in their own PDPs”

• General focus on technical training – no insight into personal development needs

– 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

Our findings: Skills development strategy

“Lack of capacity” given as the reason for

non-delivery of multiple items in

progress reports to Parliament

Consequence? Accountability?

MPAT report

“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

• Eg financial management & supply chain management standards set by NT • HRD standards set by DPSA

Purpose: • Information to be used by departments to

•note challenges, •initiate corrective actions and •inculcate a culture of continuous improvement.

MPAT results 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

HR Management elements

• HR planning • HRD planning • Recruitment and retention practices • Performance Management Systems

• Organisational design and implementation

• Pay sheet certification • Management of diversity • Management of disciplinary cases

ND’s that met none of the min requirements Military Veterans Public Works Traditional Affairs Water Affairs Women Children and Persons with Disabilities

MPAT results for sample ND

33% 22%

43%

-11% -20% -43%

-67% -67%

-80% -14%

-100%

-50%

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

Our findings for same sample ND

• Poor HR systems

• Poor recruitment decisions

• Poor HRD planning and implementation

• Poor self awareness / denial in SMS

Overall non delivery against strategic objectives Very poor report from Auditor General

Constant bad press for non delivery

Our findings: Poor HR systems

Poor data credibility:

Job descriptions a. Out of date

b. Confusion re post names

c. Match with PAs?

Training reports a. Wrong version submitted to SETA

b. Differing budget amounts

Management reports “I just delete the Management report when it comes.” EXCO member

Organogram a. Multiple versions

b. Process? EXCO approval?

c. Errors

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

Our findings: Poor recruitment decisions 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 or experience

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

Our findings: SMS appointments

don’t meet requirements for management competencies

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

Personality profiles - ND

13

What is the impact of these profiles on productivity and teamwork?

Our findings: SMS rating of their performance

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

What can we do about this?

Competency assessments as a resource to improve 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?

Competency assessments –

what do they tell us

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

Choices…

Resist / deny / ignore assessment findings

OR

Use the findings to intervene and improve capacity

Our findings: Resistance to

competency assessments by HR

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

only

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 ownership of the appointed service providers.

Our findings: Problem areas in the

use of competency assessments

1.Assessment results not being used for recruitment for development

2. Inconsistency for transfers in and promotions not done where appointments are “political” sometimes done only after appointment – so not used for appointment decisions

3. Assessment results are not made 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

An example – Company S Full psychometric assessment

Thinking/ decision making EQ Personality / behaviour

360 assessment 12 factors in specially developed Competency Model and 360 questionnaire

Feedback (individual and organisational)

Individual Manager HR MD

Development reports

HRD interventions, including training, appointment of coaches, special placements and projects

Re-evaluation After a year

Development of “required profiles” and cut-off points

Deliberate steps to •Recruit and select against required profiles •Address current weaknesses

22

Specific interventions - Co S

0 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 on circumstantial

evidence

Judgement Short term

No below

50 %

No below

30 %

No below

50 %

129 72% 62 35% 104 58%

Personality & EQ profiles – Co S

23

3.0

5.9

3.0

4.9

7.7

0

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

orientation

Leadership competencies Required levels for GMs

360 assessment – Co S

24

Opportunity for •Identification of most important competencies (reqd level) •Self reflection •Discussion •Planning for improvement •Re-measurement after intervention

81%

73%

78%

83%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Operational Business awareness Leadership focus Intra- & interpersonal orientation

360 evaluation - Company S

Required level Self Supervisor

25

So…

…if managers are more aware of exactly where they stand

And

… if it is possible to intervene and improve these areas

…then capacity should improve

How could assessments be used to build capacity?

1. Feedback to the individual

2. General feedback to the manager in whose unit the new employee is to be placed

3. Feedback to the HRD unit

4. A full analysis of underpinning competencies, including cognitive and emotional intelligence

In depth assessment of the existing capabilities and potential Deal with inappropriate placements Fill key vacancies with the correct people

Final comment

• We have the resources

• We probably have the ability

Do we have the courage to insist that they are used?

Will we hold Public Servants accountable?