Performance appraisals at City Hall

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/06/2024 (723 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A recent audit report done in the City of Winnipeg found that 67 per cent of the city’s 10,400 workers had not completed a formal job performance appraisal (PAs) during the period from 2018 to 2022 and that 10 out of 12 managers interviewed for the report did not have documented performance measures for evaluating their staff.

Councillors and commentators expressed shock and outrage that formal, recorded PAs were not being used to hold employees accountable and to improve their performance. Shortly thereafter the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), the city’s top public servant, resigned. A cone of silence descended on the reasons for his departure, so we do not know whether it was precipitated by the audit alone and/or whether he was pushed or jumped.

The councillors and other harsh critics overreacted to the lack of use of PAs. They exhibited naïve faith in a management technique which peaked in terms of popularity in the private sector two or three decades ago. Today leading companies like Microsoft, Apple and Netflix have abandoned annual, formal, recorded PAs relying instead on informal continuous joint assessments involving employees and managers which seek to develop a shared sense of ownership in improving performance at the individual and the corporate level.

This is not to say that PAs can never be helpful. A lot depends on the context in which they are used. The city audit covered a period when the city faced major problems in the external environment, was under severe financial stress and was dealing with the unprecedented challenges of the pandemic which involved most of its workforce working remotely. There was also an unduly long period when the city lacked a permanent CAO. This was hardly an ideal period to spend the time and effort required to conduct comprehensive PAs.

Trust within organizations is another factor which influences individual , group and organizational performance. The city of Winnipeg is a highly unionized environment, with eight bargaining units , including one representing middle managers. Too often mayors, councillors and senior administrative officials seek to bypass the union when adopting new management approaches.CUPE , the largest union, voted 93 per cent for strike action, which was averted at the last minute. The mayor and his inner circle have considered proposals to have the provincial government designate more groups of employees as performing essential services which would make them ineligible to strike.

Individual employees and the unions who represent them are not necessarily opposed to PAs. Many employees rightly believe they have the knowledge and skills to help the organizations they work for achieve better performances. Employees and unions rightly insist, however, that PAs be conducted and used fairly which depends on trust across levels within organizations.

Achieving accurate and fair PAs involves numerous challenges. Not all tasks lend themselves to objective measurement , rather there is subjectivity involved in defining and measuring good performance. There can be poor communication about the purposes and significance of appraisals. Not all managers are offered adequate training on how to conduct valid and fair appraisals.

There is something called the “centrality error” problem which refers to the tendency to rank performance in the middle range, neglecting very good and very poor performances. Another technical flaw is called “recency” bias which refers to a focus on the recent performance of employees and fails to look at their performance over time.

This leads to the question of how frequently formal PAs should be conducted. More organizations are recognizing that 12 months (usually corresponding to their fiscal year) is not a magic period for determining through formal appraisals whether the performance of individuals needs improvement. Appraisals and feedback may be desirable for newcomers to the city workforce to support their learning and development as employees. However, it is questionable why “veteran” employees whose performance has been satisfactory and stable over time need to engage in the ritual of an annual performance review.

Many more organizations are moving away from annual PAs and relying more on the development of a “feedback” culture involving ongoing two-way communications between managers and employees about accomplishments, problems, obstacles and potential areas for improvement. This approach allows for earlier opportunities to address performance problems. Surveys of municipal employees elsewhere also tell us they find such regular feedback more motivating in terms of learning and improving than the annual formal PA process.

The shift to a feedback approach may be occurring in the City of Winnipeg, Critics of the failure to conduct PAs ignored another part of the audit report which suggested that such continuous monitoring was happening within the administration of the City of Winnipeg. According to the audit, the City’s 2022-2023 Employee Engagement and Workplace Culture Survey reported that 73 per cent of employees responded they were provided positive feedback from their supervisor and 88 per cent responded that they know how their job contributes to the organization’s objectives.

PAs are not a panacea in terms of motivating employees , addressing performance issues and contributing to organizational success.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.