PRP Outcomes 2012
Report of the Director of Commissioning.
The report which gave an overview of the results of the 2011/12 Pay and Appraisal Scheme and to consider a review of the current scheme, was presented by Rob Walker, Assistant Director of Commissioning. He brought the Committee’s attention to the overall percentage results and stated that it had become apparent, that the level or reward for Overachieving and Exceptional performance was not significant enough to drive or incentivise performance improvement.
When asked why the scheme had not worked, as a Councillor believed that 17% of staff rated as Exceptional was a high figure, the Assistant Director of Commissioning stated that the level of engagement was no longer as it was when the scheme commenced. This was felt to be disappointing and that if the scheme continued in the future, the percentages would be higher and better.
Some Councillors did not believe that any evidence had been presented to show that staff had not engaged with the process, as the percentage of staff rated as Performing and Exceptional had not dipped, therefore his view was that the scheme had performed extremely well. A Councillor thought that the problem with the scheme was that Managers had not engaged in the process or had managed it.
Further comments by Councillors were that they had not been told of what checks and balances had been put into place for engagement, and how aims were statistically proven. In response and for Members’ benefit, the Assistant Director of Commissioning explained the appraisal process and evidence required, and acknowledged there was an element of subjectivity in the process.
Further comments from Members were that it would not take a lot of training for the current 44% of Overachieving staff to reach Exceptional, and the scheme had not been delivered or applied in the way the Council had initially agreed.
Percentages expected at the start of the appraisal year for 2011/12 were 50% Performing, 35% Overachieving and 15% Exceptional.
A Councillor questioned why there were only 3 categories, and not one for Underachievers, as they would be the staff that required assistance. The Assistant Director of Commissioning explained the performance management process for underperforming and capability, to which the Councillor responded by stating that Members had not been made aware of the capability percentage.
A view expressed by a Councillor was that although the scheme had been designed in a certain way, it had not been implemented that way by Managers, and therefore was a training issue, and as part of introducing any alternative scheme it would have to be managed to avoid a repeat of the weakness and failure of the current scheme.
It was requested that Members be provided with a breakdown by department which showed the percentages of staff not achieving, which the Assistant Director of Commissioning agreed to provide.
As Chairman of the Member Development Panel, Cllr Carter would recommend that Members received training on how staff were assessed during the Pay and Appraisal scheme.
RECOMMEND to Council that :
(a) the contents of the report be noted
(b) that a review of PRP with any new scheme to be implemented for 2013/14, be approved.
It was expected that the review would commence after the summer period and the Assistant Director of Commissioning agreed to bring a report back to the General Purposes Committee in the Autumn which would include points raised by Members.