Defence

Wordsmith

Managing our performance

Ric Smith

 

Many colleagues would be surprised to learn how often I deal with complex personnel grievances. By the time these issues get to me, they often reflect a breakdown of workplace relations. I find, time and again, that an overwhelming number of these problems result from a failure to work within our performance management system. When these issues do come to my attention, I take their resolution very seriously, and I thought it timely therefore to outline my expectations concerning performance management for all Defence staff.

Performance management in Defence involves three processes: performance agreement; performance exchange; and on-going monitoring and two-way feedback. These processes are mandatory for all Defence staff. Their terms are outlined in the tri-service performance appraisal system for the ADF, the Defence Employees' Certified Agreement (DECA) 2004-2006 of the APS, and is separately covered for the SES and Star-ranking officers in their AWA agreements.

Generally speaking, our performance management system is comprised of formal arrangements between supervisors and employees, and informal communication within the workplace. The formal arrangements define the expectations and objectives of an employee's performance through the development and monitoring of Key Expected Results (KERs) and Plans on a Page (PoaPs). Together they structure the daily operations of the workplace, and enable clear objectives to be shared by staff and supervisors. I have encouraged Group Heads to develop through these two processes a more rigorous approach to setting goals and managing our performance to meet these goals.

Formal agreement and exchange are necessary in the maintenance of good performance management, but they are not enough to ensure that our goals are achieved. In order to establish and maintain clear expectations between managers and employees, continuous discussion and two-way feedback is essential. In between the formal performance reviews, we need to always be talking about how things are going, and make any necessary adjustments.

I worry that this is still one of our weakest practices. Finding time for this candid, informal communication seems to be a difficult task - but it shouldn't be. It should be how we all approach our work every day. If you haven't talked to your colleagues, staff, and supervisor today - make a point to do it now.

Good business practices teach us that efficiency and productivity is only achievable through people. Defence has adopted the Results through People philosophy, and encourages all employees to participate in its workshops.

Results through People recognises that we interact through logic and emotion. Logic, for instance, is needed to decide on and apply the appropriate management and technical skills required for the task whereas emotion, the regular, personal connection and interaction between individuals, facilitates application to the task. In performance management terms, getting the balance right improves our commitment levels and our results. This can include ensuring an awareness of the task's overall objective (both in an individual and "big picture" sense), feedback and recognition for work contribution, and the encouragement of new skills to enhance an employee's capability.

Ensuring this balance is not just the responsibility of our managers, nor is it solely confined to the relationship between manager and employee. This philosophy should shape our relationships with everyone within the Defence workplace, with our customers and clients, and with other Government agencies and beyond. People deserve to be acknowledged when a task has been achieved, a service provided, or a new skill mastered. And it makes a difference. Reflect on your own experience.

By the same token, underperformance needs to be recognised and dealt with in an appropriate manner. And while this is often the hardest task for managers, it can be made easier if there is regular discussion about what is expected, and how an individual team is progressing. All feedback, including feedback about underperformance should first be delivered personally, and at the time the issue arises, to the individual or the team. Resistance to feedback about underperformance is often because it comes as a surprise, too long after the event. Regular, informal performance feedback limits the extent of surprise and substantially increases the likelihood of a positive response.

Most importantly, our principles of performance management are based on our commitment to Defence and APS values. These values are important as they provide a way of getting things done without detailed rules and instructions, and complement the Results through People philosophy. They facilitate our initiative while reinforcing our integrity, and provide a common ground in our relations with each other. The respect these values should generate within the workplace forms the basis of our performance management process.

I have asked all SES staff to take responsibility for developing and monitoring PoaPs and KERs, and encouraging participation in Results through People workshops. I have also asked for closer monitoring of the administrative side of personnel issues - such as travel reform, training opportunities, and leave management - both for themselves and their staff. I expect that these themes should be represented in most PoaPs for the current year.

Those staff not in the SES also have a central role in this. Take the initiative to work with your supervisors to develop clear objectives and expected results within your workplace, and discuss with them how to achieve your goals. And don't forget that the PoaP is also about your current, and future, learning and development needs.

Once again, I remind everyone that workplace performance management is a central part of everyone's job. With some care and consideration, many of the personnel issues I am seeing now need not exist.

[ top of page ]