The current performance appraisal system should be modified to become an annual performance management process. The main changes that are necessary are as follows. The appraisal should have three sections: core competencies, individual work targets and individual learning objectives. The core competencies would be similar to those at present, but reduced from the current 15 to a more manageable 5. For each core competency, the supervisor should be required to give a score, as at present, but the score should be supported by a written justification of why that score was given, together with examples of the
individual‘s behaviour that justify the score. The individual work targets and learning objectives would be set at the beginning of the year in a joint meeting between the individual and his/her supervisor. In mid-year, the individual and his/her supervisor would meet to discuss performance and progress, but not to give scores. The meeting should be recorded in writing, and a copy of the note included in the individual‘s personnel file. At the end of the year, the individual has a formal appraisal meeting with his/her supervisor, at which work performance is reviewed, and the individual is scored for achievement in each of the three sections of the appraisal. Every score should be justified with a written comment and examples of behaviour. Finally, the individual is given a chance to comment on the form, and the supervisor‘s supervisor is also required to sign and comment on the appraisal.
The performance management process should be integrated into wider municipal procedures. Individual work targets should have a connection to his/her responsibilities within his/her department‘s annual work plan. Individual learning objectives should then help to inform the municipality‘s training plan.
The purpose of the performance management process should be to help improve every individual‘s performance, not just to establish a ‗grade‘. Therefore, where performance is not of the required standard, the first response should be to make a ‗performance improvement plan‘ in which the individual is required to state how he/she will do better at work, and how the supervisor and other colleagues may help the individual. Only if this fails should disciplinary action be taken, the individual moved to a more appropriate position or steps to help the individual leave the municipality and find work elsewhere.
To put this into practice, the HRMA should revise the government approved performance appraisal process along the lines described above. Before seeking final government approval (as required by the new Law on Civil Servants) the HRMA should work with the Union of Municipalities and three or four selected municipal administrations to test the process, and make modifications if necessary.
Training in performance appraisal should be obligatory for all staff in a supervisory position who will be conducting performance appraisals. This will require a substantial investment in training. As an estimate, around one quarter of municipal administration staff are in a supervisory position. This means that over 1,000 people will need training in performance appraisal. With an average class size of 15 people and a one-day training course, it would require 67 training days to cover the whole of Montenegro municipal administrations. Introducing performance appraisal will not be straightforward. The concepts of competencies and performance are not well understood, and do not have a place in the municipal culture. Since annual work planning is task-based rather than target or achievement based, it will be difficult to introduce effective performance appraisal without better planning. There will be a steep learning curve over the coming years, and the Union of Municipalities should be in a position to support that learning. It is suggested that each municipality nominates a person (or two people in larger municipal administrations) in a supervisory position to be the expert on performance appraisal in that municipality. That person would then be charged with attending advanced training and six-monthly workshops where he/she would be able to learn more about performance appraisal, find out from colleagues in other municipalities how they are dealing with particular issues or innovations, and sharing his/her own experience with peers.
In municipal administrations, where there is responsibility for coordinating performance appraisal, it is with the Secretariat for General Administration. It is suggested that this responsibility is moved to the office of the Chief Administrator. The Chief Administrator is in a better position to set the timetable for the annual appraisal process, and to ensure that all supervisors perform the performance appraisals on time, including the President of the Municipality. (In many municipal administrations, the President has more supervisory responsibilities than any other staff). The collecting and filing of the performance appraisals
should remain with the Secretariat for General Administration, with the person responsible for personnel administration.
Finally, if the performance appraisal is to be a tool for support and improvement of performance not a mechanism for shaming staff, the scores of the appraisals should be kept confidential. Only the individual, his/her supervisor and the supervisor‘s supervisor will have access to the file, as well as the personnel officer. Only the individual him/herself should be able to give this information to others, and his/her permission should be required if others want to see his/her performance appraisal.
11
Model for HRM in Municipal Administrations
The diagram below represents all the main institutions and positions that are relevant for human resource management in municipalities, and summarises their key functions. These functions are those recommended by this report, but based on the current legal framework. In other words, the diagram shows how things should look assuming that there are no changes to the law or mandates of the stakeholding institutions.
12
Specific Recommendations
This section sets out the recommendations from this study addressed to the four main stakeholders: municipal administrations, Ministry of Interior, HRMA and Union of Municipalities. The recommendations for municipal administrations are necessarily general, in that they are recommendations to most (if not all) municipalities. Some municipal administrations will have already addressed recommendations in this section of the report, and so should ignore them. An addendum to this report contains specific recommendations for each municipality in response to its needs and circumstances.