Performance Evaluation

Article excerpt

RETIRED Bank of the Philippine Islands executive Gil Buenaventura's assumption of the presidency of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) brought back memories of the Performance Evaluation Report of the DBP that was done upon the request of Civil Service Commission Chairman Jacobe C. Clave in 1976, thirty-six years ago. The report of the Committee headed by Chairperson Doris de Leon Almeda and members, Miguel G. Felicio, Liwayway M. Calalang, Benjamin Mercado, Alejandro Gorospe and me raised concerns and recommendations that are as relevant today as they were then not only for the DBP but also for other government agencies, especially as they should now prepare for performance evaluation scheduled for the beginning of the new year.

Many of those who enter government from the private sector come with the impression, more often reinforced by those within the agency, that it is almost impossible to fire government employees. If they take the time to review Civil Service rules, then they will find out that they can in fact remove employees who have unsatisfactory ratings for 2 consecutive rating periods. They should bring in the innovations in performance evaluation that have proven successful in the corporate world.

The committee found that since 1970, the proportion of employees with excellent ratings had been abnormally increasing from 30% in 1970 to 53% in 1975. The recommendations were to devise a new Performance Evaluation System and improve the mechanics in ascertaining the final quantitative and qualitative rating of an employee. Overtime, ratings do go up but not necessarily due to better performance but for a variety of reasons - the rater does not put enough attention to the rating process, the performance rating does not lead to any management action of promotion or demotion, or the rater is worried about his own performance and rates his subordinates high to boost up his own rating. From feedback of current practices, I am told that these problems still exist in many government agencies.

On education, training and experience, the committee found that the employees generally had the appropriate college and graduate degrees, were getting the relevant training and had brought in relevant work experience. …