The National Assembly’s recent resolution to do away with the ‘Partially Meets Expectations’ (PME) category from the performance evaluation system for civil servants marks yet another milestone in the history of the performance management system in Bhutan. It motivated me to share my perspectives on what could lie ahead. 

When I was fairly young, learning this essential aspect of the employment contract as a civil servant, I heard one of the senior executives say “I help those who are doing well but I don’t harm those who do not perform”. Instantly, he became my hero. I liked his idea of helping those who are doing well, it means recognising and motivating the performers. I also liked his idea of not harming those who do not perform. I saw in him a compassionate leader. A sense of job security sank deep within me. His ideals seeped through me shaping my outlook and I began to expect the same from all other senior managers around me until I learned a little bit more about the uses of the performance management system.

That was when most people only worked on their annual performance evaluation forms when applying for promotion. Many would complete the past four years’ annual evaluation forms in one go, chasing their direct reports who were by then transferred to different agencies.

Back then, while the system was already in place, people were not serious about its implementation. “Need Improvement” as a category, which is renamed as PMS, did exist but everyone was rated as either an outstanding or very good performer. So, the system did not serve its purpose. People used to argue that there was no use working hard because the system did not recognise their achievements and those who failed at work never had their promotion affected. They shared that those who worked hard got their promotion at the same time as those who hardly worked.

And rightly so, there were cases cited when the RCSC was bringing about new reforms to strengthen the performance evaluation system. One notable citation was the cases of some people who were surrendered to the Civil Service Commission Secretariat for their ill conduct and performance, who had their performance rating of the past years at an outstanding or very good level.

I realised everyone was sharing the same “not harming the poor-performer” mindset. What was seen initially as ‘compassion’ turned out to be ‘misplaced compassion’ at play – breeding complacency. Almost all managers were turning a blind eye to the deteriorating work culture, organisational productivity and the need for improvement of the poor-performing group.

A bold decision was taken when the Civil Service Commission took to Forced Ranking. The whole idea behind the change was to enhance meritocracy and subvert the growing culture of complacency, mediocracy and apathy towards poor performance.

The reform has led to a more serious implementation of the performance appraisal system. All the managers were kept on their toes keeping a close watch on the staff’s performances. Annual performance evaluation became more formalised. Some improvements in identifying ‘performers’ and ‘non-performers’ were showing up. Those rated as ‘outstanding performers’ were envied. Those who were marked as PME were worried and, of course, disheartened.

But there has been a huge outcry over the reform and is now even attached to the high attrition rate, which I struggle to relate to. Nevertheless, other findings of the Good Governance Committee of our legislative body are worth considering. They include rising disharmony, reduced collaboration and the fostering of negative attitudes. Indeed, it is highly agreeable that if everyone in an agency did very well yet some had to be put under the ‘PME’ category, it is painful and unfair. Something needs to be done there and it became loud and clear with the unanimous decision of the National Assembly.

Coming back to the purpose, let us acknowledge that the performance management system is a sieve that allows the performers to pass through for reward and motivation, and identify poor performers for either helping up or out. Forcing people into ‘PME’ is the heart essence of the forced ranking system to realise this objective of the performance management system. The National Assembly’s resolution of doing away with the PME category, therefore, risks pushing the system back to the earlier practices of turning a blind eye to poor performers and helping breed complacency.

It is also surprising to see how the narrative changes among the ‘naysayers’. Earlier they did not want to work hard because they saw that those who did not perform were equally rewarded. But now the narrative has shifted, as per the Committee’s findings, that they want to ‘leave everything to the outstanding performers’. This indicates the need to further strengthen the system to remove such a mindset.

Nevertheless, the decision to do away with the PME in the forced ranking has been taken and an executive order may be on the way for implementation. In response to this decision, three things are likely to happen:

Unquestioningly following the resolution of removing the ‘PME Category’ from the system. If it happened, it would be a regressive move leading to a rebirth of the ‘I don’t harm the poor-performers’ attitude and complacency would breed again.

Defending the system and submitting a compelling reason. If it happened, it would mean protecting the status quo and would not address this important issue of growing ‘unfairness’ in the system and the problems this new initiative has caused. And

Identifying new solutions in replacement of forced ranking the ‘PME’ category by substituting with an alternative system that can continue to identify the non-performers to help them up or out. This appears to be a more progressive and favourable response. But if the alternative solution is not able to uphold the strength of the existing forced ranking system in identifying the poor performers, accountability and meritocracy will suffer.

In gist, it is best to handle the issue with care not to compromise accountability, transparency and meritocracy which are the core pillars of Good Governance. There is no doubt that these are areas close to the heart of our Good Governance Committee, given His Majesty’s aspirations of promoting accountability and Ngar in the system.

Therefore, any solution to replace the ‘PME category’ of the forced ranking has to be backed up by well-articulated performance criteria and systems to differentiate talents objectively. Very importantly, the strength of the ‘forced ranking’ system that fixes accountability to the managers to implement the system earnestly should be maintained, at any cost. If a sound alternative is not found, we must think twice before we fiddle with the ‘PME’ category, which is the heart essence of the forced ranking system to identify the poor performers.

I am sharing this reflection observing the experiences of agencies outside civil service. There are cases where even though rigorous standards and performance criteria have been put in place, the managers still cannot help out poor performers who still exist to the detriment of work culture and organisational operation. Everyone knows the fact but nobody takes any action. Therefore, if the civil service slides back to its earlier system, it will only activate this ‘misplaced compassion’ that is still lurking around the corner.

Note: While discussing this, it is discomforting to relate forced ranking to a high attrition rate. Logically thinking, attrition of people forced into the PME category is the most desirable outcome of the system. Elsewhere people who were classified into this category were helped out, meaning they were necessitated to leave the system to be replaced by newcomers to bring in fresh ideas, energy and skills. Therefore, changing the system should not be targeted at addressing the attrition rate rather it should be carried out to address other burning issues like enhancing fairness and collaboration.

Contributed by

Kinley Rinchen

Australia