Individual Performance

Management for Executives

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

• The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996

• The White Paper on Local Government, 1998

• The Local Government Municipal Structures Act, 1998

• The Local Government Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (MSA)

• Code of Conduct of Municipal Staff members

• The Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003

• LG: Municipal Performance Regulations for MMs and managers directly accountable to MMs, 2006

• LG Regulations on the appointment and condition of employment of senior managers, 2014

SECTION 54A

• Appointment of MMs and acting MMs

SECTION 56

• Appointment of managers directly accountable to municipal managers

SECTION 57

• Employment contracts for MMs and managers directly accountable to MMs• Performance agreement (PA)• Individual Performance Plan (IPP)• Personal Development Plan (PDP)

LG: MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT

Ind

ivid

ual

Pe

rfo

rman

ce M

anag

em

en

t Fr

amew

ork

Fo

r Ex

ecu

tive

s-P

ME

MSA Regulations

For S57

Section 57 (54A & 56) Executives :

• City Manager (CM) or (MM)

• Deputy City Managers (DCMs)

Non-section 57 (54A & 56) Executives (Task 19 and above) :

• Heads of units

• Deputy Heads

• Senior Managers

• Project Executives

• Corporate Executives

PM

Po

licy

For

Staf

f-H

R

Employees on PMS (Task 18 and below):

• Middle Management

• First Line Management

• Permanent Staff

INDIVIDUAL PMS IN ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY

Corporate Structure of eThekwini Municipality

City Manager (CM)

CM: Office of the City Manager

Cluster

Performance Monitoring &

Evaluation Unit (PME)

DCM: Finance Cluster

DCM: Community &

Emergency Services Cluster

DCM: Trading Services Cluster

DCM: Corporate &

Human Resources

Cluster

DCM: Governance & International

Relations Cluster

DCM: Economic

Development & Planning

Cluster

DCM: Human Settlements,

Engineering & Transport Authority

Departments, Sections and Branches

• Applicable to section 54A, section 56 employees, and Senior

Management on the Executive Payroll of eThekwini Municipality

• Outlines the IPM process for executives, from planning to

performance review and reporting

• Details the annual implementation process including:

• Alignment of OPM and IPM

• Preparation & submission of PAs, IPPs & PDPs

• Mid-term reviews and annual assessments

• Evaluation panels

IPM POLICY FRAMEWORK

IDP

BUDGET

SDBIP

IPP

ALIGNMENT OF PROCESSES

• All employees must sign a PA within 60 calendar days after assumption of duty, and annually within one month after commencement of the new financial year

• Employment contract and PA of s54A & 56 managers must be submitted to MEC: COGTA in the relevant province, and national minister responsible for LG, within 14 days after concluding the documents

• IPPs set out KPAs, performance objectives, targets and timeframes within which they must be achieved

PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS & IPPs

• National Key Performance Areas (KPAs):

1. Municipal Institutional Development and Transformation

2. Basic Service Delivery

3. Local Economic Development (LED)

4. Municipal Financial Viability and Management

5. Good Governance and Public Participation

6. Cross cutting

• IDP 8-point plan – IDP Matrix

• Strategic Focus Area (SFAs)

• Alignment of the SDBIP with the executive’s IPPs

• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)• SDBIP

• Compulsory KPIs

• Additional KPIs

CONTENT OF IPPs

IDP MATRIX

SDBIP

IPP

• Applies to s54A & 56 employees only

• The CFS in 2014 Regulations replaces the Core Competency Requirements (CCRs) i.e. Regulation 26(8) of the 2006 Regulations

• 6 leading competencies which comprise 20 driving competencies that communicate what is expected for effective performance in LG

• Further 6 core competencies – act as drivers to ensure that the leading competencies are executed at an optimal level

• Section 54A & 56 to include all CFS as part of the IPP (no selection as previously applicable to CCRs) – allocate weighting

• Makes up 20% of the final assessment score

COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE (CFS)

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS

• 1st & 3rd quarter • Verbal

• 2nd quarter • Recorded

• Status report on performance

• 4th quarter• Recorded

• Status report on performance• Panel assessment• Rating of performance (1-5)

STRUCTURED REVIEWS

MUNICIPAL MANAGER

Regulation 27 (4) (d) of Municipal Performance Regulations for MMs and managers

directly accountable to MM, 2006

• Executive Mayor or Mayor

• Chairperson of the performance audit committee (PAC) or the audit committee

(AC) in the absence of a PAC

• Member of the mayoral or executive committee (EXCO) or in respect of a plenary

type municipality, another member of council

• Mayor and/or municipal manager from another municipality

• Member of a ward committee as nominated by the Executive Mayor or Mayor

- Manager responsible for HR must provide secretariat services

EVALUATION PANELS

MANAGERS DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE MUNICIPAL

MANAGER

Regulation 27 (4) (e) of Municipal Performance Regulations for MMs and managers

directly accountable to MM, 2006

• Municipal Manager

• Chairperson of the performance audit committee (PAC) or the audit committee (AC) in

the absence of a PAC

• Member of the mayoral or executive committee (EXCO) or in respect of a plenary type

municipality, another member of council

• Municipal manager from another municipality

- Manager responsible for HR must provide secretariat services

EVALUATION PANELS

HEADS OF UNITS

• The Deputy City Manager (DCM) of the cluster

• The DCM appointed by the City Manager

DEPUTY HEADS OF UNITS AND BELOW

• The DCM of the cluster

• The Head of the unit

• The Deputy Head if deemed necessary (in case of incumbent reporting to the Deputy Head)

SENIOR MANAGEMENT ON EXECUTIVE PAYROLL REPORTING DIRECTLY TO CM

• The City Manager

EVALUATION PANELS

• Senior management who, for any reason, have no supervisor at the time of performance review or assessment – CM/ delegated authority will decide on the constitution of the panel

• Performance assessments undertaken by panels not constituted as per legislation or the Council-approved IPM policy framework, will not be valid

• Any deviations must be approved by CM prior to the assessment being undertaken

• CM/delegated authority – moderates and approves assessment scores for senior management below s56

EVALUATION PANELS

Step 1: Self-assessment score

• KPIs in the IPP are rated on a scale of 1- 5

• KPI scores are then multiplied by the weight of the KPI = weighted score

• Weighted scores are summarised into totals per KPA

• Section 54A & 56 – assess CFS

• Weighted total scores are transferred into the score sheet

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Step 2: Panel Assessment Score

• Executives must provide POEs for all KPIs

• Executives are afforded the opportunity to substantiate their self-assessment

scores to the panel, and provide any clarity required by panel members

• Panel reviews the self-assessment score for all KPIs

• Panel should consider performance on the SDBIP

• S54A & 56 are assessed on the CFS

• Panel members must agree on a final consensus score

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Step 3: Final Score

Section 54A & 56 :

80:20 split of the KPAs and CFS to determine the final score

Non-section 54A & 56 :

100% of scoring for KPAs to constitutes the final score i.e. no CFS

ASSESSMENT PROCESS

• Providing guidance in respect of the assessment process

• Provision of performance-related information

• Preparation of files for the evaluation panel members for CM & DCM’s

assessments

• Logistical arrangements

• Finalisation of assessment documentation after the assessment

• Submission of assessment scores to EXCO, Council and COGTA

ROLE OF PME IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Level Terminology Description

1 Unacceptable

performance

Performance does not meet the standard expected. The review/assessment indicates that the employee

has achieved below fully effective results for the performance criteria/indicators as specified in the

performance agreement/plan. The employee has failed to demonstrate the commitment or ability to bring

performance up to the level expected in the job despite management efforts to encourage improvement.

2 Performance not

fully effective

Performance is below the standard required for the job. Performance meets some of the standards

expected for the job.

3 Fully Effective Performance fully meets the standards expected in all areas of the job. The appraisal indicates that the

Employee has fully achieved effective results against the significant performance criteria/indicator as

specified in the Performance Agreement/Plan

4 Performance

Significantly above

expectations

Performance is significantly higher than the standard expected in the job. The appraisal indicates that the

employee achieved above fully effective results against the performance criteria/ indicators.

5 Outstanding

Performance

Performance far exceeds the standard expected of an employee at this level. The appraisal indicates that

the Employee has achieved above fully effective results against the performance criteria/indicators as

specified in the Performance Agreement/Plan.

RATING GUIDE

• Section 54A managers - Assessment results must be submitted to the MEC and the national minister for LG, within 14 days after the conclusion of the assessment

• Section 54A & 56 managers – Assessment results must be submitted to municipal council for bonus payment approval

• Non-section 54A & 56 - Assessment results are compiled by PME and forwarded to CM for moderation and approval for bonus payment

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Dispute on the nature of the employee's PA and outcome of the employee’s performance evaluation must be mediated by –

The MEC for LG in the province, or any other person designated

by the MEC, in the case of the City Manager

The Mayor, in the case of Deputy City Managers

The City Manager/delegated authority, in the case of executives

below section 56

Mediator’s decision shall be final and binding on both parties.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Paragraph 8 of the 2006 Regulations - Performance bonuses, based on affordability, may be paid after:

• The Annual Report for the FY under review has been tabled & adopted by Council

• The completion of the annual assessments

• Approval of such evaluation by municipal council as a reward for outstanding performance

Calculation, approval & payment of performance bonuses is undertaken and processed by the CM and HR.

PERFORMANCE BONUSES

Assessment Score

• 31st of July or

• Within 60 days of assumption of duty (new engagements)PA/IPPs

• 31st of JanuaryMTR

• 31st of MarchIncorporate MTAs into IPP

• No later than 14 days after approval of the annual budgetSubmit draft annual PAs of s54A & 56 to Mayor

• No later than 5 days after tabling at CouncilPlace PAs of s54A & 56 on

the municipal website

• End of February of the following FY Assessment Scores

IMPORTANT DATES

CHALLENGES RESPONSES

• Late submissions • Notices (Emails and Memos)

• CM Circulars

• IPM Policy Framework

• Non-submissions • CM Memo

• No bonus payment

• Disciplinary action

• Confusing the process concepts • Induction

• Using/submitting wrong templates • Annual dated, pre-populated

templates

• Incomplete and unsigned IPPs • Checklist

• Constitution of prescribed panels • Guidelines on the onset and during

assessment period

• Securing availability of panel

members

• Scheduling along other meetings

• Teleconferencing