Agenda item

Attendee:

-       Tracy McKim - Policy Partnership & Involvement Manager

-       Howard Mason -  Senior HR & OD Business Partner

The Policy Partnership & Involvement Manager presented a brief overview to the Committee and highlighted they key areas for consideration. The Performance Management Strategy (The Strategy) has been developed by the Business Improvement and Development Team to ‘embed’ a strong performance culture where everyone wasaware of their contribution to the council’s vision. This was the first Strategy of its kind in the Council and works to the overall mission statement. The Strategy uses ‘The Golden Thread’ strategic map to explain the process of how the Public Service Board’s Wellbeing Plan influences everything between the Council’s Corporate Plan and the work done by frontline staff. The Strategy claims to be relevant to two groups of people;

-           All employees of the Council who each contribute to delivering the Council’s vision through their day-to-day activities.

-           All Members and managers who are responsible for assessing the Council’s progress against planned objectives.

Members asked the following:

·                A Member drew attention to the Clear Review (Individual Performance Management System) section of the report, asking for clarification of the percentage of constructive anonymous feedback given.  The Officer confirmed that the constructive feedback is continuing to improve, however the wording around the 4% would be amended to reflect.

·                Members of the Committee enquired about the Clear Review, asking if setting meetings every four weeks was too frequent, who defined the demand for four weekly reviews and not quarterly. Does the system cover everybody in the Authority? Officers explained that for the most part the system was very robust and worked very well for full time staff, meetings generally would take between 20 minutes and 2 hours dependant to how regularly staff interact with their managers. Officers confirmed that for the Leader, Chief Executive and schools the system was slightly different.

·                Members of the Committee asked for an explanation on how the reporting was monitored, asking was there a RAG Status being used, and if the system had given two-way recognition.  Officers confirmed that feedback and comments were recorded. Objectives set by staff in Clear Review were linked to the service plan objectives. Tasks and actions were set between the Line Manager and the Officer, these were monitored between both Officers.

·                A Member enquired if the Authority were allowing enough time in the working day to collate information, asking if it was counterproductive. The Officer responded by explaining that other forms of communication took place for staff including corridor conversations, co setting of KPI’s or more formal coaching. It remained a two-way conversation between line managers and their staff. Officers confirmed that the system was paperless. The drawbacks to the system included how conversations outside of the 1-1 environment were not captured, however there was an emphasis on coaching, additional support and training, and for exceptional performance.

The Chair thanked the officers for attending.

Conclusion - Comments to the Cabinet

The Committee noted the Performance Management Strategy – Recommendations Monitoring and agreed to forward the minutes to the Cabinet Member as a summary of the issues raised.

The Committee wished to make the following comments to the Cabinet:

1.    The Officers stated that they would seek staff feedback from those that had received anonymous feedback.