Agenda item

Purpose: To provide an update on the appraisal system for Council officers.

Paula Goodwin (Service Lead – Human Resources) presented the report on the Council’s appraisal process (Agenda Item 9).

It was noted that the report had been requested to provide additional detail that had not been covered in the report to the previous report to OSMC on 24 May 2022.

Members made the following observations:

·         The table showing the percentage of appraisals undertaken appeared to show a lot of red, which was a concern and was contrary to assurances given that the appraisal system was working well.

·         It was suggested that appraisals should consider employee wellbeing, motivation and mind-set, as well as progress towards objectives and targets.

·         Also, it was suggested that employees needed to be able to have ad-hoc meetings with managers.

·         Assurance was also sought that appraisals were being written up.

·         Employees needed feedback from managers about how they were performing.

·         Employee morale could be affected by a range of factors such as cost of living and workplace bullying.

·         Appraisal completions within the Director and Support (People) had gone from 100% in March 2021 to 33.33% in September 2022, which was a concern. Reductions in other service areas were also concerning.

·         It was important to retain Council employees, since some services were using high numbers of agency staff, which was costly.

·         Members had been made aware a few months previously that some had not had an appraisal for several years.

·         A question was asked about the impact of Covid and home-working on the frequency and quality of appraisals.

·         Appraisals should be a two-way process where appraisees should be able to say what they needed and officers should have access to training.

·         The new system was not due to be procured until 2024, which seemed a long time.

·         Detail was sought as to the number of staff subject to detailed supervision sessions.

·         The tones used in the RAG ratings were difficult to distinguish by those who were colour blind.

·         The previous report to OSMC had been indicated that the new framework would be implemented in September / October, but it had slipped to 2023.

·         Previously, the Executive had been provided with appraisal data and this had shown some services with fewer than 30% of staff receiving appraisals. However, this had since improved.

Officers responded to the points made as follows:

·         The RAG rating used in the table showing the percentage of appraisals completed showed comparison with previous years rather than a performance against an absolute standard.

·         Managers were required to have regular 1-2-1 meetings with their direct reports, and the 1-2-1 form included a section on employee wellbeing. Also, a Wellbeing Officer had been appointed who had made good progress on progressing the wellbeing agenda within the Council. Employees and their managers were being supported from a wellbeing perspective.

·         The appraisal form included standards for competencies. However, a new behaviour framework had been agreed and would replace the competency framework next year. This behaviour framework included more soft skills.

·         Managers and employees were expected to document appraisals quickly. Although there was no current central repository for appraisals, it was believed that appraisals were being written up. Managers were asked to record when they had appraisal meetings within the HR / Payroll System. There was lots of internal communication to ensure that staff were reminded to do this.

·         There was no evidence to suggest that appraisals had not taken place during the Covid pandemic. The data showed where an employee had an appraisal in the previous 15 months. This had been extended to 18 months during the pandemic. Staff were encouraged to come back to the offices and to have regular team meetings, 1-2-1s and appraisals on a face-to-face basis. The Council had started hybrid working in 2010, which was well before the start of the pandemic.

·         The 2024 implementation date for the new HR and payroll system was because there was an existing contract in place. The system was in the process of being procured and would be implemented and thoroughly tested before going live.

·         The RAG rating was in addition to the percentage figures.

·         Some services had very small numbers of people, so the percentages could be significantly affected if only a small number of staff did not have appraisals.

·         Officers did not have figures to hand for the number of staff subject to detailed supervision sessions, but these were mostly in Adult Social Care doe to the nature of their roles.

·         The reason for slippage in the timescales for implementation of the new systems were related to resources within HR and changes to the priorities for HR, with a shift in focus to recruitment and retention.