PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE

That this House believes that performance management systems operating in central government departments are discriminatory and unfair; recognises that analysis of the government data by academics from Keele University indicates that there are statistically significant differences in performance outcomes based on gender, age, grade and working patterns and, particularly, in relation to disability and ethnicity; is concerned that the policy of forced, or guided, distribution whereby a predetermined 10 per cent of staff receive the bottom box marking, directly discriminates against staff from protected characteristic groups; is aware that a survey carried out by the Public and Commercial Services union, found that over 90 per cent of members who responded think the forced ranking system is unfair and over 60 per cent described their overall experience of performance management as mainly negative; welcomes the decision the Valuation Office Agency has taken for the 2016-17 performance year to remove guided distribution of performance markings and box markings, and to replace formal mid-year and end-of-year performance reviews with informal monthly performance reviews; and calls on other government departments and agencies to follow this example to ensure performance is managed in a way that is supportive of staff, enables them to reach their full potential, and involves trades unions in evaluation of the process.