MS Word

Assessing executive performance using the Key Leadership Competencies

Recognizing and rewarding an executive for achieving expected results involves considering not only what results were achieved but also how the executive achieved these results. Both the “what” and the “how” should thus determine the executive’s performance rating and, accordingly, the amount of performance pay that he/she is entitled to. The DM Committee on PS Renewal has recently recommended that deputy heads discuss performance on the management of people as part of executive performance assessment in 2007-08 and that a more formal commitment to people management specifically be included in performance agreements for 2008-09. This commitment, in addition to ongoing and key commitments, will be evaluated using the Key Leadership Competencies.

While expectations in terms of the results to be achieved (the “what”) are easily defined in the executive’s performance agreement, expected outcomes in terms of people management and other leadership competencies (the “how”) may not be as easily defined. The Key Leadership Competencies (KLC) profile provides examples of effective and ineffective behaviours for each competency that can be easily observed, assessed and integrated into performance evaluation. These behaviours form the basis for strong leadership at all levels.

Considering the Four Key Leadership Competencies in Performance Evaluation

Successful and effective leaders demonstrate the four Key Leadership Competencies in their day-to-day work. This means that their behaviour models Values & Ethics, Strategic Thinking, Engagement and Management Excellence (including people, action, and financial management).

When assessing performance on a work commitment, both the individual and the immediate manager should consider the behaviours that influenced the individual’s performance. Both effective and ineffective behaviour may have positive and negative impact on the results. The achievement of results should not be rewarded if done at the expense of poor leadership practices. On the other hand, although the achievement of results remains the ultimate goal, partial success in that regard should be reviewed in light of good leadership practices that had a somewhat negative impact on the short-term results. An executive should not be penalized for demonstrating behaviours deemed appropriate.

Before signing the “attestation”

The PMP directive requires that “…the Key Leadership Competencies be used to assess the performance of executives”. This means that the individual’s performance assessment will take into account both the overall results (the “what”) as well as their Key Leadership Competencies (the “how”).

DRAFT March 30, 2007 1

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TBM_114/pmpe-pgrcs01_e.asp

http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/model_e.asp

http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/model_e.asp

http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/intro_e.asp

http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/intro_e.asp

Consideration of the Key Leadership Competencies can easily be a part of the existing departmental performance management process. There are a number of ways to do this, and departments and agencies are free to use their preferred approach and tools. They may have developed their own tools1, or they may choose to use some of the tools provided here. Two approaches are introduced and described below.

The management of people can also be assessed using additional sources of data, such as employee survey and departmental HR data (e.g. leave, learning, labour relations statistics). 360-degree tools are not recommended for performance assessment as they may put both assessors and assesses in a difficult situation, thereby making the input less reliable. They are, however, extremely useful for learning and development purposes, and the PSC’s Personnel Psychology Centre provides a number of 360-degree tools for these purposes, as does the Canada School of the Public Service.

1 The Canada Public Service Agency (CPSA) encourages department to share any tools they have developed to assess the Key Leadership Competencies. Please e-mail them to: [email protected] so that an inventory of innovative tools and practices can be developed.


http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/ppc/360_feedback_e.htm

mailto:[email protected]

Option 1: Evaluating results in the context of how they were achieved

With this approach, evaluating how the executive works toward achieving results is a key part of evaluating the overall result. Overall performance is still assessed against ongoing and key commitments, but for each commitment discussed, the immediate manager must consider how the commitment was achieved (i.e. were values and ethics respected or violated; where partners engaged or ignored; was work-life balance modeled or discouraged?) If there are concerns with the way in which the results were achieved, the immediate manager may consider the impact and lower the rating initially assigned for that particular commitment. These types of considerations allow for a more integrated assessment of performance. The following example provides questions to consider when evaluating results in the context of how the results were achieved.

Example: Evaluating results in the context of how they were achieved

The individual or the immediate manager may also wish to identify any effective behaviours that were demonstrated in support of delivering a particular commitment. The list of effective behaviours at the appropriate level (director, DG, ADM) can be used for this. Finally, the list of ineffective behaviours (which are the same for all levels) may be used to identify any behaviours that may have been at the detriment to delivering a particular commitment. The consistent demonstration of ineffective behaviours on the part of an executive should influence the rating they receive, and should be noted as areas for development in their learning plan and performance agreement for the following year.

Option 2: Assessing Key Leadership Competencies independently of results

Another possible approach to evaluate EX performance consists of assessing the “how” (Key Leadership Competencies) independently of the “what” (results). In this case, the immediate manager establishes a rating for the Key Leadership Competencies separately and may use this rating to adjust the overall performance rating.

The following tools can be used for both self-assessment by the individual and for assessment by the immediate manager. Each tool will result in a rating of each competency individually and then overall.

The first tool allows for global consideration of effective and ineffective behaviours in order to establish a rating for each competency.

Tool: Assessing the Key Leadership Competencies - Global Consideration The second tool uses a more structured means to calculate a rating based on a specific assessment of the frequency of each effective and ineffective behaviours.

Tool: Assessing the Key Leadership Competencies - Frequency of Behaviours

After the ongoing and key commitments have been assessed (the “what”) and the Key Leadership Competencies have been assessed (the “how”), both ratings/assessments must be integrated so that only one overall rating is assigned. As shown in the graph below, the overall performance rating would reflect the two individual ratings (the “what” and the “how”).


http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/behaviours_ineffective_e.asp

http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/dg_e.asp

http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/dg_e.asp

http://publiservice.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/leadership/klc-ccl/director_e.asp

Surpassed

Met all

Highest amount ofperformance pay

Met most

Did not meetLess (or no)performance pay

Did not meet Met most Met all Surpassed

Assessing Key Leadership CompetenciesGlobal Consideration

1 Purpose of the tool

2 Guidelines

3 Assessment tool

Directors Director Generals Assistant Deputy Ministers


Average amount of performance pay“W

HA

T”

“HOW”

Purpose of the Tool

This tool is available for use in the Performance Management Program (PMP) for Executives.

Recognizing and rewarding an executive for achieving expected results involves considering not only what results the executive achieved but also how the executive achieved the results. With their focus on observable behaviours, the Key Leadership Competencies provide the means for consistently, fairly, and transparently assessing how results were achieved.

Executives and their managers can use this tool when individually considering and/or jointly discussing the executive’s performance.

As part of the performance information that is reviewed by each department for their executives, this tool will help you assess each key leadership competency first separately, and then the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole. See guidelines for more help using the tool.

Three versions of this tool are attached: one for directors, one for DGs and one for ADMs.


Guidelines

First rate each competency separately; then rate the competencies as a whole.

1. Rate the demonstration of each key leadership competency separately

a) Review the competency definition and the effective and ineffective behaviours

b) Consider how the executive demonstrated the competency in delivering key and ongoing commitments. Check any noteworthy behaviours, for example: o effective behaviours that were critical to delivering on particular

commitment(s); o effective behaviours that, if demonstrated more frequently or more

skilfully, would have a greater effect in producing desired results; o Ineffective behaviours that need attention.

c) To facilitate rating the competency, ask yourself questions such as those provided in the tool. For example, for the Values and Ethics competency, ask yourself: “How did the executive’s achievement of results reflect the PS Values and Ethics?”; “Were there significant challenges / roadblocks to demonstrating the PS Values and Ethics? If yes, how were they dealt with?”

d) Rate each key leadership competency using the following scale: 4. Exemplifies the key leadership competency

• i.e., outstanding demonstration of the competency; virtually no, or only very minor weakness; demonstration of the competency greatly facilitated delivery on commitments

3. Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency • i.e., solidly demonstrated the competency; demonstration of the

competency facilitated delivery on commitments 2. Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership

competency• i.e., demonstrated the competency, but delivery on commitments could

have been notably enhanced by stronger demonstration1. Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency

• i.e., weakness in demonstrating the competency interfered with delivery on commitments


e) To ensure fairness and consistency throughout your assessment, consider the following factors in deciding on the rating: o Frequency and the effect of the effective and ineffective behaviours.

Avoid letting a few minor incidents colour your assessment. For example, an executive may have failed to share non-critical information once or twice, but otherwise made information readily available. On the other hand, a few instances of failing to share critical information that resulted in notably negative results should not be disregarded. As well, only one occurrence of certain ineffective behaviours might be too much, for example, harassment.

o Objectivity: For example, ask yourself whether your judgment about the executive’s leadership competency is affected to some extent by preconceived notions about the person(s) involved or the situation.

o Substantiating your assessment: For example, ask yourself if you can substantiate your assessment with concrete examples of how the executive produced outcomes. Jot down one or two examples of how the competency affected delivery of particular commitment(s).

2. Rate the demonstration of the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole

a) Rate the executive’s demonstration of the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole using the same rating scale as for the separate competencies:

4 Exemplifies the key leadership competencies (i.e. surpasses expectations)

3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competencies (i.e. meets expectations)

2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competencies (i.e. meets most expectations)

1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competencies (i.e. does not meet expectations)

b) If you assigned the same rating to each leadership competency separately, this same rating will apply when you consider the competencies as a whole. If you assigned different ratings across the leadership competencies, consider the following in deciding on your overall rating:

If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 4, ask yourself: • Would I describe the individual as a role model in demonstrating

all four key leadership competencies? • Were only very minor weaknesses evident in how the results were

achieved?• What example(s) would I cite to illustrate demonstration of the

competencies at this level? • Remember: All executives are expected to model the leadership

competencies. However, all have not developed the four


competencies to the point that they need only very minor development on any of the competencies.

If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 3, ask yourself: • Did the executive clearly demonstrate all four Key Leadership

Competencies in achieving the results? • Was there evidence that the executive’s values and ethics,

engagement of others, strategic thinking and management excellence were instrumental in meeting his / her ongoing and key commitments?

• Remember: The need for development in certain aspects of the competencies should not preclude assigning a 3.

If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 2, ask yourself: • Were definite weaknesses evident in how the results were

achieved? • Would the delivery of commitments have been notably enhanced

by stronger demonstration of the competencies? • For example, in achieving certain results, did the executive “drive”

the team to the point that turnover jeopardized a successful outcome? If such was the case, in the absence of evidence that the executive subsequently addressed this weakness, a rating of 2 should be assigned.

If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 1, ask yourself: • Were serious, ongoing weaknesses evident in how results were

achieved?

3. Integrate the Key Leadership Competencies rating into the overall performance rating

Depending on the rating assigned for demonstration of the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole, you may wish to adjust your overall performance rating. A high rating on the competencies may contribute to a higher overall rating while a low rating on the competencies may contribute to a lower overall rating. For example, if an individual receives a 4 on the KLC rating, they could feasibly receive a 4 overall. If an individual received a 3 on the KLC rating, their overall rating will be affected, and as a result, it may no longer be feasible to assign a 4 overall. The diagram below suggests a consistent way to integrate the Key Leadership Competency rating into the overall performance rating.

KLC rating Possible overall performance rating4 1 2 3 43 1 2 3 X2 1 2 X X1 1 X X X


Director Level

VALUES & ETHICS

STRATEGIC THINKING - analysis and ideas

ENGAGEMENT

MANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE – actions, people and finance


Director Level

Values and Ethics (Integrity and Respect):Public Service (PS) leaders serve Canadians, ensuring integrity in personal and organizational practices, and respect people and PS principles, including democratic, professional, ethical, and people values. They build respectful, bilingual, diverse and inclusive workplaces where decisions and transactions are transparent and fair. They hold themselves, their employees, and their organizations accountable for their actions.

Effective Behaviours Ineffective Behaviours

Demonstrates Values and Ethics, including the Code, in personal behaviour

Integrates Values and Ethics, including the Code, into division practices

Reflects a commitment to citizens and clients in own and division activities

Fosters a climate of transparency, trust, and respect within the division and in partnerships

Incorporates equitable practices into HR planning

Creates opportunities for and encourages bilingualism and diversity in the division, based on Official Language and Employment Equity policies

Builds and promotes a safe and healthy, respectful division, free of harassment and discrimination

Practices transparency and fairness in all transactions, including staffing, contracting, and day-to-day activities

Attempts to cover up mistakes

Avoids speaking truth to power

Lays blame on individuals or previous regimes

Shows little respect for diverse opinions or beliefs

Mistreats others

Abuses power

Tolerates abusive behaviour by others

Demotivates or offends others through cynicism or aggression

Shows favouritism or bias

Places personal or organizational goals ahead of Government of Canada objectives

Allows emotions to sway ethical judgment


Director LevelSample questions to facilitate reflection & discussion

How did the executive’s achievement of results reflect the PS Values and Ethics? How did the executive foster an organization aligned with PS values (i.e., democratic, professional,

ethical, and people values)? Were there significant challenges / roadblocks in demonstrating the PS Values and Ethics, and how

were they dealt with? How did the executive’s use of power and authority reflect the PS Values and Ethics? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive tend

to make decisions based on narrow organizational interests rather than the public interest?)

Competency rating 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competency 3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency 2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competency 1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency

Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments

Strategic Thinking (Analysis and Ideas): Public Service leaders advise and plan based on analysis of issues and trends, and how these link to the responsibilities, capabilities, and potential of their organization. They scan an ever-changing, complex environment in anticipation of emerging crises and opportunities. They develop well-informed advice and strategies that are sensitive to the various needs of multiple stakeholders and partners, reflect the strategic direction of the PS, and position the organization for success.

Effective Behaviours Ineffective BehavioursAnalysis Frames division direction with a thorough

understanding of the directorate’s priorities Seeks clarification and direction from the DG,

as required Integrates information from multiple sources to

form a comprehensive perspective Identifies interdependencies in cross-

functional projects Analyzes setbacks and seeks honest feedback

to learn from mistakes

Ideas Translates vision and policy into concrete work

activities Develops division strategies, based on the

departmental vision and the DG’s direction Designs initiatives to enhance operational

efficiency Encourages and incorporates diverse

initiatives and perspectives Redesigns the division’s work activities to

meet changing departmental needs

Analysis Depends on a narrow range of expertise and

opinion Excludes other levels or partners in framing

strategy Ignores new information or changing

circumstances Demonstrates insensitivity to national,

regional, or PS context Does not analyze own strengths and

weaknesses or listen to feedback

Ideas Abdicates responsibility for guiding or

contributing to the departmental vision Designs response to short-term pressures

without consideration of long-term implications

Designs long-term plans without consideration of short-term implications

Provides a vision, strategy, or advice that is not in line with the mandate

Ignores the impact of strategies on


Director Level Makes effective recommendations to the DG

Teaches and learns from others

stakeholders, partners

Develops or promotes strategies or plans that are too detail-oriented or too abstract

Sample questions to facilitate reflection & discussion

How did the executive’s strategies advance the organization’s vision? In what ways has the executive personally demonstrated or fostered innovative approaches and

solutions? What thorny issues did the executive resolve by adopting a strategic approach? Were there significant intellectual demands that the executive needed to meet in order to

achieve the result? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the

executive tend to ignore diverse perspectives and new information? Did the executive tend to develop or promote strategies that were too abstract or detail oriented? )

Competency rating 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competency 3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency 2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competency 1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments

Engagement (People, Organizations, Partners): Public Service leaders engage people, organizations, and partners in developing goals, executing plans, and delivering results. They lay the groundwork by building coalitions with key players. They mobilize teams, building momentum to get things done by communicating clearly and consistently, investing time and energy to engage the whole organization. They use their negotiation skills and adaptability to encourage recognition of joint concerns, collaboration, and to influence the success of outcomes. They follow and lead across boundaries to engage broad-based stakeholders, partners, and constituencies in a shared agenda and strategy.



Director Level Shares information vertically and horizontally Promotes collaboration among managers Uses persuasion to gain support for initiatives Negotiates compromises Adapts communications to suit audience and

forum Communicates regularly and openly with

unions and other stakeholders Demonstrates understanding of and respect

for stakeholders’ views Follows through on commitments Solicits input from and listens to staff, partners,

and stakeholders Communicates vision and division plans with

clarity and commitment Establishes regular and comprehensive

exchanges of ideas

Promotes and funds team building

Acts as sole decision maker or stakeholder

Hoards information

Abdicates communication responsibilities to other levels

Fails to work horizontally with key partners

Fails to build behind-the-scenes support

Alienates others through anger, aggression, over-confidence, or lack of self-awareness

Refuses to consider and incorporate the views of others

Avoids dealing with contentious issues


How did the executive ensure shared understanding of key stakeholders’ needs, viewpoints and concerns?

How did the executive build shared agendas and reconcile stakeholders’ diverse needs, interests and viewpoints?

In what ways did the executive demonstrate personal commitment and how did this inspire others’ commitment?

Were there significant challenges in mobilizing others, and how were they handled? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive tend

to hoard vs. share information? Did the executive tend to avoid dealing with contentions issues and conflicts?)



Director Level

Management Excellence: Action Management, People Management, Financial Management

PS leaders deliver results by maximizing organizational effectiveness and sustainability. They ensure that people have the support and tools they need and that the workforce as a whole has the capacity and diversity to meet current and longer-term organizational objectives. They align people, work, and systems with the business strategy to harmonize how they work and what they do. They implement rigorous and comprehensive human and financial resources accountability systems consistent with the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). They ensure that the integrity and management of information and knowledge are a responsibility at all levels and a key factor in the design and execution of all policies and programs.


Director Level

Action Management – Design and Execution Effective Behaviours Ineffective Behaviours

Designs division work plans based on the big picture

Guides division projects and resources to avoid obstacles

Delegates appropriately to managers

Manages resources to maximize output

Sets realistic timelines and clear accountabilities for managers

Provides structure and momentum for division work activities

Sets challenging but realistic goals

Identifies division limits and resource requirements for workload

Manages the division’s workload through prudent resource planning and prioritizing

Shifts priorities and adapts division work plans, as required

Heeds early warning signals and advises the DG and others, as needed

Follows through on the division’s business plan from planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating to reporting

Integrates comptrollership, MAF, federal legislation, regulations, and policies into division practices

Manages own and others’ work-life balance

Responds decisively and quickly to emerging opportunities or risks

Maintains composure in adverse situations to alleviate pressure and maintain momentum

Develops an ineffective plan to achieve goals

Retains ineffective structures, systems, or programs

Hesitates to make decisions or take required action

Provides insufficient, abstract, or sporadic direction

Refuses to acknowledge poor results

Deals ineffectively with own stress

Focuses on one file or activity to the detriment of others

Backs down in the face of obstacles or challenge

Focuses solely on crisis management and the short term

Acts impulsively

Focuses on turf building rather than organizational stewardship

Conducts superfluous consultation or analysis to avoid taking action or responsibility

Micromanages


In what ways did the executive’s strategies and plans optimize the achievement of results? Were there significant resource challenges, and how were they handled? How did the executive’s implementation, monitoring and evaluation of plans contribute to achieving

results? How did the executive perform in the face of significant change, ambiguity or stress? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means (e.g., micromanage, or

focus on one file/activity to the detriment of others)?



Director Level

People Management – Individuals and Workforce Effective Behaviours Ineffective Behaviours

Works one-on-one with managers

Deals with ineffective performance

Provides regular feedback, acknowledges success and the need for improvement

Coaches, challenges, and provides opportunities for growth

Resolves labour relations problems

Secures mediation, if required

Balances the needs of employees and the organization

Monitors and addresses workplace well-being

Develops and supports career plans and learning opportunities

Develops an HR strategy for division succession planning

Secures funding for Official Language and other training

Manages workload

Implements rigorous HR practices and fulfils obligations of HR Management accountabilities

Fails to provide staff with the tools they need to work and/or develop

Fails to acknowledge contributions and successes

Dwells on mistakes and failures

Fails to deal with conflict

Builds insufficient workforce capacity

Abdicates responsibility for HR planning

Does not deliver the hard messages when giving feedback

Fails to deal with ineffective staff

Fails to ensure complementary strengths in teams, workforce

Designs workforce exclusively for short-term needs


In what ways did the executive’s strategic HR management skills contribute to achieving objectives? How did the executive develop workforce capacity to meet current and future needs? How did the executive deal within non-performance? Did the executive address issues regarding workplace well being? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means (e.g., dwell on mistakes

and failures, avoid dealing with ineffective staff, or develop the team exclusively for short-term needs)?



Director Level

Financial Management – Budgets and AssetsEffective Behaviours Ineffective Behaviours

Allocates and manages division resources transparently

Implements strategies to achieve operational efficiencies and value for money

Applies and monitors rigorous systems for financial information management, internal audit, and evaluation

Fulfils obligations of accountabilities for division finance and assets management

Acts on audit, evaluation, and other objective division performance information

Continues to invest resources in an unsuccessful course of action

Fails to integrate financial and management information

Ignores audit or evaluation results

Fails to ensure integrity of information, analysis, and reporting

Fails to practice rigorous financial management

Fails to ensure sufficient capacity for sound financial practices


How did the executive’s financial management skills contribute to achieving objectives? How did the executive integrate comptrollership processes and promote due diligence? In what ways did the executive ensure value for money in achieving results? How did the executive address audit, evaluation or other objective performance information? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., fail to integrate

financial and management information)?



Director General Level

VALUES & ETHICSSTRATEGIC THINKING – Analysis & ideasENGAGEMENTMANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE – action, people & finance



Values and Ethics (Integrity and Respect): Public Service (PS) leaders serve Canadians, ensuring integrity in personal and organizational practices, and respect people and PS principles, including democratic, professional, ethical, and people values. They build respectful, bilingual, diverse and inclusive workplaces where decisions and transactions are transparent and fair. They hold themselves, their employees, and their organizations accountable for their actions.



Integrates Values and Ethics, including the Code, into directorate practices

Builds departmental values into directorate policies and programs

Reflects a commitment to citizens and clients in own and directorate activities

Builds and promotes a safe and healthy, respectful directorate, free of harassment and discrimination

Promotes transparency and fairness

Creates opportunities for and encourages bilingualism and diversity in the directorate, based on OL and EE policies





Mistreats others

Abuses power









were they dealt with? How did the executive’s use of power and authority reflect the PS Values and Ethics? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive tend

to make decisions based on narrow organizational interests rather than the public interest?)



Director General Level Strategic Thinking (Analysis and Ideas): Public Service leaders advise and plan based on analysis of issues and trends, and how these link to the responsibilities, capabilities, and potential of their organization. They scan an ever-changing, complex environment in anticipation of emerging crises and opportunities. They develop well-informed advice and strategies that are sensitive to the various needs of multiple stakeholders and partners, reflect the strategic direction of the PS, and position the organization for success.

Effective Behaviours Ineffective BehavioursAnalysis Frames questions and analyses with a thorough

understanding of sectoral and policy issues Seeks clarification and direction from the ADM Conducts strategic analysis of trends within the

directorate, organization, and external environment Integrates multiple domains of information and

identifies the links Seeks broad perspectives and expertise Tracks changing organizational dynamics Analyzes setbacks and seeks honest feedback to

learn from mistakes

Ideas Identifies key elements of the vision and

implications for the directorate Translates vision and policy into concrete direction

and plans Links directorate programs and services to

department and branch policies Makes effective recommendations to the ADM Seeks input of staff to create plans and solutions Encourages constructive questioning of practices Encourages experimentation to maximize potential

for innovation Identifies solutions, alternatives, and

consequences

Teaches and learns from others




circumstances Demonstrates insensitivity to national, regional,

or PS context Does not analyze own strengths and



contributing to the departmental vision Designs response to short-term pressure

without consideration of long-term implications Designs long-term plans without consideration

of short-term implications Provides a vision, strategy, or advice that is not

in line with the mandate Ignores the impact of strategies on

stakeholders, partners Develops or promotes strategies or plans that

are too detail-oriented or too abstract



solutions? What thorny issues did the executive resolve by adopting a strategic approach? Were there significant intellectual demands that the executive needed to meet in order to achieve

results? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive tend

to ignore diverse perspectives and new information? Did the executive tend to develop or promote strategies that were too abstract or detail oriented? )



Director General Level Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments





Implements inclusive, cooperative approaches with peers, staff, and superiors

Fosters an inclusive and sensitive interpersonal climate

Promotes consensus across diverse groups, interests, and opinions

Solicits and listens to ideas and concerns of staff, unions, and other stakeholders

Mobilizes the team to achieve directorate and departmental goals

Communicates and supports corporate decisions

Fosters enthusiasm and common purpose

Shares information with staff regularly and as it becomes available

Follows through on commitments

Communicates vision and information with clarity and commitment

Manages relationships between stakeholders


Hoards information








How did the executive ensure shared understanding of key stakeholders’ needs, viewpoints and concerns?

How did the executive build shared agendas and reconcile stakeholders’ diverse needs, interests and viewpoints?

In what ways did the executive demonstrate personal commitment and how did this inspire others’ commitment?

Were there significant challenges in mobilizing others, and how were they handled? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive

tend to hoard vs. share information? Did the executive tend to avoid dealing with contentious issues and conflicts?)



Director General Level Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments








Identifies and communicates priorities, milestones, timelines, performance measures, clear accountabilities, and performance agreements for directors

Coordinates and manages across multiple directorate programs and projects

Ensures necessary resources, processes, and systems are in place

Develops process with management team to set priorities, make decisions

Performs risk analysis to assess viability of opportunities

Coordinates activities within directorate to assign accountability and avoid duplication

Seeks and heeds early warning signs, adapting plans and strategies as required

Follows through on the directorate’s business plan from planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating to reporting

Integrates comptrollership, MAF, federal legislation, regulations, and policies into directorate practices

Manages own and others’ work-life balance

Responds decisively and quickly to emerging opportunities or risks

Maintains sound judgment and decision making in demanding or stressful situations










Acts impulsively



Micromanages



results? How did the executive perform in the face of significant change, ambiguity or stress? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means (e.g., turf building,

micromanaging, or focusing on one file/activity to the detriment of others)?Competency rating 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competency 3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency 2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competency 1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments




Implements HR strategy to ensure workforce capacity and diversity to meet current and future directorate needs

Coaches, challenges, and provides opportunities for growth

Sets clear expectations and provides clear direction

Manages staff workload

Builds complementary teams

Provides honest, straightforward feedback and manages non-performance

Recognizes and acknowledges good work

Acts as a role model for directors

Develops strategies to reduce stress within the directorate

Secures funding for Official Language and other training

Implements rigorous HR practices and fulfils obligations of HR management accountabilities






Abdicates responsibility for HR Planning






In what ways did the executive’s strategic HRM skills contribute to achieving objectives? How did the executive develop workforce capacity to meet current and future needs? How did the executive deal within non-performance? Did the executive address issues regarding workplace well being? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means (e.g., dwell on mistakes and

failures, avoid dealing with ineffective staff, or develop the team exclusively for short-term needs)?Competency rating 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competency 3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency 2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competency 1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments




Allocates and manages directorate resources transparently

Implements strategies to achieve operational efficiencies and value for money

Operates and monitors rigorous systems for financial information management, internal audit, and evaluation

Fulfils obligations of accountabilities for directorate finance and assets management

Acts on audit, evaluation, and other objective directorate performance information








How did the executive’s financial management skills contribute to achieving objectives? How did the executive integrate comptrollership processes and promote due diligence? In what ways did the executive ensure value for money in achieving results? How did the executive address audit, evaluation or other objective performance

information? How were shifting priorities identified and addressed so as to avoid surplus or deficit

situations? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., fail to

integrate financial and management information)?



Assistant Deputy Minister Level

VALUES & ETHICSSTRATEGIC THINKING – Analysis & IdeasENGAGEMENTMANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE - Action, people & finances


Values and Ethics (Integrity and Respect): Public Service (PS) leaders serve Canadians, ensuring integrity in personal and organizational practices, and respect people and PS principles, including democratic, professional, ethical, and people values. They build respectful, bilingual, diverse and inclusive workplaces where decisions and transactions are transparent and fair. They hold themselves, their employees, and their organizations accountable for their actions.



Integrates Values and Ethics, including the Code, into branch practices

Reflects a commitment to citizens and clients in own and branch activities

Provides fearless advice and acts with the courage of his or her convictions

Builds departmental values into branch policies and programs

Builds and promotes a bilingual, diverse, inclusive branch, based on Official Language and Employment Equity policies

Builds and promotes a safe and healthy, respectful branch, free of harassment and discrimination

Models transparency and fairness





Mistreats others

Abuses power









were they dealt with? How did the executive’s use of power and authority reflect the PS Values and Ethics? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive tend to

make decisions based on narrow organizational interests rather than the public interest?) Competency rating 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competency 3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency 2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competency 1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments


Strategic Thinking (Analysis and Ideas):Public Service leaders advise and plan based on analysis of issues and trends, and how these link to the responsibilities, capabilities, and potential of their organization. They scan an ever-changing, complex environment in anticipation of emerging crises and opportunities. They develop well-informed advice and strategies that are sensitive to the various needs of multiple stakeholders and partners, reflect the strategic direction of the PS, and position the organization for success.

Effective Behaviours Ineffective BehavioursAnalysis Frames questions and analyses with a thorough

understanding of legislation and the ADM role Seeks DM, government, national, regional, global,

and technical perspectives on sector issues Recognizes critical or sensitive issues and makes

links to priorities Distinguishes between critical and trivial factors in

making judgments Analyzes setbacks and seeks honest feedback to

learn from mistakes

Ideas Provides quality judgment and policy advice to the

DM Contributes to the elaboration of the collective/DM

vision Articulates the vision in terms of own mandate Develops innovative solutions to non-traditional

problems Develops strategies to manage the scope and pace

of change Develops strategies that are effective in the short

and longer term Encourages constructive questioning of policies Envisions possibilities without detailed information Exercises sound professional judgment based on

analysis and consultation, as needed Teaches and learns from others




circumstances Demonstrates insensitivity to national,

regional, or PS context Does not analyze own strengths and



contributing to the departmental vision Designs response to short-term pressure

without consideration of long-term implications Designs long-term plans without consideration

of short-term implications Provides a vision, strategy, or advice that is

not in line with the mandate Ignores the impact of strategies on

stakeholders, partners Develops or promotes strategies or plans that

are too detail-oriented or too abstract




solutions? What thorny issues did the executive resolve by adopting a strategic approach? Were there significant intellectual demands that the executive needed to meet in order to achieve

results? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive tend

to ignore diverse perspectives and new information? Did the executive tend to develop or promote strategies that were too abstract or detail oriented? )





Cultivates effective relationships and networks with central agencies, other departments, clients, citizens, unions, central and regional employees, and other levels of government

Provides communication links up, down, and throughout the organization and networks

Communicates with and encourages candour and clarity

Communicates and interprets external contexts to position branch, team, and individual contributions

Demonstrates and elicits trust by seeking and providing honest and constructive feedback

Actively listens to and understands impact on others

Influences outcomes by negotiating win-win solutions and compromises, and resolving conflict

Tailors approach to context, e.g., collaborative for consensus building, directive in crisis

Inspires a commitment to excellence by demonstrating passionate personal commitment

Works with the departmental and PS-wide ADM community to deliver on shared objectives

Creates an open, positive environment to stimulate open discussion


Hoards information








How did the executive ensure shared understanding of key stakeholders’ needs, viewpoints and concerns? How did the executive build shared agendas and reconcile stakeholders’ diverse needs, interests and

viewpoints? In what ways did the executive demonstrate personal commitment and how did this inspire others’

commitment? Were there significant challenges in mobilizing others, and how were they handled? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., did the executive tend to

hoard vs. share information? Did the executive tend to avoid dealing with contentious issues and conflicts?)







Leads change that maximizes results in the branch, departmentally, and in the sector

Acts as a steward for the entire department, not just his or her own branch

Identifies and communicates priorities, milestones, timelines, performance measures, clear accountabilities, and performance agreements for DGs

Designs and manages a strategic risk management framework

Coordinates national and regional priorities, planning, and performance

Aligns priorities and resources

Follows through on the branch business plan from planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating to reporting

Integrates comptrollership, MAF, federal legislation, regulations, and policies into branch practices

Fulfils obligations of branch management accountabilities

Integrates HR, finance, IT, IM, and communications issues into planning and actions

Revises goals and plans to reflect changing priorities or conditions

Commits to a course of action despite incomplete information, if required

Makes decisions, initiates urgent actions, and remains calm in crisis situations

Recognizes and acknowledges errors and makes corrections










Acts impulsively



Micromanages




results? How did the executive perform in the face of significant change, ambiguity or stress? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means (e.g., micromanage, or focus on

one file/activity to the detriment of others)?Competency rating 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competency 3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency 2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competency 1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency Examples of demonstrating the competency in delivering commitments



Develops HR strategy for succession planning

Creates expert teams to address specific or crisis issues

Sets clear expectations, monitors, evaluates, rewards, and develops performance

Recognizes people’s accomplishments and best efforts

Gives honest feedback, encourages learning, and manages non-performance

Deals with HR problems decisively and effectively

Recognizes the importance of and supports the DG community

Balances complementary strengths in teams

Builds leadership throughout the branch

Guides and develops people through appraisals, career planning, and development

Consults with support services prior to changing HR protocols

Implements rigorous HR systems and fulfils obligations of HR management accountabilities






Abdicates responsibility for HR planning






In what ways did the executive’s strategic HR management skills contribute to achieving objectives? How did the executive develop workforce capacity to meet current and future needs? How did the executive deal within non-performance? Did the executive address issues regarding workplace well-being? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means (e.g., dwell on mistakes and

failures, avoid dealing with ineffective staff, or develop the team exclusively for short-term needs)?





Allocates resources transparently and establishes a culture of ongoing re-allocation

Aligns business drivers with financial management regime

Promotes innovative approaches to deal with fiscal restraint

Integrates comptrollership processes and promotes due diligence

Reviews and reacts to the results of audits and evaluations

Monitors performance and seeks efficiencies continuously

Fulfils obligations of accountabilities for branch financial management

Provides objective, credible, and timely reporting to the DM

Consults with support services prior to changing financial protocols








How did the executive’s financial management skills contribute to achieving objectives? How did the executive integrate comptrollership processes and promote due diligence? In what ways did the executive ensure value for money in achieving results? How did the executive address audit, evaluation or other objective performance information? Did the executive achieve results partly through inappropriate means? (e.g., fail to integrate

financial and management information)?



Assessing how results were achieved using the Key Leadership Competencies

Assessment of performance should consider the actual results (“what” was achieved) as well as the competencies (“how” it was achieved). Below is a sample performance commitment followed by several questions to consider in order to assess whether results were achieved in a way that demonstrated the Key Leadership Competencies.

Example performance commitment:Develop a policy that has an effect on outside government client groups as well as horizontal implications for 2 other departments.

Questions to Consider:

Values & Ethics: Was the policy developed in a manner that reconciled competing values? Was the process leading to the development of the policy and the end result citizen-focused and serving the public good? Were the advice provided and the decisions made throughout the development process unbiased?

Strategic Thinking:


To what extent does the policy contribute to current government priorities? To what extent were client groups concerns as well as regional and horizontal issues considered? Is the policy grounded on solid research and analysis? Is the policy innovative and will it stand the test of time?

Engagement: Were partners engaged in an effective manner throughout the policy development process? What efforts were made to support collaboration? Was a strong communications strategy developed to address stakeholders’ concerns?

Management Excellence: To what extent was work-life balance modeled and encouraged of others? Were risks managed in a way that maximized innovation? Were plans developed, adjusted and followed to ensure maximum efficiency and focus? Were resources managed transparently and with an emphasis on value for money?

Assessing Key Leadership Competencies

Frequency of demonstrated behaviours


4 Purpose of the tool

5 Guidelines

6 Assessment tool

Directors Director Generals Assistant Deputy Ministers


Purpose of the Tool

This tool is available for use in the Performance Management Program (PMP) for Executives.

Recognizing and rewarding an executive for achieving expected results involves considering not only what results the executive achieved but also how the executive achieved the results. With their focus on observable behaviours, the Key Leadership Competencies provide the means for consistently, fairly, and transparently assessing how results were achieved.

Executives and their managers can use this tool when individually considering and/or jointly discussing the executive’s performance.

Regardless of whether this tool or another approach is used to assess the Key Leadership Competencies, an overall assessment of the Key Leadership Competencies is required for each executive as part of the performance information that is reviewed by each department.

Two versions of the tool are available. In this version, the effective and ineffective behaviours for each competency are assessed first individually, and then each of the four competencies is rated. Finally, an overall rating is provided on the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole. In the alternate version of the tool, the effective and ineffective behaviours are not assessed individually, but are considered globally to determine a rating for each competency. Rather, each leadership competency is assessed separately, and then the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole are assessed.

Three forms of this version of the tool are attached: one for directors, one for DGs and one for ADMs.


Guidelines

Rate each key leadership competency separately, first rating the behaviours for the competency, then rating the competency a whole. After you have rated each competency, rate all the competencies as a whole.

1. Rate the demonstration of each key leadership competency separately

f) Review the competency definition.

g) Rate each of the effective and ineffective behaviours for the competency, using the following scale:

o Effective behaviours 4 consistently demonstrates the behaviour 3 frequently demonstrates the behaviour 2 occasionally demonstrates the behaviour 1 rarely or almost never demonstrates the behaviour

o Ineffective behaviours 1 consistently demonstrates the behaviour 2 frequently demonstrates the behaviour 3 occasionally demonstrates the behaviour 4 rarely or almost never demonstrates the behaviour

h) After you have rated each behaviour for the competency, consider the competency as a whole. Consider the ratings you assigned to the behaviours. Also, step back and consider how the executive demonstrated the competency overall in delivering key and ongoing commitments. For example:

Were certain effective behaviours particularly critical to delivering on particular commitment(s)? Would certain effective behaviours have had a greater effect in producing desired results if demonstrated more frequently and/or more skilfully? Were some effective behaviour neglected behind the apparent success of result achieved? Did certain ineffective behaviours detract from, or interfere with, the delivery of key commitments? Were certain ineffective behaviours used to facilitate the achievement of results?

To facilitate rating the competency, ask yourself questions such as those provided in the tool. For example, for the Values and Ethics competency, ask yourself: “How did the executive’s achievement of results reflect the PS Values and Ethics?”; “Were there significant challenges / roadblocks to demonstrating the PS Values and Ethics? If yes, how were they dealt with?”


i) Rate each key leadership competency using the following scale: 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competency

• i.e., outstanding demonstration of the competency; virtually no, or only very minor weaknesses; demonstration of the competency greatly facilitated delivery on commitments

3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competency • i.e., consistently demonstrated the competency; demonstration of the competency facilitated delivery of commitments

2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competency• i.e., demonstrated the competency, but delivery of commitments could have been notably enhanced by stronger demonstration

1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competency• i.e., weakness in demonstrating the competency interfered with delivery of commitments

To ensure fairness and consistency, consider the following factors in deciding on the rating: o Frequency and the effect of the leadership behaviours. Avoid letting a few minor incidents colour your assessment. For example, an executive may have failed

to share non-critical information once or twice, but otherwise made information readily available. On the other hand, a few instances of failing to share critical information that resulted in notably negative results should not be disregarded. As well, only one occurrence of certain ineffective behaviours might be too much, for example, harassment.

o Objectivity: For example, ask yourself whether your judgment about the executive’s leadership competency is affected to some extent by preconceived notions about the person(s) involved or the situation.

o Substantiating your assessment: For example, ask yourself if you can substantiate your assessment with concrete examples of how the executive produced outcomes. Jot down one or two examples of how the competency affected delivery on particular commitment(s).

2. Rate the demonstration of the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole

Rate the executive’s demonstration of the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole using the same rating scale as for the separate competencies: 4 Exemplifies the key leadership competencies (i.e. surpasses expectations)3 Clearly demonstrates the key leadership competencies (i.e. meets all expectations)2 Needs to show improvement in demonstrating the key leadership competencies (i.e. meets most expectations)1 Ongoing difficulty in demonstrating the key leadership competencies (i.e. does not meet expectations)

If you assigned the same rating to each leadership competency separately, this same rating will apply when you consider the competencies as a whole. If you assigned different ratings across the leadership competencies, consider the following in deciding on your overall rating:

If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 4, ask yourself: • Would I describe the individual as a role model in demonstrating all four key leadership competencies?


• Were only very minor weaknesses evident in how the results were achieved?• What example(s) would I cite to illustrate demonstration of the competencies at this level? • Remember: All executives are expected to model the leadership competencies. However, all have not developed the four competencies to the point that

they need only very minor development on any of the competencies.


If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 3, ask yourself: • Did the executive clearly demonstrate all four Key Leadership

Competencies in achieving the results? • Was there evidence that the executive’s values and ethics, engagement

of others, strategic thinking and management excellence were instrumental in meeting his / her ongoing and key commitments?

• Remember: The need for development in certain aspects of the competencies should not preclude assigning a 3.

If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 2, ask yourself: • Were definite weaknesses evident in how the results were achieved? • Would the delivery of commitments have been notably enhanced by

stronger demonstration of the competencies?

If you are thinking of assigning an overall rating of 1, ask yourself: • Were serious, ongoing weaknesses evident in how results were

achieved?

3. Integrate the Key Leadership Competencies rating into the overall performance rating

Depending on the rating assigned for demonstration of the Key Leadership Competencies as a whole, you may wish to adjust your overall performance rating. A high rating on the competencies may contribute to a higher overall rating while a low rating on the competencies may contribute to a lower overall rating. For example, if an individual receives a 4 on the Key Leadership Competencies rating, they could feasibly receive a 4 overall. If an individual received a 3 on the Key Leadership Competencies rating, their overall rating will be affected, and as a result, it may no longer be feasible to assign a 4 overall. The diagram below suggests a consistent way to integrate the Key Leadership Competency rating into the overall performance rating.

KLC rating

Possible overall performance rating

4 1 2 3 43 1 2 3 X2 1 2 X X1 1 X X X

47

Director Level

48


49

Assistant Deputy Minister Level

50

Key Leadership Competencies

Values and Ethics (Integrity and Respect): Public Service leaders serve Canadians, ensuring integrity in personal and organizational practices, and respect people and PS principles, including democratic, professional, ethical, and people values. They build respectful, bilingual, diverse and inclusive workplaces where decisions and transactions are transparent and fair. They hold themselves, their employees, and their organizations accountable for their actions.

Strategic Thinking (Analysis and Ideas): Public Service leaders advise and plan based on analysis of issues and trends, and how these link to the responsibilities, capabilities, and potential of their organization. They scan an ever-changing, complex environment in anticipation of emerging crises and opportunities. They develop well-informed advice and strategies that are sensitive to the various needs of multiple stakeholders and partners, reflect the strategic direction of the PS, and position the organization for success.


Management Excellence: Action Management, People Management, Financial Management PS leaders deliver results by maximizing organizational effectiveness and sustainability. They ensure that people have the support and tools they need and that the workforce as a whole has the capacity and diversity to meet current and longer-term organizational objectives. They align people, work, and systems with the business strategy to harmonize how they work and what they do. They implement rigorous and comprehensive human and financial resources accountability systems consistent with the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). They ensure that the integrity and management of information and knowledge are a responsibility at all levels and a key factor in the design and execution of all policies and programs.

51

Date post:	17-May-2015
Category:	Business
Upload:	jack78
View:	287 times
Download:	2 times

MS Word

Business