MANAGING FOR EXCELLENCE Manual - rcsc.gov.bt C: Competency Behavior (30%) ... Managing for cellence Manual Page | 3 | Chapter 1 ... the other three levels,

MANAGING FOR EXCELLENCEManual

2018

ROYAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Excellence in Service

རྒྱལ༌གཞུང༌ཞི༌གཡོག༌ལྷན༌ཚོགས།

Managing for Excellence: Manual

Page | iii |

Table of ContentsList of Abbreviations ........................................................................................... v

Introduction .......................................................................................................1Purpose ................................................................................................................2

Chapter 1: Preliminary Performance Assessment..............................................31.1. Performance Appraisal Form for PMC and SSC .................................................. 3

1.1.1. Section A: Employee Details .................................................................. 31.1.2. Section B: Performance Assessment (Individual Work Plan) 70%.......... 31.1.3. Section C: Competency Behavior (30%) ................................................. 61.1.4. Section D: Performance Evaluation Score (Section B & C) ..................... 6

1.2. Example on how to evaluate Performance Appraisal Form ............................... 81.3. The Performance Appraisal Form for Operational category (OC): ................... 10

Chapter 2: Mechanics of Moderation Exercise................................................. 112.1. Moderation Exercise (ModEx) .......................................................................... 112.2. Agency Categorization Framework (ACF) ......................................................... 112.3. Performance Evaluation of Moderation Committee Members and Specialist (ES3-ES1) .......................................................................................... 122.4. Assignment of scores to civil servant at various Position Level ....................... 12

2.4.1. Executive (EX3-EX1) ............................................................................. 122.4.2. Specialist (ES3-ES1) .............................................................................. 132.4.3. Professional and Management (P1) ..................................................... 132.4.4. Professional and Management (P5-P2), Supervisory and support (S5-SS1) .................................................................................. 132.4.5. Civil servants on Secondment, Long Term Study Leave, Maternity Leave, EOL and Transfer ...................................................... 13

2.5. Composition of Moderation Committee and Assignment of Performance Rating to Committee Members ....................................................................... 152.6. Prerequisite for Moderation Exercise .............................................................. 202.7. Determining the Distribution Percentage for assignment of performance category to individual staff ......................................................... 202.8. Different Roles in the Moderation Exercise ..................................................... 212.9. Consideration/Criteria ..................................................................................... 232.10. Summary of ModEx process ............................................................................ 24

Chapter 3: Managing for Excellence for Teaching and Support Services in school .............................................................................................. 253.1. Performance Appraisal Form for PMC and SSC ................................................ 25

3.1.1. Section A: Employee details ................................................................. 253.1.2. Section B: Performance Assessment (IWP) 70% .................................. 253.1.3. Section C: Competency Behavior (30%) ............................................... 263.1.4. Section D: Preliminary Performance Evaluation Score (section B and C) .................................................................................. 26


| iv | Page

3.2. Example on how to evaluate Performance Appraisal Form ............................. 263.3. Performance Appraisal Form for Operational Category .................................. 263.4. Procedure of Moderation Exercise and Agency Categorization Framework .... 263.5. Performance Rating for Moderation Committee Members ............................ 273.6. General Principle for performance evaluation rating of staff in schools ......... 273.7. Moderation Exercise Guideline for Schools .................................................... 27

Chapter 4: Performance Linked HR Incentives, Appeal System and Max Calender ............................................................................................. 284.1. Performance linked HR Actions ....................................................................... 284.2. Appeal Procedure ............................................................................................ 334.3. MaX Calendar for civil servants: Fiscal Year (July-June) ................................... 344.4. MaX Calendar for civil servants in schools ( Jan -Dec) ..................................... 35

Annexure ........................................................................................................ 36Annexure 1: Performance Appraisal Form for Professional and Management, and Specialist Services Group ................................................................ 36Annexure 2: Performance Appraisal Form for Supervisory and Support Services Group ......................................................................... 41Annexure 3: Performance Appraisal for O category .................................................. 46Annexure 4: Performance Calibration through Moderation Exercise ........................ 47Annexure 5: Sample Meeting Agenda ....................................................................... 49Annexure 6: Schedule A ............................................................................................. 50


Page | v |

List of Abbreviations

APA : Annual Performance AgreementACF : Agency Categorization FrameworkAPT : Annual Performance TargetsAWP : Annual Work PlanEOL : Extra Ordinary leaveDEO : Dzongkhag Education OfficerGPMS : Government Performance Management SystemG : GoodHR : Human Resource HRC : Human Resource CommitteeIWP : Individual Work Plan IC : Investigation CommitteeQQCT : Quality, Quantity, Cost, and TimeMaX : Managing for ExcellenceMC : Moderation CommitteeModEx : Moderation ExerciseNI : Need ImprovementOS : OutstandingOC : Operational CategoryPAF : Performance Appraisal formPE : Performance EvaluationPL : Position LevelPMC : Professional & Management CategoryPMS : Professional & Management SystemPER : Performance Evaluation RatingPIP : Performance Improvement Plan RCSC : Royal Civil Service CommissionSI : Success IndicatorsSIP : School Improvement PlanSPMS : School Performance Management SystemSSC : Supervisory & Support CategoryTRC : Teacher Resource CentresVG : Very Good


Page | 1 |

Introduction

In 2014, the Royal Civil Service Commission identified Performance Management System (PMS) as one of the areas of reform for the Bhutanese Civil Service. In order to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of the existing PMS, an exercise was carried out in 2014 to evaluate it and the following were the findings:

• All civil servants were rated outstanding category and average PE rating was 3.82 out of 4 across all Agencies;

• The PE forms indicating the strategic planning and/or strategic involvement of civil servants were minimal; and

• All expected performance output identified lacked objective indicators and linkages to organizational objectives, if any, were weak.

Therefore, the RCSC in order to strengthen existing PMS, worked to institute procedures that strengthen performance planning, monitoring and evaluation by creating a mechanism for linking and aligning individual performance to the organizational objectives and results. Organizational objectives, in turn, are drawn from the national vision and the Five Year Plans. The title of the new PMS is “Managing for Excellence” (MaX). The objectives of MaX are:

• Alignment: To align individual performance targets with the organization’s strategic vision/missions/objectives;

• Accountability: To ensure organizational effectiveness by cascading institutional accountabilities to the various levels of the organization’s hierarchy; and

• Differentiation: To enhance Agency’s overall performance by differentiating performer from non-performer.

The key elements of the “Managing for Excellence” framework are as follows:• Clear organizational targets linked to national targets;• Organizational targets cascaded down to division level and then down to

individual level with clear performance targets and competency behaviors;• Evaluation of Performance and Competency Behaviors at the end of the

cycle based on agreed performance targets.• Ranking of individuals during Moderation Exercise (ModEx) for Professional

and Support Categories to Outstanding, Very Good, Good and Need Improvement categories based on the Agency Categorization Framework; and

• The results of ModEx, which is the performance rating of civil servants, will be the basis for all HR Actions.


| 2 | Page

PurposeThis “Managing for Excellence” Manual shall be used as a guide to the manager and employees for managing and evaluating Performance and Competency Behavior of civil servants. It shall therefore, provide a step-wise guide on the four important aspects of the MaX system elaborated in detail in its respective Chapters as given below:Chapter 1: Preliminary Performance Assessment;Chapter 2: Mechanics of the Moderation Exercise;Chapter 3: Managing for Excellence Framework for Teaching Services and School Support Services; andChapter 4: Performance based HR Incentives & Appeal System, and MaX Calendar.


Page | 3 |

Chapter 1 Preliminary Performance AssessmentThe supervisor and supervisee shall jointly develop the Performance Appraisal Form (PAF) to organize and manage individual activities to effectively contribute to achieving the annual and Five Year Plan objectives of the Agency. The assessment of the Individual Work Plan (IWP) shall be conducted using the Performance Appraisal Form which shall then be input to the Moderation Exercise for assignment of the final rating.

1.1. Performance Appraisal Form for PMC and SSC

The Performance Appraisal Form shall be used to formulate division outputs, identify activities, set target values, and identify Competency Behavior (refer Annexure 1 and 2 for the Performance Appraisal Form). The Performance Appraisal Form consists of four Sections.

1.1.1. Section A: Employee Details

Section A requires civil servants to fill up the details such as Appraisal Period, Employee ID number, Name, Position Title, Position Level, Division, and Department or Ministry. The pictorial depiction is as follows:

Section A: Employee Details

APPRAISAL PERIOD:EMPLOYEE ID No.NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE:POSITION TITLE: POSITION LEVEL:DIVISION: DEPARTMENT/AGENCY:

1.1.2. Section B: Performance Assessment (Individual Work Plan) 70% An Individual Work Plan is a clear plan of action for an individual in

an Agency to organize and manage individual activities to effectively contribute to achieving the annual objectives of the Agency. A rigorous individual work planning exercise will ensure alignment of work done by civil servants to the higher order strategic objectives of their Agencies thereby making the individual performance appraisal more purposeful and effective. It carries 70% weightage.

In this section civil servants are required to formulate Division Output, identify performance activities and set target values.


| 4 | Page

a. Formulating Division Outputs After Agency’s Annual Performance Agreements/Annual Performance

Target are signed, Divisions shall come up with clear outputs for the fiscal year based on their Departmental objectives. As such, division outputs must be clearly substantiated by Success Indicators (SI) and target values in the same format as Departmental and Agency Annual Performance Agreement/Annual Performance Target.

These division outputs are achieved as a result of activities implemented by individuals working in the Division.

b. Identifying Activities Activities are essential work items that an individual need to execute in

order to achieve the division outputs. Activities should concisely indicate how an individual intends to utilize inputs and overcome constraints to attain the outputs. Each activity listed must be related to one of the outputs, and only activities which have direct contribution to achievement of division outputs should be included in the IWP.

c. Setting the Target Values After identifying the activities, individuals shall set a target value each to

the activities that merits a rating of Level 4/Level 3/Level 2/Level 1 using the QQCT (Quantity, Quality, Cost, and Time) framework. The values are set in terms of Quantity, Quality, Cost or Time. It is not necessary to have all the four factors fitting in one target value. Either, a combination or any of the four factors from the QQCT framework should be reflected in the target values depending on the nature of activity.

It is not necessary to fill target values for all four levels. However, it is mandatory to set the target value for Level 2. If the target value for only Level 2 is drawn, the supervisor shall make the judgment on how to assess the other three levels, at the end of the appraisal period using Level 2 target value as the yardstick.

The target value shall be derived as per the definition given in the table:

Performer Category Definition Rating Scale

Level 4 Achieved exceptionally high level of performance above the requirement of the job 3.00-4.00

Level 3 Performed at higher level than requirement of the job 2.00-2.99Level 2 Employee fulfilled requirement of the job 1.00-1.99Level 1 Results/Behaviour far below performance requirement <=0.99


Page | 5 |

Following process shall apply for developing individual work plan:

Signing/finalization of Agency APA/APT

Signing of Dept./ Division /Sector Level APA/APT

Formulation of Division Outputs

Formulating Activities and

performance Targets

All Agencies sign APA/APT with clear organizational objectives and targets on an annual basis.

The System mandates each Ministry, Dzongkhag and autonomous Agency to sign APA at various levels, Department, Sector and Division level respectively.

Divisions/Sector shall come up with clear outputs for the fiscal year based on the agency’s objectives. Chief of Division will have to identify Division outputs during the planning phase.

- Individual to identify activities and performance target.

- Managers to vet target/activities identified by individuals.


| 6 | Page

The pictorial depiction of Section B is as follows:

SECTION B: Performance Assessment (Individual Work Plan) (70%)

Division Output

Activities

Targets Values Target Achieved specified

by individual

Employee’s Feedback/comment/

justification

Score by Supervisor1

Level 4 =[3.00-4.00]

Level 3 =[2.00-2.99]

Level2 =[1.00 -1.99]

Level 1 [<=0.99]

1. 1. 1………

1.2. ……..

2. 2.1………

2.2………

TOTAL

Score B. Total score/No. of activities =…………

1.1.3. Section C: Competency Behavior (30%)

The Competency Behavior required for Professional and Management Category (PMC), and Supervisory and Support Category (SSC) are different. Refer Performance Appraisal Forms (Annexure 1 and 2) on the details of Competency Behavior for PMC and SSC.

The Competency Behaviors are used to evaluate qualitative aspect of performance of individual and this will include skills and values required to carry out performance targets indicated in Section B of the Performance Appraisal Form. It carries 30% weightage.

Please note, the lists of Competency Behaviors are an indicative list. Agencies based on the requirements can add additional competencies and customize it accordingly with the description of Competency Behavior and indicating different levels of competencies.

1.1.4. Section D: Preliminary Performance Evaluation Score (Section B & C) This Section contains the final Preliminary Performance Score derived

from Section B (70%) and Section C (30%).

1

Note1 Concrete results achieved during the year that were agreed and rate them in the scale indicated in the target

values.


Page | 7 |

SECTION D: Preliminary Performance Evaluation Score [Section B &C]

Particular Score Received Preliminary Score Supervisor’s

Comment, if any

B. Performance 70% of Score B=……..

C. Competency Behaviors 30% of Score C=……Total


| 8 | Page

1.2.

Ex

ampl

e on

how

to E

valu

ate

Perf

orm

ance

App

rais

al F

orm

a.

Eval

uatin

g th

e In

divi

dual

Wor

k Pl

an [S

ectio

n B

of P

erfo

rman

ce A

ppra

isal

For

m]

This

secti

on w

ill fo

rm 7

0% o

f the

tota

l sco

re a

nd th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e sh

ows

an e

xam

ple

on h

ow to

pro

vide

ratin

g by

th

e su

perv

isor

for

the

targ

ets

spec

ified

in th

e In

divi

dual

Wor

k Pl

an.

For

exam

ple:

if h

e/sh

e ha

s pe

rfor

med

the

activ

ity

and

achi

eved

Lev

el 4

, the

cor

resp

ondi

ng r

ating

will

be

betw

een

3.00

- 4

.00.

Sim

ilarly

, if

s/he

ach

ieve

s “L

evel

3”,

the

corr

espo

ndin

g ra

ting

will

be

chan

ged

as p

er sc

ale.

Ho

wev

er, i

t is

not n

eces

sary

to fi

ll ta

rget

val

ues

for a

ll fo

ur le

vels.

A m

inim

um ta

rget

val

ue fo

r Lev

el 2

is s

uffici

ent.

If th

e ta

rget

val

ue fo

r onl

y up

to L

evel

2 is

dra

wn,

the

supe

rviso

r sha

ll m

ake

the

judg

emen

t on

how

to a

sses

s at t

he e

nd o

f the

ap

prai

sal p

erio

d us

ing

Leve

l 2 a

s the

yar

dstic

k.

SECT

ION

B: P

erfo

rman

ce A

sses

smen

t (70

%):

Eval

uatin

g th

e In

divi

dual

Wor

k Pl

an

Divi

sion

Out

put

Activ

ities

Targ

ets V

alue

sTa

rget

Ac

hiev

ed

spec

ified

by

indi

vidu

al

Empl

oyee

’s Fe

edba

ck/

com

men

t/

justi

ficati

on

Scor

e by

Su

perv

isor

Leve

l

4=[3

.00-

4.00

]

Leve

l

3=2.

00-

2.99

]

Leve

l

2=[1

.00

-1.9

9]

Leve

l 1[

<=0.

99]

1.Ci

vil s

erva

nt’s

perf

orm

ance

m

anag

ed

1.1.

Con

duct

m

oder

ation

Ex

erci

seJu

lyAu

gust

Sept

embe

rLa

ter t

han

Sept

embe

r 30

Sept

embe

r1.

50

2. O

D re

com

men

datio

ns

Impl

emen

ted

2.1

Impl

emen

t ap

prov

ed C

2 re

com

men

datio

ns10

0%90

%80

%Le

ss th

an 8

0%80

%2.

00

Tota

l 3.

50

Fina

l Sco

re B

(Tot

al/N

o. o

f acti

vitie

s)1.

75 (3

.50/

2)


Page | 9 |

b.

Eval

uatin

g Co

mpe

tenc

y Be

havi

or [S

ectio

n C

of P

erfo

rman

ce A

ppra

isal

For

m]

Th

is Se

ction

will

form

30%

of t

he to

tal s

core

and

eva

luati

on w

ill b

e do

ne a

s fol

low

s. T

he ra

tings

of c

ompe

tenc

y be

havi

or w

ill b

e ba

sed

on th

e as

sess

men

t are

as th

at h

ave

been

agr

eed

betw

een

the

supe

rviso

r and

supe

rvise

e.

For e

xam

ple:

SECT

ION

C: C

ompe

tenc

y Be

havi

or (3

0%)

Com

pete

ncy

Beha

vior

Desc

riptio

nLe

vel 4

[3.0

0-4.

00]

Leve

l 3 [2

.00-

2.99

]Le

vel 2

[1.0

0-1.

99]

Leve

l 1 [<

=.99

]Sc

ore

by S

uper

viso

r w

ith E

vide

nce

of

Beha

vior

1. A

naly

tical

an

d In

telle

ctua

l Ca

paci

ty

1.1.

Sen

se o

f Pe

rspe

ctive

:De

mon

stra

tes i

ntel

lect

ual

flexi

bilit

y, im

agin

ation

an

d so

cio-

politi

cal

sens

itivi

ty in

dev

elop

ing

a ho

listic

app

reci

ation

of

the

situa

tion

and

in

gene

ratin

g in

nova

tive

idea

s and

solu

tions

that

br

ing

prac

tical

ben

efit.

Thin

ks a

head

to

anti

cipa

te

issue

s,

iden

tifies

op

port

uniti

es

and

appr

ecia

tes

impl

icati

ons.

Take

s st

rate

gic

step

s an

d w

ays t

o ac

hiev

e an

d en

hanc

e th

e ac

hiev

emen

t of

the

targ

et.

Nee

d gu

idan

ce in

id

entif

ying

th

e op

port

uniti

es

and

solu

tions

to

solv

e w

ork

tow

ards

ac

hiev

ing

the

targ

et.

Is h

asty

in

form

atting

op

inio

ns a

nd

judg

men

t ta

king

acti

on

befo

re a

sses

sing

impl

icati

ons a

nd

Focu

ses o

n da

y to

day

pro

blem

s at

the

expe

nse

of lo

nger

tern

pl

anni

ng.

Leve

l 3=2

.5

Mr.

X w

hen

assig

ned

a ta

sk o

n HR

Pl

anni

ng su

bmitt

ed

reco

mm

enda

tion

that

was

app

rove

d by

the

Agen

cy.

Com

pete

ncy

Beha

vior

Sco

re(T

otal

scor

e/nu

mbe

r of c

ompe

tenc

y be

havi

or)

2.5/

1=2.

5


| 10 | Page

c. Evaluation of Performance and Competency Behavior The preliminary performance rating for the individual will consist of

70% Performance and 30% Competency Behavior. With reference to the aforementioned example, the final rating will be as follows:

Particular Score received Preliminary Score Supervisor’s

Comment, if anyPerformance 1.75 70% of 1.75=1.23Competency Behavior 2.50 30% of 2.50=0.75

Evaluation Score 1.98

The scores from Preliminary Performance Assessment and Competency behavior will be used as an input during the Moderation Exercise of the employees. Therefore, the Evaluation Score of IWP and Competency Behavior will not be the individual’s final evaluation score. Note2

1.3. The Performance Appraisal Form for Operational Category (OC)

The Performance Appraisal Form for OC consist of details of the employee and the assessment is based on competency behavior since the roles and responsibilities of civil servants under this category are routine and often repetitive. Overall, staff under this category is required to comply with set of objectives, methodology and specific assignment. They are not required to fill in online Performance Appraisal Forms (the PAF for OC is attached as Annexure 3).

Note

Agencies listed under schedule A of this manual due to their unique circumstances will be exempted from the moderation exercise. However, all civil servants in those Agencies including Executives will have to complete the appraisal forms and the evaluation score of appraisal forms will be their final performance score.


Page | 11 |

Chapter 2 Mechanics of Moderation Exercise2.1. Moderation Exercise (ModEx) The Moderation Exercise is ranking of civil servants into different performance

categories (Outstanding, Very Good, Good and Need Improvement) based on Agency Categorization Framework.

For agencies which sign Annual Performance Agreement, the performance score of their Agency/Department whichever is applicable will be used as the basis for determining the distribution of civil servants into different performance categories.

For agencies without APA, the basis for distribution of performers into different performance categories will be the scores assigned under the APT evaluation report.

2.2. Agency Categorization Framework (ACF)

Agency Categorization Framework (ACF) will be the basis for categorizing civil servants into different performance categories. The framework will use the APA/APT scores as the basis for distribution of employees into different performance categories. The ACF is subject to change depending on how the APA/APT is assessed.

Following categories will be used for the purpose of ranking employees into different performance categories. Agencies have the option to put lesser number of staff than the assigned numbers in outstanding and more number of staff than the assigned number in the Need Improvement i.e the assigned quota for OS and NI are the maximum and minimum numbers respectively.

Note: If the agency fails to identify the required number of staff under Need Improvement as per assigned ACF derived from APA/APT/EMS score, the Moderation Committee/TRC Members shall be all assigned NI as proxy rating.


| 12 | Page

Agency Categorization Framework to Distribute Employees in Different Performance Categories

Agency Category

Agency’s Score Outstanding Very Good Good Need

ImprovementCategory 1 95.00-100.00 3% 17% 80% 0%Category 2 85.00-94.99 2% 16% 81% 1%Category 3 70.00-84.99 1% 15% 82.5% 1.5%Category 4 <=69.99. 0% 14% 84% 2%

2.3 Performance Evaluation of Moderation Committee Members and Specialist (ES3-ES1)Civil servants at Executive and Management Levels are provided proxy scores based on the Division/Department/Agency performance. The rationale for providing proxy scores for Executives and Management level are:• They are directly accountable for the performance of division/department/

Agency; and• They are the members of the moderation Committee; therefore, they

cannot be moderated and rank themselves.

The performance of those in management positions which include Executives, Chief of Division, Sector Head and/or members of Moderation Committee, shall be as follows:

GPMS report/ Achievement (%)

Proxy score for moderation committee members and specialist

95.00% -100% Outstanding

85.00% -94.99% Very Good

70.00% -84.99% Good

<=69.99% Need Improvement

2.4. Assignment of Scores to Civil Servant at Various Position Level

2.4.1. Executive (EX3-EX1)a. For Executive heading Agencies, the Agency’s score will be proxy

for his/her performance.b. For Executive heading Departments, the ratio of APA scores

between Agency and Department (50:50) will be the performance rating of the executive.

c. For Executives heading Agencies, which do not have Agency score, will have to complete performance appraisal forms, which will be evaluated by the Chairman of Board/Commission. Refer Annexure 6.


Page | 13 |

2.4.2. Specialist (ES3-ES1)a. All Specialists (ES) will get the Departments or Agency’s score as

proxy.

2.4.3. Professional and Management (P1)a. Head of division at P1 or officiating head at P2 in Ministries will

receive the Ministry/ Department’s score as Proxy rating.b. Head of Sector/Division at P1 or officiating head at P2 in the

Dzongkhag and Autonomous Agencies will receive the Agency’s score as Proxy rating.

c. All other P1 (Specialist) who do not head division will fall in the general pool considered for ranking purpose during the moderation exercise.

d. Chief of Division, which do not have Agency scores, will have to complete performance appraisal form which will be evaluated by an Executives.

2.4.4. Professional and Management (P5-P2), Supervisory and Support (S5-SS1)a. Civil servants under this category including contract employees will

be ranked into different performance category during moderation exercise as per Agency’s score and ACF.

2.4.5. Civil servants on Secondment, Long Term Study Leave, Maternity Leave, EOL and Transfer

2.4.5.1. Secondment Civil servants on secondment will be given default performance

rating of “Good”. If the seconded Agency submits non-performance record on the civil servant during secondment, s/he shall be put under Need Improvement Category. Employees on secondment will not be included in the pool of staff being moderated for respective Agency for the particular performance appraisal period.

2.4.5.2. Long Term Study Leave Civil servants on long-term study will be given default

performance rating of “Good” on submission of successful course completion certificate. Employees on study will not be counted in the pool of staff for moderation in the respective Agency for that particular performance appraisal period only if he/she is away for the entire assessment year.


| 14 | Page

2.4.5.3. Maternity Leave Civil servants on maternity leave shall be included in the pool of

moderation and shall be given default minimum performance rating of “Good”.

For Section 2.4.5.1, 2.4.5.2 and2.4.5.3, the default performance score is good. However, the Moderation Committee has the discretion to assign such civil servants to other performance categories based on evidence.

2.4.5.4. Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) Civil servants on EOL will not have Performance Evaluation for

the period of EOL only if he/she is away for the entire assessment year as the duration for EOL is considered as inactive service and as such this period is not included for any HR actions.

2.4.5.5. Transfer Any civil servant transferred during the appraisal period will be

moderated in the Agency where he/she is currently serving for the appraisal period, irrespective of the length/duration.

For Civil servants receiving proxy score, proxy score of agency in which s/he has served for the fiscal year of the performance period exceeding 6 months shall be their performance score.

Note3

1. Civil servants from S5 to P1 Specialist need to fill in appraisal forms including Chief of Division for all Agencies.2. Qualitative aspect of Managers’ (Head of division/department/agency) performance will be evaluated through

online leadership feedback system, which will have equal weightage) as quantitative aspect of performance score vetted through department/agency score


Page | 15 |

2.5.

Co

mpo

sitio

n of

Mod

erati

on C

omm

ittee

and

Ass

ignm

ents

of P

erfo

rman

ce R

ating

to C

omm

ittee

Mem

bers

The

follo

win

g ta

ble

outli

nes t

he va

rious

type

s of A

genc

ies a

nd w

ithin

it o

n ho

w e

mpl

oyee

s bas

ed o

n th

eir f

uncti

ons,

line

s of r

epor

ting

/acc

ount

abili

ty w

ill b

e cl

uste

red

and

mod

erat

ed

Profi

le/P

ositi

on T

itle

Perf

orm

ance

Rati

ng

Com

posi

tion

of M

oder

ation

Co

mm

ittee

Rem

arks

1. M

INIS

TRY

Secr

etar

y of

Min

istry

Min

istry

’s pe

rfor

man

ce

scor

e.N

A

Dire

ctor

/ Dire

ctor

Gen

eral

of

Depa

rtm

ents

Equa

l rati

o be

twee

n M

inist

ry’s

scor

e an

d re

spec

tive

Depa

rtm

ent’s

sc

ore.

Chi

ef o

f Div

ision

/Cor

e Di

visio

nRe

spec

tive

Depa

rtm

ent’s

scor

e.

Chie

f of D

ivisi

on/S

ecre

taria

l Ser

vice

sM

inist

ry’s

perf

orm

ance

sc

ore.

Empl

oyee

s

Secr

etar

iat S

ervi

ces/

Staff

Fu

nctio

n

PPD,

Inte

rnal

Aud

it Se

rvic

es

Mod

erat

e th

em

acco

rdin

g to

Min

istry

’s sc

ore

to d

iffer

ent

perf

orm

ance

cat

egor

ies.

For S

ecre

taria

t:M

C w

ill c

onsis

t of:

1. S

ecre

tary

of M

inist

ry

(Cha

irper

son)

.2.

Dire

ctor

, Dire

ctor

ate

(Mem

ber)

.3.

Chie

f of D

ivisi

ons &

Ser

vice

s (M

embe

r).

4. C

hief

HR

Offi

cer/

HR O

ffice

r (M

embe

r Sec

reta

ry).

1. A

n offi

ciati

ng h

ead

at

P3 a

nd b

elow

will

not

be

a

mem

ber o

f the

MC.

2. S

ecre

tary

to re

pres

ent

staff

dire

ctly

repo

rting

to

Secr

etar

y.


| 16 | Page

Profi

le/P

ositi

on T

itle

Perf

orm

ance

Rati

ng

Com

posi

tion

of M

oder

ation

Co

mm

ittee

Rem

arks

Empl

oyee

s

Core

Div

ision

/Lin

e Fu

nctio

nM

oder

ate

them

ac

cord

ing

to

Depa

rtm

ent’s

scor

e to

di

ffere

nt p

erfo

rman

ce

cate

gorie

s.

For L

ine

Depa

rtm

ent

MC

will

con

sist o

f:1.

Dire

ctor

/Dire

ctor

Gen

eral

, De

part

men

t (Ch

airp

erso

n)2.

Chi

ef o

f Div

ision

, Div

ision

(M

embe

r)3.

HR

Offi

cer (

Mem

ber S

ecre

tary

).

Com

mis

sion

, Aut

onom

ous A

genc

y, T

hrom

des

Secr

etar

y of

the

Com

miss

ion/

Dire

ctor

Ge

nera

l/Dire

ctor

of A

genc

y Ag

ency

’s sc

ore

NA

Chie

f of D

ivisi

ons

Agen

cy’s

scor

e Em

ploy

ees

Secr

etar

iat S

ervi

ces/

Staff

Fu

nctio

n.M

oder

ate

them

ac

cord

ing

to A

genc

y’s

scor

e.

For A

genc

y:M

C w

ill c

onsis

t of:

1. S

ecre

tary

, Age

ncy

(Cha

irper

son)

2. D

irect

or, D

irect

orat

e/Se

cret

aria

t (M

embe

r)3.

Chi

ef o

f Div

ision

(Mem

ber)

4. H

R O

ffice

r (M

embe

r Sec

reta

ry)

OR

MC

will

con

sist o

f:1.

Dire

ctor

, Age

ncy

(Cha

irper

son)

2. C

hief

of D

ivisi

on (M

embe

r)3.

HR

Offi

cer (

Mem

ber S

ecre

tary

)

An o

ffici

ating

hea

d at

P3

and

belo

w w

ill n

ot b

e a

m

embe

r of t

he M

C.

Core

Div

ision

/Lin

e Fu

nctio

n.


Page | 17 |

Profi

le/P

ositi

on T

itle

Perf

orm

ance

Rati

ng

Com

posi

tion

of M

oder

ation

Co

mm

ittee

Rem

arks

1. D

ZON

GKH

AG

Head

of D

zong

khag

/Dzo

ngda

gDz

ongk

hag’

s pe

rfor

man

ce sc

ore.

NA

1. S

ecto

r Hea

d at

P3

and

belo

w w

ill n

ot b

e a

mem

ber o

f the

MC

2. D

zong

dag

and

Dzon

grab

shal

l rec

eive

w

ritten

feed

back

from

ot

her S

ecto

r Hea

ds w

ho

are

P3 a

nd b

elow

on

thei

r em

ploy

ees.

Head

of S

taff

Func

tion/

Dzon

grab

/Du

ngpa

Dzon

gkha

g’s

perf

orm

ance

sco

re.

Dzon

gkha

g St

affPl

anni

ng S

ervi

ces,

DT

Secr

etar

y, Le

gal S

ervi

ces,

In

tern

al A

udit

Serv

ices

, En

viro

nmen

t ser

vice

s.

Mod

erat

e th

em

acco

rdin

g to

dz

ongk

hag’

s pe

rfor

man

ce sc

ore.

For D

zong

khag

:M

C w

ill c

onsis

t of:

1. D

zong

dag,

Dzo

ngkh

ag

(Cha

irper

son)

2. D

zong

rab,

Sec

reta

riat (

Mem

ber)

3. D

rung

pa, D

rung

khag

(Mem

ber)

4. H

ead

of S

ecto

r/BH

U I/

Hosp

itals

(Mem

ber)

5. H

R O

ffice

r (M

embe

r Sec

reta

ry)

Staff

func

tion/

HR

Serv

ices

, IT

Serv

ices

, Fi

nanc

e an

d Ad

min

Se

rvic

es.

Sect

ors/

Heal

th S

ecto

r, Ed

ucati

on S

ecto

r, RN

R Se

ctor

-Agr

icul

ture

, Li

vest

ock,

Cen

sus,

Cu

lture

, lan

d re

cord

.


| 18 | Page

Profi

le/P

ositi

on T

itle

Perf

orm

ance

Rati

ng

Com

posi

tion

of M

oder

ation

Co

mm

ittee

Rem

arks

BHU

s Gra

de I/

Hosp

itals

3. M

edic

al S

uper

viso

r he

adin

g Ho

spita

ls/BH

U

to re

pres

ent e

mpl

oyee

s

Dung

khag

St

affAd

min

istra

tive

Staff

, in

clud

ing

GAO

and

Ge

wog

Acc

ount

ants

.

1. D

ungp

a sh

all r

ecei

ve

writt

en fe

edba

ck fr

om

Gup,

HR

and

Plan

ning

Se

rvic

es o

n GA

O’s

Perf

orm

ance

.

2. D

ungp

a sh

all

rece

ive

feed

back

fr

om D

zong

khag

Ac

coun

ts O

ffice

r on

Gew

og’s

Acco

unta

nt’s

perf

orm

ance

.

3. D

urin

g th

e M

odEx

th

e D

ungp

a/re

spec

tive

Sect

or H

ead

will

re

pres

ent t

he D

ungk

hag

sect

or st

aff.

Sect

or/E

duca

tion,

Hea

lth

and

RNR-

Agr

icul

ture

, Li

vest

ock

& F

ores

t.


Page | 19 |

Profi

le/P

ositi

on T

itle

Perf

orm

ance

Rati

ng

Com

posi

tion

of M

oder

ation

Co

mm

ittee

Rem

arks

Gew

og S

taff

GAO

, Gew

og

Acco

unta

nts a

nd a

ny

othe

r adm

inist

rativ

e st

affs.

1. D

zong

rab

shal

l rec

eive

w

ritten

feed

back

from

Gu

p, H

R an

d Pl

anni

ng o

n GA

O’s

perf

orm

ance

.

2. S

ecto

r Hea

ds to

get

w

ritten

feed

back

on

indi

vidu

als f

rom

Gup

fo

r the

pur

pose

of

Mod

erati

on.

Sect

or/E

duca

tion,

Hea

lth

and

RNR-

Agr

icul

ture

, Li

vest

ock

& F

ores

t.

Not

e4

i. Sp

ecia

list(

ES) a

s the

Adv

isor t

o th

e De

part

men

t/Ag

ency

shal

l be

the

mem

ber f

or M

oder

ation

Com

mitt

ee.

ii.

Offi

ciati

ng h

ead

at P

2 an

d ab

ove

leve

l will

be

the

mem

ber o

f the

Mod

erati

on C

omm

ittee

, if h

e/sh

e is

offici

ating

for t

he fo

llow

ing

reas

on:

a.

Post

of C

hief

is v

acan

t [th

ere

is no

full

fledg

ed c

hief

];b.

If

the

incu

mbe

nt C

hief

is o

n sh

ort-t

erm

trai

ning

for 3

mon

ths a

nd m

ore;

c.

If

the

incu

mbe

nt C

hief

is o

n M

edic

al L

eave

exc

eedi

ng 3

mon

ths;

and

d

.

An

offici

ating

Hea

d in

P3

and

belo

w w

ill n

ot b

e a

mem

ber o

f Mod

erati

on C

omm

ittee

. Rel

evan

t Exe

cutiv

e w

ill re

pres

ent t

hat D

ivisi

on fo

r the

ME.

iii.

HR O

ffice

r as

the

mem

ber s

ecre

tary

for M

oder

ation

Com

mitt

ee w

ill b

e as

ked

to le

ave

disc

ussio

n w

hen

the

disc

ussio

n is

abou

t him

/her

and

join

as

soon

as

the

disc

ussio

n is

over

and

sam

e pr

otoc

ol w

ill b

e fo

llow

ed fo

r all

mem

bers

of t

he M

oder

ation

Com

mitt

ee in

the

even

t the

re is

any

con

flict

of i

nter

est.

iv.

For l

arge

r Div

ision

s, it

is re

com

men

ded

that

the

Chie

f sha

ll co

nsul

t with

Sec

tion/

Uni

t Hea

ds p

rior t

o th

e fin

al M

odEx

by

cons

tituti

ng su

b-co

mm

ittee

with

in

the

Divi

sion


| 20 | Page

2.6. Prerequisite for Moderation Exercise In order to carry out moderation exercise, the following prerequisites have to

be considered:

a. APA/APT Assessment Report Completed; and The GPMD will publish an annual report on the Agency’s performance.

Similarly, other competent Agencies will prepare report on Agencies with APT evaluated by Gross National Happiness Commission.

b. Evaluation of Performance Appraisal Form Completed. PE Score of all civil servants will be completed online which comprise

of Performance assessment (70%) and Competency Behavior (30%). The managers shall produce either print or reference the soft copy of the appraisal form from the MaX online system during the moderation exercise.

2.7. Determining the Distribution Percentage for Assignment of Performance Category to Individual Staff

The ModEx is the next step following the completed evaluation of individual Performance Appraisal Form by the supervisor. Refer Annexure 4 for guidance on performance calibration.

As explained earlier, after the evaluation of Agencies’ performance the Agencies’ performance is cascaded down to individuals through the process of the Moderation Exercise.

The ACF will determine the “quota” assigned to various performance categories based on Agencies’ APA/APT score. When the ACF is applied, decimal figures are likely to emerge. Below is the process of rounding off of the decimal to get the differentiation for the performance category 1, 2, 3 and 4:1. Category 1 = The rounding off shall be done as follows; 1st round off - OS Category, 2nd round off - VG category, rest employee in - G

category

2. Category 4 = The rounding off shall be done as follows; 1st round off - NI Category, 2nd round off - G category, rest employee in - VG

category

3. Category 2= The rounding off shall be done as follows; and 1st round off - OS category, 2nd round off - NI category, 3rd round off = VG

category, rest employee in G category

4. Category 3= The rounding off shall be done as follows: 1st round off - OS category, 2nd round off - NI category, 3rd round off - G

category, rest employee in VG category


Page | 21 |

For example: Total Number of Staff: 30

Agency Category

Agency Score

Rounding offRemarks

OS VG Good NI

Category 1

95%-100%

3% of 30 (0.9=1)

17% of 30 (5.1=6)

80%(23) 0%

1st round off OS2nd round off VGRest in G

Category 2

85.00%-94.99 %

2% of 30 (0.6=1)

16% of 30 (4.8=5)

81%

(23)

1% of 30

(0.3=1)

1st round off OS2nd round off NI3rd round off VGRest in G

Category 3

70.00%-84.99 %

1% of 30 (0.3=1) 15% (3)

82.5% of 30

(24.75=25)

1.5% of 30

(0.45=1)

1st round off OS2nd round off NI3rd round off GRest in VG

Category 4 <=69.99% 0 14% (3)

84% of 30

(25.2=26)

2% of 30

(0.6=1)

1st round off NI2nd round GRest in VG

2.8. Different Roles in the Moderation Exercise There are three primary stakeholders in a ModEx. The Chairperson, Members of

the Moderation Committee, and Secretariat (HR Division). Refer Section 2.5 for Composition.

a. Chairperson: The Chairperson will be the Secretary/Director General/Director/ Dzongdag/Executive Secretary depending on the type of Agency.

The Chairperson shall:• Maintain order and fairness throughout the moderation exercise;• Ensures that all relevant considerations in the moderation process

are adhered to; • Makes the final decision to dissolve gridlocks (if any); and• Ensure that all the members declare the conflict of interest prior to

the moderation exercise.

Chairperson has the prerogative to appoint the member secretary from amongst the members of moderation committee if he/she so decides.

b. Members: The members are the Head of Division/Sectors within each Agency based on type of Agency- whether it’s Ministry, Autonomous Agency, or Dzongkhags (Refer Section 2.5).


| 22 | Page

The Members shall:• Evaluate performance appraisal forms of their employees and provide

performance score to the Secretariat, prior to the Moderation Exercise;

• Prepare and collate the evidences for each employee to justify the proposed rating for him/her;

• During the preliminary assessment, the members should ideally align their assessment of respective supervisees in accordance with the Agency/Department score and its allocated quota as per the ACF;

• Take full ownership of final ranking decision and maintain confidentiality of the moderation discussions; and

• Communicate results of moderation exercise to employees, individually.

c. Member Secretary: The HR Officer/s from HR Division/Services within the Agency shall:

• Collect Agency’s score from GPMD and GNHC and work out the distribution curve using Agency Categorization Framework;

• Collate and analyze past and current Moderation Exercise data, identify pertinent issues and brief the Chairperson prior to the Moderation Exercise;

• Share the above information and brief on overall performance score collected from relevant department/division with the Chairperson prior to Moderation Exercise;

• Serve as the member secretary for Moderation Exercise and shall maintain records/minutes of discussions made during the Moderation Exercise;

• Assist the Chairperson (when appropriate) on adherence to relevant considerations during Moderation Exercise;

• Schedule Moderation Exercise in advance and publish a time-line with key dates to all managers so that they understand the preparations required for the exercise;

• Seek endorsement of primary and supplementary consideration before actual Moderation Exercise and facilitate preliminary assessment and preparatory meetings/discussions by different division/sector to prepare for final Moderation Exercise;

• Prepare to facilitate by compiling and examining performance data for the Agency/Department/Division including average ratings across critical factors, performance distributions and the identification of outliers;

• Ensure that the final performance appraisal meetings between managers and employees are conducted to convey the final moderation decisions;

• May recommend to the Chair on the need to have preparatory meetings in the run up to the final ModEx; and

• For Divisions/Dzongkhag Sectors not headed by P1/P2 Officer or


Page | 23 |

large division, the member secretary should organize preliminary/sub-committee meetings to get the views of all officiating division heads, sector heads and section/unit heads on the performance of their employees, prior to the final ModEx.

2.9. Consideration/Criteria

To ensure that the moderation exercise achieves the intended objectives, the following indicative considerations are recommended for application during the moderation exercise. The considerations are to be factored but not limited to, in the course of assigning employees to the various performance categories during the Moderation Exercise.

a. Primary Considerations • Requirement of their IWP: The performance targets set and specified

in the IWPs and achievement against it; • The manner in which the performance targets were fulfilled:

Qualitative aspect of the performance vetted in terms of competency behavior displayed during the evaluation period;

• Job sizes held by the employee vis-à-vis position level of the employee: Assess an employee against the size, volume, quality and value of work delivered vis-à-vis his/her current position and terms of reference;

• Degree of impact upon the mission of the Agency/Department/Division: The contribution of the staff against achievement of the core mission of the Agency; and

• Reference to bouquets and brickbats but confined to the period of assessment/appraisal period: Any merits, special achievements, recognition, or otherwise any negative behaviors, which are confined to that period of assessment/appraisal period.

b. Supplementary Considerations In the event that the principal considerations are exhausted, supplementary

considerations as established by respective Agencies can be applied wherever appropriate. Some of the recommended supplementary considerations are: • Potential of the employee: Ability of an individual to shoulder higher

responsibility. This assessment should be made considering past performance i.e. beyond the current evaluation period;

• Profile of the employee: The importance and criticality of the job responsibility shouldered by individuals for meeting organization’s objective and targets;

• Signaling effect: The kind of signal an Agency would want to convey for promoting different performers/groups/occupations/teams within the Agency based on set of criteria or an intuition that shall be


| 24 | Page

in the mind of the Members that the OS/NI employee should be from that particular division; and

• Economies of Experience: Number of years of experience and contribution in achieving Agency’s performance targets and other benefits to Agency concerned. An outstanding/very good worker will usually be up to speed in his/her work with fewer years of experience as compared to a less efficient staff entering at the same time or earlier who may take longer to learn.

The primary and supplementary criteria/consideration outlined above is very broad to suit all Agencies. However, they can be customized by Moderation Committees to fit their own specific needs.

2.10. Summary of ModEx Process

The moderation exercise comprises of three steps: Step 1: Appraisal (by Manager/Member of Moderation Committee, before

Actual ModEx) The process begins with evaluation of performance appraisal forms (i.e. review

of the Individual Work Plan), between the manager and each employee. Close attention should be paid to the rating scale definitions that will be used to make assessments. Managers should note specific cases/evidence to substantiate the proposed rating for the employee.

Step 2: Actual ModEx Meeting During the ModEx meeting, Chairperson and members will moderate employees

according to different performance categories, guided by the primary and supplementary considerations as well as other relevant considerations to be applied at the discretion of the moderation committee. This is to be done in addition to references made to the performance score as mentioned in Step 1 above.

Step 3: Declaration and Submission of Moderation Results in the MaX Online System (by Manager/Member of Moderation Committee)

The moderation result shall be communicated to the respective employees within three working days after the completion of the ModEx and the results are to be entered in the Max online system. The Managers shall conduct one-on-one performance review discussions with the employees. At this point, managers should have a comprehensive understanding of the organizational performance standards as well as how their team members are performing relative to others within and outside.

Sample ModEx Agenda can be referred in Annexure 5. Agencies in Schedule A will not be moderated because of their unique circumstances (Refer Annexure 6).


Page | 25 |

Chapter 3Managing for Excellence for Teaching and Support Services in schoolThe principal and the subordinates shall jointly develop the Performance Appraisal Form to organize and manage individual activities to effectively contribute to achieving the six key areas of the School Improvement Plan (SIP). The assessment of individual shall be conducted using the Performance Appraisal Form which shall be input to the moderation exercises for assignment of final rating.

3.1. Performance Appraisal Form for PMC and SSC The Performance Appraisal Form shall be used to formulate school outputs,

identify/develop activities, set target value and identify competency behavior by the employees in schools (refer Annexure 1 and 2). The form consist of four sections.

3.1.1. Section A: Employee details For details, refer Section 1.1.1

3.1.2. Section B: Performance Assessment (IWP) 70% The School Performance Management System (SPMS) shall be the basis

for developing the IWP of the principals, teachers and support staff in schools.

a. Formulating School Output The following six key areas of School Improvement Plan (SIP) shall

be used as the school outputs. However, an individual can choose only those relevant outputs that he/she contributes:i. Leadership and Management Practices;ii. Green School domain;iii. Curriculum Practices: Planning and Delivery;iv. Holistic Assessment;v. Broader Learning Domain; andvi. School Community Vitality.

b. Identifying Activities While developing IWP, a civil servant needs to identity individual

activities that will contribute to the achievement of the output. The list of indicators from the SIP is recommended to use as guideline to formulate activities. Each activity listed must be related to one of the output, and only those activities which have direct contribution to the achievement of the output should be included in the IWP.


| 26 | Page

c. Setting Target Value After identifying the activities, individuals shall set a target value

each to the activities that merits a rating of level 4/level3/level 2/level 1 using the QQCT (Quantity, Quality, Cost and Time) framework. It is not necessary to have all the factors fitting in one target value. Either a combination or any of the four factors from the QQCT framework should be reflected in the target values depending on the nature of activity. It is also not necessary to fill the target value for all four levels. However, it is mandatory to set a target value for level 2. If the target value for only level 2 is drawn, the supervisor shall make the judgment on how to assess the other three levels at the end of the appraisal period using level 2 as the yardstick.

The target areas from the SIP indicators shall be used as the guide to frame the target value for each activity. For determining target value for the activities, refer Section 1.1.2 (C).

3.1.3. Section C: Competency Behavior (30%) List of Competency behavior as per Annexure 1 and 2 are recommended

for Professional and Management Category and Supervisory & Support Services Group respectively.

The competency behaviors are used to evaluate qualitative aspect of performance of individual and this will include skills and values required to carry out performance target indicated in section B of the Performance Appraisal Form. It carries 30% weightage.

Please note, the lists of competency behaviors are an indicative list. The schools based on the requirement can add additional competencies and customize it based on the relevancy and need of the schools.

3.1.4. Section D: Preliminary Performance Evaluation Score (Section B and C) For performance evaluation, refer Section 1.1.4

3.2. Example on how to Evaluate Performance Appraisal Form Refer Section 1.2

3.3. Performance Appraisal Form for Operational Category (OC) Refer Section 1.3

3.4. Procedure of Moderation Exercise and Agency Categorization Framework Following Agency Categorization framework based on School Performance

report will be used to determine bell curve to identify performance categories for schools:


Page | 27 |

Category TRC score Outstanding Very Good Good NICategory 1 95.00%-100.00% 3% 17% 80% 0%Category 2 85.00%-94.99% 2% 16% 81% 1%Category 3 70.00%-84.99% 1% 15% 82.5% 1.5%Category 4 <=69.99% 0% 14% 84% 2%

Note: TRC score is the average PMS score of all schools under the TRC.

3.5. Performance Rating for Moderation Committee Members The performance rating of moderation committee members shall be:

EMD report/ Achievement (%) Principals95.00-100.00 Outstanding85.00-94.99 Very Good70.00-84.99 Good

<=69.99. Need Improvement

3.6. General Principle for Performance Evaluation Rating of staff in Schoolsa. Principal

• Principal shall receive 50% of his school PMS score and 50 % of the TRC score as proxy.

b. Vice Principal, Teachers and Support Staff• All staff in the schools shall be moderated as per TRC performance

score and agency categorization framework. • Moderation pool shall comprise of both regular and contract

employees

c. Operational-Level• Evaluated by immediate supervisor based on the standard

Performance Evaluation Forms as per Annexure 3.

3.7. Moderation Exercise Guideline for Schools: Schools shall be clustered based on Teacher Resource Centre (TRC). The

Education Monitoring Division shall provide school cluster performance report. Moderation Exercise shall be conducted based on TRC score. The moderation Committee for school shall be as follows:• Chief DEO will be the chairperson;• All principals at P2 and above under each TRC shall serve as members;

and• HR Officer as the member secretary.

Refer Chapter 2 on Procedures for the Moderation Exercise and roles of

Chairperson, Member and Member Secretary.


| 28 | Page

Chap

ter

4Pe

rfor

man

ce L

inke

d HR

Ince

ntiv

es,

Appe

al S

yste

m a

nd

Max

Cal

ende

r4.

1. P

erfo

rman

ce li

nked

HR

Actio

ns

Man

agem

ent

Posi

tion

Leve

lPr

ofile

HR A

ction

s

Out

stan

ding

Very

Goo

dG

ood

Nee

d Im

prov

emen

t

Chai

rper

son/

mem

bers

of

mod

erati

on

com

mitt

ee

who

will

be

give

n Ag

ency

sc

ore

as th

eir

perf

orm

ance

sc

ore.

EX3-

EX1

/ES

3-ES

1He

ad o

f Ag

ency

, He

ad o

f De

part

men

t, Dz

ongd

ag.

•Re

com

men

d ap

prop

riate

Civ

il Se

rvic

e Aw

ard

for

Exce

llent

Ser

vice

for

min

imum

of t

hree

yea

rs

cons

ecuti

ve o

utst

andi

ng

perf

orm

ance

.•

Cons

ider

/ rec

omm

end

for n

ext l

evel

pr

omoti

on. O

ther

co

nditi

ons a

s per

Pr

omoti

on ru

le sh

all

appl

y.•

Targ

eted

Lea

ders

hip

Trai

ning

s.

•Ta

rget

ed L

eade

rshi

p Tr

aini

ngs.

•Co

nsid

er/

reco

mm

end

for n

ext

leve

l pro

moti

on.

O

ther

con

ditio

ns a

s pe

r Pro

moti

on ru

le

shal

l app

ly.

• T

arge

ted

Lead

ersh

ip

Trai

ning

s.

•W

ill b

e on

Wai

ting

list.

(Rel

evan

t Cl

ause

s fro

m B

CSR

on w

aitin

g lis

t ap

ply)

.


Page | 29 |

Man

agem

ent

Posi

tion

Leve

lPr

ofile

HR A

ction

s

Out

stan

ding

Very

Goo

dG

ood

Nee

d Im

prov

emen

t

P1Ch

ief o

f Di

visio

n,

Dzon

grab

, Du

ngpa

, Se

ctor

Hea

ds,

Scho

ol

Prin

cipa

ls .

•Re

com

men

d ap

prop

riate

Civ

il Se

rvic

e Aw

ard

for

Exce

llent

Ser

vice

for

min

imum

of t

hree

ye

ars c

onse

cutiv

e ou

tsta

ndin

g pe

rfor

man

ce.

•El

igib

le fo

r ope

n co

mpe

tition

.•

Targ

eted

Lea

ders

hip

Trai

ning

s.

•El

igib

le fo

r ope

n co

mpe

tition

.•

Prov

ide

Targ

eted

Le

ader

ship

Tr

aini

ngs.

• N

ot e

ligib

le

for o

pen

com

petiti

on.

•N

ot E

ligib

le fo

r ex

ecuti

ve P

ositi

ons

for n

ext 2

yea

rs.

•Re

fer h

im/ h

er to

re

leva

nt a

utho

rity

base

d on

reas

on

falli

ng u

nder

NI.

•Ta

rget

ed c

apac

ity

deve

lopm

ent

prog

ram

(in-

coun

try)

.

Oth

ers

Offi

ciati

ng

Chie

f of

Depa

rtm

ent/

Di

visio

ns,

Sect

or H

eads

, sc

hool

pr

inci

pals.

•Re

com

men

d ap

prop

riate

Civ

il Se

rvic

e Aw

ard

for

Exce

llent

Ser

vice

for

min

imum

of t

hree

ye

ars c

onse

cutiv

e ou

tsta

ndin

g pe

rfor

man

ce.

•Aw

ard

full

mar

k fo

r PE

Sco

re d

urin

g op

en

com

petiti

ons.

•Aw

ard

95%

mar

ks

for P

E ra

ting

durin

g op

en c

ompe

tition

s.•

Nor

mal

Pro

moti

on.

•Aw

ard

80%

m

arks

for

PE ra

ting

durin

g op

en

com

petiti

on.

•N

orm

al

Prom

otion

.

•N

ot e

ligib

le to

pa

rtici

pate

in a

ny

open

com

petiti

on

for n

ext o

ne y

ear.

•N

ot a

llow

ed to

hea

d th

e Ag

ency

/sec

tor

•Pr

ovid

e in

cou

ntry

ta

rget

ed c

apac

ity

deve

lopm

ent

prog

ram

.•

Refe

r him

/her

to

rele

vant

aut

horit

y.


| 30 | Page

Man

agem

ent

Posi

tion

Leve

lPr

ofile

HR A

ction

s

Out

stan

ding

Very

Goo

dG

ood

Nee

d Im

prov

emen

t

Spec

ialis

tES

3 - E

S1Pr

oxy

Scor

e•

Reco

mm

end

appr

opria

te C

ivil

Serv

ice

Awar

d fo

r Ex

celle

nt S

ervi

ce fo

r m

inim

um o

f thr

ee

year

s con

secu

tive

outs

tand

ing

perf

orm

ance

.•

Cons

ider

/ rec

omm

end

for n

ext l

evel

pr

omoti

on.

•Ta

rget

ed L

eade

rshi

p Tr

aini

ng.

Oth

er c

ondi

tions

as

per P

rom

otion

rule

sh

all a

pply.

•Ta

rget

ed

spec

ializ

ed

Trai

ning

s.•

Nor

mal

Pro

moti

on.

O

ther

con

ditio

ns a

s pe

r Pro

moti

on ru

le

shal

l app

ly.

•Ta

rget

ed

spec

ializ

ed

Trai

ning

s.•

Nor

mal

Pr

omoti

on.

Oth

er

cond

ition

s as

per P

rom

otion

ru

le sh

all

appl

y.

•W

ill b

e on

Wai

ting

list.

(Cla

uses

from

BC

SR o

n w

aitin

g lis

t sh

all a

pply

).•

Refe

r him

/ her

to

rele

vant

aut

horit

y.

Pool

for

Mod

erati

on

Exer

cise

Pool

ed

Empl

oyee

s (S

5 - P

1(s)

P1 sp

ecia

list

positi

on

not h

eadi

ng

divi

sion,

O

ther

s

•M

erito

rious

Pro

moti

on

if 3

cons

ecuti

ve

year

s of o

utst

andi

ng

perf

orm

ance

. Oth

er

cond

ition

s as p

er

Prom

otion

rule

shal

l ap

ply

for P

1 Sp

ecia

list.

•Aw

ard

full

mar

k fo

r PE

ratin

g du

ring

open

co

mpe

tition

s.

•Aw

ard

95%

mar

ks

for P

E ra

ting

durin

g op

en c

ompe

tition

s.

•N

orm

al P

rom

otion

Oth

er c

ondi

tions

as

per P

rom

otion

rule

sh

all a

pply.

•Aw

ard

80%

m

arks

for

PE ra

ting

durin

g op

en

com

petiti

ons.

•N

I yea

r to

be

cons

ider

ed a

s in

activ

e ye

ar fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

pr

omoti

on o

nly.

•Aw

ard

40%

mar

ks

for P

E ra

ting

durin

g op

en c

ompe

tition

s fo

r lon

g te

rm

trai

ning

.


Page | 31 |

Man

agem

ent

Posi

tion

Leve

lPr

ofile

HR A

ction

s

Out

stan

ding

Very

Goo

dG

ood

Nee

d Im

prov

emen

t

•Re

cogn

ition

with

Ce

rtific

ate

and

othe

r aw

ards

by

the

Agen

cy

thro

ugh

HRC.

•M

ay b

e as

signe

d as

m

ento

r/gu

ide

in th

e Ag

ency

to c

o-w

ork

with

the

NI c

ateg

ory.

•N

orm

al

prom

otion

. O

ther

co

nditi

ons a

s pe

r Pro

moti

on

rule

shal

l ap

ply.

•.P

rovi

de b

asic

ca

pabi

lity

deve

lopm

ent

oppo

rtun

ities

fo

r per

form

ance

im

prov

emen

t.•

Attac

h th

e em

ploy

ees t

o a

men

tor w

ithin

th

e Ag

ency

/De

pt./

Div

ision

fo

r Men

torin

g,

coac

hing

and

gu

idan

ce.

•Re

fer h

im/h

er to

re

leva

nt a

utho

rity.

•Re

depl

oy/R

etra

in

the

empl

oyee

w

here

ver h

is/he

r ski

lls a

re

appr

opria

te.


| 32 | Page

Man

agem

ent

Posi

tion

Leve

lPr

ofile

HR A

ction

s

Out

stan

ding

Very

Goo

dG

ood

Nee

d Im

prov

emen

t

Ope

ratio

nal

Cate

gory

O4-

O1

Driv

er,

Disp

atch

er,

Rece

ption

ist,

Tele

phon

e O

pera

tor)

1.

Rati

ng o

f Goo

d an

d ab

ove,

elig

ible

for n

orm

al p

rom

otion

2. N

I yea

r to

be c

onsid

ered

as i

nacti

ve y

ear f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

pro

moti

on o

nly.

Not

e5

1.

Civ

il se

rvan

ts c

an b

e pu

t und

er W

aitin

g Li

st fo

r rea

sons

oth

er th

an p

erfo

rman

ce a

s pe

r rel

evan

t sec

tions

of B

CSR

.2.

Fo

r all

Prom

otio

n, re

leva

nt c

laus

es o

n pr

omot

ion

from

the

BCSR

sha

ll ap

ply

3.

All c

ivil

serv

ants

fallin

g un

der “

Nee

d Im

prov

emen

t” ca

tego

ry fo

r thr

ee c

onse

cutiv

e ye

ars

shal

l be

Com

puls

orily

Ret

ired

4.

All M

erito

rious

pro

mot

ion

for c

ivil s

erva

nts

in s

ched

ule

A (n

on-m

oder

atio

n Ag

enci

es) a

nd O

pera

tiona

l cat

egor

y ci

vil s

erva

nts

shal

l be

proc

esse

d th

roug

h R

CSC

.


Page | 33 |

4.2. Appeal Procedure A civil servant who is not satisfied with the decision of the Moderation

Committee can appeal to the relevant authority as detailed below. However, the appeal submitted shall be supported by sufficient evidence of injustice.

4.2.1 Appellate Authority to Review Appeal Cases of Moderation Exercisea. The HRC of the respective Agency shall be the first level to review

and decide the appeal pertaining to Moderation Exercise.b. RCSC shall be the highest appellate authority to review the decision

rendered by the HRC of the Agency, if there is any appeal against the decision of HRC.

4.2.2. Appeal Perioda. Aggrieved civil servant shall appeal to respective HRC within 10

working days from the declaration of moderation results.b. Any appeal to RCSC against the decision of HRC shall be submitted

within 10 working days from the day the decision of HRC is conveyed formally.

4.2.3. Appeal Process

4.2.3.1. HRC of the Working Agencya. The HRC of the working Agency shall deliberate on the

appeal within 5 working days from the date of the appeal received, and form Investigation Committee.

b. The investigation, if required, shall be conducted within 10 working days after the formation of the Investigation Committee.

c. The Investigation Committee shall submit investigation report within 5 working days after the investigation.

d. The HRC, after receiving the investigation report, shall render final decision within 5 working days.

e. The HRC shall convey the decision to the appellant .

4.2.3.2. Royal Civil Service Commissiona. A civil servant aggrieved by the decision of the HRC of

the Agency shall appeal to the RCSC within 10 working days after receiving the decision of the HRC.

b. The RCSC shall deliberate on the appeal within 15 working days from the date of the appeal received, and assign an Investigator or form an Investigation Committee, if required.

c. The Investigator/Investigation Committee shall submit investigation report within 5 working days after completion of the investigation.

d. The RCSC, after receiving the investigation report, shall render final decision within 15 working days.

e. The decision of the RCSC shall be final and binding.


| 34 | Page

4.3

MaX

Cal

enda

r for

Civ

il Se

rvan

ts: F

isca

l Yea

r (Ju

ly-J

une)

Sl. N

oAc

tiviti

esRe

spon

sibl

eJu

lAu

gSe

pO

ctN

ovDe

cJa

nFe

bM

arAp

rM

ayJu

n

1

Deve

lop

IWPs

and

cor

e co

mpe

tenc

ies f

or th

e

fisca

l yea

r.Su

bmit

Appr

aisa

l For

m

onlin

e.

Supe

rviso

r and

co

ncer

ned

civi

l se

rvan

ts

2M

id-Y

ear R

evie

w o

f Ap

prai

sal F

orm

Supe

rviso

r and

co

ncer

ned

civi

l se

rvan

ts

3

Eval

uatio

n of

Pe

rfor

man

ce A

ppra

isal

Form

for p

rece

ding

fisc

al

year

Supe

rviso

r

4

Mod

erati

on E

xerc

ise

for t

he e

valu

ation

of

per

form

ance

for

pr

eced

ing

fisca

l yea

r

Mod

erati

on C

omm

ittee

5U

pdat

e Sc

ore

of M

odEx

on

MaX

onl

ine

Syst

emHR

D

6Pe

rfor

man

ce li

nked

HR

Actio

nsHR

D


Page | 35 |

4.4.

M

aX C

alen

dar f

or C

ivil

Serv

ants

in S

choo

ls: C

alen

dar Y

ear (

Janu

ary-

Dece

mbe

r)

Sl.

No

Activ

ities

Resp

onsi

ble

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1

Deve

lop

IWPs

and

cor

e co

mpe

tenc

ies f

or th

e cu

rren

t yea

r

Subm

it Ap

prai

sal F

orm

on

line

Supe

rviso

r and

co

ncer

ned

civi

l se

rvan

ts

2M

id-Y

ear R

evie

w o

f Ap

prai

sal F

orm

Supe

rviso

r &

conc

erne

d ci

vil

serv

ants

3Ev

alua

tion

of A

ppra

isal

Form

for t

he c

urre

nt

year

Su

perv

isor

4

Mod

erati

on E

xerc

ise

for t

he e

valu

ation

of

perf

orm

ance

for t

he

prec

edin

g ye

ar

Mod

erati

on

Com

mitt

ee

5U

pdat

e Sc

ore

of M

odEx

on

MaX

onl

ine

Syst

emHR

D

6Pe

rfor

man

ce li

nked

HR

Actio

nsHR

D


| 36 | Page

Annexure 1: Performance Appraisal Form for Professional and Management, and Specialist Services Group

Section A: Employee DetailsAPPRAISAL PERIOD:EMPLOYEE ID No.NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE:

POSITION TITLE: POSITION LEVEL:DIVISION: DEPARTMENT/AGENCY:

Assurance on Accuracy of CV: I have verified my CV in CSIS and hereby declare that the information is correct as of (dd/mm/yy) …………………………….

SECTION B: Performance Assessment (70%)

Division Output Activities

Targets Values* Target Achieved specified

by individ-ual

Employee’s Feedback/ comment/

justification

Score by

Super-visor4

Level 4=[3.00-

4.00]

Level 3=2.00-

2.99]

Level 2=[1.00 -1.99]

Level 1[<=0.99]

1.1.1. ………

1.2. ………

2.2.1 ………

2.2 ………

Total

Score B (Total score/No. of activities)

*It is not necessary to fill target values for all four Levels. However, it is mandatory to set the target value for Level 2.


Page | 37 |

SECT

ION

C: C

ompe

tenc

y Be

havi

or (3

0%)

Pote

ntial

As

sess

men

t Are

aQ

ualit

y &

Des

crip

tion

[3.0

0-4.

00]

Leve

l 4

[2.0

0-2.

99]

Leve

l 3

[1.0

0-1.

99]

Leve

l 2

[<=.

99]

Lev

el 1

Scor

e by

su

perv

isor

w

ith

Evid

ence

of

Beha

vior

1.An

alyti

cal

and

Inte

llect

ual

Capa

city

1.1.

Sen

se o

f Pe

rspe

ctive

Dem

onst

rate

s in

telle

ctua

l flex

ibili

ty,

imag

inati

on a

nd

soci

o-po

litica

l se

nsiti

vity

in

deve

lopi

ng a

hol

istic

appr

ecia

tion

of

the

situa

tion

and

in g

ener

ating

in

nova

tive

idea

s and

so

lutio

ns th

at b

ring

prac

tical

ben

efit.

• T

hink

s ahe

ad

to a

ntici

pate

iss

ues,

iden

tifies

op

port

uniti

es

and

appr

ecia

tes

impl

icati

ons.

• E

xerc

ises i

mag

inati

on

and

crea

tivity

to

gene

rate

a ra

nge

of

alte

rnati

ve so

lutio

ns.

• T

akes

stra

tegi

c pe

rspe

ctive

whe

n fo

rmul

ating

pro

posa

ls an

d re

com

men

datio

ns.

• Ta

kes s

trat

egic

st

eps a

nd w

ays

to a

chie

ve a

nd

enha

nce

the

achi

evem

ent o

f th

e ta

rget

.

• N

eed

guid

ance

in

iden

tifyi

ng th

e op

port

uniti

es

and

solu

tions

to

solv

e w

ork

tow

ards

ac

hiev

ing

the

targ

et.

• Is

has

ty in

fo

rmin

g op

inio

ns

and

judg

men

t ta

king

acti

on

befo

re a

sses

sing

impl

icati

ons a

nd

focu

ses o

n da

y to

day

pro

blem

s at

the

expe

nse

of lo

nger

term

pl

anni

ng.

1.2

Anal

ysis

and

Ju

dgm

ent

Dem

onst

rate

s pow

er

of a

naly

sis a

nd a

se

nse

of re

ality

in

the

cont

ext o

f co

mpl

ex is

sues

and

so

lutio

ns.

• A

naly

ses s

ituati

ons

and

prob

lem

s in

a sy

stem

atic

and

logi

cal

man

ner t

o id

entif

y ke

y iss

ues.

• M

akes

soun

d ju

dgm

ent b

ased

on

rigor

ous,

inde

pend

ent

thin

king

.•

Mak

es g

ood

use

of b

ackg

roun

d kn

owle

dge.

• Pr

opos

es st

rong

ju

dgm

enta

l. re

com

men

datio

n to

war

ds

over

all i

ssue

s fo

r a re

alisti

c ac

hiev

emen

t.

• Li

mite

d to

su

perv

isory

di

recti

ves i

n ta

cklin

g th

e pr

oble

ms a

nd

issue

s and

do

es p

rovi

de

any

stro

ng

judg

men

tal.

reco

mm

enda

tion

to o

wns

issu

es.

• M

akes

ass

umpti

on

base

d on

su

perfi

cial

an

alys

is.•

Spen

ds to

o lo

ng

on a

naly

sis a

nd

delib

erati

ng a

t th

e ex

pens

e of

re

spon

ding

in a

tim

ely

fash

ion.


| 38 | Page

Pote

ntial

As

sess

men

t Are

aQ

ualit

y &

Des

crip

tion

[3.0

0-4.

00]

Leve

l 4

[2.0

0-2.

99]

Leve

l 3

[1.0

0-1.

99]

Leve

l 2

[<=.

99]

Lev

el 1

Scor

e by

su

perv

isor

w

ith

Evid

ence

of

Beha

vior

2.In

fluen

ce

&

Colla

bora

tion

2.1.

Influ

enci

ng a

nd

Insp

iring

Pers

uade

s,

moti

vate

s and

in

spire

s oth

ers,

de

velo

ping

a se

nse

of p

urpo

se a

nd

unity

.

• Pu

ts te

am’s

succ

ess

ahea

d of

per

sona

l su

cces

s.•

Wor

ks to

reso

lve

confl

ict a

mon

g te

am

mem

bers

by

show

ing

resp

ect f

or o

ther

s’

opin

ions

and

wor

king

to

war

d m

utua

lly

agre

eabl

e so

lutio

ns.

• M

aint

ains

wid

e ne

twor

k of

go

od w

orki

ng

rela

tions

hip

with

pee

rs,

subo

rdin

ates

, su

perv

isor,

cust

omer

and

cl

ient

s.

• M

akes

con

siste

nt

effor

ts to

ge

nera

te tr

ust

and

co-o

pera

tion

to fo

ster

pos

itive

an

d pr

oduc

tive

team

spiri

t.

• S

ticks

to

good

wor

king

re

latio

nshi

p w

ith m

ost o

f th

e pe

ers,

su

bord

inat

es,

supe

rviso

r and

th

e cl

ient

s.•

Initi

ates

en

cour

agem

ent

of tr

ust a

nd

coop

erati

on

amon

g ot

hers

.

• B

lam

e ot

hers

for

mist

akes

and

/or

setb

acks

that

ne

gativ

ely

affec

t te

am re

sults

.

2.2

Colla

bora

tion

&

Enga

gem

ent

Take

s lea

d in

co

mm

unic

ation

an

d co

nsul

tatio

n,

enga

ging

with

a

wid

e ra

nge

of

supe

rviso

rs, p

eers

an

d st

akeh

olde

rs

acro

ss d

ivisi

on,

depa

rtm

ent,

and

Agen

cies

.

• He

lps t

o ke

ep te

am

perf

orm

ance

and

m

oral

e hi

gh e

ven

durin

g pe

riods

of

inte

nse

pres

sure

or

heav

y w

orkl

oad.

• Ac

tivel

y se

eks

deve

lopm

ent

oppo

rtun

ities

for

team

.

• De

mon

stra

te

to w

ork

in a

te

am a

nd fo

ster

sh

arin

g of

w

orkl

oads

whi

le

he/s

he is

not

uti

lized

.

• Co

nfine

s to

his/

her o

wn

assig

ned

task

and

doe

s no

t ext

end

and

seek

s sup

port

to

colla

bora

te a

nd

enga

ge in

a te

am.

• W

ork

only

to se

rve

self-

inte

rest

s and

m

eet p

erso

nal

goal

s.•B

lam

e ot

hers

for

mist

akes

and

/or

setb

acks

that

ne

gativ

ely

affec

t te

am re

sults

.


Page | 39 |

Pote

ntial

As

sess

men

t Are

aQ

ualit

y &

Des

crip

tion

[3.0

0-4.

00]

Leve

l 4

[2.0

0-2.

99]

Leve

l 3

[1.0

0-1.

99]

Leve

l 2

[<=.

99]

Lev

el 1

Scor

e by

su

perv

isor

w

ith

Evid

ence

of

Beha

vior

3. M

otiva

tion

for

Exce

llenc

e

3.1.

Ach

ievi

ng

Resu

ltsSt

rives

har

d to

ac

hiev

e fi

ve y

ear

and

annu

al ta

rget

s by

focu

sing

on

natio

nal i

nter

est t

o en

sure

effi

cien

cy

and

high

stan

dard

s of

del

iver

y.

• Ac

hiev

es a

ll ta

rget

s set

w

ithin

the

allo

cate

d re

sour

ces w

ithou

t co

mpr

omisi

ng o

n th

e qu

ality

.•

Min

imize

s was

te o

f his

Agen

cy a

nd N

ation

’s re

sour

ces

• Al

way

s loo

ks

tow

ards

ac

hiev

ing

the

resu

lt w

ith b

est

qual

ity w

ithin

th

e re

sour

ces

unde

r his/

her

cont

rol.

• W

ork

hard

to

war

ds

achi

evin

g th

e re

sults

but

nee

ds

extr

a re

sour

ces

to a

chie

ve it

.

• Do

es n

ot d

eliv

er

as p

er th

e se

t ta

rget

s and

bud

get

allo

cate

d.•

Was

tes h

is Ag

ency

an

d na

tion’

s re

sour

ces.

3.2

Com

mitm

ent

and

Acco

unta

bilit

y

Dem

onst

rate

s pe

rson

al in

tegr

ity

and

com

mitm

ent

to se

rvin

g Bh

utan

’s na

tiona

l int

eres

t.

• U

phol

ds b

oth

expl

icit

and

impl

icit

term

s an

d un

ders

tand

ings

he

has

with

the

Roya

l Gov

ernm

ent,

publ

ic, f

amily

, Age

ncy,

supe

riors

, pee

rs,

subo

rdin

ates

and

cl

ient

s.•

Read

y an

d w

illin

g to

take

add

ition

al

resp

onsib

ility

by

one’

s ow

n in

itiati

ves.

• De

mon

stra

te

stro

ng b

ond

tow

ards

th

e Ro

yal

gove

rnm

ent

and

upho

ld th

e be

long

ingn

ess

tow

ards

the

Nati

on a

s a

fam

ily.

• N

eeds

gui

danc

e to

take

the

initi

ative

s.

• U

phol

ds th

e be

long

ingn

ess

tow

ards

the

Nati

on a

s a fa

mily

as

and

whe

n re

quire

d on

ly

and

resis

t to

take

in

itiati

ves .

• Br

each

the

norm

s an

d va

lues

of t

he

soci

ety.

• Sp

eaks

and

act

s in

a w

ay th

at is

not

in

con

form

ity to

th

e Ci

vil S

ervi

ce

Valu

es o

f int

egrit

y, pr

ofes

siona

lism

, ho

nest

y, im

parti

ality

, ac

coun

tabi

lity,

lo

yalty

, and

le

ader

ship

.•

Does

not

pa

rtici

pate

n a

ny

extr

a as

signm

ents

.To

tal

Scor

e C

(Tot

al sc

ore/

No.

of c

ompe

tenc

y be

havi

or)


| 40 | Page


Particular Score received Preliminary Score Supervisor’s

Comment, if any

B. Performance 70% of Score B=………………

C. Competency Behaviors

30% of Score C=……………….

Total

Employee SignatureDate ____________________________________________________________________

Supervisor SignatureDate

Overall Rating Table:

Performer category Definition Rating scale

1. Level 4 Achieved exceptionally high level of performance 3.00-4.002. Level 3 Performed at higher level than required 2.00-2.993. Level 2 Employee fulfilled requirement of the job 1.00-1.994. Level 1 Results/Behavior far below performance requirement <=0.99

Note: The Preliminary Performance Evaluation Score shall be an input to the Moderation Exercise for assigning the final rating.


Page | 41 |

Annexure 2: Performance Appraisal Form for Supervisory and Support Services Group

Section A: Employee Details


Assurance on Accuracy of CV: I have verified my CV in CSIS and hereby declare that the information is correct as of (dd/mm/yy)…………………………….

SECTION B: Performance Assessment (Individual Work Plan) (70%)

Division Output Activities

Targets Values*Target

Achieved specified by individual

Employ-ee’s

Feedback/ comment/ justifica-

tion

Score by Supervi-

sorLevel

4=[3.00-4.00]

Level 3=2.00-

2.99]

Level 2=[1.00 -1.99]

Level 1[<=0.99]

1.1.1. ……

1.2……

2.2.1 ……

2.2 ……

Total

Score B (Total score/No. of activities)

*It is not necessary to fill target values for all four levels. However, it is mandatory to set the target value for Level 2.


| 42 | Page

SECT

ION

C: C

ompe

tenc

y Be

havi

or (3

0%)

Com

pete

ncy

Beha

vior

Desc

riptio

n[3

.00-

4.00

]Le

vel 4

[2.0

0-2.

99]

Leve

l 3[1

.00-

1.99

]Le

vel 2

[<=0

.99]

Leve

l 1

Scor

e by

su

perv

isor

w

ith

Evid

ence

of

Beha

vior

1.An

alyti

cal

Skill

s

Dem

onst

rate

s sen

se

of u

nder

stan

ding

an

d ap

prec

iatio

n of

one

’s w

ork

to

mee

t org

aniza

tiona

l ob

jecti

ves a

nd

resu

lts.

• M

akes

criti

cal

judg

men

t on

her/

his c

ontr

ibuti

on to

or

gani

zatio

n ba

sed

on in

depe

nden

t th

inki

ng b

y m

akin

g go

od u

se

of b

ackg

roun

d kn

owle

dge.

• M

akes

stro

ng

judg

emen

ts

base

d on

the

wor

k ex

perie

nces

up

on re

ceiv

ing

the

guid

ance

fr

om su

perv

isor

to c

arry

the

wor

k ac

tiviti

es.

• M

akes

judg

emen

ts b

y us

ing

limite

d w

ork

know

ledg

e an

d tim

ely

supe

rvisi

on re

quire

d to

car

ry th

e w

ork

activ

ities

.

• C

arrie

s ou

t wor

k ac

tiviti

es

with

out

criti

cal

judg

emen

t an

d no

t pu

tting

th

e w

ork

know

ledg

e in

us

e.

2. P

lann

ing

&

Org

aniz

ing

Dem

onst

rate

s ab

ility

to p

lan

and

orga

nize

wor

k ac

tiviti

es a

roun

d or

gani

zatio

n’s

obje

ctive

s mak

ing

optim

um u

se o

f re

sour

ces a

nd ti

me.

• E

very

day

acti

vitie

s ar

e gu

ided

by

meti

culo

us

wor

k pl

ans a

nd

dem

onst

rate

s goo

d tim

e m

anag

emen

t sk

ills t

o m

eet

Agen

cy’s

obje

ctive

s by

usin

g av

aila

ble

reso

urce

s opti

mal

ly

to

mee

t wor

k ac

tiviti

es w

ithou

t co

mpr

omisi

ng th

e qu

ality

of t

he w

ork

outp

ut.

• S

yste

mati

c w

ork

Plan

ning

on

the

wor

k ac

tiviti

es

are

draw

n cl

early

and

ne

eds m

inim

um

supe

rvisi

on a

nd

reso

urce

and

m

aint

ain

qual

ity

of th

e w

ork.

• W

ork

plan

are

m

aint

aine

d bu

t are

not

fo

llow

ed a

nd re

quire

s ex

tra

reso

urce

s to

carr

y th

e ac

tiviti

es

and

qual

ity o

f wor

k co

mpr

omise

d.

• D

oes n

ot

follo

w c

lear

w

ork

plan

an

d m

ostly

in

volv

ed in

ad

hoc

activ

ities

an

d w

ork

are

not u

p to

th

e ex

pect

ed

qual

ity.


Page | 43 |

SECT

ION

C: C

ompe

tenc

y Be

havi

or (3

0%)

Com

pete

ncy

Beha

vior

Desc

riptio

n[3

.00-

4.00

]Le

vel 4

[2.0

0-2.

99]

Leve

l 3[1

.00-

1.99

]Le

vel 2

[<=0

.99]

Leve

l 1

Scor

e by

su

perv

isor

w

ith

Evid

ence

of

Beha

vior

1.An

alyti

cal

Skill

s

Dem

onst

rate

s sen

se

of u

nder

stan

ding

an

d ap

prec

iatio

n of

one

’s w

ork

to

mee

t org

aniza

tiona

l ob

jecti

ves a

nd

resu

lts.

• M

akes

criti

cal

judg

men

t on

her/

his c

ontr

ibuti

on to

or

gani

zatio

n ba

sed

on in

depe

nden

t th

inki

ng b

y m

akin

g go

od u

se

of b

ackg

roun

d kn

owle

dge.

• M

akes

stro

ng

judg

emen

ts

base

d on

the

wor

k ex

perie

nces

up

on re

ceiv

ing

the

guid

ance

fr

om su

perv

isor

to c

arry

the

wor

k ac

tiviti

es.

• M

akes

judg

emen

ts b

y us

ing

limite

d w

ork

know

ledg

e an

d tim

ely

supe

rvisi

on re

quire

d to

car

ry th

e w

ork

activ

ities

.

• C

arrie

s ou

t wor

k ac

tiviti

es

with

out

criti

cal

judg

emen

t an

d no

t pu

tting

th

e w

ork

know

ledg

e in

us

e.

2. P

lann

ing

&

Org

aniz

ing

Dem

onst

rate

s ab

ility

to p

lan

and

orga

nize

wor

k ac

tiviti

es a

roun

d or

gani

zatio

n’s

obje

ctive

s mak

ing

optim

um u

se o

f re

sour

ces a

nd ti

me.

• E

very

day

acti

vitie

s ar

e gu

ided

by

meti

culo

us

wor

k pl

ans a

nd

dem

onst

rate

s goo

d tim

e m

anag

emen

t sk

ills t

o m

eet

Agen

cy’s

obje

ctive

s by

usin

g av

aila

ble

reso

urce

s opti

mal

ly

to

mee

t wor

k ac

tiviti

es w

ithou

t co

mpr

omisi

ng th

e qu

ality

of t

he w

ork

outp

ut.

• S

yste

mati

c w

ork

Plan

ning

on

the

wor

k ac

tiviti

es

are

draw

n cl

early

and

ne

eds m

inim

um

supe

rvisi

on a

nd

reso

urce

and

m

aint

ain

qual

ity

of th

e w

ork.

• W

ork

plan

are

m

aint

aine

d bu

t are

not

fo

llow

ed a

nd re

quire

s ex

tra

reso

urce

s to

carr

y th

e ac

tiviti

es

and

qual

ity o

f wor

k co

mpr

omise

d.

• D

oes n

ot

follo

w c

lear

w

ork

plan

an

d m

ostly

in

volv

ed in

ad

hoc

activ

ities

an

d w

ork

are

not u

p to

th

e ex

pect

ed

qual

ity.

Com

pete

ncy

Beha

vior

Desc

riptio

n[3

.00-

4.00

]Le

vel 4

[2.0

0-2.

99]

Leve

l 3[1

.00-

1.99

]Le

vel 2

[<=0

.99]

Leve

l 1

Scor

e by

su

perv

isor

w

ith

Evid

ence

of

Beha

vior

3.De

cisi

vene

ss

Dem

onst

rate

s so

und

judg

men

t to

iden

tify

and

reco

gnize

pro

blem

s an

d so

lutio

ns, a

nd

esca

late

them

to

app

ropr

iate

au

thor

ity.

• S

ubm

its p

robl

ems

and

reco

mm

ende

d so

lutio

ns

befo

re ti

me

for s

uper

viso

ry

inte

rven

tion.

• S

ubm

its

prob

lem

s and

re

com

men

ded

solu

tions

on

time

for s

uper

viso

ry

advi

ce.

• S

ubm

its p

robl

ems

with

out

reco

mm

enda

tion

on

time.

• W

aits

for

supe

rviso

ry

inte

rven

tion

to re

solv

e iss

ues.

4.Le

ader

ship

&

Influ

enci

ng

Skill

s

Dem

onst

rate

s ur

genc

y an

d pr

o-ac

tivel

y ta

kes l

ead

in a

ssig

ned

wor

k ac

tiviti

es a

nd so

licits

su

ppor

t.

• In

itiat

es a

ssig

ned

wor

ks p

ro-a

ctive

ly,

iden

tifies

and

trie

s to

solv

e bo

ttle

neck

s in

his/

her o

wn

area

of

wor

k.

• W

ork

assig

ned

are

take

n w

ith st

rong

re

spon

sibili

ty to

be

com

plet

ed.

• A

ny a

ssig

ned

wor

k ar

e do

ne b

ut re

quiri

ng a

m

inim

um su

perv

ision

.

• In

itiat

es

assig

ned

wor

k w

ith re

min

der

only.

5.In

terp

erso

nal

Skill

Dem

onst

rate

s ab

ility

to w

ork

in

team

s and

gar

ner

supp

ort,

build

re

latio

nshi

p an

d de

velo

p co

ngen

ial

wor

k en

viro

nmen

t.

• A

chie

ves i

ndiv

idua

l pe

rfor

man

ce

targ

ets w

hile

m

aint

aini

ng fr

iend

ly

rela

tions

hip

with

in

and

outs

ide

Agen

cy

• A

chie

ves

indi

vidu

al

perf

orm

ance

with

go

od re

latio

nshi

p w

ithin

but

lim

ited

leve

l of

inte

rper

sona

l sk

ills o

utsid

e Ag

ency

.

• A

chie

ves i

ndiv

idua

l pe

rfor

man

ce w

ith

limite

d re

latio

nshi

p w

ithin

and

out

side

Agen

cy.

• W

orks

onl

y to

se

rve

self-

inte

rest

and

m

eet p

erso

nal

goal

s.


| 44 | Page

Com

pete

ncy

Beha

vior

Desc

riptio

n[3

.00-

4.00

]Le

vel 4

[2.0

0-2.

99]

Leve

l 3[1

.00-

1.99

]Le

vel 2

[<=0

.99]

Leve

l 1

Scor

e by

su

perv

isor

w

ith

Evid

ence

of

Beha

vior

6.O

ral/

Writt

en

com

mun

icati

on

Dem

onst

rate

s abi

lity

to a

rticu

late

one

’s id

eas,

vie

ws a

nd

opin

ions

cle

arly

and

co

ncise

ly b

oth

in

oral

and

in w

riting

.

• Ar

ticul

ates

in

form

ation

to

othe

rs in

lang

uage

th

at is

cle

ar,

conc

ise a

nd e

asy

to

unde

rsta

nd.

• A

rticu

late

s in

form

ation

to

oth

er in

la

ngua

ges t

hat i

s un

ders

tand

able

.

• A

rticu

late

s inf

orm

ation

to

oth

er in

lim

ited

lang

uage

lim

ited

unto

his/

her l

evel

of

unde

rsta

ndin

g.

• Do

es n

ot

artic

ulat

e in

form

ation

th

at is

cle

ar

and

conc

ise.

Tota

l

Scor

e C

(Tot

al sc

ore/

No

of C

ompe

tenc

y Be

havi

or)


Page | 45 |


Particular Score Received Preliminary Score Supervisor’s

Comment, if any

B. Performance 70% of Score B=………………

C. Competency Behaviors 30% of Score C=……………….

Total

Employee SignatureDate ____________________________________________________________________

Supervisor SignatureDate


Performer Category Definition Rating Scale

1. Level 4 Achieved exceptionally high level of performance 3.00-4.00

2. Level 3 Performed at higher level than required 2.00-2.99

3. Level 2 Employee fulfilled requirement of the job 1.00-1.99

4. Level 1 Results/Behavior far below performance requirement <=0.99

Note: The Preliminary Performance Evaluation Score shall be an input to the Moderation Exercise for assigning the final rating.


| 46 | Page

Annexure 3: Performance Appraisal Form for Operational Category


Assurance on Accuracy of CV: I have verified my CV in CSIS and hereby declare that the information is correct as of (dd/mm/yy) …………………………….

Competency Behavior Description

Rating by Supervisor

(0-4)Comments

1.Ethics & Integrity

Earns others’ trust and respect through consistent honesty and professionalism in all interactions

2.Communication Skills

The ability to convey information to others effectively and efficiently

3.Service Focus Values and delivers quality service to all4.Team Work Promotes cooperation and commitment

within a team5.Self-Management

Manages own time, priorities, and resources to provide quality services

6.Safety Focus Adheres to all workplace and work safety laws, regulations, standards, and practices

Total RatingAverage Rating = Total Rating/6

(Signature of Employee) (Name and Signature of Supervisor)


Performer category Definition Rating scale

1.Outstanding Achieved exceptionally high level of performance 3.00-4.00

2. Very Good Performed at higher level than required 2.00-2.99

3. Good Employee fulfilled requirement of the job 1.00-1.994.Needs Improvement Results/Behavior far below performance requirement <=0.99


Page | 47 |

Annexure 4: Performance Calibration through the Moderation Exercise

Moderation Exercise is a process in which managers within an Agency, a Department or Division, whichever is applicable convenes together to discuss the performance of employees and establish consensus on ratings. The practice of Moderation Exercise refers to the steps taken to make sure that members of the Moderation Committee apply a consistent set of standards in finalizing ratings. The Moderation Exercise ensures:

• Differentiation of Categories of Performers; One of the primary goals of the Moderation Exercise is to effectively differentiate

high performers from average or poor performers so that high performers can be rewarded and retained, and non-performance are given targeted intervention. The performance score provided by managers on performance targets and Competency Behavior in the Performance Appraisal Forms are important data points in HR and leadership decision making. This data not only have an impact on promotion and compensation, but are considered in succession planning and the allocation of developmental resources.

• Improves the Objectivity and Accuracy of Performance Ratings; Moderation Exercise serves to increase the objectivity and accuracy of

performance ratings provided by managers. The moderation process helps to ensure that all employees are evaluated on the same criteria. The collective discussion regarding performance allows managers to have new insight into the performance of employees and reduce potential bias. Peer-to-peer discussion brings about transparency - calling attention to an individual manager’s tendency to rate leniently or harshly. Managers become accountable to each other for the performance appraisal ratings made for all employees.

• Clarifies Criteria for Performance Categorizations; and Moderation Exercise clarifies and reinforces the criteria for performance

categorizations across the management team. During the Moderation Exercise, managers will discuss the supporting reasons for the performance categorization ratings provided. This type of discussion builds a common language around defining performance expectations across all managers. As a result, managers will be better prepared to discuss the reasons behind ratings with employees and create development plans for ongoing performance improvement and career development. The support reasons can be presented in accordance to the discretion of the manager. One suggested format that could be applied by the manager when citing specific cases to substantiate the proposed performance categorization for the employee is as follows:

Brief description of the incident/case. Appraisal Forms can be used to note such incidences;

Description of the action taken by the employee (include the key challenges the employee had to overcome where appropriate); and


| 48 | Page

Description of the impact of the action taken by the employee. Quantify the impact where possible and establish link to the mission and/or core values of the organization.

● Increases Perceptions of Fairness. Together, the accuracy of performance categorization and the clarification of

performance criteria increase the likelihood for those employees to perceive the performance appraisal process is fair. Since compensation, promotion and succession decisions are based in part on performance categorizations, it is important that employees believe that they are being fairly evaluated by their Manager.


Page | 49 |

Annexure 5: Sample Meeting Agenda

Introduction ● Desired Outcomes of Meeting ● Joint Ownership● Confidentiality

The information discussed and the resulting outcomes should be kept confidential by all managers involved. Participants should be reminded of the expectation regarding confidentiality at the start of the meeting.

Clarify Standards Review of the ratings scale/s and scale definitions used in the performance evaluation process.

Performance Trends of Agency/Department/DivisionExamination of the performance distribution of the Agency/Department/Division including how the distribution compares to the previous performance period and/or desired distribution.

Alignment with Agency/Department/Division Results Discussion of the linkage between initial performance ratings with the results produced by the Agency/Department/Division.

Individual Presentation Review of each employee’s performance rating/s and the supporting rationale behind the rating/s.

ModerationModeration of ratings as necessary to accurately reflect performance over the performance period.

Discussion RecordsSecretariat to minute the details and evidences relating to the decisions leading to assignment of performance ratings, especially for Outstanding and Need Improvement Categories. Chairperson of meeting to vet and approve minutes.

Next Steps in the Performance Management Process Communication of finalized performance rating with the employee and discuss on follow-up developmental plans where appropriate (e.g. those rated as Need Improvement).


| 50 | Page

Annexure 6: Schedule A Agencies under Schedule A are:1. His Majesty’s Secretariat;2. His Majesty the Fourth Druk Gyalpo Secretariat;3. Office of Gyalpoi Zimpon;4. Anti-Corruption Commission;5. Royal Audit Authority;6. Office of the Attorney General;7. Supreme Court of Bhutan;8. High Court;9. District Court;10. Dungkhag Court;11. Bhutan Olympic Committee;12. Bhutan National Legal Institute;13. Royal Privy Council;14. Bhutan Health Trust Fund;15. Civil Society Organization Authority; and16. Bhutan Medical Health Council.

Note: For any open competition for scholarship or promotion at any level, the RCSC shall establish equivalency for PE rating of the civil servants under Schedule A during the selection process.

Documents

MANAGING FOR EXCELLENCE Manual - rcsc.gov.bt C: Competency Behavior (30%) ... Managing for cellence Manual Page | 3 | Chapter 1 ... the other three levels,