From Performance Appraisal to Performance Management: One Agency’s Experience Doug Cederblom Dan E, Pemer! This article first outlines recent suggestions for improving agencies’ performance appraisal systems: incorporating the developments of Total Quality Management (TQM) and core competencies into appraisals, and moving toward performance management. We then relate the expe- rience of a state enforcement agency in applying these suggestions. What began as an objective of updating officers’ performance appraisals to include recent agency developments, evolved into significantly over- hauling this appraisal system; adding a new performance mechanism at the manager level; and using both of these processes to drive the agency’s new strategic plan and promote “a different way of doing busi- ness.” This agency’s experience seems applicable beyond enforcement agencies, and relevant both for those wanting to move performance in new directions, and for those wanting to energize ongoing performance. Suggestions are offered for moving toward effective performance management. anagers and employees generally regard performance appraisals ambivalently, at best. Although most would acknowledge the value, in principle, of documenting, communicating about, and targeting areas of performance, many are also frustrated about the limited value, in actu- al practice, of performance appraisals in their organizations. Researchers agree. According to a recent major review of appraisal literature, “The appraisal of performance appraisals is not good...In fact, our review indicates that, regardless of a (appraisal) program's stated purpose, few studies show positive effects.”! What might public agencies do about their current appraisal systems? To address this question, this article first outlines recent suggestions regarding performance appraisals: 1) incorporate the developments of Total Quality Man- agement (TQM) and core competencies into appraisals; and 2) move toward performance management — coordinating appraisals and other mechanisms not only to appraise performance, but also to drive and manage performance Public Personne! Management Volume 31 No. 2 Summer 2002 131toward agency objectives. We then relate the experience of a state agency in applying these suggestions during a period of organizational change. Several authors have concluded it is futile to search for a single, simple solution to “the performance appraisal problem,” but one thing agencies can do is adjust their appraisal systems to changing needs and developments.23 Recent appraisal articles have suggested that appraisal systems incorporate the developments of TQM and core competencies. Cardy suggests that appraisal systems incorporate TQM principles by including system factors and consid- ering individual performance in a team or work unit context4 Bowen and Waldman offer several ways appraisal systems can be modified to address var- ious aspects of customer-oriented performance —a major focus of TQM efforts.5 Grote cites “core competencies” ~ critically important behaviors, skills, and attributes needed by all employees of the organization ~ as one of the sig- nificant recent developments of performance management’ He feels core competencies can be identified fairly easily in an agency and can then be high- lighted, communicated, and reinforced via the organization's performance appraisal system. Several authors have pointed out that most performance appraisal sys- tems do not tie individual goals and performance to organizational goals and performance.’® Typically, the completed performance appraisal formyinter- view is an isolated event focusing on the individual employee’s performance, independent of the agency’s strategy or direction. Compounding this “dis- connect,” most appraisals focus on the employee’s past performance, inde- pendent of the agency’s current and future direction. Accordingly, it is suggested that appraisal systems focus on linking the individual's goals/per- formance with the agency’s strategy and objectives, especially future goals/performance. This focus should increase the relevance of appraisals to managers and employees, and help channel everyone's efforts in common desired directions. The above suggestions certainly seem useful. Agencies applying these suggestions to their appraisal systems would then provide, at least, updated systems incorporating useful developments and systems tying individual efforts more closely to the direction of the agency. Agencies might also consider expanding beyond performance appraisal to performance management. Performance management refers to an umbrel- la of all organizational components and activities affecting individual, work group, arid agency performance. A performance management system would include performance appraisal, as well as other components such as strategic plans, manager accountability, pay, promotion, training/development, and dis- cipline. And, the system would coordinate these components effectively to improve organizational performance. Some of the problems and frustrations with performance appraisals involve mixed or conflicting purposes of appraisal systems ~ e.g., using appraisals both for feedback and development and for determining pay and promotion? Particularly in shifting from appraising to managing performance, agencies need to evaluate their appraisal systems in 132 lic Personnel Management Volume 31 No. 2 Summer 2002relation to these other components and determine appropriate purposes of appraisals from this wider perspective. Agencies attempting significant organizational change should consider the role of their appraisal system in relation to the desired change. The appraisal system may need to be modified to support the change. Further, a recent national benchmarking study of appraisal systems indicates that “best- practice” organizations use their appraisal process not only to support change efforts, but actually to drive organizational change. Following is a description of a state enforcement agency's experience over the past several years in dealing with the previous ideas and suggestions. What began as a fairly narrow objective of updating the officers’ appraisal sys- tem to fit agency developments more closely has evolved into a significant overhaul of this system — plus the addition of a completely new performance mechanism at the manager level. This overhauled appraisal system and new performance mechanism together are helping drive the agency’s new strate- gic plan and promote “a different way of doing business.” Organizational Context and Previous Appraisals The Washington State Patrol has long been a traditional organization, recognized for the courtesy and professionalism of its officers has consistently received high marks in citizen surveys. The agency has functioned primarily along the lines of an “expert, autonomous” model rather than a “community policing” model and lacked strong incentive to change. By 1997, however, sev- eral factors encouraged change: internal discontent about the agency’s lack of direction, an executive staff interested in agency improvement, a governor encouraging agencies to implement TQM practices, and a nationwide shift toward community policing. As a result, the agency initiated several develop- ments in 1997-1998: 1) an agency strategic plan, including objectives, action plans, and accountabilities; 2) the agency’s version of community policing - Problem Oriented Public Safety (POPS); and 3) management training and an agency-wide steering committee to implement TQM efforts. The performance appraisal picture for the agency’s officers at this time was conventional and limited: appraisal form/interview format for troopers and sergeants, but no formal appraisal for lieutenants or captains; appraisals focused on individual past performance, with little consideration of work unit context or tie to any direction of the agency; and appraisals often viewed as having little meaning or consequence. Development of New Appraisals Initially, the agency’s intent was to develop new appraisals for troop- ers and sergeants which would fit and support the agency developments of strategic planning, TQM, and POPS. Key elements of the strategic plans are district objectives, action plans, and performance measures. The principles of From Performance Appraisal to Performance Management 133TQM and POPS emphasize customer service focus, process improvement, innovative problem solving, and collaboration. The new appraisals were to incorporate these elements and principles. A committee was formed in 1998 to develop the new appraisals. The development process was highly collaborative and included input and partic- ipation of 13 officers, ranging from trooper through captain. Eight of the 13 officers were field officers, and several represented the Troopers and Sergeants Association. In developing the new appraisal system, the committee struggled with two of the suggestions cited above — core competencies in appraisals and determining appropriate purposes of appraisals. The agency was interested in ensuring competence and addressing liability in critical job practices such as use of force and high speed pursuits and proposed testing officers periodical- ly in these areas. Supervisors would test officers individually using a written test, correct any “wrong answers” immediately, and document results. Some officers were concerned the documented test results might be used adversely against officers in court proceedings. Others were concerned that including testing in the new appraisal would distract from other purpos- es of the appraisal (feedback, recognition, planning). It was resolved that supervisors could test officers at any time during the appraisal period, prefer- ably not during the appraisal interview, and document quiz outcomes on the new appraisal form, with the understanding that any noted deficiencies had been corrected. A atitical side issue regarding the purposes of the appraisals was “Should the new appraisals be included in determining promotion, especially promotion from the level of trooper to sergeant?” (Currently these promotions are determined by written exam and assessment center.) Supportive argu- ments included: ‘day-to-day performance at one level should be a factor in determining promotion to the next level; supervisors need the “leverage” of rating troopers’ promotability to help ensure good job performance of troop- ers; and unless job performance is included, a poor performing trooper could still do well on the exam and “fake out’ the assessment panel. These argu- ments were countered with: including job performance toward promotion makes sense in principle, but in practice it is very difficult to ensure consistent rating standards are applied by supervisors, especially with a new system; gains in supervisor leverage from using job performance ratings for promotion would be offset by morale problems resulting from perceived inconsistencies in the ratings; and the promotion system of written exam and assessment cen- ter is accepted by most officers as fair and effective. After many hours of dis- cussion, the decision was made not to use the new appraisals for promotion, at least not initially. 134 Public Personnel Management Volume 31 No. 2 Summer 2002The New Appraisals The new appraisals are comprised of three sections: 1) core dimen- sions intended to apply to all levels of officers; 2) a section focusing on offi- cers’ efforts toward local strategic objectives; and 3) a section for ensuring knowledge of critical job practices. Section 1. While intent on highlighting recent agency developments in the new appraisals, the committee also felt it was important to preserve and support core traditional values, such as courtesy, initiative, and integrity. Sec- tion I combines these core value dimensions with the newer POPS and TQM dimensions, namely: “problem solving skills,” “cultivating internal/external partnerships,” “interested/knowledgeable about citizen concerns,” and “con- tinuous performance improvement.” This section also includes a group of supervisor dimensions to be applied to sergeants. Section 2 applies the agency strategic plan to the local field level. A key agency strategic goal calls for implementing plans and efforts directed toward local public safety objectives. Each of the state’s eight districts is fur- ther divided into smaller geographical areas called APA's (autonomous patrol areas). Section 2 calls for officers in a given APA to cite their APA objectives; conduct a pre-appraisal discussion to plan and set expectations; document the individual officer’s efforts toward objectives; and evaluate the efforts, both by narrative and by ratings. Section 3 is used to document tested knowledge of critical job prac- tices, as discussed above. The new form thus includes two types of core com- petencies - the critical job practices, and the core value dimensions in Section 1 In developing the new form, the committee realized this new approach had ramifications well beyond simply implementing a new appraisal form. Internally, the agency culture has emphasized a fairly stan- dard approach to traffic safety — largely a one-on-one enforcement approach with traffic violators, with the toward objectives of reducing speeding, alco- hol-impaired driving, and collisions. While some sergeants have encouraged troopers toward quality efforts, others seemed to emphasize “numbers (con- tacts and citations) for the sake of numbers.” The new appraisal form, reflecting TQM and POPS principles, pro- motes a more varied approach, innovative methods, and a focus on effective efforts, rather than simply logging activity numbers. The old way of doing business resulted in officers gravitating toward “fishing holes,” where they could “produce numbers;” but these areas were not necessarily the main problem areas (collisions, congestion). The intent of the new system is to encourage officers to solicit citizen input and identify and deal effectively with local problems. Given the existing agency culture, the committee felt the new system would be welcomed by some, resisted by some, and confusing to others. At the least, the new system would be more demanding of any super- visors and officers operating in an automatic mode. From Performance Appraisal to Performance Management 135Externally, there was some concern whether the state legislature and other stakeholders would be supportive of this new approach. Traditionally, the agency reported standard output (activity) data - number of contacts and citations, and outcome data - number of collisions and serious injury/fatality collisions. If officers were to work on differing local problems with more var- ied, innovative methods, the traditional output numbers would likely decline. Further, it was unlikely the traditional statewide outcome data (collisions, seri- ous injuries) would show dramatic improvement, due to officers’ efforts being spread thinly across a broader array of problems and limited control over these outcomes. The committee discussed these concerns with the agency’s execu- tives and was advised to proceed in the direction in which it was headed. In the meantime, this new direction would be discussed with legislators and other stakeholders. The “Missing Link”: A New Performance Driver At this point, the committee realized the agency needed mechanisms or processes to drive this new way of doing business. The agency strategic plan had been published, districts and divisions were developing their own deriv- ative strategic plans, and most managers and employees had been introduced to the principles of TQM and POPS. However, additional methods were need- ed to “make the plans, TQM, and POPS happen.” A major finding in research on innovations in policing is that involvement and support of mid-managers is critical for significant change to be successful.!_ The new appraisal system could certainly be used to communicate and guide the new approaches at the trooper and sergeant level, and the executive level was encouraging. Howev- er, something was definitely missing at the mid-manager level to drive the new developments. Without drivers at this level, the new appraisals for troopers and sergeants would likely have a limited effect. The committee found a model for this missing link in the New York Police Department's Compstat system of policing.12 A key piece of the Comp- stat system is holding regular meetings in which managers present results face- to-face with peers and higher-level managers, usually in an intense, demanding atmosphere. The agency modified Compstat to fit its early stage of implementing the new developments: 1) district/division managers would give presentations every six months, after receiving, well in advance, a list of issues to be addressed in the presentations; 2) initially, issues would focus on efforts to implement the new developments, and on quality efforts toward objectives more than outcomes; 3) presentations would be structured and vis- ible, but less intense than in Compstat. The agency named its adaptation Strategic Advancement Forum (SAF). The first SAF presentations were held in early 2000, several months after man- agers received SAF orientation and a list of issues to be addressed in their pre- sentations. Each distric/division manager gave a 30-40 minute presentation, followed by 20-30 minutes of questions/discussion with peers and executives. A follow-up survey of presenters indicated they felt the SAF format was use- 136 Public Personnel Management Volume 31 No. 2 Summer 2002ful for reporting efforts and improving communication with executives and peers. Survey results also indicate SAF is helping drive the agency’s new developments. Comments were received such as “Preparation for the SAF pre- sentation helped facilitate learning and communication for myself and staff.” Eighteen of 21 presenters indicated that the SAF model would be useful in their own district/division. In fact, several managers are now using “mini-SAF’s” with supervisors and employees to help them grasp and implement the new developments. In effect, SAF seems to be functioning effectively as a performance man- agement tool: it is motivating and guiding performance efforts of mid-man- agers and employees toward desired agency ends, as well as implementing new developments. SAF’s more public format, including peers and executive managers, may well be more motivating and guiding than the traditional per- formance appraisal format of “completed form plus one-on-one interview of supervisor and subordinate.” However, both formats seem useful. SAF may be more motivating, but the one-on-one session would be more appropriate for discussing and coaching individual areas needing attention. Implementing the New Appraisals At the same time that SAF was being developed and implemented for mid-managers, the committee and representatives of two designated districts were preparing to introduce and pilot test the new appraisals in these two dis- tricts. Out of these preparation discussions came a training module developed by officers in one of the test districts. Included in this training module isa use- ful concept reflecting TQM: a pre-appraisal work group meeting. An advan- tage of the group meeting is that employees can discuss and agree on complementary roles and expectations and apply these toward common objec- tives. This training focused as much on the agency’s new developments as on the new appraisals and showed how they fit together. The presenters encour- aged operational questions about shifting to the new approach. In effect, these training sessions served to resolve operational issues regarding the new approach, as well as train officers on the new appraisals. The pilot study was conducted in early 2000, after which the new appraisal process was fine-tuned. The new process was reviewed and accept- ed by the Troopers and Sergeants Association. Designated individuals in the other six districts then received “train the trainer” instruction and subse- quently trained officers in their respective districts. Following this, the new appraisal process was implemented agency-wide in July 2000. Near- Future Developments ‘Troopers and sergeants were evaluated with the new appraisals for the first time in January 2001. They will soon be surveyed regarding the appraisals, From Performance Appraisal to Performance Management 137and their input will be used to help further improve the appraisal process. Lieutenants and captains are preparing for the second round of SAF presenta- tions and will incorporate results coming from the “mini-SAF’s.” The agency will shortly receive results of a citizens’ survey, conducted every two years by Washington State University. These results will serve both as measures of cit- izen satisfaction with officers’ efforts toward district objectives, and as citizen input for adjusting and reprioritizing these objectives. The citizen survey is thus another key performance management tool, driving and integrating our community policing, TQM, and strategic efforts. Conclusion: Applicability and Ideas for Moving toward Performance Management This article initially cited suggestions for improving agencies’ appraisal systems: incorporating core competencies and TQM principles; linking indi- vidual performance more closely to agency objectives; and combining appraisals with other mechanisms to drive and manage performance. These suggestions have been very relevant for moving the Washington State Patrol in desired directions. Similarly, these recommendations seem applicable to other agencies interested in bolstering TQM efforts, focusing on core compe- tencies and /or moving more toward performance management. For those agencies interested in performance management, the cited suggestions seem relevant both for those wanting to move performance in new directions and for those wanting to energize ongoing performance. Also, this agency's expe- rience should be applicable beyond enforcement agencies. In fact, a presenta- tion about SAF was made to the heads of all Washington State agencies, who were encouraged to adapt SAF for use in their agencies. How might managers proceed in order to move toward effective perfor- mance management? Following are some ideas emerging from this agency’s experience, which may be helpful: @ Think of new ways to drive, influence, guide, report, and/or communi- cate performance. Perhaps we expect too much of the traditional “pen- cil and paper, one-on-one interview” appraisals. While it is appropriate to update these appraisal forms, updated forms alone will probably pro- duce only limited effect. @ Think “big picture.” How do various performance elements, systems, and new developments fit? How should they be sequenced, coordinat- ed, and managed for positive effect? Implementing both SAF and the new appraisals simultaneously seems to have provided an effective “critical mass for change” across all levels. At the time, agency managers had some concerns about trying too much all at once. These concerns now seem unwarranted. However, we plan to stagger SAF presenta- tions and meetings to revise the agency strategic plan. We can review SAF presentations as a barometer of work units’ progress toward strate- 138 Public Personnel Management Volume 31 No. 2 Summer 2002gic objectives and results and then use this review to adjust strategic objectives, action plans, and accountabilities. The new appraisals, SAF and strategic plans are meshing in a way that is stimulating all levels of this agency to more carefully assess the effectiveness of their efforts and to show more interest in improving their methods. In short, these combined components are providing a performance management sys- tem for making this agency more accountable and innovative. This new per- formance management system is also doing what most managers want a performance appraisal system to do— guide, energize, and focus performance efforts in desired directions and then appraise, recognize, and adjust these efforts. Authors Doug Cederblom 4800 Fremont #110 Seattle WA 98103 (360) 438-5822 Doug Cederblom, an industrial psychologist, has worked with the Washington State Patrol 16 years, mainly in the areas of selection, promotion, and appraisal. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee. He was a member of the committees that developed and implemented the new appraisal system and SAE Dan E. Pemerl 4806 Donavan Dr. S.E. Olympia WA 98501 (360) 459-2418 Dan E. Pemerl was the Research and Planning manager for the Washington State Patrol and was a member of the committees that developed and implemented the new appraisal system and SAE Previous to this position, he spent 26 years as an officer in the agency. Notes 1 Bernardin, HJ., C. M. Hagan, J.S.Kane, PVillanova. (1998). Effective Performance Management. In J:W. Smither (Ed.), Performance Appraisal (pp. 3-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2Schay, B.W. (1993). “In Search of the Holy Grail: Lessons in Performance Management.” Public Personnel ‘Management, 22 (8), 649-668. 3 Longnecker, C.O. and N, Nykodym. (1996). “Public Sector Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: A Case Study.” Public Personnel Management, 25 (2), 151-164. 4 Cardy, RL. (1998). Performance Appraisal in a Quality Context, In J.|W. Smither (Ed.), Performance ‘Appraisal (pp. 132-162), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, From Performance Appraisal to Performance Management 1395 Bowen, D.E,, and D. AWaldman (1999). Customer-Driven Employee Performance. In DR. gen & E.D. Pulakos (Bds.) The Changing Nature of Performance (pp. 154-191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 6 Grote, D. (2000) “Public Sector Organizations: Today's Innovative Leaders in Performance Management.” Public Personnel Management, 29 (1), 1-20. 7 Halachmi, A. (1993). “From Performance Appraisal to Performance Targeting.” Public Personnel Management, 22 (2), 323-344. 5 Grote, D. (2000), op. cit 9 Meyer, H. H., EKay, and J-French. (1965). “Split Roles in Performance Appraisal” Hareard Business Review, 43, 123-129 10 Grote, D. (2000), op. cit. 1 Geller, WA. and G. Swanger (1995). Managing Innovation in Policing: The Untapped Potential of the Middle ‘Manager. Washington D.C: Police Executive Research Forum. NYPD “Policing in the New Millennium” Conference, May 1999. Civil Service Examination Company 27 Judith Road; Newton, MA 02459 (617) 244-7405 Specialists in fairness of written tests. Police candidate background-check inventory, measuring work habits, red flags, and eight other areas. betp:llpersonnelselection.comlpebs. htm Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director 140 Public Personnel Management Volume 31 No. 2 Summer 2002