Performance Evaluation

Systems of Bangladesh Civil

Service
 University of Dhaka

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Momtaz Jahan Afsana Afrin-19716
Professor KM Moshiur Rahman Lablu-19717

Department of public Administration Mohammed Faisal-19718

University of Dhaka Rubayat Rahman Chowdhury-19719

Nahida Shabnam Urmi-19720

Kazi Mousumi Kabir-19721

Md. Mahfuzur Rahman-19722

Tarekuzzaman-19723
A performance evaluation system is a systematic way
to examine how well an employee is performing in his
or her job. This is should be a planned system that
allows feedback to be given in a formal—as opposed
to informal—sense. Performance evaluations can also
be called performance appraisals, performance
assessments, or employee appraisals.
There are four reasons why a systematic performance
evaluation system should be implemented.
First, the evaluation process should encourage
positive performance and behavior.
Second, it is a way to satisfy employee curiosity as to
how well they are performing in their job.
It can also be used as a tool to develop employees.
Lastly, it can provide a basis for pay raises,
promotions, and legal disciplinary actions.
 Performance appraisal is the process of
assessing systematically the performance of
a person on the present job and his/her
potential for higher level jobs in future.
 There are various techniques of
performance appraisal as well as various
types of appraisal like—self appraisal,
superior appraisal, peer appraisal, group
appraisal.
 In the public sector of Bangladesh the prevailing
performance appraisal system was so far known as
the Annual Confidential Report (ACR). Recently, this
has been renamed as APR (Annual Performance
Report). A single ACR form consisting of eight parts
is being used for all first class officers.
 There are three main actors in the evaluation system.

1. Assesse/ Officer Reported Upon (ORU)

2. Assessor/ Report Initiating Officer (RIO)
3. Counter Signing Officer (CSO).
The immediate senior officer of the ORU will be the
RIO and will send it to the next higher officer for
counter sign.
To review the performance of the employees.
To judge the gap between the actual and the desired
performance.
To help the management in exercising organizational control.
To diagnose the training and development needs of the future.
Provide information to assist in the HR decisions like
promotions, transfers etc.
Provide clarity of the expectations and responsibilities of the
functions to be performed by the employees.
To judge the effectiveness of the other human resource
functions.
To reduce the grievances of the employees.
Helps to strengthen the relationship and communication
between superior – subordinates and management – employees
 Part 1: Personal Information which is to be filled up by the ORU.
 Part 2: Medical Examination Report to be filled up by an
authorized medical officer.
 Part 3: 13 Personal Attributes of the assesse is assessed by the
RIO.
 Part 4: 12 Performance Traits of the assesse is assessed by the
RIO.
 Part 5: Pen Picture about the assesse by the RIO.
 Part 6 : Recommendations to be filled up by the RIO.
 Part 7: Comments of CSO
 Part 8: To be filled up by the ministry/division concerned.
 For every element highest 4 marks is stipulated
 Scores of the grading:
 Outstanding (95-100), Very Good (85-94), Good (61-
84), Average (41-60), Below Average (40 and below)
 Personal traits and performance indicators (13
personal traits and 12 performance indicators) were
parameters for measures in ACR
 The measures of Evaluation Report (ACR)
S. N. Indicators related to personal traits S. N. Indicators related to performance factors
01 Sense of Discipline 01 Professional knowledge
02 Judgment and Sense of Conscience 02 Quality of Work
03 Intelligence 03 Quantity of Work
04 Initiatives 04 Ability to supervise and guide
05 Personality 05 Relationship with colleagues
06 Cooperation 06 Capacity to make decisions
07 Punctuality 07 Capability to implement decision
08
Reliability 08 Interest and capacity to train subordinates
09
Sense of Responsibility 09 Ability to express- Writing
10 Interest in Work 10 Ability to Express-Oral
11 Promptness in taking action and carrying out orders Promptness in initiating and counter signing
11 Annual Confidential Report
12 Security consciousness
13 Public Relation 12 Devotion to duty
 Lack of accountability, transparency, and
efficiency
 Absence of job description
 Absence of alignment with government’s goals
 Absence of alignment with pay scale
 Subjective measures
 Subjective comments
 Diversified numbers of assessors and re-
assessors
 Lack of openness
 Absence of organizational performance
measurement system
 Work plan procedure of APR

Assessor will supervise the

implementation progress; aggrieved can
appeal at evaluation process
 APR (8 parts)
1. Personal Information
2. Annual Work Plan
3. Evaluated Number
3.1 Evaluation of performance (50%)
3.2 Evaluation of personal traits (25%)
3.3 Evaluation of professional traits (25%)
4. Assessment of area of expertise/ interest and Recommendation
about training
5. Pen picture and remarks
6. Evaluation of the counter signing officer

7. Appeal & Administrative (to be filled in by the ministry/ division/

department)
8. Illustration of the form and Instruction to fill in
 Financial year based evaluation instead of calendar
year based evaluation (similar to APA)
 Consideration of the performance of the ministry/
division/ wing/ department along with individual
performance
 Classification of officers (senior, mid level & junior)
 More weight on individual performance for junior
officers
 For senior officials more weight on the performance of
unit/ wing and organization
 Option for recognition of area of expertise/ interest of
the officers (not to be evaluated)
 Option for recommendation about the training needs
(not to be evaluated)
 Total Mark for APR is 100
 50 mark for quantitative & qualitative evaluation of
performance (Not Confidential)
 Remaining 50 mark for evaluating personal &
professional traits (Confidential)
 Operable on line (software based) as well as paper
based
 Provision of appeal by appraisee in case of
grievance
 Recommendation of formation of HRM unit in each
ministry/ division/ department to administer the
appraisal
 If assessee is transferred at mid-year, what will be the
ultimate effect of work plan prepared by assessee
transferred?
 If the deliverables are not fixed as well as there are no
organization performance measures, there are
possibilities the deliverables of same parallel offices will
differ from one to another
 Ignorance of the organizational performance
measurement
 Ignorance of alignment between personnel and
organizational performance
 Absence of alignment between individual work and
teamwork
 Subjective comments
 Diversified assessors and re-assessor, and lack of
alignment with pay scale
 Integrate Key Performance Indicators;
 Scope for explanation in case of failure in
achievement;
 Integrating individual performance with
organizational performance;
 Provision for Third Party Evaluation
 Informative functions on performance data
for evaluation could be pondered perfectly
and also motivational functions like career
planning, training, learning could be
emphasized. Besides, clear definition and
differentiation of tasks, assignment could
also be considered in order to determine
congenial performance appraisal. Assentation
and biased culture should be eliminated with
a view to restoring impartial administration.