|
DATE |
|
|
TIME |
|
|
FORMAT |
Small group discussion and plenary session. |
|
TRAINER |
|
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this session, participants will have applied and analysed concepts underlying performance appraisal in a real-life situation. This will help in designing performance appraisal formats in the next session.
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
None.
REQUIRED READING
Case study: Suzene Kopec
BACKGROUND READING
None.
SPECIAL EQUIPMENT AND AIDS
Overhead projector and chalkboard
This case relates to a good employee who has become recalcitrant over time for various reasons. The deteriorating performance of Suzene Kopec was continuously reflected in her performance appraisal, but not much was done to help her improve her performance. The important question is whether the performance appraisal system was designed appropriately. Could it have been really used to help Suzene Kopec improve her performance? A thorough scrutiny of the performance evaluation forms and the information contained in them should be undertaken by participants to ascertain whether the form need redesigning in case they are not generating the required information.
Cocoa research institute of Savana
Ms Suzene Kopec
Promotion to TA grade II
Promotion to TA grade I
Stoppage of increment
Denial of promotion
Changed assessment procedure
Appeal to the promotions committee
Communication from the head of the department
Decision of the promotions committee
Executive director's dilemma
Annex 1: Categorization of scientific and technical staff in CRIS
Annex 2: Summary evaluation report of Ms Suzene Kopec
Annex 3: CRIS assessment reports
"We would not like our work to be jeopardized, hence our insistence on assigning only competent, diligent and reliable staff to this post. If, in spite of all our explanations, the Committee wishes to overrule the Division's observation, they are free to do so. However, in view of our first-hand knowledge of her poor work and conduct, the Division could do without her services as it would be unable to entrust her with work that would be commensurate with her new position in our Division after promotion. If she were promoted, the Division would wish that the Committee find a more suitable Division for her."
Thus ended the letter from Dr H. W. De Jong, Head of the Plant Breeding Division, addressed to the Chairman of the Promotions Committee, Cocoa Research Institute of Savana (CRIS).
Notwithstanding a very strong protest from the Division, the Promotions Committee recommended promotion of Ms Kopec to the post of Senior Technical Assistant, and forwarded the matter to the Executive Director.
Dr Grace Stevenson, the Executive Director, CRIS, had a frown on her face as she closed the personal file of Ms Suzene Kopec. She had to either endorse the recommendation of the Promotions Committee or overrule it. Even though she had handled several personnel problems in her ten years as Executive Director of the Institute, Ms Kopec's case was different. While the Plant Breeding Division was strongly opposed to her promotion, the employee was being solidly backed by the trade union. Ms Kopec's case also had political overtones. It was a difficult case.
Dr Stevenson decided to sleep on the matter for a day or two. She was in no hurry. Either way, Ms Kopec's case was going to adversely affect the work environment of the Institute. It had already damaged the cordial relations which had existed between the scientific and technical staff.
CRIS is undoubtedly the oldest research organization in the country. Founded in 1938, it started as the Central Cocoa Research Station of the Department of Agriculture. In April 1944, it became the headquarters of the inter-territorial Cocoa Institute of Coastal States (CICS). When Savana became independent, CICS was dissolved in October 1962, being replaced by CRIS. CRIS then became part of the National Research Council, which became the Savana Academy of Sciences and, in 1968, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. In October 1973, CRIS was placed under the management of the Savana Cocoa Board. In 1976 it was placed under the Ministry of Cocoa Affairs, until that Ministry was dissolved in July 1979, when CRIS reverted to management of the Board. As a result of the re-structuring exercise within the cocoa industry, CRIS is now a Division of the Savana Cocoa Board.
CICS is headed by an Executive Director. There are six scientific divisions: agronomy, entomology, physiology/biochemistry, plant breeding, plant pathology and soil science. In addition, there are four support divisions: general administration, plantation and station management, works and estates, and accounts.
The main research station of the Institute is located at Tofa, in an area of just over 400 ha. There are three substations, at Suafa and Nobsu in the Eastern Region and at Belo in the Northern Region. The Belo substation is exclusively for shea nut research. The Suafa substation occupies an area of about 228 ha, while the Belo station has an area of about 6 504 ha. The labour force in the Institute numbers about 1 700, including those at the substations.
CRIS investigates problems related to cocoa, cola, coffee, shea nut and tallow tree cultivation. It also studies cocoa by-products, with emphasis on utilizing the husk for animal feed, fertilizer and soap production, and the seatings for pectin and alcohol production.
Much of the work is started in the laboratories, making use of specialized equipment and skilled technical staff working under research scientists. CRIS employs about 26 Savanian scientists, who are assisted by skilled technical staff. The progression of technical and scientific staff grades is shown in Annex 1. Field experiments under farm conditions are performed to test the validity of results from laboratories and controlled field experiments and their agronomic and economic effects. CRIS also conducts field experiments jointly with the Cocoa Services Division.
Despite a number of problems, CRIS is one organization that was not hit by a brain drain in the 1980s. The country was undergoing a major economic crisis, but CRIS was always able to attract local scientists who were prepared to stay on the job and work for the ultimate good of the cocoa industry.
Ms Suzene Kopec had applied for a job as a Technical Assistant (TA) in CRIS in response to an advertisement. Although she had cited three referees in her application, only one provided a reference. Mr Adim Wilsali, principal of the State Secondary School, stated that Ms Kopec was admitted to the Umed Secondary School after passing GCE 'O' level. She was a diligent student, always among the few top students of her class, well-disciplined, respectful and obedient. For a while she was also the overseer of one of the girl's hostels. Mr Wilsali recommended her appointment.
Ms Kopec joined CRIS on 21 June 1971, as a TA Grade III, with an initial salary of NSc 450 per annum, on a scale of NSc 450 to NSc 630 by NSc 30 increments. Her appointment was governed by the conditions of service for junior staff of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which included a six-month probation period. Even after confirmation, her services were liable to be dismissed on one month's notice at the discretion of the Director.
Her duties included providing assistance in field data retrieval, including statistical computations, and assistance in laboratory work.
Mr P. Waterford, her immediate supervisor, made a favourable confidential report on Ms Kopec four months after she joined the Institute. Her services were to be continued and her salary also reviewed, since she had been appointed at a lower level in the salary scale than Ms Aneta. Both Ms Kopec and Ms Aneta were appointed as TA Grade III at the same time. They had same qualifications. The recommendation was that unless there was some good reason, Ms Kopec should also be given the same salary.
Dr Johnson, Head, Plant Breeding Division, had endorsed these recommendations, noting that Ms Kopec's work and conduct had been satisfactory. These recommendations were accepted and her service was confirmed. Her salary scale was revised upward, to NSc 540, from December 1, 1971, on par with Ms Aneta. At the same time, the probation period of Ms Aneta was extended by three months as she lacked application and tended to disappear when not under close supervision. However, Ms Aneta's services were not discontinued since she had shown some improvements by way of more initiative and better dependability.
Ms Kopec received another favourable report from the Head of the Plant Breeding Division during her annual assessment in September 1971. She was reported to be very hard working, both in the field and in the laboratory, but particularly so when under the supervision of the senior officer. The negative part of the report was that she was inclined to be chatty when supervision was relaxed and she visited the hospital rather frequently.
According to the scientific staff with whom she has been working all along, her performance started deteriorating soon after she married in January 1973. On October 17, 1973, she was given a warning letter by the Head of the Plant Breeding Division, citing late arrivals with fancy excuses and loitering. This letter noted previous verbal warnings given by her immediate supervisor. Ms Kopec responded to the warning letter by improving her performance. Her annual performance review was due in another month. It was reported that she was doing well, but required more experience. Her overall performance was rated average (satisfactory), but not yet ready for promotion.
Her annual assessment for 1974-75 was quite favourable. She was reported to be very hard working, had good control of subordinate staff, and her punctuality had improved.
In September 1976, she was recommended for promotion in the normal way. She was promoted with effect from 1 October to TA Grade II, after having spent five years in Grade III. This was the normal time taken for progression from Grade III to Grade II.
In the following three years, Ms Kopec received adverse reports. It was reported in her assessment for 1976-77 that her output was impaired by domestic and health problems. She was distracted by the illness of her husband, who was suffering from sickle cell anaemia. Consequently, she was not considered fit for either promotion or training. The assessment for 1977-78 noted that even though she continued to be fairly reliable in the field, she was increasingly becoming less and less reliable in the laboratory. She had been given several warnings for being late.
Her performance did not improve in the following year. She continued to be distracted from her work, presumably on account of domestic problems.
In 1979-80, she was punished for overstaying her leave and also warned to be punctual. Her work performance was rated as just average. However, her conduct was rated as 'fair' in contrast to previous years, when it was always assessed as 'good.'
She became eligible for another promotion at the end of September 1981. On the basis of a favourable report in her annual assessment for the year 1980-81, she was promoted as TA Grade I, with effect from 1 October, 1981.
Ms Kopec received adverse reports during the following four years. In 1981-82, her output was low. She was guilty of malingering. She often ignored instructions, and signed the sick attendance register whenever she could. During 1982-83, she was warned for lateness and truancy, and was formally told that if she did not improve she would face a demotion or dismissal purely on the grounds that she had outlived her usefulness in the Division. It was hoped that she would not allow matters to reach the stage where such disciplinary action would be necessary against her.
In September 1983 her supervisor sent another damning report. Her work was characterized by truancy, lateness, absenteeism and inefficiency. Her attendance, hospital and casual leave records clearly indicated that she had not lived up to expectations. She needed very close supervision, which should not have been the case. It was suggested that she be assigned to more routine work, such as daily allocation of labour and providing weekly and monthly summaries of hospital attendance, casual leave, etc., which would not require very close supervision. Her supervisor felt constrained to say that "she was not fit for field duties." Continuing adverse reports prompted the head of the Department of the Plant Breeding Division to issue a warning letter to Ms Kopec, admonishing her to "gird up her loins and turn over a new leaf now onwards."
Ms Kopec's performance continued to deteriorate, despite several warnings. In the 1982-83 assessment, her supervisor reported that she "was a redundant Technical Assistant because of her attitude toward work. None of the research grade staff was prepared to assign her any job." The matter was finally referred to the Disciplinary Committee; on 30 January 1984, Mr D. P. Tickfaw, Administrative Secretary, sent a formal warning to Ms Kopec through her Head of Department. The warning letter stated that her work had been classified as below average for the second consecutive period. Conveying the concern of the Executive Director over this disappointing performance, the letter warned Ms Kopec that unless she showed substantial improvement in her performance during the coming year, it would become necessary to take appropriate disciplinary action against her. In the meantime, her increment for the assessment year (1 October 1983 to 30 September 1984) was stopped. As expected, Ms Kopec appealed to the Promotions Committee for a review.
The matter was considered in a meeting of the Promotions Committee held on 30 August 1984. All members except one attended the meeting. Mr Tompkins had been representing the Workers Defence Committee (WDC) on the Promotions Committee. However, his presence in this particular meeting was objected to by Ms Sella Towada, Research Officer, representing senior staff officers on the Committee. Ms Towada felt that since Mr Tompkins was the husband of Ms Kopec, he had personal interest in this particular case, thus creating a conflict of interest between his official duties as a WDC representative and as a husband. It was, therefore, not appropriate for him to participate in this particular meeting. WDC could be represented by some other person. Mr Tompkins argued that as husband of Ms Kopec he was in the best position to pursue her case and defend her. However, he conceded Ms Towada's viewpoint when other members of the Committee also saw impropriety in his attending that particular meeting. At that point, Mr Tompkins left the meeting, and Mr Samedan replaced him.
Dr Santos Dumas briefed the Committee, noting that Ms Kopec's annual increment was stopped on the recommendation of the Promotions Committee because of her poor performance for two consecutive years. Her Division people were most unhappy with her attitude toward work, performance and conduct, so much so that she was now considered redundant. The union representative argued that, according to current conditions of service, in all such cases performance had to be reviewed quarterly. Since the report on her performance during the last quarter had been satisfactory, her rise should be released. This was not such a strong case as to warrant withholding the regular increment. Besides, there could be personal animosities. The trade union representative was strongly supported by the WDC representative.
After some discussion, the Promotions Committee reached an agreement. The minutes of the meeting showed that the latest report from her Head of Division said that her work was quite satisfactory. The Promotions Committee, therefore, recommended that if she continued to do satisfactory work - and that this was confirmed by a second report - her increment should be allowed with effect from October 1984.
After the meeting, Dr Santos Dumas was reported to have expressed his unhappiness with this decision. He felt that there were some undercurrents. It was common knowledge that Ms Kopec was a useless member of the staff.
The Administrative Secretary subsequently called for a follow-up report on Ms Kopec's performance. The report showed that she had improved tremendously in the performance of her duties. Consequently, Ms Kopec's increment was restored in conformity with the decision of the Promotions Committee.
Even though Ms Kopec's performance during 1984-85 was rated as average (satisfactory), her attitude to work was "not all that satisfactory." Ms Kopec showed improvement in her performance during the following year (1985-86). By then, Ms Kopec had become eligible for promotion to Senior Technical Assistant (STA) in the normal way, as she had completed five years at TA Grade I.
The report from the Head of the Division stated that she was qualified for promotion in the normal course of events. A favourable report warranted consideration. When the matter came up before the Executive Director, she observed that "Ms Kopec should be given more time to demonstrate the change in her attitude to work. She has had only one good year after a succession of warnings and lapses (truancy, selling during office hours, etc.). The minimum number of years required for promotion in the usual way should be extended for a year or two."
The assessment report for 1986-87 again assessed her performance as average (satisfactory), but no recommendation was made for promotion even though she had already put in six years of service in the present grade.
The assessment procedure was revised from 1987-88 onwards, and a new format was introduced. While work and conduct were assessed essentially based on the same traits as earlier, a grading system was introduced. The most notable feature was that the staff being assessed had an opportunity to comment on the supervisor's assessment. The procedure was that the head of department would complete the assessment and ask the employee concerned to accept the assessment as fair or unfair.
Following the new practice, Ms Kopec was called in by the Head of Division on 30 September 1988. She was shown his assessment of her work during the year. Although her overall performance was rated as B (very good), she was recommended only for a normal increment. When Ms Kopec saw the assessment report she was shocked. She had expected her promotion to come through at least this year. A favourable report and a specific recommendation for promotion from the head of the department were the necessary first steps in this direction. This was not to be so. She knew she would continue in Grade I at least for another year while some of her contemporaries were promoted and became senior to her. In fact one of her juniors was to be promoted soon. Shocked beyond belief, Ms Kopec certified on the assessment form that it was an unfair assessment of her work and conduct. She had now been at the maximum level of the scale for three years.
Ms Kopec was enraged. Her eyes were full of tears. She did not know who to blame for this: the people who were supposed to assess her performance or the new assessment system. What was most shocking was that, even though her overall performance was rated as very good, promotion had not been recommended. She wanted to talk to someone. There was a strong urge to unburden herself before someone. But who? Certainly not the head of the department. He was not interested in discussing this matter with her, and she no longer had any confidence in him following the current assessment report.
As she left the office of the Head of the Department, she was shaking with rage. She did not even say the customary 'Thank you.' She had hoped against hope that the Promotions Committee would undo this damage. But that was not to be so. While the Committee released her normal increment, there was no reference to her promotion. She felt aggrieved and protested formally to the new Chairman of the Promotions Committee.
The Promotions Committee invited the Head of the Plant Breeding Division to attend its meeting on 14 August 1989. There is no record of what discussions actually took place in that meeting, but the Head of the Division was visibly angry as he left the meeting after less than 15 minutes. Subsequently, he mentioned to his colleagues in the Division that the Promotions Committee sought his explanation as to why Ms Kopec - who was graded high last year - was not recommended for promotion. During the meeting, he was shown a protest letter written by Ms Kopec, said to have been passed through him as Head of the Division, but never was. He had expected the Committee to have drawn his attention to it beforehand so that he could have responded to it. That apart, he was not even informed why he was being called by the Promotions Committee. Besides, the questions being asked needed more detailed answers than he could readily remember. He had, therefore, requested the Committee to excuse him from the meeting and instead permit him to send a written reply. This was agreed.
On the following day, 15 August 1989, the Head of the Department addressed a detailed communication to the Promotions Committee, drawing their attention to the fact that the annual confidential report was based on the year's work, but recommendation for promotion was based on sustained good work and responsible conduct over a reasonable number of years. Promotion also implied greater responsibility, and if one was known to have been not fully serious with work for a long time and of questionable conduct, promotion could not be recommended on a single year's good work.
The plant breeding nursery where Ms Kopec worked was one of the most important sections of the Division. Work here, particularly the essential recordings, needed close supervision by the TA in charge. Ms Kopec left her work to very junior staff, who could not make the recordings or left essential pods to rot in the nursery.
The Head of the Department concluded his letter by hoping that the Committee would take time to read through the testimony of the most senior members of the Plant Breeding Research grade staff, as reflected in the queries and warnings attached with his communication. The Trade Union Committee and WDC already had copies of most of these letters since they were routinely copied to them.
There were two attachments to this letter. The first, dated 15 August 1989, was from Mr K. J. Menzies, Scientific Officer, Plant Breeding Division, addressed to the Head, Plant Breeding Division. Mr Menzies noted that he had had to assess Ms Kopec in the 1988 promotion exercise because her previous assessor Mr A. B. Midvale was on sick leave. Referring to the record, Mr Menzies observed that her work had been borderline and her conduct questionable, such that in September 1983 her immediate boss written a stern report to the then Acting Head of the Plant Breeding Division. She was then formally warned.
With the assistance of her Senior Technical Officer, Mr C. R Maxwell, improvement in her work was observed in the following years, although overall performance remained erratic. All this had to be reflected in her assessment. She was not recommended for promotion because her work needed to be observed for further year to ensure that indeed she had turned over a new leaf.
Consideration was also given to the fact that the next post for Ms Kopec on promotion would be that of STA, a very important and responsible post in the Institute. It was, as a matter of fact, the springboard to the Senior Officer grade, and the Department did not want it to be cheapened with members of staff who failed to exhibit the calibre expected of a senior member of staff status. Mr Menzies enclosed with his letter copies of the warning letters given to Ms Kopec in 1983.
The second attachment was a letter dated 15 August 1989, from Dr Lualaba Luan, Plant Breeding Division, to the Head, Plant Breeding Division. He made repeated references to Ms Kopec's poor performance during 1983-84. He stated that her performance had not improved since then. Contending that her performance had indeed not improved, Dr Luan cited some instances.
In 1985, when assigned to the plant breeding greenhouse, she was always trading instead of being at her place of work. Once she was found in this act by the Executive Director, and formally warned for truancy. She was then shifted to the main nursery, in the hope that since the site was far from the office and town she would concentrate more on essential work than on trading during working hours. That did not work out, and she continued to be truant and an inefficient supervisor. During 1988, many verbal warnings had been given to her, as well as a query in truancy. Her reply was that she was on a course of injections, but investigations at the clinic later showed that what she had said was not true. These verbal warnings and query were overlooked when grading her in 1988. Even though her performance was better than previous years, there was a need to observe her for another year before promoting her to an STA post, which required greater responsibility.
Dr A. Kedah, Chairman of the Promotions Committee, replied to the Head of the Plant Breeding Division on August 23. He observed that (i) the protest letter from Ms Kopec, dated 4 April 1989, was in fact transmitted through proper channels as shown by the signature of the Head of the Department on the photocopy, (ii) a cursory look at the record showed that Ms Kopec's performance from 1984 to 1988 has been satisfactory. The earlier warning letters were irrelevant, since in general a warning letter ceased to take effect one year after it was issued, (iii) under the new method of assessment, the employee had a right to know his/her assessment and could appeal if dissatisfied. Ms Kopec had used this procedure and the Promotions Committee was obliged to go into the matter and decide, (iv) since the appeal of Ms Kopec was in relation to the 1988 assessment, it had to be disposed of first before going into the assessment for 1989. The assessment for 1989 was thus being considered separately.
The Head of the Plant Breeding Division was not to be brushed aside so easily. On 1 September he retorted that his Division had no quarrel with the assessment system - new or old. However, there was a consensus among the senior members of the Plant Breeding Division that Ms Kopec was not suitable for promotion at that time. She needed to be observed further for demonstrated consistent improvement in her approach to work. At that time, the Division staff had little confidence in her ability to carry out satisfactorily the responsibilities of an STA. This position was considered very important and played a vital role in collection and analysis of data. The Department was very careful in their selection of people to be assigned to it. If, in spite of the strong feelings of the Department, the Promotions Committee was keen to promote Ms Kopec, it should simultaneously find a more suitable Division for her.
The Promotions Committee, in its meeting on 4 September 1989, considered the whole matter again, and recommended promotion for Ms Kopec.
Even though all the decisions of the Promotions Committee were strictly confidential, their recommendation for the promotion of Ms Kopec became common knowledge in the Institute. The scientific staff in the Plant Breeding Division were considerably dismayed. Ms Kopec was elated. She was advised to meet the Executive Director to impress upon her that she indeed deserved a promotion. In her meeting with the Executive Director, she did not refer to the adverse reports on her performance. Instead, she argued that the new system of assessment was responsible for her promotion being withheld.
After Ms Kopec left, the Executive Director was wondering whether it was indeed an artefact of the new assessment system or whether it was a case of a truant employee with lot of support from various quarters. She had known that there were several problems with the new system of assessment. She could recall two instances. In the first instance, a Head of the Department asked the employee concerned to assess himself whereas the first assessment should have been made by the Head of the Department. Naturally, the employee gave himself A grades on all traits and recommended a promotion for himself to a senior grade. The Head of the Department in his confidential report admitted that this was the assessment of the employee with which he did not agree fully. He contended that the employee knew exactly what his job was but he was never in his office nor was he out on the field. He never did what he was asked to do. Notwithstanding this negative report, the Head of the Department went on to strongly recommend promotion for the employee in the hope that the promotion would re-activate him into being as productive as he used to be. The Executive Director had then commented on the evaluation form that perhaps the self-assessment was an indication of the potential of the employee but certainly not what he had contributed. Promotion did not guarantee that the attitude of the employee towards work would change.
In another case, a senior staff member had given a fairly low rating to an employee, reporting that she needed to improve her punctuality and seek medical treatment to improve her poor health, which was adversely affecting her work. The employee disagreed with this assessment, contending that very frequently she went first to the field to check on the field staff, and then to her office. For this reason, it had been presumed that she came to office late. She accepted that she was sick for some time when she joined the Institute several years ago. At that time she was going through 'a double trauma, a crisis period in her lifetime.' For no apparent reason, this remark had been retained. This was very unfair to her, particularly when she was fairly healthy now.
There were several other instances when the new assessment system had been questioned. Perhaps, the staff and the supervisors did not fully appreciate the new system. The assessment exercise was meant to be participative. The objective was to make assessment open and do away with unnecessary secrecy. The employee had every right to know how his or her work had been assessed.
Dr Stevenson was quite sure in her mind that Ms Kopec's case (summarized in Annexes 2 and 3) had very little to do with the new assessment system. Yet, a decision had to be made.
TECHNICAL STAFF
|
Grade |
Entry conditions |
|
Technical Assistant (Grade III) |
'O' level |
|
'A' level |
|
|
Technical Assistant (Grade II) |
5 years at Grade III |
|
Technical Assistant (Grade I) |
5 years at Grade II |
|
Senior Technical Assistant |
5 years at TA Grade I |
|
Senior Technical Officer |
5 years by selection or upgraded qualifications through acquisition of a diploma in relevant fields, e.g., Laboratory Technician Diploma |
|
Principle Technical Officer |
5 years at Senior Technical Officer level |
|
Chief Technical Officer |
5 years at Principle Technical Officer level |
Progression from TA Grade III to STA usually takes a minimum of 15 years. Promotion to Senior Technical Officer is by screening and selection. Thereafter, at each level, one has to spend a minimum of 5 years. Promotions to higher levels are further constrained by availability of vacancies.
SCIENTIFIC STAFF
|
Grade |
Entry conditions |
|
Assistant Research Officer |
Minimum of second class degree or equivalent |
|
Research Officer |
3 years as Assistant Research Officer; acquire PhD or MSc. |
|
Senior Research Officer |
5 years as Research Officer |
|
Principal Research Officer |
5 years as Senior Research Officer |
|
Chief Research Officer |
2 years as Principal Research Officer |
Progression from Assistant Research Officer to Research Officer requires a minimum of 3 years and gaining a second degree. Thereafter, it takes a minimum of 12 years to move to the position of Chief Research Officer. All promotions are subject to availability of vacant positions.
(Joined: 21 June 1971)
Key to legend: 1. Knowledge of work. 2. Skill or efficiency. 3. Work capacity or output. 4. Initiative. 5. Sense of responsibility. 6. Capacity for cooperation. 7. Power of leadership (control of subordinates). 8. Power of written expression. 9. Power of oral expression. 10. General behaviour. 11. Overall assessment.
Key to classes: O = outstanding; AA = above average; A = average; BA = below average; NO = not observed.
|
Assessment period; grade; duties |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
1971/72; TA III; personal assistant, data retrieval including some statistical calculation and assisting in field |
A |
A |
AA |
A |
A |
AA |
A |
N.O. |
A |
A |
A |
|
1972/73; TA III; assisting in preparation for new trials, field recording, some work with data in office |
AA |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
0 |
AA |
A |
A |
AA |
A |
|
1973/74; TA III; assisting field trial planting, recording and analysis of data |
A |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
AA |
0 |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
1974/75; TA III; field recording, assisting with planting and data analysis |
AA |
AA |
AA |
AA |
AA |
0 |
0 |
A |
AA |
AA |
A |
|
1975/76; TA III; labelling and field recording of vegetative measurements in progeny trials, some time on numerical data in office |
AA |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
AA |
0 |
BA |
A |
AA |
A |
|
1976/77; TA 11; supervision of nursery preparations, field recording, data handling in office |
A |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
AA |
0 |
BA |
A |
A |
A |
|
1977/78; TA II; nursery work in connection with progeny trials |
A |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
AA |
BA |
BA |
A |
A |
|
1978/79; TA II; same |
A |
A |
BA |
A |
A |
A |
AA |
A |
AA |
A |
A |
|
1979/80; TA II; data collection and analysis |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
A |
AA |
AA |
AA |
A |
A |
|
Assessment period; grade; duties |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
|
1980/81; TA II; field recording (growth and reproduction) |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
1981/82; TA I; same |
A |
BA |
BA |
A |
A |
BA |
A |
A |
A |
BA |
BA |
|
1982/83; TA I; scoring of flowers |
A |
AA |
AA |
AA |
AA |
AA |
AA |
AA |
A |
AA |
A |
|
1983/84; TA I; in charge of work in the greenhouse and nurseries |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
1984/85; TA I; in charge of the main nursery (cocoa plantation) |
A |
A |
BA |
A |
A |
BA |
BA |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
1985/86; TA I; in charge of the nursery |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
A |
AA |
AA |
N.O. |
N.O. |
A |
A |
|
1986/87; TA I; in charge of the main nursery activities |
A |
A |
A |
A |
AA |
A |
A |
A |
A |
AA |
A |
ANNEX 3.1
COCOA RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF SAVANA ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR JUNIOR STAFF
Annual Assessment Report for the year ending: 30 September 1988.
PART 1: To be completed by Head of Division and signed both by Head and staff member assessed.
1. Name (Full) Suzene Kopec Age: 39 years
2. Date of first appointment: 21.6.71
3. Date of present appointment: 1.10.81 Station: Tofa
4. Present salary: NSc 133 320.00 p.a. Tech. Asst. I
5. Was any warning or disciplinary action taken against the officer during the year? (if so give details): No.
6. Brief description of duties performed (if in supervisory role, state number of subordinate staff): Technical Assistant Grade I in charge of the Main Nursery Activities, Tofa. Supervises sowing of beans, recording of germination, watering seed, etc.
7. Assessment of work and conduct (Please assign reasons for grades A & E).
A = Outstanding;
B = Very good;
C = Satisfactory;
D = Below Average;
E = Poor
|
WORK AND CONDUCT |
GRADE |
REMARKS | |
|
(a) |
Knowledge of work |
B |
|
|
(b) |
Ability to work without supervision |
B |
|
|
(c) |
Initiative |
C |
|
|
(d) |
Sense of responsibility |
C |
|
|
(e) |
Capacity for cooperation |
B |
|
|
(f) |
Supervisory ability |
A |
|
|
(g) |
Attendance |
B |
|
|
(h) |
Punctuality |
C |
|
|
(i) |
Health |
B |
|
|
(j) |
Willingness to undertake extra duties |
C |
|
(Signed)
HEAD OF DIVISION
DATE: 22.8.88
I certify that the above is a fair/unfair assessment of my work and conduct. As I have reached my maximum since three years now
(Signed)
SIGNATURE OF OFFICER ASSESSED
DATE: 22.8.1988
PART II (CONFIDENTIAL): to be completed by Head of Division
8. Overall Grade (A - E): B
9. Give final remarks in the space below, indicating:
(a) Recommendation for increment
(b) Recommendation for special commendation
(c) Recommendation for promotion(i) in normal turn or
(ii) out of turn with reasons(d) Need for written warning.
Recommended for increment
10 Additional remarks indicating views of staff assessed on Part I (if any)
ANNEX 3.2
COCOA RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF SAVANNA CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ON JUNIOR STAFF
Confidential Report for the year ending 30 December 1987
PART I
1. Name (full): Suzene Kopec
2. Appointment and salary scale: Technical Assistant Grade I: Sc 97 728 - Sc 106 656 per annum
3. Date of appointment to present grade: 1.10.81
4. Station: Tofa
5. Age: 38: 6. Established
7. Salary at end of year under review: Sc 106 656 per annum
8. Was it found necessary to withhold an increment during the year under review?: No
9. Was any warning given or any disciplinary action taken against the officer during the year? (if so give details): No.
10. Was the staff member's conduct satisfactory: Yes
11. Brief description of duties performed: In-charge of cocoa nursery involving sowing of cocoa beans, supervision of filling of polythene bags with topsoil, and maintenance.
12. Detailed classification of work:
|
|
ASSESSMENT OF ABILITY OR PERFORMANCE |
||||
|
Outstanding |
Above average |
Average |
Below average |
||
|
(a) |
Knowledge of work |
|
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Skill/efficiency |
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
Work capacity or output |
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
Sense of responsibility |
|
|
|
|
|
(e) |
Initiative |
|
|
|
|
|
(f) |
Capacity for cooperation |
|
|
|
|
|
(g) |
Power of leadership, e.g., control of subordinate staff |
|
|
|
|
|
(h) |
Power of written expression |
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Power of oral expression |
|
|
|
|
|
(j) |
General behaviour |
|
|
|
|
Note: Insert NA (= Not applicable) or NO (= No opportunity for assessment) as appropriate
13. Classification of work during the year based on performance of duties of present grade:
|
(a) |
Outstanding |
|
|
(b) |
Above Average |
|
|
(c) |
Average (Satisfactory) |
|
|
(d) |
Below Average |
|
|
(e) |
Incompetent |
|
Signed:............
6th August, 1987 Post: P.T.O
PART II
14. Fitness for promotion to next higher grade
|
(a) |
Date of first appointment |
|
|
(b) |
Years of service in present grade |
|
|
(c) |
Well qualified for promotion out of turn |
|
|
(d) |
Qualified for promotion in normal turn |
|
|
(e) |
Doing well, but requires more experience |
|
|
(f) |
(i) Not at present suitable for promotion for other reasons |
|
|
|
(ii) Not at present eligible for promotion |
|
Signed:..........
11 August 1987 Post: S.O. (Head of Division)
NOTES
1. This report must be kept confidential
2. Part I is to be completed by the most senior office in immediate contact with the officer concerned, being of a grade not below Administrative Officer or its equivalent.
3. Part II is to be completed by the Head of Division on all officers below the rank of Administrative Officer or its equivalent.
4. Every officer has weak points as well as strong ones and it is equally important for the officer and the organization that both should be described. Reporting Officers are therefore particularly asked to give a full, frank and considered statement in the space provided for their comments, and to bring any adverse comments to the notice of the staff member being assessed.
RECOMMENDED BY HEAD OF DIVISION: JUNIOR STAFF
11 August 87
Signed:..........
Head of Division
ANNEX 3.3
COCOA RESEARCH INSTITUTE: JUNIOR STAFF CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
Confidential Report for the year ending 30 December 1986
PART I
1. Name (full): Suzene Kopec
2. Appointment and salary scale: Technical Assistant I; NSc 73 296 - NSc 79 992
3. Date of appointment to present grade: 1 October 1981
4. Station: Tofa
5. Age: 39
6. Established/non-established: Established
7. Salary at end of year under review: NSc 79 992 per annum
8. Has it been found necessary to withhold an increment during the year under review?: No
9. Was any warning given or any disciplinary action taken against the officer during the year? (if so give details): No
10. Was his or her conduct satisfactory: Yes
11. Brief description of duties performed: General nursery duties - Supervises filling of polythene bags with seed, sowing of cocoa and beans, watering of seedling and tidying up of the area
12. Detailed classification of work:
|
|
ASSESSMENT OF ABILITY OR PERFORMANCE |
||||
|
Outstanding |
Above average |
Average |
Below average |
||
|
(a) |
Knowledge of work |
|
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Skill/efficiency |
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
Work capacity or output |
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
Sense of responsibility |
|
|
|
|
|
(e) |
Initiative |
|
|
|
|
|
(f) |
Capacity for cooperation |
|
|
|
|
|
(g) |
Power of leadership, e.g., control of subordinate staff |
|
|
|
|
|
(h) |
Power of written expression N. O. |
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Power of oral expression N. O. |
|
|
|
|
|
(j) |
General behaviour |
|
|
|
|
Note: Insert NA (= Not applicable) or NO (= No opportunity for assessment) as appropriate
13. Classification of work during the year based on performance of duties of present grade:
|
(a) |
Outstanding |
|
|
(b) |
Above Average |
|
|
(c) |
Average (Satisfactory) |
|
|
(d) |
Below Average |
|
|
(e) |
Incompetent |
|
Signed:...........
28-7-1986 Post: S.T.O Gd I
PART II
14. Fitness for promotion to next higher grade
|
(a) |
Date of first appointment |
21/06/71 |
|
(b) |
Years of service in present grade |
5 years |
|
(c) |
Well qualified for promotion out of turn |
|
|
(d) |
Qualified for promotion in normal turn |
|
|
(e) |
Doing well, but requires more experience |
|
|
(f) |
(i) Not at present suitable for promotion for other reasons |
|
|
(ii) Not at present eligible for promotion |
|
Signed:.........
28.7.1986 Post: P.R.O. (Head of Division)
NOTES
1. This report must be kept confidential
2. Pan I is to be completed by the most senior office in immediate contact with the officer concerned, being of a grade not below Administrative Officer or its equivalent.
3. Part II is to be completed by the Head of Division on all officers below the rank of Administrative Officer or its equivalent.
4. Every officer has weak points as well as strong ones and it is equally important for the officer and the organization that both should be described. Reporting Officers are therefore particularly asked to give a full, frank and considered statement in the space provided for their comments, and to bring any adverse comments to the notice of the staff member being assessed.
RECOMMENDED BY HEAD OF DIVISION: JUNIOR STAFF
She has improved considerably this year. Her supervision was better.
28.7.86
Signed.............
Head of Division
Suzene Kopec should be given more time to prove the change in her attitude to work. She has had only one good year after a succession of warnings and lapses, i.e., truancy, selling during office hours, etc. The minimum number of years required for promotion in usual term should be extended for a year or two.
Sd. 9.9.86
|
This training manual has been prepared as basic reference material to help national research trainers structure and conduct training courses on research management at the institute level. It is intended primarily for managers of agricultural research institutes in developing countries and for institutions of higher education interested in presenting in-service training courses on research management. The manual consists of ten modules, each addressing major management functions including motivation, leadership, direction, priority setting, communications and delegation. The four structural functions of management - planning, organization, monitoring and control, and evaluation - are covered in individual modules. The manual has been designed to support participatory learning through case-studies, group exercises and presentations by the participants. |
