## Notes from 19 January 2026 [[2026-01-18|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-01-20|Next note →]] Spent the morning with Canada's 2020 evaluation of their [Executive Performance Management Program (EXPMP)](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/corporate/reports/evaluation-performance-management-program-executives.html), which connects to that productivity working group report [[2025-12-16|I read in December]]. ## What is EXPMP? EXPMP is Canada's federal system for managing executive performance - basically how deputy ministers and their direct reports handle the roughly 5,000+ executives (EX-01 through EX-05 levels) across the public service. **The mechanics:** Annual cycle with objective-setting, mid-year check-in, and year-end evaluation. Everything runs through ETMS (Executive Talent Management System), an IT platform that nobody seems to like. Executives are assessed on two dimensions - work objectives (what you deliver) and leadership competencies (how you deliver it) - condensed into a single rating on a 5-point scale: Did not meet, Succeeded minus, Succeeded, Succeeded plus, Surpassed. **The stakes:** Performance ratings directly affect compensation. Junior executives (EX-01 to EX-03) can receive up to 12% variable pay plus 3% bonus. Senior executives (EX-04 to EX-05) can get up to 20% variable plus 6% bonus. **The governance:** Individual managers conduct evaluations, departmental review committees calibrate ratings across the organization, HR functions provide support, and Treasury Board Secretariat (trough the [Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/corporate/organization.html), or OCHRO) sets the policy framework and spending limits. Notably, OCHRO doesn't monitor individual assessments or review the quality of narratives - they just maintain the infrastructure. ## How it connects to the productivity commission Reading this evaluation after the productivity working group report creates an interesting stereo effect. The working group focused on system-level constraints to productivity - rigid HR rules, difficulty dismissing underperformers, lack of permeability with private sector. This evaluation shows what happens inside those constraints: a performance management system that everyone agrees exists, most people participate in, but that doesn't actually manage performance effectively. The productivity group recommended publishing annual data on dismissed employees and underperformers. This evaluation reveals a bit of it: by 2017-18, the lowest rating ("did not meet") was used for less than 0.2% of executives. Over 90% cluster in the three highest categories. ## Key findings from the evaluation - **The rating inflation problem is structural, not cultural.** Managers avoid low ratings because they trigger mandatory action plans, hurt executive mobility, and are perceived as excessively punitive. One evaluation finding: some departments automatically give new executives no higher than "Succeeded minus" on the assumption they can't perform at full level yet - essentially punishing people for being new. - **The system controls users rather than serving them.** Multiple interviewees described ETMS as "antiquated, inflexible and time-consuming". The evaluation notes it's "time-consuming, unresponsive and frustrating rather than being simple and user-friendly, and facilitating important conversations between people". Classic example of process overwhelming purpose. - **Work objectives systematically trump competencies.** Despite policy requiring equal weight for "what" (objectives) and "how" (leadership behaviors), managers consistently focus on tangible deliverables. The evaluation acknowledges the obvious problem: competencies require observation, but when would busy executives actually observe each other's day-to-day leadership practices? ## The equity dimension Representation data exposes another failure mode. At senior levels (EX-04 and EX-05): - Only 43% women vs. 55% across public service overall - Only 9% visible minorities vs. 17% overall - People with disabilities report lower satisfaction with feedback than other employment equity groups The system is meant to develop talent equitably and create pathways to senior leadership, and it's not working. The evaluation suggests this connects to variable quality of coaching and feedback - which depends heavily on supervisor skill and willingness to invest time in difficult conversations. **Statistical finding worth noting:** [Public Service Employee Survey](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/public-service-employee-survey.html) (PSES) data shows statistically significant relationship between perceptions of performance management and workplace stress. Executives dissatisfied with the process are more likely to report stress from unclear objectives, deadlines, and pay issues. ## International trends mentioned by the report - **Ontario:** No performance pay at all - **British Columbia:** Universal coaching services, decentralized approach - **Australia:** Mixed systems, no clear evidence performance pay improves outcomes - **Private sector:** Deloitte, Accenture, Cigna moving away from formal appraisals toward continuous feedback The evaluation's literature review found virtually no consensus on effectiveness of performance management approaches, especially for public sector executives. What limited evidence exists suggests that private sector models transfer poorly: public sector employees are more sensitive to social rather than economic rewards, team-based work conflicts with individual ratings, and the need for agility in project-based work undermines annual appraisal cycles.