# Performance management and appraisal This note brings together readings, experiences, relevant references, and reflections on performance management and appraisal (specially in the public sector). It serves as a space to organize insights on design choices, implementation challenges, and evolving practices in different contexts. --- ## Entries ### [[2025-06-17]]: Beyond Schedule F Read Gabe Menchaca’s post “[You can’t fire your way to a high-performing government](https://www.niskanencenter.org/you-cant-fire-your-way-to-a-high-performing-government/)” from the Niskanen Center’s State Capacity team, and I really appreciated how he goes beyond simply criticizing Trump’s Schedule F/PC as a partisan power grab and instead offers a positive, evidence-based reform agenda - empowering managers, differentiating performance (even piloting pay-for-performance), and streamlining misconduct investigations - to build a more agile, accountable, and diverse civil service. ### [[2025-06-08]]: New performance policy for NHS leaders On 15 May 2025, the [UK government announced](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-leaders-face-both-carrot-and-stick-in-new-performance-drive) a new performance-based pay system for NHS leaders, linking executive rewards and penalties more tightly to measurable outcomes. Under the new model, trust and ICB CEOs delivering improvements in care and reducing waiting times may earn bonuses of up to 10%, while underperforming leaders risk losing up to £15,000 in pay increases. To recruit top talent into the most challenged areas, a temporary uplift of up to 15% will be offered, alongside refreshed pay bands to improve retention across the system. The policy also introduces unified pay structures across NHS trusts and ICBs to enhance consistency and enforce transparency through a “comply or explain” requirement. While the initiative has been welcomed for recognising the importance of effective leadership in reforming NHS services, concerns remain that penalties could discourage strong candidates from taking on high-risk roles, especially in contexts where poor performance stems from long-standing structural issues rather than individual management failures. ### [[2025-06-05]]: Martin Stanley on performance appraisal Based on the post "[Performance Management and Appraisal](https://ukcivilservant.substack.com/p/performance-management-and-appraisal)" (April 18, 2025), this critique challenges performance management orthodoxy. Mr. Stanley questions the value of formal annual appraisals and advocates instead for honest, real-time feedback as a more effective management approach. Drawing on managerial practices and behavioral insights, he highlights the dangers of insincerity, over-formalization, and emotional discomfort in traditional systems. He also discusses the "idiosyncratic rater effect," noting that performance ratings often say more about the evaluator than the person being evaluated - an insight with major implications for how such data is used. I find Stanley’s reflections compelling, especially his focus on relational dynamics and team-level leadership. Still, I believe this doesn’t negate the importance of having some structured performance systems. Without a minimal system in place, it’s hard to generate reliable data on performance management - data that is essential for identifying patterns and informing broader strategies. When well-designed (simple and minimal!) such systems can mitigate bias and support learning and coherence, rather than mere compliance. ### [[2025-04-20]]: OPM memorandum and Sanders critique Read [OPM’s February 25, 2025 memorandum](https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/opm-memo-ses-performance-2025-2.pdf), establishing a mandatory SES Performance Appraisal System effective FY 2026 (October 1, 2025), which: - reconstitutes [Executive Resources Boards](https://www.chcoc.gov/content/executive-resources-boards) (responsible for SES members’ performance evaluation) under senior political appointee leadership; - lifts the prohibition on forced distributions by capping Level 4 and 5 ratings at 30%; - adds “Faithful Administration of the Law and the President’s Policies” as a critical performance element; - imposes stricter consequences for low ratings (including possible removal); - and mandates the removal of all DEI language from SES performance plans. [Ron Sanders](https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/v2/D4E1FAQEHsZOnvKMrFg/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/B4EZWRbgsTHcAc-/0/1741901666082?e=1746057600&v=beta&t=gncC5QKPpC8uRV43fim3Hk8UTzRyCAzXzH-QrqMnLDM) sharply criticized these quotas, recalling the U.S. Army’s abandonment of a similar system in its Officer Effectiveness Reports in the 1980s and ’90s due to demoralizing effects on top performers. He warned that a 30% cap risks creating an artificial “wait‑your‑turn” cycle disconnected from real organizational outcomes, and urged a return to the Kay Coles James _model_, which ties SES ratings to GPRA metrics with case‑by‑case judgments by the [President’s Management Council](https://www.cio.gov/handbook/key-stakeholders/pmc/) to reward leadership teams based on genuine, team‑based results.