It is with utter astonishment that the public has heard that a customs officer hit his superior because he was not happy with the way in which his performance was evaluated. This is probably the first time that this type of outcome of performance evaluation is reported and it leaves the public, especially researchers, perplex and confused. How to analyse such an outcome? Is it the culture? Is it the system or is it the wrong tool for the public sector?

Performance management is believed to be the way forward and there are a lot of resources invested in its development and management. Is this the type of outcome that should be expected in the public sector? Performance management as a concept and management tool has existed for decades and its evolution has greatly depended on its implementation.

There is a need to develop a performance management system (PMS) tailored to the needs of different departments and, whilst implementing it, the system will evolve, adjust and adapt to the needs of public sector employees. This is the route chosen by most public sectors in the world comparable to our economy. Again, Mauritius had been forward looking since 1995 and had started discussions and even had a pilot study of the implementation of PMS. However, for some unknown reasons, its implementation had not taken place and its evolution restricted.

The reaction of the customs officer to performance evaluation may be a reason why the implementation of PMS is taking so long. Research has in fact shown that PMS should take an integrative approach in both the organization structure and the working conditions of employees. Workers should at the outset know their objectives and expected performance levels and any divergences from expectations should be explained and discussed. There should be no room for subjectivity and misunderstandings.

The Pay Research Bureau has started the consultative process for the next report due in 2008. The unions are requesting a shorter working week and better benefits and they are saying that it is not hours that count but productivity. It seems that unions are requesting for a performance/productivity-based pay. In most countries, unions have made high level of resistance to performance/productivity-based pay and here we have a situation where they are themselves saying that public sector employees should be rewarded based on productivity and not hours of work.

Performance pay as part of PMS has been on the menu. However, if performance evaluation is breeding such aggressive reactions from employees, the issue of performance-related pay should be reconsidered and revisited. Pay being a sensitive issue it could lead to more violent reactions if the system is perceived to be non transparent and inequitable.

Public sector officers have followed a number of courses, workshops and seminars on performance management as a concept but it is the first time they are experiencing it in the customs department and it is creating an adverse reaction. The question is: should the public sector implement performance management and go forward with such a system?

The answer is simply in the objectives of implementing performance management. Public sector managers and officers should be aware of the ?why? of performance management to adhere to it. If the implementation is due to being fashionable and trendy then may be it should be put on hold while looking for a system, which is more appropriate and will breed the expected and respected behaviour in the public sector.

The reaction of the customs officer could be an isolated case and it should by no means make the public sector retract from change and development. It could just be a case of personality clash between two employees and should not be generalized for the public sector at large. However, the case should not be taken lightly as it could reflect the ?simmering? of frustration in the public sector and should be reflected upon.

The challenge is to have a PMS that motivates public sector officers and builds on their trust.

Dr Priya BAGUANT