Skip to main content

Performance Appraisal (Megaw Report)

Volume 35: debated on Monday 17 January 1983

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what, with regard to the Megaw report, are the broad definitions used to summarise overall performance in the Civil Service appraisal scheme; and what proportion of civil servants fell into each category in the years 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1982.

The broad definitions are: 1—Outstanding, exceptionally effective; 2—Very Good, more than generally effective but not positively outstanding; 3—Good, generally effective; 4—Fair, performs duties moderately well; 5—Not Quite Adequate, definite weaknesses make him not quite good enough to get by; 6—Unsatisfactory, definitely not up to the duties. Adverse reports giving 5 and 6 markings may lead to proceedings for compulsory premature retirement. Comprehensive information is not collected on the distribution of overall performance markings.Research evidence from a limited sample shows that distributions vary considerably between Departments, grades and organisational units. Broadly, as reported to the Megaw committee, this evidence suggests a range of between 40 and 75 per cent. of staff in categories 1 and 2; between 20 and 50 per cent. in category 3; between 5 and 10 per cent. in category 4; and about 1 per cent. in categories 5 and 6. Departments are currently seeking to remedy indentifiable deficiencies in their reporting standards, and the reporting system is itself under review.