The Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES)
The Board through CESB Resolution No. 661 dated January 23, 2007 revised the existing rules, guidelines and procedures of the CESPES to make it more responsive, meaningful, systematic, accountable and practicable, with the purpose of contributing to the fulfillment of the Board’s mandate to form a continuing pool of well selected and development-oriented career administrators who shall provide competent and faithful service in the CES.
Purpose of the CESPES
The CESPES results shall be used as bases for official personnel actions such as:
• Original or promotional appointment to CESO ranks;
• Grant of merit-based incentives, awards, and other forms of recognition;
• Career planning and development; and
• Accreditation and availment of incentives granted by the Civil Service Commission
Components of the CESPES
A. Performance Contract (PC). It measures and assesses the Ratee’s performance on the basis of work target commitments established and actually accomplished and completed by the Ratee. These commitments are initially formalized by the Ratee through discussions and in agreement with a Superior Rater in the department/ agency.
The Performance Contract (PC) is accomplished using the Performance Contract and Review Form (PCRF) to generate the PC Rating for the Ratee. The PC rating shall comprise eighty percent (80%) of the overall CESPES Rating of the Ratee.
The Ratee’s commitments are the lists of milestones* or resulting outputs intended to be accomplished by the Ratee within a given period of time. Milestones are specific, tangible and measurable outputs (e.g., policies, programs, projects, processes and procedures). They are formulated as statements of outputs which have already occurred or been accomplished for an envisaged target at a specified time. They are stated in terms of the following essential dimensions:
• Time - answers the questions “when, how long, or how soon” the output will occur or be accomplished;
• Quantity - answers the questions “how many or how much” of the output will occur or be accomplished;
• Quality - answers the questions “how well; in what form/ manner” the output will occur or be accomplished;
• Target Stakeholder Affected - answers the question “for whom; who will receive/ have access to; who will be influenced by” the output once it has occurred or been accomplished.
* Milestones are categorized either as: Leading and Innovating Milestones (LIM) or Regular/ Routine Milestones (RRM).
Leading and Innovating Milestones (LIM). These are outputs resulting from tasks/ functions under the Ratee’s scope of responsibilities that the Ratee conceives, initiates and primarily undertakes in the department/ agency. LIM are usually purposive innovations and reforms which aim to improve the quality of the department/agency’s structures, systems, operations and resources. They are “value added” measures which ultimately focus on enhancing organizational effectiveness. They are developed and completed within a given period of time—with a definite start and end. Once institutionalized—adopted, mainstreamed and sustained—in the work plan of the department/ agency, LIM are converted as Regular Routine Milestones.
Regular/ Routine Milestones (RRM). These are outputs resulting from the tasks/ functions within the accountability of and performed by the Ratee on a regular basis in the work setting. These tasks/ functions refer to the standard and prescribed technical and administrative work performed by the Ratee needed to conduct and sustain the day-to-day work operations in the department/agency.
B. Behavioral Competence (BC). This refers to an assessment of the Ratee’s executive leadership and managerial competence in the work setting. The assessment shall be determined from scores obtained from different sets of behavioral rating scales accomplished by the Ratee’s Superiors and Subordinates.
Behavioral Competence is measured using the Behavioral Competency Scale (BCS) to come up with the BC Rating of the Ratee. The BC Rating shall comprise 20% of the overall CESPES Rating of the Ratee. The scales are composed of positive and negative statements on various observable behaviors and attributes in the following dimensions. :
• Creativity and Innovation - the ability to act as a creative resource for others by challenging the status quo, offering innovative approaches, and by promoting an environment conducive to creative and innovative thinking.
• Critical and Systemic Thinking - the ability to demonstrate high cognitive capacity, quickly grasp and synthesize information, and to assess complex ideas and situations.
• Environmental Acumen - the ability to understand and align the department or agency’s performance with the structures, functions and objectives of the government and the broader economic, political and administrative mechanisms in which it operates.
• Honesty and Integrity - the ability to model the highest standards of personal and professional behavior, help in fostering a politically impartial and incorrupt public service, and to harmonize public responsibilities and good citizenship with management practices.
• Judgment - the ability to gain a broad perspective from all available resources, develop a keen understanding of a situation, reach sound conclusions and decisions based on information gathered, and use intuition as well as common sense and logical analysis in generating and evaluating action plans.
• Leadership - the ability to develop, communicate and pursue a clear, inspiring and relevant vision and direction that is linked to the overall government strategy. It is also the ability to:
o act as a catalyst for organizational change by initiating strategies to meet the department/ agency’s changing environment; and
o use appropriate interpersonal styles to gain consensus and cooperation of various stakeholders within and outside the department/ agency to facilitate achievement of organizational goals.
C. Area(s) for Improvement. It is a feedback component of the CESPES. It identifies specific aspects of the Ratee’s work performance which fall below the expected quality standards and which need to be improved through the conduct of purposive and appropriate education, training, or other capacity building interventions.
The Area(s) for Improvement are discussed by the Rater in the Critical Incidents (CI) and Areas for Improvement (AI) Form and do not contribute to the Ratee’s overall CESPES Rating.
D. Critical Incident(s). It is another feedback component of the CESPES. It is composed of one or more significant anecdotes drawn by the Rater from the Ratee’s actual work performance. These anecdotes must be based on incidents actually observed and validated by the Rater who cites and uses them as reference to justify the PC and BC ratings given to the Ratee. The Critical Incidents are discussed by the Rater in the Critical Incidents (CI) and Areas for Improvement (AI) Form and do not contribute to the Ratee’s overall CESPES Rating. To ensure fair and fact-based discussion of the Critical Incidents, these anecdotes must be discussed in terms of the:
S (Situation) – serves as the context for the Ratee’s exercise of leadership and/ or management functions;
T (Task) – identified and expected to be performed by the Ratee in the aforementioned situation;
A (Action or Activity) - actually performed by the Ratee in response to the aforementioned situation;
R (Results) - referring to the output produced and the outcome (effect/impact) caused by the action taken by the Ratee on relevant stakeholders.
E. Incentive Points (IP). These are additional merit points accruing to the overall CESPES Rating of the Rate. The IP are additional merit points accruing to the overall CESPES Rating of the Ratee. These points which are “earned” by the department/ agency are commensurate to the status of accreditation accorded to the department/ agency based on its overall performance in the CSC accreditation scheme as provided for in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 2005. The scheme designed and implemented by the CSC accords different accreditation levels to a department/agency for a fixed period of time after the CSC assesses the extent of completion and the quality of implementation of the department/ agency’s Performance Management System (PMS).
Coverage of CESPES
The CESPES shall cover all incumbents of CES positions in various departments and agencies of the national government, including government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) with original charters, for an uninterrupted period of at least three months. Division Chiefs and those occupying lower positions shall be covered by the CESPES provided they are:
• Career Executive Service (CES) eligibles; Career Service Executive (CSE) eligibles or Career Executive Officer (CEO) eligibles; and,
• Designated in an Acting or Officer-In-Charge (OIC) capacity.
The Rating Period, which refers to the 12 - month year covering January to December, shall embody the time period during which the overall performance of the Ratee shall be the focus and subject of measurement and assessment.
Frequency and Period of Conduct
The CESPES shall be implemented simultaneously to all covered departments/ agencies according to a schedule prepared by the CESB, on an annual basis, commencing in the month of January of the Rating Period, and fully completed not later than the last working day of the month of April of the year succeeding the given Rating Period.
The CESPES Performance Evaluation Cycle and Stages
A. Performance Planning Stage
B. Performance Monitoring Stage
C. Performance Review and Feedback Stage
D. Performance Evaluation and Development Planning Stage
(Link: CESB Resolution No. 661 dated January 23, 2007 Guidelines/Rules and Regulations of the Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System