– Bonus Schemes and Performance Related Pay
productivity. The Commission is also expected to provide recommendations on the general principles, financial parameters and conditions for an appropriate
incentive scheme to reward excellence in productivity, performance and integrity.
rewarding better performance. The V CPC signalled its intent to establish a performance-linked pay component to the civil service pay structure. The VI CPC
went further to recommend a framework for Performance Related Incentive Scheme.
system, recommended development of a strong job specific employee appraisal system, and annual performance agreements.
body, proposed a variable pay component to be awarded annually based on performance. The incentives as proposed were to be available both at the individual
level as well at the team/group levels. The key elements of the PRIS guidelines, arising from the VI CPC, were:
The Scheme proposed to cover employees in those departments that fulfilled the following eligibility criteria:
- o Had consistently prepared a Results Framework Document (RFD) for two preceding years, and, had received a rating of 70 percent or higher in delivering
the goals set in the RFD;
- o Achieved ‘efforted’ cost savings from the budgeted non-plan expenditure;
- o Implemented bio-metric access control system in its offices to ensure punctuality and attendance of officials;
- o Developed a Divisional Performance Measurement System, i.e., Divisional RFDs for evaluating the performance of individual divisions;
- o Designed incentive scheme for categories of employees below the level of Joint Secretaries.
It granted flexibility to departments to design incentive schemes for employees below the level of the Joint Secretary.
The performance awards were required to be revenue neutral and had to be funded out of savings generated by the individual departments. The quantum of
performance award was linked to the savings achieved by the department.
The PRIS scheme was voluntary for ministries and departments as it was expected that its implementation might be easierfor some departments which had
clear, quantifiable targets.
the Scheme as also administrative and implementation challenges.
The Scheme was meant to be budget neutral and was to be funded through savings by the departments. However, it was difficult to define ‘efforted’
savings. It was pointed out that the size and budget of departments would differ significantly, making the implementation of the scheme easier for some
departments compared to others. The fear/ apprehension of inflating the budget so as to effect greater savings, was also very real.
It was pointed out that there was no estimate of the financial implications. The guidelines proposed that 15 percent of the projected non plan savings
could be utilised for incentives. But whether this would be adequate for providing these incentives across the departments remained uncertain.
The introduction of PRIS in some divisions within a department could potentially exclude high performing individuals from an ineligible division,
leading to their demoralization and demotivation.
The system of Performance Linked Bonus (PLB) and Ad hoc Bonus have been prevalent in the Central Government for a fairly long time. Therefore, for the
replacement of the existing bonus schemes with any other incentive scheme, prior consultation with the stakeholders was considered essential.
a very limited uptake of the scheme. In the first place, the Scheme was voluntary. It was not binding on the departments. Secondly, the Scheme was
dependent on savings generated by the departments. This was seen as a fundamental flaw of the proposed framework by a number of departments. Thirdly,
without a credible performance measurement methodology, the scheme was difficult to operationalize. Finally, the RFD which had just been introduced in the
Central Government was yet to take roots. It could, therefore, not be used as an anchor for the Scheme. For these and a number of other reasons, PRIS was
not operationalized by the departments. It was implemented in a modified way in the Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space.
Department of Space (DoS). While the general scheme of PRIS, as recommended by VI CPC, proposed that the performance awards be financed from budgetary
savings of the concerned department, PRIS as implemented in Atomic Energy and Space is independent of budgetary savings. Payable as a cash incentive, PRIS
in these two departments is non-additive and non-cumulative. Details of the scheme implemented in thee two departments have been refleced in Chapter 11.2.
covered under the Productivity Linked Bonus (PLB) Scheme, which is implemented in Railways, Posts and Telecommunications, production units under the
Ministry of Defence and other establishments.
made by those Central Government employees who were not covered by the PLB Scheme. The Group suggested evolution of a productivity linked bonus scheme for
Central Government employees as a whole. Based on the recommendations of the Group, and pending evolution of a single scheme of bonus for employees, an
Adhoc Bonus Scheme was evolved and the remaining employees, who were not covered by the PLB Scheme, were allowed ex-gratia payment. The Commission notes
that the financial outgo on these two bonus schemes stood at ₹1847.08 crore for the year 2013-14.
fashion. The Commission notes that Ministry of Finance has been insisting on revision of the PLB Scheme. It has been suggested, inter-alia, that the PLB
scheme should be on the basis of an input-output ratio, should be based on productivity and profitability and that productivity should be assessed on
financial parameters based on profitability of the organisation.
places where PLB is applicable and it is not found feasible to implement PRIS immediately, the existing PLB schemes may be continued in a modified manner
where the formula for computing the bonus has a direct nexus with the increased profitability/productivity under well-defined financial parameters.
motivation and performance are not exclusively linked to Performance Related Pay (PRP) which may only enforce temporary compliance.
profit motives. Targets, thus, are often based on quantitative criteria making the assessment of performances easier. In the governmental context, on the
other hand, the targets are more in the nature of social and public goods. These may not necessarily be tangible and discernible within a stipulated
period. Proportioning credit for such a larger public good amongst various departments may not be possible so as to reward some and leave out others. There
may be genuine difficulties in separating individuals from the collective, in terms of contribution made towards achieving results. The problem of PRP
degenerating into routine entitlements also needs to be reckoned with.
bureaucratic culture of the civil service into one that is focused on meeting citizens’ and the government’s expectations for speedy and efficient delivery
objective criteria for results; several have improved the appraisal system and framework as a prior step. A few have linked PRP with a results based
management system. Some countries follow a differentiated approach where an extensive and sophisticated framework is applied for senior civil service
levels, while a simple results based approach is applied at the lower levels.
implementation of their PRP schemes across countries. OECD countries such as UK, Australia, Canada, and Netherlands have considerable experience in
operating PRP across their civil service, with a more nuanced one for senior civil servants. Korea, Chile, Malaysia and Philippines have implemented PRP in
their civil services and have considerable experience in using this as a tool for boosting performance and accountability. Evidence from these countries
indicates that pay flexibility contributes to management improvements, promotes an atmosphere of dialogue, rewards teamwork and is helpful in efficient
task allocation. In Brazil and Indonesia, PRP has contributed to reducing staff absenteeism. They have also provided managers with the tools with which to
redress and discipline poor performers.
building at various levels. The Commission feels that given the enormous size of the government and the wide diversity in the basic structures, sizes and
patterns that are observed across ministries/departments/ Divisions, it would be erroneous to recommend a one-size-fits-all model for PRP. The Commission
is of the view that prescribing any particular model for PRP may not be sustainable. Ministries and departments should be given enough flexibility to
design individual models suiting to their requirements.
in managing poor performers in a targeted manner.
autonomy to design context specific criteria, targets and indicators.
their current pay, given at the end of the financial year as one time incentive for the particular period.
important aspects. First, need to evolve proper criteria to measure performance along with setting a context where individual and organizational
goals are clearly aligned, and Second, need to devise a performance appraisal system in which the objectives of the appraisal system match with that
of the reward system.
organization with that of the individuals. Suitable changes in the existing Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) can provide the necessary linkage
between the targets of the appraisal system with those of the RFD document.
Ministry/Head of department, providing physical and verifiable details of the work to be done during the financial year. The government accepted this
recommendation in 2009 and put in the place the system of Results Framework Documents (RFD) – consisting of a vision, mission, objectives, functions, inter
se priorities among key objectives, success indicators and targets of a ministry/department – for evaluating and monitoring departmental performance. RFDs
are being used as the primary assessment tool to measure performance of departments.
However, at that time, the RFD system was still being put in place and many departments were still adopting this system. The RFD system has taken firm
roots now and has emerged as a powerful tool for evaluation of actual achievements of a department against annual targets. The Commission notes that
presently 72 Central Government ministries/departments are implementing RFDs. This Commission is of the view that the RFD system can be harnessed as an
anchor for PRP. It can provide the platform through which organizational and individual targets can be clearly aligned.
system for central public sector enterprises.
for Performance pay. The Commission, however, notes that the performance evaluation methodology embedded in APAR system has some limitations. Some of the
prominent limitations are:
- · Lack of Linkage between Individual and Organizational Performance.
- · Lack of prioritization: the activities in the APAR are not ranked on the basis of their importance.
- · No ex-ante agreement on the targets. · APAR is highly subjective.
- · Emphasis on personality rather than results.
Commission suggests the following modifications in the existing APAR system so that it can used as another anchor for determining Performance Related
clearly aligned in the APAR. The current APAR focuses more on the individual’s performance compared to organizational performance. This results in a
situation where individual officer can be rated excellent while the rating of the department could be lower. This is an anomaly which needs to be
corrected. Conceptually, the Ministry’s Vision/Mission needs to be translated into a set of strategic objectives for each department and these objectives
need to be cascaded by the Department Head to his subordinates and subsequently down the chain.
Performance Indicators (KPIs). This is required for evaluation of the KPIs in the end. The current PAR system assigns 60 percent weight on personal
attributes and functional competencies and only 40 percent weight to work output. It would be useful to devise the performance framework in such a way that
it captures all the KPIs in a holistic manner: on work output, effectiveness of process adherence, management of tasks, other
competencies–behavioral/leadership/functional. The Commission recommends 60 percent weight on work output and 40 percent weight on personal attributes.
with the supervisor at the beginning of the year. This will set the agenda for performance assessment on scientific lines, obviate the possibility of
gaming during target setting exercise and facilitate midcourse correction, in case of requirement, in a transparent manner.
that these timelines may be synchronized with the preparation of the APAR so that the targets set under RFD get reflected in individual APARs in a seamless
been introduced for IAS Officers. Such a system ensures adherence to the prescribed timelines in filling up the APARs. The Commission recommends
introduction of such online APARs systems for all Central Government officers/employees.
across ministries/ departments. Rather than a new system design, the favoured approach should be an incremental adaptation which can operate within the
existing framework of rules with minor changes that can enable smooth implementation and operationalization of PRP.
this backdrop, the Commission recommends introduction of the Performance Related Pay for all categories of Central Government employees, based on
quality RFDs, reformed APARs and broad Guidelines, as enumerated above.
recommends that the PRP should subsume the existing Bonus schemes. The Commission notes that there could be a time lag in implementing the Performance
Related Pay by different departments. Till such time, the existing Bonus Schemes should be reviewed and linked with increased
profitability/productivity under well-defined financial parameters
Stay connected with us via Facebook, Google+ or Email Subscription.