Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
This paper will argue that PMS in PP serves the implicit objective of maintaining strict
hierarchy within the organisation to support the coercive side of the state. Particularly, it
will be argued that the performance indicators are devoid of organisations role and
goals. There is a need to re-orient the organisational and individual performance
indicators in the wider perspective of its perceived role. It will be supported by
describing context, contents and evaluating its effectiveness, and finally suggesting that
performance appraisal should include the non quantifiable indicators as well because
most of the police performance remains unseen in the current PMS.
PP has a historical context that influences its current PMS. Pakistan inherited a colonial
police system that was devised in aftermath of 1857 anti-colonial uprising. It was
governed by police act of 1861 by which the main function of the police was to coerce,
rather than protect, citizens (Crisis Group Asia Report 2008, p. 2). Maintenance of
social order was the prime responsibility and for this purpose a regimented
organisational culture was introduced, producing a military like command and control
and non compliance was punished severely. Although Police has transformed much in
its outlook since 1861 yet public servants not only shape history of their organisation
but also are shaped by that history (Denhardt 1993, p. 73).
1
U 4875631 Performance Management Report
Another formal channel of PMS is mid career professional course at the end of which he
is evaluated. Every course contains certain marks that are added up to his rating.
Besides professional courses, promotion committees also evaluate him on the basis of
his postings and performance. The promotion committees quantify his PERs, course
results and any extraordinary act of gallantry. (Attached as appendix 1).
There are also informal channels of Performance appraisal like peer review in form of
impressions about the employee, his accessibility to the seniors and political bosses.
Moreover, how society, through media and direct interaction, gauges his performance
also shapes his professional repute. These factors impact his formal performance
appraisal directly or indirectly.
The stated aim of the PMS in police is to reward and punish. The recommendations for
accelerated promotions by the reporting senior officer has considerable effect on the
decision of the promotion committee while the adverse remarks can lead to deferment
of promotion. Although there is an option of appeal but still any negative or below the
average rating brings serious consequences for the employee. PMS puts greater
emphasis on punishing the failure than rewarding the performance
However, the implicit aim of PMS is to maintain the paramilitary posture of the force. It
promotes loyalty to the person rather than organisation or clients. It may appear an
obsolete performance indicator but performance is a relative and cultural-specific
concept (Sundaram & Campo 2000, p. 652). Evolved amidst the feudal, rural and
scattered society, Police tried to replace the loyalty to social figure heads with loyalty to
departmental heads for sake of transforming the staff employees into agents of social
cohesion. Police, with the help of land revenue staff, codified the procedures and united
2
U 4875631 Performance Management Report
the vast Sub continent. Legacy of playing a unifying role under the political leadership
still carries on with the police culture. So, hierarchical Police culture has its own roots
and utility in a highly fractionalised society of Pakistan.
Current performance indicators like personal traits and crime figures are internally
generated and control oriented. Colleagues and clients are excluded from it that further
widens the gap between societal demands and performance of the individuals. Police
managers usually consider conformity to the bureaucratic norms as satisfactory
performance and ensure that the subordinates are doing the right thing and how inputs
can be regulated to enhance their performance (Behn 2003, Pp. 588 & 593).
Performance indicators of a policeman have been defined very narrowly. They only
evaluate the crime related performance and ignore other important duties like peace-
keeping and helping the distressed. Due to decentralised and autonomous nature of
police work, an individual policemans performance during isolated events remains
unreported. Moreover, the peace keeping and emergency services do not produce any
product so they go unreported and unrewarded.
Moreover, PMS of police is quantitative, least concerned with the process. It stresses
how many and not how it is achieved. Like outputs, the value of good process is
high but undetermined (Sundaram & Campo 2000, p. 653). Whether it is issuing the
traffic tickets or arresting the criminals, PMS does not bother about the way and why it
was done. As a result the employees try to look smart in figures and ignore the
contribution to the organisational goals.
Use of seniors rating for performance appraisal has a danger of subjectivity. There is
hardly any mean for assessing the reliability of seniors judgement. A subordinate may
3
U 4875631 Performance Management Report
be a victim of his bias, lack of knowledge or mere hesitancy to report objectively. More
often seniors think that reporting his subordinate negatively may reflect badly on his
own performance as manager.
PMS relies solely on outputs rather than outcomes. Arresting a criminal is not an end
itself but how that arrest affects the overall peace and security of a society is more
valuable. Outcome indicators are more relevant and valuable to the end user of the
service. Although arrest of criminal is a relevant and quantifiable indicator than
outcomes yet, outcomes are more meaningful and feasible indicator but quite difficult to
quantify. As stated by Behn (2003, p. 586) neither the act of measuring performance
nor the resulting data accomplishes anything; only when someone uses these measures
in some way do they accomplish something.
PMS of police can be improved by including the non quantifiable indicators like
processes and outcomes.
A process is the manner to procure the output. A spectacular arrest affected by coercion
and treachery should not be viewed by its result only. Moreover, restoring peace is
desirable but how many times the police man baton charged the crowd to restore peace,
is also important. Sometimes the process themselves are an end and ignoring them
trivialises outputs. Individual restraint on using wrong processes can be aggregated to
from a group measure, and respecting the process will become an end in itself.
PMS should also consider the outcomes of a policemans activity for better performance
appraisal. In Police working, the relationship between output and outcome is vague
(Jones 2001, p. 127) but quite important for measuring efficiency. Crime fighting
neither consumes much of their time not taken seriously by many. A policeman spends
most of his time in interacting with society in civil matters and emergencies and that is
where his utility and effectiveness is gauged by the society. Managers should consider
how a policeman contributed to collective preferences and whether he focussed on
results or relationships (OFlynn 2007, p. 3). Quality of his interaction with society,
problem solving approach and the action taken or suggested by him must be part of
performance appraisal for an effective PMS of Police.
4
U 4875631 Performance Management Report
References
Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2005, World Public Sector Report:
Unlocking the human potential for public sector performance, United Nations, New
York.
International Crisis Group 2008, Reforming Pakistans Police, Asia Report, N 157,
viewed 5 June 2010, < www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/ASAZ-82QHVU>.
5
U 4875631 Performance Management Report