Performance appraisal system of senior civil servants in China and the United States：A comparative perspective
Purpose
This paper aims to shed light on commonalities and differences of performance appraisal system of senior civil servants in China and the United States, given that strengthening performance evaluation and accountability is a common trend in the management of civil servants in various countries.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper conducts solid and thorough policy analysis111 the different policies conducted in the two countries.
Findings
The paper reveals that, although there are differences in the conceptual scope between the cadres of Chinese party and government leadership and senior American civil servants, their assessment systems are still comparable in terms of assessment standards, asseaaaaat methods, and application of assessment results. In China, the central government has proposed to give full play to the incentive role of cadre assessment and evaluation, to improve the cadre assessment and evaluation mechanism, and has successively formulated and implemented comprehensive assessment and evaluation methods for the party and government departments and county-level government leading cadres. In the United States, strategic anchoring, leadership and knowledge management, result orientation, and strengthening accountability have become the basic principles of government department performance evaluation, and a human capital evaluation and responsibility system have been established. In terms of assessment content, the assessment of party and government leading cadres highlights indicators such as party spirit cultivation, political standards, moral quality and mental state, which embodies the characteristics of "special indicators". The assessment of senior civil servants in the US federal government emphasizes the more operational and evaluative description of actions, which embodies the style of "behavioral indicators".
Originality/value
The paper contributes to research by demonstrating not only differences in performance appraisal systems between China and the United States, but also many common problems and common tools and methods to improve its assessment scientifically.
- Behn R, D. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures[J]. Public Administration Review, Vol.63, No.5, pp.586-606. [Baidu Scholar]
- World Bank (2012). Senior Public Service: High Performing Managers of Government[EB/OL]. http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/civilservice/epublishdocs/SPS%20note%201216.pdf. [Baidu Scholar]
- GAO (2016). Improving Personnel Management Is Critical for Agency's Effectiveness[EB/OL]. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-621. [Baidu Scholar]
- U, S Department of Energy Office (2015). SES Performance Management System: Policy and Operating Procedures [EB/OL]. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/06/f22/Policy%20Memo%20%231%20-%20SES%20Performance%20Management%20System%20-%20Policy%20and%20Operating%20Procedures.pdf. [Baidu Scholar]
- Xu F, F. and Liu X, T. (2018). A review and its reference of American civil servant's performance incentive mechanism [J]. Administration and Law, No.7, pp.28-37. [Baidu Scholar]
- General Office of the CPC Central Committee (2018). Opinions on Further Encouraging cadres to take on new roles in the new era [EB/OL]. http://news.12371.cn/2018/05/20/ARTI1526813816788126.shtml. [Baidu Scholar]
- Huang J. (1998). On the defects and improvement of China's civil servant assessment system[J]. Theory and Reform, No.4, pp.69-70. [Baidu Scholar]
- Wu H. (2015). Incentive function and realization of civil servant performance management in China Diameter[J]. Seeker, No.4, pp.104-108. [Baidu Scholar]
- Tang J. and Fang Z. B. (2017). Performance appraisal of civil servants: Realistic Dilemma and China Foreign experience and local path[J]. Administrative Science Forum, No.11, pp.24-30. [Baidu Scholar]
- Tian Y. X. (2018). Human resources of civil servant system in the process of national governance modernization on the path of management reform: experience and Enlightenment of OECD countries[J]. Jinan Journal (Philosophy & Social Sciences), Vol.40, No.3, pp.101-110. [Baidu Scholar]
- Fang Z, B., Hou C, H. and Chen X. (2016). Performance of senior civil servants in the United States federal government efficiency assessment system and reference [J]. Journal of Chinese Academy of Governance, No.2, pp.128-132. [Baidu Scholar]
- Chi Y, M. (2014). Performance appraisal and management: theories, methods, tools practice [M]. People's Posts and Telecommunications Press, pp.1-29. [Baidu Scholar]
- United States Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Guide to senior executive service qualifications [EB/OL]. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/reference-materials/guidetosesquals_2012.pdf. [Baidu Scholar]
- General Office of the CPC Central Committee (2009). Leading bodies of Party and government work departments and measures for comprehensive assessment and evaluation of leading cadres [EB/OL]. https://www.ccdi.gov.cn/fgk/law_display/6350. [Baidu Scholar]
- http://www,ordosdj,gov,cn/zcfg1115748/zcfg_zy/201310/t20131008_2193489,html. [Baidu Scholar]
- United States Office of Personnel Management. guide to the senior executive service [EB/OL]. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/reference-materials/guidesesservices.pdf. [Baidu Scholar]
- Ritzer G. (1993). The McDonaldization of Society [M]. Pine Forge Press, pp.32-56. [Baidu Scholar]
- Li J, P. and Li L. (2002). Comparison of Chinese and foreign civil service systems[J]. Journal of Xi'an Jiaotong University (Social Sciences), No.3, 69-73+93. [Baidu Scholar]
- Deloitte (2009). Performance evaluation of boards and directors [EB/OL]. https://www2.deloitte.com/in/en/pages/risk/articles/board-of-directors.html. [Baidu Scholar]