Keywords

1 Introduction and Background of Research: Evaluation Systems in the Public Sector at a Glance

Employee evaluation in the public sector is a crucial practice associated with performance assessment and feedback. Daft [1] emphasizes the link between performance and feedback, aligned with transformational leadership theories. Dessler [2] defines evaluation as the assessment of current and past performance, considering the temporal dimension. De Cenzo and Robbins [3] focus on progress and contribution, while Gomez-Mejia et al. [4] highlight identification, measurement, and management of employee performance as pivotal in evaluation processes.

Vaxevanidou and Rekleitis [5] present a comprehensive definition that plays a significant role in decision-making for organizational changes, fair rewards, skill enhancement, feedback provision, and employee empowerment.

As an important aspect of Management, the Human Resources Management (HRM) needs to integrate psychological tools, administrative science techniques, and methods. The HRM's importance, in any organization, stems from recognizing human capital as a vital asset. De Nisi and Griffin [6] outline HRM goals: enhancing productivity, competitiveness, legal compliance, personal and collective development, and achieving organizational objectives.

HRM involves stages such as performance assessment, using measurable standards that guide criteria and target setting. According to Stranis [7], it also underpins the action of an anthropocentric public administration itself, which fosters effective employee management and support, enhancing internal collaboration and mutual trust.

This paper aims to highlight key aspects of the framework established in the Greek public sector by Law 4940/2022, trace its evolution, compare it with EU member states’ systems, and assess its effectiveness.

2 Methodology

This paper is a literature review and employed analysis of reports, under keyword search “Evaluation”, “Goal Setting”, “Greek Public Administration”, and “Soft Skills”. Due to the relatively short implementation period of the Greek Law and therefore limited quantitative data, a literature review methodology was adopted.

3 Evaluation and the EU Perspective

The evaluation systems in European Union (EU) member states emphasize strategic goal-setting, outcomes measurement, and individual performance appraisal. Evaluation encompasses not only work measurement but also motivation and communication. In this framework, organizational relationships play a strategic role within the administration and HRM in the EU [8, 9].

3.1 The Εvaluation Systems in EU Public Administration

According to Staroňová's research [8], performance appraisal is mandatory in thirty out of thirty-one EU evaluation systems surveyed, including that of the European Commission. Austria stands as the only exception without mandatory individual performance appraisal, evaluating based on overall organization results. Sanctions for non-compliance are established in ten (10) EU evaluation systems, impacting promotions, extra benefits, and even causing cessation of administrative duties. Twenty-two EU evaluation systems annually assess public servants' performance, while four alter evaluation frequency for higher-ranking officials or other occasions such as new position posting.

Skill assessment plays a pivotal role in EU evaluation systems, except Lithuania [8]. Results emphasize previous performance and behavior in combination with monitoring goal achievement. However, Greece, Malta, and Portugal differ by focusing on subject knowledge over past performance in their human resource evaluation, contrary to the EU trend. The EU prominent trend involves recommendations for future development and improvement, monitored for goal attainment.

Staroňová's findings also reveal direct supervisors as the primary evaluators, with nearly half of EU evaluation models using this approach. Self-assessment, relying and enhancing the employees' experience-based knowledge of their tasks, has gained traction with 11 EU evaluation systems adopting it [8]. In Greece, however, there are no provisions for self-assessment procedures in Law 4940/2022 [10].

The evaluation process in the public administration of EU member states is subject to several procedural aspects. Public servants often perceive evaluation as subjective and unfair [8]. Therefore, designing evaluation systems must prioritize accuracy, consistency, and rationality to ensure fairness. Participation of the employee in the evaluation procedure fosters ownership and sustainability of the end result, legitimizing the process [8]. Accountability mechanisms play a significant role for evaluators [8].

Feedback obtained from the evaluation process, seems to be essential for evidence-based human resource management [8, 11] since relevant information collected significantly impacts decisions concerning promotions and professional development (25 EU evaluation systems). Information influences administrative decisions within public organizations and the career progression of employees (23 EU evaluation systems). Notably, low-performance information is utilized to determine training needs.

Evaluation results are prominently linked, in the majority of EU evaluation systems, with pecuniary rewards and incentives. However, monetary incentives might not be a feasible practice due to budgetary constraints [8].

4 The Evolutionary Process of Evaluation Systems in the Greek Public Sector During the Post War Period

After the Second World War, public servant evaluation in Greece began with Law 1811/1951 [12], aiming for proper selection, career growth, and work performance. Subsequent efforts introduced concepts like “qualification profile” (Presidential Decree (PD) 611/1977) [13], and democratic evaluation (Law 1400/1983) [14]. PD 581/1984 [15], detailed criteria and interview-based assessment. Law 1943/1991 [16], outlined human resource management. The adoption of PD 318/1992 [17], played a pivotal role, introducing modern evaluation principles that marked the evolution of the process, paving the way for Law 2683/1999 [18], which emphasized meritocracy and performance-based assessment. Laws 3230/2004 [19], 3528/2007 [20], 4024/2011 [21], and 4250/2014 [22], aimed to align Human Resource Management (HRM) and Management by Objectives (MBO) principles with practices. The relevant legislative attempts were largely theoretical, lacking emphasis on practical evaluation applications. Concepts such as goal setting, interviews in the context of the evaluation process as well as a feedback mechanism were not put into practice mainly as a result of resistance by syndicates representing public servants.

The enactment of Law 4369/2016 [23], emerged within the context of structural reforms prompted by the Medium-Term Programs, addressing public skepticism and creditors’ demands for enhanced state capabilities, as a low-cost yet high efficiency reform. Aligned with the HRM principles, the Law tried to introduce a holistic framework to evaluate public sector personnel.

5 Employee Evaluation System, Under Greek Law 4940/2022

The main weakness of Law 4369/2016 [23], included the lack of measurable results for goal setting. In this respect, Law 4940/2022 [10] introduced key innovations including a focus on soft skills through individualized development plans, a revised target-setting mechanism linked to Ministries’ action plans, a Human Resources development Advisor, as well as monetary incentives for productivity enhancement. The unified skills framework of the Law encompasses nine (9) soft skills: Orientation to the Citizen, Teamwork, Adaptability, Orientation to Results, Organization and Planning, Problem Solving and Creativity, Professionalism and Integrity, Knowledge Management, Leadership.

As far as target-setting is concerned, goals are integrated into the units’ objectives based on their responsibilities and further specified at each hierarchical level. Each overarching unit's goals include mandatory targets of its subordinate units, with additional indicators and implementation timelines for each goal.

Emphasizing a participatory approach, the Law incorporates interaction and dialogue during the target-setting phase, with three mandatory meetings between Supervisor/Assessor and Employee/Assessed along the chain of command, taking place three times a year, which can also be supplemented by optional meetings. In case of disagreement, the Assessor/Supervisor may decide. It should be noted that Law 4940/2022 [10] provides only one Assessor per Employee, compared with Law 4369/2016 [23], which provided two Assessors. In this respect, faster procedures may exist but with less pluralism.

A significant innovation of Law 4940/2022 [10] lies in its emphasis on achieving a “specific goal” for each employee, directly linked to the development of their skills. For employees’ assessment, the traditional scoring system is abolished, shifting focus to crafting skills development plans. The development plans encompass actions deemed suitable to enhance the assessed individual's skills within the context of their role within the team. Development plans also involve dialogue and feedback between Assessor and Assessed.

The Law also introduces an innovative institution: the Human Resources development Advisor whose competences revolve around the assessment process. This role, however, expands, aiming to ensure effective implementation of public HRM policies and procedures and to provide support to the relevant units. Serving as the link between the General Secretariat for Public Sector Human Resources, placed in the Ministry of the Interior of Greece, and the various public bodies, this visionary institution is yet to be operational.

Law 4940/2022 [10] also introduces an innovative mechanism regarding productivity-based bonuses, in alignment with the global trend of Performance Related Pay (OECD, 2015) [24]. This initiative, however, is selectively applied to specific categories of public employees, whose scope of work is linked to the Unified Government Policy Plan, heavily targeting those involved in the national recovery project ‘Greece 2.0’. Performance goals are also set for judicial employees, employees of various units tasked with strategic planning, and those engaged in the European Economic Area (EEA) Financial Mechanisms. This model establishes a direct connection between compensation and achievement of Unified Government Policy Plan objectives. The Law paves the way for a high-performance employee group, evaluating exceptional achievements in various fields.

5.1 Insights on Law 4940/2022

Despite a short implementation period, there are some remarks to be made regarding the recently introduced provisions.

Firstly, it effectively integrates performance assessment with managerial objectives for heads of units within general directorates. However, as this connection is not extended to low-ranking employees, the onus of motivation is placed solely on managers.

Moreover, the Law introduces a grading system for heads of units, fostering accountability. In contrast, it offers only descriptive criteria for low-ranking employees, potentially shifting the responsibility for motivation back to managers. Additionally, the Law establishes a positive link between evaluation and productivity-based bonuses, but this benefit applies selectively only to those working in units with financial competences, possibly excluding other hard-working employees.

The integration of soft skills into the assessment process is also noteworthy, in order to gauge employee development accurately and beyond only technical/hard skills.

Despite introduced advantages, challenges still remain, particularly relating to the differentiation in treatment between managers and low ranking employees as well as the restricted scope of productivity-based bonuses. The lacking of provisions for self-assessment is also noteworthy and maybe something to be reevaluated in the future amendments of the Law.

6 Discussion and Conclusion

Effective governance and quality in public administration are crucial parameters for citizens' welfare in EU member states, aiming at advancing employment and development [8]. EU member states have been restructuring public administration evaluation systems with a shift towards holistic management practices.

The implementation of the evaluation framework established by Law 4940/2022 [10] represents an innovative institutional step in Greek public administration. This comprehensive evaluation system aims to transform officials into policy shapers rather than mere executors, enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and safeguard public interest while taking into account employee interests (grade, payroll, mobility, selection of heads of organizational units). Drawing inspiration from European and international best practices, it aligns with goals of optimizing public administration performance. Although not extensively applied yet, initial indications are positive. The Law’s architecture has incorporated scientific principles, past system observations, and European practices, making it, in the authors’ view, functionally sufficient. To ensure its success, political and administrative leadership should diligently implement the new Law's framework, making necessary tweaks without compromising the long-term reform effort.

To optimize the evaluation processes in Greece, active participation of all personnel stands as the primary consideration. Such participation should transcend formalistic questionnaires; instead, it must strive for a creative and representative participatory assessment procedure. As Dramalioti [25] notes incorporating “stakeholder involvement” would be pivotal. This may be achieved through workshops, information sessions, and seminars. Education provided will contribute to the effective implementation of the Law [25].

Furthermore, self-assessment could enable a holistic evaluation. In this respect, employees could be encouraged to perform a S.W.O.T. analysis, guided by their assessor-mentor, ensuring in this way a more personalized approach. Digital tools also play a vital role; the use of Information and Communication Technologies could lessen administrative burdens, expedite feedback loops and allow for statistical data, corrective measures.

A culture favorable to evaluation across the public sector is deemed essential. An evaluation system that serves as a springboard for a more citizen-centric administration and values employees' strengths, might well win the trust of the so far reluctant public audience. Universities may contribute for the qualification of potential employees with soft skills and online communities at different fields and sectors may contribute for sharing and exchanging of ideas [26,27,28]. Engaging labor unions is pivotal, in order to convey the evaluation system's true intentions. Political leadership can help to build consensus.