Strasbourg, le 5 novembre 2010                                                          LR-GG(2010)15

                                                                                                                         

COMITE EUROPEEN SUR LA DEMOCRATIE LOCALE ET REGIONALE

(CDLR)

COMITE D'EXPERTS SUR LA BONNE GOUVERNANCE

DEMOCRATIQUE AUX NIVEAUX LOCAL ET REGIONAL

(LR-GG)

CENTRE D'EXPERTISE SUR LA REFORME DE

L'ADMINISTRATION LOCALE

Note du Secrétariat

établie par la Direction générale de la

démocratie et des affaires politiques

Direction des institutions démocratiques

This document is public. It will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

Ce document est public. Il ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.

Introduction

Créé début 2006 suite à la décision du Troisième Sommet des chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement et confirmé en mai 2008 par une décision du Comité des Ministres, le Centre d’expertise sur la réforme de l’administration locale vise à renforcer les capacités des collectivités locales dans toute l’Europe au moyen de programmes axés sur les résultats.

L’Annexe I au présent document présente brièvement les activités menées à ce jour et encore planifiées pour 2010.

Lors de la précédente réunion du LR-GG, le Centre d’expertise a présenté le concept d’une Boîte à outils sur les ressources humaines, qui comprendrait trois volets distincts :

-        « le Programme », comprenant deux cadres de référence (une version complète et une version simplifiée), deux méthodologies (l’une destinée à des séminaires, à des fins d’initiation ; l’autre destinée à être lancée à l’échelle réelle, et incluant des examens par les pairs), une description d’un exercice de comparaison et de prospective et deux concepts de formation (apprentissage par l’action et examen par les pairs) ;

-        une collection de modèles d’instruments (allant des descriptifs d’emploi aux formulaires d’évaluation de la performance individuelle) ;

-        une collection d’études de cas résultant de l’expérience en matière de conception et de mise en œuvre des réformes de la gestion des ressources humaines.

Le premier de ces trois volets (« le Programme ») a été développé avec l’aide d’une consultante (Sanda Ionescu, Royaume-Uni) et figure à l’Annexe II. Le Centre travaille actuellement au recensement de divers modèles de gestion des ressources humaines et d’études de cas qui pourraient utilement être intégrés dans la future Boîte à outils.

Le Centre a aussi finalisé la quatrième Boîte à outils pour le renforcement des capacités, qui portera sur la planification municipale et la gestion de la performance. L’outil sur la gestion de la performance s’inspire largement des travaux du CDLR sur ce sujet. Cette boîte à outil devrait publiée avant la fin de l’année et figure (en anglais uniquement) en addendum au présent document.

Action requise

Les membres du LR-GG sont invités à :

-        prendre note des activités du Centre en 2010 et soumettre toute suggestion qu’ils pourront juger utile concernant les programmes du Centre ;

-        apporter les conseils qu’ils jugeront nécessaires concernant l’élaboration de la Boîte à outils sur la gestion des ressources humaines ; en particulier, les membres du LR-GG sont invités à transmettre au Centre tout document susceptible d’enrichir la Boîte à outils (par exemple des modèles d’outils pour la gestion des ressources humaines ou des études de cas) ;

-        prendre note de la quatrième Boîte à outils pour le renforcement des capacités (planification municipale et gestion de la performance) et, le cas échéant, soumettre des propositions concernant la finalisation de ce document avant sa publication à la fin de l’année.

Annexe I

Le Centre d'expertise en 2010

En 2010, le Centre a continué à répondre à une demande de programmes constante voire croissante émanant des Etats membres. Il s’est ainsi employé à satisfaire les attentes des ministres européens responsables des collectivités locales et régionales qui, dans l'« Agenda d'Utrecht », l’ont présenté comme l'un des principaux mécanismes du programme général d'action que les représentants des ministres, à savoir les membres du CDLR, sont chargés de soutenir et d'encourager.

Sur le plan administratif cependant, à la suite de la nomination du nouveau directeur du Centre, un poste permanent d'administrateur sera transféré au Bureau du Commissaire aux droits de l'homme (au 1^er janvier 2011). Dans l'intervalle, le poste est vacant. De toute évidence, cela influe sur la capacité du Centre à répondre à toutes les demandes qu'il reçoit alors que ses effectifs sont réduits.

Le directeur du Centre étant également responsable des programmes de coopération (s'agissant des questions législatives et de l'élaboration des politiques), une coopération plus horizontale entre les deux secteurs opérationnels et éventuellement une forme d'intégration des activités est en développement. Alors que les programmes d'assistance sont essentiellement destinés aux autorités centrales et non pas aux autorités locales elles-mêmes, le renforcement des capacités des autorités locales et l'assistance politique/législative sur les réformes institutionnelles sont des domaines qui ont des points communs et se renforcent l'un l'autre. Il serait également utile d'envisager d'intégrer les deux équipes mais il s'agira d'examiner de plus près dans quelle mesure il faudra le faire ; des économies d'échelle pourraient, en effet, être réalisées notamment en termes de temps et de coût de déplacement du personnel si les deux types d'activité étaient gérés, dans un pays donné, par les mêmes agents.

Le Centre continuera de soutenir la mise en œuvre de la Stratégie pour l'innovation et la bonne gouvernance au niveau local en répondant aux besoins concrets des pays qui appliquent la Stratégie.

Les deux critères suivants ont été utilisés pour sélectionner les programmes à mettre en œuvre en 2010 :

-      premièrement, sont privilégiés les programmes dont l'impact est le plus fort grâce aux incitations budgétaires proposées par les partenaires locaux ou autres ou bien grâce aux garanties quant à la durabilité du programme ; le plus souvent, le Centre finance la gestion et l'expertise générales du programme (entre un quart et un tiers du coût total) tandis que le partenaire local doit prendre en charge tous les frais de fonctionnement ;

-      deuxièmement, sont privilégiés les programmes qui s'inscrivent dans le prolongement de la mise en œuvre de la Stratégie pour l'innovation et la bonne gouvernance au niveau local.

Les tableaux ci-après donnent une vue d'ensemble des activités envisagées pour 2010.

Elaboration d'outils

- Publication de la nouvelle boîte à outils sur la gestion des performances et la planification municipale - Publication (sous réserve des ressources) de l'outil élaboré pour le programme« Leadership Academy » ; - Elaboration de la première version d'un nouvel outil/d'une nouvelle boîte à outils sur la gestion des ressources humaines

Programmes par pays

Albanie -          Gestion des ressources humaines -          Coopération intercommunale -          Soutien à la mise en œuvre de la planification territoriale Arménie -          Mise à jour de la stratégie nationale de formation -          Aide à la planification municipale destinée à la ville d'Erevan Bulgarie -          Ethique publique Croatie -          Coopération intercommunale Espagne -    Participation des citoyens Fédération de Russie -    Programme de coopération intercommunale Tchétchénie -    Cinq activités préparatoires      (leadership, performance,      planification, aide à l'élaboration      des statuts municipaux et      gestion financière)

France -          Plusieurs activités en coopération avec l'INET (participation des citoyens et gestion stratégique), Lille (cité numérique), l'OPPALE (pilotage d'un groupe de travail) et Bordeaux (conférence sur la Stratégie et la gestion des performances) Géorgie -          Programme de planification municipale stratégique Hongrie -          Programme des pratiques d'excellence Malte -          Gestion des performances  -   Coopération intercommunale Serbie -          Gestion des performances  -   Gestion des ressources           humaines Suisse -   Programme des pratiques           d'excellence dans le canton du           Tessin « L’ex‑République yougoslave de Macédoine » -    Programme de gestion des      performances Turquie -          Programme « Leadership Academy » Ukraine -          Suite du programme sur l’étalonnage pour l'éthique publique -          Programme des pratiques d'excellence -          Programme de gestion des performances

Annexe II

(Anglais uniquement)

Toolkit on Human Resources Management

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKING AND IMPROVEMENT TOOLKIT

Who is this toolkit for?

• HR practitioners in local authorities
• Senior management and elected members of local authorities concerned with public service reform and improving people management

What’s in the tool?

1. Methodology for benchmarking and improving human resource management practices
2. Self-diagnostic form for benchmarking
3. Training concept for visioning desired outcomes (large group facilitation through World Café exercise)
4. Description of action learning concept to analyse and improve HR practices across the organisation
5. Description of peer review system
6. Case studies of implementation

Benefits of using this tool:

• For you
• • Helps you to develop an understanding of how HR practices align with and support organisational strategy and priorities
  • You will identify ways in which to demonstrate the value of people and of sound HR practices
  • Assess your competence and effectiveness in providing a good HR service that meets the changing needs of your organisation and public services

• For your organisation
• • Clarifies the roles and responsibilities regarding HR management of all the stakeholders within the organisation
  • Allows progress of HR practices to be measured and benchmarked against similar institutions
  • Enables better-informed action planning and decision making, taking into account the impact on employees
  • Provides an opportunity for local authorities to take responsibility for their own improvement of HR management practices

Toolmap

Benchmarking exercise: where are we now?

Monitor & review outcomes

Self-managed action learning sets & proposals

Action learning principles and facilitation

Peer review feedback

Peer review strategy

Action learning strategy

Self-Improvement Action Plans

Visioning exercise:  where do we want to be?

HR SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL
Element	Level 1 = Not in place or early stages	Level 2 – learner, on the right track	Level 3 - competent practitioner	Level 4 – mastery, can teach others		SCORE
HR Alignment with Vision and Direction	§   Vision & direction of organisation is not clearly communicated §   Decisions are made without understanding whether skills & capacities are in place to support changes §   Changes are reactive to outside pressure, frequent, sometimes contradictory	·          Vision & direction are communicated periodically, especially to senior staff ·          HR is involved to develop skills & capacities once decisions have been made ·          Changes are sometimes reactive, but more often strategic and purposeful	·          Vision & direction are communicated periodically to all staff ·          HR is brought in an advisory capacity to explain what skills & capacities are in place ·          Changes are strategic and translated into departmental goals and action plans	·          Vision & direction are clearly communicated and understood at all levels within the organisation ·          HR is perceived as a critical partner in crafting the strategic direction of the organisation ·          Strategic changes are cascaded down into meaningful goals and action plans at departmental, group and individual level
Organisational Design and Workforce Planning	·          Organisational design is based on tradition rather than linked to strategic requirements ·          Organisation does not have a clear picture of its existing skills, nor of the skills gap ·          Competency models or job profiles are not widely used	·          Organisational design is linked to strategic requirements but not cascaded at all levels ·          Organisation does not have the right skills in the right place at the right time to deliver on its strategy ·          Competency models & job profiles do exist in parts but are not used strategically or consistently	·          Organisational design is closely linked to strategic requirements but is not always well communicated ·          Organisation has a good grasp of the skills it requires and where they can be most effectively used ·          Competency models & job profiles are widely used, but occasionally become a tick box exercise	·          Organisational design is co-developed with business strategy and well communicated at all levels ·          Processes, systems and roles are aligned to provide maximum returns on effort and investment ·          Competency models & job profiles are used consistently throughout the organisation, are well understood and regularly reviewed to ensure relevance
Attracting & Selecting Talent	·          Organisation does not have a clear employment brand ·          Organisation is not attracting candidates with the right skills and qualities to fill the shortages ·          Selection is done inconsistently, with no clear common framework to avoid personal bias	·          Organisation is gradually improving or regaining its reputation as a good place to work ·          Organisation occasionally struggles to find the right skills or competencies to meet priorities ·          Guidelines & tools for candidate selection exist but are not robust or not fully understood or condoned by managers	·          Organisation is generally perceived as a good place to work ·          Organisation usually attracts the right kind of candidates ·          Robust selection tools exist but are not systematically applied throughout the organisation	·          Organisation is perceived as a good place to work ·          Organisation is successful at attracting the right calibre of applicants and constantly upgrading its talent pool ·          Systematic, competency-based selection tools are used to identify best person for a job, either inside or outside the organisation
Managing Performance	·          Performance appraisals are not conducted regularly and are not linked to rewards or development ·          Performance management is perceived as a punitive measure rather than an opportunity to develop	·          Performance appraisals are regarded as an HR tool and not owned by managers ·          Performance management criteria are linked to rewards and development but are not widely perceived as fair	·          Performance management tools are widely disseminated and understood, but not always simple to implement ·          Performance management criteria are occasionally at odds with organisational priorities or rewards system	·          Performance management tools are simple, credible and data-driven ·          Everyone clearly understands performance management criteria and perceives them as fully aligned to organisational priorities
Developing People	·          Organisational requirements have outgrown the current level of skills and abilities ·          Only a handful of top performers are identified as future leaders, usually protégés ·          Culture does not encourage knowledge sharing ·          Employees are not interested in training & career opportunities, or believe the processes to be ineffective and irrelevant	·          Organisation has the skills in place for current requirements but not for the future ·          There is little overview of high performers and potential future leaders ·          Knowledge sharing is done in a random fashion ·          Employees are not fully satisfied with training & career progression	·          Talent pool seldom lacks the skills to adapt to changing organisational priorities ·          There are regular attempts to identify and develop future leaders ·          There are mechanisms to encourage knowledge sharing ·          Employees are satisfied with career opportunities & training but are not always proactive about learning	·          Talent pool is sufficiently wide and deep to adapt to changing circumstances ·          There is constant effort to identify and build future leaders ·          New knowledge is being developed and shared systematically ·          Employees are proactive about developing themselves and satisfied with the available career & training opportunities
Reward	·          Pay and progression practices do not match stated values and objectives ·          Employees do not value the rewards offered ·          Reward process and the rationale behind it have not been clearly communicated to employees and managers	·          Reward system is linked to individual performance but is sometimes at odds with team goals ·          Rewards are focused on completing tasks and meeting targets rather than on enhancing behaviours ·          Pay & promotion processes are communicated but not always believed	·          Reward system is linked to both individual and team performance and is clearly communicated ·          Rewards are used to promote both desired behaviours and achieving tasks ·          Pay & promotion processes are usually perceived as fair and transparent	·          Reward system is clearly linked to both organisational priorities and individual performance ·          Rewards are used to promote desired behaviours and knowledge sharing ·          Employees perceive pay & promotion processes to be completely transparent, fair and rigorous
Retention	§   Organisation is resigned to fact that high staff turnover is unavoidable §   Best performers are the most likely category to leave; little effort is made to transfer their expertise §   High turnover is disruptive to the rest of the workforce	§   HR is responsible for motivating and retaining staff §   Exit interviews are conducted to understand reasons for leaving organisation §   HR is concerned at staff turnover and has introduced some tools to improve morale	·          Line managers do a good job of motivating and retaining team members, with the support of HR ·          Efforts are made to capture knowledge and skills when key performers leave the organisation ·          Minimal damage on engagement and commitment through exiting staff (whether voluntary or forced exits)	·          Line managers take ownership for motivating and retaining team members ·          Organisation is confident that they are not losing key performers with vital skills; transfer of knowledge is embedded in organisational practice ·          Organisation can capture exit data and understands how to act to minimise negative effect on commitment of remaining staff
Motivation & Engagement	·          Organisation has largely untested and undifferentiated assumptions about what motivates their employees ·          Employees do not feel in control of the content and workload in their jobs ·          There is a big gap between the official culture of the organisation and ‘the way things are really done’	§   Organisation is good at motivating certain segments of their workforce §   Managers do not always achieve the fine balance between autonomy in jobs and support & guidance §   Employees can usually articulate organisational culture and values, although it may not match with their own	·          Organisation understands key motivators for different segments of their workforce ·          Employees feel they have adequate information and support to do their jobs well ·          Employees have been involved and consulted in determining their goals, job roles and workloads, and can see how it links with organisational values	·          Organisation understands the link between employee engagement, performance and customer satisfaction ·          Employees feel there is a right balance between autonomy and guidance in their jobs ·          Employees feel their personal goals and values are aligned with the organisational mission and values
Evaluating Effectiveness	§   Organisation sporadically tracks measures of HR effectiveness §   Captured data is not systematic enough to be fully credible	§   HR tracks many key performance indicators but is not sure how they all link up and fit with organisational strategy §   Data is too detailed and insufficiently analysed to be used for senior-level reporting	·          Organisation systematically tracks, analyses and reports on HR metrics ·          The validity of the data is generally accepted, but is only used to support existing processes and decisions	·          Organisation is clear about the value and purpose of HR metrics and tracks the ‘right’ metrics in a systematic way ·          Both senior and line management are confident of the robustness of workforce data and use it for decision-making and strategic planning

HR Self Assessment Tool

1. HR Alignment with Vision and Direction

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner	level 4 –mastery, can teach others
Degree to which HR strategy and practices match organisational needs and priorities, mutually influencing and shaping each other.	Vision & direction of organisation is not clearly communicated	Vision & direction are communicated periodically, especially to senior staff	Vision & direction are communicated periodically to all staff	Vision & direction are clearly communicated and understood at all levels within the organisation
	Decisions are made without understanding whether key skills and capacities are in place to support changes	HR is involved to develop skills & capacities once decisions have been made	HR is brought in an advisory capacity to explain what skills & capacities are in place	HR is perceived as a critical partner in crafting the strategic direction of the organisation
	Changes are reactive to outside pressure, frequent, sometimes contradictory	Changes are sometimes reactive, but more often strategic and purposeful	Changes are strategic and translated into departmental goals and action plans	Strategic changes are cascaded down into meaningful goals and action plans at departmental, group and individual level

indicators	key questions	possible interventions
Positive: We can all see and understand the vision, mission and strategic plan HR terminology is as familiar to us as business/political terms Action plans all link to each other and to key strategies and we review them regularly	1) Has the leadership clearly articulated what the organisation stands for and what its priorities are in the next 3-5 years? 2) How is this message communicated?  Is it sufficiently communicated and translated into detailed objectives, goals and plans? 3) Does everyone in the organisation understand how they fit into the bigger picture? Is employee feedback appreciated? 4) What is the perception of HR at senior level and at the frontline? Do employees engage with HR, or is it something ‘done to them’?	Café conversation to set vision and strategy Department and team briefings Secondments or work-shadowing between HR and other departments Joint action planning
Negative: No one below senior management level can articulate organisational vision, mission and goals Poor communication HR is viewed as ‘them’ vs. ‘us’

2. Organisational Design and Workforce Planning

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner	level 4 –mastery, can teach others
How structure, culture and job rules complement and support the needs of the organisation	Organisational design is based on tradition rather than linked to strategic requirements	Organisational design is linked to strategic requirements but not cascaded at all levels	Organisational design is closely linked to strategic requirements but is not always well communicated	Organisational design is co-developed with business strategy and well communicated at all levels
	Organisation does not have a clear picture of its existing skills, nor of the skills gap	Organisation does not have the right skills in the right place at the right time to deliver on its strategy	Organisational design is closely linked to strategic requirements but is not always well communicated	Processes, systems and roles are aligned to provide maximum returns on effort and investment
	Competency models or job profiles are not widely used	Competency models & job profiles do exist but are not used strategically or consistently	Competency models & job profiles are widely used, but occasionally become a tick box exercise	Competency models & job profiles are used consistently throughout the organisation, are well understood and regularly reviewed to ensure relevance

indicators	key questions	possible interventions
Positive: We have up-to-date job profiles for most roles Organisational design is stable but flexible enough to adapt to changing needs Employees feel they have some control over their work goals and objectives	1) Is the structure of the organisation fit for purpose, for the strategic priorities we have identified? 2) How easy is it to move or retrain staff?  Are we willing to do that? Can we pinpoint exactly what skills we have in the organisation and where? 3) Why are we using these systems and processes – because it’s the way we’ve always done things, or do they still serve us well? 4) Do the HR functions, policies and processes increase the ability of the organisation to change?	Business process flowchart analysis Skills gap analysis Workshops on competency models, job profiles, job descriptions, person specifications
Negative: We are recruiting and promoting the same kind of people we were 20 years ago We stick to tried-and-tested methods, even when we feel they are no longer helpful

3. Attracting and Selecting Talent

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner	level 4 –mastery, can teach others
Recruitment and selection strategy and processes, as well as the organisation’s employment brand (perception of it as an employer)	Organisation does not have a clear employment brand	Organisation is gradually improving or regaining its reputation as a good place to work	Organisation is generally perceived as a good place to work	Organisation is perceived as a good place to work and there is healthy competition for job openings
	Organisation is not attracting candidates with the right skills and qualities to fill the shortages	Organisation occasionally struggles to find the right skills or competencies to meet priorities	Organisation usually attracts the right kind of candidates	Organisation is successful at attracting the right calibre of applicants and constantly upgrading its talent pool
	Selection is done inconsistently, with no clear common framework to avoid personal bias	Guidelines & tools for candidate selection exist but are not robust or not fully understood or condoned by managers	Robust selection tools exist but are not systematically applied throughout the organisation	Systematic, competency-based selection tools are used to identify best person for a job, either inside or outside the organisation

indicators	key questions	possible interventions
Positive: We have a centralised recruitment and selection strategy, but allow enough flexibility for each department to get the staff they need We get a constant stream of high-quality applicants for positions	1) To what extent do our managers understand and apply a structured, fair recruitment and selection process? 2) Are we satisfied with the quality of our candidates and new hires?  Do we notice an upward or downward trend in applications? 3) How many of our new hires successfully complete their probationary period? 4) What is our reputation as an employer? What makes our organisation distinctive?	Interview training Diversity training Personality and psychometric testing Workshops on competency models, job profiles, job descriptions, person specifications and how to design application forms
Negative: We are not quite sure what the organisation stands for and what kind of people it wants to attract We rely too much on gut feeling or personal recommendations when hiring people Positions remain vacant for a long time, or we get poor quality candidates

4. Managing Performance

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner	level 4 –mastery, can teach others
System for setting expectations; measuring, improving and rewarding performance	Performance appraisals are not conducted regularly and are not linked to rewards or development	Performance appraisals are regarded as an HR tool and not owned by managers	Performance management tools are widely disseminated and understood, but not always simple to implement	Performance management tools are simple, credible and data-driven
	Performance management is perceived as a punitive measure rather than an opportunity to develop	Performance management criteria are linked to rewards and development but are not widely perceived as fair	Performance management criteria are occasionally at odds with organisational priorities or rewards system	Everyone clearly understands performance management criteria and perceives them as fully aligned to organisational priorities

indicators	key questions	possible interventions
Positive: We all understand the basis on which our individual and team performance is judged Performance appraisals are regular and useful Managers give informal feedback and there are no nasty surprises at the annual performance appraisal	1) Does everyone in the organisation understand what good, poor and average performance looks like in their job role? 2) Do we recognise and reward good performance and do we deal effectively with poor performance? 3) Does performance appraisal link with training and development, as well as career progression? 4) Are performance goals generally achievable and do employees have the resources in place to achieve goals?	Coaching and feedback Frontline management skills training Role plays for dealing with difficult people
Negative: We treat performance appraisals as an unwelcome interruption and deal with them superficially We avoid giving negative feedback until small problems grow to an unmanageable size

5. Developing People

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner		level 4 –mastery, can teach others
Framework to ensure continuous growth of employees to meet their personal, professional and organisational goals	Organisational requirements have outgrown the current level of skills and abilities	Organisation has the skills in place for current requirements but not for the future	Talent pool seldom lacks the skills to adapt to changing organisational priorities		Talent pool is sufficiently wide and deep to adapt to changing circumstances
	Only a handful of top performers are identified as future leaders, usually protégés	There is little overview of high performers and potential future leaders	There are regular attempts to identify and develop future leaders		There is constant effort to identify and build future leaders
	Culture does not encourage knowledge sharing	Knowledge sharing is done in a random fashion	There are mechanisms to encourage knowledge sharing		New knowledge is being developed and shared systematically
	Employees are not interested in training & career opportunities, or believe the processes to be ineffective and irrelevant	Employees are not fully satisfied with training & career progression	Employees are satisfied with career opportunities & training but are not always proactive about learning		Employees are proactive about developing themselves and satisfied with the available career & training opportunities
indicators		key questions		possible interventions
Positive: The training courses we provide are relevant and timely, and we make sure that they link with other development initiatives We have the opportunity to apply our learning back in the workplace We are constantly on the look-out for high-potential employees and support them to develop their skills still further		1) What are the critical skills for the future and how are we going to build them? 2) What development strategies do we have in place (other than training programmes)?  Are our employees and managers aware of these development opportunities? 3) How are we sharing best practices and thought leadership? 4) How do we encourage employees to actively improve their skills and knowledge?		Cross-departmental mentoring Breakfast or lunch briefings across departments Action learning sets Self-managed learning
Negative: We don’t know what we know or don’t know as an organisation We are operating in silos and keep reinventing the wheel Training days are viewed either as an annoying interruption or a nice day out of the office

6. Reward

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner	level 4 –mastery, can teach others
Giving employees appropriate financial and non-financial acknowledgement for their contribution to the organisation	Pay and progression practices do not match stated values and objectives	Reward system is linked to individual performance but is sometimes at odds with team goals	Reward system is linked to both individual and team performance and is clearly communicated	Reward system is clearly linked to both organisational priorities and individual performance
	Employees do not value the rewards offered	Rewards are focused on completing tasks and meeting targets rather than on enhancing behaviours	Rewards are used to promote both desired behaviours and achieving tasks	Rewards are used to promote desired behaviours and knowledge sharing
	Reward process and the rationale behind it have not been clearly communicated to employees and managers	Pay & promotion processes are communicated but not always believed	Pay & promotion processes are usually perceived as fair and transparent	Employees perceive pay & promotion processes to be completely transparent, fair and rigorous

indicators	key questions	possible interventions
Positive: We have a total rewards system in place, with both financial and non-financial measures for individual and collective contributions There is an appropriate mix between base remuneration, benefits and perks and it is clearly communicated throughout the organisation	1) How fair do employees feel they are paid compared to other employees in the organisation (or in other organisations)? 2) Do we reward people who do a good job more than those who don’t? 3) Do we know exactly what we are rewarding?  Individual performance or teamwork?	Employee focus groups to determine most valued and alternative rewards
Negative: Our employees feel the system is rewarding the wrong things and the wrong people There seems to be no link between performance and reward

7. Motivation, Engagement and Retention

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner	level 4 –mastery, can teach others
Degree to which employees feel loyal advocacy for the organisation and feel that the organisation supports them	Organisation has largely untested and undifferentiated assumptions about what motivates their employees	Organisation is good at motivating certain segments of their workforce	Organisation understands key motivators for different segments of their workforce	Organisation understands the link between employee engagement, performance and customer satisfaction
	Employees do not feel in control of the content and workload in their jobs	Managers do not always achieve the fine balance between autonomy in jobs and support & guidance	Employees feel they have adequate information and support to do their jobs well	Employees feel there is a right balance between autonomy and guidance in their jobs
	There is a big gap between the official culture of the organisation and ‘the way things are really done’	Employees can usually articulate organisational culture and values, although it may not match with their own	Employees have been involved and consulted in determining their goals, job roles and workloads, and can see how it links with organisational values	Employees feel their personal goals and values are aligned with the organisational mission and values
	Best performers are the most likely category to leave; little effort is made to transfer their expertise	Exit interviews are conducted to understand reasons for leaving organisation	Efforts are made to capture knowledge and skills when key performers leave the organisation	Organisation can capture exit data and understands how to act to minimise negative effect on commitment of remaining staff

indicators	key questions	possible interventions
Positive: Line managers are good at understanding and motivating their staff, with some support from HR We are retaining the right kind of people, rather than merely those who can find no jobs elsewhere	1) How much ownership do our managers take for employee motivation & engagement? 2) Do we just assume that all of our employees are motivated by money or do we understand their greater needs and aspirations? 3) When we hire and develop people, are we just looking at skills or at attitudes and values that are compatible with the organisation? 4) How good is our relationship with those who have left the organisation?	Frontline management skills training Coaching and mentoring Exit interview design and analysis Employee satisfaction surveys and focus groups, linked to results from customer satisfaction surveys
Negative: Motivation/retention is regarded as a ‘fad’ imposed by HR, no ownership by managers Turnover is disruptive to the rest of the workforce, placing an extra burden on their workload

8. Evaluating Effectiveness

DEfinition	Level 1 – Not in place/early stages	level 2 – learner, on the right track	level 3 – competent practitioner	level 4 –mastery, can teach others
Measuring HR’s effectiveness and leveraging metrics to enhance organisational performance	Organisation sporadically tracks measures of HR effectiveness	HR tracks many key performance indicators but is not sure how they all link up and fit with organisational strategy	Organisation systematically tracks, analyses and reports on HR metrics	Organisation is clear about the value and purpose of HR metrics and tracks the ‘right’ metrics in a systematic way
	Captured data is not systematic enough to be fully credible	Data is too detailed and insufficiently analysed to be used for senior-level reporting	The validity of the data is generally accepted, but is only used to support existing processes and decisions	Both senior and line management are confident of the robustness of workforce data and use it for decision-making and strategic planning

indicators	key questions	possible interventions
Positive: We feel we are measuring the right things at the right time, aligned with organisational goals We do a good job of educating everyone in the organisation about metrics	1) How confident are we that workforce metrics are aligned to our overall goals and that we are continually monitoring them? 2) Who has ownership and accountability for workforce metrics?  Who does the reporting and analysis? 3) What are we using metrics for?	Project group to identify and monitor key performance indicators (overall and HR specific) Metrics (e-learning) training programme with self-test module
Negative: We rely on gut feeling and anecdotal evidence to prove HR’s contribution No one is quite sure who is responsible for measuring what HR budget is the first to be cut, since no one is sure of the value of HR activities

Methodology for Improving Human Resource Management Practices

The debate around local government reform across Europe, and particularly in Eastern Europe, has focused predominantly on improving service delivery, making efficiencies, enhancing governance, local accountability and public ethics.  One area that has been largely underutilised or even ignored is people management.  Yet, in a time of such sweeping reforms of the public service, and with such economic pressures for its employees to achieve more with less funding, good HR practices are becoming essential.  The extent to which employees are engaged and motivated, how they are managed on a day-to-day basis, will make all the difference in being able to implement fundamental and long-lasting changes in all other areas. 

Good human resource management need not be complicated or over-sophisticated.  Awareness of current organisational culture and people management practices (and its weaknesses) often constitutes the essential first step in improving processes and skills.  The benchmarking toolkit is designed to initiate honest conversation within local government about the type of organisational culture and behaviours that they want to see in the future.  A few concepts appear to be key here:

• Clear understanding of core values and vision of the organisation (‘what it stands for’) and what that translates to at departmental, team and individual level
• Open, direct communication in all directions (top-down, bottom-up and between silos)
• Senior and frontline managers equipped with people management capabilities, particularly around managing performance, managing conflict, supporting learning and development
• Staff should be empowered and supported to do their jobs well, receiving regular feedback from both managers and peers, and be encouraged to take responsibility for their ongoing development

The human resource management toolkit is fully modular, so it can be adapted easily to each organisation’s existing practices and improvement needs.  There are two distinct types of programme available, depending on the degree of change required, the depth of review desired and the funding available for training and follow-up.

1. Programme 1:      Initiation

This programme is the entry-level benchmarking and training concept.  It is estimated to last 1.5 days and includes (but is not limited to):

- simplified benchmarking tool to determine current organisational practices

- core visioning exercise to determine where organisation needs to be

- skills gap analysis with moderator

- action planning for improvement

- identifying training and development needs to deliver the action plans

- workshop on performance management, coaching and feedback (if required)

2. Programme 2:      Full Roll-Out

This programme is a more in-depth analysis of the HRM situation, allowing for networking with other similar organisations.  Minimum time requirements is 3 days at the outset, with additional later reviews.  The programme includes (but is not limited to):

- detailed benchmarking tool to determine current organisational practices

- core visioning exercise to determine where organisation needs to be

- action planning for improvement

- introduction to action learning process

- introduction to peer review process

- identifying additional training needs to deliver the action plans

- workshop on performance management, coaching and feedback (if required)

- workshop on competency models, job profiles and selection processes (if required)

This toolkit is designed to be shared, improved and co-developed as local authorities implement and learn from it.  We hope that good practices can thus be more easily identified, adapted and implemented elsewhere.

Preparatory Work of National Associations

1. Translate HRM Benchmarking and Improvement Tool into their own languages
2. Send the Tool to local authorities to seek views, gain commitment and establish a list of interested participating municipalities
3. Establish a small project team to manage the programme

Responsibilities and Processes

Step 1: Adaptation of the European Score Card

1.       Ask interested municipalities to provide their comments on the European Score Card.

2.       In the light of the opinions expressed, prepare a draft National Score Card

3.       Hold a workshop with local government representatives (both staff and elected members) from the interested municipalities to discuss the concept and amend (or add to) the draft National Score Card in ways that make it more meaningful to local circumstances.

4.       Prepare the final National Score Card for human resource management.

Step 2: Self-Assessment and Benchmarking

1.       Participating municipalities use the National Score Card for self assessment.

2.       Participating municipalities send their replies to the Project Team with the National Score Card form filled in.

3.       Confidentially, the Project Team processes the contributions and creates a National Benchmark composed of the National Score Card and the average scores of the participating municipalities. In order to ensure that the National Benchmark is simple enough and scores just slightly better than the average of the replies, the score to each statement will be rounded-up to the next half point and the total score for each section will be adapted accordingly (e.g. if the average score to a statement is 2.31, it will be rounded to 2.5; if it is 2.6 it will be rounded to 3).

4.       The National Benchmark is disseminated to all municipalities.

5.       Municipalities compare their replies with the National Benchmark in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses within the Benchmarking and Visioning Exercise (one day facilitation programme).  Following on from that, they will prepare an Improvement Action Plan for their HR practices.

After 12-18 months, municipalities organise a new assessment in order to verify the situation of HRM practices, thus evaluating the success of the programme.

Step 3: Action Learning and Peer Review Support for Improvement Action Plan

This is an optional but very powerful part of the Programme.

1.       The National Association invites local authorities to take part in the Peer Review Programme. There is no coercion. Local authorities must want to participate because they see the benefits of doing so. 

2.       Local authorities express their interest and commitment to join the Peer Review Programme.

3.       The National Association establishes a volunteer pool of around 20-30 local experts (Peer Reviewers and Action Learning Set participants) from the more senior positions in local authorities (both staff and elected members); the criteria should be knowledge, skills and experience in leadership and service provision in local government. 

The pool of Peers may be supplemented by independent people from outside local government but who may have relevant knowledge, skills or experience.

4.       The National Association runs a 2 day training programme for the pool of experts to familiarise them with the concept and practice of the HRM Benchmarking and Improvement Tool, Action Learning and Peer Review.

5.       Action learning sets are set up within each participating authority, according to their own schedules and needs (minimum commitment should be 6 months or 6 meetings per set).  For Peer Review, the Project Team selects a number of the most appropriate volunteering authorities and agrees the dates for the peer visits with them. A visit should last for 3-4 days.

6.       For each selected local authority, the Project Team puts together a team of about 4-5 Peers (Peer Review Team) under the leadership of a Mayor or Chief Executive, and supported by a Project Manager, to work with a local authority to carry out the peer assessment and make a report.

7.       Four weeks before the visit. The Project Manager requests sets of background documents relevant to the Peer Review (e.g. the local self-assessment benchmark; results of any employee surveys; statistics concerning recruitment, turnover and absenteeism; HR policies and training strategy; organisation chart, intra-organisational communication channels etc) from the local authority and distributes them to the Peer Reviewers. Each member of the Peer Review Team should receive a set. This will enable the Team to gather a certain amount of evidence in advance of the visit and develop some understanding of the local authority.

8.       The Project Manager asks the local authority to make arrangements for accommodation, meals, transport and administrative support for the Peer Review Team for the duration of the visit. Peer Reviewers work on a voluntary basis but transport and accommodation costs are usually covered by the host.

9.       Two weeks before the visit. The Project Manager draws up a schedule for the Peer Review visit in consultation with the local authority. The schedule should include individual discussions with key senior staff and elected members, as well as workshops with representative groups of senior, middle and junior staff in different departments. Ideally, some interaction with members of the Action Learning Sets (should these exist within the organisation) to understand the projects they have been working on and the improvements they have already made.  The aim of the discussions would be to build up a picture of the effectiveness of the local authority from the views of the people involved to complement the evidence gained from relevant documents.

10.     The Peer Review visit takes place (3-4 days). The Peer Review Team normally works in pairs, and is guided in each discussion or workshop by a prepared set of questions and in particular by the elements included in the National Benchmark. 

The Peer Review Team will also need time to come together to discuss their findings with each other.

11.     At the end of the visit, the Peer Review Team will want to discuss its preliminary findings with the leadership of the local authority to seek consensus.

12.     Shortly after the visit, the Peer Reviewers submit their written comments and recommendations to the Project Manager.

13.     Two weeks after the visit. The Project Manager prepares a confidential draft report with conclusions and recommendations, and shares it with the Peer Review Team and local authority concerned.

14.     On the basis of the comments received from the local authority and the Reviewers, the Project Manager prepares a final report and sends it to the Peer Review Team and the local authority. If the local authority so desires, this report may be confidential. The report should point to interesting experiences which could be shared (possibly through the Best Practice Programme Tool) and weaknesses which need to be addressed.

15.     On the basis of recommendations made in the report, the local authority, as part of its commitment to the HRM Benchmarking and Improvement Tool, will meet with the Action Learning Set members and modify or refine the existing Improvement Action Plans. This might include introducing specific communication policies, structures and procedures, training programmes, making better use of particular staff, initiating projects, setting targets, etc.  Clear responsibilities will be allocated for implementing and monitoring the Improvement Programme, with final responsibility being given to the Chief Executive/Mayor.

16.     The Project Manager arranges a monitoring visit after 12 months to confirm that action is being taken in line with the Improvement Plan.

N.B.   Peers should understand that participating in a Peer Review is an extremely valuable personal development experience for themselves, whether they are assessors or being assessed.

In the course of the assessment, the Project Team will come across examples of best practice. With the agreement of the local authority, the National Association may want to use these examples as a basis for study visits or case-study publications, so that other local authorities can learn from them.

How to Complete the Scorecard

There are two versions of the Scorecard, depending on the amount of detail that the participating organisations need or want to assess and the amount of support required to do so:

• Version 1: HR credibility and effectiveness is measured against 9 key areas (Alignment with vision and direction; organisational design and workforce planning; attracting and selecting talent; managing performance; developing people; reward; retention; motivation and engagement; evaluating effectiveness).  These are divided into four levels of competence, from non-existent/low (1) to mastery/role model (4), with brief descriptions of each level.  Assign a score that most closely matches your organisation’s current capabilities in each of these areas.

• Version 2:  To further support the organisation in this assessment exercise, we have included positive and negative indicators for each of the key 9 HR areas, as well as key questions you should be asking yourselves and suggestions for improvements and possible future interventions.  These could also serve as a useful starting point for project ideas for action learning sets.

Benchmarking and Visioning Exercise

1.           Introduction

In a truly effective organisation, human resource management has to move beyond the merely operational service delivery and become closely linked to strategic vision and planning.  The emphasis of this programme will be to measure the degree to which HRM supports and enables the organisation to pursue its quest for improved services, system efficiencies and customer satisfaction.  The programme is modular and can be customised according to individual organisation’s requirements.  However, we believe that maximum benefit will be derived from using the benchmarking and visioning exercise in conjunction with peer reviews and action learning sets (see following section).

2.         Participants

There are two options for organising this event, depending on how comfortable each municipality is in sharing its HR practices with others, as well as the number of participants it would like to involve.

Option 1: Intra-organisational participation:

This process will be achieved one organisation at a time and will involve the entire senior management team, as well as several local councillors and managers with relevant interests and portfolios further down in the municipal hierarchy.  The aim here is to foster cross-departmental communication and encourage a holistic view of the organisation.

Option 2: Inter-organisational participation:

Each of the municipalities participating in the HRM Benchmarking and Improvement Programme will appoint 4-10 participants for the plenary session. Ideally, they should include the Mayor/Deputy Mayor, 2-3 local councillors and 3-4 senior local public servants with experience of and interest in Human Resource Management but from many departments across the municipality. At a later stage, depending on the improvement tools preferred by each municipality, the participants can be divided into the ‘Peer Review Team’ and the ‘Action Learning Team’, although it would be beneficial to have 1-2 participants from each location actively involved in both.

3.         Objectives

1. To develop participants’ understanding of the Human Resource Management Benchmarking and Improvement Programme;
2. To emphasise the links between strategic vision and planning, and how human resources can support organisational transformation
3. To present to the participants the main principles of large group facilitation and use it constructively to analyse past, present and future outcomes;
4. Establish a network of partners and critical friends across the organisation (if choosing Option 1) or across several municipalities (Option 2).

4.         Outcome

Participants will have a clear picture of the current culture, systems and processes of their organisation, and be well on their way to develop a vision of where they want to be within a certain timeframe.  They will be able to translate this future vision into requirements regarding organisational structure, culture, competencies and targets, all of which will enable them to achieve this transformation, whether it is gradual or revolutionary.

5.         Programme duration

The plenary session for benchmarking and visioning is expected to last one full day.  For the entry-level programme (which we have called Initiation in the previous section), an additional half-day will include modules on performance management, coaching and feedback.  For the Full Roll-Out option, additional training sessions on the peer review and action learning processes would follow on from that and would include opportunities to practise and put into action the theoretical knowledge acquired.  We would strongly recommend the complete three-day option to all but the most HR adept organisations.

6.         Preparatory work

Each participant is asked to familiarise him/herself with the main ideas of the Benchmark and to give individual scores for each section.  These individual scores will be collated and the overall result will be shared at the plenary session (with respect for confidentiality of individual responses).  The patterns and reasons for particular group scores will be discussed then.

7.         Model Programme:

Benchmarking & Visioning Day

9.00-9.30 Presentation of benchmarking tool; clarifying process and definitions

9.30-9.50 Questions and answers

9.50-10.15 Presentation of aggregated pre-workshop scores

10:15- 10:30 Coffee break

10:30 – 12:00 (can be done in separate sections if Option 2) Open benchmarking discussion: rigorous review of current state, SWOT analysis

12:00 – 12:30  Conclusions and recommendations (plenary)

12:30 – 14:00 Lunch

14:00- 16:00 World café visioning conversation: vision of desired future; my part in it; values & culture necessary; competencies, skills, abilities, systems required – how will we know we’ve achieved it?

16:00- 16:15  Coffee break

16:15 – 17:00  Conclusions and action planning

Action plans to be prepared as ‘homework’ for next day

Division of participants into peer reviewer and action learning set participants

World Café Visioning Conversation

Café conversation is a large-scale group facilitation process, designed to awaken and harness collective intelligence through conversations about questions that matter to the future of an organisation.  The conversations link and build upon each other as people move between groups, continually evolving and cross-pollinating.  When people frame their strategic explorations as questions rather than as problems, conversations can move beyond preconceived ideas and established norms.  Instead of focusing on ‘fixing problems’ and finding short-term solutions, this opportunity to have a meaningful and open conversation means that creative questions and innovative solutions can be explored before reaching key decisions.

This type of facilitation has proved highly effective in product development, strategy formulation, marketing and leadership in corporate, government and community or charity settings around the world.

The key principles behind World Café conversations are the following:

1. Set the context and clarify the purpose of the conversation from the outset.
2. Create a hospitable space, which feels safe, inviting and welcoming of all contributions.
3. Explore questions that really matter to the participants.
4. Encourage everyone’s contributions and keep people moving between tables.
5. Connect diverse perspectives in every-widening circles of thought and insights.
6. Listen for themes, patterns, insights.
7. Capture and share the collective discoveries.  Re-engage in whole group conversation to connect the overarching themes and questions.

Action Learning Training Concept

1.         Introduction

The action learning process is an approach to management development involving small groups of managers from the same organisation meeting on a regular basis to share issues and ideas, give and receive feedback from a group of peers and put the learning into immediate action back in the organisation.  The emphasis is on learning from experience and then acting on that learning.  It is a very cost-effective tool for managing change in organisations and can be easily cascaded through a whole organisation once a core group has been trained in its use and benefits.  There are similarities and differences to the peer review approach and organisations are likely to benefit most when they implement both. 

This model training concept offers an example of a practical one day Action Learning Training Session. It has been developed for a number of 3 participating municipalities (which would be typical for a pilot roll-out of the programme).  Adaptations for smaller or larger number of participant organisations can be made.

2.         Participants

Each of the municipalities participating in the HRM Benchmarking and Improvement Programme will appoint 4-7 action learning participants. Ideally, they should include 2-3 local councillors and 3-4 senior local public servants with experience of and interest in Human Resource Management but from many departments across the municipality, and some of them should also be involved in the peer review process.  The group should commit to work together over a period of at least six months.

3.         Objectives

-    To develop participants’ understanding of the Human Resource Management Benchmarking and Improvement Programme;

-    To present to the participants the main elements of the action learning process;

-    To help participants get started on action learning sets and working on specific problems;

-    To give participants practical training in questioning, listening, feedback and teamworking skills.

4.         Outcome

Participants will be working on concrete cross-functional projects to improve HR practices across the organisation.  Working in action learning sets gives busy managers the opportunity to reflect on their activities, but is also the ideal vehicle for action planning, self-managed learning, knowledge sharing and mutual accountability.

5.         Programme duration

One day (this may be adapted where necessary).  Some of the sessions are very similar to those conducted for the peer review process (notably on listening, questioning and feedback skills).  If so wished, these sessions may be conducted together with the Peer Review Training teams.

6.         Preparatory work

Each participant is asked to familiarise him/herself with the main ideas of the Benchmark and prepare a presentation of his/her municipality’s practice regarding one of the sections of the Benchmark that they wish to improve.  This will have been derived from the Benchmarking and Visioning Exercise that the participants will have previously completed.  All participants from the same municipality will be asked to prepare suggestions for improvement within that same area. Each of the participating organisations will be running a separate workshop and building the foundation for working together as an action learning set, but also learning from each other in the plenary section.

7.         Model Programme

Ideally, the four sessions (1.5 hours each) throughout the day, interspersed with coffee and lunch breaks, should be organised according to the same structure:

1. Theoretical training (30 minutes)

-          brief presentation of key elements & principles of action learning

-          questions and answers (around 10 minutes);

2. Practical exercise in workshops (1 hour)

-          modelling an action learning set based on the presentation by one of the officials from each municipality – listening, questioning, brainstorming (40 minutes);

-          conclusions and recommendations  with the help of the moderator (around 10 minutes);

-          reflections on key learning from the process (around 10 minutes).

c.   Plenary session to review action plans, recommendations and learning

-          Final session at the end of the day to compare results, what works best about the process, key learning, next steps, mutual support networks etc. (45 minutes)

a.           Theoretical training

In each session, it is suggested that presentations be made by an expert action learning facilitator.  Below is a suggested list of topics for a four-session training course:

Session 1:

-          Action Learning Set elements and principles – taking ownership of one’s learning, creating a safe environment, balancing task and learning, establishing ground rules; team goal setting and accountability/learning contracts.

Session 2:

-          Learning and personality styles – improving self-awareness, tolerance of diversity, challenging mental models

Session 3:

-          Communication skills - listening and questioning; giving constructive feedback; influencing and negotiation

Session 4:

-          Strategic vs. operational thinking, choosing relevant projects, just-in-time interventions and long-term planning

-          From sets to conclusions: action planning, reviews, reflection and continuous improvement.

b.           Practical exercise in workshops

Ideally, there should be three parallel workshops, a separate one for each municipality. The composition of the workshop should stay the same throughout the training. Ideally, workshops should be cross-functional and involve most of the departments of each organisation.

In any particular session, participants from the same municipality will focus on a single area of the HRM Benchmark that they wish to improve.  They can choose to change the topic for each session or to focus on just one topic throughout the four sessions.

Flip-charts or blackboards will need to be used in order to list and discuss recommendations made by participants.

c.            Plenary session

This is an occasion to discuss in a plenary meeting the recommendations reached by the three workshops and to examine the common ideas and the reasons for variations. Consequently, participants would be invited to reflect on their learning and to make conclusions and recommendations regarding the action learning process as well as their action plans.

8.         Practical example of action learning programme:

Session 1: Introduction to Action Learning
9.00-9.30 Presentation by international expert, followed by Q&A
9.30-10.30 – Workshops to formulate topic area
Workshop 1	Workshop 2	Workshop 3
Presentation by representative of municipality 1 on theme 1	Presentation by representative of municipality 2 on theme 2	Presentation by representative of municipality 3 on theme 3
Establishing ground rules	Establishing ground rules	Establishing ground rules
10.30-10.45 Coffee break
Session 2: Learning & Personality Styles
10:45 – 11.15 Presentation by expert, followed by Q&A
11.15 – 12.15 Workshops to develop self-awareness and interaction
Workshop 1	Workshop 2	Workshop 3
Continuing set interaction	Continuing set interaction	Continuing set interaction
12.15- 13.30  Lunch
Session 3: Communication Skills
13.30-14.00 Presentation by expert, followed by Q&A
14.00-15.00 Workshops to continue discussions and develop feedback skills
15.00-15.15  Coffee break
Session 4: Finding Projects & Conclusions
15.15-15.45 Presentation by expert, followed by Q&A
15.45-16.45 Workshops to develop conclusions and reflect on learning
Plenary Session to Discuss Recommendations, Learning and Action Plans
16.45-17.30  Discussion of common themes, key learning, key recommendations

Peer Review Training Concept

1.         Introduction

The peer review process is a powerful experience for reviewers and those under review alike, provided that it is conducted in an efficient and disciplined manner.  This will most likely require additional training to maximise its benefits.

This model training concept offers an example of a practical one day Peer Reviewers Training Session.  The one day format presupposes that some participants will be familiar with the action learning concepts such as listening, questioning and giving feedback, otherwise it can be run as a two-day training programme. It has been developed for a number of three participating municipalities, which fits in well with the Action Learning Training Concept (which would, ideally, precede the Peer Review Training).

2.         Participants

Each of the (three) municipalities participating in the HRM Benchmarking and Improvement Programme will appoint 3-5 peer reviewers. Ideally, they should be the Mayor/Deputy Mayor, 1-2 local councillors and 1-3 senior local public servants with experience of and interest in Human Resource Management.  It would be preferable to have at least 1-2 of the peer reviewers also involved in the action learning sets or working closely with the individuals assigned to that group.

3.         Objectives

5. To develop participants’ understanding of the Human Resource Management Benchmarking and Improvement Programme;
6. To present to the participants the main elements of the peer review process: preparation for and organisation of visit, conducting of interviews, preparation of conclusions and recommendations;
7. To help participants deal with potential difficult situations of peer review visits;
8. To give participants practical training in the conducting of peer reviews;
9. Establish a network of relations of partners and critical friends across municipalities.

4.         Outcome

Participants should be able to fully understand both the programme and the peer review process and to derive maximum benefit for their municipality from it, both when participating as reviewers and when being under review.

5.         Programme duration

One day (this may be adapted where necessary).  Some of the sessions on feedback, listening and questioning skills are common to the action learning and peer review groups.  If the full roll-out programme is conducted, this will constitute Day 3 of the three-day training and facilitation programme.

6.         Preparatory work

Each participant is asked to familiarise him/herself with the main ideas of the Benchmark and prepare a presentation of his/her municipality’s practice regarding one of the sections of the Benchmark. All participants from the same municipality will be asked to prepare the presentation on the same section. As far as possible, sections to be prepared will differ from one municipality to the other.

7.         Model Programme

Ideally, the two half-day sessions (3.5 hours each) in the one day training course should be organised according to the same structure:

3. Theoretical training (one hour)

-          two-three presentations of maximum 10 minutes each;

-          questions and answers (20 minutes), followed by open discussion (20 minutes).

4. Practical exercise in workshops

-          presentation by officials of the municipality “under review” (around 15 minutes); in each session, a different municipality will be considered to be “under review”;

-    interview by the “peer reviewers” (around 30 minutes);

-          preparation of conclusions and recommendations with the help of the moderator (around 30 minutes).

5. Comparison of results and conclusions in plenary session

-          presentation of conclusions and recommendations by the various moderators (15 minutes);

-          discussion of common elements and variations (around 25 minutes);

-          conclusions concerning the session (around 20 minutes).

d.           Theoretical training

In each session, it is suggested that presentations be made by 2-3 experts, preferably with some degree of practical experience. Below are some suggestions regarding the topics suitable for the two half-day sessions.

Session 1:

-          The content and role of the HRM Benchmark in the peer review process – use without abuse;

-          Preparation of the peer review visit – responsibility for the host, for the project co-ordinator and for the peer reviewers

Session 2:

-          Communications and Relationship Development Skills – how to build confidence and achieve success in a peer review; growing relationships;

-          From visit to conclusions: preparation of the report and recommendations.

e.           Practical exercise in workshops

Ideally, there should be three parallel workshops. If there are three participants from each of the five municipalities, each workshop will receive one participant from each municipality. The composition of the workshop should stay the same throughout the training. Ideally, workshops should be as homogenous as possible (e.g. a workshop of mayors/deputies, a workshop of councillors and a workshop of civil servants).

Where there are more than three participants from each of the five municipalities, they will be distributed among the workshops as evenly and homogenously as possible.

In any particular session, participants from the same municipality will make presentations, in the various workshops, on the same topic (the topic on which they have been invited to prepare).

Presentations will be followed by questions from the other participants, who will try to identify strengths and weakness in order to prepare, with the help of the moderator, conclusions and recommendations which could be addressed to the municipality making the presentation.

Flip-charts or blackboards will be used in order to list and discuss recommendations made by participants.

f.            Comparison of results and conclusions

This is an occasion to discuss in a plenary meeting the recommendations reached by the three workshops and to examine the common ideas and the reasons for variations. Consequently, participants would be invited to assess the usefulness and to make conclusions and recommendations in respect of the full session.

8.         Example of a one day training programme:

Theoretical training 1:  Preparation of the peer review visit – work in plenary meeting
9.00-9.10 Presentation by international expert 9.10-9.20 Presentation by local expert
9.20-9.40 Questions and answers
9.40-10.00 Open discussion
Practical exercise 1 – work in workshops
Workshop 1	Workshop 2	Workshop 3
10.00-10.15 Presentation by Mayor of municipality 1 on Theme 1	10.00-10.15 Presentation by councillor of municipality 2 on Theme 2	10.00-10.15 Presentation by public servant of municipality 3 on Theme 3
10.15-10.30 Coffee break
10.30-11.00 Questions from the peers	10.30-11.00 Questions from the peers	10.30-11.00 Questions from the peers
11.00-11.30 Preparation of conclusions and recommendations	11.00-11.30 Preparation of conclusions and recommendations	11.00-11.30 Preparation of conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions of Session 1 – work in plenary meeting
11.30-11.35 – Presentation of conclusions and recommendations by Moderator of Workshop 1 11.35-11.40 – Presentation of conclusions and recommendations by Moderator of Workshop 2 11.40-11.45 – Presentation of conclusions and recommendations by Moderator of Workshop 3
11.45-12.10 – Discussion of common elements and variations
12.10-12.30 – Conclusions concerning the session
12.30-14.00 – Lunch

Theoretical training 2:  Building Relationships and Preparing Recommendations – work in plenary meeting
14.00-14.10 Presentation by international expert 14.10-14.20 Presentation by local expert
14.20-14.40 Questions and answers
14.40-15.00 Open discussion
Practical exercise 2 – work in workshops
Workshop 1	Workshop 2	Workshop 3
15.00-15.15 Presentation by Mayor of municipality 2 on Theme 2	15.00-15.15 Presentation by councillor of municipality 3 on Theme 3	15.00-15.15 Presentation by public servant of municipality 1 on Theme 1
15.15-15.30 Coffee break
15.30-16.00 Questions from the peers	15.30-16.00 Questions from the peers	15.30-16.00 Questions from the peers
16.00-16.30 Preparation of conclusions and recommendations	16.00-16.30 Preparation of conclusions and recommendations	16.00-16.30 Preparation of conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions of Session 2 – work in plenary meeting
16.30-16.35 – Presentation of conclusions and recommendations by Moderator of Workshop 1 16.35-16.40 – Presentation of conclusions and recommendations by Moderator of Workshop 2 16.40-16.45 – Presentation of conclusions and recommendations by Moderator of Workshop 3
16.45-17.30 – Discussion of common elements and conclusions for the session