PUBLIC SERVICE - IN WHICH MINISTRIES AND SERVICES DO THE MOST ''EXCELLENT'' WORK - THE CHALLENGES FOR THE EVALUATORS, THE WARNINGS OF THE NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE POSITION OF PASYDY - Filenews 18/10 by Ernest Moussas
Serious malfunctions in the new civil servant evaluation system, with grades approaching excellent, warnings that were not heeded and supervisors evaluating the same employees in a different way when claiming promotion, is recorded in the Annual Report of the Public Service Commission (EDY) for 2025.
Among other findings, the Commission finds that the training of evaluators did not perform as expected and recommends its repetition, leaving open even the possibility of predicting negative consequences for those who do not comply with the requirements of the new system.
Three years after the implementation of the reform, the average score of civil servants reached 9.12 out of 10, compared to 8.747 in 2023 and 9.01 in 2024. The upward trend is causing intense concern to the EDY, which warns that the public service is in danger of returning to the previous regime, when almost all employees were evaluated as excellent.
The most worrying element, according to the report, is that the trend continued despite the warnings that had been addressed from the previous year to the General Directors and the Directors of Departments. In fact, the President of the EDY, Georgios Papageorgiou, had sent a relevant circular to all the heads of ministries, deputy ministries, departments and services, before the submission of the Service Reports. "Unfortunately, from the result, it seems that the above was not heard," the Annual Report states.
From 7.62 to absolute 10
The data in the report on the scores of certain ministries, departments or services that the EDY chose to present in order to substantiate its observations are revealing.
On the other hand, the Press and Information Office recorded an average score of 7.62, the Department of Antiquities 7.84, the Deputy Ministry of Tourism 7.88, the Cyprus Academy of Public Administration and Personnel 7.98 and the Statistical Service 8.00. The SNS presents these latter services as examples of bodies that remain more faithful to the provisions and purpose of the new system. However, he notes that even in these cases there is generally an upward trend, which, if not contained, can lead to levelling ratings.
Same grade in reports, different in promotion
In addition to the particularly high scores, the report also records cases of contradictory treatment of employees by their own superiors.
In particular, the SNS found that superiors had given the same high marks to candidates in their annual Service Reports, but when they were asked to evaluate the same employees for promotion purposes, their scores showed significant discrepancies. In these cases, the superiors were able to award between zero and 15 points for the evaluation of candidates before the Committee.
The EDY points out that the relevant Regulations provide that the annual evaluations aim, among other things, to determine the suitability of employees for promotion. Therefore, the attribution of the same high marks in the annual evaluation and its significant differentiation in the promotion process raise questions about the consistency of the evaluators' judgments. The Commission is concerned both about the legality of these actions and about the seriousness with which some superiors treat the Staff Reports.
Competent employees are the first to be affected
The SNS places particular emphasis on the consequences that levelling evaluations may have on really high performance workers. As the report points out, truly worthy and capable civil servants are the first to be affected when there is no substantial differentiation in ratings. This dimension is directly linked to the promotion procedures, as the annual Service Reports continue to be an important criterion for specific categories of positions.
Sanctions on the table
The EDY Report also speaks of the possibility of negative consequences for the evaluators themselves, if they do not adapt to the requirements of the philosophy of the new system.
This is an important difference from the previous warnings, as the reflection is no longer limited to the need for the correct implementation of the procedure, but extends to the possible attribution of responsibility to those who do not live up to their role.
The report does not specify specific penalties nor does it state that a decision has been made to impose them. It does, however, raise the possibility as an issue that could be considered in the context of moves that could push the situation in the desired direction.
The vicious circle and challenges for evaluators
"F of Sunday", in an effort to approach the issue globally and understand all sides, spoke with various people who work in the Public Service and are well aware of the challenges faced by the same evaluators.
Our interlocutors agreed that in the vast majority of departments there is a certain mentality, which leads to the awarding of high marks to almost all employees. As they explained, they themselves see two main reasons behind this practice. The first is related to avoiding misunderstandings and tensions with colleagues who socialize every day. The second concerns their concern that they may stand in the way of the professional advancement of their subordinates, since, as they point out, meritocracy is not consistently applied to the entire Public Service.
In essence and in simple words, the reasoning is as follows: In the Public Service, many employees have been working together for decades, developing close professional and personal relationships. Under these circumstances, a lower score is considered by many to be capable of upsetting balances and creating tensions in daily cooperation.
The most important parameter, however, is another and is considered by our interlocutors as one of the most important reasons why the phenomenon is maintained. As they explained, the practice of other departments to grade all their employees with excellent, acts as an indirect pressure on the evaluators. The reasoning is specific: If a supervisor objectively evaluates his subordinates, assigning different grades depending on their performance, while in another department everyone is graded with excellent, then the employees of the first department may find themselves at a disadvantage when they are called upon to claim promotion against their colleagues from the second department.
This creates a vicious circle, as even supervisors who wish to effectively implement the evaluation system feel that, if they do so, they may be unfair to their subordinates in relation to candidates from other services. This seems, according to what was conveyed to us, to be one of the strongest indirect pressure mechanisms to maintain high scores, undermining in practice the effort for fair and meritocratic evaluation.
The above is clearly not recorded in defense of the evaluators who choose to rate everyone with excellent. However, they are elements that should be taken into account and dealt with so that the problem can be hit at its root.
Giorgos Papageorgiou: The levelling evaluation is unfair to the deserving and creates disincentives
"The evaluation of civil servants concerns, and has increased weight, only for the filling of the positions of non-scientific staff and only the first level of promotions to scientific staff. In the filling of the promotion positions at the level of Kl. A13 (senior positions) has limited weight, while it is not taken into account at all in the filling of middle management and managerial positions in the public service, where the evaluation of candidates by Examination Centers is of great importance.
Unfortunately, as can be seen from the data cited in the Commission's Annual Report for 2025, there is a tendency to return to anachronistic approaches of the past, with the risk, if the necessary measures are not taken in time, that we will soon be led again to a levelling evaluation of everyone at the level of Excellent. It is obvious that we have changed the system, we have not been able to change mentalities.
Employee evaluation is a key tool for management and staff development. The levelling evaluation of unequal employees is grossly unfair to deserving employees and creates disincentives. Supervisors should not treat the evaluation as a momentary action, but should monitor the performance of their subordinates throughout the year and point out to them the positives and negatives concerning their performance. After all, this is explicitly provided for in the Evaluation Regulations.
The Public Service Commission is responsible for supervising the implementation of the evaluation system, but does not have the power to intervene in the evaluations. It is the responsibility of the Supervisors. of the Ministries/Services/Departments to take all the necessary measures in a timely manner, in order to stop this negative trend, as mentioned above, and to strictly comply with the regulations in which the criteria, conditions and procedure on the basis of which each employee should be evaluated are clearly recorded.
Of course, the contribution of education and training, both of the evaluators and the evaluated, is important in this direction, because, as can be seen from the data to date, the effort that has been made to date seems to have not yielded the expected results."
Stratis Mattheou: PASYDY proposes two types of evaluations
"The increase in the average score of the official reports by 0.11 points compared to last year's average should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that we are returning to phenomena of levelling evaluation.
In fact, it is the result of the proper use of official reports by the officials themselves. Improving an employee's performance in the areas where it was pointed out in last year's evaluation that they need improvement must also be the goal of every evaluation process and should be rewarded.
Something that worries us regarding the annual service reports is the absence of a common crisis measure regarding the rotational staff. I am referring to the secretarial and administrative staff who are assigned to various Ministries/Deputy Ministries/Departments/Services and who de facto have a different supervisor.
As a result, in some cases they are judged for the same duties and performances either too strictly or more favourably. In other words, there is no common component in terms of their evaluation, despite the fact that they may perform their duties with the same zeal and consistency.
In general, on the issue of evaluations, it is our belief that whether it concerns the public or private sector, it should not function as a tool of punishment, but as a guide for control purposes and to ensure the continuous development and improvement of the performance of the employee and consequently of the Organization itself.
In this regard, PASYDY has proposed the introduction of two types of annual evaluations in the State. The first for the purpose of developing and improving the employee and the second for promotion purposes. In cases where the appraisal is carried out for promotion purposes, the question may not be only the performance of the official in his previous post, but whether he is fit for the duties of the new post for which he is being assessed.'
