Principal investigator: Eduarda Miller de Figueiredo
Article title: Factors that explain the perception of the effectiveness of the probationary period in a federal public institution.
Article authors: Luciana Cristina Silva da Luz and Dalson Britto Figueiredo Filho
Location of the intervention: Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil
Sample size: 350 observations
Sector: Economic Policy & Governance
Type of intervention: Probationary period evaluation
Primary variable of interest: Probationary period
Evaluation method: Others
Policy Problem
The probationary period is a mechanism that allows access to public service for employees who, after undergoing a performance evaluation period, have demonstrated the capacity and aptitude to perform the duties of the public office. Thus, the evaluation period seeks to assess personal characteristics and qualities that cannot be evaluated through technical examinations, ensuring that employees are obtained who are capable of offering higher quality services to society (Carvalho, 2017).
However, the literature indicates that the absence of objective and measurable indicators, as well as the lack of control and monitoring instruments, ultimately compromises the effectiveness of the meritocratic mechanism for accessing public service (Maia, 1958; Silva, 2016). In view of this, and seeking to overcome the gap of the absence of evaluation indicators, Constitutional Amendment No. 19/1998 emerged, requiring three years of effective service and a special performance evaluation in order to acquire tenure.
Assessment Context
The probationary period is primarily used in Brazilian legislation by the Statute of Federal Public Servants.[1] As a trial period that every public employee should undergo, aimed at assessing the suitability of their entry into public service, through an analysis of their moral integrity, aptitude, discipline, attendance, dedication to service, and efficiency. However, this mechanism went from evaluating coexistence and effectiveness to merely a required bureaucratic step (Modesto, 2007). However, Constitutional Amendment No. 19, already mentioned above, provides a different understanding of this evaluation, as it: i) increased the probationary period to three years of effective service; ii) made the probationary period mandatory for employees who come from public service examinations; and iii) included a mandatory performance evaluation conducted by a commission. Therefore, to gain tenure, the employee must meet all the requirements, especially passing the performance evaluation.
According to Denisi and Pritchard (2006), performance management (PM) is a set of activities that seek to improve individual, team, and organizational work performance. Meanwhile, performance appraisal (PA), according to Dijk and Schodl (2015), refers to the procedures adopted by the organization to measure employee performance, analyzing how the employee acts in their activities. In this way, PA provides information that will possibly help manage employee performance.
According to Levy and Williams (2004), there are variables that are contextual factors that interfere in human resource systems, such as: societal culture, external economic factors, organizational goals, workforce composition, and technological development. There are also variables that directly impact how performance evaluation is carried out, such as the relationship between evaluator and evaluated and accountability.
Policy Details
To analyze the factors that explain the perception of the effectiveness of probationary period evaluation, a multi-method approach was adopted, combining a case study, non-participant observation, document analysis, descriptive and multivariate statistics.
For this purpose, a Survey The Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) employed a questionnaire developed by Santos (2005) to analyze the perception of employees involved in the performance evaluation of two public institutions. Thus, the first part of the questionnaire deals with demographic and functional data of the employees, and the second part contains questions related to performance evaluation using a scale of the type... Likert[2]The survey was conducted in person and during working hours between November 24 and December 30, 2015, totaling 350 observations.
Thus, 60,4% of the sample is composed of women and 39,6% are men, with an average age of 40,32 years. Length of service ranges from 1 to 43 years, with an average of 11,32 years and a standard deviation of 10,71. Of the employees in the database, 31,1% hold management positions, of which 28,9% are paid positions and 2,2% are executive positions. Specialization is the predominant academic background in the sample, accounting for 52,7% of the employees interviewed.
Multiple linear regression was used to identify which variables explain the perception of the effectiveness of the probationary period evaluation, which is the dependent variable of the study. This allows for an analysis of the effect of institutional support, managerial action, and the value placed on the probationary period. Variables related to employee characteristics were also included: gender, length of service, age, job title, and education level.
Results
Since the interview was conducted in person, it allowed respondents to share their opinions regarding the probationary period evaluation system while answering the questionnaire questions. Regarding the data acquired during the evaluation, respondents believe it should be used for development and promotions as well, unlike what currently happens.
Another point mentioned is the issue of civil servants not being trained to perform the role of evaluators, and it is necessary that they be made aware of the importance of evaluating the probationary period. This is because, according to those interviewed, the relationship between the evaluator and the person being evaluated influences the outcome of the evaluation, making it not a completely impartial assessment due to the affinity between the parties.
The results of the linear regression confirmed the research hypothesis, since contextual factors (institutional support, managerial action, and appreciation of the probationary period) were more important in explaining the perception of the effectiveness of the evaluation compared to personal variables.
By increasing institutional support by one standard deviation, the perception of evaluation effectiveness increases by 0,464 standard deviations. With managerial action, an increase of one standard deviation has an effect of 0,343 standard deviations, and finally, an increase of one standard deviation in the valuation of the probationary period causes an increase of 0,240 standard deviations in the perception of evaluation effectiveness. Therefore, the results suggest that institutional support is the most important factor in explaining the effectiveness of the probationary period evaluation. However, the effect was the opposite for the length of service variable. That is, the longer the service time, the lower the perception of evaluation effectiveness.
Lessons in Public Policy
Performance evaluation during the probationary period is a good way to have employees who offer quality service to the public. However, the results suggest the importance of an effective probationary period evaluation, considering the dimensions that affect the evaluation: institutional support, managerial action, and the value placed on the probationary period.
Reference
LUZ, Luciana Cristina Silva da; FIGUEIREDO FILHO, Dalson Britto. Factors that explain the perception of the effectiveness of the probationary period evaluation in a federal public institution. 2018.
[1] Decree-Law No. 1.713/1939.
[2] On a 5-point Likert scale: 1-Strongly disagree; 2-Disagree somewhat; 3-Neither agree nor disagree; 4-Agree somewhat; 5-Strongly agree.
