The Mekong River Commission (MRC) wishes to solicit consultancy services to improve the existing MRCS compensation management and staff appraisal systems based on the recommendations from the Independent Organizational, Financial, and Institutional Review of the Mekong River Commission Secretariat (MRCS) and the National Mekong Committees (NMCS) held in 2006. 1 Background Based on Recommendation 35 of the Independent Organizational Review Report, for the MRCS to become a successful, sustainable and professional international river basin organization, its existing compensation management system needs to fully reflect this. So far the MRCS compensation management system has not been periodically reviewed. It has not been properly benchmarked with a similar type of organizations available in the job market it is competing with but instead it is following only the UN system. The MRCS current compensation management system was set up in August 2006. However, job evaluation has not been reviewed since resulting in its job pricing being not up-to-date. Recommendation 26 of the Independent Organizatinal Review Report states that “MRCS recruitment will be open to civil society as well as government”. MRCS is approching a wider pool of candidates including from private sector, development organizations, UN affiliates to select the best suitable candidates available in these job markets for its vacancies. However the MRCS current salary structure including other compensation components have not been revised to reflect this organizational need. As such it is unlikely for MRCS to be successful in attracting qualified candidates from these job markets. An effective compensation management system has to take both internal and external factors into consideration when established. Internal factors include the organization’s ability to pay, its structure and culture. External factors include market rate, market competition, and economic situation. It must be able to attract, motivate, and retain qualified employees. As an organization changes, the compensation management system must be modified to reflect the change. An effective staff appraisal system is a motivation to staff members. A motivated staff member is more likely to work harder and more effectively. However, the current MRCS staff appraisal system does not create this. There are a number of weaknesses in the current system. For instance under the current system a staff performance appraisal review is carried out once a year approximately one month prior to the expiry date of the current employment contract and therefore the appraisal process for the whole staff is spread across the whole year. Under this system, it is difficult to ensure fair treatment for all staff because it is difficult for the supervisor to make comparisons among all staff members at the same time. This can result in a staff member’s performance being reviewed on an individual basis with insufficient comparison to performances of other staff members, which contributes to a higher number of recommendations for outstanding performances. The result may be an incorrect reward or de-motivation. In addition, the distribution of the reward must be carried out on a fair and credible basis. However, implementation of the four levels rating scale of the current staff appraisal system is problematic. The levels are Level 1, Outstanding Performance – reward, possible promotion to higher level, generally a two-step salary increase; Level 2, Satisfactory – normal contract extension, one step salary increase; Level 3, Transitional Performance leading to a probation period; and Level 4, Unsatisfactory Performance leading to no contract extension. In practice, it appears that only two levels are routinely given to staff members under normal circumstances, Outstanding Performance and Satisfactory. This does not provide sufficient flexibility to distinguish between the performances of staff. It is not practical in the case that the supervisor has more than two staff members under the supervision. For example, if two staff members are rated at a satisfactory level, there is no further proper recognition or reward in place to distinguish the different contributions and performances between two staff members. Supervisors are also reluctant to recommend Level 3, Transitional Performance, even in cases where it would be justified. This is partly due to the terminology and the stigma attached to the word “Transitional”. Based on the recommendation from the Independent Organizational Review Report, the revision of MRCS staff appraisal system is required since the current staff appraisal system has not been conducted based fully on the competency analysis of individual staff. 2 objectives of the assignment The objective of this assignment is to improve the existing MRCS compensation management and staff appraisal systems to be in line with MRCS needs and interests, development of new best practices available in job markets and in other organizations MRCS is competing with, and the current situation of economic environment. 3 Expected outputs 3.1 The weaknesses in MRCS existing compensation management and staff appraisal systems identified and analysed and solutions for improvement recommended. 3.2 compensation management and staff appraisal systems improved in accordance with the needs and interests of MRCS. 3.2.1 Compensation Management System will have to include at least the followings: 3.2.1.1. Policies and Procedures 3.2.1.2. Salary Structure including other compensation components 3.2.1.3. Compensation and Benefit Survey Data 3.2.2 Staff Appraisal System will have to include at least the followings: 3.2.2.1. Policies and Procedures 3.2.2.2. Staff Appraisal System, its guidelines 3.2.2.3. Staff Appraisal System is linkaged with salary structure – pay for performance. 4 Scope of works The Consultant undertakes the following tasks to produce the outputs described above: 4.1 Analyses the existing compensation management system. Defines MRCS needs, interests, and areas for improvement. The tasks performed will at least include the followings: 4.1.1 Reviewing existing compensation management system, its policies and procedures, salary structure and other compensation components, and other relevant documents and materials 4.1.2 Conducting job evaluation 4.1.3 Assigning salary grades, salary bands 4.1.4 Recommending an effective compensation management system, which is both internally consistent and externally competitive, to MRCS, its policies and procedures, a competitive salary structure including other compensation components. The salary structure for executive levels (senior staff member), professional, and general support staff must be identified 4.1.5 Positioning effectively MRCS compensation management system in the job market where it is competing. Taking into consideration MRCS’s internal factors i.e ability to pay, organizational structure, and culture, and external factors i.e market rate, market competition, and current and preditable economic situation influencing compensation management system when established 4.1.6 Conducting a salary and other compensation components survey. Benchmarking MRCS compensation management system with the same types of organizations and the job market competing in 4.1.7 MRCS compensation management system must be linked with MRCS staff appraisal system. Pay for Performance best practice must be applied 4.1.8 Making recommendations on salary structure and other compensation components maintenance in particular on a yearly basis or when there is a change in the organization. 4.2 Analyses the existing staff appraisal system. Defines MRCS needs, and intersts, and areas for improvement. The tasks performed will at least include the followings: 4.2.1 Reviewing existing staff appraisal system, its policies and procedures, and other relevant documents and materials 4.2.2 Recommending an effective staff appraisal system, which creates equal opportunity, transparency, and fair practice, taking into consideration the system in terms of: 4.2.2.1 a motivator 4.2.2.2 results-based against agreed targets 4.2.2.3 focusing on competencies, behaviours, and attitude towards work 4.2.2.4 360 degree appraisal / encouraging constructive feedback 4.2.2.5 including a self-appraisal and continuing professional development 4.2.2.6 easy to operate and can be monitored and evaluated 4.2.2.7 is linked to the compensation management system – cost management effectiveness 4.2.3 Recommending staff appraisal system policies and procedures which are in line with MRCS organizational strategies, structure, and culture. 4.3 Prepares a report, presents findings, and makes recommendations to the chief of HRS 4.4 Upon approval of the HRS chief, the recommendations will be presented to the senior management for consideration, 4.5 Upon approval of the senior management, the compensation management and staff appraisal systems will be improved, 4.6 Upon approval of the HRS chief, improved compensation management and staff appraisal systems will be presented to the senior management, 4.7 Upon approval of senior management, the improved compensation management and staff appraisal systems will be presented to the Task Force for consideration, 4.8 Upon approval of the Task Force, the improved compensation management and staff appraisal systems will be presented to the Joint Committee for approval. 5 Tentative Schedule and target
6 Working Principle / Reporting Lines
7 Competence Requirements
8 Post-Specific Qualifications
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
