Has the evaluation of the probationary period been effective for access to public service?

Responsible researcher: Eduarda Miller de Figueiredo

Article title: FACTORS THAT EXPLAIN THE PERCEPTION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROBATIONAL INTERNSHIP IN A FEDERAL PUBLIC INSTITUTION

Authors of the article: Luciana Cristina Silva da Luz and Dalson Britto Figueiredo Filho

Location of intervention: Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

Sample size: 350 observations

Sector: Economic Policy & Governance

Type of intervention: Evaluation of the probationary period

Variable of main interest: Probationary stage

Assessment method: Others

Policy Problem

The probationary period is a mechanism that allows access to public service for employees who, after going through a period of performance evaluation, have demonstrated the capacity and aptitude for holding public office. In this way, the evaluation of the period seeks to assess personal characteristics and qualities that cannot be assessed through technical exams, ensuring that employees are obtained who are capable of offering better 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, end up compromising the effectiveness of the meritocratic mechanism for accessing public services (Maia, 1958; Silva, 2016). In view of this, and seeking to overcome the gap in the absence of evaluation indicators, Constitutional Amendment No. 19/1998 appears requiring three years of effective exercise and a special performance evaluation in order to acquire stability.

Assessment Context

The probationary period is used in Brazilian legislation primarily by the Statute of Public Employees of the Union ^[1] as a period of experience that every public employee should undergo, aiming to determine the suitability of their entry into public service, through an analysis of the their moral integrity, aptitude, discipline, assiduity, dedication to service and efficiency. However, this mechanism went from evaluating coexistence and effectiveness to just a required bureaucratic step (Modesto, 2007). However, EC No. 19, already mentioned previously, gives a different understanding of this assessment, as it: i) increased to three years of effective exercise; ii) started to require employees who come from public competitions to undergo a probationary period; and iii) included mandatory performance evaluation carried out for a committee. Therefore, to access stability, 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 work organization performance. While performance assessment (AD), for Dijk and Schodl (2015), are the procedures adopted in the organization to measure employee performance, analyzing the way the employee acts in their activities. In this way, AD provides information that will possibly help manage employee performance.

For Levy and Williams (2004), there are variables that are contextual factors that interfere in human resources systems, namely: society's culture, external economic factors, organizational goals, composition of the workforce, technological development. There are also variables that directly impact the way performance evaluation is carried out, which would be the evaluator and evaluated relationship and accountability.

Policy Details

To analyze the factors that explain the perceived effectiveness of the probation assessment, a multi-method perspective was adopted with the combination of a case study, non-participant observation, document analysis, descriptive and multivariate statistics.

To this end, a survey at the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) that used a questionnaire prepared by Santos (2005) to analyze the perception of employees involved in evaluating the performance of two public institutions. Therefore, the first part of the questionnaire deals with demographic and functional data of the servers and, in the second part, there are questions related to performance evaluation using the Likert ^[2] . The survey was administered from November 24th to December 30th, 2015, in person and during office hours, totaling 350 observations.

Therefore, 60.4% of the sample is made up of women and 39.6% are men, with an average age of 40.32 years. Length of service varies between 1 and 43 years, with an average of 11.32 years and a standard deviation of 10.71. Of the employees present in the database, 31.1% have trust roles, of which 28.9% are paid roles and 2.2% have management positions. Specialization is the predominant academic training in the sample, responsible for 52.7% of the employees interviewed.

A multiple linear regression was used to identify which variables explain the perception of the effectiveness of the probation assessment, which is the dependent variable of the study. Thus, enabling an analysis of the effect of the institution's support, management action and appreciation of the probationary period. Variables with employee characteristics were also included: gender, length of service, age, bonus role and education.

Results

As the interview took place in person, it allowed interviewees to share their opinion regarding the probationary internship evaluation system while answering the questions in the questionnaire. Regarding the data acquired during the evaluation, the interviewees believe that they should be used for development and promotions as well, unlike what happens.

Another point mentioned is the issue of employees not being trained to perform the role of evaluators, making it necessary for them to be made aware of the importance of evaluating the probationary period. Since, for the interviewees, the relationship between evaluator and the person being evaluated influences the result of the evaluation, not being a totally impartial evaluation due to the affinity between the parties.

The results of the linear regression confirmed the research hypothesis, since contextual factors (support from the institution, 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 institution support by one standard deviation, perceived evaluation increases by 0.464 standard deviations. With managerial action, an increase of one standard deviation has an effect of 0.343 standard deviation and, finally, an increase of one standard deviation in the valuation of the probationary stage causes an increase of 0.240 standard deviation in the perception of the effectiveness of the evaluation. Given this, the results suggest that the institution's support is the most important thing to explain the effectiveness of the probationary internship evaluation. However, the effect was opposite for the length of service variable. In other words, the longer the service, the lower the perception of the effectiveness of the evaluation.

Public Policy Lessons

The performance evaluation of the probationary period is a good way to have employees who offer a quality service to the population. However, the results suggest the importance of an effective evaluation of the probationary period, observing the dimensions that affect the evaluation: support from the institution, managerial action and appreciation of the probationary period.

Reference

LUZ, Luciana Cristina Silva da; FIGUEIREDO FILHO, Dalson Britto. Factors that explain the perception of the effectiveness of the evaluation of the probationary period in a federal public institution. 2018.

^[1] Decree-Law No. 1,713/1939.

^[2] On the Likert scale, which has 5 points: 1-totally disagree; 2-partially disagree; 3-neither agree nor disagree; 4-partially agree; 5-totally agree.