The Bhutanese Leading the way.
The Good Governance Committee (GGC) Chairperson, Lhendup Wangdi, deliberated on the Action Taken Report (ATR) on the resolution concerning the MAX System and Bell Curve Method during the 4th Sitting of the Fifth Session of the Fourth Parliament.
According to the GGC, under the MAX System, a bell curve is used to moderate the performance of civil servants, categorizing them into four groups: Outstanding, Very Good, Good, and Partially Meeting Expectations (PME). The Chairperson noted that around 10 to 15 percent of civil servants fall under the Good and PME categories.
He cited an example of a school with 100 teachers, where even when all perform their duties responsibly, about three are still placed under the PME category. He said, “As a result, the teachers lose hope and interest in their work.”
He further stated that instead of fostering teamwork, the system encourages competition among civil servants, which may increase attrition as employees leave their jobs.
The issue was also deliberated during the Third Session last year. However, the majority of Members of the Parliament did not endorse the report, leading the House to direct the GGC to consult the Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC) and review the matter.
During the Fifth Session, the GGC Chairperson informed that the RCSC has conducted consultations with countries such as Singapore, Japan, and Australia to improve the performance management system.
The RCSC reported feedback from civil servants calling for the removal of the PME category, stating it discourages motivation. It is currently exploring alternative evaluation mechanisms.
The Deputy Chairperson of the GGC, Kinzang Wangchuk, said that the bell curve method, in its literal sense, forces individuals into a forced ranking system. He questioned whether it is mandatory that individuals, regardless of their contributions, are subjected to forced ranking.
He said, “Our committee asked the RCSC whether this has been in the country since the beginning and whether it is mandatory that individuals, irrespective of their contributions, should be force-ranked.”
He further called for meaningful change, noting that the issue has been repeatedly raised over the years with little progress. “It is high time that the RCSC should change the system as well,” he added.
Moreover, the RCSC’s consultations with countries such as Japan, Australia, and Singapore revealed that the outcomes of the forced distribution system were not effective.
The Deputy Chairperson said, “The three countries noted that the forced distribution method did not work well and is not appropriate. Even in Singapore, which is considered one of the leading systems, they had implemented forced ranking, but even high-performing employees were terminated as a result.”
The committee’s research findings suggest that if the RCSC continues to maintain the forced ranking system, it may lead to demotivation among civil servants and higher attrition rates.
GGC Deputy Chairperson added, “Furthermore, this could lead to a decline in the quality of services delivered by civil servants to the public.”
The Member of Parliament (MP) for South Thimphu, Tshewang Rinzin, also shared that many civil servants with lower rankings are placed into the forced ranking system. He said, “In schools, principals are forced to place a teacher under the PME category even when no one is actually performing poorly. In such cases, some principals end up resigning.”
The MP further shared that civil servants categorized as ‘Outstanding’ should be rewarded, while those identified as needing improvement should be supported through training and capacity-building, rather than being left without opportunities for further development.
The House passed the resolution on reforming the MAX System and the Bell Curve system based on the recommendations of the GGC.
The first recommendation calls for reviewing and reforming the Bell Curve system, with the aim of moving towards a more evidence-based and merit-based performance assessment system. Until a new framework is developed, the GGC recommends reducing strict quotas and giving agencies more flexibility, along with accountability.
The second recommendation focuses on improving fairness and grievance redress mechanisms. The committee recommends setting up an independent grievance system, including an Administrative Tribunal, to ensure transparency, fairness, and greater trust in performance evaluations.
The third recommendation deals with incentives and support for employees. It calls for rewarding those in the ‘Outstanding’ category and providing training and support for those in the ‘Partially Meeting Expectations’ category.
The fourth recommendation urges the RCSC to develop sector-specific performance assessment systems. The GGC recommends that different sectors and technical fields, such as health, education, engineering, and other technical services, be considered when designing and implementing evaluation frameworks.
