Reading ‘The Undercover Economist’ by Tim Hadford has introduced me to econs concepts I have never heard of. One of them being tournament theory.

Tournament theory is used in sports to determine how much to pay out to various individuals based on how well they surpass their competitors. It is also used in my country’s civil service.

We call it the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS) for the education sector. It’s a performance ranking system, in which more motivated and better performing officers are ranked higher than mediocre ones. Of course, novice teachers won’t be thrown into the shark-infested waters and expected to compete against seasoned teachers. My substantive grade is General Education Officer (GEO) 4, so the school leaders will compare my performance against my colleagues who belong to the same grade. A GEO 3 teacher will compete in the same pool with the other GEO 3 teachers.

Singapore is a pragmatic society and since the majority of the population are of Chinese descent, making big bucks is part of our psyche. However, I would say that because we are a collectivistic society, most teachers are willing to share their know-how and resources with their colleagues. Office politics exists, but I would say that it is not as rampant as enterprises in the corporate world.

We are even genuinely happy if a colleague creates a lot of substantial value and outshines us, garnering awards like Outstanding Contribution Award and recognition in our national press. I think by and large, we subdue our green-eyed monster quite well.

Our EPMS works like this. At the beginning of the new school year, I am supposed to meet up with my Reporting Officer and discuss the goals I want to achieve that year. In fact, my target setting session is scheduled on next Friday. This is why tournament theory latched onto my consciousness.

In May, I will have a mid-point check. My Reporting Officer will discuss my performance for 1-1.5 hours. This is when I get to hear the positive (and negative!) feedback that the middle managers and fellow teachers have about me. I will resolve not to rest on my laurels for some areas and promise to pull up my socks for other areas.

Term 3 begins, and I strive to stay afloat and not languish. In October every year, the school leaders will conduct a performance ranking exercise, alongside the middle managers.

My end-of-year work review typically happens in November, just when the school year is winding down. My Reporting Officer is not allowed to reveal my ranking, so the conversation during the work review is restricted to my individual work performance (rather than a holistic assessment of how I have fared compared to my colleagues).

By now, you might have sensed that I don’t attach too much emotional weight to my work reviews. I don’t see them as a chore because I use them as an opportunity to record down all the V4V I have done (in preparation for the next job). But I would rather work on making my blog viral.

I guess that I hope for the performance ranking exercise to be more transparent. To what extent has the positive or negative feedback from my colleagues enhanced or harmed my ranking respectively? Don’t get me wrong. I do know my grade every April. I am usually ranked C+ (slightly above average) or C (default). My best rating was a B.

But what have I not done enough to garner a C+, when my V4V is compared on the contributions scale with those of my colleagues? Or am I too naive to demand greater transparency from my country’s EPMS?

Maybe you have some insights to share on tournament theory.