Executives should ensure that their team`s performance agreements are consistent so that each contributor can understand how their performance objectives contribute to the work of the department and the sector. The Chief Executive Performance and Development model can be used as a reference. A two-headed arrow rotates from left to right under the fourth field, indicating that the activities identified in the statement occur throughout the performance management cycle. Executives offer self-assessment, discuss and request contributions from their supervisors in July of each year, before the new agreement is reached. The executive PDA model is similar to the CEO model and contains all components of the performance cycle in a single document. The performance agreement, which defines the work prospects of each employee, is at the heart of performance management. The Performance Management Directive defines the responsibilities of chiefs of staff in managing a consistent, fair and rigorous approach to performance management across public administration. Its successful implementation in the public service can help build and maintain trust between employer and worker and create conditions for all employees to maximize their contributions and provide quality service to Canadians. Each executive conducts a mid-year review with their supervisor in January/February to assess past performance and tailor specific objectives for the future. Performance management is an ongoing process that includes planning, development, coaching, feedback and evaluation of staff performance. The procedure must be in line with the requirements of the Official Languages Directive for the management of persons. This research article examined the approaches to new public management (NPM) that have been implemented to improve Thailand`s public sector. The study was conducted on the basis of the Performance Agreement (PA) as a management tool at the Ministry of Justice as a case study.

Documentary research and in-depth interviews were conducted by three groups. The target group was: 1) a central administrator (office of the Public Sector Development Commission); 2) 11 middle managers in the Department of Justice; and 3) two experts who had been public sector advisors. The results were verified by Department of Justice staff who were not included in the target group. The data were analyzed through content analysis.