The present research work with the theme "the process of performance evaluation in the civil service: a comparative analysis of the legal to the practice of performance evaluators in the district government of Nacarôa", focuses on the process of performance evaluation, as an instrument for measuring the progress or setback of employees as public servants.As has been the practice of many public administration institutions, this measurement is made using the so-called evaluation forms. In addition to these records, it is required, by those who conduct, the mastery of the procedures to be observed by the evaluators in the operational field, as well as the actions that take place in such a way that the employee works London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences in the direction of results, ensuring compliance with the plans and deadlines.

It is in this context that we intend to assess the perception that officials of the institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa have about the performance evaluation, in order to identify the needs of the Development Plan resulting from this process; understand the organizational environment variables that can positively or negatively affect the performance of the evaluated person and the feedback given to the employee about their performance; and to establish a comparison between the practice of the institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa, with the one recommended in. Decree No. 54/2009 of 12 October, which aims to make institutions productive and competitive, allowing employees to be recognized for their professionalism.

In order for this performance evaluation process to be effective and efficient, institutions are called on to take action to create change, ensuring a stance that meets the requirements of the regulation, thereby seeking to improve the services provided by citizens. In this perspective, we also try to understand the extent to which the performance of each employee is conducted as a human resources management mechanism to improve the provision of services. Thus, in the context of the evaluation of employees, the institutions of the Public Administration of the District Government of Nacarôa are called to observe the legal instrument of performance evaluation, for a feedback process, to review their strategies and working methods, so that the effects of the tendency to entropy are recycled, oxygenated and made capable of surviving in turbulent and changing environments.

It is necessary that, when evaluating employees, institutions free themselves from tendencies to subjectivity, so as to move away from the space for questioning in Human Resources Management, or even from the questioning about the professional preparation of evaluators for the correct use of Decree No. 54/2009, of October 12.

In textual development, we present the theoretical framework of several authors who addressed this theme on the evaluation of performance in the public function. Performance evaluation is a systematic assessment of the performance of each employee or worker in the position and their potential for future development. Every evaluation is a process to stimulate or judge the value, excellence, qualities of anyone.It is a fact that those who judge or evaluate may, of course, not consider the negative aspects of the person to be evaluated. It is in this context that, in this research, we will focus, in a special way, on the performance evaluation process, that is, the practice that conducts this process in the district government of Nacarôa.

For the definition of performance evaluation in the civil service, we use Neto (2014) which refers to it as a scientific domain and a social practice, increasingly indispensable, to characterize, understand, disseminate and improve a wide variety of problems affecting contemporary societies, such as the quality of education and education, the provision of health care, distribution of resources and poverty.

Evaluating is, first of all, putting into practice and making work the constant structural element that allows to identify the evaluation facts, because it characterizes them (Neto, 2014). It can also be understood as the strategy that demonstrates the reality of each institution in the scope of the performance and provision of service. Furthermore, to evaluate is to enrich the work of civil servants and civil service institutions, because when the problems or satisfaction of each sector are discovered, the mechanisms to solve or further increase positive achievements will be searched.

We understand the evaluation as the process of measuring the degree of compliance with what has been planned, the level of implementation, progress and setbacks recorded, to outline the best strategies for overcoming the future plans of the institution, i.e. the process of measuring the London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences achievements or meeting the objectives outlined by an area, institution and services.

Therefore, the evaluation always implies the relationship between who evaluates (evaluator or evaluators) and who is evaluated, and it is up to the former to evaluate, reflect, analyze certain aspects -which will be evaluated -considered as significant. If there is evaluation, there is judgment, which takes place in a context of valorization, which requires proper care with the use of power and with the greater or lesser influence of subjectivity in the act of judging.

Over the years, numerous reflections have emerged around the evaluation of performance in the management of organizations. According to Grote (2002), references on performance evaluation emerged more than 100 years ago.

There are references that indicate the year 1842, in which the public service, in the United States, developed a performance evaluation system to evaluate its workers.In 1918, General Motor's also developed an evaluation system to evaluate its executives (Chiavenato, 1996).

From the establishment of goals/objectives for the organizational system and the stipulation of performance standards, the performance evaluation consists in the analysis of the information associated with the measurements of the costs of the activities and their relationship with the actions of the people (Silva, 1999).

The above author believes that while the adoption of the costs of activities, such as performance indicators, is a dimension of the evaluation, the observation/analysis of cost drivers provides other essential factors for evaluations of other dimensions, such as quality and time. The factors causing the costs of the activities identify the activities that consume resources while converting inputs in to products. Therefore, organizations seek to develop procedures that involve and commit employees to new challenges. In this way, human resources management is currently a determining factor in the success of organisations.

In terms of human resources management, performance evaluation has played a prominent role in that it can have significant consequences on productivity, either directly, as a performance control process or indirectly, through its relations with the selection, training, professional development, promotion and remuneration of the organization (Caetano, 1996).

In this section, we present the instruments used in the evaluation of employee performance in public administration. These instruments are referenced in the approaches of several authors, as presented below. Bergamini (1992) cit. in Silva (1999) presents two groups of instruments: the first group is related to direct or absolute evaluation, in which the individual is considered the "center of interest" of the evaluator, being observed its performance pattern as opposed to what is desirable in his work. The second group concerns the relative assessment or by comparison, in which the individual positioned in a working group (his team) and verified his "level of efficiency". It considers the choice of one of these methods as being "partial and dangerous", stating that there is a need to use both groups.

For the first group, the best known instruments are:

? Verbal Reports: describes the "behavior" of each individual at work. ? Written Reports: the "behavior" of each individual is described in the form of a report.

? Composition of Analytical Charts: based on a set of pre-established criteria, the evaluator only identifies where the evaluated one fits. The points are connected and a description of the profile of the evaluated person is given.

? Descriptive Patterns: from a set of characteristics of specific positions, the evaluator should point out the statement that "best describes the evaluated".

? Checklist: from a series of sentences, the evaluator should identify the ones that "best describe the subject". For the second group, the best known instruments are:

? Classification System: the evaluator will have to identify, in the group, the best and worst of the individuals, within a scale. ? Binary or Peer comparison: the evaluator compares the evaluated with another of the group, "in each trait or performance characteristic".

? Forced Evaluation System: used especially with large groups and for the difficulty of using Binary Comparison. The evaluator should group the evaluated into similar sets and, from a scale, compare them.

In the methodology we present the method we chose for this research in order to have the answer to the research question. In this research, we focus on the comparative method. Fachin (2005) understands that this method consists of investigating things or facts and explaining them according to their similarities and differences. Generally, the comparative method addresses two series or facts of a similar nature, taken from social media or from another area of knowledge, in order to detect what is common to both.

Focused on studying similarities and differences, this method makes comparations with the aim of verifying similarities and explaining divergences. When dealing with the explanations of phenomena, the comparative method allows analyzing the concrete data, deducing constant, abstract or general elements present in them (Prodanov&Freitas, 2013).

Being a qualitative research, using the comparative method, in which we perspective obtain the answers of the research questions and variables, naturally, we used the techniques of content analysis, as an instrument that helps in the categorization of the questions enunciated in the semi-structured interview conducted in the five institutions in research.

This research is qualitative in nature, because we seek to analyze the perceptions of the employees responsible for the process of evaluation of performance in the civil service. Considering that the method of this research is comparative, we chose qualitative research, guided by the interpretative process and the research questions and the theoretical-methodological framework functioned as a compass in the moments of analysis and interpretation of the data, guiding our gaze, guiding us to the participants of the research where the interpretation orbited.

This research is basic, which aims to generate new knowledge useful to serve in the analysis of the perception of employees responsible for the performance evaluation process, as a practice of human resources management in public administration institutions in the district government of Nacarôa. Prodanov and Freitas (2013) define basic research as being one that aims to generate new knowledge useful for the advancement of science without intended practical application. It involves universal truths and interests. By opting for basic research, for this study, we wanted to expand knowledge and understanding of the practices conducted in the performance evaluation process in the District Government of Nacarôa.

The general objective of this study is to analyze the perceptions of officials responsible for the process of assessing the performance of civil servants in the civil service, so, as to the objectives, it is descriptive. It is in this perspective that Prodanov and Freitas (2013) base that descriptive research is responsible for observing, recording, analyzing and ordering data, without manipulate them, that is, without interference from the researcher. It seeks to find out how often a fact occurs, its nature, its characteristics, causes, relationships with other facts. Thus, to collect such data, specific techniques are used, among which stand out the interview, the form, the questionnaire, the test and the observation.

London

As for the approach, this is a qualitative research.

In the qualitative approach, the scientist aims to deepen his understanding of the phenomena he studies -actions of individuals, groups or organizations in their environment or social context -interpreting them according to the perspective of the subjects themselves who participate in the situation, without worrying about numerical representativeness, statistical generalizations and linear relations of cause and effect (Guerra, 2014). Therefore, with this study, we sought knowledge about the practices of the employees responsible for the performance evaluation process in the institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa, in order to contribute to the improvement of the quality of human resources management of the Public Administration, that is, we seek to understand how this process is being managed, so that we could bring answers to the challenges imposed on them.

As for the procedures, this research is a case study. Prodanov&Freitas (2013) report that this consists of collecting and analyzing information about a particular individual, a family, a group or a community, in order to study various aspects of their life, according to the subject of the research.

In this sense, we qualify as a case study, because, from the five institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa, we thoroughly researched the performance evaluation process, because we found that there was a tendency to non-comply with the evaluation procedures established by SIGEDAP. Therefore, this tendency on the part of the evaluators in the evaluation process is a basis in the case study research procedures.

The principals of schools are participants in this research; district service directors; heads of offices; heads of administrative posts and localities, a total of 18 participants involved in the process evaluation of employee performance.

Each participant was assigned a code, as a way to safeguard their identity, for ethical reasons.

In Table 1, we present the distribution of participants, for each institution where the research took place and its codes. The interviewees were classified as "Performance Evaluators", and we used the following codes: AD1, AD2, (...) and AD18.

Content analysis is a technique of information processing that allows inferences, based on an explicit logic, of messages whose characteristics have been inventoried and systematized, is therefore the transition from description to interpretation (Vala, 1987;War, 2006).

Thus, considering the objectives of the research and according to the problem addressed, we are anchored in two instruments of analysis, namely: Content analysis, to answer the second question of London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences the research in which it was intended to analyze what has been the practice of the officials responsible for the Performance Evaluation process in the institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa; (e) category analysis (which consists of decomcommenting the text in to units and categories), to measure the interviewee's attitudes, taking into account the opinions, acts or reactions in certain objects.

We developed this study based on an interview addressed to performance evaluators to describe the mechanisms or instruments used in the evaluation process of employees in the institutions where our research took place, then compared to verify whether they fit the legally established practices. As for data collection instruments, in this research we used the interview technique.

In this subchapter, we analyze the data from the interview addressed to the 5 institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa: SDEJT, SDSMAS, SDAE, SDPI and SSD. With the interview we intended to confirm the occurrence or not of the problem raised in this research: Employees do not care about their performance assessments, often they worry only when administrative acts are about to be carried out (promotion, progression, career change, appointment in service committee and definitive appointment) in their institutions.

Below we present the categories of analysis and the speech fragments of the interviews.

The practice and use of the performance evaluation instrument

Of the 18 research subjects, 17 answered that they had heard about performance evaluation, through the evaluation forms, an instrument that serves to measure the degree of compliance with the objectives, plans and goals outlined in the Institution. (AD2; AD3; ..... AD18). AD1, although AD11 understands that the performance evaluation is subdivided into two parts: the first part in which public administration institutions are evaluated during the sessions of the district government, by quarter; and the second part that is addressed to employees.

The responsibility and periodicity of the performance evaluation

The 18 interviewees answered that the performance evaluation process is the responsibility of the competent authority and that the heads of the subsectors evaluate the subordinate employees and, in turn, they are evaluated by their respective hierarchical superiors. Regarding periocity, they answered that the evaluation is done once a year (AD1; AD2; ....., AD18).

Of the 18 interviewees, they answered that they presented their activity plans, according to the Performance Evaluator (AD1; AD2; AD4; AD5; AD6; AD7; AD8; AD9; AD10; AD11; AD12; AD13; AD14; AD15; AD16 and AD18).

Respondents AD3 and AD17 stated that, in their institutions, not all employees present annual activity plans.

The monitoring of the annual plans of activities of the employees, which is carried out quarterly and/or every six months to verify their degree of compliance, is that it keeps them in permanent communication with the evaluated and also stressed that, in case of need, the plans are adjusted (AD4, AD8, AD9, AD13, AD15 and AD18). Respondents (AD3 and AD17), this is not always the case, because there are employees who do not present their activity plans, it is not possible to establish any kind of dialogue with them.

The professional suitability of evaluators in the performance evaluation process

The interviewees AD3 and AD17 answered that the process of performance evaluation for human resources management, in force in their institutions, is ineffective.

The interviewees AD1, AD2, AD4, AD5 and AD12, during the performance evaluation process, the evaluator is not always in good condition to evaluate the employee, because, like any human being, he can make errors of understanding.

The interviewees (AD3 and AD17) of the 18 participants interviewed assumed that they have no mastery of the aspects considered in the performance evaluation process at SIGEDAP;

The remaining 16 interviewees (AD1; AD2; AD4; AD5; AD6; AD7; AD8; AD9; AD10; AD11; AD12; AD13; AD14; AD15; AD16 and AD18) answered that the mechanisms/aspects that have used/considered to evaluate the performance of employees are included in SIGEDAP.

The first category of content analysis (Domain of the use of performance evaluation instrument), which we used, in the interview script, as a data collection instrument, was defined, with the summative purpose of analyzing the process of performance evaluation in the civil service: a comparative analysis of the legal to the practice of performance evaluators in the district government of Nacarôa. According to the results, the performance evaluators revealed to have the perception of the existence of SIGEDAP, as an instrument used by the evaluators in the sectors or offices of public administration institutions.

In this category, the results led us to conclude that the 18 interviewees have heard about the performance evaluation and that it is addressed to employees, using the performance evaluation form, the heads of the offices and the hierarchical superiors of public administration institutions, in order to measure the degree of compliance with the objectives, plans and targets outlined in the institution.

In the second category (Responsibility and periodicity of the performance evaluation), we wanted to analyze the perception of the evaluators about their responsibility as well as the periodicity of the performance evaluation in the institutions of the Civil Service. According to the results, we can conclude that the interviewees know who is responsible for doing the performance evaluation, as well as their periocity, because of the 18 interviewees, 16 answered that the competent authority to evaluate the performance of employees in public administration institutions are the hierarchical superiors of each sector and that it is done every six months, but the evaluation on the verification of compliance with the objectives, plans and targets the evaluation has been quarterly, although 2 of the participants have replied that this evaluation is done annually and, this periodicity, has not facilitated the proper monitoring of the activities carried out by the evaluated.

Through the results, we can conclude that, for the research subjects, evaluating the performance of employees in public administration institutions means seeking to formulate judgments about their competence; and certify the competence of the evaluator for the exercise of professional activity, as well as its impact on career progression.

The third category of content analysis (Presentation and monitoring of annual activity plan) had the purpose of inferring the monitoring of activities and the dialogue between the evaluator and the evaluator. Of the total number London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences of interviewees, 16 Performance Evaluators stated that the follow-up, to subordinates, it is through plans of activities that they must present to their hierarchical superiors, as a presupposition of the process of dialogue and communication between them. The remaining two respondents reported that it is not often that all employees submit annual activity plans. Therefore, it can be concluded that the evaluation process, in the institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa, complies with the provisions of SIGEDAP, which recommends in point (b) of Article 10 (1) and article 10 (b) that officials must submit their annual activity plans, which may, for significant reasons, be adjusted.

In this category, the results are relatively controversial, because some claim that the periocity of monitoring the activities plans of employees is annual, while others claim that it is done every six months. And a third group that states that, in these institutions, officials do not present the activity plan and do not monitor the activities of the evaluated.

In the fourth category of analysis (Communication in the performance evaluation process), relating to communication, in the performance evaluation process, which allows the evaluator to monitor the annual activity plans of the evaluated, the objectives were: to understand whether there has been communication in the performance evaluation process in the institutions of the Public Administration, in the district government of Nacarôa; to analyze the level of implementation of the scheduled activities, their adjustment, when there is deviation of the plans, objectives and targets, as well as the degree of compliance with the deadlines set; and identify the mechanisms used in the assessment of officials in their sectors/offices. The results of this category lead us to conclude that, for the implementation of the evaluation, it is practical to use the performance evaluation forms. It is known that human beings have an ability to change and adapt/adapt to functions, as people are increasingly unpredictable, so it is necessary to establish more and more means and instruments to monitor and monitor the evaluation process throughout the year. Therefore, in the institutional context, performance evaluation is now mandatory and necessary, and assumes a capital importance, in the promotion and promotion of improving people's performance and, consequently, of the success of public administration institutions.

In the fifth category of analysis (Professional adequacy of evaluators for the performance evaluation process), related to the participation of respondents in induction processes (training, training and training) in performance evaluation subjects in the institutions of the district government of Nacarôa, the results show the existence of a dichotomy: one half of the respondents (AD1, AD2, AD8, AD9, AD11, AD14, AD15, AD16 and AD18) declares that it has participated in at least one induction (training, training or training), while the other half (AD3, AD4, AD5, AD6, AD7, AD10, AD12, AD13 and AD17), declares never to have participated. This disparity, over the domain of SIGEDAP, is probably the result of the lack of frequent reading of the instrument for the consolidation of knowledge acquired during the evaluation process.

In this category, the results may lead us to conclude that the officials responsible for the evaluation process understand that the convictions for assessing the performance of officials in their respective sectors, may vary depending on the mood, availability, or fatigue state of the evaluator at the time of evaluation, which often tends to be more subjective than integrated by lack of training, training or training, which would allow the mastery of the instrument that guides this process in the civil service. Therefore, the evaluators with training are those who realize that the performance evaluation process is the expression of what each is most sensitive, in addition to the impression immediately produced (a given evaluator can give more importance to the mastery of objectives, even if the exercise is of attendance, and the other to the presentation, for example).

In the sixth category of analysis (Effectiveness of the performance evaluation process), we address London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences the practice that conducts the process of evaluating the performance of employees in the institutions of the District Government of Nacarôa, and the domain of evaluators on the mechanisms of performance evaluation, with a view to their effectiveness.

In the considerations, we present the main conclusions about the process of performance evaluation in the civil service: a comparative analysis of the legal to the practice of performance evaluators in the district government of Nacarôa has in relation to the process of evaluation of performance in the civil service.

The results of the interviews were analyzed using content analysis, based on six categories: a) the perception and destination of the evaluation; b) the adequacy of the general profile of the evaluator (the capacity and mastery of the procedures); c) the adequacy of the Annual EmployeeS Activity Plan; (d) the direct relationship between the evaluator and the evaluator; e) the reduction of the productivity of the evaluated through the evaluation of inadequate performance; f) the consequences of the lack of the evaluator's domain of the mechanisms used in the performance evaluation process, through a comparative methodology.

The results lead us to conclude that performance evaluators in the district government of Nacarôa know of the existence of performance evaluation, in the civil service, directed to officials and agents of the State, and to those who hold positions of direction, leadership and trust; officials are normally assessed by their heads of sectors/offices and these, in turn, are assessed by the hierarchical superior of the institution; and all employees are evaluated once a year, although these assessments are not always preceded by monitoring of their activities.

Regarding the mastery of the procedures to be observed in the performance evaluation process, the results reveal that the lack of training, training or training by some performance evaluators is probably a reason for the existence, in institutions, of evaluators who do not master performance evaluation procedures. As a consequence, the performance evaluation process, in the institutions of the district government of Nacarôa, does not always comply with the procedures established in Decree No55/2009 of 12 October, which dictates the criteria to be followed in the act of performance evaluation from the planning to the award of the final grade.

With regard to the performance evaluation process, as a procedure established in Article 11 of IACSEDAP, the results lead us to conclude that some employees receive the performance evaluation forms already completed by the evaluator, without first having an interview between the evaluator and the evaluated in order to assess the level of execution of the plans, objectives, targets, as well as to verify the degree of compliance with planned activities, thereby giving, the opportunity for the evaluator to agree or not to the grade awarded, and only after this phase, the form can be taken to the hierarchical superior of the institution for its approval. The lack of interviews with employees in the performance evaluation process in public administration institutions blocks communication between the evaluator and the evaluator, because, since the public service is an interconnected system, the lack of communication between its employees contributes to an entropy.

The evaluation process serves to know the deviations between what is expected and what is also obtained, the necessary transparency and accuracy attribute, to the evaluation process, an increased singularity and complexity, appearing to be an important instrument for the regularization of performance problems and the improvement of quality in the work of employees, as well as in life in public administration institutions.

As for the way in which the evaluation process is directed, in the five institutions, the results reveal that it is effective, on the part of those who monitor the evaluated on the degree of compliance with the plans and goals, maintaining a permanent dialogue between the parties until the final phase of the performance evaluation, made through interviews, as a form of good human resources management in public administration.