Employment law
Evaluating staff in Mali: techniques, tools and the limits set by law
Mid-December, in the Djoliba Distribution warehouse in Bamako’s industrial zone. Management wants to pay a “merit-based” year-end bonus and appoint two team leaders before January. Nobody has ever been evaluated in writing, and every manager has their own idea of who deserves what. Without a method, the bonus will breed resentment, the promotions will be challenged, and the first dispute will find the company with no evidence at all.
Djoliba Distribution is a food wholesaler with 85 employees based in Bamako. We will follow Awa, its personnel manager, and three employees: Oumar, a forklift operator for six years, Fatoumata, a sales representative on probation, and Seydou, a team leader and member of the union committee. This company and these people are fictitious: their names are used for illustration only.
1. The legal framework: which texts govern staff evaluation?
No Malian text says how to evaluate an employee. Several texts, however, say what an evaluation may not do, and what it must make it possible to prove.
- The Labour Code (Law No. 92-020 of 23 September 1992, last amended by Law No. 2022-005 of 20 May 2022). This is the main text. It prohibits discrimination (article L.4), requires promotion criteria common to both sexes and objective job evaluation methods (L.95), and prohibits taking trade union activity into account (L.257). It also governs the probationary period (L.30 to L.33), training (L.9), proof of the grounds for dismissal (L.51) and changes to the contract (L.58).
- Order No. 96-1566 of 7 October 1996, amended by Order No. 2024-4363 of 27 December 2024, article A.48.1. In an economic dismissal, it makes professional aptitude one of the criteria for the order of departures. It is the only text that gives evaluation an explicit role.
- The applicable collective agreement. It sets the classification of occupational categories, the joint classification committees and the organisation of training (L.79). It is often the collective agreement that lays down the criteria for advancement.
- The establishment agreement, if there is one. This is an agreement signed between the employer and staff representatives to adapt the rules to the company. It may set the conditions for awarding individual and collective production bonuses and productivity bonuses (L.88).
Other texts complete this framework without mentioning evaluation: the prohibition of fines and deductions (L.69 and L.121), the content of the certificate of employment (L.61) and the role of staff delegates (L.278). We will come back to them where they apply.
The most common mistake
Believing that the Code requires a periodic evaluation interview. This idea comes from French templates, where a compulsory professional review exists. The Malian Code provides for nothing of the kind. The opposite mistake is just as costly: thinking that, in the absence of rules, anything goes. Evaluation is free in its form, not in its criteria or its effects.
The Code does not require you to evaluate. It requires you, when you do evaluate, to evaluate fairly.
2. What exactly are we talking about?
At Djoliba, Awa hears three different things behind the same word. The managing director wants to “rate” the employees. The warehouse manager wants to “weigh” the jobs to review salaries. The accountant is waiting for a “list of the best” for the bonus.
Staff evaluation is the employer’s written assessment of the work done by an employee over a period, measured against expectations set in advance. It concerns one person and one period.
Job evaluation is something else. It measures the value of a post, its requirements and responsibilities, to place it in the grid and set its pay. This is what article L.95 targets when it requires methods based on objective considerations.
| What is evaluated | The question asked | What depends on it |
|---|---|---|
| The person (staff evaluation) | Has the employee achieved what was expected? | Merit bonus, training, promotion, proof of poor performance |
| The post (job evaluation) | What is this post worth compared with the others? | Category, minimum wage, place in the grid |
| Conduct (disciplinary procedure) | Has the employee committed misconduct? | Disciplinary sanction |
Why evaluate if nothing requires it?
Because three decisions you will take anyway require facts: who gets the bonus, who is promoted, who is trained. And because on the day of a dispute, it is for the employer to prove the legitimate grounds for a dismissal (L.51) and compliance with the order of economic dismissals (L.48).
The most common mistake
Mixing evaluation and discipline. An evaluation interview does not sanction misconduct: it measures a result. Misconduct observed during the year is dealt with separately, when it occurs, through the disciplinary procedure. See Sanctioning without getting it wrong: the disciplinary procedure in Mali.
Evaluation measures work. A sanction answers misconduct. Mixing them weakens both.
3. Criteria: what you can measure, what you must never touch
For the bonus, a Djoliba team leader suggests rating “attitude” and “commitment”. Awa asks him: how will you see that a forklift operator is committed? He cannot answer.
A good criterion is linked to the post, observable and known to the employee before the period being evaluated. Three families of criteria meet these conditions.
| Family of criteria | Examples for a Djoliba forklift operator |
|---|---|
| Results | Number of pallets prepared per day, order-picking error rate |
| Quality and safety | Breakage recorded, compliance with traffic rules in the warehouse, wearing of protective equipment |
| Observable professional behaviour | Punctuality at the start of the shift, handover of instructions to the next team |
The criterion that never holds
Any distinction based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin is discrimination as soon as it impairs equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or training (Labour Code, article L.4). The text specifically prohibits any discrimination based on invalidity, disability, HIV and AIDS.
There is only one exception: distinctions based on the qualifications required for a particular job. Requiring a forklift operator to be able to drive a forklift truck is not discrimination.
For promotion, the rule is even more precise: categories, classifications and criteria for professional promotion must be common to workers of both sexes (Labour Code, article L.95). A breach of this article is punishable by a fine of 20,000 to 50,000 XOF and 15 days to 3 months’ imprisonment, or one of these two penalties (L.319). See Equality at work.
These rules protect one simple thing: that employees are judged on what they do, not on who they are.
The most common mistake
Keeping vague criteria: “attitude”, “company spirit”, “loyalty”. They are not prohibited as such, but they cannot be proved. A criterion that cannot be proved leaves the employee suspecting that the rating rests on something else: their origin, their sex or their union. Translate each quality into behaviour that can be observed and dated.
What you need to do
- List three to five criteria per post, each linked to an actual task.
- Translate each vague criterion into observable behaviour.
- Apply the same grid to everyone holding the same post, women and men alike.
4. The toolkit: six simple tools, no software needed
Djoliba’s managing director has found a twelve-page “360-degree” evaluation questionnaire on the internet. He wants to use it for all 85 employees, forklift operators included.
The Labour Code provides no evaluation tool: it sets limits, not a method. The tools below are practical recommendations. They have been chosen to work in a Malian company without a large personnel department or software, with a notebook, a sheet of paper and, at most, a spreadsheet.
| Tool | What it is for | How to keep it |
|---|---|---|
| The job description | Telling employees what is expected of them before evaluating them | One page: purpose, three to five main tasks, expected results, safety rules, direct manager |
| The follow-up log | Keeping a record of the year’s facts, good and bad | A bound notebook or a spreadsheet; each fact dated and recorded within the week |
| The one-page grid | Rating each criterion and justifying the rating with a fact | Three to five weighted criteria, a scale of 1 to 4 |
| Quantified objectives | Measuring a result rather than an impression | Two or three objectives written at the start of the year, each with a figure and a date |
| On-the-job observation | Checking on site what figures do not show | A checklist of five to ten points, completed during visits to the work area |
| Self-assessment | Getting the employee to reflect on their year before the interview | The same grid as the manager’s, handed over one week before |
The follow-up log, the tool most often missing
Without a log, managers only remember the last few weeks: a good November wipes out a bad year, and vice versa. The log corrects this bias. It also protects the company: a fact recorded on the day is easier to defend, before the labour inspector or the court, than a memory reconstructed a year later.
Record successes too. A log that contains only criticism looks like a disciplinary file, and the employee will read it as one.
The one-page grid: Awa’s model for forklift operators
Each criterion carries a weight, describes the expected level and leaves a box for the fact that justifies the rating. Here is the grid completed for Oumar at the end of the year.
| Criterion (weight) | Expected level (rating 3) | Rating | Fact justifying the rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Results (50%) | 120 pallets prepared per day, under 1% errors | 3 | Year average: 124 pallets per day, 0.8% errors (monthly report) |
| Quality and safety (30%) | No breakage attributable to him, traffic rules respected | 4 | No breakage; cited as an example during the safety inspection of 12 September |
| Professional behaviour (20%) | Punctual, instructions handed over to the next team | 2 | End-of-shift instructions not handed over on 4 April and 18 August (follow-up log) |
A short scale, with every level described
A scale of 1 to 4, with no middle score, forces the evaluator to take a position: above or below expectations. Each level must be described, otherwise two managers will give two different ratings for the same work.
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1 | Insufficient: expectations are not met |
| 2 | Needs improvement: expectations are partly met |
| 3 | Meets expectations: expectations are met |
| 4 | Exceeds expectations: expectations are regularly exceeded |
The most common mistake
Importing a tool that is too heavy. A twelve-page questionnaire completed for 85 people will produce boxes ticked in a hurry, not facts. A 360-degree evaluation, which combines the views of colleagues and subordinates, requires a habit of written feedback and an anonymity that is hard to guarantee in a small team: if needed, keep it for managers in larger organisations.
Awa chooses the job description, the log and the grid for everyone, quantified objectives for sales staff and on-the-job observation for the warehouse.
An evaluation tool is judged by a single question: does it produce facts you will be able to show?
What you need to do
- Write a one-page job description for each job and give it to the employee.
- Open a follow-up log for each employee and record each fact within the week, successes included.
- Use a one-page grid, the same for everyone holding the same post.
5. From grid to rating, from rating to bonus
At the end of the first campaign, Awa calculates Oumar’s rating. She uses the grid shown above, in which each criterion is weighted. Weighting is the share given to each criterion in the final rating: it says what matters most for the post.
Example. Oumar’s annual rating, on a scale of 1 to 4.
Results, weight 50%: 3 × 0.50 = 1.50
Quality and safety, weight 30%: 4 × 0.30 = 1.20
Professional behaviour, weight 20%: 2 × 0.20 = 0.40
Final rating: 1.50 + 1.20 + 0.40 = 3.10 out of 4
Before the start of the year, Djoliba set a written year-end bonus scale: 100% of the target bonus from 3 out of 4, 50% from 2 to under 3, nothing below 2. The target bonus for a forklift operator is 60,000 XOF.
Example. Year-end bonus for Oumar and for a colleague rated 2.40.
Oumar: rating 3.10, i.e. at least 3 out of 4, rate 100%
Oumar’s bonus: 60,000 × 100% = 60,000 XOF
Colleague: rating 2.40, between 2 and 3, rate 50%
Colleague’s bonus: 60,000 × 50% = 30,000 XOF
Merit bonus yes, seniority bonus never
The seniority bonus does not depend on evaluation. It is due to every worker with at least three years of continuous service, and is calculated as a percentage of the minimum wage for their category (L.97). With six years’ service, Oumar is entitled to 6% whatever his rating. See The seniority bonus.
What a work-related bonus entails
A written scale known in advance protects both sides: the employee knows what to do, and the employer can justify every amount. To make these bonuses permanent, the establishment agreement is the instrument provided for by the Code (L.88).
Think ahead as well. A bonus that rewards work is included in the pay used for severance pay (L.53), and in the twelve-month average used for pay in lieu of notice (L.100).
What you need to do
- Write down the weighting and the bonus scale before the start of the period.
- Recalculate each rating line by line and have it checked by a second manager.
- Pay the seniority bonus regardless of any rating.
6. The calendar: an evaluation campaign in four stages
Last year at Djoliba, the year-end bonus was shared out in a single week, on managers’ impressions alone, just before the December payroll. Nobody could justify the amounts, and the bonuses were disputed throughout the first quarter.
The Code sets no dates. A campaign spread over the year, aligned with the company’s financial year, avoids last-minute evaluation. Here is the calendar Awa puts in place for the following year.
| Period | What is done | Time per employee |
|---|---|---|
| January | Hand over the job description, set objectives, explain the grid and the bonus scale | 20 minutes |
| All year | Keep the follow-up log; hold a quick review each quarter | A few minutes per fact |
| June | Mid-year review: where do things stand, what needs correcting, what training is needed? | 15 minutes |
| November | Self-assessment, then annual interview and written record | 45 minutes |
| Early December | Calibration meeting, then announcement of bonuses and the training plan | 2 hours for the management team |
Calibration, against managers who are too harsh or too lenient
Calibration is a meeting in which managers compare their ratings before announcing them, so that everyone applies the same standard. At Djoliba, the warehouse manager rates harshly and the sales manager generously. Without calibration, the bonus would depend on the manager, not on the work.
The meeting checks three things: that every extreme rating rests on facts from the log, that differences between teams can be explained, and that no comment touches on a criterion prohibited by articles L.4 and L.257.
Choosing the right moment
Schedule interviews outside peak activity and major religious holidays, and give enough notice for everyone to prepare. A campaign run at the busiest time of year produces rushed ratings.
The most common mistake
Announcing ratings before calibration. A rating announced and then lowered creates a stronger sense of unfairness than a fair rating from the start.
An evaluation is prepared in January, fed all year and decided in December.
What you need to do
- Put the campaign dates in the company calendar in January.
- Hold a fifteen-minute mid-year review with each employee.
- Bring managers together for calibration before announcing any rating.
7. The evaluation interview: prepare, conduct, write up
Seydou, a team leader, receives his invitation the day before for the next day. He arrives without having prepared anything, and the interview turns into mutual reproaches.
The Code sets neither the form nor the frequency of the evaluation interview. It is therefore up to you to set the rules, and to apply them to everyone in the same way. Six steps are enough.
- Give one week’s notice and hand over the blank grid for self-assessment.
- Gather the facts of the period: figures, dated incidents, records of interim reviews.
- Start with the employee’s self-assessment and their strengths, then compare criterion by criterion.
- Explain each rating with a fact, never with an impression.
- Set the objectives and training needs for the next period.
- Write a dated record, with a space reserved for the employee’s comments.
Signing is not agreeing
Ask the employee to sign the record with the words “read”, and let them write down their disagreement. Their signature proves they were informed of the evaluation, not that they accept it. A disputed but signed record is worth more than a perfect record nobody has seen.
The employee can be heard
Employees may submit their own complaints to the employer (L.279). Staff delegates, elected in every establishment with more than ten workers, may also present individual complaints about the application of job classifications and wage rates (L.265 and L.278). A dispute over a rating that affects classification therefore often goes through them. See Staff delegates: the counterpart the law requires.
The most common mistake
Raising criticism for the first time on the day of the interview. If a problem has lasted six months, the employee should have heard about it six months earlier. The interview sums up; it does not reveal. To deal with falling results during the year, see Poor performance: holding the conversation and building an action plan.
Nothing said in the evaluation interview should come as a surprise to the employee.
What you need to do
- Send the invitation one week in advance with the self-assessment grid.
- Justify each rating with a dated fact.
- Have the record signed with the words “read” and a space for comments.
8. Adapting evaluation to Malian working conditions
Bakary, a 52-year-old storekeeper, is having his first evaluation interview. He speaks Bambara and reads French with difficulty. His direct manager is 29. The record, written in French, was handed to him for signature. Bakary signed without asking anything.
The evaluation templates in circulation were designed elsewhere, for managers who read and write every day. In a Malian company, five situations call for adaptation. These are recommendations: the Code does not require them, but they make the evaluation understandable, and therefore defensible.
When the employee does not read French
A signature at the bottom of a document one has not understood proves very little. Hold the interview in the language the employee masters, Bambara or another. Then read the record to them and translate it before asking them to sign.
Offer them the option of being assisted by a literate person of their choice, a staff delegate or a colleague, who also signs as a witness. The Code already uses this solution for the individual sheets of the employer’s register: where the worker is illiterate, they are initialled by their literate representative (L.130). For operational posts, a colour-coded grid (green, orange, red) helps explain the rating.
Respecting age and seniority without giving up on evaluation
In many Malian companies, age and seniority command respect, and a young manager hesitates to criticise an elder. The answer is not to avoid the interview, but to take care over how it is held.
Meet the employee one to one, never in front of the team. Start by acknowledging their experience, talk about facts rather than the person, and ask them how to close the gap. If the relationship is sensitive, the next-level manager may attend the interview.
Neutralising family ties and recommendations
Recruiting through personal connections is common, and a manager may end up evaluating a relative, a neighbour or someone who was recommended. The risk is twofold: a lenient rating for one person, and a suspicion of unfairness for everyone else.
Set a simple rule: nobody evaluates a member of their own family, and every rating is validated by the evaluator’s superior. Calibration does the rest. Article L.4 in fact targets any “preference” that impairs equality of opportunity and treatment, not only exclusions.
Small businesses without a personnel department
A bakery with 12 employees does not need a four-stage campaign. The owner can stick to the minimum: a job description, a follow-up log, a one-page grid and a thirty-minute interview per employee per year. It all fits in one binder.
Day labourers, seasonal workers and fixed-term contracts
For day labourers and seasonal workers, a five-line review sheet at the end of the campaign is enough: work done, safety, punctuality, opinion on rehiring for the next campaign. It makes it possible to call back the best workers from one season to the next.
For a fixed-term contract, that is, one concluded with an end date, evaluate before the term so you can make an informed decision on renewal or permanent hiring. But a poor evaluation does not allow early termination: only gross misconduct, misconduct of exceptional seriousness assessed by the court, written agreement of the parties or force majeure allow it. Otherwise, the employer owes damages equal to the wages that remained to be paid (Labour Code, article L.25).
The most common mistake
Having an employee who does not read French sign a record written in French. On the day of a dispute, they will say they did not understand what they were signing, and nothing will prove otherwise.
An evaluation the employee did not understand has evaluated nothing.
What you need to do
- Hold the interview in the employee’s language and read the record to them before signature.
- Forbid managers from evaluating members of their own family and have every rating validated by the next level up.
- Evaluate a fixed-term contract before its end, without ever using the result to terminate early.
9. What evaluation allows you to decide, and what it never allows
Seydou’s rating is the lowest in the team. His manager has written as a comment: “too taken up by his union meetings”. He also suggests deducting 10,000 XOF from the pay of the lowest-rated forklift operators.
What it allows
| Decision | What evaluation contributes | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Awarding a merit bonus | The rating, applied to the written scale | L.88 (establishment agreement) |
| Choosing who to train | The gaps found criterion by criterion | L.9 and L.11 |
| Proposing a promotion | Comparing candidates on common criteria | L.95 and collective agreement (L.79) |
| Setting the order of economic dismissals | Professional aptitude, after voluntary departures | L.48 and Order, A.48.1 |
| Proving poor performance | Repeated gaps despite the resources provided | L.51 |
Poor performance (insuffisance professionnelle) is an employee’s lasting inability to perform their job properly, without any fault on their part. If a dismissal is challenged, the employer must prove legitimate grounds, and the dismissal is unfair if the stated reason is inaccurate (Labour Code, article L.51). Written, dated evaluations that are consistent from one year to the next are the best evidence. See Dismissal on grounds of poor performance.
In an economic dismissal, workers with lower professional aptitude in relation to the jobs retained are placed on the list, after voluntary departures; where professional value is equal, the longest-serving workers are kept (Order No. 96-1566 as amended, article A.48.1). The burden of proving that this order was followed lies with the employer (L.48). Without evaluations, it cannot be proved. See Economic dismissal.
What it never allows
| Temptation | Why it is prohibited | What it costs |
|---|---|---|
| Deducting a sum from the pay of the lowest-rated | Fines are prohibited and no deduction is possible outside the cases provided for by the Code (L.69 and L.121) | Fine of 20,000 to 100,000 XOF for imposing a fine (L.318); 10,000 to 18,000 XOF for an unlawful deduction (L.321) |
| Cutting pay or demoting after a poor rating | Pay and the job held are substantial terms (L.58) | If the employee refuses, the termination is attributable to the employer |
| Taking union activity into account | Prohibited for training, advancement, pay and discipline (L.257) | Unfair measure, damages, and a fine of 50,000 to 250,000 XOF and 1 to 4 months’ imprisonment, or either penalty (L.329) |
| Putting the evaluation on the certificate of employment | The certificate states only the dates, the jobs and the category (L.61) | Damages, and a fine of 50,000 to 200,000 XOF (L.318) |
No employer may take union membership or trade union activity into account in its decisions, in particular regarding vocational training, advancement, pay and discipline (Labour Code, article L.257). The comment about Seydou must be removed, and his rating must be recalculated on his work alone.
The proposed deduction is also ruled out. A change to pay or to the job held must be proposed to the employee; if they refuse, the employer may terminate the contract, but the termination is attributable to the employer and follows the dismissal procedure (Labour Code, article L.58). If Djoliba wants to reward the best, it must do so with an extra bonus, never with a deduction from the others. For the certificate, see Certificate of employment: four permitted entries.
An evaluation can add a bonus. It can never take away pay.
What you need to do
- Reread every written comment and delete anything unrelated to the work.
- Rule out any deduction, pay cut or demotion decided on the basis of a rating alone.
- Keep written evaluations: they will be your evidence in a dispute.
10. Evaluating during probation and at the end of training
Fatoumata joined the sales team on 1 November, with a one-month probationary period agreed in writing. On 30 November, her manager has still said nothing to her. On 2 December, she is still there.
The probationary period is the time during which the employer checks that the employee is suited to the post, and the employee checks that the post suits them. It is an evaluation provided for by law.
Probationary employment must be stipulated in writing, with the job, the category and the duration. This duration is in principle equal to the notice period, and may be longer up to a limit of 6 months, renewal included (Labour Code, article L.30). During probation, either party may terminate without notice and without compensation (L.33).
If work continues after the end of probation without renewal, the contract becomes an open-ended contract, that is, one with no end date, taking effect from the first day of probation (L.30). On 2 December, Fatoumata is therefore permanently hired, whether or not her manager has evaluated her.
The rule protects employees against endless probation: the employer decides during probation, not afterwards.
After training: written objectives, or nothing to prove
Training provided for in the contract or an amendment must state in writing its objectives, duration and pay. At the end, the employment contract continues, unless the training was not conclusive (Labour Code, article L.9). Without written objectives at the outset, it is impossible to show that training was not conclusive. See Vocational training: what the contract must provide.
The most common mistake
Letting probation run on “to get a clearer picture”. Probation is not extra thinking time: at its end, the decision is made, even by default. From the day of hiring, schedule a mid-point review and a final review a few days before the end. See Probationary period.
Probation is there to evaluate. Probation without evaluation ends in a hiring nobody decided.
What you need to do
- Schedule a mid-probation review and a final review before the last week, from the day of hiring.
- Keep a written record of any decision taken before the end of probation.
- Write down the objectives of any training before it starts.
11. A closer look: what Malian law does not require
Many evaluation templates in circulation come from France. They bring with them obligations that do not exist in Mali.
| Rule often cited | The position in Mali |
|---|---|
| A compulsory periodic professional review | A rule of French law, with no equivalent in the Malian Code. A regular interview remains good practice. |
| Compulsory prior information of employees on evaluation methods | Not written in the Malian Code. It remains strongly advised: a criterion the employee did not know about is hard to defend. |
| Compulsory consultation of staff representatives before introducing an evaluation method | Not provided for by the Malian Code. Staff delegates may nevertheless present complaints and suggestions (L.278). |
Nor is there any need to put the evaluation system in the internal regulations: their content is limited exclusively to the technical organisation of work, discipline, health and safety, and the arrangements for paying wages (L.64). A memo is enough; where evaluation drives long-term bonuses, an establishment agreement provides a firmer basis (L.88).
Key takeaways in 6 points
- Evaluate on criteria linked to the post, observable and known in advance: the Code provides no method, but it penalises discriminatory evaluation.
- Keep your tools simple: a job description, a follow-up log kept all year and a one-page grid with a dated fact for every rating.
- Follow a calendar: objectives in January, a review in June, interviews in November, calibration before any bonus is announced.
- Make the evaluation understandable: the employee’s language, the record read aloud before signature, a literate witness, a one-to-one interview.
- Never use a rating to deduct pay, cut pay, demote, terminate a fixed-term contract early, or penalise union activity.
- Evaluate before the end of probation and before the end of training: afterwards, the decision is made for you.