Federal government agencies sacked fewer employees in 2013-14 than at any other time in the past 15 years.

A recent Australian Public Service survey also found fewer than one in five public servants believed their workplace dealt with poor staff effectively.

Stephen Sedgwick, whose five-year term as commissioner ends on Saturday, has regularly criticised portrayals of the "lazy" public servant stereotype and says performance problems are overstated.

He cautioned against seeing performance management "as code for dealing with underperformers", when the greater challenge for managers was to "identify and nurture their most talented employees".

In an address to senior public servants, he said: "Sometimes the service is criticised because 'not enough' employees have had their employment terminated for underperformance."

But he acknowledged that public servants themselves doubted their bosses' ability to manage poor staff, and international comparisons confirmed the perception.

While only 18 per cent of APS employees endorsed the way their workplace dealt with underperformance, twice as many public servants in other countries had confidence in their organisations' methods.

Mr Sedgwick said that, when staff performance was deficient, "it needs to be addressed". The Public Service Act clearly allowed agency heads to, "at any time, by notice in writing, terminate the employment" of staff for "non-performance or unsatisfactory performance of duties".

However, he noted that enterprise agreements had "over time, surrounded the performance management process with excessive procedural and other encumbrances".

"The need to afford an employee procedural fairness is deeply enshrined in administrative law and APS practice," Mr Sedgwick said.

"Similarly, the need to provide an individual with reasonable opportunity and support to lift their contribution is deeply entrenched in APS culture.

"Neither of these require, however, the adoption of interminable or excessively bureaucratic processes."

He said the solution was "not rocket science": effective management involved setting expectations, communicating them clearly to staff, and regular feedback – "preferably continuously rather than just a 'tick and flick' once a year".

Agencies also needed "streamlined but fair" processes and "a workplace culture that expects and values honest two-way conversations in the workplace".

Trouble dealing with underperforming staff was a common theme that emerged in reviews of 14 government agencies last year.

In the latest capability reviews released last week, the concern was again raised in four of the five agencies examined.

The report on the Health Department said one reason for the problem was "mismatches between employees and roles", as some staff had been promoted "for technical skill and lack broader management or public administration skills".

In the Veterans' Affairs Department, "senior management or corporate areas do not always support management of poor performance, and often there is little obvious real consequence for underperformance".

The review of the Bureau of Statistics praised the agency's career development program, but said underperformance was "less effectively managed".

"A relationship-based agency such as the ABS finds this difficult to confront. There is a cultural even-handedness that makes criticism difficult, and a reluctance to undertake judgmental conversations," the review found.