Staff Performance Review Policy: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Staff Performance Review Policy (view source)

Revision as of 18:53, 29 May 2023

30 bytes removed , 29 May 2023

m

→‎Scope

Maxine.myre

85

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Policy Statement ==
-*The Executive Director's performance will be reviewed at least once in a board's term (i.e. at least once a year), typically near the end of the board's term.
+The following steps will be implemented (a) before the completion of the staff member’s probationary or trial period, as specified in their contract; and (b) on completion of approximately 12 months and each subsequent 12 months worked in their position.
-*The review will be led by a standing or ad hoc HR committee. The committee will review existing [[Performance Evaluation Templates]] for gathering feedback and make changes as desired. The committee must solicit feedback from all board members and a self-evaluation from the ED. They may also solicit some form of feedback from other staff, volunteers, past board members, program partners, and other members of the Edmonton cycling community. Some advice on this:
-<blockquote>"When we reviewed various the dozens of evaluation instruments sent in by Blue Avocado readers, we found that nearly all of them had these attributes in common:
-*Most reviews used a checklist form (rather than narrative)
-*Most focused on ED's actions and behaviors (rather than on organizational performance)
-*Most relied on input from board members only (rather than include input from others such as staff, funders, clients, art critics, etc.)
-Although we feel that evaluations that are narrative, focus on organizational performance and contain elements of a 360 degree evaluation are better ways to evaluate executives, we also realize:
-*Without a checklist of some kind, the ED evaluation most likely won't take place
-*Evaluation of organizational performance is complex and is more likely to arise from executive evaluation than to occur before it, and
-*Input from others in and outside the organization is more appropriately focused on organizational assessment, not as narrowly as on ED evaluation.
-(...) What about 360 degree evaluations? Every few years it's very helful for a board to get a sense of how its executive -- and the organization as a whole -- is experienced by volunteers, visitors, patrons, clients, members, funders, collaborative partners, and others. A 360 degree evaluation takes a good deal of time (not only from the board but from everyone who is asked to give input), and it makes the most sense to use the opportunity not only to learn about the CEO, but about the organization."</blockquote>
-(Source: http://blueavocado.org/content/executive-director-evaluation-survey-form)
-*The HR committee synthesizes the data into a report to be delivered to the ED. It may include individual or minority opinions that the ED should be aware of, but it must present the ED with a clear, coherent picture of the board's expectations going forward.
-*The report must be approved by the board. Board members may access raw feedback forms, but these must remain confidential. Since feedback likely cannot be truly anonymized, the ED may not access the raw feedback, but they may expect that the review they receive incorporates the full range of feedback with detail and balance.
-*The ED may give an in-person or written response to the evaluation. This is a good time to make concrete plans for professional development, and to ask about the ED's long-term plans for staying with EBC. It may also be an opportunity to start setting goals for personal and organizational performance, to be continued at the next board retreat.
-*How/when to review compensation?
+<ol>
+<li>The HR Committee, including the Staff Liaison, will initiate the evaluation process and describe the process with staff member. The Executive Director joins the committee for reviews of other staff.</li>
+<li>An evaluation survey will be distributed to the staff member for self-evaluation. The same evaluation will be distributed to other staff members, board members, volunteers, and community partners who have worked with staff member being evaluated. (Evaluators, particularly those from outside Bike Edmonton, should be provided with direction as to which topics they might be most able to speak to, but are free to comment on any topics in the evaluation.)</li>
+<li>The HR Committee will collect and compile evaluation surveys. Raw survey results are only accessible by the HR Committee and the Board Executive.</li>
+<li>The HR Committee will meet in person with the staff member to discuss the results of the evaluation surveys, including a recognition of their success and areas for development.
+	a.) HR Committee will synthesize results and share with staff member.
+	b.) Performance will be compared against job description that was signed in contract and goals set in the last performance review cycle.
+HR Committee will receive recommendations for updates/amendments to job description and bring to the board as needed.
+	c.) Review staff member’s goals for remainder of contract and discuss opportunities for professional development.
+	d) The committee will produce a written performance review based on the feedback received and conclusions reached in their in-person meeting with the staff member. The written review will be shared with the board and kept on file, along with raw feedback forms.</li>
+<li>The Staff member has a right to include a written rebuttal up to two weeks after the evaluation is completed.</li>
+<li>The HR Committee puts forward recommendations to Board for staff member’s contract (termination, extension, renewal, upgrade, etc).</li>
+</ol>
 == Purpose of the policy ==
-To ensure that a review of the Executive Director's performance happens regularly.
+This policy is designed to ensure that staff performance is supported and evaluated through fair, consistent and timely reviews.
 == Philosophy ==
+Bike Edmonton’s success is dependent in part on the performance and contribution of every employee. Effective performance management involves a continuous two-way process of communication between an employee and the Board via the Staff Liaison focused on:
+*(a) the direction and goals of Bike Edmonton and the employee's contributions in the coming year;
+*(b) clear, reasonable expectations for performance and accountability;
+*(c) learning and development needs;
+*(d) recognition of employee contributions; and
+*(e) guidance and support to enhance employee performance.
 <blockquote>"Some boards neglect their duty of evaluating the director. They may fear conflict, be
 at a loss for the tools, or lack the tradition. All are poor, if common, reasons to avoid
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 * Identifying opportunities, strengths, challenges, and strategic questions before
 they become troubling issues."</blockquote> (Source: http://firstnonprofit.org/images/uploads/pdf/Evaluating.pdf)
 == Definitions of key concepts or terms used in the policy ==
@@ Line 53: / Line 52: @@
 == Scope ==
+This policy applies to all Bike Edmonton staff.
 == Permissible Exceptions ==
@@ Line 59: / Line 58: @@
 == Positions in the organization responsible for implementing and monitoring the policy ==
+The HR Committee is responsible for implementation of this policy.
+==Notes==
+A template for Executive Director evaluation has been uploaded: [[File:EDperformancereviewtemplate.odt]]. This remains at the discretion of the HR Committee.
 == Dates of Effect ==
@@ Line 71: / Line 73: @@
 <div style="margin:0;background:#f7d4e0;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #de8ca7;text-align:center;color:#000;padding-left:0.4em;padding-top:0.2em;padding-bottom:0.2em;">Date Approved, Revisioned and Active</div>
-Enter Date Information
+Approved June 19, 2013, effective immediately and indefinitely.
 |}