Staff Performance Review Policy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Adam.burgess (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Adam.burgess (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Policy Statement == | == 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 review will be led by a standing or ad hoc HR committee. The committee will review existing 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 feedback from other staff, volunteers, past board members and other members of the Edmonton cycling community, and program partners. <blockquote><div>"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." | |||
</div></blockquote> | |||
| Line 6: | Line 23: | ||
== Philosophy == | == Philosophy == | ||
"Some boards neglect their duty of evaluating the director. They may fear conflict, be | <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 | at a loss for the tools, or lack the tradition. All are poor, if common, reasons to avoid | ||
evaluation. That’s too bad, because evaluation offers numerous benefits, including: | evaluation. That’s too bad, because evaluation offers numerous benefits, including: | ||
| Line 26: | Line 43: | ||
and executive | and executive | ||
* Identifying opportunities, strengths, challenges, and strategic questions before | * Identifying opportunities, strengths, challenges, and strategic questions before | ||
they become troubling issues." | they become troubling issues."</blockquote> (Source: http://firstnonprofit.org/images/uploads/pdf/Evaluating.pdf) | ||