Bike Edmonton

Staff Performance Review Policy: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Staff Performance Review Policy (view source)

Revision as of 14:42, 28 March 2013

1,102 bytes added ,  28 March 2013
no edit summary
No edit summary
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 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:
*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 reviews used a checklist form (rather than narrative)
*Most focused on ED's actions and behaviors (rather than on organizational performance)
*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.)
*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:
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)


Without a checklist of some kind, the ED evaluation most likely won't take place
*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.
Evaluation of organizational performance is complex and is more likely to arise from executive evaluation than to occur before it, and
*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.  
Input from others in and outside the organization is more appropriately focused on organizational assessment, not as narrowly as on ED evaluation.
*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?
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>




Retrieved from "https://apps.bikeedmonton.ca/w/Special:MobileDiff/1838"