|
|
| 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 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 his/her 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: | | <ol> |
| *Most reviews used a checklist form (rather than narrative)
| | <li>Standing HR Committee, including Staff Liaison, will initiate the evaluation process and describes the process with staff member. The ED joins the committee for reviews of other staff.</li> |
| *Most focused on ED's actions and behaviors (rather than on organizational performance)
| | <li>Evaluation survey will be distributed to staff member for self evaluation. The same evaluation will be distributed to other staff members, board members, volunteers, service volunteers, community partners who have worked with staff member being evaluated. (Evaluators, particularly those from outside EBC, 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> |
| *Most relied on input from board members only (rather than include input from others such as staff, funders, clients, art critics, etc.)
| | <li>Staff begin goal setting, learning and development needs, successes, general comments.</li> |
| 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:
| | <li>4. HR Committee will distribute, collect and compile evaluation surveys. |
| *Without a checklist of some kind, the ED evaluation most likely won't take place
| | a.) Raw survey results are only accessible by HR Committee and Board Executive.</li> |
| *Evaluation of organizational performance is complex and is more likely to arise from executive evaluation than to occur before it, and
| | <li>5. HR Committee will meet in person with staff member to discuss self-evaluations, survey results, recognition, development areas and successes. |
| *Input from others in and outside the organization is more appropriately focused on organizational assessment, not as narrowly as on ED evaluation.
| | a.) HR Committee will synthesise results and share with staff member. |
| (...) 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>
| | b.) Performance will be compared against job description that was signed in contract and goals set in the last performance review cycle. |
| (Source: http://blueavocado.org/content/executive-director-evaluation-survey-form)
| | 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. |
| *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.
| | 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 be kept on file, along with raw feedback forms.</li> |
| *The report must be approved by the board. Board members may view 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 the feedback with detail and balance.
| | <li>6. Staff member has a right to include a written rebuttal up to two weeks after the evaluation is completed.</li> |
| *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.
| | <li>7. HR Committee puts forward recommendations to Board for staff member’s contract (termination, extension, renewal, upgrade, etc).</li> |
| *How/when to review compensation?
| | </ol> |
|
| |
|
| == Purpose of the policy == | | == Purpose of the policy == |