Staff Performance Review Policy

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 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:

"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."

(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 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.
• 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?

Purpose of the policy

To ensure that a review of the Executive Director's performance happens regularly.

Philosophy

"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 evaluation. That’s too bad, because evaluation offers numerous benefits, including:

• Ensuring that the board is meeting its duty to actively lead the organization
• Monitoring whether organizational goals are being achieved
• Providing an opportunity to set new annual goals
• Maintaining a formal, documented, fair, and pragmatic process for providing

feedback to the executive

• Helping the executive understand the board’s perspective on his or her

strengths and limitations

• Providing direction for specific improvements in skills and performance
• Providing documented processes that help the board retain, improve, or retire the

executive, as well as justify changes in compensation and other matters of record

• Maintaining a process and documentation that can help protect the board if they

let a chief executive go and the chief executive decides to sue the organization

• Helping board members examine the executive’s accomplishments rather than

personality

• Laying the foundation for an improved working relationship between board

and executive

• Identifying opportunities, strengths, challenges, and strategic questions before

they become troubling issues."

(Source: http://firstnonprofit.org/images/uploads/pdf/Evaluating.pdf)

Dates of Effect

Date Approved, Revisioned and Active Enter Date Information

Date Expired Enter Date Information