Evaluation is a double edged blade. You can have a very indepth evaluative
process in an attempt to quantify the result, but it involves a lot of
work for the evaluatee in addition to the long process of evolving the
instrument and evaluation procedure.
Having become in the past a state certified evaluator for public schools,
I learned a lot about what was touted as a carefully calculated process by
school districts - used by the evaluator to do what they wanted, since
observation is for the most part quite subjective. Here in this community
college, being on the committee for the evaluation process revision this
year, they copied a the evaluation procedure of a community college in St
Louis. This is a very top-down oriented administration. They wanted
something they could use for their own purposes. It is in depth, covers
many areas, has many layers, and to me it appears not to be in the
evaluatee's best interests. In many ways it is too easy to be used in a
punitive way, rather than a positive way. The again, many of the committee
members seemed dot have the attitude of 'how can we get rid of someone we
don't want?'
I was at another university library where we had to do an extensive
portfolio of our accomplishments every year, and also fill out a form, and
had peer review as well. Despite the very intensive aspect of this
preparation, the director basically responded however s/he felt -
regardless of the portfolio. The director was quite subjective. It was an
awkward experience and the amount of work didn't justify the outcome.
I was at another university where they used a very short one page form.
The evaluator came and observed each person, had a short conference in the
evaluatee's office. Very straight-forward, fair, and to the point.
Personally, I appreciate a short form, non-peer review, frank and to the
point. IF you are in a big organization, one should make acheivements
known, but if you have the proper environment, everyone will be achieving
in similar ways, and their won't be the need to toot your own horn. If
improvement needs to be made, it will be clear. If satisfactory, it will
also be clear. The most important thing is to be in a communicative and
caring environment, to have a good rapport with the person who hired and
supervises you, and to have an administration that is more concerned with
keeping and developing its employees than cutting out the 'dead wood' (why
were they hired to start with?). It seems to me having been in different
kinds of organizations, the expectations of admin need to be known, and
admin needs to be supportive. The best place I have worked it was easy to
see supervisors and supervisor's supervisors. Information was readily
communicated up and down the chain. Job descriptions were clear and things
were handled best at the informal stages. Good planning and good admin
decreases the need of extensive hoops to jump through in the evaluative
process.
Garry Church
Periodicals and Circulation Librarian
Laredo Community College
Laredo TX.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bolton, Karen [mailto:bolton@MSOE.EDU]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:41 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: performance evaluations
Hello,
We are a small engineering library at a college, and we are looking at
improving the performance evaluation process we have to use here.
Administration has all departments use a one-size-fits-all two-page form
with a lot of weaknesses, which we have to fill out ourselves, before
having our director evaluate us. There must be a better way.
I am hoping other academic libraries out there can supply us with a sample
of what they use, or a URL to the website where they have their evaluation
form. What would they change about the process or form if they could? Do
YOU have to do a self-evaluation, and is this a worthwhile pursuit?
Any advice on this is welcome, since it looks like we will be redesigning
our form, if not the whole process.
Karen Bolton
Serials Librarian
bolton@msoe.edu
Milwaukee School of Engineering
Walter Schroeder Library
1025 N. Broadway
Milwaukee, WI
53202-3109