Karen Hendry MAN 610 Case #2

THE EVALUATOR vs. THE PRINCIPAL:

WHICH ONE "…REALLY IS BEYOND HOPE?"

After three years of service, Principal, James Clayton, was finally going to be evaluated and receive some feedback. The Ravinia Grammar and High School (RGHS) Board of Trustee’s formed a subcommittee to thoroughly review the principal’s performance, feedback the information to him and summarize his response back to the Board of Trustees. One subcommittee member summed up this assignment by saying, "I’m certainly not looking forward to this task". According to Kennedy (1999) that subcommittee member is not alone because, "managers have always loathed the time, paperwork, difficult choices, and discomfort that often accompany the appraisal process…"(p.51). And "few companies are fully satisfied with their performance appraisal process"(Decker, 1998, p.27). Even though the subcommittee members are not the Principal’s direct manager in this particular case they are serving roles that a manager would serve. In essence, the Board of Trustees is the upper management for the Principal.

After reading about the subcommittee members it became apparent to me that Joe Barr is not a "fan" of Principal Clayton, Bill Darren is rather supportive of Clayton, Bob Kilmann is "neutral" toward the Principal, and Ann Marple, the Chair of the subcommittee is democratic and level headed, and most likely "neutral" toward the Principal as well. An interesting mix of views and a group that will perhaps struggle with coming up with a performance appraisal expeditiously and smoothly. However, because it is not just one person who is evaluating and providing feedback to Mr. Clayton the whole group dynamic will have an affect on his appraisal.

According to Schermerhorn, et.al, (1998), "groups seem to make better judgments than does the average individual alone"(p.113). Yet, Schermerhorn, et. al., (1998) is also cognizant of the fact that groups can have operating problems. They refer to the old saying that although "two heads are better than one," that sometimes "too many cooks spoil the soup" (Schermerhorn, et. al., 1998, p.113). Schermerhorn, et. al., (1998), state that "in problem-solving groups, the ideal size seems to be between five and seven members… and that groups with an even number of members seem more prone to sustained disagreement and conflict while working on tasks"(p120). When looking at the group of four subcommittee members it could prove to be a problem if they can not come to a consensus about the feedback and performance. Schermerhorn, et. al., (1998) also mention an important term that is a potential disadvantage of group decision making called "minority domination". In minority domination "the group’s decision may be forced or "railroaded" by one individual…"(p.123). My fear for the subcommittee is that Mr. Barr could be the "railroader" for this group and ultimately for the Principal.

Another possible disadvantage to group decision making is "groupthink". Groupthink can lead to a poor decision because of members being reluctant to criticize one another’s ideas and suggestions and therefore, lose their ability to critically evaluate.(Shermerhorn, et. al., 1998, p.124). Joe Barr, being abrupt and outspoken, is not an easy person to try and reason with and could actually be intimidating to other members. This intimidation could cause members to not question his opinion and may also dissuade members from sharing their differing opinions openly and honestly. However, I do think that Ann Marple will serve as the devil’s advocate. She tries to create an environment that allows the subcommittee members to voice opinions. She also tries to keep the members focused on the task at hand, which is to provide feedback not to "rip" him apart, unmercifully. Designated as the Chair of the subcommittee, I wonder if the Board foresaw problems within the group and expected Ann to be able to examine critically any facts (or lack there of) and raise objections? She does ask for more examples, tries to move the group along instead of dwelling on one negative issue, and challenges the members to be more "specific". However, Ann does appear to be swayed by some of the "rumors" in regards to the Principal having an alcohol problem and that perhaps this is even linked to absenteeism. Both of these accusations could pose legal problems for the school system if not handled appropriately and as a lawyer I am surprised that she made such strong comments about them.

At the beginning of the semester we discussed in class how for the most part 80% of the time one’s job is probably pretty good, but that 20% of the time it is not so good. However, even though for most of the time we like our jobs we tend to focus on the 20% that we do not like. Sometimes this is true for people in all aspects of their lives. Most of the time someone probably does a good job, yet we might focus on the negative things that were done. For some people it is always easier to "pick out" the things that a person does wrong or the characteristics we do not like and forget about all of the positive qualities a person has as well as the good things the person does. While reading this case this thought crossed my mind quite a bit as I read the subcommittees comments. But, perhaps it was Mr. Barr’s comments that "stuck out" the most because the comments were so negative. Because of him forcefully and unrelentlessly pointing out Mr. Clayton’s 20% it was difficult to focus on some of the 80%… How unfortunate, but not unusual. "It’s human nature to immediately rush to the negative…"(Prewitt, 1999, p.9).

All of this "negativity" makes me think of the measurement error: Halo Error. "To be meaningful, an appraisal system must be both reliable…and valid"(Schermerhorn, et. al., 1998, p.90). This system currently being used by the subcommittee appears to be neither. Unfortunately for Mr. Clayton, This "halo" is not a gold ring, but more like a devil’s fork. Members have given him similar ratings for each dimension discussed: "NOT PERFECT" or perhaps even worse "BEYOND HOPE". Just about every member has rated him poorly on every dimension discussed.

A second factor that needs to be considered, but is not clear after reading the case, is: Does Mr. Clayton know what is expected of him? Was he given a clearly written job description? It appears that the subcommittee has certain criteria that they are using to appraise Principal Clayton’s performance however, it is not mentioned that these expectations were made known to Mr. Clayton. Perhaps some are "common sense", but some are clear measurable objectives. It has been said that "optimum levels of performance depend on defined performance, and that depends upon goal setting"(Winning, 1999, p.17). It appears to me that Mr. Clayton was not encouraged to set goals nor did the Board set any for him or if they did Mr. Clayton was never told.

Goal-setting and management by objectives (MBO) go hand-in-hand. The concept of MBO is "a process of joint goal setting between a supervisor or team leader and a subordinate or team member"(Schermerhorn, et. al., 1998, p. 105). Setting goals "together" involves mutual decision-making, necessary communication, and in the end the goals should be "consistent with the organizational needs and the [individual’s] capabilities"(Shermerhorn, et. al., 1998, p.105). The RGHS Board of Trustees should have implemented this technique from the first day Mr. Clayton was hired.

Another critical point, one that was made in class, "a performance appraisal should not be a corrective action tool." The subcommittee almost seems to be using it as such, but I think this is because the Board of Trustees did not do their job from the beginning. They should have provided feedback and performance deficiencies along the way…continual negative and positive feedback should have been given regularly. They have taken a "reactive" approach instead of a "proactive" one and it appears punitive. His contract has been renewed and it was renewed without ever having received a performance appraisal? And now that he has a new contract, passed by a narrow margin, one is being done? I suppose you should start somewhere, but this is very poor management, but then again education, especially elementary and secondary, has not been known for its effective management of money or employees.

"Feedback is a vital component of successful learning and change"(Dunning, 1999, p.37). "The exchange of information through feedback can be very helpful in improving the communication"(Schermerhorn, et. al., 1998, p.229). Communication is definitely lacking between the Board of Trustees and Principal Clayton. It is unfortunate that probably one of the first major communications between them, other than the hiring process, will be this criticism, which will come in the form of a performance appraisal. This has been said to be "one of the most difficult communication situations faced by co-workers and managers"(Schermerhorn, et. al., 1998, p.229). Giving constructive feedback in a polite and non-threatening manner is said to be an art.

Performance appraisals are often created by an organization’s human resource management. However, within a secondary school setting there is no "HR". However, a performance appraisal can be developed by anyone in any department as long as there are specific job criteria agreed upon and the evaluation was designed using a sound technique. A performance appraisal according to Schermerhorn, et.al., (1998) is intended to:

"Define the specific job criteria against which performance

A performance appraisal needs to "do" what it was intended to do. However, there is more to it. A performance appraisal needs to also focus on the individual being evaluated. "Before conducting an appraisal, [one needs to] take time to thoroughly understand each person’s specific situation and evaluate what it will take to motivate him…"(Decker, 1998, p.27). The subcommittee could take this into consideration as they are processing what feedback to provide Mr. Clayton and how to present it to him. It was mentioned in the case that Principal Clayton is known to be somewhat aggressive, and at times, displays a bad temper. These may be important characteristics to keep in mind when deciding how to phrase something, who should speak, and how he might respond to the feedback all at once.

Stephen Covey gives an example of the "traditional" performance appraisal as "the old sandwich technique": Say a few nice words, slip in areas for improvement, place a few nice words as the bottom, and send them on their way"(Souroujon, 1999 p.36). With James Clayton’s prestigious schooling, years of educational consulting, teaching, and level of intelligence he would surely see right through the sandwich technique and would most likely become angered and defensive.

Perhaps the subcommittee could keep the following questions posed by Decker (1998) in mind as they are evaluating Principal Clayton’s performance.

1. [Are we] prepared to cite specific strengths and weaknesses central

1. Have [we] thought about how this person accepts criticism, and are

1. What has been the behavioral impact of [Mr. Clayton’s] previous

1. Has there been any fundamental change in the [school] or in [its

To summarize the subcommittee’s findings, lets assume that they come to the following conclusions: Mr. Clayton is rude, he delegates (which Joe thinks is irresponsible, yet it appears and research has shown that the delegation is often necessary and appropriate), he listens to complaints, he needs to improve his management of teachers, there is a rumor in regards to an alcohol problem, there are a number of absences particularly on Mondays, he works well with children, in the past he raised donations for the school by 40%, and he does not belong to several important organizations. However, what is "specifically" in his contract? What does he have to belong to? Do they really know what he does belong to? Can they base a performance appraisal on hearsay and rumors? What is the absenteeism clause in his contract? In my opinion, the subcommittee does not have adequate information or reliable sources in order to give a sound and constructive evaluation. This could turn into a disaster.

An important comment made by a subcommittee member was: We have always had some sort of problem with past principals. If you think we are going to find the perfect person, you are dead wrong. This reminds me of yet another comment you made in class, "You can create a perfect job, but not the perfect person to do it". There is no perfect person and I’m not convinced that there is a "perfect" job. However, I know what the comment means in general. The subcommittee is being critical of the Principal, yet did the subcommittee ever stop to see if "the perfect job" had ever been analyzed or described by the school system and if so, did Mr. Clayton know the "specific" job requirements of his "perfect" job?

ON A PERSONAL NOTE

We know that recognition and appreciation is needed by employees. We know that communication with and feedback to employees should be ongoing. We also know that "one way to empower employees is to give them a chance to provide feedback on their job, the overall organization, and management"(Decker, 1998, p.28). This brings me to a type of performance appraisal, 360 Degrees Feedback.. Perhaps this might not work in this situation and I’m not sure if my boss would agree with me. However, I give my boss "feedback" all of the time and we have open communication. I find this very helpful. In fact, I recently received a performance evaluation, but I was not "nervous" about it because I receive constant feedback and communicate with him regularly. I also consider myself an honest and hardworking employee and felt that would be reflected in my evaluation. Near evaluation time I am asked to write a summary of all of my achievements up to the point of the evaluation. I am also asked to write goals and objectives for myself each year. My superior tends to use a management by objective approach. He reviews my goals and objectives and helps with revision if needed. We both use these goals and objectives later to help evaluate my job performance. My evaluation also contains direct feedback about me that my supervisor receives from my colleagues and from parents. In some respects my evaluation is 360 Degree Feedback.

I wonder if teachers could provide their "manager" (Principal) with feedback? Something similar to how professors are evaluated at the end of a course. Student feedback is part of how the professor is evaluated (however a November,1998 research study questions student feedback validity and reliability) . Why couldn’t that be done in a school? I gave my classes last year an anonymous evaluation to complete on my class in order to get feedback and it was actually more positive than I had anticipated. However, we do tend to be harder on ourselves. Why not have parent representatives (Board of Trustees may be adequate), teachers, and students provide feedback on the Principal, and then ask the Principal to evaluate himself as well? I think this would be a long evaluation process, but perhaps it does not have to be done every year, but bi-annually, as long as the Principal receives continual feedback an evaluation might not need to be done yearly.

As with any new instrument introduced training needs to be done in order for the transition to be effective. It has been found that the 360 Degree Feedback can be of limited value, but it would truly depend on how it was implemented and how feedback is given, viewed, and received within each unique work environment. No matter what performance appraisal is used or how it is done really isn’t the issue. The issue is that feedback needs to be given consistently and it needs to be honest so when evaluation time comes nothing is a surprise to anyone. As for Mr. Clayton, I think he is in for a big surprise. "Let the games begin"!

Decker, J. (1998, January 12). How to conduct effective employee performance appraisals. Business Journal Serving Fresno & The Central San Joaquin Valley p.27-28.

Dunning, D. (1999, January 15). Steer clear of ‘the peter principle’ pitfalls. Puget Sound Business Journal, 19 (37), p.36-41.

Kennedy, M. (1999, January). The case against performance appraisals. Across the Board, 26 (1), p.51-53.

Prewitt, E. (February, 1999). Should you use 360 degrees feedback for performance reviews? Harvard Management Update, 4 (2), p.8-10.

Schermerhorn, R., Hunt, j. & Osborn, R. (1998). Basic Organizational Behavior, (2^nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York.

Souroujon, A. (January, 1999). Stephen covey tells executives to get a life. Sales & Marketing Management,151 (1), p. 34-40.

Winning, E. (1999, February). Proper staffing, Executive Excellence, 16(2),

p.17-18.