Daniel Keen Consulting

Why should you consider using a facilitator for your next evaluation?

Many agencies have traditionally used a “checklist” or “survey” approach to evaluating their executives’ performances. Typically, this involves a form with a series of statements followed by some type of rating system, such as a 1-5 scale, “Exceeds Expectations/Meets Expectations/Needs Improvement,” or a letter grade. There is usually space for written comments, as well. The forms are handed out to council/board members to fill out, then collected and summarized in some manner.

Form-based approaches for executive performance evaluations are problematic in a number of ways:

• To be a fair representation of the council/board’s feedback, every member needs to complete the form in a timely manner. But it can be a struggle to get everyone to fill out the form.
• A form-based approach assumes everyone will provide detailed feedback, including written comments. But often, while many council/board members will be comfortable putting their thoughts in writing, some will not.
• Ratings systems on evaluation forms assume everyone is working from the same ratings scale and understanding of performance. But ratings typically range widely among council/board members in part because one member’s “five” rating is another’s “four”, even if both feel the performance was excellent.
• Compiling the results of five (or seven, or nine) evaluation forms, with varying levels of detail and input, is a time-consuming and often difficult process. This task often falls to the mayor, chair, or another member, who may not have the time or expertise to prepare a fair, unbiased summary of the feedback.
• Ratings systems lend themselves to quantifying the executive’s performance, either by averaging the numbered ratings, or assigning values to the ratings descriptions and then averaging the values.  But assigning numerical values to an executive’s performance can blur the important feedback of the individual members, and may result in an overall rating which can be confusing and demoralizing for the manager.

The facilitated evaluation approach addresses all of these issues:

1. One-on-one, confidential and anonymous interviews encourage every council/board member to participate.  They don’t need to complete any forms, put any of their thoughts in writing, or worry about how their ratings will impact their relationship with the executive.
2. Each council/board member is asked the same set of questions, and the interviewer captures the feedback during the interview by taking careful notes.  The feedback is summarized after all of the interviews are completed in a manner which covers all of the members’ feedback. Everyone’s feedback is represented in the summary, not just a majority of the council/board or the member who provided the most written comments on a form.
3. A neutral, experienced facilitator is more skilled in preparing an unbiased summary of interview feedback than one of the council/board members.  Council/board members can feel confident that the summary accurately reflects the views of all members, without any single member having undue influence over how the information is presented.
4. City managers, general managers and other executives can be confident that the feedback will reflect all of their council/board members’ perspectives, presented in a manner which balances all individual views.
5. Most importantly, the resulting feedback is much richer, detailed and useful than the typical form-based evaluation output.  By focusing on goals during the process, executives walk away with a clearer understanding of what is expected of them in the upcoming year.