xx>Willkrantz |
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Best Practices for the EDRC== | | ==Executive Director Review== |
| # Maintain total anonymity for everyone who gives feedback. Create an atmosphere where you can receive honest input from interviewees.
| |
| # Attempt to keep the interview questions consistent between interviewees.
| |
| # Interview:
| |
| #:o Key staff from the following departments: Accounting, Bookkeeping, Central Kitchen, Central Maintenance, Housing.
| |
| #:o Student Executives
| |
| #:o 1-3 Board Reps
| |
| #:o Pertinent external figures (e.g. U.C. Administrators, Architects, Auditors, etc)
| |
| #:o The ED.
| |
| # Survey:
| |
| #:o All Board Reps.
| |
| #:o House-Level management (List serves).
| |
| #:o Have “office hours” for any member who wants to give feedback in person.
| |
| # Create a thorough timeline from the start and stick to it. Budget more time than you think.
| |
| # Explain the EDRC process, methodology, and timeline to both board and staff at the beginning of the review.
| |
| # Email interview questions to interviewees at least 24 hours before the interview.
| |
| # Clearly and explicitly explain to interviewees if you’re looking for anything in particular: e.g. examples.
| |
| # EDRC members should not discuss the ED with any non-EDRC member at any time except during officially set interview and/or evaluation periods.
| |
| # Be thorough. Even if you are not performing a major EDRC, your work will be passed on and used for future EDRCs that may be more serious.
| |
| # Remember that reviewing an ED’s performance should be based not just on opinions of staff and students, but on a model of the ED’s strengths and weaknesses using empirical evidence (specific examples).
| |
| # Structure the report with at least the following categories: 1. Methodology, 2. Results/Data Summary, 3. Analysis and Conclusions, 4. Appendices: Interview Questions/Surveys/Requests (*our questions are attached)
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''For Major EDRCs (hiring, firing, etc)'''
| |
| # Let interviewees know the possible outcomes of the review process.
| |
| # Try to interview all of staff.
| |
| # Consider getting a business-savvy alumnus who is the ED or CEO of an outside organization to be part of the committee (as provided for on the “Board Reviews” page: 2.01 of the ED Review Committee section).
| |
| # Try to have some consistency amongst the members of the EDRC from one review to another (e.g. fall to spring).
| |
| # Review the conclusions of past EDRCs. They are not binding, but should be incorporated or at the very least addressed.
| |
| # If the ED wants to share any part of the report with anyone before the board meeting in which it will be discussed, s/he must give the EDRC explicit permission to share the entire report with those people. A meeting must be called in which at least one member of the EDRC will present the report and answer questions. If such a request is made, the EDRC may choose to modify the report only to protect the anonymity of those who interviewed for the report.
| |
| # Discuss the EDRC at more than one board meeting. One option is to bring the report to each committee meeting the week before the board meeting of the vote. A second option is to have two consecutive board meetings (preferably one week apart): the first to discuss, the second to discuss and vote.
| |
| # Try not to schedule any of the discussions (and especially not the vote) during finals.
| |
|
| |
| | |
| ==Example of Methodology from Fall `07.== | |
| | |
| '''Intro'''
| |
| | |
| The EDRC created a process that would build a total picture of the Executive Director the ED performance in the Berkeley Student Co-op (BSC).
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''Questions:'''
| |
| | |
| We began the review process by drawing up general interview and survey questions based on the Executive Director’s job description. We created more detailed questions for certain categories of interviewees based on the nature of their specific interactions with the ED (i.e. university officials, executives, and staff). We requested that interviewees provide specific examples in addition to general comments in order to have a concrete basis for our analysis. The aim of these questions was to gain insight into how the ED has fulfilled the obligations outlined in the Executive Director’s job description and also to gauge the ED’s long-term potential as a leader of the BSC.
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''Participants:'''
| |
| | |
| We interviewed the following:
| |
| # most staff members <ref>Margie G. (Accountant), Vicki C. (Operations Manager), Betsy P. (Housing Sup), Sue (Housing Assistant), Monique (Member Resources Sup), Pat J (Bookkeeping Sup), John R. (Accounts Payable assistant), Andrea (Accounts Receivable assistant), Heather (CK Sup), Terry (IT), Jen H. (Com Coord), Kim B. (Roch Fac. Manager), Tom M. (Cloyne Fac. Manager)</ref> at Central Office
| |
| # all executives <ref>Patrick F. (President), Johnny G. (VPIA), Dave G. (VPFA), Willa D. (VPMM), Johnathan K. (VPEA), John E. (VPCA)</ref>
| |
| # Dean of Students, Jonathan Poullard
| |
| # three randomly selected Board Representatives
| |
| # the ED (interviewed twice)
| |
| | |
| | |
| We surveyed the following:
| |
| # All Board Representatives
| |
| # The house level management; we received about 30 responses.
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''Process and Analysis:'''
| |
| | |
| After creating the questions, we conducted in person interviews; we interviewed all executives and staff members.
| |
| | |
| | |
| All Board Representatives were surveyed, and three randomly selected Board Representatives were interviewed via email. We sent a general membership email survey to all those in house level management positions and received twenty responses.
| |
| | |
| | |
| We specifically requested from the ED a schedule of her/his daily activities for a month-long period. In addition, we requested two email chains from the ED that, according to her/his understanding, demonstrated her/his abilities in: 1) conflict management and 2) decision making.
| |
| | |
| | |
| Using the data we collected from the above outlined procedures, we created ten categories:
| |
| # Organizational understanding
| |
| # Staff support
| |
| # Promptness and attendance
| |
| # Decision-making
| |
| # Judgment, rationale, critical-thinking
| |
| # Environment fostered
| |
| # Long-range vision
| |
| # Communication style
| |
| # Direction, guidance
| |
| # Initiative
| |
| | |
| | |
| We placed examples and comments from the raw data into these ten categories. Our analysis included quantitative (the number of times the same or different comments were made) and qualitative analysis. The weight of the categories differed so in the final compilation we created the six broader categories listed in the Results section.
| |
| | |
| | |
| In order to give the ED an opportunity to respond to the conclusions we had drawn from the data, we drew up specific questions, with special attention to her/his areas of weakness so he could respond to any critiques. We gave these questions to the ED one day in advance of her/his scheduled interview, which lasted two hours. After this initial interview, we decided that we needed a follow-up interview to offer an additional opportunity to clarify certain examples and address some of the issues brought up in the first interview. This second interview lasted one hour.
| |
| | |
| | |
| We collated all of the data including the ED’s interview. After an initial review, we took time to write down our independent conclusions and read them to each other.
| |
| Finally we produced our recommendation and drafted the report.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''Example Timeline from Fall `07'''
| |
| | |
| October 18 (Thurs): Questions written, divide interview
| |
| | |
| October 25 (Thurs): BOD III – update Board
| |
| | |
| October 26 (Fri): interviews set
| |
| | |
| November 1 (Thurs): ED hours log and timeline due
| |
| | |
| November 9 (Fri): Interviews done
| |
| | |
| November 12 (Mon): Analyzing
| |
| | |
| November 15 (Thurs): BOD IV – update Board about progress.
| |
| | |
| November 19 (Mon): Analyzing
| |
| | |
| November 26-30 (Mon): EDRC presents report at committee meetings. Discussion.
| |
| | |
| '''December 6 (Thurs): BOD V – More discussion. Vote on recommendation.'''
| |
| | |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''<u>Staff Questions</u>'''
| |
| | |
| '''Departmental Interaction'''
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s familiarity with your Department? What has he done to learn about your department? How has he demonstrated her/his familiarity with your department?
| |
| # What has the ED been working on in your department so far, and do you feel that it is effective?
| |
| # What is the content/objectives of your departmental interactions?
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s follow-through in terms of time and thoroughness.
| |
| # Has the ED discussed long term goals about your department? What did you discuss?
| |
| '''Meetings/Appointments'''
| |
| # Does the ED attend all meetings/appointments? Is he on time?
| |
| # Please describe the quality of the ED’s input in meetings.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s preparedness for meetings.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s familiarity with policies and procedures as reflected in meetings.
| |
| # What advice or suggested improvements has the ED communicated?
| |
| # How helpful are meetings in running CO?
| |
| # Is the ED open to comments and criticism? Does he incorporate staff suggestions?
| |
| # How effective is the ED Team/STEAM Team meeting organization?
| |
| '''Supervisory/Leadership'''
| |
| # Does the ED set clear expectations and follow through?
| |
| # Please describe her/his decision making style and its effectiveness.
| |
| # How approachable is the ED on the job?
| |
| # What kind of atmosphere does the ED foster in the Central Office?
| |
| # Please describe how the ED’s supervisory style help the staff perform their jobs?
| |
| # Please describe how the ED promotes staff professionalism?
| |
| # Please describe how the ED promotes friendliness and cooperation between staff members?
| |
| # Please describe how the ED mediates conflicts between staff members?
| |
| # Please describe how the ED disciplines improper behavior by staff? How effective is it?
| |
| # How does the ED problem solve applying her/his knowledge of the organization and her/his past experience?
| |
| # What direction is the ED taking the BSC in, and what do you think about that direction?
| |
| # What has the ED accomplished so far?
| |
| # What are the ED’s strengths?
| |
| # What are areas in which you think the ED can improve?
| |
| | |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| | |
| ''''<u>External Questions</u>''''
| |
| | |
| '''General'''
| |
| # What type of interactions/communications do you have with the ED (e.g. email, meetings, phone discussions, etc)
| |
| # How frequent are these communications?
| |
| # What are the objectives of your interactions?
| |
| # Please describe your experience with the ED’s
| |
| ## Promptness
| |
| ## Thoroughness
| |
| ## Preparedness
| |
| ## Approachability
| |
| ## Have the interactions you’ve had with the ED been productive?
| |
| # What are the ED’s strengths?
| |
| # What are areas in which you think the ED can improve?
| |
| # Representation (for UC folks).
| |
| # What values does the ED represent as ED of the co-ops?
| |
| # What vision or goals does the ED represent in her/his position as ED?
| |
| # Does the ED facilitate a clear relationship between the co-ops and the university?
| |
| # Has the ED influenced your opinion of the student co-ops? If yes, how so?
| |
| # What direction do you see your relationship with the ED and the student co-ops heading?
| |
| | |
| '''<u>Executives Questions (VPs, President)</u>'''
| |
| | |
| '''General'''
| |
| # What type of interactions/communications do you have with the ED (e.g. email, meetings, phone discussions, etc)
| |
| # What is the content/objectives of your interactions?
| |
| # Have the interactions you’ve had with the ED been productive?
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s approachability.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s time management.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s follow-through in terms of time and thoroughness.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s relationship to cooperative values.
| |
| # What are the ED’s strengths?
| |
| # What are areas in which you think the ED can improve?
| |
| | |
| '''Committees'''
| |
| # Does the ED attend all required meetings? Is he on time?
| |
| # Please describe the quality of the ED’s input in committee meetings.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s preparedness for your committee meetings.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s familiarity with policies and procedures.
| |
| # How does the ED engage with current issues?
| |
| # Does the ED provide a perspective on institutional memory to your committee?
| |
| # Does the ED introduce Long Range Planning ideas to your committee?
| |
| # Does the ED provide vision to your committee?
| |
| # What advice or suggested improvements has the ED communicated?
| |
| # Does the ED put your committee’s work into a larger perspective?
| |
| | |
| '''Cabinet'''
| |
| # Does the ED attend all required meetings? Is he on time?
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s ability to work with sensitive issues.
| |
| # Please describe the quality of the ED’s input in cabinet meetings.
| |
| # Please describe the ED’s preparedness for cabinet meetings.
| |
| # How does the ED engage with current issues?
| |
| # Does the ED introduce Long Range Planning ideas to cabinet?
| |
| # Does the ED provide vision to cabinet?
| |
| # Does the ED provide a perspective on institutional memory to cabinet?
| |
| # What advice or suggested improvements has the ED communicated?
| |
| # Does the ED put cabinet issues into a larger perspective?
| |
| | |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''<u>ED Questions</u>'''
| |
| # Please give one or two examples of what you've done to familiarize yourself with different staff departments.
| |
| # Please give one or two examples of what you've done to further familiarize yourself with the organizational structure.
| |
| # Please give an example of a way in which you've supported staff that has helped them to improve their work performance.
| |
| # Please give an example of a way in which you've supported a student leader that has helped them to improve their work performance.
| |
| # What is your methodology in approaching inappropriate staff actions and please give an example that illustrates it.
| |
| # What percentage of meetings do you think you attend on time?
| |
| # How would you describe your decision making process and please give examples in which this methodology was effective: one with staff and one with students.
| |
| # Please give an example of when you have made a time sensitive decision.
| |
| # Please give an example of a success you have had applying your past experience to the BSC.
| |
| # Please give one or two examples of a situation where you identified and solved a problem.
| |
| # How do you prioritize your time?
| |
| # Please give an example of how you foster a professional and cordial working environment.
| |
| # Tell us about your long range vision for the BSC.
| |
| # Please give one or two specific examples of how you are effectively implementing this vision.
| |
| # How would you describe your communication style?
| |
| # What do you consider the proper boundaries with regards to communication for the professional workplace?
| |
| # Please give one or two examples in which you've helped a committee to run effectively and fulfill its goals.
| |
| # Please give one or two examples of projects you've initiated and implemented.
| |
| | |
| | |
| ----
| |
| | |
| | |
| '''<u>Hours Log and Email Correspondences</u>'''
| |
| | |
| Hi ED,
| |
| | |
| | |
| In an effort to properly assess your effectiveness and potential for the BSC, The EDRC would like to request you to document your time. We request that you document your work schedule for a month. Please include the following in your schedule:
| |
| # Date and time (e.g. “Mon, Oct 1; 11am-1pm”)
| |
| # Activity – and with whom if applicable (e.g. “budget meeting with Accountant”)
| |
| # Total number of hours for the activity (e.g. “2”)
| |
| | |
| | |
| Additionally, the EDRC is interested in seeing some of your email correspondences. We request that you choose at least four email correspondences: two with staff and two with house-level management. The correspondences should display how you manage conflict and/or make decisions. Please get permission from anyone included in the email-chain. We may contact the correspondees.
| |
| | | |
| | Once a year in the Spring the President shall, under the guidelines established in this policy, conduct a review of the performance of the Executive Director. To make this review effective, the EDRC should strive to create an atmosphere where interviewees feel free to give honest input. |
|
| |
|
| Thanks!
| | '''Composition of the EDRC''' |
|
| |
|
| EDRC Chair | | No later than the first Board meeting of the Spring semester, the President shall select from all willing applicants four Board Representatives to serve on the EDRC. The Representatives selected should be as representative as possible of the following types of units: One from the small house rotation list, one from the medium house rotation list, one from the large house rotation list, one from the apartments. |
|
| |
|
| | '''Executive Director Review Process''' |
|
| |
|
| ---- | | '''1.''' Surveys. In order to get feedback from a broad range of organizational stakeholders, the EDRC shall design a survey to be broadly shared within the Co-op. To assure that the survey adequately assess the Executive Director’s performance over the year, the survey shall have questions based on 1) the job description of the Executive Director and 2) the specific annual performance goals established by the previous year’s EDRC. These questions shall be closed questions with numerically ranked responses. In order to assure that respondents do not unfairly judge the Executive Director’s performance due to a lack of knowledge, each question shall have an option for “Not Enough Information to Respond.” This survey shall be sent to each of the following groups: 1) House-level Managers, 2) Board Representatives, 3) Cabinet, 4) Student Staff, and 5) Professional Staff. |
|
| |
|
| | '''2.''' Interviews. The EDRC shall conduct interviews with the Executive Director’s direct reports, Vice Presidents of the Board, and other members of Cabinet and Board as deemed appropriate. These interviews shall be conducted on the record so that the EDRC can investigate the claims made by interviewees, however the EDRC shall retain the discretion to remove the names of interviewees from the final report. |
|
| |
|
| '''<u>House-Management Survey</u>''' | | '''3. Discussion with the Executive Director.''' The EDRC shall present a summary of their findings to the Executive Director at least five days before the Presentation to Cabinet to allow the Executive Director to prepare a response before that meeting. The Executive Director’s responses shall be included in the Cabinet Report. |
|
| |
|
| # Did you know that the co-ops have an Executive Director?
| | '''4. Report to Cabinet.''' The interviews and surveys shall be combined by the EDRC into a report for Cabinet to be delivered no later than the Cabinet meeting preceding the final regular Board Meeting of the Spring semester. The report should highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the ED, as well as suggest areas for improvement. |
| # Have you met our Executive Director? If so, in what circumstances did you talk (e.g. neighbor relations, hanging around CO, etc)?
| |
| # Do you have any comments about your interactions with the Executive Director (both positive comments and ways to improve)?
| |
|
| |
|
| | In a closed session, Cabinet will hear the report and question the report’s contents in order to evaluate the Executive Director. Based on the report, Cabinet shall recommend either 1) A pay increase or bonus for the Executive Director, 2) No change to the Executive Director’s pay, or 3) The removal of the Executive Director. If the ED’s performance is deemed satisfactory, Cabinet shall produce a list of specific Yearly Goals for the Executive Director. These goals shall then be approved by Cabinet and sent to Board. After this meeting, the President shall summarize the contents of the original report and the discussion at Cabinet to share with the Board. |
|
| |
|
| | '''5. Board Presentation.''' At the last regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the President shall present both the summarized report of the EDRC and the Yearly Goals adopted by Cabinet. The Board shall discuss both documents and either: 1) Adopt both, 2) Modify the Yearly Goals and adopt both, or 3) Reject the report and send it and the Yearly Goals back to Cabinet for deliberation with specific directions for reevaluating the Executive Director’s performance. |
|
| |
|
| | If the Board disagrees with Cabinet's assessment of decision to retain the Executive Director, an emergency meeting shall be scheduled at an appropriate time. Board shall discuss whether or not to retain the Executive Director at that meeting. |
|
| |
|
| ----
| | Once approved, the Yearly Goals shall be passed to the following year’s EDRC. |
| <references />
| |
Executive Director Review
Once a year in the Spring the President shall, under the guidelines established in this policy, conduct a review of the performance of the Executive Director. To make this review effective, the EDRC should strive to create an atmosphere where interviewees feel free to give honest input.
Composition of the EDRC
No later than the first Board meeting of the Spring semester, the President shall select from all willing applicants four Board Representatives to serve on the EDRC. The Representatives selected should be as representative as possible of the following types of units: One from the small house rotation list, one from the medium house rotation list, one from the large house rotation list, one from the apartments.
Executive Director Review Process
1. Surveys. In order to get feedback from a broad range of organizational stakeholders, the EDRC shall design a survey to be broadly shared within the Co-op. To assure that the survey adequately assess the Executive Director’s performance over the year, the survey shall have questions based on 1) the job description of the Executive Director and 2) the specific annual performance goals established by the previous year’s EDRC. These questions shall be closed questions with numerically ranked responses. In order to assure that respondents do not unfairly judge the Executive Director’s performance due to a lack of knowledge, each question shall have an option for “Not Enough Information to Respond.” This survey shall be sent to each of the following groups: 1) House-level Managers, 2) Board Representatives, 3) Cabinet, 4) Student Staff, and 5) Professional Staff.
2. Interviews. The EDRC shall conduct interviews with the Executive Director’s direct reports, Vice Presidents of the Board, and other members of Cabinet and Board as deemed appropriate. These interviews shall be conducted on the record so that the EDRC can investigate the claims made by interviewees, however the EDRC shall retain the discretion to remove the names of interviewees from the final report.
3. Discussion with the Executive Director. The EDRC shall present a summary of their findings to the Executive Director at least five days before the Presentation to Cabinet to allow the Executive Director to prepare a response before that meeting. The Executive Director’s responses shall be included in the Cabinet Report.
4. Report to Cabinet. The interviews and surveys shall be combined by the EDRC into a report for Cabinet to be delivered no later than the Cabinet meeting preceding the final regular Board Meeting of the Spring semester. The report should highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the ED, as well as suggest areas for improvement.
In a closed session, Cabinet will hear the report and question the report’s contents in order to evaluate the Executive Director. Based on the report, Cabinet shall recommend either 1) A pay increase or bonus for the Executive Director, 2) No change to the Executive Director’s pay, or 3) The removal of the Executive Director. If the ED’s performance is deemed satisfactory, Cabinet shall produce a list of specific Yearly Goals for the Executive Director. These goals shall then be approved by Cabinet and sent to Board. After this meeting, the President shall summarize the contents of the original report and the discussion at Cabinet to share with the Board.
5. Board Presentation. At the last regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the President shall present both the summarized report of the EDRC and the Yearly Goals adopted by Cabinet. The Board shall discuss both documents and either: 1) Adopt both, 2) Modify the Yearly Goals and adopt both, or 3) Reject the report and send it and the Yearly Goals back to Cabinet for deliberation with specific directions for reevaluating the Executive Director’s performance.
If the Board disagrees with Cabinet's assessment of decision to retain the Executive Director, an emergency meeting shall be scheduled at an appropriate time. Board shall discuss whether or not to retain the Executive Director at that meeting.
Once approved, the Yearly Goals shall be passed to the following year’s EDRC.
