Memo- Evaluation of the City Manager
. Administrative Services Department
Office of the City Manager
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date: April 7,2000
Subject: Evaluation of the City Manager
In April of 1999 the City Council conducted an evaluation of my performance. Attached
are the results of that evaluation. Mayor Redepenning discussed these evaluations
with me shortly after the evaluation took place, In May I produced a reply to the City
Council that was discussed ata Council-Manager Work Session.
At the conclusion of that discussion I was directed to report back to the Council for the
e purposes of discussing the status of my performance and to consider any alterations in
the Council's desires.
For various reasons the six-month status discussion was not held. .It is my
understanding that the City Council wishes to review this information and again discuss
and evaluate the current status of my performance, As such, I have attached various
pieces of information that I hope will assist the Council during their discussion, Please
feel free to contact me prior to the discussion should you have any questions or
requests for information.
mayorccevalofcm
.
\
. City of Hopkins
Performance Evaluation of City Manager by Gty Council
Meeting Summary
April 27, 1999
The meeting of April 27, 1999 was called to order at 6:35 p.rn. by Mayor Chuck Redepenning in
conference room 237 at Hopkins City Hall for the purpose of evaluating the perfonDance of City
Manager Steve Mielke. In addition to the Mayor, Council members present were: Fran Hesch,
Karen Jensen; Diane .Johnson,. and Gene Maxwell. Through process of elimination, Fran was
elected to take notes with help from Karen.
Chuck reviewed the proposed process for the evening, After a brief discussion, the group came
to consensus on how to proceed.
The following process wits followed:
1) Chuck distnlmted the compilation of our evaluations,
2) We discussed answers to each section, explaining low ratings, "unkno\W.s". and comments.
3) We reviewed and discUssed the City Manager's self-evaluation.
4) We formulated an analysis and summary of the reSults and the review process.
5) We set next steps,
. The results of #2.above follow:
A. Policy
We need to establish more clearly who sets policy for the city. We need a better understanding
of City policy versus administrative policy.
B. Planning
Steve is strong in overseeing implementation of On-going programs and services, However, it is
critical that in a very short period of time, he must begin setting mission/goals "With the City
COlmcil and align the goals of staff with the Council's goals. The Council will need specific
information from departments when fonning mission and goals.
C. Agenda
Agenda is adequately prepared. Improvement is needed on balancing workload. .
Some changes we've asked for have not been implemented,
.- Policy issues will be more clear after goals have been set. BackRup materials should include a
check list against city policies (ie.goals, budget, strategic plan, comp plan, etc.)
.. .'_n
. D. Reporting
See report.
E. Fiscal Management.
See report.
F. Personnel
He seems to have difficulty removing employees who are inadequate.
We need clarification on who Steve actually hires and fires, and whether or not/how he is
. involved with that process for all City employees.
Probationary employees need to be managed more closely,
Is it Council's responsibility to eliminate positions to meet budget goals?
G. Supervision
Most of the comments we all agreed upon are on the report. We would like to evaluate Steve's
. performance in this area, but we need more infonnation from I involvement with Steve in order to
doso.
H.Leadership
After much discussion on this topic, we concluded that if employees would achieve delegated
goals/objectives, it would free up more time for City Manager duties.
I. Department Performance
See report. (See H above also.)
. J. Council Relations
The disparity in our ratings displayed that Steve needs improvement dealing with Council as a whole
. oil policy issues.
K. Intergovernmental Relations
If Steve could free up time by goals accomplished by departments, he could really excel in this area
to the benefit of himself and the City of Hopkins.
.
,.
.,
.
I
,
.0, L. Commumty Relations
See report
M. Professional Reputation
Steve needs more time to continue professional growth.
N. Personal Traits
We believe that Steve is a man of good character.
******************************************************************************
Next in the process, we reviewed Steve's self-evaluation. We noticed two obvious disparities:
1) Steve's numbered. evaluation and our numbered evaluation
2) Steve's numbered evaluation and the nature of his written comments
In fact, the numbers reflected on our evaluation tie closely with Steve's written comments.
. Overall, Steve should put less weight on our numbers and more weight on our written comments.
Summary
Overall, we believe that Steve is a capable and talented City Manager with whom we wish to
continuing working. We believe that the disparities stated above can be resolved by setting common
mission/goals/objectives and priorities. The results of this review demonstrate that our common goals
& objectives can be met with continued effort & commitment by all parties,
Next Steps
1) Fran will get notes to Chuck Wednesday at about 10:00 a.m at City Hall.
2) Chuck will present cumulative evaluation and these :notes to Steve on Wednesday
3) Chuck will notify Steve of date and time of closed-door evaluation update on Tuesday)
May 25 at 6:30 p.m At that meeting Steve will be asked to verbally respond to his
evaluation, ask questions and enter into a discussion with the Council about any significant
items that remain. Steve will present a plan of action for setting mission/goals/objectives and
priorities within the next six months.
4) In six months, we will revisit this evaluation in light of our common mission/goals, etc.
.
..,
t!ou~c1{ . 5co~ l{-z 1r9~ Very Strong Ade- Needs Needs Un-
- ~ strong quate substan- known
some
improve tial (not
ment improve counted
. SCORE ment in score)
A. POLICY 5 4 3 2 1
3.6 1. Understands the difference between policy 1 2 1 1
and administration
3.0 2. Assists in policy formulation without 1 2 1 1
exerting undue influence
3.6 3. Provides sound advice on policy matters 3 2
3.4 4. Carries out adopted policy effectively, 3 1 , 1-..
faithfully and in a timely manner
COMMENTS: We don't get much opportunity to actually set policy.
I sometimes feel political bias and protection of staff is a hindrance to Council when rewriting policy or forging new
ground.
B. PLANNING 5 4 3 2 . 1
2.9 1, Plans, organizes and supervises 1 1 2
implementation of on-going. City programs 1* 1*
and services
1.8 2. Organizes program planning in a 'manner . 1 2 2
that anticipates future needs and problems
and establishes common goals for
adoption by the City Council
. 1.6 3. Achieves goals set by or in conjunction 3 2
with the City Council
COMMENTS: I sometimes feel there is a dual agenda in planning - There is a sense of a "need to know basis" for
information sharing and someone else isdecidihg what I ne.ed to know in order for me to make decisions.
Goals and objectives of the Council need to be brought to his attention more than one time.
#2 and 3 - my pet peeves for years.
*(One Council member checked two boxes in #1, counted as 3.5)
C.AGENDAS 5 4 3 2 1
.3.0 1. Prepares a sound agenda 1 3 1
2.8 2. Balances work flow from meeting to 1 2 2
meeting as much as possible
2.6 3. Prepares agendas that focus on policy- 1 1 3
making issues while keeping unnecessary
administrative matters off
2.2 4, Provides adequate back-up material 1 4
COMMENTS: We have slipped back into the "reaction" mode and spend too much time on things over which we
have no control and not enough time on preventing problems/planning for the future. .
Sometimes we are barraged with "busy" info and given sparse info on important issues.
.
~ .
",
D. REPORTING 5 4 3 2 1
3.2 1. Provides reports in a comprehensive and 2 2 1
. understandable manner
2,8 2. Provides appropriate information for 1 1 2
making sound policy decisions 1* 1* 1*
COMMENTS: He should try harder to give Council as much updated information as possible.
#2 I answered that way (strong, adequate, and Needs Improvement) because it depends on the situation.
Information is sometimes withheld from entire Council and I'm not sure why.
Sometimes selective with info and unless the question is asked in just the right way important information may be
left out.
* not counted
E. FISCAL MANAGEMENT 5 4 3 2 1
3.0 1. Presents realistic budget 1 2 1 1
1,7 2. Seeks efficiency and economy in all 2 1 2 .
programs
3.4 3. Presents budget in an understandable 2 3
fashion
2.4 4. Keeps City Council informed on fiscal 2 3
matters
4.0 5. Administers the budget within adopted 1 1 1 2
limits
1.8 6. Instills in department heads and 3 1 1
. employees a sense of efficiency and .
economy;
COMMENTS: If he feels that departments are run in the most efficient and economical manner, he has not been
able to convince the Council of that.
When we are at "Program-based" budget, this will probably improve. It's taken so long.
I have asked for almost four years for self evaluations on departments and job description in an attempt to
streamline and gotten nothing near what I asked for. .
F. PERSONNEL 5 4 3 2 1
1.8 1. Demonstrates ability to recruit excellent 3 1 1
personnel
3.3 2, Demonstrates ability to retain excellent 1 3 1
personnel
* 3, . Impartially administers the merit system 1 4
-
through evaluation
* 4. Maintains good relations with employee 1 4
-
organizations
3.3" 5. Effectively represent city interest in 1 2 2
collective bargaining
2.0 6. Seeks to develop skills/abilities of 1 1 1 2
employees
COMMENTS: I think, based on lack of performance, some employees should be replaced or their jobs eliminated
. . or redefined.
When lucky - very lucky on recruiting. When unlucky we seem to be stuck with poor personnel choices. I worry
about all the unknowns I checked.
* contains more than tlvo unknowns
"<
\
G. SUPERVISION 5 4 3 2 1
2.3 1. Properly supervised Department Heads 1 2 1 1
. 2.5 2,Knows what is going on in various 1 1 1 1 1
departments
3.7 3. Encourages initiative in Department Heads 1# 1 1 2
* 4. Conducts regular and meaningful 1 1 3
-
" evaluations of Department Heads
2,7 5. Is available to all City employees 1 1 1 2
3.0 6~ Keeps Department Heads informed of 1 1 1 2
Council policies "
COMMENTS: He has an excellent relationship with his staff.
(Checked all unknowns) - I didn't realize we were expected to know this. I've always felt we should, but thought it
was viewed as micro-managing if we asked about these relationships.
There seems to be a hands off approach in management or certain things are micro managed. It is an all or
nothing approach.
# Perhaps too much.
* contains more than two unknowns
H. LEADERSHIP 5 4 3 2 1
3.0 1. Motivates others to accomplish goals 1 1 1 2
. 2.0 2. Delegates appropriate responsibilities to 1 2 1 1
other members of management team
* 3. "Develops teamwork and cooperation 1 4
-
among staff
3,0 4. Has support of employees in decisions 1 1 1 2
- * 5. Effectively evaluates performance of staff 1 1 3
COMMENTS: (Checked all unknowns) - How would we know this?
Unknowns cause some concern - again its all or nothing.
* contains more than two unknowns
I. DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE
2.0 1. Takes appropriate and timely steps to 1 2 1 1
improve departmental deficiencies
2.3 2. Obtains the greatest possible performance 1 3 1
from Department Heads and employees
3.3 3. Is aware of exceptional and/or unusually 2 1 2
productive administration personnel and
strives to have their accomplishments
recognized
2,3 4, How would you assess Manager's 2 1 1 1
. performance with respect to his
supervision and interaction with
departments
COMMENTS: It is sometimes a mystery to me. When Council makes a comment accusations of micro managing
are voiced.
. ,
J. COUNCIL RELATIONS 5 ,4 3 2
i
3.2 1. Assists Council members in resolving 3 1 1
. problems administratively to avoid
unnecessary action at meetings
2.8 2. Deals with Council as a whole on policy 2 1 1 1
issues
3.0 3. Demonstrates impartiality and maintains 1 3 1
appropriate relationships with individual
Council members
3.2 4. Is receptive to constructive criticism and 2 2 1
advice
3.6 5, Responds promptly to Council's inquiries 1 1 3
3.4 6. Maintains a balance between frankness 2 3
and diplomacy
COMMENTS: Sometimes too much diplomacy. (See #6)
If it fits with his agenda - runs smoothly when controversy arises things taU apart.
He gets along well with the Council but could relay more information in updates.
K. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELA liONS'
1. Maintains good cooperative relations with:
4.4 a. Municipalities and School District 2 3
3.5 b. State and Federal agencies 2 2 1
3.4 c. State Legislators 2 3
3.8 d. Agencies contracting with or supported 1 2 2
. by the City
COMMENTS: The politics sometimes impedes the progress of the City of Hopkins.
L. COMMUNITY RELATIONS
3.5 1. Viewed by the community as a person of 2 2
a high integrity, ability and devotion to the
city
3.6 2, Handles citizen's questions and/or 3 2
complaints promptly and effectively .
3.8 3. Properly supports the city Council 1 1 2 1
4.0 4. Maintains good relations with the media; 1 3 1
provides accurate and timely information
3.0 5. Properly avoids politics and partnership 2 2
3.0 6. Creates a feeling of respect for City 1 2 2
government within the community
COMMENTS: We have a communications coordinator who should be "selling" our accomplishments at every
opportunity, especially in the wake of bad publicity,.
#1 depends on who you ask - business community would rate very strong. Citizens would rate needs
improvement to needs substantial improvement.
The fact that he seems to be unhappy or restless raises a question as to his devotion to the City.
.
~ . .... .~
M. PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION
4.0 1, Well-respected by fellow managers 4 1
4.2 2. Represents City in professional 2 2 1
-. organizations
4.0 3. Seeks positive recognition for City by 4 1
public administration associations
4.0 4. Knowledgeable of current developments 1 2 1 1
affecting the management field
2.8 5. Strives to continue professional growth 1 3 1
COMMENTS: Council has offered time and money for continuing education which would benefit both the city and
the manager but he hasn't accepted this offer.
Very self promoted.
N.PERSONAL TRAITS 5 4 3 2 1
4.3 1. Controls emotions effectively in difficult 1 3 -
situations
3.9 2. Is creative in developing practical 1 3
solutions to problems faced in the course 1^ 1^
- of work
3.6 3. Is flexible in accepting and adjusting to 4 1
change
3.8 4. Has positive attitude 4 1
4.1 5. Demonstrates personal honesty and 1 2 1
frankness in day-to-day relationships 1* 1*
. 3,0 6. Seeks to improve own skills/knowledge - 1 1 1 2
3.2 7. Completes work in an acceptable time 2 2 1
period
3.8 8. Performs work accurately 4 1
COMMENTS: Hopefully his restlessness does not affect his attitude. It is important to know where he wants to be
in the coming year.
#7 and 8 improved in last couple of years.
- (One Council member checked two boxes in #2 and #5. ^ counted as 2.5 * counted as 3.5)
Average
Score -
3.1
.
4( II.,...... ~
During the coming year, what can the City Manager take the greatest pride in? What do I
you feel are his strongest points and his finest accomplishments this year?
. His strongest points were being able to facilitate agreements between Hennepin County and the
. City of Hopkins while covering the needs of Super Valu,
This year has not been good,
We need to set mission, goals, objectives and tie agenda items to them. Ifhe can commit to that
and carry out our objectives, he will have cause for much pride.
,.
What areas do you feel most need improvement? Why? Do you have any
constructive, positive ideas how the City Manager can improve these areas?
Council and Manager communication - Council feels they are not getting all the information.
He needs to fmd out what it is the Council wants.
Delegation to Dept, Heads - Steve too involved -:- Does work that should be passed on. Develop
goals that we uses as a tool ~ use our comp plan, strategic plan and budget to help guide Council
on decisions.
Respecting Council input on certain issues. Share all concerns on issues with Council at large.
There seems. to be an excess of "side bars" going on. Understand Council need to leave a
blueprint to follow in the future, Re: mission and goals, allowing Boards and Commissions to be
. part of big picture and train them properly,
. Steveneeds to make a renewed commitment to being in Hopkins, helping us set a direction and
create some goals that can't be easily undone by a change in Councilor Personnel.
I also think Steve needs to learn how to engage the people around him to a greater extent based
on their interest andpotentiaI whether they are staff, Commission members, Council or
concerned citizens.
In re-reading this I realize that I believe SteVe in every area is very capable and in some areas
. seems unwilling, whether its because he doesn't know or doesn't agree with our priorities. I
think if we clear this up, Steve will have the opportunity to rate "as "Strong" in almost every area.
.
-
- -..--
<tI
"
c o V E R STORY
. 66How Are We Doing?"
Evaluating the Performance of the
Chief Administrator t
r
~:;
:Wi '
'ff.:,;
~~~
jfJ'
.,
l!:\
~:
P"
-*,
~
"
Margaret s. Carlson
k,' icture a governing board meeting at a hectic
. ' , ,...' time of year. Perhaps it is budget season and
','" ,;, ft
difficult funding decisions loom. Or the mem-
bers are still recovering froin stinging criticism
over a hot community issue. Suddenly, someone says,
"Hey, didn't we, say last year that we were going to evaluate
the manager around this time?" Other members groan in-
wardly as they envision yet another series of meetings and
potential conflict with other board members. One member
says, "Everything seems to be going OK. Let's
just go ahead and decide on a salary increase
now. Is an evaluation really that important?"
Yes,
Evaluating the performance of the chief
administrative officer-whether the title is
local government manager or health director "
or school superintendent or social services
director-is critically important.
In recent years, jurisdictions increasingly
have recognized the importance of a useful
. performance evaluation system to the overall
effectiveness of their organizations. They have taken steps to
improve their methods of evaluating line workers, supervi-
6 MARCH 1997
.,.. .~.':' '~~<-=~'''M..~~;",",,-,,-,o;~;cJ'";'m;,:":,,!- -':". ;..,~-,,-~ ,.co-',., :'-;"," "~,, ,~, h ~'j<""~~'~"i"'~" ,,~.~,~ . '." ~"'\"=>'.~" ",,"',,",Of '~'"''M\''':"(k'-''''"''''''''' .,v,.....,'....,'....,'.w.....~'...", ..~~..~'~,'!'.~'" .., ,.,.",~" ,,~.w,,'''~'''''\'.' ").~~'~" '''.'.~.'.'!;.'!.':.!'' '" ",..,.,m,..~ ... .. ..,. ,.,.. "., . .. ... ""., ,." .. , ,., .",~.. , , '" ,.,..,.".~"
_ u
i '.'.!-
! F
j
.
i
~
l
}. sors, and department heads. But one lating specific performance expectations . The board evaluates only the man-
important individual is frequently over- . for the first time, or that the board is fo- ager's interactions with and behavior
looked at performance evaluation time: cused on the manager's conduct iri the toward the board, even though mem-
the person who reports to the governing most recent crisis, rather than his or her bers recognize that this may represent
board. Governing boards have a respon- overall performance. a relatively small portion of the man-
sibility to get on with that job. This arti- Here are some common problems ager's responsibilities.
cle is designed to show how to evaluate a that boards and managers encounter . The board borrows an evaluation
chief administrative officer who reports when they plan for and conduct perfor- form from another jurisdiction or
to a governing board, for simplicity mance evaluations: from a consultant without assuring
called here the "manager." that the form matches the needs of its
Ironically, the reasons that a manager . The board evaluates the manager own board and manager. ~
may not receive a regular performance only when there are serious perfor-
evaluation are the very reasons that an mance problems, or wheri all or some Most of these pitfalls can be avoided
evaluation can be helpful: of the board members already have by planning and conducting a system- j
decided that they want to fire the atic process for evaluating the manager's ~
. . This individual is in a unique posi- manager. performance. A thorough evaluation
2 tion in the organization. . The board realizes it is time to deter- process, like the one suggested below,
1
1 . He or she serves at the pleasure of the mine the manager's salary for the up- co:,tJ.ins several essential components
I board. coming year, and it schedules a per- (see Figure 1).
. He or she may frequently receive con- formance evaluation for the next
i flicting messages about priorities and meeting without discussing the for- A Suggested Evaluation
, direction from board members. mat or process of the evaluation.
,
, Process
1 . The discussion during the evalua
It is vital for managers to get regular, tion is unfocused, with board mem" Planning the Evaluation.
"
l accurate feedback about whether they bersdisagreeing about what the 1. Agree on the purpose(s) of the evalua-
l. are meeting the expectations of the manager Was expected to accom- tion. Typically, boards identify one or
^ board, but it is unlikely that the organi- plish ~s well as whether the manager more of the following goals when de-
~ zation will have a useful process in place met expectations. scribing the purpose of an evaluation:
for administrators to get that informa- . The board excludes the manager
J tion in the absence of a well-conceived from the evaluation discussion. . To give the manager feedback on his
performance evaluation system.
~ Conducting an effective evaluation is
( hard work, but it doesn't have to be a Figure 1. Steps in Planning and Conducting an
I bad experience for the board or the
\ Evaluation Process
,
, manager. With planning and a commit-
1
j
J ment to open lines of communication, . Planning the Evaluation.
f chances are good that the experience 1. Agree on the purpose( s) of the evaluation.
~ will result in a new level of cooperation 2. Agree on what the board expects of the manager.
}
j and understanding between manager 3. Agree on the frequency and timing of the evaluation.
\ and board and, ultimately, a more effec- 4. Agree on who will be involved.
tive working relationship. 5. . Agree on an evaluation form to be used.
l
Conducting. the Evaluation.
J Common Pitfalls
1 1. Have individual board members complete the evaluation form before the
1\ Boththe board and the manager may ap- evaluation session.
j
proach an evaluation with reluctance. 2. Have the manager do a self-assessment.
,. .
. Board members will be required to talk 3. Agree on a setting for the evaluation discussion.
il
openly and honestly about the positive 4. Have the manager present dutingthe evaluation.
and negative aspects of a person's perf or- 5. Consider using a facilitator.
mance-a difficult task for many people. 6. Allow sufficient time.
i;,_ The nianager must be able to receive this 7. Include a portion during which the boad evaluates its own performance.
feedback in a nondefensive manner,even 8. Decide on the next steps, and critique th.; I?rocess.
l when it appears that the board is articu-
1\
:ii.
1
,
I
r PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 7
i
~"'''.. """."'''''''''"Y''''=" .' '" ,~,,,,~,,,,,,",,,,....,"y.\,,.,.,:.,,~..., . ..... ',~'~?'''''''r:r'1':::;''''''1=!~':'::r' . ""~.::.t.~ . ....... ..,~,,' "",~","'.,. ..,., ""''''''''''':'''',~ .".,.".,~:.~,.~:,..~,.,,",,"~,,,,"w.'M-wm"',,,,W""""M"mm,,,"Jm'ri-!'~""~~~m W .
'"
~
. or her performance and to identify may design a process that "protects" the the manager achieves these objectives; it
areas in which improvement may be manager from hearing any negative expects the manager to have certain
needed. feedback. Although the board's motives knowledge and to exhibit certain skills
. To clarify and strengthen the rela- may be good, such a design may not while performing his or her duties. Ex-
tionship between the manager and meet the manager's needs if the manager pectations about the manager's knowl-
the board. actually wants to be part of the discus- edge and skills also should be articulated
. To make a decision about the man- sion, negative comments and all. Spend- . by the board. The board may expect the
ager's salary for the upcoming year. ing some time talking about the purpose manager, for example, to have oral and
of an evaluation at the beginning of the written presentation skills that enable
These goals are not incompatible, process will reduce the possibility of him or her to present ideas clearly and
and it is possible to accomplish all of misunderstandings and conflicting pri- concisely to diverse groups. It also may
these tasks at once. However, it is essen- orities later on. expect the manager to be able to allocate
tial that board members and the man- resources in a way that ensures equitable
ager discuss and reach agreement on the 2. Agree on what the board expects of the service delivery to citizens and to be able
purpose of the evaluation before decid- manager. A job is essentially a set of ex~ to delegate work effectively and evaluate
ing what the rest of the process will be. pectations. It is possible to assess the performance of his or her staff.
For example, a. board member who whether or not an individual holding A board's expectations for the man-
thinks the main reason for dOlng an that job has met expectations. But an ager often represent a mix of general
evaluation is to make a decision about evaluation can be useful only if an earlier areas of knowledge and skills every man-
compensation may think that a brief discussion has taken place in which the agershould possess, as well as specific
consultation among board members- board and manager have outlined expec- expectations based on the board's com-
minus the manager-is sufficient to en- tations for the manager's performance: A position, the organization's history, or
sure that no members have any major board and manager may discuss expecta- special features of the city or region.
concerns about the manager's perfor- tions in conjunction with setting organi- Therefore, it may be helpful for the
mance. This member also may ask for zational goals for the upcoming year, board to use an existing list of manage-
. input from a personnel specialist who perhaps as part of an annual retreat. rial expectations as input for its discus-
can provide information about man- After setting goals, the board may sion, then to customize these expecta-
agers' salaries in comparable jurisdic- specify objectives for the manager that tions to fit the needs of the jurisdiction.
tions. By contrast, a board member define his or her role in meeting these .. Many professional organizations-like
whose main interest is improving com- goals. These objeCtives, then, are the leMA-can supply such a list; or the
munication between the board and the board's expectations concerning the board and manager may contact other
manager may suggest a process that in- manager. For example, a city council .communities in their area. Remember
eludes a conversation between the board may set a goal of working with agencies that a list of expectations for the man-
and the manager, with the manager . and community groups to reduce drug- ager that comes from a source outside
present throughout the evaluation. related crimes in the city. The council the board is intended to begin a discus-
A board might question whether the may list one or more objectives for the sion of the board's expectations for the
manager should be involved in planning manager related to this goal: identifying manager, not to replace this discussion.
the evaluation process, as the evaluation groups and agencies that already are
may be seen as the board's responsibil- working to reduce drug-related crime, 3. Agree on the frequency and timing of
ity, with the manager as the recipient of forming a partnership that includes the evaluation. The board and manager
the evaluation. Yet most boards want to members of all relevant groups, or ex- should agree on how often evaluations
conduct an evaluation that is helpful to plaining new programs to the local should be conducted (perhaps once a
the manager and provides guidance for media. If the manager needs clarifica- year) and adhere to that schedule. The
his or her future actions. Because it can tion of the objectives or has some con- timing of the evaluation also should be
be difficult for the board to anticipate cems about his or her ability to meet the considered. For instance, the board may
fully what the manager would-or board's expectations, these issues are wish to have the evaluation cycle and
would not--...;find useful in an evalua- best discussed at the time these objec- budget cyele coincide and to make deci-
tion, it is wise to consult with the man- tives are set, rather than a year later, sio)1s about the manager's compensation
ager early in the planning process. when the board wants to know why its at such a time. Or, it may choose to con-
For instance, the board may feel tha t expectations have not been met. duct the evaluation before the budget
. the manager would be uncomfortable In addition to identifying what the . process gets under way if it feels that it
hearing board members talk about his board wants the manager to achieve, it would not be able to give its full atten-
or her performance at first hand and so board typically has an interest in how tion to the evaluation during the
8 MARCH 1997
_,"'m"'''..'''' .. . ..,... . i~".d,.n',,-:;-':-,,': . ..... . . '~:',".",:,,'" . ..,.; ~~_'?:"""'~~~'~""".i::::"""~"'''':.'l.';'''l.:C'i-Wt'^r:-":' ..... ';;.~"":::r-.-r=,-;::~: '~:C:""';"'''':-r:--'"('''M;';"f~~:'~'''r:<"'>:i""''''''''''''''''1'"''nvq,.,r''~i,,,"",,,;",,,,,,,,?,,;p'~r",,,,,,,,w,,~,'!-/>""~;'"'':'''~''T:':r'''''''+~::~~''' ..~".::.:.,,^':-':~c:"!~~..,>"'<..,..
-
'"
.
I. month, ]"ding up to th, ,dopt;on of edge that many people may have relevant management" may look like Figure 2.
, the budget. information about the manager's perfor- Following each criterion on the evalu-
t "
: The board should avoid scheduling mance and that the board should not be ation form is a scale ranging from "does
I the evaluation just before or after an expected to know everything about the not meet expectations" to "exceeds ex-
election. If the evaluation is held too manager's work. If the board and man- pectations," with an option of marking
soon after an election, new members ager choose not to incorporate other " unable to rate." A board may choose to
may not have had the time they need to sources of information in the evaluation, assign numbers to this scale (say, 1
gather information about and form a the board may want to consider omitting through 5, with 1 corresponding to
judgment of the manager's perfor- performance criteria that it feels unable "does not meet expectations" and 5 cor- ,~.
i mance. Likewise, it is not a good idea to ' to judge (such as the coaching and men- responding to "exceeds expectations").
I schedule an evaluation just before an to ring of subordinates}. Buta numerical rating system is less use-
! election if a change in the composition ful in an evaluation of the manager than
of the board is expected. 5. Agree on an evaluation form to be used. it is in an organization-wide evaluation
Frequently, this is the first step that ' of all employees, where standardized
4. Agree on who will be involved. All boards consider when planning an eval- comparisons may have some value. In
members of the board and the manager uation, and they find it to be a difficult fact, a potential problem with using a
l should participate in the evaluation task. However, if the board already has numerical rating system is that it is easy
':~ (more about the manager's presence at discussed and agreed on what it expects to focus on the number as the end in it-
.~
ill
! the evaluation, below)~ The full board's of the manager (see Step 2), agreeing on self, rather than simply a shorthand way
.
t participation is necessary because all an evaluation form becomes much eas- to express the evaluation. Thus, a board
~
members have relevant information ier. It is simply a matter of translating may discuss at length whether a man-
about the manager's performance. In expectations into performance criteria, ager's performance on a given dimension
addition, during the planning process, making sure that the criteria are clear is a 3 or a 4, and perhaps conclude that it
the board and manager should consider and measurable. Por example, three ex- is a 3.5, without fully exploring what
I. whether there are other parties who pectations in the area of "knowledge and these numbers represent.
have an important perspective on the skills necessary for local government Samples of evaluation forms may be
manager's performance, A common
P!"oblem is for the board to focus en-
tirely on the manager's interactions with Figure 2. Portion of Sample Evaluation Form
i the board, even though, the manager Presentation Skills. The ability to understand an audience and to present
spends only a fraction of his or her time
I in direct contact with the board. an idea clearly and ~oncisely, in an engaging way, to a group whose interests, ed-
Although both the board and man- ucition, culture, ethnicity, age, etc., represent a broad spectrum of community
I ager may feel that the perceptions of interests and needs.
staff, citizens, and others are important, I 2 3 4 5
I ......... ......... .................... I ... ...... ............ ............. ....I (
they may be concerned about how these Does Not Meets Exceeds Unable
perceptions will be collected and shared. Meet Expectations Expectations Expectations to Rate
t It is not a good idea for board members
!3 to go directly to staff and to pcillem- Citizen Service. The ability to determine citizen needs, provide equitable ser-
.
I ployees on their views of the managers ,
strengths and weaknesses. Such actions vice, allocate resources, deliver services or products, and evaluate results.
would put board members in an inap- 1 2 3 4 5
>> I ....,................................. 1'......................................1 I
, propriate administrative role and may
~ Does Not Meets Exceeds Unable
~ put staff members-including the man-
I Meet Expectations Expectations Expectations to Rate
ager-in an uncomfortable position. In-
stead, the manager might hold "upward Delegating. The ability to assign work, clarify expectations, and define how
review sessions " with his or her staff in
:- individual performance will be measured.
~ order to receive feedback from subordi-
. 1 2 3 4 5
t nates and to report general themes that
i I...................................... 1......................................1 (
, came out of these sessions as part of his
t. or her self-assessment. Does Not Meets Exceeds Unable
The goal is not to make the manager Meet Expectations Expectations Expectations to Rate
I feel under attack; tather, it is to acknowl-
I
1 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 9
i
!
I
\ ~"."..,..'1-.-~.,..,..,.., .. ; ...... .... . . ".'.' .. ."'-'_.,.,,'.,....'U~u._-~..-.-.0~.~:;.ft.,,;,....:-;~~..^-~..^~'?I.T....,...,...,,...,~,.,,.,.; 'i;........,w..r....,.".."...,.u~nV"""~""...-M~w.._'--........1!-~"".'.',w"NH".+.<."., m.... ..L. ~',
,..
I f,
!
<<.
,
;
,
~
:;
W
~
~
. obtained from ICMA (contact Anthony rate the manager as not meeting expecta~ to questions from the board, ask ques-
i Crowell by fax, 202/962-3500) and other tions in a given area because a land use tions, and provide relevant information.
professional organizations. Again,. it is study has not been completed. Upon dis- Frequently, a board's first impulse is
I essential for boards and managers to tai~ cussion with the manager, however, the to exclude the manager from the evalua-
lor forms to meet their needs. board might learn that the study has tion session. Some members may be re-
been completed but not yet been pre- luctant to share negative feedback in the
~ Conduding the Evaluation. sented to the board. This distinction manager's presence. Other. members
i 1. Have individual board members com- would be important because it would may fear that the evaluation will turn
:1 plete the evaluation form prior to the suggest different areas for improvement. into an analysis of the manager's han-
0l'j
';8~ evaluation session. Setting aside some If the manager has notcoinpleted the dling of a single incident, with the man-
:;~
:'~ time for individual reflection is impor- study, the discussion might have focused ager defending his or her actions. Still
I tant preparation for the evaluation ses- on the importance of meeting deadlines. . others may want to shield the manager.
sian. It reinforces the message that this is Instead, the group could develop strate- from what they perceive tei be unduly
.:;.:.;;(! an important task, worthy of the board gies fat improving communication so harsh criticism from a few board mem-
~
',)~ members' attention. Making individual that board members will receive infor- bers. These are valid concerns.
,
~
. assessments befQre beginning a group mation in a timely manner. However, many of the problems an-
il
, discussion also increases the likelihood ticipated by the board stein from a lack
I
j that each member will form his or her 3. Agree on a setting for the evaluation of planning rather than from the man-
own opinion without being influenced discussion. The evaluation should be . ager's presence at the evaluation; conse-
by the judgments or experiences of conducted in a setting that is private and quently, many of these issues can be ad-
other members. comfortable, free from interruptions, dressed in earlier phases of the planning
This is not meant to imply that board and considered neutral by. all parties. process. For example, a good evaluation
members cannot change their minds as These are the same characteristics a form will help ensure that the discussion
a result of group discussion; on the con- board may look for in a retreat setting focuses on job"related behaviors rather
. trary, members frequently change their when it meets to develop a long-range than personal traits and will look at the
~ views ofa manager's performance as plan, discuss roles and responsibilities of previous year's performance rather than
I they hear the perspectives of other new board members, and the like. The that of the previous week.
members and learn information that idea is to set aside a time and place to Some boards choose to exclude the
. was not available to them when making address a single topic, away from the manager from the evaluation session
their individual assessments. pressure of a loaded agenda. and select one member to summarize
,
i Boards frequently ask whether the the board's discussion for the manager
I 2. Have the manager do a self-assess- manager's evaluation is defined as an after the evaluation has been completed.
~ ment. Inviting the manager to assess open meeting, Because the board is con- Appointing a "designated spokesperson"
, his or her own performance can add a sidering the performance of the man- to communicate the board's evaluation
I helpful~and unique~perspective to ager-a public employee~during an to the manager is often frustrating for
the evaluation process. In most cases, evaluation, such a meeting may be held both parties. It is difficult for one person
the manager can simply complete the in executive session. According to the to summarize a complex discussion in
! same evaluation forin being used by North Carolina open-meetings statute, an accurate and balanced way, and the
1 the board. For the manager, the com- for instance, a public body may hold an spokesperson may end up overempha-
~ parison of the self-assessment with the executive session to "consider the quali- sizing some points and underemphasiz-
I
.1 assessments of others provides an op- fications, competence, performance, ing or eliminating others. To a manager
j
1 portunity for insight into his or her character, fitness, conditions of appoint- who is seeking feedback and guidance,
1 own overestimation or underestima- ment, or conditions of initial employ- this one-way communication usually
.~
I tion of performance level as compared ment of a public officer or employee:' does not give a full picture of the board's
I with the expectations of the board. For perceptions; consequently, the manager
,
,
i the board, hearing how the manager 4. Have the manager present during the may make future decisions that are not
I rates his or her own performance evaluation. The above example, in which consistent with the board's expectations.
:.:.'.~
.J.:..~ (and, more important, how he or she the board learns important information Even with a careful planning process,
~i(:i
::lil
I arrived at that rating) can help mem- from the manager during the evalua- board members still may have concerns
;~ bers gain some insight into whether tion, illustrates the benefit of having the about sharing negative feedback with
the board and manager are communi- manager in the room, playing an active the manager. As described in the next
...0. cating effectively. role in the evaluation. A manager pre- section, a skilled facilitator frequently
, As an example, board members might sent during the discussion can respond can diminish these concerns by helping
10 MARCH 1997
-'~-'"+ '''.~:'l.';'~h:;!.~' ,-,!-_,.,c'_b..%.)>>W",,",,.f.>.-k:~';-;":''''''''M!+!'-li'"w+''-f-,-\!~~_!,'w}f''''~-:!~'':Y~~'~r'~,,,,,....w .. ..,..,......:w.......,~"!..:.,;"~'.."".M.,....:.,w..:'.nl'"..."'..'..m"""':~~.M~~""~~i"..~......~
"'~
"
i
;.
,
, the group discuss these issues in a con- criterion, and the entire group then dis- may wish to set a date in the near future
i structive way. cusses any differences among individu~ when it will set expectations and perfor-
4 After the board has concluded its dis- . als' ratings, with the goal of reaching mance meaSures in preparation for the
f cussionof the manager's performance, it group consensus on the manager's per- next evaluation.
.
,
. may wish to excuse the manager while it formance in this area before progressing An important final step: Before the
1 makes a decision about the manager's to the next performance. criterion. Even evaluation is concluded, all members
""'.
,15; compensation. The manager presum~ with a small board that is in general should assess the evaluation process it-
:r
J
t ably will receive any feedback and guid- agreement about the manager's perfor- self. This self-critique helps the group
~ ance . from the board before the salary mance, this is a time-consuming pro- look at its own process and learn from
discussion, so his or her presence is not cess. Therefore, setting aside a full day its experiences in working together. By I
necessary at this point. However, the for the evaluation session is a good idea. reflecting on the task just completed, the w
1!i
board should keep in mind that the ac- .. Although this may seem like a lot of group frequently identifies components .,
tual setting of the manager's salary may time to devote to one issue, the conse- of the process that worked well and as- I
'"
. not be covered under a personnel excep- quences of failing to reach agreement on peets that could have been more effec- i
,~ ~:;
if tion to an open-meetings law, and for what the board expects of the manager tive. For example, it may decide that it
i this reason this determinatiort should can ultimately require far more time and did not dearly define the manager's role
take place in an open session. energy. The group may wish to divide in reaching board goals before the evalu-
the evaluation session into two half- atibn and resolve to address this Ia~ by
5. Consider using a facilitator. A perfor- days, if that is more manageable (both in a specified date.
. mance evaluation is a complex task, par- terms of scheduling and energy levels).
ticularly when an entire group is partici~ A Process. Not an Event
pating in the evaluation. Members may 7. Include a portion in which the board
have different views of the manager's evaluates its own performance. In theory, As the steps described here illustrate,
. past performance or different expecta- it is possible for a board to specify ex- . the evaluation of a chief administrative
te tions for the future. Board members also pectations for the manager and then to officer is a process, not an event. Careful
may be reluctant to share negative feed- evaluate the degree to which a manager planning and a commitment to com-
"~. back, or they may be concerned that has met these expectations. In practice, munication between the board and the
:~
.
"t . their feedback will be misinterpreted. however, meeting expectations is usually manager throughout the year will
"
,
J
J For all of these reasons, it often is a two-way street, and it is helpful for a greatly facilitate the actual evaluation
l
, helpful to use a facilitator when conduct- board to examine its own functioning and increase the likelihood that it will
~
{ ing the evaluation. A facilitator can help . and how it contributes to-or hinders- bea valuable experience for all involved.
the group by monitoring the group's the manager's effectiveness. In one case, One last word: Don't let the fear that
f . process, while leaving all members free a board set a number of high-priority your board has not laid the proper
,)
to focus on the task of the evaluation. Fa- objectives for the manager to meet, after groundwork prevent you from getting
cilitatorsoften suggest that groups use a which individual board members on with the job. You will probably see
set of ground rules to help them accom~ brought new "high-priority" projects to some things that you would like to
plish their work more effectively. the manager throughout the year. In this change after the first evaluation (and
The board might look to local busi" case, the board was partly responsible the second, and the third. . .). That is
; ness, civic, and academic leaders for rec" for the manager's failure to meet the ex- what the self-critique is for. The impor-
. ommendations for qualified facilitators; pectations initially set by the board. tant thing is to begin the process. Mak-
j
or it might contact the Institute of Gov- ing the evaluation a regular part of the
ernment at the University of North Car- 8. Decide on the next steps, and critique board's work is the best way to ensure
" olina at Chapel Hill, or the state's associ- the process. The actual evaluation of the its success.1lliD
1.
t ation of county commissioners, league manager's (and the board's) perfor-
~
t of municipalities, school board associa~ mance may seem like the last step in the Margaret S. Carlson is a faculty member
tion, or similar organizations for help in evaluation process, but there still are a of the Institute of Govel~nment, The Uni"
I this area. number of decisions to be made before versity of North Cal'olinaat Chapel Hill,
the next evaluation cycle can begin. The Chapel Hill, He.
6. Allow sufficient time. A useful tech- board may wish to have a separate ses"
nique for the actual. evaluation is a sion to make a decision about the man- Reprinted by permission from Popular Gov-
..1- "round robin" format. Each member in ager's compensation. This is also a logi- e~nment published by the Institute of Govern~
turn expresses his or her judgment of cal time to talk about expectations and mellt, The University of North Carolina at
1 the manager's performance on a given goals for the coming year, and the board Chapel Hill.
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 11
,
"f