MAIN MENU
website by
George Teston, Ph.D.
email: George Teston
|
website by |
The 360o Model Meets the Educational Organization
Introduction to the Principles of Educational Organizations
Measuring Organizational Effectiveness in
Business & Education
The 360o Model for Assessing Organization
Effectiveness
We Want Your Feedback about the 360o Model!
A
Metaphor for 360-Degrees Assessment
|
by George Teston |
Iowa State’s 360-degree Feedback Model
The 360-degree assessment model, already well established in business and industry, is slowly becoming a popular method for measuring organizational effectiveness within schools as well. While several 360-degree models such as Skillscope/Benchmarks and the Clark-Wilson instrument have been adapted from the business community for school use, one model was developed expressly for use in educational organizations. The School Improvement Model Projects Office of Iowa State University’s College of Education, under the direction of Dr. Richard Manatt, developed an evaluation tool based on the unique structure, environment, and desired outcomes of the K-12 school. The Iowa State 360-degree Feedback model offers public schools a fresh, multi-source assessment instrument that is more appropriate and accurate than traditional approaches (Manatt and Benway, 1998).
Manatt (1997) states that there are basically two reasons why this model is better for school assessment: multiple criteria and evaluators yielding increased accountability and rating that, unlike traditional top-down methods, provides true discrimination of performance levels among similar employees (p.9). He adds that, "The overreaching purpose of performance evaluation is to improve performance year after year…It just doesn’t happen using the old, almost ceremonial approach" (p. 9). Less Shulman (as quoted by Manatt) found in his 1991 Carnegie project that, "nearly every method one can imagine for teacher performance evaluation is marred in a fundamental way." The Iowa State 360-degree Feedback model has been implemented in many districts across the nation. Indeed, the field record of the instrument seems to be more successful than traditional models.
A five-year study of 360-degree feedback in the Hot Springs County School District in Thermopolis, Wyo., identified a 15 percent increase in achievement across all subjects measured by the SRA standardized tests. These gains occurred over the period with no decline in morale among teachers and principals due to the ironclad accountability of 360-degree feedback. (Manatt, p. 97).
The Iowa State 360-degree Feedback model uses multiple data sources and different approaches for different employees. Performance data is gathered from principals, peers, parents, students, self-reflection, and student achievement statistics. Instead of each teacher being evaluated by the same means as all the others, the Iowa State model has three "tracks" that determine the factors and means by which the employee will be assessed. The first track includes beginning teachers and offers strong support resources and basic training. The second track includes those teachers who do not meet the school’s performance objectives and who need assistance to reach that level of quality. The third track includes experienced teachers who are already meeting school expectations and provides each with direction for continued improvement. In addition to teacher evaluation, the model also assesses principal and superintendent performance. In fact, every working individual on the school staff is evaluated by all who have contact with that person: supervisors, peers, students, and the public (Manatt, p. 8).
Six data sources are used in teacher evaluation: supervisors, self-evaluation, student achievement, peer feedback, student feedback, and parent feedback. Ten data sources are used in principal evaluation: supervisors, self-evaluation, student achievement, student feedback student attendance, retention levels, teacher performance data, teacher feedback, parent feedback, and school climate. The superintendent is evaluated by a competency survey from five data sources: board members, principals, curriculum specialists, teachers, and parents.
The evaluation instrument used by these people is a performance appraisal survey that is specific to each evaluator audience. Students are surveyed in class with a twenty-item survey that is age-grade specific about the teacher. The questions address student interest, instructional delivery, and preparation for teaching. Peer teachers must be field-appropriate and evaluate using the same criteria as the students and the principal. Self-assessment is done by teachers completing a twenty-item survey similar to the one provided by students. A Principal’s evaluation of a teacher is beyond the scope of a survey, including observation ratings, interviews, work samples, and progress toward teacher-set improvement goals. In turn, the teachers evaluate principals based on a school climate survey. Parents are surveyed using a five item instrument at the conclusion of a parent-teacher conference and is submitted blindly.
Manatt and Price found in a 1994 study that student achievement is the most significant performance indicator. In the Iowa State 360-degree Feedback Model student achievement data is collected for each class, subject, and grade. Each class has a pre-test and a post-test to measure learner gain during the period under the teacher’s instruction. The percentage of mastery indicates exactly how much progress a teacher’s students make while under his or her tutelage. Manatt states, "This data required several years of curriculum renewal, alignment, and assessment…it’s the ultimate 360-degree source" (p. 10).
Field-ready surveys are available for purchase from the Iowa State School Improvement Model Project Office or the school can make its own copies of each survey using a master available for no charge. All surveys are administered anonymously and can be scored externally by the Iowa State SIMP office for a fee. Or if the school elects to do internal compiling, the Iowa State SIMP Office will provide survey analysis keys to the school for no cost whatsoever. The no-cost alternative provides even the most financially challenged district an opportunity for quality, comprehensive evaluation.
When analyzed collectively, the survey instruments illustrate the areas of high competence and areas needing improvement. Teachers individually develop a professional growth plan while the organization itself develops an improvement plan. Everyone has a professional growth plan, even experienced teachers with stellar evaluations because a tenet of the Iowa State 360-degree Feedback is the need to establish "continual improvement." Manatt’s research has shown that the action plans are most effective when deadlines are negotiated and imposed and when the goals are announced publicly (p. 11). The individual’s pursuit and accomplishment of these articulated goals becomes part of the evaluation process for the next year. This cycle imposes accountability of each member of the organization to recognize areas of improvement and complete the process to fulfill that need. The model provides guidelines for such action plans and suggests questions such as:
- What is to be accomplished? (the goal)
- How is it to be accomplished? (short range objectives)
- What resources are needed? (funds, material, staff)
- How will accomplishment of the goal be measured? (achievement tests, better feedback, lower cost)
Longitudinal studies (of 360-degree Feedback) in two districts have shown dramatic improvement in student achievement and equity (Manatt and Kemis, 1997). Richard Santeusanio, Superintendent of the Danvers, Mass. Public Schools, (as quoted by Manatt, p. 12) enumerates seven advantages to using the Iowa State 360-degree Feedback model district wide.
- Collective opinions make the performance appraisal and evaluation
conference more meaningful.- The process created a shared vision of performance standards.
- The standards for teachers, principals, and the superintendent are more
accurately identified and measured.- The administrator’s role shifts from judge and jury to that of coach and mentor.
- State-mandated performance standards can be incorporated into the survey
instruments of almost every data source.- The process leads to specific behavior modification and professional growth f
or school employees, resulting in increased student performance.
In summary, the research obtained from field implementation of the Iowa State 360-degree model suggests that multi-source feedback is better than traditional appraisal done by a principal or superintendent alone. The 360-degree process also seems to have a greater impact on participants than single source evaluation. The success of the model suggests that it is used correctly, the Iowa State 360-degree Feedback model is not only the best choice for evaluating the organizational effectiveness of a K-12 school, but it may also be a tremendous tool for school reform.
| For Iowa State 360-degree Feedback Materials: |
| You can obtain sample instruments, norm group data, and assitsnace in processing from: School Improvement Model projects Office, Attn: 360-degree concultant, College of Education, N225 Lagamarcino Hall, Iowa State University, Aimes, Iowa 50011-3195, or call 515-294-5521. |
References
Manatt, R. (1997). Feedback from 360 degrees. The school administrator, 54 (3)., p.8-13.
Mannatt, R. and Benway, M. (1999). Manuscript in press. ERS Spectrum.
Educational Research Service. 2000 Claredon Boulevard.
Arlington, VA 22201.Manatt, R. and Kemis, M. (1997). 360-degree feedback: A new approach to
evaluation. Principal, 77 (1)., p. 24-27.Manatt, R. and Price, P. (1994). Five factor teacher performance evaluation
for career ladder placement. Journal of Personnel Evaluation, 8. p. 239-250.
|
by Jacqueline Makins |
When working in an organization, we want to know the most competent people working in that organization and the behaviors of the people we think are incompetent and how they affect productivity. One way that we can find answers is by using tools that give us feedback about our strengths and weaknesses.
Robert Owens states in his book (Organizational Behaviors) that an organization has dependent variables that are indicators of the organizational effectiveness. Dependent variables measure achievement, behaviors, and school effectiveness (1998, p. 179). Traditionally, organizational measurement has been used to monitor and control employee behavior. Rarely has it been used to provide employees with feedback on performance, to reinforce good performance, or as a tool for helping employees to solve problems (Boyett and Conn, 1991, p. 65). One tool in particular is the 360-degree model used for many different purposes. One purpose is to address the different roles in an organization and to enhance and maximize the organization and individual development. Common uses are for development and training, performance appraisal and performance management, and as a culture and attitude survey within an organization. It can be delivered in a variety of formats: from informal questionnaires to interviews and surveys that measure skills and compare the ratings to normative populations. Development needs are also identified, making appropriate training and action plans easier to develop in order to initiate positive change. The profiles stimulate greater commitment to personal growth and help to develop more effective leadership and management skills.
The 360-degree assessment, that are used in educational organizations, are effective in helping an employee not only see what he or she does well or needs to improve, but also helps create a powerful developmental plan that can reduce years from the trial-and-error method of personal improvement. Measurement professionals generally agree that for assessments to be valid, they should (a) measure the construct they are intended to measure, (b) measure the content taught, (c) predict students' performance on subsequent assessments, and (d) provide information that is consistent with other related sources of information (Nolen and Taylor, 1996).
The 360-degree assessment also forms a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of an organization and its readiness to face marketplace and industry changes. In addition, the assessment serves as an outstanding foundation for developing a training strategy for the organization. The National PTA states that an effective school should use resources to respond to educational challenges and assume responsibility for investigating quality programs such as 1) curriculum, 2) opportunities for professional development, and 3) safe and well-maintained school buildings, just to name a few (National PTA, 1998 web site).
The National PTA recommends that schools should use "sound" assessment programs that are:
Owens identified several different tools used for assessing organizational climates but these perceptions (some people argued) are not "objective reflections" of reality and may be subjective in nature. One assessment described teacher’s perception of other teachers. Another assessment is a collective perception of teacher’s perception of the principal (p. 182-183). Together both of these perceptions make up the tools used to identify the effectiveness of an organization.
In educational organizations, effectiveness is built around the dimensions in the feedback report. If the feedback is good, then the organization is doing what it should in order to make that organization an effective organization. If the feedback shows that the organization needs improvement based several studies and research, then the organization must provide special remedial and other instructional support in order for the organization to be effective. Also effective organization places high expectations on the people within the organization because the belief is that:
"No organization can succeed unless the individuals within it have the freedom to be themselves" (Kolbe, 1990, p. 97).
What Kolbe suggests is that each individual has to have the freedom to contribute their "gifts and talents" to the organization in order to make that organization what it should be. Sometimes employees do not have a voice in the decisions that are made. They feel "left-out-of-the-loop" and want to contribute their ideas and suggestions. One way to get suggestions from employees is to administer one of the 360-degree models and see what the feedback report details. Most 360-degree models do not require any certification programs and is easy for participants to understand. Most models take about 30 minutes to complete and are an assessment of job-related skills.
This web site will show how different models of the 360-degree assessments are used in organizations. Whether you work in an educational setting or business, hopefully you will decide on the tool that is right for your organization. Owens states that "many studies have described relationships between performance of companies in terms as market share, sales, and profitability and the organizational culture within the company." Evidence exist from research in educational settings that effectiveness is determined by "student learning and development" and is also "influenced by the quality and characteristics of the organizational culture" (p. 193). But the idea of organizational effectiveness is to find out "who is competent and who is not" and to see what those employees do well or where they need to improve.
References
Boyett, Joseph and Conn, Henry. (1991). Workplace 2000: The Revolution Reshaping American Business. New York, NY: Penquin Group.
Kolbe, Kathy. (1990). The Conative Connection: Uncovering the Link between Who You Are and How You Perform. Menlo, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
National PTA. (1998). Components of an Effective School. URL: http://www.pta.org/programs/effschl2.htm#Assess
Nolen, Susan and Taylor, Catherine. (1996). What Does the Psychometrician's Classroom Look Like?: Reframing Assessment Concepts in the Context of Learning. Education Policy Analysis, 4-17.
Owens, Robert G. (1998). Organizational Behavior in Education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
|
by Kimberly Reely |
Measuring Organizational Effectiveness
There is a need for balance and trade-off to
achieve organizational effectiveness. The establishment of goals are important. The
culture and climate of the organization have a great impact on how effective an
organization will be. And the historical performance of an organization must be analyzed
for baseline data. Organizational effectiveness is quantitative and can be measured.
In the Robert G. Owens text, Organizational
Behavior in Education, (p 57) the author discusses a study by Chester Barnard and
discusses ‘equilibrium as “the balancing of burdens by satisfactions which
results in continuance” of both the individual and the organization in a mutual
relationship. In his lexicon, the term “effectiveness” was the
“accomplishment of the recognized objectives of cooperative action.”
Effectiveness must represent a shared vision. The achievement of goals is how
effectiveness is measured. The complicated part is how to motivate the individual
organizations and ultimately measure the
outcomes.
Many times the effectiveness of an institution
is measured during a time of fundamental change, increased competition or crisis.
Effectiveness of organizations is difficult to understand and complex. In an article
published in the journal of Research in Higher Education, titled Maintaining Effectiveness
Amid Downsizing and Decline in Institutions of Higher Education,, Kim Cameron and John
Smart mention how difficult it has been traditionally to measure effectiveness in
organizations. In fact, they state (p 69) ‘Traditionally, measuring effectiveness has
been so confusing that some scholars have advocated abandoning the concept .” They go
on to mention historically “In higher education, the dominant approach for many years
was to rely on a single overall assessment such as reputation ratings.”
Through the years management techniques have
changed. “More recently, assessments in the scholarly literature have begun to take
into account a much more complex view of higher education institutions, including
considerations of multiple constituencies, environmental contingencies, and the
paradoxical nature of organizational performance.” (Cameron, p 69). This current mode
of study reinforces our current recommendation for a 360 measurement tool to determine
organizational effectiveness. The term 360 uses the assumption that organizations (and
even individual performance evaluations) are measured from multiple sources that include
top down and bottom up sources. Often times the measurement tools are perception surveys
that are distributed to different constituents within an organization. It may include
customer satisfaction, employee rating, external agencies, etc. Then the results are
compiled to form a composite measurement of effectiveness.
The 360 assessment tool is similar to classroom
assessment which uses multiple measures to determine acquired knowledge by students. Even
though the measurement tools are designed differently, the strategyis the same. In the
classroom, multiple measures are used to determine knowledge is various formats.
Assessment could be in the form of multiple choice responses, short answers, essay
writing, portfolio anddialogues. These are examples of multiple measures used in a
learning environment.
Organizational effectiveness is different from
a classroom because what is being measured in an organization is the outcomes of a
collection of people and how the organization is meeting the end statements. Cameron and
Smart list in their study what they consider to be the “Nine Dimensions of
Organizational Effectiveness” (p 70). They are:
Morale Domain:
Student Educational Satisfaction: The extent of students’ satisfaction with
their educational
experiences at the institution.
Faculty and Administrator Employment Satisfaction: The satisfaction of faculty
members and administrators
with their employment and jobs at the institution.
Organizational Health: The extent of smooth functioning of the
institution in terms of its processes and operations.
Academic
Domain:
Student Academic Development: The extent of academic attainment, growth, and
progress made by
students at the institution, and the opportunities provided by the institution.
Professional Development and Quality of Faculty: The extent of professional
attainment and
development of the faculty, and the amount of stimulation toward professional development
provided by the institution.
Student Personal Development: The extent of development socially, culturally, and
emotionally,
and the opportunities provided by the institution for personal development.
External
Adaptation:
Student Career Development: The extent of occupational or vocational development of
students and the opportunities provided for occupational development by the institution.
System Openness and Community Interaction: The emphasis placed on the interaction
with,
adaptation to, and service in the institution’s external environment.
Ability to Acquire Resources: The extent to which the institution acquires
resources from the
external environment such as economic support, high-quality students and faculty, research
support, and political legitimacy. (p 70)
As you can see these measurement tools are very
comprehensive and acquired from multiple constituents. These specific measurement
guidelines are used for ‘traditional’ institutions of higher education. Even in
programs offered online, the measurement indexes must be designed
specifically for the institution because the programs offered online are
‘non-traditional’ by nature. These domains represent the type of shared vision
institutions must agree upon prior to conducting an analysis of institutional
effectiveness.
One other item that must be used in measurement
studies is the period of time used for evaluation. It may be every six months; the end of
each fiscal or calendar year; and then comparisons from year to year. The feedback and
program evaluation is necessary to see if positive or negative change has occurred.
One other notable contribution from the study
by Cameron and Smart (p 72) was the presence of attributes they named the ‘dirty
dozen’. These attributes are present to some degree in most organizations, but how
they are addressed by managers and administers determines the impact they will have on
organizational effectiveness. Here is the list of 'dirty dozen'.
(A complete review of this article can be found
by accessing http://www.catchword.com/). The
article will go into greater detail what each of these attributes represents within
an organization.
1. Centralization
2. Short-term crisis mentality
3. Loss of innovativeness
4. Resistance to change
5. Decreasing morale
6. Politicized interest groups.
7. Nonprioritized cutbacks
8. Loss of trust
9. Increasing conflict
10. Restricted communication
11. Lack of teamwork
12. Scapegoating leaders
The outcomes of this study indicated the
‘Dirty Dozen’ did impact organizational effectiveness, but not in all cases. An
organization could still be effective, even in a period of decline if the ‘dirty
dozen’ attributes are kept in check. According the Cameron and Smart study (p 79),
“In other words, analysis of the individual dirty dozen attributes produces support
for the conclusion that when institutions allow themselves to develop these negative
attributes, institutional performance suffers.” In addition the article mentions
“--leadership actions and institutional member reactions--help explain why
institutions experiencing decline demonstrate a range of performance levels.”
This conclusion if very important to the
overall theory of organizational effectiveness. We can use all the organizational
effectiveness measuring tools we choose, and promote professional growth and evaluate
desired outcomes, but if the leadership of the organization is weak, misdirected or
without a clear mission, the organization will falter.
REFERENCES
Cameron, K and Smart, J, Maintaining Effectiveness Amid Downsizing and Decline in
Institutions of Higher Education, Research In Higher Education, February 1998,
Human Sciences Press, New York, NY
Owens, R., Organizational Behavior in Education, 1998, Allyn and Bacon, Needham
Heights, MA
|
by Nancee Simonson |
Assessing an organization's "current state" is one of the best ways to determine
what is working and what needs improvement. How effective is your organization's
leadership? What issues are currently affecting work force morale? Are financial goals
well understood throughout the organization? Assessment models to answer these and other
critical organizational performance questions include:
University of Santa Bar Barabara Extension customized education program in Organizational Effectiveness, http://www.unex.ucsb.edu/programs/ce/oea/
Paula K. Martin and David Huckle provide organizational effectiveness tools in four different areas:
http://www.1res.com/RENMGMT/OE/OEHOME.HTML
This section focuses on the 360 degree assessment tool and various models of that tool as one choice for assessing leadership in an organization. The next section will focus directly on the tool as it has been applied in exemplaries ways specifically within educational organization. The conceptof 360 degree assessment basically involves review or evaluation of a leader, manager or employee by various levels of people with whom the person has contact. This includes superiors, co-workers, reports, and in the case of schools may include parents or community members. This concept departs from the traditional top-down hierarchical method of reviewing and evaluating employees and incorporates a systems view of performance in that it acknowledges that performances affects stakeholders from many levels of the organization.
Three models described below are:
The instruments organize evaluation criteria into various categories of factors. These
factors need to be based on the organizations goals and concepts of quality or
performance. (Note that one organization offers customized evaluation instruments.
Manager View/360 compares one's perception with those of peers, direct reports and one's manager; and provides an objective summary of an employee's strengths and areas of development along twenty competencies determined to be required for competitive performance. It is used for supervisory training, management development, training needs assessment, career development, and training evaluation. http://www.opd.net/ps-p-mv360.html
ManagerView/360 scales include:
Communication Competencies
- Listening
- Two-Way Feedback
- Written Communication
- Oral Communicaiton
- Oral Presentaiton
- Vision/Goal Setting
Task Management Comptencies
- Planning/Organizing
- Delegation
- Administrative Control/Follow-Up
- Performance Evaluation/Appraisal
- Performance Management
- Recognizing/Rewarding Performance
Interpersonal Competencies
- Team Building/Development
- Interpersonal Sensitivity
- Negotiation/Conflict Management
- Coaching/Employee Devlopment
- Leadership/Influence
- Employee Involvement
- Problem Solving Competencies
- Strategic Problem Analysis
- Decisiveness/Judgment
Performance View/360 compares one's perception with those of one's supervisor, peers and team members; provides an objective summary of an employee's strengths and areas of development along fourteen critical competencies identified as important for competitive performance. Performance View/360 was designed for non-supervisory and non-management personnel and can be used for all professional, technical, and administrative employees working either as an independent contributor or as part of a team within your organization. It is is aimed at employee development, communications and interpersonal skills training, career development, and coaching. http://www.opd.net/ps-p-pv360.html
Performance View/360 scales include:
- Communication Competencies
- Listening
- Two-Way Feedback
- Written Communication
- Oral Communication
- Presentation
- Task Management Competencies
- Planning/Organizing
- Task/Project Management
- Problem Solving
- Decisiveness/Judgment
- Interpersonal/Team Competencies
- Collaboration
- Interpersonal Sensitivity
- Negotiation/Conflict Management
- Team Support
- Leadership Influence
The Center for Creative Leadership (http://www.ccl.org/index/index1.html)
is an international, nonprofit educational institution founded in 1970 in
Greensboro, NC. Through research, the center develops models of managerial practice;
and through training programs and products, the center uses that research to apply these
models as guides for assessment and development.
According to the Center, their "researchers pioneered and validated 360-degree
feedback techniques, revolutionizing the assessment process. The Center found that
360-degree feedback is not only more compelling - it breaks through the myths of self -
but also that it is more efficient. Similar techniques have been employed by the Center to
study teams and entire organizations, and are beginning to be used in studies of entire
communities."
Their two most popular 360-degree instruments are SKILLSCOPE® and Benchmarks®.
Benchmarks provides feedback for middle-level to upper-level managers and executives
that addresses skills, perspectives,
and values that managers must develop; potential flaws; and how they might handle diverse
job assignments.
Through the Benchmarks process, managers:
Group profiles also can be done for organizations to use in assessing strengths and
development needs of groups or teams.
The Center claims that their tools are research based and validated.
Skillscope is a tool that assesses managerial strengths and development needs. It
allows managers and supervisors to get feedback from peers, direct reports, superiors and
bosses, and is designed to be used for all levels of managers.
Skillscope the following 15 skill clusters to help the manager formulate an
individual action plan for further career development:
- Informational
- Getting information, making sense of it
- Communicating information, ideas
- Decision making
- Taking action, making decisions
- Risk taking, innovation
- Administrative/organizational ability
- Managing conflict, negotiation
- Interpersonal Relationships
- Selecting, developing people
- Influencing leadership power
- Openness to influence, flexibility
- Personal resources
- Knowledge of job, business
- Energy, drive, ambition
- Effective use of self
- Time management
- Coping with pressure
- Self-management, self-insight, self-development
The instrument consists of a total of nine questionnaires which are to be completed and returned to the Center for confidential scoring. The Center returns the results to the feedback facilitator, who provides the data to the participant. A Development Planning Guide helps the manager summarize the results and set development goals and objectives.
The Center also has a 360 by Design us new tool for human resources professionals, that allows you to build a customized, Internet-based assessment tool from any of the Center’s 70 research-grounded scales. With it
3. Clark-Wilson Group instrument
The Clark-Wilson Group instrument offers a 360 degree survey process that compares a manager's self-assessment of his or her leadership practices with a supervisor assessment and anonymous feedback from direct reports and peers.
Each manager receives a confidential, computer-generated feedback report which describes his or her strengths and opportunities for improvement. The report also provides helpful ratings comparisons against database norms and "what to do" suggestions.http://www.lblconsulting.com/leader_clark.html
Listed below for each survey are the behavior areas that are assessed. In addition, each survey assesses the individual's employee recognition practices and the impact his/her management style has on the organization (e.g., tension level, organization climate, commitment, cooperation).
For senior managers:
- Executive Leadership Practices
- Future, market, risk orientation
- Willingness to listen
- Organizational savvy
- Developing managers
- For middle level managers
- Leadership Practices
- Vision, imagination, risk-taking
- Organizational sensitivity
- Personal influence, persuasiveness
- Teaming
- Standards of performance
- Perseverance
For middle and first level managers:
- Management Practices
- Clarity of goals
- Employee involvement
- Work planning
- Functional and organizational expertise
- Approachability
For project leaders:
- Project/Matrix Management Practices
- Clarity of goals
- Coordination of joint planning
- Openness of communications
- Development of collegiality
- Managing diversity
- Delegation
- Building trust
- Conflict management
This tool is being implemented by educational organizations in many ways and in many
departments
One example:
"Like many administrative offices at Shippensburg University, the office had no official mission statement prior to this first review and the only goals available were loosely associated with budgeting and the director's personal evaluation. Much of the energy spent on this review focused on the generation of vision, mission, value, and goal statements. This was considered a significant accomplishment for the first review. The entire office was involved in the process and we're rather proud of what we developed. Importantly, however, we also conducted assessment.
"This review was conducted over a period of six months. Planning for the process began in the fall and by the spring semester we were fully into assessment. The office was rather critical in choosing a model for assessment and spent significant time planning. The 360-degree feedback performance model was used in an effort to substantiate changes and improvements made over the last five years. This model stresses improvement and proactive endeavors and gathers performance data from multiple sources creating a multidimensional assessment. We weren't sure how much assessment of outcomes could be achieved in this first review. In fact, we weren't too concerned with that. We wanted to provide a firm foundation for this and future reviews. In time, we're sure that the office will become more sophisticated in self-assessment."
1. Here's a brief organizational effectivness survey: http://www.lblconsulting.com/quiz_org_effect.html
2. Staff Development Professional Services at UC Davis has a whole curriculum of systems-oriented professional development courses: http://sdps.ucdavis.edu/browse/oe.htm
3. Book: Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback, Walter W. Tornow, (1998, Stock No. 295, $42.95, plus tax, shipping and handling)
|
|