S = specific
OUTLINE OF COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RATING RULES AND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING REQUIREMENTS
1) NEED TO ENFORCE THE COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE RULES
AND REGULATIONS REGARDING RATING REQUIREMENTS
In order to comply with the Civil Service Commission Rules concerning "annual" Performance Evaluations, this proposed new County library Performance Evaluation Management Policy, including new rating procedures, provides written "guidelines" for the required "annual" Performance Evaluation rating procedure of the County library department. Supervisors who are "raters" are given specific detailed instructions about "HOW" they must implement the requirements of this proposal. The new guidelines direct supervisors to assess, summarize, and develop the work performance of librarians in direct and intimate collaboration with them throughout the "annual" rating period.
2) NEED TO ENFORCE AND IMPLEMENT THE COUNTY DHR RATING REQUIREMENTS AND LIBRARY DEPARTMENT HUMAN RESOURCES RATING POLICY AND PROCEDURES
As an introduction, it is important to understand that the current County Civil Service Commission Rules require that formal annual Performance Evaluations be completed in a "timely" way for ALL library employees. Also, they impose specific legal requirements on all library administrators and supervisor. In fact, the following requirement is stated clearly in the Performance Evaluation Rater's Handbook:
Further, the Rater's Handbook, stipulates the absolute and precise requirement that a discernible "standard" or "criterion" of efficiency" must be in place in each County Department:
- "Ratings of efficiency of performance shall be made for permanent employees
- at least once each year and for probationers by the end of the probationary period.
- A revised rating may be submitted by the appointing power at any time."
- (CSC Rule 20.02)
Furthermore: it is clear from the language in the Civil Service Code that objective, discernible "standards" are essential as a basis of comparison for measurement purposes:
- "The performance of each employee in the classified service shall be
- evaluated by the appointing power in relation to standards for
- efficient performance of work."
- (CSC Rule 20.01, is cited on page 3 of the Rater's Handbook)
It is essential to realize that "factual" information, which represents a "pattern" of work behavior, and which has been properly documented, must be used to support a supervisor's rating decision. And that rating decision must be based upon properly documented "commentary" concerning each separate Rating Factor. The commentary must support the final overall rating score, which represents the overall quality of the annual work performance of full-time professional librarians and paraprofessionals:
- "The word 'standards' refers to something established for use as a
- rule or basis of comparison in measuring or judging capacity, quantity,
- content, extent, value, quality, etc.. It is a level of excellence, attainment,
- etc.., regarded as a measure of adequacy."
- (CSC Rule 20.01)
Thus, an "Efficiency Standard," which I call a "Work Standard," is absolutely mandatory to "measure" the adequacy or attainment of a librarian's work product and overall work performance. The phrase "Work Standard" refers to the "criteria" used to establish a basis of comparison in the rating of the "efficiency" of the performance or work of librarians and, also, of their supervisors! The "Work Standard" (or criteria) defines a level of "expected" competence (or the capacity, quantity, content, extent, value, or quality) of the work performance of full-time professional librarians. The lack of "competence" is, of course, "incompetence, which always means "Unsatisfactory" or "Improvement Needed!"
- "The judgment of a supervisor should be based on 'fact' rather than
- representing a "pattern" of unsupported opinions. Therefore, each [library]
- supervisor needs to be able to identify and keep track of observed
- incidents of employee performance that clearly [indicate] whether an
- employee is performing above, on target or below the performance
- standards
previously described and agreed upon."
- (Rater's Handbook, page 12)
But without any discernible uniform objective "Work Standard" (or criteria), nobody can know or can determine what the "quality" of a librarian's work is --- except in an utterly "subjective" way!
Therefore, since there are no discernible uniform objective "Work Standards" for my "Librarian I" professional classification doing "reference" work at the Hawthorne Public Library, it is clear that the official County "policy" described in the County Rater's Handbook and the new DHR training manuals has been grievously violated!
Apparently, the policy of both the Civil Service Commission and the County Department of Human Resources, has been violated by the two West County regional administrators and the two Hawthorne library CLMs who signed apparently faulty or fraudulent official documents.
There is a great need to implement the long standing official written County personnel policy regarding Performance Evaluation rating requirements as described in the County's Performance Evaluation Rater's Handbook. My major point that my West County Regional and top County library administrators and supervisors do not implement the required Performance Evaluation rating procedures.
3) WHY SHOULD SUPERVISORS FOLLOW THE CSC RULES AND DHR REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE THE LEGAL GUIDELINES?
Also, there is a tremendous need to modernize or update the old defective County policy regarding performance evaluation rating procedures which have existed since the early 1970s without a single change in the official language in the Rater's Handbook.
The best explanation of WHAT actually is the official County policy regarding "Work Standards" is contained in the following requirements (or "guidelines") which are stated clearly in the Rater's Handbook:
In addition, the following list of purposes of such an official "policy" is clearly stated:
- "The formulation of a department wide performance evaluation policy is
- fundamental to the installation of effective [County Library Department] performance evaluation
- work and rating standards." (page 4)
- "To inform all staff of the need for and purpose of annual performance evaluations."
- "To provide guidelines for uniform evaluation practices."
- "To define performance evaluation responsibilities of managers and supervisors in the organization." (page 4)
Moreover, the following "Work Standards" or guidelines from the Rater's Handbook (pages 2-14), explain WHY it is so important that library supervisors keep track of employee work performance according to these guidelines. The reason is "patterns" based upon "facts" and not "isolated incidents" are supposed to be recorded accurately and in a balanced way by library supervisors throughout the entire year. The key ideas are listed properly and logically as follows:
4) ANALYSIS OF THE NEW COUNTY DHR RATING GUIDELINES AND LIBRARY POLICY FOR CONDUCTING ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
[1] "WHY SUPERVISORS NEED TO KEEP
TRACK OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE INCIDENTS:"
Thus, the basic purpose of the County performance evaluation rating procedures in the library department is supposed to be "positive" for both the employee and the supervisor. (page 5) But how can the performance evaluation process be positive, when "isolated incidents" of alleged questionable work behavior are often described "as if" they were "patterns" or "trends" --- without the required proper legal and professional documentation to back up alleged negative accusations which are frequently used to "downgrade" a professional library employee?
- "The judgment of the supervisor has a key role in evaluating employee performance since it is difficult to quantify how well an employee is doing in all job related responsibilities or to establish an information system to systematically track performance levels." (Rater's Handbook, page 12)
- "However, the judgment of a supervisor should be based on fact rather than unsupported opinions. Therefore, each supervisor needs to be able to identify and keep track of observed incidents of employee performance that clearly illustrate whether an employee is performing above, on target or below the performance standards previously described and agreed upon." (Rater's Handbook, page 13)
- "When preparing an evaluation, supervisors should remember to highlight performance that is very good or outstanding as well as work that needs improvement. If supervisors do not formally keep track of incidents when they occur:"
- "They will probably base their evaluation of employees on those incidents which they remember best, usually things that have happened over the few weeks just prior to the end of the evaluation period."
- "The evaluation will not provide an objective and complete portrait of the employee's performance over the entire appraisal period."
- "It may be difficult for the supervisor to convince the employee of improvement needed unless the specific problem incidents can be cited."
- "It may be difficult for supervisors to determine if 'incidents' --- either positive or negative --- were single occurrences or represented trends in employee performance." (pages 13-14).
In West County Region, where I have been employed for 28 years, I believe mediocre ratings are routinely given to describe what is actually "Outstanding" library work performance under very difficult working conditions.
After I have endured numerous frustrating grievance processes in an attempt to get my "annual" Performance Evaluation ratings increased from "Competent" to "Outstanding" or at least "Very Good," it is clear to me that none of the seven requirements for good administrative management were implemented in my case.
I am exposing the fact that there was no attempt to control the discriminatory subjectivity, prejudice, and gender bias, which is inherent in any work performance rating process that is not criterion-based. Such an essential "criterion-based" rating process must have discernible written uniform objective "criteria." It would include both discernible "Work Standards" for describing what library supervisors and administrators "expect" regarding "MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE" performance and "REACHABLE MAXIMUM" performance, and a practical commonsense way of describing the actual "Rating Standards" with which librarians and library assistants "SHOULD" be rated!
It is important to realize that none of the essential grievance procedure principles or requirements stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding for good management were used in my case by library administrators to regulate or control the personal subjectivity, prejudices and gender biases of my two building supervisors and my two regional administrators.
The official County guidelines require that "incidents" of work performance must be described in the following way for the purpose of determining if there is a pattern of either good or bad work performance:
[2] "HOW INCIDENTS WILL BE RECORDED BY
SUPERVISORS DURING THE EVALUATION PERIOD:"
In addition to the implementation of the official Civil Service Commission Rules (or "requirements"), this proposal to change the current obsolete policy recommends that a new genuine "Human Resources" oriented "Facilitator/Coach" model of Performance Evaluation Management Policy and rating procedures be established, since it provides for the legitimate empowerment of all librarians, at all classification levels, to "rate" the performance of their supervisors regarding their supervisorial abilities "annually!" This would be done simultaneously as the professional full-time "lower-income" level librarians are being rated!
- "To ensure that supervisors have access to information describing key features of employee performance over the course of the evaluation period, each supervisor should establish and maintain a consistent method of documentation such as a "Date Actuated Notebook" or an "Employee Performance Log" for each employee."
- "Before positive and negative incidents are recorded in the log or notebook, all incidents should meet at least one of the following criteria:"
- Have direct impact on the meeting of job responsibilities and quality and quantity of work.
- Produce a work performance situation that would normally require immediate discussion between a supervisor and an employee.
- The following elements are necessary for effective documentation:
- Record incidents as they occur...
- Record the date and describe the incident...
- The date is important to establish a time frame, not only for repeated incidents under one performance measure, but to establish a relationship for all the incidents.
- A few key words or a phrase to describe the incident is important so the supervisor will know what the incident was about...
- The number of incidents will vary from one employee to another...
- "Counsel employees as incidents occur. In addition to noting specific examples of good or poor performance in the performance log or date actuated notebook, supervisors should point out incidents to employees as they occur:"
- "Good" favorable incidents should be recognized and the employee complimented.
- "Poor" unfavorable incidents should be pointed out and corrective action described by the supervisor.
- It is advisable for each supervisor to periodically review the statement of job responsibilities and performance objectives for each employee so that he or she actively looks for positive and negative incidents in all relevant areas of responsibility.
This aspect of the evolving modern concept of Performance Evaluation Management Policy is called "Upward Evaluation of Supervisors" and it is a crucial final "positive step" needed to make the whole rating process legitimate! I think this step is essential if the current entrenched "bureaucratic" rating process will ever be improved. Many professional books and journal articles related to library human resources development recommend this action.
I think this proposal to improve the County Library department's rating process along the lines of a new "Facilitator/Coach" model of Performance Evaluation Management Policy and rating procedures will benefit all Library department employees, since it complies with the legal requirements for doing "annual" Performance Evaluations as described earlier. Moreover, I think this proposal should be implemented by top and regional library administrators and building supervisors in all five regions of our library system as soon as possible.
I think the principles elaborated in the new County DHR training materials, in conjunction with the previously stated principles from the Rater's Handbook, provide a good basis for developing a modern legally and professionally "legitimate" Performance Evaluation Management Policy and rating procedures.
The policy statement in the new Workshop manual was prepared by the DHR trainers (analysts) from the County Department of Human Resources with almost no input from the library department's administrative staff or the library personnel office (HRD) . Even though some major ideas are not complete, the duties and responsibilities of building supervisors and regional reviewers for implementing a "fair and impartial" Performance Evaluation rating process are clear!
Chapter eight is devoted to "Performance Management" (see pages 73-82). One of the few improvements to the Rater's Handbook is the use of an example of a "librarian" position --- for the first time in 30 years! --- but fails to indicate WHAT the "efficiency" rating standards (or "Work Standards" and "Rating Standards") actually are for the five income levels of librarians.
Also, there was a dysfunctional, unprofessional, backward bureaucratic change implied in the new DHR training materials since the previous official requirements in the Rater's Handbook, which require preliminary communication and genuine collaboration between the building supervisors and their subordinate employees who are being rated prior to the regional review procedure, are not emphasized in the new manuals.
But now, since the great "Reclassification" in 1989, when the old "bureaucratic" customs became entrenched and regional administrators were "empowered" to be ABSOLUTE DICTATORS regarding the implementation of "annual" Performance Evaluation ratings, this change is significant since it defeats the major goals of the annual rating process, which are to ensure ACCURACY and COMPLETENESS! These major goals are absolutely essential requirements because they are the only basis for "OBJECTIVITY" and "FAIRNESS"!
The old requirements for "pre-consultation" are so significant in the present context --- as are all of the other official communication functions up and down the bureaucratic "chain-of-command" --- because of the lack of discernible uniform objective rating standards in the County library department!
The subject headings in the new Supervision and Performance Evaluation Workshop training manuals include the following requirements:
[1] Controlling (page 74)
a) "Performance management or controlling involves setting standards, measuring performance against those standards, rewarding desired behaviors and taking corrective action when necessary."
[2] The Control Process --- There are four steps in the control process (page 75) :
b) The most common controls are: Time (completion schedules), Quantity (volume of work an employee accomplishes including the number of customers served), Quality (the extent that work product or public services meet "known standards" or "customer expectations;) and Behavioral, which focus on the human element by setting discernible written measurable "reachable" objectives. The measures include percentage of errors, number of complaints and/or number of instances of customer approval or satisfaction with services)
a) Set performance expectations (describe expectations and allowable deviations as specifically as possible)
[3] Guidelines for Preparing Performance Evaluations (pages 76-77)
b) Measure performance (for many activities, supervisors should measure monthly, weekly, daily or even more frequently)
c) Compare performance with expectations (analyze the information gathered and look for gaps between expectations and actual performance)
d) Take Necessary Action (when expectations are met or exceeded, it is <i>essential to reinforce desired behavior by rewarding performance --- recognition methods include verbal praise, letters of commendation, training, and special assignments --- when expectations are not being met, supervisors must identify the problem and help the employee correct the problem --- when conditions change, expectations and measures should change to be adjusted accordingly; service delivery should be monitored continually to make sure that performance expectations are reasonable.
a) "A Performance Evaluation is a formal management report that describes the duties of a library employee and how he or she performs those duties. It is a "documented assessment" of what the employee has accomplished throughout the year."
b) The report should be written in the third person; the coverage of items being rated should be limited to the current rating period.
c) Criterion-based statements must be used and the comments must be related to the actual performance; references to specific incidents that affect ratings should be included; each item and Rating Factor must be rated; ratings must be assigned according to comments.
d) Properly written documentation must exist to support ratings and comments; achievements, recognition, counseling, performance problems and discipline must be appropriately mentioned (proportionally presented to reflect reality and not the subjectivity of the rater and reviewer).
e) Comments must be included which will provide direction for further development of the library employee; all documented items must be weighed against the established "Rating Standards" and correlated with the five Rating Factors to determine the overall rating score to ensure that the properly written documentation supports the overall rating.
NOTE: There is an especially dysfunctional discrepancy in the instructions concerning the timing of the regional "review" step since a preliminary consultation with the library employee and "pencil draft", which were required by the County's "annual" Performance Evaluation rating policy in the Rater's Handbook, were omitted in the new Workshop manual. This omission is serious since it "short-changes" the intent of the entire "annual" Performance Evaluation rating process which is to be ACCURATE, which means both "fair and impartial" and "timely and complete!"
[4] Additional Points to Keep in Mind (page 78):
a) The performance evaluation should be an ongoing process
[5] Performance Evaluation vs. Appraisal of Promotability (page 79):
b) It is a documented assessment
c) Supervisors must have a clear rationale for an assigned rating
d) Supervisors should maintain good communication and dialogue with their employees
e) Supervisors must prepare a "criterion-based" evaluation
f ) The performance evaluation should be motivational and developmental (supervisors should take extra time and interest in the employee's present and future development)
a) The Performance Evaluation ( or "PE") documents performance over the past year (or six months in the case of a probationer or employee on "Improvement Needed")
[6] Counseling (pages 80-81):
b) The Appraisal of Promotability (or "AP") is a part of a promotional examination process that consists of an assessment by a supervisor of a subordinate employee's immediate readiness and ability to perform the duties at a "higher" Civil Service Classification level competently.
a) The purpose of counseling is to inform employees about "performance" or "behavior" issues such as: Accomplishments, Improved Performance, Commendable Conduct, "Performance Expectations," Priorities, Performance Problems, Attendance/Tardiness and Unacceptable Behavior.
[7] Documentation --- Why do we have to document action? (page 82):
b) Important elements of counseling: Counsel in private, prepare for the meeting in advance.
a) Administrative law requires that supervisors prove that they have advised an employee of his or her poor performance and/or unacceptable behavior and the consequences of the failure to correct a specific problem or problems.
[8] Avoiding problems (page 99):
b) It is required to prevent an employee from later claiming that he or she was not made aware of the problem or consequence.
c) It can be informal at first, then more formal as you take progressive action to correct the problem.
d) It is also used to support "Outstanding" performance evaluation ratings, appraisal of promotability scores and promotions.
a) Treat others with courtesy and respect.
b) Treat subordinates impartially and fairly.
c) Insure that actions are taken for legitimate business reasons.
However, there is a distinction between "Effective" vs. "Ineffective" supervision in the Workshop Notes manual. The basis of "Effective" supervision is defined as requiring the following characteristics: (page 1)
1) "Commitment to a shared vision (Mission);"
Ineffective supervision, on the other hand, is characterized by:
2) "High morale;"
3) "Customer satisfaction;"
4) "High quality information services."
1) "Confusion about objectives;"
2) "Political maneuvering;"
3) "Low productivity due to demoralizing leadership."
In contrast, my "PROPOSAL" and grievance action are meant to encourage "Effective" supervision at the Hawthorne library and in West County region and hopefully the whole library system.
Thus, the purpose of my proposal to change the library rating process and grievance action is to help West County regional administrators and supervisors CHANGE their bureaucratic duties as "Dictator/Controllers" into a professional leadership role as "Facilitator/Coaches." This means that they must be "helped" to change their "perspective" and get more support from top County library administrators to create a "Positive Work Environment" (page 2) by doing more "team-building" with all of its positive enhancements to the attitudes of staff and customers alike.
To accomplish this critical goal, I believe that the Hawthorne and West County regional administrators need to apply more "management skills, human relations knowledge, empathy, social sensitivity, and tact," as clearly described in the training manual (pages 3-4).
The characteristics of effective library leaders are described as including "emotional maturity, integrity and combining power sources and influence tactics" (page 5).
The most effective "influence tactics" are described as "rational persuasion, consultation and inspirational appeals" in contrast to the least effective, which are described as "pressure, coalition tactics, appealing to higher level management, and asserting management authority/rights" (page 6).
Therefore, library leaders are directed to implement specific "Work Unit Objectives." The required "legal formula" is clearly described under by the SMART acronym. The necessary actions and functions relevant to the achievement of the library department's Mission Objectives and accurate "annual" Performance Eevaluations are: (page 8)