DETAILED OUTLINE OF PE POLICY PROPOSAL
ASSESSMENT OF THE NEED FOR AN OBJECTIVE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MANAGEMENT POLICY
1.0) INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED NEW WRITTEN COUNTY
LIBRARY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MANAGEMENT POLICY
1.0.1) The General Purpose of the Proposed Written Objective
County Library Department's Performance Evaluation Management Policy.
The primary general purpose of the proposed new "objective" written Performance Evaluation Management Policy of the County Library Department is to enhance the
effectiveness and the efficiency of professional library employees and their paraprofessional clerical
support staff, and, especially, to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of library
administrators and supervisors!
This proposal is based firmly on the following five assumptions:
 ASSUMPTION ONE: The official Organization Chart of the County Library Department is bogus. The theoretical reporting scheme was not followed when I challenged the library
bureaucracy to change the performance evaluation management policy during the 1990s. The fact that the
Human Resources Development (HRD) unit is "under" David Flint and not directly under the Public Services Assistant or the County Librarian, as in the official grievance procedure, makes for confusing accountability at best and no accountability at worst!
The Civil Service Code is supposed to protect professional librarians and paraprofessionals from the abuse of discretionary administrative authority by top County Library administrators and ensure their consistent commitment to the empowerment of lower-income level full-time professional librarians and the paraprofessional office staff, which make up the great majority of full-time Library Department employees.
 ASSUMPTION TWO: The current five County Civil Service "Class Specifications" for designating full-time professional librarian positions, and the four library assistant positions, in the County Library Department are irrelevant and, therefore, unmanageable. There are no legitimate "job descriptions" to indicate whether or not the librarians and library assistants in those seven classes actually do the kind of work that merits the extra higher pay for the so-called "higher" classifications!
 ASSUMPTION THREE: The judgment of both full-time
supervisors and subordinate professional and paraprofessional employees must be documented
appropriately and thoroughly according to the legal requirements contained in the County
Civil Service Rules, and the County Performance Evaluation Rater's Handbook, and the official training manuals first used in March 1998. The emphasis must be constructive in the sense of being focused on the positive psychological and professional ability to "add value" to his or her work of providing excellent customer information services to the public.
 ASSUMPTION FOUR: The past official policy of not holding library supervisors and administrators ACCOUNTABLE for doing "timely and complete" annual performance evaluations, or for NOT doing them at all for many subordinates, is fraudulently corrupt, since it murders motivation, kills communication, destroys dignity, rapes respect, and complicates creative dialogue between supervisors and their full-time subordinate professional librarians and clerical support staff!
 ASSUMPTION FIVE: The synergistic result of properly disciplining "incompetent" top County Library Administrators, who have repeatedly violated the Civil Service Code, will create substantial measurable improvement in the quality of the customer information services provided by the County Library Department to the citizens of the County!
1.0.2) The FOUR specific purposes of the County Library Department's "annual" performance evaluation rating process are:
 Information Purpose
 Motivation Purpose
 Career Development Purpose
 Legal Purpose
1.1) NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION RULES, THE COUNTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
RATER'S HANDBOOK AND THE NEW TRAINING MANUALS
1.1.1) Need to enforce policy guidelines in the County
Civil Service Commission Code.
1.1.2) Need to implement the written County policy as described in the
Performance Evaluation Rater's Handbook and library training manuals
that were first used in 1998.
1.1.3) Need for specific practical definitions related to the issues raised by this proposed new Performance Evaluation Management Policy.
1.2) NEED FOR THE PROPOSED NEW "FACILITATOR/COACH" LEADERSHIP MODEL OF EVALUATING FULL-TIME PROFESSIONAL LIBRARIANS AND LIBRARY ASSISTANTS
The evolution and implementation of the new proposed "Facilitator/Coach" or "human resources" based library leadership policy!
1.2.2) Need for the new "Facilitator/Coach" model of library leadership.
1.2.3) Bureaucratic lack of strategic planning vs. Human Resources
based Strategic Career Development Planning Process.
1.2.4) Significance of having discernible "reasonable" and "objective"
Work Performance Standards, Performance Rating Standards, and Rating Values.
1.3) NEED FOR THE PROPOSED NEW WRITTEN LIBRARY
STRATEGIC CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS
1.3.1) Objectives of the proposed new Strategic
Career Development Planning Process
1.3.2) How better understanding of leadership skills,
especially the "GMP" or Greatest Management Principle can lead to
MORE "outstanding" work performance!
1.3.3) Responsibility of library administrators and supervisors to initiate and facilitate the new Strategic Career Development Planning Process:
 Determining Strategic Career Development
Planning Goals by using the two proposed new
Strategic Career Development Planning forms
 Preparing assessment plans
 Providing information
 Providing referrals
 Providing strategic career guidance
and career development opportunities
CREATING THE NEW WRITTEN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
RATING PROCESS IN THE CONTEXT OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT
2.0) CREATING THE PROPOSED NEW WRITTEN
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING PROCESS
2.0.1) Creating the proposed new written library strategic career development planning process
2.0.2) Writing "duty statements" for librarians by doing "Position Analysis"
2.0.3) Relating "duty Statements" of librarians to the mission
objectives of the County Library Department.
2.1) STRATEGY FOR CREATING THE NEW "WORK STANDARDS"
BY DEVELOPING THEM THROUGH COLLABORATIVE INTERACTION
2.1.1) Strategy for creating new written "reachable" Work Standards
by creating participatory and collaborative interaction
2.1.2) Writing the proposed new objective "fixed" Work Standards
by using the proposed new Performance Management Plan Worksheet Form
2.1.3) Steps for reviewing the proposed new discernible written "objective"
2.2) CREATING THE PROPOSED NEW OBJECTIVE AND REACHABLE PERFORMANCE RATING STANDARDS AND VALUES
2.2.1 Creating the new reasonable written objective Rating Standards collaboratively
2.2.2 Creating new Rating Standards which reflect the reality of "self-managed"
and "cross-functional" work teams
2.2.3 Using the new Career Development Plan Worksheet Form collaboratively
2.2.4 Doing the new specific steps of the "annual" performance evaluation writing
2.2.5 Relating the new "rating standards" to the new "Work Standards"
2.2.6 Relating the new "rating standards" to the new "Rating Values"
2.3) CREATING THE PROPOSED NEW OBJECTIVE WRITTEN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROMOTIONAL RATING PROCEDURES
2.3.1) Introducing the new objective written Performance Evaluation Rating Policy and Procedures
All library administrators and supervisors should be responsible and accountable for implementing
the following new policy regarding the implementation and enforcement of the
Performance Evaluation Management Policy and Appraisal of Promotability rating procedures. Note: A copy of the old "official" policy is accessible at the link following the "proposed" new policy for easy comparison:
2.3.2) Preparing for the implementation and enforcement of the new more practical and simpler objective rating policy.
Go to: Proposed New Annual Performance Evaluation Policy Statement
Go to: Official Revised Performance Evaluation Policy Statement
2.3.3) Properly doing the writing process of the new "annual" performance evaluation rating process.
2.3.4) Properly implementing and enforcing the essential changes to the old rating forms
related to the new "annual" performance evaluation management policy.
SECTION 1 --- POSITION WORK FUNCTION REVIEW
Collaboratively reviewing the basic work functions of each position by using the "Duty Statement" goals and library mission statement objectives.
SECTION 2 --- ANNUAL WORK PERFORMANCE REVIEW
Performance review by comparing goals and objectives with assigned and
SECTION 3 --- SUPERVISOR'S PRELIMINARY REVIEW
OF LIBRARIAN'S PERFORMANCE
Performance review by supervisor of detailed accomplishments of library employee
based primarily on the written documentation and attachments filed in the mandatory
librarian's log or journal kept throughout the year by the supervisor.
SECTION 4 --- OVERALL RATING SCORE OF PERFORMANCE
Overall rating value of annual performance evaluation is determined by the
supervisor --- after verbal collaboration and written statements are completed
by both the supervisor and the librarian.
SECTION 5: NARRATIVE COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE SPECIFIC RATING VALUES AND THE
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING SCORE
Narrative comments supporting the overall Rating Values are determined by the
supervisor and shared with library employee before being
approved by the regional administrative reviewer.
SECTION 6 --- FUTURE PLANS AND GOALS ARE CLARIFIED DURING THE STRATEGIC
CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Future plans and goals of subordinate librarians are clarified
during the Strategic Career Development Process by the careful planning of supervisors for collaborative discussions to guide changes in career expectations and accomplishments.
SECTION 7 --- LIBRARIAN'S "UPWARD EVALUATION"
The librarian's official "Upward Evaluation" of his or her supervisor's conduct during the evaluation year provides feedback to the supervisor, regional administrators and the County Library Department's personnel or HRD office staff for the purpose of reviewing the quality of the supervisor's performance.
2.3.5) Writing the new "annual" formal Performance Evaluation rating process narrative
Specifically, this process can help determine the "degree of compliance" with the proposed new annual performance evaluation rating policy and procedures including the strategic career development requirements of the supervisor and the regional reviewers.
2.3.6) Conducting the new "annual" formal Performance Evaluation rating meeting
2.3.7) Using the five new "annual" formal Performance Evaluation rating forms
2.3.8) Retaining the new "annual" formal Performance Evaluation rating forms
APPENDICES --- THE FIVE
NEW COUNTY LIBRARY PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION MANAGEMENT POLICY FORMS
3.0) INTRODUCTION TO APPENDICES: THE FIVE PROPOSED
NEW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MANAGEMENT FORMS
3.1 APPENDIX A: THE PROPOSED NEW RECONCILIATION OF
LIBRARIAN DUTY STATEMENT GOALS AND LIBRARY MISSION OBJECTIVES FORM
3.2) APPENDIX B: THE PROPOSED NEW STRATEGIC
CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WORKSHEET FORM
3.3) APPENDIX C: THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
LIBRARIAN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING FORM
3.4) APPENDIX D: THE PROPOSED NEW
LIBRARIAN'S SELF-EVALUATION INVENTORY FORM
3.5) APPENDIX E: THE PROPOSED NEW LIBRARIAN'S
UPWARD EVALUATION OF SUPERVISOR RATING FORM
Go to: Home Page Index
Go to: Leadership Control Essay
Go to: Interactive Index