Jim: Based on what's been presented here, I think that's a good idea. Thanks. Union (FRNA) Joe At 07:20 PM 9/27/06, you wrote: >Colleagues, > >As everyone knows, I am sure, I am on the ICMA Credentialing Advisory >Board, and we had this as a discussion topic at the Conference in >San Antonio a couple of weeks ago. Based on that discussion and the >difficulties / dangers / misuse of the evaluation we are going to discuss >it in depth next week when the Board convenes in Washington, DC for its >annual meeting. I think that the results may very well be a >recommendation to the Executive Board that the 360 "Assessment Tool" be >abandoned or drasticallly modified. As has been mentioned, this is a very >nasty tool that someone can use for rather nefarious purposes all too >easily. > >I hope this helps and will keep everyone advised what transpires. > >Jim Hough >Woodland, WA > >- > > > As usual, Dave is right on. Based on the interest in this issue, we may > > want to consider it as a future conference topic, "The ups, downs and all > > arounds with 360 degree evaluations." > > > > Steve Bryant > > ICMA Senior Advisor > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: David Childs [mailto:dchilds@ICMA.org] > > Sent: Tue 9/26/2006 2:28 PM > > To: Oregon City/County Management Association > > Subject: RE: [occma] 360 evaluation > > > > > > > > One clarification on Steve's response regarding 360 degree assessments. > > ICMA recommends that a 360 tool be used to assess a manager's strengths > > and developmental needs and to use the information from this assessment > > for personal and professional development purposes. There are a number of > > significant downsides to using the 360 as a performance evaluation tool by > > a governing body for a City or County administrator's annual > > evaluation....especially in an environment where there isn't a lot of > > trust between the manager, staff and elected officials. > > > > > > > > I'm happy to discuss the pros and con's if you want to give me a > > call...but be VERY careful when using 360 as a performance evaluation tool > > > > > > > > Dave Childs, ICMA-CM > > > > ICMA Senior Advisor to NV and UT > > > > P.O. Box 752 > > > > South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156 > > > > 775.303.5063 > > > > dchilds@icma.org > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Steve Bryant [mailto:sbryant@ICMA.org] > > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:53 AM > > To: Oregon City/County Management Association > > Subject: RE: [occma] 360 evaluation > > > > > > > > My take on this issue is that 360 degree evaluations are here to stay. In > > fact, ICMA has endorsed the practice by making it a requirement for all > > credentialed managers at least once every five years. Their recommended > > on-line assessment instrument can be purchased for $245 at > > http://icma.org/360 for ICMA members. Although the ICMA process is > > intended as a professional development tool, rather than a city council > > evaluation tool, I think it could probably be useful in both situations. > > The process works like this: you choose anywhere from 4 to 20 evaluators > > (including staff, peers, elected officials, etc.) and provide e-mail > > addresses for each. The ICMA service provider then sends an e-mail > > questionaire to each person which takes about 30 minutes to complete. The > > service then provides the confidential results to you, the ICMA member > > which you could share with your elected officials if you choose. Of > > course, there are many alternative models available. I used a facilitator > > in Albany to conduct one for me using my department heads as the > > evaluators. They shared confidential information to the facilitator using > > her form which was compiled and then presented to both me and the city > > council. The city council also completed their own versions of a survey > > and the results of both surveys were discussed with me in executive > > session. I found it to be a very positive experience, but I recommend > > limiting the surveys to top management personnel, council members, and > > perhaps other community leaders. Good luck. > > > > Steve > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Steven Weaver [mailto:sweaver@ci.carlton.or.us] > > Sent: Mon 9/25/2006 9:48 AM > > To: Oregon City/County Management Association > > Subject: [occma] 360 evaluation > > > > Dear fellow city managers: > > > > I am approaching my evaluation in October and the Mayor has decided to use > > the 360 degree evaluation using surveymonkey.com. Apparently she enters > > all > > the email addresses of the employees, council and planning commission and > > they send out a questionnaire and they return it back to the Mayor with > > the > > responses without giving names. I remember a discussion on the listserve > > a > > while back about this topic but I wanted to respond to the Mayor in > > writing > > as to why a 360 evaluation is a bad idea. Any input would be greatly > > appreciated? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Steven M. Weaver > > City Manager > > City of Carlton > > P.O. Box 458 > > Carlton, OR 97111 > > > > Phone: (503) 852-7575 > > Fax: (503) 852-7761 > > sweaver@ci.carlton.or.us > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to occma as: sbryant@icma.org. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-occma-537U@list.orcities.org > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to occma as: sbryant@icma.org. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-occma-537U@list.orcities.org > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to occma as: jimhough@minetfiber.com. > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-occma-537U@list.orcities.org > > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to occma as: admin@cityofunion.com. >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-occma-537U@list.orcities.org