A City Manager had just completed his first year of service, which had been filled with some tumultuous political conflicts and financial decisions that had divided the community. The Manager was concerned that when it came time for his performance evaluation, the “kill the messenger syndrome” would undermine an objective view of his performance. Having experienced some very poor evaluation processes in the past, the Manager felt justified in his skepticism.
After investigating the approach Latshaw & Associates uses in carrying out its Facilitated Performance Evaluation service, the Manager briefed the Mayor and Council who agreed to discuss the matter in a workshop session. After receiving a presentation and discussing the matter at length, the Manager was surprised to learn that not only was his Council interested in having Latshaw & Associates conduct its standard Facilitated Performance Evaluation, but they also were interested in receiving 360 Feedback on the Manager’s performance from his direct reports and peers. After more discussion, it was agreed that it would be advisable to conduct the standard performance evaluation in year 1 with a follow-up evaluation in year 2 that would include a 360 feedback module.
The year 1 appraisal revealed a dichotomy of perspectives on the Manager’s performance. On one hand, the Council truly admired and appreciated the Manager’s tireless efforts, accomplishments and willingness to take on some very difficult issues during his first year of service to the community. From a technical/managerial standpoint the Manager received high marks. However, as pertained to the interpersonal/behavioral side of the Manager’s performance, the Council had many questions that they wanted answered and specific growth areas for the Manager to pursue. They were simply getting too many signals from the staff that all was not as it should be in terms of relationships, but at the same time were aware that tough decisions often lead to disenchantment.
The year 1 evaluation provided the Manager with the kind of detailed feedback he was looking for. It identified his strengths and gave ample recognition for all he had accomplished. It described what the Council and the community were looking for in their Manager and told him how well he had met those expectations. The year 1 evaluation also provided detailed recommendations and a list of goals for the Manager to focus upon in the coming year.
As a result of this appraisal the Council also came to realize that they had failed to provide both the Manager and staff with the kind of direction that would contriburte to their coming together as a team. They immediately pledged themselves to developing a set of strategic organizational objectives for the coming fiscal year so that the manager and staff could formulate a sound and realistic budget to carry out these their desired initiatives.
Latshaw & Associates was then engaged by the City to conduct both a Council Goal-Setting and Senior Staff Team Building and Goal Implementation/Planning Retreat. The results of both retreats were formally adopted by a Resolution of the Council after the public was provided the opportunity for comment. Additionally, the Manager and staff received a much clearer understanding of what was expected of them and the standards upon which their future performance would be based.
In Year 2, the new Council concurred with the previous Council’s decision to have Latshaw & Associates carry out both a standard Facilitated Performance Evaluation and a 360 Feedback Evaluation on the Manager’s performance. The results of these evaluations showed that the Manager had indeed demonstrated a high level of responsiveness to the previous Council’s input on his technical/managerial performance. At the same time both the Council and Manager came to learn in greater detail the source of the direct reports’ and peers’ level of dissatisfaction and frustration, which was centered on the Manager’s control oriented management style. Moreover, the 360 Feedback provided a wealth of information about how others perceived the Manager’s performance and the means by which he could further enhance both his and the organization’s performance.
This and other feedback concerned both the Manager and Council, who felt that Executive Coaching might be a good vehicle for the Manager to gain greater self-awareness of his behaviors and how they were impacting others and his environment.
As a result of the Manager’s openness and willingness to confront some of the sensitive topics that were revealed through various behavioral and communication assessments as well as his performance evaluations, he was able take steps toward adapting his approach to others and find better ways to motivate and lead.
