Basic Skills/ Fast Company/ Journal Project Will R. Yliniemi - November 18, 1998

HOW CON-WAY REVIEWS TEAMS FAST COMPANY SEPTEMBER 1998 ISSUE 17

This Fast Company article intrigued me, because I have always questioned the process involved in evaluating performance of team programming efforts in the University of Extension Service. It is my contention that the Extension Service continually insists that diverse teams address educational issues, and yet does not provide adequate basis for feedback and evaluation.

In my opinion, the present U of MN evaluation process of Extension Educators (individual & team) is not proactive in its design as it is accomplished by paper reports. The system is very reluctant to involve team, individual and administrative pre, ongoing and post feedback and evaluation.

The Extension Service is faced with a significant obstacle in ongoing feedback evaluation, because employees are not in one location and must answer to so many different constituencies. I would like to suggest to the Extension Service that the process of evaluation and feedback should be researched and reviewed to look at alternatives as well as how to be more inclusive and comprehensive in involving employees and team members.

The Fast Company article refers to making the evaluation processes a positive personal experience, and how excellence in performance might be defined. The article discusses how teams become jointly accountability for their work and how team members quickly identify shortcomings. The system instituted by Con-Way is identified as Team Improvement Review (TIR), and utilizes Team Agreements to define performance, accountability and goals. The TIR system has a formal process by which team members offer feed back, and focus on performance rather than personality. The team engages a system, which will coach members toward positive performance and accountability to each other and their customers.

I have had multiple discussions with my colleagues about how the present evaluation system does not meet the needs of Extension Educators. Many feel as I do, that the present system needs to be more personalized to track performance and accountability. Evaluations and performance, as presently accomplished by the Extension Service, represents a tidal wave of words exchanged by participants which are judged in a non-personal distant manner. I would suggest that new methods and ideas be incorporated into the evaluation process for Extension Educators for the University of Minnesota Extension Service.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1998

Answers

I enjoyed reading your comments and summary. Have you discussed this article with any of your peers? I was interested in your view of the evaluation process the is used by the extension. Most individuals in organizations find that the performance evaluation process is lacking. Often, those who administer the evaluations are simply doing it because it is a requirement. It is not the effective tool that it is meant to be. The team environmment can be even more challenging as there is a tendency for no one to accept the responsibility. The TIR suggested in this article certainly seems to have some merit.What kind of suggestions would you make for the Extension Educators evaluation process? Is there someone that will listen to your suggestions?

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999