Making the Grade
It's that time of year again at our hospital. Performance appraisals are due. For some, it's looked at as an opportunity for constructive feedback that will allow them to improve their performance. For others, it's merely a right of passage in order to maintain employment.
It's never been difficult for me to evaluate the performance of the front-line staff. There are really only two parameters in which their performance is evaluated: 1) clinical knowledge and performance and 2) professionalism, attitude, and personal conduct. While there are "gray" areas in evaluating both, for the most part, simply highlighting specific instances in which you were witness to certain behaviors is satisfactory evidence to support your evaluation.
On the other hand, I've always found the process of evaluating supervisory or management staff far more difficult. It's my belief that these personnel are required as a stipulation of their employment to perform at a high level. Unlike the front-line caregiver who can perform at an average or above-average level, the same cannot be said for department leadership. Unfortunately, this is wherein the multi-faceted problem lies.
If your department is anything like mine, you are limited in the amount of money you can distribute to your staff in the form of salary adjustments. In my case, I am allotted a 3% overall department increase. How that money is distributed is at my discretion... some employees may receive a 5% increase, while others may receive a 1.5% increase. As long as I stay within my allotted dollar amount, I can distribute it as I please. If you are fortunate enough to be surrounded by a high-performing leadership team, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify salary increases. While the personal gratification of an "exceptional" performance rating is acceptable for some, others feel that they should be financially rewarded for their efforts and will become disengaged if they are not.
On the other hand, the process of simply evaluating the performance of leadership staff can be like splitting hairs. If they are high performing employees, identifying what the difference is between a "fully meets expectations" employee and an "exceptional" employee becomes a very daunting task. For these reasons, I've made the conscious decision that, in moving forward, I will evaluate leadership staff not on a subjective assessment of their performance, but rather based on their ability to meet quantitative goals that are aligned with the strategic mission, vision, and values of the organization.
The process of evaluating one's performance may be easy for some. For others, the difficulties lie in the delivery of the appraisal. Regardless, the same efforts, energy, and analysis that takes place in evaluating your front-line caregivers must also be taken with your leadership staff. In many regards, their performance, attitude and professionalism should be scrutinized more so than anyone else. How that is determined is not for me to say, but rather for others to figure out on their own.