[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Clarification on performance appraisal process for Council Employees

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Wilson, Ken

There have been some questions on this years process for performance appraisal of the three Council employees - City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge.  As the lead council member on the appraisal committee, which also includes George Karakehian (this is the third year in a row I have done this and George's first) if feel I should explain the change from using a consultant to an internal process of accumulating and tabulating feedback.

I was quite struck last year that we paid a consultant more than the cumulative amount we give in raises to all three employees (on a one year basis).  It was quite allot of money for not much real work.  We had originally hired an outside consultant to help change and improve the evaluation process.  They had helped council and staff develop an evaluation tool some years ago that we have now used, without significant change, for several years.  The primary function of the consultant was done.  I thought the consultant was providing us with salary survey information on comparable and nearby cities, but it turns out staff was doing that all along.  I talked with George and I talked with Jane about doing it internally, with HR accumulating 360 feedback and doing the numbers.  George thought it would be fine.  Jane thought it would be fine but wanted to check with HR to see if they had the time (resources) to do the work, as it requires some number of hours to put packages together and to do the math for averages.  HR said they could do it.  I frankly did not even think to bring this issue to Council for a decision as I didn't see any problem since it is a pretty mechanical process.  I also based this decision on my experience in industry.

I worked at AT&T Bell Labs for 18 years, getting a full retirement package in 1998.  I was in management for 14 of those 18 years, typically managing a group of 8 to 12 direct report professionals, some of whom had their own direct reports.  Each year I sat in management performance appraisal meetings where the larger management team (my boss, their boss and all their direct reports) where we discussed everyone, set performance levels and decided on raises and bonuses.  I then sat across the table from my employees and spent as long as each of them wanted discussing their performance and their raises/bonuses.  Many of the years at Bell Labs we did 360 degree feedback.  This means that for my performance, and for the performance of my direct reports, there would be input from peers, superiors and direct reports.  In all cases, HR collected the 360 degree feedback, put it in packages, did any rating calculations and gave it to the supervisors (me for my direct reports, my boss for my evaluation, etc. up the line.)  It was all done by HR.  That was one of their major functions.  Another major function of HR was to deal with serious management problems.  If an employee had a serious issue with their boss, their first step, if they are uncomfortable going directly to their boss, would be to go to HR.  They could also go to their boss's boss, but that is usually considered more drastic and less comfortable, for many reasons.  I might also point out that I was the Chair of the HR Issues Committee for a VP area (about 2,000 employees) for several years, where we discussed all kinds of process issues, including the appraisal and salary process and sexual harassment issues.

The City of Boulder has been doing 360 feedback at the Director level for a number of years.  The Director typically makes a list of who they think should be on the list for feedback and the rater (City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Exec Dir, etc) decides the final list for feedback.  The feedback itself goes to the rater directly.  HR is not involved as they don't have enough people to do this task.  The people doing the 360 feedback (including direct reports) can either do the form and comments on line, where their identity will be clear, or they can send a letter and do it anomalously.  No consultant is hired and this is not considered a problem.  If someone has a serious problem with a manager, I assume they would go to HR directly to discuss the matter as in the case of industry, listed above.  If HR can not resolve it, then the problem would be escalated.

Up until five years ago, HR was doing the performance appraisal process for the three Council employees.  That changed when there was a desire to create a new evaluation tool.  Now that the tool has been developed, I see no need to spend $20,000 or so to have an outside consultant do what is normally an internal HR function.  Our three employees are professionals.  The HR group are professionals.  The process will be done in the same way that the Directors are done, except that the 360 feedback will go to HR instead of to the Director herself or himself.  The feedback can be done on-line, where HR will know who sent it, or it can be done by sending a letter anonymously.  HR is really just saving Council the time for a council member themselves collecting the 360 feedback and doing the math.  I, for one, don't have 40 extra hours to do that.  This is not work that a consultant needs be hired to do.

One other point that I would like to make from my industry experience.  The performance appraisal and raise process in companies is always vetted by internal attorneys, even though they are also part of the appraisal and raise process.  It is not common practice to hire outside counsel to give an opinion on how that process should work.  If you don't have the confidence in your attorneys to give good advice on how the performance appraisal process should work (even when the process applies to them), you better get new attorneys.  Outside counsel is brought in only when there are serious serious problems.

Two final comments.  I have always felt funny about giving anonomous feedback to the three council employees.  When I give feedback, I have always before signed my name.  I have no problem with the Manager, Attorney or Judge see my direct feedback.  I think that is more honest and straight forward.  You should be willing to sit in front of them and look them in the eye and tell them your rating and why you rated that way.  I realize most council members have never been in management and are uncomfortable with that.  So I am ok with the current process, but will give my feedback directly if asked.  The second comment is that where the rubber really meets the road in in the raises anyway.  All of the rating and 360 feedback and comments are really just words.  It's the raise that is most important, and we do that on television.

Ken Wilson
Council Member