Massachusetts Public Library Trustees Handbook

Evaluating the Director
	Chapter 6. Library Personnel

Evaluating the Director

Boards of trustees are evaluating their library director all the time. Evaluation is done at least partially by instinct: what the trustees see happening in the building, what they hear from the public and staff, as well as the "feel" and reputation of the library. The evaluation of the director is closely tied to the success of the annual library plan.

A formal, written evaluation is an essential management practice, although a good board member's subjective assessment of the library director is often as accurate. The evaluation of the library director should be the foundation in the evaluation process for the library as a whole.

Purposes of the Performance Evaluation

To provide the director with clear understanding of the board's expectations.
To ensure the director and the board are aware of how well the expectations are being met.
To serve as a formal vehicle of primary communication between the board and director.
To identify the board's actual concerns so that appropriate action can be taken.
To demonstrate sound management practices and accountability to municipal officials and the community.

Methods of Evaluation

To be effective the evaluation method and process must be designed to accommodate your specific local situation. There is no single perfect evaluation system, and the evaluation process should be a continuous activity. There are three basic methods, each with advantages and disadvantages. A combination of the following is generally most effective:

Based on Behavior Traits

This method is perhaps the most limited type of evaluation. These traits can contribute to successful management but the standards of performance and expectations are not usually defined clearly. A numerical rating scale is often used with this type of evaluation. Evaluation based on traits is sometimes used because it is short and simple. The board must remember that the time and energy spent on the evaluation process is the cornerstone of future library service.

Examples of behavior traits are: cooperation, initiative, dependability, creativity, communication, motivation, attention to detail, and decision-making ability.

Based on Job Description

A detailed job description is essential in the hiring of a library director. It is also an excellent place to begin even if the library director has been working for many years. The board should review and revise the job description with the current director. The major areas of responsibility noted in the job description can be expanded in detail to form the criteria for evaluation.

Based on Objectives

This method is also directly related to the job description. The board and the library director develop mutually agreed upon objectives to be accomplished within a specific time frame. Using this method, the evaluation is based objectively on accomplishments rather than on a subjective appraisal of personalities. The objectives are basically a part of the planning process. It is important to clearly define the objectives, actions, responsibility, and time frame, so that the objectives are measurable.

Developing the Evaluation Process

Board and director jointly develop a list of factors that lend themselves to objective evaluation.
Board develops a general evaluation method, criteria, rating scale, and form.
Board and director identify goals, long range plans, and specific areas that need attention. The director prepares a set of objectives with a time line. The board reviews objectives and suggests changes, if appropriate. The board and director negotiate changes in objectives. The objectives are rewritten and confirmed.
Director handles implementation of actions to meet objectives, including delegation of tasks to staff.
The director gives a periodic report to the board on progress toward achieving monthly and annual objectives. Periodic feedback from the board to the director.
Revisions to objectives negotiated between board and director as needed.
Board conducts an annual formal evaluation review.

Expectations and Evaluation

Directors are held accountable to many varied and sometimes conflicting constituencies. The board and the director must recognize these groups and acknowledge the relationship with each one:

The general public
Elected officials and the appointed governing officer who supervises other municipal departments
The library staff members who have diverse personal expectations for their director
Public pressure groups who exert pressure on the director to respond to their concerns
Friends of the Library groups
Individual members of the board of trustees who have personal priorities for the library and the director.

Good communication, public relations, a written plan and clear policies will all help the board and director to deal with any conflicting expectations. The evaluation method and process can be designed to include input from all these groups, but the final responsibility rests with the board.

The Evaluation

An annual, written, formal evaluation should be conducted. The library board and the director should reach a mutual agreement about the evaluation format and process. Keep in mind that the provisions of the Open Meeting Law apply to meetings concerning evaluation of the director.

Ideally, evaluations are positive, developmental processes that include praise and constructive guidance. The board should review the library plan, job descriptions, goals and objectives and the annual report submitted by the director, documenting accomplishments of the library. Other relevant information should be obtained as needed.

The board should develop definitions of their ratings and standards so that they have a common understanding and are able to communicate these to others. The board chairman and at least one other member of the board, usually the personnel committee chairman, should form a committee to gather information from other trustees using an agreed upon evaluation tool. The library director should provide a self-evaluation report which indicates how s/he has met her/his annual goals and objectives. The committee should then meet to formulate a written evaluation and reach a consensus on how the director is to be rated on each item.

Copies of the committee's written evaluation should be sent to each board member with an opportunity for each to respond in writing to the committee. The committee's final, written evaluation should be given to the director by the board chair, and an opportunity should be provided for the director to meet with the committee to discuss any differences.

The formal evaluation of the library director should take place at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. It should be conducted in an objective, businesslike manner with a predetermined agenda, but should not be so austere as to be intimidating. Specific examples should be used to illustrate the evaluation and free discussion should be encouraged. Adequate time should be allowed to thoroughly explore all issues and the meeting should be free of interruptions. There should be a thorough summing-up by the spokesperson of the proceedings. The evaluation should be followed with a planning session to develop the basis for the next review.

Factors in Evaluating the Director

The following are some factors that could be considered in evaluating the library director. They are not all inclusive. There are in all probability several factors that each of you could add and some factors included that you may consider irrelevant. These factors are a reference point for you to develop the type of evaluation that is best for your institution and your situation.

Preparing and Managing the Budget

Is all the necessary staff work completed in a timely manner prior to presentation to the Board?
Does the budget cover all necessary expenses?
Are funds allocated or reserved for unanticipated contingencies?
Are the funds effectively allocated?
Are mid-course corrections minimized?

Managing the Staff

Are positive management/staff relations maintained?
Are fair and equitable policies proposed for board adoption and then fairly administered?
Are there grievances filed? If so, are they justified?

Professional Awareness

Are innovative methods of service delivery and technical processes, for example, studied thoroughly?
Are innovations implemented only after they fit the needs of the institution and are proven to be cost effective?
Does the director maintain an adequate knowledge of current library science practices?
Is the staff encouraged to maintain an awareness of technological advances in the profession?
Conversely, how prone is the director to adopting change for change's sake?

Collection development

Are there up to date selection and weeding policies?
Are selection and weeding policies systematically implemented?
How adequate is the library's program of determining user needs/wants and translating these into acquisitions and services?
Have adequate selection criteria been established to enable the library to react systematically to changes in the budget?
How current is the collection? Does it reflect present community needs and interests?

Implementation of Board Decisions

Are board decisions implemented on a timely basis? Are hard decisions made and implemented or are they deferred or ignored?
Does the director display adequate initiative or rather merely react to crises?
Is the director objective in making the necessary decisions or do personal prejudices intrude too often?
Is the director consistent in decisions that affect the staff and/or public?
Once a decision has been made does the director fully and enthusiastically back board decisions (to what extent?) or are they sometimes presented to staff in an apologetic or deprecatory manner?
Does the director set an example for the staff through professional conduct, high principles, and a business-like approach?

Use of the Library

How effectively are the services of the library communicated to the public?
Is a proper and realistic balance established between promotion of services and budget constraints?
Are circulation trends and in-house use adequately analyzed and are there appropriate reactions to the results of such analyses?
How adequate is information on new services that are communicated to the public?

Development of Staff

Are potential managers identified, encouraged to develop and assisted in their development of career goals?
Are internal candidates for promotion competitive with outside candidates for management positions?
Does the director adequately justify the need for staff development funds, actively campaign for such funds, and adequately account for the use of such funds?
How well is cross-training utilized to provide adequate service to the public?

Utilization of Staff

Is all staff aware of the separation of professional and clerical tasks and responsibilities?
Have peak service hours been identified and staff deployed accordingly?
Are functions analyzed periodically with the objective of combining, eliminating and/or creating new positions?

Community Development

How active is the director in the community?
Is the incumbent "visible" to large segments of the population?
Is the director available for speaking engagements in the community?

Activity in Professional Organizations

Is the library represented and does the director actively participate in the Massachusetts Library Association, the Massachusetts Library Trustees Association and the American Library Association?
Does the director hold office in professional organizations?
Have the director and staff published reviews and articles in professional newsletters or journals?

Policy Recommendations to Board

Is adequate staff work completed prior to presentation to the board?
Are reasonable alternatives recommended?
Are policy recommendations generally proactive rather than reactive?
Are policy recommendations usually necessary and appropriate to the efficient operation of the library?
Are trustees kept informed of new developments and important news reported in library correspondence and literature to provide them with the necessary background to make informed policy decisions?

Friends of The Library

Has the director actively promoted the formation and/or maintenance of a Friends group?
Do the director and staff provide adequate support to the Friends organization?
Has the director delineated and/or helped define the role of the Friends group?
Has the Friends group had adequate explanation of its role in relationship to the role of the board?

Maintenance and Construction of Physical Plants

Within the imposed budgetary constraints are the buildings and grounds adequately maintained?
Does the director have an ongoing program that provides adequate information on the need for new and/or remodeled facilities?
Are new and/or remodeled facilities functionally appropriate and aesthetically pleasing?
Are new and/or remodeled facilities constructed within budget allocations?

Establishing Priorities

Are the director's recommended priorities in concert with the library's plan as defined by the board?
Do these priorities appropriately reflect community needs?
Do priorities reflect advanced planning or reactions to crises?
To what degree do the director's accomplishments reflect and relate to the short and long range plans?
Are the plans updated on a continuous basis to reflect changing circumstances?
Does the director provide adequate information to the board on the implementation and revision of short and long term planning?

Staff Selection

Is staff selection accomplished at appropriate supervisory levels and with adequate use of staff resources?
Is adequate emphasis placed on Equal Opportunity Employer/Affirmative Action?
Is the selection process designed to insure the selection of the best person for the job?


Orienting the New Director		Removal of a Library Director