MHLS Model for Director Evaluation
[as seen in the Winter 2006 edition of Across the Board]
FOR YEARS library boards have asked us how they should evaluate the library director. We have responded by offering links on our web site and tools that we considered adequate, but we have never found a method that is superior. Now, after researching (using the excellent tools available through our HOMEACCESS databases), we have synthesized ideas and developed our own model. We think you will find it an effective process for improving the health of your library.
EVALUATING THE STATE
OF THE LIBRARY
PART 1: DIRECTOR EVALUATION
WHAT IS BEING
The boarddirector relationship is not a manageremployee relationship. It is a partnership for the purpose of running a highly important community organization: a public library. Rather than evaluating the
director, you need to evaluate the administration of the library. This approach enables the board and the director, as a team, to design steps that will enhance the development of the organization.
Areas to be evaluated should provide a comprehensive view of the librarys operations. We have identified five areas, you may come up with others if you have specific local conditions such as a building project:
Use a form to assess the
state of your library. The form should be based on the five areas above. Structure
the form more tightly by adding questions under each area. For example, in the
area of Customer Service and Community Relations:
|Level of patron satisfaction||E S N U|
|Customer service received by patrons||E S N U|
|Consistent application of policies that affect the public||E S N U|
(E = excellent; S = satisfactory; N = needs improvement; U = unknown)
View our suggested evaluation form that encompasses all five areas. Evaluation Form [MS Word documents]
Each member of the board should individually respond to the form. In responding to the form, board members could refer to the plan of service, board minutes, usage statistics, program results or other information sources from the year. Once all forms have been submitted, summarize the results. A sample summation form is available on the MHLS site. This will provide the board with a picture of how the organization is functioning and will shape the evaluation process. If the summation shows:
Once the board has developed some
agreement on the functioning of the organization, they should meet with the
director, either as a full board in executive session, a committee, or one or
two board members. The discussion should use the summation as an outline. Take
this opportunity to discuss areas of weakness within the organization, then,
with the director, develop goals to improve the organization. Also use this
opportunity to tell your director if they are doing well in areas, no one likes
their successes to go unnoticed.
The summation, with the issues to be addressed written in, should be signed by both the board president and the director.
Some might object that this model does not evaluate the director, but earlier models tend to separate the performance of the organization from the performance of the director. You could conceivably have situations where the library is failing, but the director is receiving a good evaluation. This model ties the responsibility for the performance of the organization to the director.
COMPARISON OF MODELS
|Focus on Director||Focus on Library|
|Assumes Hierarchical Manager-Employee Relationship||Assumes Governance-Executive Partnership|
|Personality Driven||Performance Driven|
|Focus on what is wrong||Focus on Success|
|Develops methods for improving Director||Develops methods for improving Library|
|Corrects past problems||Builds future development|
WORST CASE SCENARIO:
DISMISSING THE DIRECTOR. Many boards feel the only time they need to evaluate
the director is when things are going badly. By
then it is too late. The director evaluation should be an annual event and the best and easiest time to begin this schedule is when thing are going well.
"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.
-Massachusetts Public Library Trustees Handbook
In the event that the library is not functioning well and the board feels the need to change directors, the evaluation process, although possibly the starting point, is not the best method for removing the director.
New York State is an employment-at-will state which means, barring a contract, the board can remove the director without cause. If you have an employment contract with the director, or the director is under Civil Service, you need to show cause. In any case to remove a director you need to build a clear paper trail documenting how you have communicated your dissatisfaction to the director, provided opportunities for improvement, and provided a warning notice if improvement has not happened. This process needs to be done through written communications with the director. Addressing this issue only during an annual evaluation could draw out the process by three years or more.
Governing an effective library is a complex job that takes hard work and dedication. Make your efforts count by regularly evaluating the state of the organization, this will help to make your job as a trustee more fulfilling and create the best possible library for your community.
PART 2 of "Evaluating the State of the Library": Evaluating Your Board
Home | Public Library Catalog | Calendar | Contacts | Services | Bulletins | Member Libraries | MHLS Board of Trustees | Web Site Index
Administration & Management | Resource Sharing & Millennium | Reference & Collection Development | Library Programming | Professional Development | Marketing, Advocacy & Funding | Youth Services | Trustee Resources