The forced distribution ranking as explained in Chapter 16 and in Dr. King’s PowerPoint (2014) was attempted by OSU Extension last year for performance rankings of the SNAP-Ed program assistants. Although I witnessed struggles and issues with this process in Extension, I did not see this as completely negative for SNAP-Ed, but rather a wakeup call for us to do a better job at communicating. We in SNAP-Ed need to make our standards and expectations for the performance of the program assistants well known to not only those in SNAP-Ed, but FCS Educators and County Extension Directors as well. This really made it obvious to me that we needed to do a better job of having something standard so that it would be easier to compare performance against performance and person against person. Although the forced ranking did not work more for the reason as explained in the Chapter 16 page 299—with small numbers the idea of the bell-shaped ranking does not work very well. We worked in EERAs and with such small numbers of SNAP-Ed PAs in those EERAs often only one or two could be placed at the top with many more at the lowest level. I felt like morale could be damaged in this ranking. I really witnessed this as a problem with the ranking of office assistants and associates. The literature notes that often this can be more difficult, dependent on the job duties. With the SNAP-Ed positions we have clear expectations, and even though we have and are making changes to those, this did make it much clearer to me that we needed to communicate and share those expectations Extension wide.
I like how Dr. King (2014) explained that calibration is not the forced-distribution (page 299 Chapter 16), but rather a way to compare and evaluate performance against a standard and against others doing similar positions. This is how the process is being done this year. I will be involved with 3 EERA calibration days next week. We have distributed the program assistant performance standards and I think this year should go very smoothly. I do like the idea of bringing all the CEDs together to help them get a better picture of how their county’s program is stacking up. As our program grows and has become competitive it is no longer enough to say we are doing programs, we need to be delivering high quality programming that makes a difference.
According to my job description, I have no supervisory expectations. I do not do any performance reviews in my current role, although the amount of involvement with each county’s program assistant really varies. In some counties where there is a strong Family and Consumer Sciences Educator working with the program assistant, I may have little or no input into the evaluation. In other counties where the FCS Educator is not as involved with SNAP-Ed or where there is no FCS Educator, which in my Region is 11 of the 21 counties, I may be asked by the County Director to write the performance review or give input into the performance. I attend all the performance review calibration days and am asked for input in all the EERAs. Depending on the CED’s knowledge of the program and program assistant’s work, the review of that assistant may really differ. There are CEDs that include the PA in advisory committee meetings and office conferences and others that do not. There are CEDs that observe the PAs teach and others that are unfamiliar with what the PAs teach. Is this different way of evaluating county by county really the best? Is this in the best interest of the Program Assistants I work with?
My role and where I feel that I need to take on more responsibility is in the standards of quality of the programming that the PAs implement, especially those without the support or guidance of the Family and Consumer Sciences Educator. I make it my priority to help the Program Assistants meet the performance standards that we have created. I feel responsible when the number of programs that should be delivered are not being delivered in the counties. How can I guide the program assistants that are not meeting that standard to reach those standards? When I go county and county, do the program assistants feel like they can be candid and honest asking me open ended questions and having a two way conversation on how to better reach those expectations? (OSU performance management- performance review)
The quote from Nicholson “The manager needs to look at the employee not as a problem to be solved, but as a person to be understood” is a great statement and one I reflected on as I read and wrote this week. What can I do to understand as much and as many details as possible about each of my counties’ program assistants? How can I support the program assistants in each of their unique counties with each of their unique needs to be successful? The challenge for me is of the 21 counties SNAP-Ed is present in the NE Region; no two have exactly the same scenario. All come from unique and diverse situations. With the growth we are anticipating we are discussing the idea of performance standards in more depth recently. How can we assure the current program assistants will be good role models and are following the standards for our newly hired program assistants to emulate?
The idea that coaching and performance review can help identify how the employee can be a more effective contributor and how the manager can support the employee is really important to me. Am I doing all I can to support the educators and program assistants alike? Do I go in with a curious mind and listening ears? Are the conversations always two way conversations and great opportunities to learn about hopes and dreams? (OSU Performance Reviews) Am I focused on the future, not the past?
The importance of setting employees up for success is so very important. I think to set standards but not help people find strategies to achieve them, reflects poorly on my performance. We have a standard of number of classes program assistants need to teach weekly based on their FTE. We are now sharing quarterly updates on performance. Number of classes taught, number of classes in a series versus single lesson, target audience composition – youth versus seniors, for example. I look at those numbers as a way to work on my performance. I need to offer the program assistants resources and suggestions for them to generate some ideas of how to make that happen in their county. I feel this is especially important where the program assistant does not have the support of an FCS Educator to work with them on finding and securing partnerships and collaborations. Are we making a difference in helping those people in the Low Socio-economic status lead a healthier life on a limited budget?
Resources
King, J. (2014). Performance Management, Video PPT.
OSU Performance Management Policy 5.25. (2011) retrieved from: https://hr.osu.edu/public/documents/policy/policy525.pdf
Supervision Chapter 16- Appraising and rewarding Performance