1984-04-11 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTESMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS HELD ON APRIL 11, 1984, AT 7:05
`~.M. IN THE CITY SERVICE CENTER, 3501 E. ORANGE, PEARLAND, TEXAS.
The regular meeting was called to order with the
• following members present:
Dan Keller - Chairperson
James Gilbert - Vice Chairperson
Gail Birdsong - Commissioner
Mary Hickling - Director
****
GUESTS: Buford Parish
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Keller declared the minutes of the March 21, 1984
meeting to be approved as circulated. The Commission agreed.
ACTIVITY
The Commission received
Ron Wicker, dated April
performance evaluations
received as information
month of March.by Hickl,
as information, a letter from City Manager,
3, 1984, concerning the use of employee
for Civil Service employees. Also
was a statement of hours worked for the
ing.
Chairperson Keller shared with the Commission, a conversation that
he had had with City Manager, Ron Wicker, in which the City Manager
expressed that he felt that it would be appropriate for the
Commission to establish a evaluation procedure for the police
department. "If the city wants it done, then. as appointees of
the City Manager, I think it behooves us to do it", Keller said.a-~ ~ ~ ,~..
A motion was made by Keller and seconded by Birdson that t~~grrC.~-~~
~earland Civil Service Commission establish an employee performance
evaluation system for the police department. Motion carried.
Chairperson Keller instructed director Hickling to be in touch
with other commissions and try to receive some i~for implementing
this procedure.
r"~
Some discussion was held concerning the use of medical examinations,
and Commissioner Gilbert will make a report at the next meeting to
try and finalize this new subject.
Chairperson,Keller made a motion to approve the rules that have
~ already been approved by Tom Lay. Birdsong seconded the motion.
` Motion carried.
ADJOURN '
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Minutes approved as submitted and
day of May, A.D., 1984, by Mary A
' ~~ w
~~ ~f~ ®r ~~~~
~= ~ ~~
\ TEx CIVII SERVICE COMMISSION
P.O. Box 818 • Pecxlond, Texos 77588-0818 • (713) 485-Q411
May 1, 1984
Statement of expense for the month of April, 1984 in the
performance of Civil Service hours:
48~ hours @ $7.00 = $ 339.50
124 miles @ .20 = 24.80
TOTAL = $ 364,30
Mory Hickling, w~eda
~~:
oon ISeller, Q~citrtion
~ ~
Gai
Chapter Ten
Employes Perforrroaroc~
Evalua4ion
Performance evaluation is a formal process for reviewing employee job
performance. It is an inevitable part of any employer-employee relationship;
though your employees may be forma!!y evaluated as infrequently as once
every year or two, they are actually being informally evaluated everyday. The
mere fact that the city continues• to pay employees' salaries week after week
indicates that their performance has been evaluated and found to be
satisfactory.
Supervisors meeting informally over coffee or lunch frequently brag or
complain about their employees' behavior and work performance. In so doing,
the supervisors are actually informally evaluating their employees, often on the
basis of a few randomly observed events or actions. Employees also informally
evaluate themselves, their supervisors, and each other during informal
discussion periods. It is during such gossip periods that employees and
supervisors begin to acquire "labels" (positive or negative). These ' `labels,"
whether accurate or not, often influence the spirit of cooperation or
non-cooperation that exists in the day-to-day municipal workplace.
In many small and medium-sized cities, the performance evaluation process is
casual, with little or no formal written procedure. Supervisors generally react
to one or two extreme cases of good or bad performance, instead of making
continual observations of an employee's overall performance.
Purpose
The purpose of a formal evaluation system is the accurate-.measurement of an
employee's job performance. Emphasis is placed on the employee's work,.
85
rather than on his or her personality.
A performance evaluation system can serve as a tool to achieve effective and
efficient use of the city workforce. It has the following advantages for various
levels of the municipal organization:
City Council
- • Provides a measure"of employee effectiveness in serving citizens.
• Serves as a basis for merit salary increases.
City Administrator
• Serves as a means for evaluating supervisors' abilities.
• Identifies employees with supervisory and leadership potential.
• Pinpoints weaknesses in the city's service operations.
• Identifies areas where training is needed.
~"~ Supervisors
• Serves as a basis for constructive discussions with employees.-
. Helps solve disciplinary problems before they become serious.
• Strengthens the supervisor's role in managing employees.
• Establishes closer communications between supervisors and the
employees. - !
• Identifies areas where training is needed.
Employees
• Lets them know how well they are accomplishing their assigned
responsibilities.
• Provides an opportunity to discuss their strengths and weaknesses.
• Formally recognizes good work.
Establishing the Program
The first steps in developing an evaluation system are: (1) determining the
purposes the performance evaluation system is to serve; (2) obtaining the
86
~~.
support of department heads, supervisors and employees; and (3) developing
~~ guidelines and .procedures. Everybody involved must understand the reasons
for the program, how the system will operate, obstacles to successful
implementation, their specific roles and responsibilities in the process, and the
~_ anticipated benefits to the municipal organization.
Observing Work & Collecting Data
Good observation is essential to an employee performance evaluation system.
Those who will be rating and evaluating employees must observe the
day-to-day activities of each employee before performance evaluation takes
place. Supervisors should receive training in the techniques of observing and
recording the work of employees. If job descriptions are available, supervisors
should use them to compare the assigned duties and responsibilities of the
employee with those actually being performed.
The attitudes of department heads and supervisors are very important. A
supervisor who believes employees can change will seek up-to-date
observations of an employee's work before performance is evaluated. The
employee's personal or social characteristics should be consciously ruled out
from consideration, and supervisors should avoid making judgements on
personality factors unless they are directly related to job performance.
Recording Results
During the entire rating period, the supervisor periodically records his or her
observations of actual incidents involving each worker. Making routine notes
on a continuing basis can prevent snap judgments when the day arrives to
formally complete the employee evaluation form. Thorough documentation is
always essential, particularly if an evaluation is negative.
Evaluating Results
After observing an employee's performance, the supervisor applies his/her
own or predetermined standards to evaluate the results. The supervisor's
judgment is based on a comparison between: (1) standards-what normally
could be expected of the employee; and (2) results-what the employee
actually accomplished.
When appraising the employee's total performance, the supervisor should
consider not only the specific results the employee has achieved on key job
tasks and the adequacy of the performance of each task, but also the overall
results and responsibilities of the employee's position.
It is possible for one job task to be so important during an evaluation perioe Ss
to overshadow other assigned responsibilities. -When to ids resulpts on
substandard performance on low-priority tasks is offset by g
high-priority items, thereby justifying an overall satisfactory rating of the
8T
~. ~
employee's work. The evaluation should explain and document the assessment
of each part of the employee's performance. Such documentation can be
helpful in discussions with the employee and others who later may review the
evaluation.
There should be a relationship between expected performance and the period
of time an employee has worked at a particular job. Performance expectations
should differentiate between the novice first-year employee and the veteran
with several years work experience.
Discussing the Evaluation With the Employee
Sharing observations and conclusions with the employee is a key element of a
performance evaluation program. This exchange tells the employee how the
supervisor judges his/her performance and the contributions made (or not
made). toward accomplishing the city's objectives.
In preparing for the employee interview, the evaluator should:
(1) Thoroughly review the employee's work records.
(2) Pian the discussion so as to: (a) communicate the purpose of the
~` interview, the evaluator's observations, and the evaluation of the
employee's performance; and (b) communicate the reasons for the
employee evaluation and the need for employee feedback. •
(3) Compare the current appraisal with previous evaluations noting
improvement or lack of change.
(4) Conduct the interview in a setting that is free from pressure,
discomfort and interruptions.
When conducting an employee-supervisor interview, certain basics should be
covered
(1) The employee•needs to feel that the evaluator has a sincere interest in
hisJher welfare, is honest about his/her performance, and is not
making unreasonable demands.
(2) The employee should understand the purpose of the interview in
advance; and it should be made clear that the employee is not being
"called on the carpet."
(3) The employee should be put at ease at the beginning of the interview.
The evaluator's attitude should be friendly, with the discussion focused
i- on the purpose of the interview.
(4) The evaluator should be alert to signs of employee resistance, such as
88
outright rejection of the evaluator's appraisal, blaming others for
failures, making comparisons with other employees, pretending a lack
of interest, or quick and insincere agreement with the evaluator.
(5) A two-way discussion can often stimulate the employee to begin
thinking about hislher performance. In some situations, the most
productive discussion may cover only a few items. The evaluator may
also learn more from a thorough discussion of one or two items rather
than from a quick, superficial overview of the entire evaluation form.
Some mistakes commonly made by supervisors during appraisal interviews
are:
(1) Talking only about positive items, thus preventing the employee from
learning of deficiencies and from seeking whatever help the supervisor
might offer.
(2) Ignoring the major issues and discussing only routine matters.
{3) Imposing their own ideas, and lecturing the employee on how to best
accomplish work tasks.
(4) Failure to explain what is expected of the employee. Although work
standards are sometimes difficult to define specifically, some
standards are basic and should be defined and expected work. results
explained.
. (5) Failure to solicit employee suggestions for improvement. Appraisal
interviews are intended to be two-way communications, not
monologues.
Follow-Up & Continuity
A second meeting, after the employee has had time to reflect on the evaluation
report, may be helpful. This post-evaluation discussion should deal with
specific areas in which a change in employee performance could produce
observable results. Problem areas should be .noted, and job requirements
should be outlined for the next evaluation period.
In this discussion, it is important that the supervisor and employee have a
Clear understanding of the employee's current job performance and agree on
possible means to improve that performance.
Additionally, this session will provide an opportunity to discuss the employee's
development, including: (1) education and training, (2) future prospects for
promotion, (3) skills needed to improve and be ready for promotion, and (4)
personal needs and career goals.
89
T'`
Evaluation Methods & Techniques
There are two major approaches t~ formal employee performance evaluation.
The first is in the form of a systematic measurement of employee
characteristics; the second is the subjective "goals and objectives" approach.
Systematic Measurement
A graphic trait scale is a checklist system which calls for rating performance
traits or personal behavior characteristics in several predetermined areas. A
sample graphic trait scale is shown below:
Quality of work-skill, accuracy, thoroughness:
Consistently Occasionally Consistently Sometimes Consistently
Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Superior Superior
Dependability-follows instructions, good work habits, punctuality:
Ordinarily Needs Very
Needs Constant Needs Some Can Be Little Completely
Supervision Supervision Counted On Supervision Trustworthy
O O O (f ~ (.)
The graphic trait scale rating method has a number of advantages. The form is
relatively easy to construct and-can be tailored to fit particular departments.
The rating process itself is simple and can be done rather quickly, a decided
advantage when lame numbers of employees must be rated. It has been found
that even unskilled raters quickly understand the system and give a good
distribution of marks.
Using a behavior checklist, the supervisor reports on employee performance,
rather than actually evaluating performance. Later, the city manager or chief
administrative officer can review and analyze the supervisor's conclusions.
A series of questions are prepared concerning employee performance and the
supervisor merely checks the "yes" or "no" response. Each question is
assigned a relative value; in most instances the supervisor is unaware of the
specific value given to each question.
The following is an example of the checklist system:
(1) Learns new technical work rapidly
(2) Usually follows orders
(3) Resents criticism or advice
~-, (4) Seeks assistance frequently
(5) Shows initiative on routine work
(6) Good team worker
Yes No
90
This system requires the chief administrator to assemble the data, assign
values, and analyze -the results. A major advantage to the system is that it
requires only a reporting of the facts from -the supervisor.
The cri#ical incidents evaluation method is based on the assumption that there
are certain kinds of behavior that distinguish a good employee from a poor
one. Foliwing this method, department heads and supervisors record certain
performance acts referred. to as "critical incidents." Examples include refusal
to assist a fellow worker or accepting new training.
This system requires a significant amount of time and can pose a
record-keeping problem. However, the specific incidents provide an excellent
focal point for employee appraisal interviews.
Goals & Objectives Approach
in this system, the supervisor (rater) evaluates the employee by describing in
essay form the assessment of the employee's performance. The best essay
systems include a number of questions which are deisgned to focus the
attention of the rater on the most important aspects of the job. The following
are examples of questions which may be included in the essay evaluation:
(1) What are the primary duties and responsibilities of this job?
(2) To wha# extent were these duties and responsibilities achieved?
(3) What objectives were set at the beginning of the review period?
(4) What progress was-made in achieving specific objectives set at the
beginning of this review period?
(5) What specific areas need improvement?
(6) List career development opportunities planned with this employee.
(7) List specific objectives to be accomplished in the next evaluation period
and dates of anticipated completion. .
The essay approach can easily be adapted to every job in the city, and allows
the supervisor and employee to focus attention on the areas of greatest
importance. It allows individual goals and objectives to be broken down into a
schedule of activities or tasks to be accomplished. In short, the essay approach
is a very "personal" approach to evaluation.
Problems of Evaluation
There are many obstacles in the path of an effective municipal employee
performance evaluation program. These problems must be confronted and
91
overcome in order to achieve benefits for both the city and the employee. The
' `assumptions-versus-facts" display below illustrates several of the misconcep-
tions that must be dealt with in implementing an evaluation program:
Assumption
(1) Department heads and super-
visors naturally desire to make
fair and accurate employee
evaluations.
Fact
Department. heads and supervi-
sors tend to dislike and avoid
formal evaluation processes; they
dislike taking time out for any-
thing which is not directly job-
related.
(2) Once implemented, a perfor-
mance evaluation system wilt
continue to operate as planned
and have wide acceptance
among department heads and
supervisors.
(3) Personal opinion is better
than formal evaluation; many
department heads and super-
visors believe that they "know
their employees," and that
employees know how well
they are doing and what their
supervisor thinks of them.
(4) Employees like to know "how
they stand," what their de-
partment heads and super-
visors think of them, and
desire objective and frank
assessments.
Psychological factors
Department heads and supervi-
sors often rely too much on the
system, expect too much from it,
and blame it for their- own
evaluation weaknesses.
The use of personal opinion to
evaluate employees encourages
biases, subjectivity, and distorted
decisions because of inaccurate
and insufficient information.
Many employees do not welcome
formal appraisal systems. Some
employees are insecure and their
fears are heightened by evalua-
tion .procedures. Others are in-
di#ferent or so "secure" that the
opinion of a supervisor has little
impact. Employee reaction
against formal evaluation is quite
often strong.
Effective employee performance evaluation is largely determined by the skills
of the individuals involved. Regardless of the system used, the following
supervisor attitudes may impede the evaluation process:
(1) Feelings of anxiety or insecurity about their own supervisors'
evaluations of them;
(2) Resentment of the evaluation system, particularly if it is imposed
without consultation and creates additional work responsibilities;
(3) Reluctance to evaluate others;
(4) Lack of confidence in their ability to make judgments;
92
~~' ~ ,
(5) Fear of having their evaluation work subject to higher-level review;
and
(6) Concern that the evaluation work will be used as criteria for their own
rewards.
Biases and Errors
Biases and. errors in performance evaluations may be introduced consciously or
unconsciously be evaluators. Evaluation systems with safeguards to eliminate
these problems have met with varying degrees of success. Biases generally
occur because of personal prejudices, emotional factors, and subjective
opinions. .
The social environment can also affect ,objectivity. Department heads and
supervisors naturally have likes and dislikes concerning individuals.
Personality traits, emotional considerations, and the evaluator's position in the
- organization can influence evaluations. The evaluator may have personal
motives to achieve with the appraisal results (for example, advancement or
demotion of a specific individual). Evaluators may rate highest the employees
with characteristics similar to theirs. Personality factors may make objective
evaluation difficult. Work performance immediately preceeding an evaluation
may significantly influence the formal written conclusions, thereby over-
-~,,,~ shadowing any previous work performance.
An employee may have one or twos outstanding characteristics that significantly
influence the evaluator's judgment of overall performance. The outstanding
-• characteristics, good or bad, are remembered, and the evaluator may assume
that all of the employee's work is the same. The probability of this affecting an
evaluation is increased when the evaluator is not well acquainted with -the
employee's overall work performance and has observed only isolated work
activities.
Too lenient or too severe evaluations are common in evaluation programs.
Some evaluators ccnsistently rate employees high while others consistently
give Ipw ratings. Leniency errors occur because of the evaluator's desire to
avoid personal confrontations with employees. Finally, supervisors may avoid
admitting that employees do not perform satisfactorily since inadequate
ratings may reflect his own managerial ability.
Time & Schedul i ng
Implementation of an employee performance evaluation system is time-
consuming. Resistance to the system may be greatest among management
personnel who dislike taking time from a busy work schedule if they do not
perceive the program as being directly productive or job-related.
In many cities, formal performance evaluation periods are scheduled at specific
93
~~
I
:.:.:
times during the year, such as on the anniversary date of the worker's
employment by the city. This scheduling may conflict with high activity work
periods (annual budgeting, for example) and supervisors may use scheduling
problems as an excuse for postponing evaluations.
Technical Assistance
Establishing an employee performance evaluation system requires the strong
commitment of elected officials and management. In small cities, the chief
administrative officer often lacks sufficient staff assistance to effectively
implement a performance evaluation system. In this situation, the city may
need to secure outside technical assistance to develop and implement a
system. A source of such assistance is the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, Southwest Regional Office (1100 Commerce, Dallas, Texas
75242).
References
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas):
Employee Performance Evaluation: A Practical Guide to. Development and
Implementation for State, County and Municipal Governments; Performance
~., Evaluation: Workbook and Supervisory Training Guide for State and Local
Governments.
Institute of Urban Studies, The University of Texas at Arlington (Arlington,
Texas): Supervisor's Guide to Performance Awareness.
Local Government Personnel Institute (4719 Brooklyn Avenue, N.E., Seattle,
Washington 98105).
94
Exhibit 19
Evaluating Performance:
Procedural Guidelines
,~
Many cities with employee performance evaluation systems attempt to
include all employees in the system(s). Some utilize one evaluation method
for all groups of municipal employees; others use several evaluation
methods to accommodate various employee groups and classes at different
levels. However, different methods are usually consistent with one another
in the basic philosophy and approach.
The maximum time span between formal evaluations should
than one year. A greater time span results in postponement
supervisors and lessens the perceived importance of the prog
A six-month interval between evaluations may be too frequent. Frequent
evaluations cost more, and may encourage department heads and
supervisors to treat the procedures routinely and mechanically. Some cities
have struck a balance by utilizing asix-month interval for the first two or
Three years, and then extending' the period to annual reviews.
Responsibility
Department heads and .supervisors must assume personal responsibility
for evaluating employee performance. Evaluation requires continuous
observation, analysis of employee actions, and firsthand knowledge of the
employee and his/her work habits. In most instances, .only an immediate
supervisor is in this position.
Appropriate facilities for the evaluation process must be available.
Because the feedback interview is so essential, facilities are needed where
the supervisor and employee can confidentially discuss performance. The
atmosphere should be conductive to open and frank discussions with
minimum interruptions.
Scheduiing
Flexibility in scheduling evaluation is important. Scheduling should take
into consideration the peak activity periods within each department to
avoid resistance to evaluation activities.
95
~~
.~
O \
•,~
O
w
H
O
8
m
ro
s~
a~
.. ~
A ~
a
w
o
ro
~ °
( I
H o
H C9
N
a
miiiiiiiiii
a
0
.~,
~ ~ ~
~ ~ °
a
i a
, o
s~ x •~ •~ x m
~
~ 3 3
a a~ w
•~ k ~
3 v a
a - a ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~
~ • ~ i
a
0 0 •~ •.~ +~ +~ o a
w v 3 3 •~ ~ ?~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ O
Q ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ -
•.~ •.~ +~ ~ ~ O tT cR o~ cd
•-~ ~-+ •~ fA U1 ~ N OQ ~ x x ~ is
•~ •.~ .~.- +~ +~ +~ a s~ o ~ ~ b ar
a
~ ~ ~ a A w 3 3 A o
m
a
m
w
b
~+
-~
d
d
O
~i
m
A
ci
b
•~
N
N
O
N
.,~
. r'
~~
~~
PERFORMANCE. EVALUATION NUMERICAL VALUES
Non-Supervisory Form: Column ~l ............................ .5
2 ............................ 1.0
3 ............................ 1.5
4 ............................ 2.0
5 ............................ 2.5
Supervisory Form: Column #1 ............................ .6
2 ............................ 1.3
3 ............................ 2.0
4 ............................ 2.6
5 ............................ 3.3
To arrive at the properly weighed efficiency score (60Z First Grader,
40X Second Grader}, the following steps are to be followed:
1. The first grader's score is totalled then divided by
10 and multiplied by 6. This results in his part of
the efficiency grade.
2. The second grader's score is totalled, then .divided by
l0 and multiplied by 4. This results in the second
`^ grader's part of the grade.
3. The first grader's part and the second grader's part
are then added together. This number is the adjusted
efficiency score for non-supervisory officers.
* 4. For supervisory officers being graded on the supervisory
efficiency forms, the first grader's part and the second
grader's part are added together and then have a .3
(decimal point, three) added to that number. This is the
final adjusted efficiency grade for supervisory personnel.
5. This adjusted score is then written on the line provided
in the uppermost corner of the form labelled "Corrected
Efficiency Score".
* This step for supervisory forms only.
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
POLICE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
NON-SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL
Name of ERloyce
;lasaification
Division
Corrected Efficiency Score
Lepartment
Rating Period: From 19 To 19
INSTRUCTIONS
Supervisors shall evaluate an officer's performance on a scale ranging from one to five (il being equivalent to unsatisfactory,
i2 ~ below avezage, i3 ~ average, i4 ~ above average, i5 ~ superior). Examples of unsatisfactory, average, and superior perfor-
mance are listed under each specific trait and are to be used as a "guide" to the behavior being rated. For example, if an of-
ficer's performance is better than the unsatisfactory description given as il, but leas than the avezage description given as i3,
then the officer's performance should be rated sa i2 (below average). Any performance which is recorded as unsa isfactory it or
superior i5 shall be explained in the comments section provided. The lot supervisor shall place a check mark V ABOVE the dotted
line io the box that moat clearly describes the level of performance of the officer being evaluated. The 2nd supervisor shall
place an R BELOW the dotted line.
TRAITS
I. FIELD PERFORMANCE: Degree of excellence of work performed under:
(A) Non-Stress Conditions: Ability of officer to perform his duties under normal conditions .
(1) Uses poor judgement and often requires assistance to straighten out situations.
(3) Usually able to aseesa situation and take proper action.
S Re uirea no assistance and alwa s takes ro er course of action.
(B) Stress Conditions: Ability of officer to produce an acceptable volume and quality of
work under stressful conditions.
(1) May react impulsively under pressure and cause problems for others; depends on other
officers to take over.
(3) Maintains control and brings order under most circumstances.
(5) Exhibits calm and controlled attitude; does not allow situation to further
deteriorate.
II. APPEARANCE: Ability of officer to portray a good image.
(A) Personal: Degree to which officer practices good grooming and personal hygiene standards
(1) Is careless in way he dresaea and in personal hygiene.
(3) T
k
a
eo good care of both himself and clothing and presents good appearance.
(5) Takes excellent care of himself and hie clothing and seta an trample for others in
a earance.
(B) Equipment: Degree to which officer shows his concern for department issued equipment.
(1) Neglects minor maintenance of equipment.
(3) Performs necessary maintenance and keeps equipment in working order
.
(S)~ Performs preventive maintenance and ^eea that equipment is in proper working order
at all times.
III. QUALITY OF JUDGEMENT
(A) Ability of officer to evaluate a situation, consider the elternativea~and take indepen-
dent and decisive action.
(1) Is slow in arriving at decisions and initiating action in situations.
(3) Nos good perception and ability to make his own decisions.
5 Mae exce Clonal erce tion in foreseein roblems and arrivin at advance solutions.
(B) Job Knowledge: Ability of officer to apply hie training and knowledge of departmental
policies and procedures.
(1) Has limited knowledge of departmental policies and procedures and, therefore, field
application ie deficient.
(3) I
f
ili
s
am
ar with most common departmental policies and procedures which leads to
average field application.
(5) Mae notewrthy working knowledge of departmental policies and procedures and excep-
tional field a lication.
IV. DEPENDABILITY
(A) Degree to which officer can be relied upon to carry out all aspects of his assignment.
(1) Can not be depended on to be where, or be doing what he should be; has variety of
excuses for not being on job or not following inetructiona.
3
I
'
(
)
a on the job when he
s supposed to be; does what he's expected to do without
unusual supervision.
(5) Always be depended upon to do the right thing; can be expected to persevere and
exceed work re uirements.
• (B) Reporting Habits: Degree to whlch officer a records reflect attendance sad proper use
of sick/injury time.
(1) Constantly reporting for work at the last minute and ie avoidably absent.
(3) Good in promptness and/or attendance; late or absent only on ver
infre
ue
t
y
q
n
occasions.
(5) Is almost never late or absent, and if so, will be due to some unavoidable incident;
ives ode uate notice.
V. INITIATIVE: Degree to which officer initiates methods to better his working knowledge and
prevent crime trends on his assignment.
(1) Tends to avoid auspicious circumstances.
(3) Recognizes and identifies suspected criminal activity; makes cases rrom r
ti
ou
ne
activity.
(S) Maintains and uses information given at briefings and from watch bulletins for
reasonable cause to sto vehicles and ereons• makes subee uent ood unlit arrest
VI. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
(A) With fellow officers: Ability of officer to eatablieh good communications with his peer
(1) Leaves an impression of superiority and associates very little with oth
ers.
• (3) Mae good peer relationships and ie accepted as a group member.
5 Activel asaista other officers and is reco ized ae a ter rou lead
er.
(B) Gith Public: Ability of officer to reflect credit on the department through good public
relations.
(1) Is discourteous or unresponsive which causes public relations problems.
(3) I
f
a
riendly, courteous, and commun~catea in a profeeaional and unbiased manner
.
(5) Is exceptionally courteous and well-mannered; subsequently wins friends for the
de artment.
(C) With Supervisors: Degree to which offi
l
cer re
ates to supervisors and chain of command
authority.
(1) Shows insubordination and has difficulties communicating with supervisors.
(3) C
i
ommun
cates well with his supervisors and adheres to Chain of command.
(5) Understands aupervisor'e reeponaibilities and functions, and fully respects and
su orts his oeition.
CO!lMBNTS: 1st Cradez
et Level Supervisor
OOMMENTS: 2nd Grsder
2nd Level Supervisor
Employee - Acknowledge
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
POLICE PE:tFORMANCE EVALUATION
SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL
Nana of Employee
Corrected Efficiency Score ,
Clusification Department
Division Rating Period: From 19 To 19
INSTRUCTIONS
A •uperviaor's performance shall be evaluated on a scale ranging from one to five (/1 being equivalent to unsatisfactory,
/2 belay rverage, /3 average, /4 above average, /5 superior). Examples of unsatisfactory, average, and superior
performance are listed under each ipecific trait and are to be used as a "guide" to the behavior being rated. For example.
if a supervisor's performance is better than the unsatisfactory description given as I1, but less than the average descrip-
tion given as /3, then the supervisor's performance should be rated as /2 (below average). Any performance which is recorded
as unsatisfactory it or superior /S shall be explained in the comments section provided. The let. grader shall place a check
mark _~ ABOVB the dotted line !a the box that moat clearly describes the level of performance of the supervisor being eval-
wted. The 2nd. grader shall place an R BELOW the dotted line.
---------------------
TRAITS
-- ~ --
2
- 3 -
-~ -
- S
I. DISCIPLINE: Ability of supervisor to take proper corrective action.
(1) Has poor discipline. Doesn't want to be disliked; tends to overlook rather
than correct.
(3) Hee good discipline. but occasionally fails to follow through with positive
discipline.
(5) Maintains excellent discipline and commands respect from subordinates. Works
with subordinates to help then correct weaknesses.
II. KNOWLEDGE OF SUBORDINATES ABILITIES: Ability of •upervisor to evaluate subordinates.
(1) Improper evalwtion due to leniency or harshness.
(3) Has working knowledge of subordinates abilities. Knows their limitations and
capabilities.
(5) Excellent evalwtion, therefore, uses men where Dest suited.
III. uRvANIZING ABILITY: Ability of supervisor to plan, schedule, organize, sad coordio-
ace his tasks.
(1) Rather careless organizer; relies on chance organisation rather than planned.
Sl
ow is cos~pleting tsslu.
(3) Good organizer, yet may have duplication of efforts; completes tasks acceptably.
(5) Sxcelleat organizer, therefore. makes most of. hie time and resources. Com-
pletes tasks with speed and accuracy.
IV. PERSONNEL HANAGEHENTs Supervisors application of good management ptlneiples.
(1) Poor management techniques as reflected by poor morale and productivity.
(3) Needs manageaeat assistance on some occasions; morale generally good.
(5) Above average management as reflected in personnel morale.
V. IMPARTIALITY: Ability of supervisor to view officers on an egwl basis.
(1) .Iudgement influenced bq favoritism or bias.
(3) U
ll
f
i
d
i
b
sua
y
a
r an
just; tr
es to
e objective.
(5) Usee excellent judgement; is impartial and doesn't let personal feelings
influence decisions.
VI. HANDLING OF DIFFICULT SITUATIONS
(1) Uses poor judgment and often requires aeeiatance to straighten out situations.
(3) Raadlss vast majoritq of difficult situations successfully with some assistance.
(5) Handles difficult aitwtions confidently with no repercussions due to poor
handlin .
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFIDENCE: Ability of supervisor to draw conclusions from facts and
stick to hie decision.
(i) Lacks confidence and will not take definite eland on issues; fluctwtes with
pressure.
~(3)
~(5) Occasionally may take line of least resistance, but will assume responsibility
for action.
Recognizes repercussions but stands firm; accepts responsibility and blame
when wron .
VIII. ABILITY TO INSTRUCT SUBORDINATES
(l) Ras difficulty in explaining ideas; instructions unclear with unanswered ques-
i
t
oaa.
(3) Average instructor, but nay need further training.
(5) Excellent instructor; good anticipation of questions acid answers.
IX. QUALITY OF WORK: Ability of the supervisor to produce written co®unications which
are clear and concise.
(1) Reports ere poorly written and unintelligable which results in confueioa and
misunderstanding.
(3) Cood organization of thoughts and ideas. but occasionally fails to we specific
and concrete words to make his meaning clear.
(5) 8xermely effective writing; reader knows exactly what writer wants him to know.
COMlIIiNTS: 1st. Grader
COMMENTS: 2nd. Grader
1st Level Supervisor
2nd Level Supervisor
_..__.- ..~__ Employee - Acknowledge