Difference between revisions of "Collective Member Review Policy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Purpose | + | ==Purpose== |
The HR committee realizes that feedback is an integral part of making sure individuals in the collective are working in line with the mission and principles of Free Geek and therefore doing useful work. Many collective members have said that they would greatly appreciate such feedback. The committee therefore has decided to implement collective member reviews. The purpose of collective member reviews is to: | The HR committee realizes that feedback is an integral part of making sure individuals in the collective are working in line with the mission and principles of Free Geek and therefore doing useful work. Many collective members have said that they would greatly appreciate such feedback. The committee therefore has decided to implement collective member reviews. The purpose of collective member reviews is to: | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| − | If a member of the collective has difficulties with another, | + | If a member of the collective has difficulties with another, she should speak to the individual in person first if at all possible. The review should not, in most cases, serve as the first notification of problems. |
| − | The review should be a forum in which the person being reviewed is recognized for his or her successes as well as offered guidance from the rest of the collective on how to things differently for the betterment of the organization. It's the responsibility of the review panel to take into account time constraints, skill level, interests, etc. when suggesting improvements. The review panel should work together with the reviewee to create a practical, reachable set of goals for him | + | The review should be a forum in which the person being reviewed is recognized for his or her successes as well as offered guidance from the rest of the collective on how to do things differently for the betterment of the organization. It's the responsibility of the review panel to take into account time constraints, skill level, interests, etc. when suggesting improvements. The review panel should work together with the reviewee to create a practical, reachable set of goals for him. These goals should be as specific as possible and should include the reviewee's own goals as well as those from the rest of the collective. |
==Procedure== | ==Procedure== | ||
| + | ===General=== | ||
| + | * Collective members are given yearly reviews | ||
| + | * The HR committee can call for a review at any time | ||
| + | * Anyone can come to the HR committee and suggest a review of any collective member (even for themselves). | ||
| + | * HR committee nominates 2-3 people to comprise the review panel and the staff collective OKs it. | ||
| + | * If an HR committee member has a review called for her by another collective member, she may not participate in choosing the review panel | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Step-by-Step=== | ||
| + | The details of the collective member review process look like this: | ||
| + | # The HR committee nominates 2-3 people to comprise a review panel. The staff collective discusses the nomination at the next staff meeting, makes changes if necessary, and OKs the decision. The review panel is then responsible for seeing the rest of the process through. | ||
| + | Should we specify the make-up of the panel? At least one person close to reviewee's job description and one from another part of FG? | ||
| + | # The review panel creates a review form for the reviewee. The form should include the goals created for the reviewee in his last review as well as general questions asked in every review. The general questions, as well as examples of complete forms, may be found in the /usr/local/fgstaff/reviews directory on obsidian. The individual's goals are located in the directory named after the individual in the /usr/local/fgstaff/reviews directory on obsidian. | ||
| + | # Each collective member receives a form, and must fill it out. The reviewee must also fill out a form for herself. Names should be included on these forms. If answers are illegible, need clarification, or should be written in a more constructive way, the panel is responsible for returning the form to the appropriate person for changes. Forms are returned to the review panel long enough before the review that the panel can tabulate the results. | ||
| + | # | ||
===Probationary staff=== | ===Probationary staff=== | ||
| + | 3, 6, 1 year reviews | ||
| + | |||
| + | -three month probationary period for new hires | ||
| + | +at three month review, can either: | ||
| + | -let in collective | ||
| + | -fire them | ||
| + | -give them three month extension to improve | ||
| + | |||
| + | -six month review if extension to improve given at three month | ||
| + | +at six month review | ||
| + | -let in collective | ||
| + | -fire them | ||
| + | |||
| + | +when an individual enters the collective: | ||
| + | -one year review from time of their initial hire | ||
| + | |||
| + | Confirmation process (can happen after three and six month review): | ||
| + | - The entire collective hears HR review report | ||
| + | - the reviewii must leave the room after HR review report, so | ||
| + | staff can talk about them unhindered | ||
| + | - The whole staff must consent on letting the probationary | ||
| + | person into the collective... ... or, the whole staff must consent to the person being | ||
| + | kicked out... ... or, some grey region inbetween | ||
| + | |||
| + | Q: If we fire someone after 3 or 6 month review do we keep them on | ||
| + | for transition? | ||
| + | |||
| + | A: Overall we can't expect that people should | ||
| + | be allowed to (or want to) stay on, though on a case by case | ||
| + | basis that might work in some situations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Q: Do we allow members in with stand-asides or do we require | ||
| + | unanimity? | ||
| + | A: This question needs to be decided by staff after a | ||
| + | discussion. People should begin the discussion on the HR list | ||
| + | right away so we can present options to the staff. Requiring | ||
| + | unanimity effectively turns stand-asides into blocks. If you're | ||
| + | going to block, then block. Also, the larger the collective | ||
| + | gets, the harder unanimity will be to reach. Should this be | ||
| + | handled differently at a 3 month review that could feed into a | ||
| + | 6 month review? | ||
[[category:policy]] | [[category:policy]] | ||
Revision as of 18:27, 22 December 2004
Purpose
The HR committee realizes that feedback is an integral part of making sure individuals in the collective are working in line with the mission and principles of Free Geek and therefore doing useful work. Many collective members have said that they would greatly appreciate such feedback. The committee therefore has decided to implement collective member reviews. The purpose of collective member reviews is to:
- Help collective members align themselves with the expectations that are placed on them,
- Assist collective members to acheive the self- and group-given goals for their positions,
- Give a forum for feedback on individual collective members, and
- Where appropriate, assist the collective in deciding whether to accept a probationary worker into the group.
If a member of the collective has difficulties with another, she should speak to the individual in person first if at all possible. The review should not, in most cases, serve as the first notification of problems.
The review should be a forum in which the person being reviewed is recognized for his or her successes as well as offered guidance from the rest of the collective on how to do things differently for the betterment of the organization. It's the responsibility of the review panel to take into account time constraints, skill level, interests, etc. when suggesting improvements. The review panel should work together with the reviewee to create a practical, reachable set of goals for him. These goals should be as specific as possible and should include the reviewee's own goals as well as those from the rest of the collective.
Procedure
General
- Collective members are given yearly reviews
- The HR committee can call for a review at any time
- Anyone can come to the HR committee and suggest a review of any collective member (even for themselves).
- HR committee nominates 2-3 people to comprise the review panel and the staff collective OKs it.
- If an HR committee member has a review called for her by another collective member, she may not participate in choosing the review panel
Step-by-Step
The details of the collective member review process look like this:
- The HR committee nominates 2-3 people to comprise a review panel. The staff collective discusses the nomination at the next staff meeting, makes changes if necessary, and OKs the decision. The review panel is then responsible for seeing the rest of the process through.
Should we specify the make-up of the panel? At least one person close to reviewee's job description and one from another part of FG?
- The review panel creates a review form for the reviewee. The form should include the goals created for the reviewee in his last review as well as general questions asked in every review. The general questions, as well as examples of complete forms, may be found in the /usr/local/fgstaff/reviews directory on obsidian. The individual's goals are located in the directory named after the individual in the /usr/local/fgstaff/reviews directory on obsidian.
- Each collective member receives a form, and must fill it out. The reviewee must also fill out a form for herself. Names should be included on these forms. If answers are illegible, need clarification, or should be written in a more constructive way, the panel is responsible for returning the form to the appropriate person for changes. Forms are returned to the review panel long enough before the review that the panel can tabulate the results.
Probationary staff
3, 6, 1 year reviews
-three month probationary period for new hires
+at three month review, can either:
-let in collective
-fire them
-give them three month extension to improve
-six month review if extension to improve given at three month
+at six month review
-let in collective
-fire them
+when an individual enters the collective:
-one year review from time of their initial hire
Confirmation process (can happen after three and six month review):
- The entire collective hears HR review report
- the reviewii must leave the room after HR review report, so
staff can talk about them unhindered
- The whole staff must consent on letting the probationary
person into the collective... ... or, the whole staff must consent to the person being
kicked out... ... or, some grey region inbetween
Q: If we fire someone after 3 or 6 month review do we keep them on
for transition?
A: Overall we can't expect that people should be allowed to (or want to) stay on, though on a case by case basis that might work in some situations.
Q: Do we allow members in with stand-asides or do we require unanimity?
A: This question needs to be decided by staff after a discussion. People should begin the discussion on the HR list right away so we can present options to the staff. Requiring unanimity effectively turns stand-asides into blocks. If you're going to block, then block. Also, the larger the collective gets, the harder unanimity will be to reach. Should this be handled differently at a 3 month review that could feed into a 6 month review?