Difference between revisions of "Collective Member Review Policy"

From FreekiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Purpose==
+
{{CollectivePhasedOut}}
  
−
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,
+
This policy was last updated at a Staff Collective meeting on Friday, June 29, 2012.
−
* 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.
 
  
 +
==Purpose==
 +
:Regular performance reviews of staff is a best practice for organizations of all sizes and missions. They should not replace informal communication or serve as a formal complaint process; instead, they are opportunities to help staff align themselves with the expectations that are placed on them and to assist them in achieving their stated goals in their positions. Where appropriate, Free Geek also uses the review process to help the Collective make a decision about the status of a member within the Collective.
  
−
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.
+
:Performance evaluation is a core supervisory function. Supervisory relationships must be characterized by open and honest communication in order to be both effective and ethical. At Free Geek, we have chosen to have collective supervision of Collective members. It is therefore inappropriate and counterproductive to have anonymous commenting by Collective members during the Collective performance review process. It is also inappropriate and ineffective for a supervisor to refuse to conduct performance evaluations. Timely participation in all Collective reviews is a performance expectation of each Collective member, and anonymous commenting is not allowed.
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
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
 
−
* All collective/probationary members must fill out review forms for each other collective/probationary member.
 
−
* 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 [[The Job of the Review Panel | review panel]] and the staff collective OKs it.
 
−
* After the review panel has been chosen, it conducts the rest of the review, incuding handing out forms, tallying them, performing the sit-down review with the reviewee, recording new goals that have been set, and other exciting and intriguing tasks.  To see the full breakdown of the responsibilities of the review panel, see [[The Job of the Review Panel]].
 
−
* If an HR committee member has a review called for her by another collective member, she may not participate in choosing the review panel
 
−
* After the review has been completed, the review panel will report to staff at the next staff collective meeting.  If the reviewee is a probationary member, the staff will then decide whether to accept them into the collective, ask them to leave, or keep them as a probationary member.
 
−
 
 
−
===Probationary staff===
 
−
3, 6, 1 year reviews
 
  
−
-three month probationary period for new hires
+
:Free Geek aspires to a democratic and, where possible, non-hierarchical organizational culture. Bargaining unit employees are therefore invited to provide feedback as part of Collective member reviews. This participation is never mandatory, and it will always be anonymous unless an individual employee requests to be identified in connection with their feedback.
−
        +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
+
:Collective members currently are reviewed around 3 months after hire, around 6 months after hire, and annually around their dates of hire.
−
        +at six month review
 
−
            -let in collective
 
−
            -fire them
 
  
−
        +when an individual enters the collective:
+
:The HR Administrator is currently the review coordinator for all Collective members except for him- or herself. Another member of the HR Committee should be chosen in a timely manner to coordinate the HR Administrator's review.
−
            -one year review from time of their initial hire
 
  
−
Confirmation process (can happen after three and six month review):
+
==Procedure and Timeline==
−
            - 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
+
# HR should maintain a list of current job descriptions on the wiki.
−
  for transition?
+
# HR should create or update a separate instance of an online review survey for each staff member to be reviewed.
 +
# In the last week of each month, HR should sends out an email publicizing which Collective members' reviews are coming up in the next month. (Who they are and whether the reviews are 3-month, 6-month, annual or ad-hoc.) The email has links to the job descriptions and the review surveys.
 +
# The deadline for feedback that will be formally incorporated into reviews should be the 10th of the month. Feedback received after that should still be looked at, but it should be treated as informal.
 +
# Review coordinators should encourage direct co-workers in person to complete their forms by the 10th.
 +
# Each review coordinator should forward the results of each survey to the reviewed staff member by the 15th.
 +
# Review coordinators should sit down with reviewed staff members by the 20th.
 +
# Reviewed staff should complete their written responses to questions, concerns and criticisms by the 25th. Collective members should send their full responses to the staff collective list and redacted (as necessary) responses to the paidworkers list.
 +
# Collective member reviews should be discussed at the Collective meeting on the last Friday of the month, unless it falls before the 28th, in which case they should be discussed on the first Friday of the following month. These discussions should be substantive and should occur in the absence of the reviewed Collective member.
 +
# The HR Committee should take the results of the Collective meeting discussion of reviews and prepare draft goals and expectations documents to be approved at the next Collective meeting. These documents should guide staff activities and feedback over the next review cycle.
  
−
  A: Overall we can't expect that people should
+
==Outcomes==
−
  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
+
*Each review should result in an overall performance evaluation of Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory.
−
  unanimity?
+
*An evaluation of Satisfactory or above is needed at a 6-month review in order to promote a Collective member to full Collective status.
 +
*An evaluation of Needs Improvement at a 6-month review triggers an ad-hoc review to occur in another 3 months, i.e., a 9-month review. An evaluation of Unsatisfactory at a 6-month review triggers termination.
 +
*An evaluation of either Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory at a 9-month review triggers termination.
 +
*Since consensus is required to award full Collective status, failure to reach consensus about an evaluation following a 6-month or 9-month review triggers termination.
  
−
  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]]
 +
[[Category: reviews]]

Latest revision as of 17:16, 28 February 2013

The Free Geek Collective ceased to exist on February 28, 2013. For information on current staff, please go to Staff. For detailed information about the re-organization of Free Geek's management structure, please go to 2013_Restructuring_Documents.


This policy was last updated at a Staff Collective meeting on Friday, June 29, 2012.

Purpose

Regular performance reviews of staff is a best practice for organizations of all sizes and missions. They should not replace informal communication or serve as a formal complaint process; instead, they are opportunities to help staff align themselves with the expectations that are placed on them and to assist them in achieving their stated goals in their positions. Where appropriate, Free Geek also uses the review process to help the Collective make a decision about the status of a member within the Collective.
Performance evaluation is a core supervisory function. Supervisory relationships must be characterized by open and honest communication in order to be both effective and ethical. At Free Geek, we have chosen to have collective supervision of Collective members. It is therefore inappropriate and counterproductive to have anonymous commenting by Collective members during the Collective performance review process. It is also inappropriate and ineffective for a supervisor to refuse to conduct performance evaluations. Timely participation in all Collective reviews is a performance expectation of each Collective member, and anonymous commenting is not allowed.
Free Geek aspires to a democratic and, where possible, non-hierarchical organizational culture. Bargaining unit employees are therefore invited to provide feedback as part of Collective member reviews. This participation is never mandatory, and it will always be anonymous unless an individual employee requests to be identified in connection with their feedback.
Collective members currently are reviewed around 3 months after hire, around 6 months after hire, and annually around their dates of hire.
The HR Administrator is currently the review coordinator for all Collective members except for him- or herself. Another member of the HR Committee should be chosen in a timely manner to coordinate the HR Administrator's review.

Procedure and Timeline

  1. HR should maintain a list of current job descriptions on the wiki.
  2. HR should create or update a separate instance of an online review survey for each staff member to be reviewed.
  3. In the last week of each month, HR should sends out an email publicizing which Collective members' reviews are coming up in the next month. (Who they are and whether the reviews are 3-month, 6-month, annual or ad-hoc.) The email has links to the job descriptions and the review surveys.
  4. The deadline for feedback that will be formally incorporated into reviews should be the 10th of the month. Feedback received after that should still be looked at, but it should be treated as informal.
  5. Review coordinators should encourage direct co-workers in person to complete their forms by the 10th.
  6. Each review coordinator should forward the results of each survey to the reviewed staff member by the 15th.
  7. Review coordinators should sit down with reviewed staff members by the 20th.
  8. Reviewed staff should complete their written responses to questions, concerns and criticisms by the 25th. Collective members should send their full responses to the staff collective list and redacted (as necessary) responses to the paidworkers list.
  9. Collective member reviews should be discussed at the Collective meeting on the last Friday of the month, unless it falls before the 28th, in which case they should be discussed on the first Friday of the following month. These discussions should be substantive and should occur in the absence of the reviewed Collective member.
  10. The HR Committee should take the results of the Collective meeting discussion of reviews and prepare draft goals and expectations documents to be approved at the next Collective meeting. These documents should guide staff activities and feedback over the next review cycle.

Outcomes

  • Each review should result in an overall performance evaluation of Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory.
  • An evaluation of Satisfactory or above is needed at a 6-month review in order to promote a Collective member to full Collective status.
  • An evaluation of Needs Improvement at a 6-month review triggers an ad-hoc review to occur in another 3 months, i.e., a 9-month review. An evaluation of Unsatisfactory at a 6-month review triggers termination.
  • An evaluation of either Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory at a 9-month review triggers termination.
  • Since consensus is required to award full Collective status, failure to reach consensus about an evaluation following a 6-month or 9-month review triggers termination.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php?title=Collective_Member_Review_Policy&oldid=66404"