One of the key components to team success is the evaluation process.  Without it neither individual nor collective progress can be measured nor made.  Leaders must know what assets are at their disposal to meet each challenge (Gueldenzoph & May, 2006).  These assets certainly include software and hardware, but the most important asset at his disposal is the staff working with him to assess problems and develop and implement solutions to the challenges facing the school or district (Gueldenzoph & May, 2006).

The team leader must know how effective his team is in the execution of their individual and collective responsibilities.  To this end numerous models have been developed to help the leader evaluate and rank individuals within the team based on defined sets of criteria.  Some of these include Employee Performance Mapping, Management by Objectives (MBO) and Professional Growth Plans (PGPs) (Hall, 2008).  Each focuses on a different line of attack as it pertains to the individual’s contribution to the team’s goals(Myers et al, 2007).

To be sure, the leader must build up leaders from with the ranks of his team.  IN the end he is accountable for the growth of individuals in his team.  He must also be clear about his expectations and his team’s performance standards.  Finally, the leader takes on the role of working to assure each team member has a shot at achieving success (Hall, 2008).

Regardless of the model used to assess team members, each member must be aware of the process and expectations prior to the assessment process.  This way, the leader is better assured of the team members’ best work for the evaluation process (Hall, 2008).

Schools, traditionally, do a poor job of evaluating teachers.  Typically, the evaluator sits in on one lesson and gives a “whole year” evaluation based on twenty minutes of time spent in the classroom.  This is certainly not the best means of determining individual or collective success.  New processes are being implemented which take a broader look at individual and collective achievement by instructors (Myers et al, 2007).

The broader the perspective, the better the end product.

References:

Gueldenzoph, L. & May, G. (2006) The Effect of Social Style on Peer Evaluation Ratings in Project Teams. The Journal of Business Communication. 43. (1). P 4

Hall, D. (2008) The technology director’s guide to leadership: the power of great questions. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education

Myers, N., Paiement, C. Feltz, D. (2007) Regressing Team Performance on Collective Efficacy: Considerations of Temporal Proximity and Concordance. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science. 11. (1). P 1