[Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff

Tue Apr 29 11:44:38 MDT 2008

Dear Roger and all,
     In my work as a school administrator, we used a method called "Cognitive Coaching," developed by Art Costa and Robert Garmston, which combines many of the aspects of supervision and continued growth that this conversation has so far held.  http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Coaching-Foundation-Renaissance-Schools/dp/192902441X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209489113&sr=1-2
     The emphasis in the approach is on developing efficacy among individuals in a climate of trust. 
     Much of the work of supervisors in schools, of course, is based on direct observation of teaching practice.  Cognitive Coaching advocates pre and post observation meetings: pre --to establish mutually what aspects of the classroom will be observed; post -- to discuss mutually how well those aspects appeared. However, it is possible that some of the same conversations used by cognitive coaches in schools could focus instead on employee outcomes, utilize archival data, and focus on client/customer relationships either observed or self reported in other settings.
     Your recent conversation sparked a recollection of how supervisor/teacher discussions were developed in the practice of cognitive coaching.  I sat beside the teacher, (never across from the person -- heaven forbid a desk between us!)  in both pre and post conversations, first, as the person described areas he or she would like to grow in/wondered about and, then,  as we talked about the experience of the observation.  If an issue of "supervision" came up rather than "coaching," I would shift to a chair across from the person (still no desk) or else tell them: "I'm taking off my coaches hat for a moment and putting on my supervisor's hat.  You need to have Johnny sit separately from Jimmy because they were poking each other continually and distrating other students" or whatever.  Teachers with whom I worked eventually saw and understood me as both a coach and as someone who was responsible for supervising their performance.  The richness of the conversations provided strong evidence for formal, paper evaluations.  Cognitively coached student conversations worked well also.
     Thank you for all your continued good thinking.
     All the best,
     Peter

Peter Kozik

New York Higher Education Support Center for SystemsChange

Task Force on Quality Inclusive Schooling

School of Education

Syracuse University

030 Huntington Hall

Syracuse, New York 13244

plkozik at syr.edu

(315) 443-1461

www.inclusion-ny.org <http://www.inclusion-ny.org/> 

________________________________

From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu on behalf of Roger Davies
Sent: Tue 4/29/2008 11:39 AM
To: 'Cheri Torres'; 'Michael Holdstock'; 'Anne Radford'; 'Kenneth Gergen'; 'Bill Scott'
Cc: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: RE: [Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff

Hi Cheri,

I think you hit he nail on the head. It should be a way of working together.
Valuing someone once a year is the same as reporting accidents once a year
or only disciplining poor performance once a year. The purpose and mechanism
of the whole process should be questioned. What need does an employee
appraisal process satisfy? how can that be done more effectively?

The point of playing football isn't to win the super bowl. The point is to
play football. Actually, since it's a business, the point is to get more
people to pay to watch you play. If you want to achieve that you have to
perform to the best of the team's abilities every time you play: A feat that
cannot be achieved by once or twice a year appraisals. The crowd, coach and
team mates appraise every part you play in the game. Success is an outcome
of how you play the game. It's core is not revealed by rushing yards, passes
or touchdowns, it's revealed in the way team members talk to each other and
support each other.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Cheri Torres [mailto:cheri at mobileteamchallenge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:56 AM
To: 'Michael Holdstock'; 'Roger Davies'; 'Anne Radford'; 'Kenneth Gergen';
'Bill Scott'
Cc: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: RE: [Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff

Michael et al,

Your post suggests that perhaps the whole notion of valuation/evaluation
might be questioned at the core. As part of my understanding of the meaning
of these words they are assessments (of one degree or another) at a point in
time.  Thus, looking at the past (of an individual separate from the
relational dynamics) and creating a static marker for the future (of the
individual as separate from relational dynamics).

To your point about "job chats" and Ken's comments regarding relationships,
I wonder whether the whole paradigm around this practice might be shifted
towards a continuing process approach--that valuing become a way of being in
an organization and iterative reflection & action between supervisor/
employee (or however the roles are labeled) likewise become a way of
working. Such a way of being would be relational at its core, generative,
iterative, and allow for all sorts of emergent possibilities.  In addition,
at any given point in time, both employee and supervisor would have an
appreciation for where they stood in relationship to their own development,
their relationships, and to the work that is expected of them.

What do you think? Does this make sense? 

I guess the bottom line question begging to be asked is (which Roger did):
what is the purpose or goal here? Cheri

-----Original Message-----
From: ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu
[mailto:ailist-bounces at lists.business.utah.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
Holdstock
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:06 AM
To: Roger Davies; 'Anne Radford'; 'Kenneth Gergen'; Bill Scott
Cc: ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: Re: [Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff

I haven't followed the whole of this thread, but my ten öre's worth: I am
finding it increasingly meaningful to break this staff development and
support process up into the following bits:

the development dialogue - with agreed long and short term professional and
personal developmental goals (where do you want to get to?) (D1,2,3)

measures of development effectiveness related to agreed goals (how do we
check up on your progress towards your goal and help you stay on
track?) (D 3-4)

the reward negotiation.
(what financial and other compensations are we agreed on?)

There is no water-tight compartmentalisation since all three relate to one
another. They can all be handled appreciatively/supportively and retain
their meaningfulness and bite.

Dealing with them as separate but related issues, I have found, makes the
whole situation easier to handle. Maintaining a dialogue throughout the year
related to the first two means that an ongoing interest and awareness of
development becomes a natural part of the leadership function. To facilitate
this continuum one organisation that I have collaborated with instituted the
idea of "job chats" - at least quarterly, as part of the follow-up process
to the more formal development dialogue.

Mike
Karlstad, Sweden

_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles
School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list
administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist

_______________________________________________
The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to:
http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist