Staff Report #9
November 28, 2018
To All Commissioners
Re: Performance Feedback and Planning Program Review
Recommendation
The report be NOTED and FILED.
Background
At the October 31, 2018 meeting, the Commission requested a report back on the current Performance Feedback and Planning program utilized for the General Manager’s annual review in comparison to that utilized for other local boards and commissions.
London Transit’s Performance Feedback and Planning Program
London Transit’s Performance Feedback and Planning Program supports all management staff, including the General Manager in carrying out their responsibilities, while ensuring goal alignment with broader corporate objectives, such as the Business Plan and the annual Work Programs. The program is comprised of three inter-related components discussed further below.
Leadership Review – an evaluation which includes assessment and commentary on eight key management competencies/skill groups as outlined in the “Results Centered Leadership Program” (all Managers participate in “Results Centered Leadership” training which establishes the principles and methods which all Managers are required to use in carrying out the leadership function). The eight elements assessed are explained further below.
- Communication – listens to others, processes information, communicates effectively
- Leadership – instills trust, provides direction, delegates responsibility
- Adaptability – adjusts to circumstances, thinks creatively
- Relationship Building – builds personal relationships, facilitates team success
- Personal Task Management – works efficiently, works competently (technical skills)
- Production – takes action, achieves results
- Development of Others – cultivates individual talents, motivates successfully
- Personal Development – displays commitment, seeks improvement
Work Program and Process Management Assessment – an evaluation on key work program initiatives for which the individual being assessed was responsible for, or played a key role in. In addition to specific work program initiatives, assessment is also conducted on any process review management initiatives which were undertaken during the period of review in the area of responsibility for the individual being assessed.
Personal Development – includes reference to discussion during the evaluation meeting with respect to any training/education where specific programs or courses are requested by the individual being assessed or suggested by the assessor in response to concerns raised in the evaluation. Other programs that are not in response to identified concerns but rather considered as development opportunities would also be included in this section.
On an annual basis, respective Supervisors complete a Performance Feedback and Planning evaluation on each of their direct reports giving consideration to each of the above elements. Given assessments in the area of leadership review are subjective in nature, based on the evaluator’s perception, an additional piece was added to the review process a number of years ago. The Checkpoint 360 Evaluation is a tool designed to measure the same eight leadership elements but gathers the perspective of direct reports, peers, and the direct Supervisor. For each person being assessed, a group of direct reports and peers, as well as the direct Supervisor, respond to a number of questions about the individual being assessed. The results of the surveys are compiled in a manner that compares the perspectives of each group on each of the leadership elements. The 360 evaluations are completed every 3-5 years and scheduled based on employee turn-overs and resource availability.
General Manager Review
Details with respect to the reporting structure and evaluation of the General Manager are set out in the Commission’s Roles, Responsibilities and Code of Conduct which is reviewed at the first meeting of each new Commission.
The section entitled Commission at Large includes the following reference with respect to the General Manager’s position.
The General Manager is accountable/responsible to the Commission for continuous growth and development of the corporation consistent with strategic goals, policy and program direction. As such, how the position is filled, performance assessed, etc. resides exclusively with the Commission.
The Commission’s roles and responsibilities includes specific reference to the evaluation of the General Manager’s performance (item k) as set out below.
Commission role and responsibilities
- k) appoint and evaluate the performance (annually) of the General Manager consistent with the role, responsibility and duties of the General Manager as defined by the Commission-approved position job description and delegated authority
The document goes further to specify specific duties of the Commission Chair with respect to liaising with and the annual performance evaluation of the General Manager as set out below.
Role of the Chair
- f) liaising with or through the General Manager on Commission business arising outside the scheduled meetings
- g) completing (in consultation with other Commission Members) the annual performance review of the General Manager, consistent with established policies, procedures and protocol
The procedure for the General Manager’s annual performance review was established concurrent with the Performance Management Feedback Program. It calls for the Commission Chair to gather feedback from all Commission members with respect to each element of the review as set out above. The feedback forms are circulated to all Commission members for completion and returned to the Commission Chair. The feedback is compiled into one form and discussed at a meeting between the Chair and the General Manager. The Director of Human Resources is available to assist the Chair with process as required.
With respect to item g above, discussion was held at the last meeting with respect to the absence of a report back to the other members of the Commission regarding the evaluation. Should the Commission determine this additional step to be beneficial, it would be incorporated into this item, resulting in an in camera discussion of Commission members only.
Practices Utilized at Other Boards and Commissions
Subsequent to the October Commission meeting, administration polled a number of local boards and commissions with respect to their practices around the performance appraisal process for the General Manager/CEO. The boards and commissions polled include:
- London Library
- London Convention Centre
- London Middlesex Housing Corporation
- London Police Services
- Middlesex London Health Unit
The practices followed at the aforementioned boards and commissions are consistent with that followed by the London Transit Commission as outlined above, including the gathering of feedback and compilation of same from board members followed by a meeting with the general manager/CEO to review the appraisal.
Where boards were of the same or similar size of that of the London Transit Commission, the review meeting with the General Manager/CEO is undertaken by the Chair. Were boards were larger the performance review and meeting with the general manager/CEO is conducted with one of the board’s sub committees (i.e. executive committee or human resources committee).
Recommended by:
Joanne Galloway, Director of Human Resources
Concurred in by:
Kelly S. Paleczny, General Manager