|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000cam a22000002u 4500 |
| 001 |
in00003907611 |
| 003 |
ERIC |
| 005 |
20220616175332.0 |
| 007 |
he u||024|||| |
| 008 |
810101s1981 xx ||| b ||| | eng d |
| 035 |
|
|
|a ED197805 Microfiche
|
| 040 |
|
|
|a ericd
|c ericd
|d MvI
|d UtOrBLW
|
| 049 |
0 |
0 |
|a EEM#
|
| 099 |
|
|
|a ED197805 Microfiche
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Lahti, Robert G.
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Appraising Managerial Performance. Junior College Resource Review /
|c Robert G. Lahti.
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a [Place of publication not identified] :
|b Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
|c 1981.
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 6 pages
|
| 336 |
|
|
|a text
|b txt
|2 rdacontent
|
| 337 |
|
|
|a microform
|b h
|2 rdamedia
|
| 338 |
|
|
|a microfiche
|b he
|2 rdacarrier
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Sponsoring Agency: National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, DC.
|5 ericd
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Contract Number: 400-80-0038.
|5 ericd
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Educational level discussed: Two Year Colleges.
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a Guidelines are presented for the development of a system for the appraisal of the performance of community college administrators. The importance of such a system to the college's overall success is discussed first, followed by descriptions of seven common evaluation procedures: (1) unstructured essays by supervisors or subordinates describing the administrator's accomplishments; (2) unstructured documentation by the administrator of his/her own activities, using information sources such as daily logs; (3) structured narratives constructed around short-answer questions; (4) structured documentation by the administrator verifying progress on a set of predetermined goals; (5) rating scales; (6) critical incident appraisals, in which evaluators record behavior as it occurs; and (7) appraisal through goal achievement. After enumerations of the advantages and purposes of an appraisal system, three evaluation pitfalls are discussed: the evaluator's subjective judgements, incompatibility of ratings among departments, and vague evaluation criteria. Prerequisites for successful evaluations are then detailed and a list is presented of the characteristics of competent evaluators. Finally, the structure and content of the appraisal interview are examined. Questions that should be asked during this interview are identified, and interviewing techniques are recommended for the evaluator. (JP)
|
| 533 |
|
|
|a Microfiche.
|b [Washington D.C.]:
|c ERIC Clearinghouse
|e microfiches : positive.
|
| 500 |
|
|
|a Microform.
|
| 650 |
1 |
7 |
|a Administrator Evaluation.
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
0 |
7 |
|a Community Colleges.
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
0 |
7 |
|a Critical Incidents Method.
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
1 |
7 |
|a Evaluation Methods.
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
1 |
7 |
|a Evaluators.
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
1 |
7 |
|a Interviews.
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
0 |
7 |
|a Self Evaluation (Individuals)
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
0 |
7 |
|a Supervisory Methods.
|2 ericd
|
| 650 |
0 |
7 |
|a Two Year Colleges.
|2 ericd
|
| 653 |
1 |
|
|a Performance Appraisal
|
| 655 |
|
7 |
|a ERIC Publications.
|2 ericd
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
|0 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no95035696
|
| 907 |
|
|
|y .b61003426
|b 211122
|c 081211
|
| 998 |
|
|
|a mc
|b 081211
|c m
|d a
|e -
|f eng
|g xx
|h 0
|i 1
|
| 982 |
|
|
|a no_backstage
|
| 999 |
f |
f |
|i 6f921147-60a2-56b2-a482-0a145a33c35a
|s a7d05d27-2a98-5782-afa1-218ca3ae7ab3
|t 0
|
| 952 |
f |
f |
|p Non-Circulating
|a Michigan State University-Library of Michigan
|b Michigan State University
|c MSU Microforms
|d MSU Microforms, 2 West
|t 0
|e ED197805 Microfiche
|h Other scheme
|i Microform (Microfilm/Microfiche)
|n 1
|
