Understanding Evaluation Methods

The Kirkpatrick Taxonomy Model is also a beneficial tool used in the evaluation process. There are four (4) levels to the evaluation model. Level 1 measures reaction and the degree to which participants react. Level 2 measures learning and the degree to which participants acquire knowledge, skills, attitude, and confidence. Level 3 measures behavior and the degree to which a participant will apply what they have learned. Level 4 measures the degree to which the targeted outcomes occur as a result of reinforcement (Moseley & Dessigner, 2009). This method typically measures training and is important as it looks directly at the employees and their ability to take from the training to apply to the workplace. Understanding the ability of your employees will provide you a deeper understanding of the success of your organization. The evaluation method that will be used will vary from organization to organization, as well as project to project. As a manager, understanding the various methods of evaluation will provide you with the ability to stay ahead of the competition. The understanding of these concepts will also help you to develop a stronger bond among your employees to ensure continued organizational success.  Resources: Mosele, J. & Dessinger, J. (2009). Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace. (Volume 3). Pfeiffer-Wiley

To prepare for this Discussion, pay particular attention to the following Learning Resources:

· Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:

· Read Week 3 Lecture – See Word doc .

· Read Chapter 6-10 – See Word doc

Assignment:

Respond to two of your colleagues’ posts in one or more of the following ways:

1. Ask a clarifying question about your colleague’s description of their response

1. Suggest one or more additional feedback your colleague could use regarding subject.

1. Relate an example from your own experience of a positive, effective, and/or to what your colleague shared.

1. 3 – 4 paragraphs

1. No plagiarism

1. APA citing

1st Colleague post – Susan Christmas

Susan Christmas 

Week 3 Discussion

Top of Form

Our discussion for Week 3 revolves around evaluations. We are asked to choose which evaluation method would be the most useful in our current workplace. Next, we are asked to justify the need for the changes that we feel could be made to the process to ensure a proper fit within the organization.

Needs Assessment

In thinking back to one of my latest employers, which has been several years ago, there was a huge disconnect between expectations and training received to meet those expectations. I worked as a server in a brand-new restaurant that had been built within a brand-new state park in Missouri. The initial intention of this restaurant was to be a “higher-end” dining experience but not quite a “fine dining” experience. However, the lack of experienced leadership in such a setting resulted in an epic failure. Customer satisfaction ratings were low and most of the staff were incompetent due to lack of training. This was a super tough situation for me to be in and ultimately, I chose to transfer to a different department because no changes were being made.

I believe this situation could have benefited from a needs assessment, which is a form of evaluation. Our eBook defines a needs assessment as a diagnostic process that is designed to pinpoint the learning and performance needs of an organization and how to address those needs appropriately. Data collection is key to a needs assessment and requires data from the current situation (including behaviors, processes, systems, and culture) plus the desired situation so the gaps between the two can be analyzed (Moseley & Dessinger, 2010).

Justification for the Changes

My justification for the changes is that the culture was extremely toxic which led to poor behaviors and low satisfaction for both customers and employees. A needs assessment would have allowed a data collection process that would have detailed the current situation plus the desired situation. A focus could have then been placed on the gaps between the two so that corrections could be made within the organization.

References

Moseley, J. & Dessinger, J. (2010). Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Measurement and Evaluation (Volume 3) Hoboken: Wiley.

Bottom of Form

2nd Colleague post – Stephen Jarman

Stephen Jarman 

Week 3 Discussion Thread Post – The Right Fit

Top of Form

Happy Week 3 everyone!

I know I have over-achieved on this week's discussion post and apologize in advance. My only excuse is that when I get into a topic like this one and start writing on it, the material pours out. This week's assignment topic turned out like that, and for me, it was an enjoyable hour of writing as it pertained to an event that just happened today.

My Current Workplace

I found employment with Molnlycke Health Care in the state of Maine at two manufacturing locations that are integrated – site A sends the product to site B for finishing and sending the product to the central distribution center. Site A was a supplier previous to being acquired into Molnlycke seven years ago, and has quite a different culture – more of a ‘family’ feel – than Site B which has more of a corporate feel. My job description and reporting structure are corporate, aligned as a global enterprise, and dotted line to the local director. There have been two previous persons in my role over the past eight years, the most recent came and left in about 18 months. I have been in this role for 19 months. There are differing expectations from the corporate leadership team versus the local leadership team, as to be expected, and I have grown comfortable operating in such an ambiguous working environment as an internal and external consultant. I am able to gain trust at the local level and also be loyal to the corporate mission.

Evaluation Method Recently Used

As the Operational Excellence Manager for all Molnlycke sites in the United States – two manufacturing sites in Maine, a distribution center in South Carolina, and various contract manufacturers in the United States – I am the go-to person for conducting evaluations that are primarily focused on operations performance. The type of evaluation that fits into the framework of a performance evaluation is a cross between Needs and Impact (Moseley & Dessinger, 2010). Timing for conducting a performance evaluation (combo needs & impact) is two-fold. I performed an evaluation for one of the organization's five core capabilities of Operational Excellence (OpEx) at the end of 2021 across the Maine sites that were not acted on by the operations director. My impression is that this OpEx evaluation was ‘nice to know' but was not taken serious because it was not a top-down directive. Also, I perceived that the director (who is a high “D” on the DiSC scale, meaning on the outer edge and not very adaptable) is highly protective of his turf, even stating “…we’ve known and practiced [that core capability] long enough to know everything there is to know about it…” and he took no action on the recommendations for closing the gaps identified.

Evaluation Method Most Useful

The evaluation method discussed was communicated, in fact, just this morning across all global sites in the presence of the local director’s two site managers by the local director’s boss, the Vice President of Operations, with the expectation to conduct the evaluation (you guessed it) that I have already performed ‘unofficially’ in late 2021. Interestingly, the local director sent a message to my direct boss (he’s an Italian who is the director of global OpEx) that he was offended by the mention during the presentation this morning that it is vital for local leadership to be supportive of conducting an authentic evaluation and having resources directed to close the gaps in the evaluation! My direct boss and I speak regularly and he already knows quite a lot about the local director’s demeanor and his areas of focus (only getting the numbers vs. humans as assets)

Justification for the Selected Evaluation Method

There’s a saying from one of my previous managers that “the boss is the only real change agent” and as an HPT practitioner with little or no resources of my own, so what happened today can and often does make the difference between getting things done or not. In the case of this particular OpEx core competency, the local organization in Maine has had a blind spot – really an organizational cognitive dissonance – of what they believed the competency was and the reality of what the competency is. To perform to the expected levels required to close the gaps identified in the evaluation, the behaviors of the director, the two site managers, and a host of other people will have to change. In my experience, there are three vectors that co-exist to enact change such as this one that is going to be required: i) physical changes (new tools such as visuals, indicators, trend charts…), ii) operational changes (using the physical tools in a routine way, i.e., behavior change), and iii) cultural change (which is the outcome of i & ii) – this is the P.O.C. model. As an adjunct to the P.O.C. model is what I call the ‘fake it ‘til you make it’ model where the HPT practitioner put the physicals in place and has the skills and sensibilities that ensure the target audience (the bosses) behave in accordance with the physicals even though at first they will not understand how they drive improved outcomes. With enough practice and with enough faith in the HPT practitioner to follow his/her coaching, the outcomes will happen in ways that can be very positive. Case in point: after this morning’s video conference with the boss’s boss, I shadowed one of the site managers (the younger, newer, and more compliant one) to behave with one of the most basic physical tools in his hand. The dialogue that ensued with a very tenured and outspoke front line operator was a positive but tense ‘banter’ and by the end of the 30-minute dialogue (which will work down to 10 minutes daily with practice), the site manager discovered that an imminent problem would happen on Monday of next week. We call that ‘looking around corners’ – just minutes before this happened, the skeptical operator stated “you can’t predict the future of everything that will go wrong. The site manager walked back to his office and was beaming about the experience and his avoidance of yet another problem that was waiting for him early next week.

This thread is much longer than the discussion assignment asks, but I also wanted to articulate for myself the experience that I had that also fit into the scope of the assignment.

Stephen

References

Moseley, J. & Dessinger, J. (2010). Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Measurement and Evaluation (Volume 3) Hoboken: Wiley.

Bottom of Form