GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SUPERVISION
All guidelines for supervision and evaluation of employees require a road map on how to proceed. The supervision and evaluation of employees is no easy task, nor is there any single approach that can be given to criminal justice supervisors to follow. Instead, there are key issues and concepts that can assist and guide criminal justice administrators (see Bennett and Hess, 2007 , for a thorough discussion of supervision techniques). Yukl (1981) provides a list of guidelines to aid supervisors in the performance of their jobs. They include the following: defining job responsibilities, assigning work, and setting performance goals. Each of these areas has a number of subareas that define the supervision process.
Within the realm of defining job responsibilities, explaining the important job responsibilities, clarifying the person’s scope of authority, explaining how the job relates to the mission of the unit, and, most important, explaining important and relevant policies, rules, and requirements are essential. When assigning work, the supervisor must clearly explain the assignment, explain the reasons for the assignment, clarify priorities and deadlines, and check for comprehension among employees. Similarly, setting performance goals means setting goals for relevant aspects of performance, setting goals that are clear and specific, setting goals that are challenging but realistic, and setting a target date for the attainment of each goal ( Yukl, 1981 :68).
Oettmeier and Wycoff (1998) offer a model for evaluating and supervising police officers within the context of community policing efforts. This model offers three levels at which evaluation and supervision can be examined. At the first level, the evaluation and supervision efforts focus on individual performance and can include the following elements: traffic stops, arrests, and directed patrols toward specific crimes, to mention a few. At the second level, the evaluation and supervision parameters are focused at the team level within the organization.
The efforts of the team are evaluated on how well specific aims are met and incidents addressed. For example, officers may be evaluated on how well they implement a drunk driving apprehension unit and how many arrests are made. The focus of the evaluation is on team performance, not individual performance. The third level of evaluation examines the organization’s internal activities or procedures to address certain problems. At this level of evaluation, the administration is introspectively examining the operations of the organization with a focus on improving a process or procedure. An example is the procedures employed in the disciplinary process. The focus of the evaluation is to move beyond the individual or a team of officers; instead, the purpose is to evaluate the processes and procedures used to realize organizational goals.
This model has been applied to both small and large cities, and research has documented the trials and tribulations associated with this new way of evaluating police performance. In Houston, Texas, for example, application of the model has proven to be challenging and rewarding. Oettmeier and Wycoff (1998 :377–391) report that Houston police officials learned new ways to improve their performance evaluation systems and supervision approaches. These researchers offer the following changes in police performance evaluation to assist police administrators: adopt new assumptions concerning performance evaluation, specifically how and when performance evaluations are conducted; define the purposes of evaluation; identify new performance criteria; measure the effects of officer performance; strengthen the verification of performance among officers; develop new instrumentation to evaluate officer performance; solicit officer feedback about the performance of frontline supervisors, such as sergeants; and, finally, revise rating scales.
The evaluation and supervision of employees will always be problematic. Developing guidelines and specific approaches to evaluation and supervision will always be questioned. Nevertheless, personnel supervision and evaluation are a major task for criminal justice administrators. How this is accomplished is, in part, the test of an administrator’s skill level. The twenty-first-century criminal justice administrator will be pressed to provide more credible information and ways to assess employee performance. It will be one of the continuing challenges facing criminal justice administrators.
To meet this challenge, a number of writers have suggested that a 360-degree model of employee supervision be employed. This model of supervision recognizes the importance of multiple views on employee performance. It is a rather expansive model of supervision that envisions greater input from all those who are affected by an employee’s actions. The dominant stakeholders in this approach are both internal and external to the department. The Sacramento Police Department, for example, uses four sources of information for police officer performance appraisals: input from departmental personnel, such as peers who know the officer, personnel files, which may include commendations and complaints, officer performance within the unit as assessed by a supervisor, and an officer’s self-appraisal. Taken together, these sources of information provide a comprehensive review of an officer’s performance ( Scrivner, 2001 :115).
In addition, it is highly recommended that criminal justice organizations conduct performance appraisals on various dimensions that gauge employees’ success on the job. This means there are operationally defined performance appraisal dimensions. Scrivner (2001 :111–114) identifies nine specific dimensions to police officer performance appraisal: communication skills, interpersonal skills, integrity, commitment to service, work ethic, problem solving, safety, demeanor, and operation of a motor vehicle. By taking a comprehensive look at an officer’s performance, it is possible to conclude how successful the officer is in achieving the stated objectives and goals of a specific unit within the organization.