| |
PEER EVALUATION at M.U.M.S. by Robert Tarrant
---------------------------------
INTRODUCTION:
I propose we use a method of regular peer evaluation in
order to increase the quality of the work at MUMS, to give a
greater financial reward to those who are most valuable to MUMS
in as democratic way as possible.
METHOD:
At each quarterly meeting evaluation forms will be available
containing a list of names of all members and all potential
members passed by the membership committee. Next to these names
will be a column for each job or role at MUMS. If you have
worked with a member and feel you are able to evaluate the
ability of that person in that particular job then fill in the
space with an evaluation figure. Do this for everyone you have
worked with and leave the other spaces BLANK. Place the form in
a box WITHOUT your name on it within the following week.
The forms are then collected by the bookkeeper who finds
the average evaluation for each worker for each job. Before any
evaluation is done the worker will be getting our basic starting
wage for any job they do. On evaluation, a wage multiplying
factor will be established for each job performed by each worker.
So a worker will have a factor for each of the jobs they are
capable of doing.
COMMENTS:
The evalution factor can easily be worked out no matter what
scale is used on the forms.
The bookkeeper should be able to do it in less than a day
for all members and place these factors on the members cards or
other records.
If cards are used the member can easily check his/her
factors at a glance if they are forgotten and will be able to see
if they are improving from quarter to quarter.
MAJOR ADVANTAGES:
Fairer - if evaluation is averaged over several peers, then
extreme biases will have a smaller effect than if the bias is
held by one evaluator, and individual idiosyncratic preferences
should be averaged out. This should produce a more objective
evaluation of a particular member as viewed by MUMS in general
and not the subjective opinion of an individual.
Quicker - than a committee because no meetings need be
arranged, the evaluation sheets are filled out in peoples' own
time and handed to the office for processing probably by the
bookkeeper.
Give Ongoing Feedback - as to how a member is fairing in
relation to the expectations of fellow workers. This will
result in a type of behavior modification to increase the quality
of work. Thru this method we can modify ourselves instead of the
'boss' doing it or a committee. Also the 'boss' or committee
does not have the ability to observe everyones work habits and so
is not in a position to evaluate a worker.
Natural Selection - should result from a regular 3 month
evaluation in which the valuable members are being rewarded the
most for the jobs they do and will be more likely to work more
and stay with MUMS longer (resulting in less turnover and the
accompanying training costs). Also the reverse will happen to
the members who do not do a good job or do not improve. The
result is that the quality of member at MUMS goes up.
Efficient - for dispatchers who want to get (or avoid)
particular workers for some special job but do not know the
abilities of all the worker. They can just check the cards and
get the workers who fit best.
Responsibility - is handed to the worker, we give ourselves
the ability to determine our own wages and who we want to
encourage to stay at MUMS.
Most important we should move toward participatory democracy
whenever possible and give it a try. True, we don't always have
sufficient knowlege to make some technical decisions but only we
are really in a position to judge ourselves and it's something we
have to do one way or another.
______________________________________________
UPDATE 15 Sept 1985
I proposed the above at the wages and rates meeting held on
the 20 Aug '85. We decided to give peer evaluation a trial run
without putting it into practice until we had a chance to see how
it worked and discuss it at the next gen. meeting.
In addition, we decided to change the rates to:
$43.00/hr for 2 workers and truck, regular rate.
$10.00/extra person.
10% discount only for any of the following:
Student, Senior, Disabled, Co-op of more than 5
units, midmonth move.
It was decided to put these rates into effect on 25 Sept.
'85. As our rates are a very important issue, please feel free
to let the directors know if you would like us to postpone putting
these revisions into effect until after we have discussed them at
the next gen. meeting.
We also set the AVERAGE rates for the following MUMS jobs:
All non-members and new jobs starting rate $4.00/hr
Swamper 5.00
Driver [trucks 1 - 4] 6.00
Driver [5 - ton truck] 6.50
Garden Manager 6.25
Garden Helper 5.00
Carpenter 5.50
Multi-skilled Repair Person 6.00
Gopher [office odd jobs] 5.00
Dispatcher 5.25
Office Co-ordinator 6.25
Bookkeeper 6.50
We still need to set rates at a gen. or special meeting for:
Research and Project Worker
Mechanic
Committee worker [chairperson, minutes taker etc.]
... any others you can think of ?
These rates will be posted clearly in the office.
________________________________
PEER EVALUATION FORMS
Along with this proposal you will find a peer evaluation
form similar to the ones we will probably use to evaluate each
other regularly. As outlined earlier, this is an attempt to get
an average opinion of a worker in a particular job as seen by
his/her workmates. It is very important to consider carefully
the values you enter on this form. If you are not in a position
to evaluate a person's performance in a particular job then LEAVE
THAT SPACE BLANK. Don't worry if most of the form is blank when
you hand it in because a lot of people work at MUMS and you
probably have the oportunity to work with a few only.
I have taken the liberty of making a few minor changes for
ease of operation. These do not change the basic system.
For evaluation I think it best to use the conceptual
standard zero to ten, with five being average. For example, if
the average is $6.00/hr for a job, then a value of five will give
that worker a rate of $6.00/hr. If that worker is terrible at
the job and we would like to encourage him/her to do something
else, we would give a zero, then s/he will be paid the basic
$4.00/hr [the min.]. If, on the other hand, the worker is
absolutely incredibly good at that job and we want to make sure
they continue, then they would be given a ten and receive
$8.00/hr [the max.] for doing this particular job. Of course
most of the people you evaluate will be between these extremes so
rate them accordingly and they will be paid accordingly.
In order to do the maths, the zero to ten range will be
averaged out and scaled down to zero to two. These averaged
values will be called FACTORS. Then the bookkeeper will place
these factors on a card for each worker for easy reference. Each
worker will have a series of factors on his/her card for every
job s/he has been evaluated at. These factors will probably
change whenever we have a reevaluation and enable the worker to
note their progress on each job.
The worker can do the calculations on their time sheet much
as before. In fact for the non-evaluated non-member there will
not be any change.
(BASIC WAGE) x (HOURS WORKED)
= amount paid for job
The evaluated members will deal with two more multiplyers to
determine their wage.
For example, where we have decided that the rate we pay an
average driver is $6.00/hr, we can look at this as broken into a
BASIC WAGE of $4.00/hr + MEMBERS AVERAGE BONUS of $2.00/hr.
So the four multiplyers are:
BASIC WAGE,
MEMBERS AVERAGE BONUS,
FACTOR,
HOURS.
Now we multiply only the MEMBERS AVERAGE BONUS by the
FACTOR; then add the BASIC WAGE and multiply the result by the
hours as follows:
[(MEMBERS AVERAGE BONUS x FACTOR) + BASIC WAGE] x HOURS
= amount paid for job
For example, if a 5-ton driver with a factor of 1.3 works
for 3.5 hours on a job, then the calculations would be like this:
[($2.50/hr x 1.3) + $4.00/hr] x 3.5 hours
= $25.38
(... this particular driver's rate works out at $7.25/hr
because she was evaluated as being better than average ($6.50/hr)).
|
|
