Performance Management 229
that are generic in nature and refl ect community values — for example,
improved infrastructure in the city. From that goal, a specifi c objective
is developed, such as widening Main Street, and the task is to allocate
resources and manpower toward developing a project budget, including
design, right - of – way acquisition, and construction (Szerlag, 2005). The
city manager would then be evaluated on if and how well the objectives
and tasks were met.
Another approach is to use evaluation forms that members of the
council complete. Each council member rates the manager on performance
dimensions, targeting this person ’ s critical responsibilities, such as budget
management, supervision, HRM, relationship with the mayor and council,
relationship with employees, public relations, leadership, execution of policy,
and community reputation. The evaluations are sent to the mayor, who
compiles the data and determines an overall rating. Other recommenda-
tions include having the council and manager meet in executive session to
evaluate the manager ’ s performance or having the manager, council, and
mayor set annual work objectives and goals and evaluate the manager ’ s
progress toward the goals. The ICMA recommends that councils provide
yearly evaluations but leaves the details to be developed by the council and
manager in each city.
City managers are often evaluated on the following competencies:
Relationship with the council
Fiscal management
Planning
Public relations
Effective leadership of staff
Communication
Interpersonal skills
Execution of duties
Like the ICMA, BoardSource recognizes that there is not one best
technique to evaluate chief executives. Instead, each board must decide
which procedures best serve the agency. Four general methods of assessment
have been identifi ed by Nason (1993):
◆◆◆
- Intermittent or continuous observation of the chief executive by board
members, especially the chairperson. This method is used mostly in small
• • • • • • • •
