College and Research Libraries Performance Appraisals: Developing a Sound Legal and Managerial System Stanley P. Hodge Largely because their development and application as functional management tools have been profoundly affected by legislative and judicial decisions, performance appraisal systems have recently become a primary focus of attention in human resource management. The current performance appraisal situation is reviewed in light of recent equal employment opportunity requirements and managerial developments. Guidelines and recommendations based on cur- rent criteria are provided in order to assess a library's existing performance appraisal system or as an aid in developing one that meets current standards. This paper also provides a tested method for developing an acceptable appraisal instrument for library classified staff. erformance appraisal (P A) sys- tems are often viewed by li- brary managers as a necessary evil. There may be several rea- sons for this: the evaluation process may be considered as a chore that takes time away from more productive activities; em- ployees may feel the process has little or no effect on quality of performance; 1 and managers or staff may be dissatisfied with the appraisal instrument itself, either be- cause it is inappropriate for the given situ- ation or incorrectly administered. An effective performance appraisal sys- tem involves more than just a rating form. It includes such factors as an evaluator's judgments, job standards and criteria, or- ganizational policy, legal requirements, and evaluator training. When properly developed and administered, a P A system can overcome many of the familiar criti- cisms and provide library management with a useful tool that may perform many functions in personnel decision making and improve employee effectiveness as well. While there is little supporting empirical data to indicate the extent to which organi- zational functions are served by P A sys- tems, there is consensus on seven general functions for which they are often used. 2 These are: 1. To assist in personnel planning; 2. To provide a basis for employment decisions, i.e. promotion, termina- tion, merit pay, demotion, etc.; 3. To guide job development; 4. To provide performance feedback to employees; .5. To elicit feedback from the employee; 6. To serve as a basis for modifying or changing behavior; 7. To determine the need for training and coaching. Because P A systems are often used as a primary basis for decision making in the personnel area and serve to link the em- ployee behavior to organizational re- wards, it is important that they provide an accurate reflection of job performance. When they do not, an organization not only subjects itself to charges of failing to comply with equal employment opportu- nity legislation, but also jeopardizes the Stanley P. Hodge is head, Resource Development Division, Texas A&M University Library, College Station, Texas . 235 236 College & Research Libraries progress of its employees and the achieve- ment of its organizational goals. Recent surveys have indicated that many organi- zation's P A systems lag behind applicable federal guidelines. 3 Any rating instrument that is used as a screening device for employee decisions is viewed by the Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission (EEOC) and the courts as an "employee selection procedure" and thus is subject to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or precedents set by a number of federal court cases. At the very least, a library should review its perfor- mance appraisal system to determine that its effect has not discriminated against those groups protected by Title VII of this act. If adverse impact* is shown by a plain- tiff, the employer must show that its P A system is job related. When job related- ness cannot be demonstrated, ''the court may render the employer liable for back pay, court costs, specific management training programs for and/ or promotion of more female and minority employees as part of the settlement of the case.' ' 4 The following discussion briefly reviews the established legal requirements p·er- taining to P A systems and some recom- mended criteria to use as a basis for devel- oping a system that will serve managerial goals and avoid legal liability. In addition, the findings will be applied in a methodol- ogy to design a performance appraisal form for library classified staff. LEGISLATION AFFECTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Title VII is concerned with discrimina- tion in all conditions of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or na- tional origin.t Employment decisions in- clude the training, rewarding, reassign- ing, promoting, demoting, retraining, and dismissal of employees. When per- formance appraisals used for making any July 1983 of the above decisions result in adverse impact, they clearly fall within the pur- view of Title VII and subsequent sets of government guidelines on employee se- lection.5 The EEOC was created and given the power to bring suit against certain types of employers found to be in viola- tion of Title VII. Those employers include federal, state, and municipal agencies, ed- ucational institutions, and any organiza- tion with more than fifteen employees who work for more than twenty consecu- tive weeks. In 1970, the Guidelines on Employee Selec- tion Procedures6 broadened the scope of EEOC's power to enforce compliance with Title VII. For instance, the definition of test was expanded to include all formal, scored, quantified, and standardized techniques assessing job suitability when these are used as a basis for any employ- ment decision. 7 Under these guidelines, personnel decisions that result in adverse impact are subject to challenge by the EEOC when a disproportionate number of the minority or protected group is screened out. EEOC guidelines also re- quire that employment practices, i.e., per- formance evaluations, be validated if any of the components are found to have an adverse impact on these protected groups .8 Because the 1970 guidelines defined tests to include any and all formally scored, quantified, or standardized tech- niques used for selection and appraisal purposes, many organizations aban- doned formal systems in favor of infor- mal, intuitive procedures. The 1978 guide- lines9 then redefined test to also include unstandardized, informal, and unscored appraisal procedures and were more spe- cific than the 1970 version with regard to adverse impact, indicating that adverse impact should be calculated according to the "Four Fifths Rule. " 10 Other ap- *Adverse impact occurs when a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decision results in a disadvantaged position for members of a protected group . tThe Age Discrimination Act of 1967 and its 1978 amendment parallels Title VII and prohibits dis- crimination against workers between forty and seventy years of age. proaches used by the courts in assessing adverse impact include: (1) internal com- parisons made between percentages of minorities employed in high- and low- level positions; (2) labor-market compari- sons of the percentage of employed mi- norities with the percentage found in the general population; (3) evidence that an employer intentionally or unintentionally restricted members of a protected group; or ( 4) evidence that an employer contin- ued to seek applicants for a position when a qualified applicant was rejected. 11' 12 LANDMARK COURT CASES THAT AFFECT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEMS Four landmark cases13' 14 relating directly or indirectly to P A systems have had an early significant impact on current stan- dards and requirements. In these cases, it was determined that some type of dis- crimination resulted from the defendants ' biased or unstandardized use of a selec- tion or appraisal system. Four fundamen- tal legal implications based on these court decisions resulted. 1. In Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), it was ruled that employment crite- ria that adversely affect a protected group must be shown to be job related. 2. In the decision of Rowe v. General Mo- tors Corporation (1972), subjective criteria were suspect and ruled to be considered as only one component of an overall process. 3. In Brito v. Zia Company (1973), per- formance appraisals were considered tests, and subject to validation. 4. In the decision of Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service (1974), the court ruled that the defendant used an ap- praisal system based on personal traits that are subject to partiality and to per- sonal taste, whim, or fancy of the evalua- tor and rejected the performance appraisal validation because it was not based on for- mal job analysis . In more recent rulings15' 16 the courts con- sidered performance appraisal instru- ments as if they were ''tests,'' and applied the Uniform Guidelines when evaluating their validity. Personnel specialists within both the public and private sectors have Performance Appraisals 237 examined these and the numerous other cases involving discrimination charges that resulted from performance appraisal. While there is no guarantee that any rating instrument or PA system design will prove successful in an employer' s de- fense, certain steps may be taken by li- brary administrators to develop a sound legal and managerial P A system that has a favorable chance of being successfully de- fended. SUGGESTED CRITERIA TO USE IN DEVELOPING/ ASSESSING AND APPLYING A PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM In order to understand more fully the implications of this review, the findings are presented in a way that the librarian- supervisor may apply them in a practical situation. The following list summarizes the legislative, judicial, and managerial criteria that would constitute a strong foundation upon which a P A system might be built. The list is based on are- view of the recent literature on the topic and reports the advisory findings of aca- demicians, lawyers, and personnel spe- cialists regarding how P A systems can meet the aforementioned criteria when they are developed, assessed, or when an established system is applied in practice. By using these criteria, it is possible to de- velop a P A system that would not only be more acceptable to the library administra- tor as a management tool but also to the courts as well in discrimination suits in- volving personnel decisions resulting from the application of a P A system. Like- wise, the criteria might be used by plain- tiffs as a principal basis for developing their arguments in a suit against an em- ployer. Criteria for Developing/ Assessing a Performance Appraisal System 1. The system is devised using job anal- ysis and the enumeration of critical ele- ments defined in terms of job descriptions and annual performance goals. Job analy- sis involves describing the tasks, duties, and responsibilities associated with a job. 2. Employees are involved in setting 238 College & Research Libraries criteria based on "critical job factors." 3. Performance standards or require- ments for both critical elements and other important job aspects are set, either sepa- rately or within position descriptions. 4. There is an absence or minimum of evaluation of personal traits, e.g., those that may permit substantial subjectivity by the supervisor. 5. Precise, unambiguous language is used throughout the appraisal form. 6. The weight of each measure in rela- tion to the overall assessment is fixed if the appraisal involves various measures of performance. 7. When validation studies are required due to adverse impact, they are preceded by formal job analysis. 8. Training programs for managers and supervisors on conducting effective per- formance appraisals are completed by all managers/ supervisors. Criteria for Application of the Performance Appraisal System 1. Performance expected of employees is communicated and goals and objectives of the ratee' s job are made clear in terms of behavior and the results to be achieved. 2. The ratee is advised of the purpose(s) of the appraisal. 3. At least two levels of supervisors re- view an appraisal before an evaluation is presented to an employee, particularly when it results in an ''unsatisfactory'' rat- ing. 4. Persons completing the appraisal base their ratings on a personal knowl- edge of the ratee's performance and con- tact with the ratee. 5. Problems that may be hampering job performance are discussed with the ratee. 6. An opportunity is provided for the evaluatee to voice opinions during the ap- praisal process. 7. Procedures exist for employees who disagree with any aspect of an evaluation to appeal to higher management or a re- view committee. 17-21 . WHICH FORMAT TO USE? A review of the literature indicates that there are numerous types of performance July 1983 appraisal systems used in libraries. Among the most popular are the Graphic Rating Scale, Management by Objectives (MBO), Written Essay, Behavioral Obser- vation Rating Scale (BORS), Ranking, Forced Choice, and Forced Distribution methods. The EEOC has not specified that any rating instrument is safe from litiga- tion, and no single system is necessarily advocated. (It is not the instrument or pro- cess that is illegal but rather the conse- quences of the process.) Each has its ad- vantages and drawbacks, and a library is advised to develop one that meets its own particular needs as a managerial tool. An example of how the librarian- manager may develop a P A instrument that would meet the above-mentioned cri- teria is described below. In this case, the objective was to design a performance rat- ing form for library classified staff en- gaged in technical services work. Some specific objectives of this form to assist li- brary's management were: 1. To aid personnel decisions, i.e., merit pay, promotion; 2. To assess the need for job develop- ment and further training; 3. To provide performance feedback to the employee. The instrument selected as an example for development was the Behavioral Ob- servation Rating Scale (See appendix A). This consists of a number of related behav- ioral statements that are grouped into cat- egories. Employees are observed and rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from unsatisfactory to outstanding to de- scribe how well an employee demon- strates those behaviors. The categories or behavioral statements may be weighted and the results quantified for a total aver- age score, although this is not essential. Only five ratings are used for each behav- ior item because research shows that there is little gained by adding scale values be- yond five. 22 Since in this case the appraisal form was developed to assess classified staff performing several different func- tions, some statements may not always be applicable, and the supervisor is given the option to indicate so by not rating on some items. (For instance, some staff may not perform supervisory functions.) APPLICATION: DEVELOPMENT OF A BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION RATING SCALE Description of Organization for Whom the Appraisal Form Was Developed The technical services functions at the li- brary for which the appraisal form was de- veloped consist of acquisitions, circula- tion, interlibrary services, processing, and resource development. Eighteen librari- ans and eighty-five classified staff are em- ployed in these activities. Of the eighty- five classified staff, twenty are library assistants who have supervisory func- tions. Classified staffs' salaries range from about $8,000 to $16,000 per year. Their ed- ucationallevel ranges from a high-school diploma through a master's degree. Al- though a high turnover is characteristic of the lower-level positions in some divi- sions, several staff have seniority of fifteen to twenty years. Ninety-one percent are women. Methodology and Results The technique described below was not difficult to carry out; however, the cooper- ation of staff who provided and ranked the critical incidents in their jobs was in- strumental in obtaining a valid and reli- able list of characteristic job-related behav- iors . A frequently used job analysis technique for developing a BORS is to de- velop a list of critical or important inci- dents of behavior. Supervisors and those whom they supervise are asked to provide observations about the critical require- ments of the job. Generally, effective inci- dents are requested before ineffective inci- dents . This is done so the participant does not jump to the conclusion that the infor- mation is being sought to demote or termi- nate an employee. Survey questionnaires (appendix B pro- vides an example) were developed to elicit responses from the three categories of per- sonnel (librarians, library assistants, and clerks/secretaries) about what they thought were the most important, critical job-related behaviors for their own jobs and for the co-workers within their divi- sions . Librarians were asked to list impor- Performance Appraisals 239 tant job-related behaviors for library assis- tants and clerks/secretaries; library assistants for themselves and the clerks/ secretaries; and clerks/secretaries for only their own category. All were also asked to list examples of unacceptable job-related behavior. A representative sample of 25 percent of the personnel was desired for the survey. This would consist of 25 of the 103 total po- sitions. Positions selected to survey were based largely on the distribution of job lev- els within each division. Permission to conduct the survey was first obtained from the library's assistant director, the head of persQnnel, and each division head whose staff were td be sur- veyed. Division heads were asked to se- lect experienced personnel from their divi- sion whom they felt had both a good grasp of responsibilities and the ability to verbal- ize critical behaviors. The survey ques- tionnaire was tested for clarity of purpose with one division. No problems in com- prehending what information was being sought were encountered by those ini- tially surveyed. The procedure in admin- istering the survey was to gather each sep- arate division's staff together, distribute the survey, and briefly describe what they were being asked to do and why. They were told that they were a "select group" whom their division head felt would be able to provide significant insight into what was important in fulfilling their job responsibilities. They were told to indicate important job-related behaviors that they felt made the difference between doing a su- perior or poor job. They were asked to read over the form and to ask any ques- tions. Twenty-three of the twenty-five survey forms were returned . Over 250 job-related behaviors were supplied by the respon- dents. Many of these were very specific and duplicative. In addition, the undesir- able behaviors were converted to be con- sistent with desirable ones, i.e., "Em- ployee is consistently late for work" was converted to "Reports to work on sched- ule ." The reason for following the above pro- cedure was to adhere to what researchers in this field believe satisfies the require- r-----------------------------~------------~--------------------.--------~ 240 College & Research Libraries ments of the Uniform Guidelines to allow employees to participate in identifying the critical elements of their job. Also, to pro- mote their acceptance by employees, it is wise to proceed participatively when ap- praisal systems are developed or revised. The rating scale is thus developed from a systematic job analysis supplied by em- ployees, for employees. This method helps to minimize the possibility that the behaviors described are too vague or are inappropriate to the job. It also results in an appraisal instrument that is content valid. Since library staff usually perform a large and diversified number of tasks, the assessment of each would not be practical. Consequently, the 255 observations were matched and synthesized into thirty-six more-general statements. With the assis- tance of the library's head of personnel, those thirty-six behavioral observations were further refined, and divided into eight general performance areas. This pro- cedure helped to reduce the appraisal in- strument to a ·manageable size and to structure it into logical performance areas that could facilitate the rating and counsel- ing process. Th~ general performance ar- eas were: supervision, job knowledge, work habits, r~sporisibility, quality and accuracy of work, relations with supervi- sor, human relations/cooperation, and so- cial behavior. In addition, when the indi- vidual responses from the original 255 were divided into thirty-six behavioral ob- servations, they were tallied as to whether they were mentioned by a librarian, li- brary assistant, or clerk/ secretary to en- sure that a generally proportional distri- bution among the staffing levels was obtained. Reliability and Validity Two additional steps were taken to as- sure reliability and content validity. First, the list of thirty-six behaviors was distrib- uted to all twenty-three subjects who par- ticipated in the survey. They were asked to check what they thought were the two most important behaviors in each cate- gory and also to indicate one in each cate- gory that they thought was the least im- July 1983 portant. (Relations with supervisor was an exception since there are only two be- haviors in this category.) Reliability means ''dependability,'' ''stability,'' or '' consis- tency.'' The purpose of this second survey was to test how consistent respondents were in indicating the degree of impor- tance placed on the various behaviors. Would, for instance, those behaviors that were most frequently suggested in the ini- tial survey still be ranked as very impor- tant now that respondents would see be- haviors they may have initially failed to mention? The results of the second survey con- firmed the reliability of critical behaviors listed by respondents in the first survey. For example, "trains staff patiently and thoroughly and informs them of updated procedures" was initiated by ten respon- dents on the initial survey. On the second survey, when twenty-three persons sam- pled were made aware of this behavior, it was listed as being one of the two most im- portant in the supervision category by fourteen respondents, and as the least im- portant by only one. Hence, the reliability or consistency of this behavior is demon- strated for the BORS instrument. Another behavior, however, 11 determines and as- sesses job priorities and delegates them to appropriate staff'' received a low reliabil- ity rating. Table 1 illustrates the behaviors arranged by rank order of reliability within each category for the general per- formance area of "work habits." When determining the behaviors to be included on the BORS1 those with the lowest relia- bility would be subject to deletion in the fi- nal edited version of the appraisal form. (Appendix A lists the twenty-eight con- sidered most important of the original . thirty-six.) Second, content validity of the instru- ment was further tested by selecting a rep- resentative group of job descriptions for ten of the survey participants. The charac- teristic duties and responsibilities and per- sonal qualifications listed on each job de- scription were compared to the behaviors on the instrument and matched when possible. Matches between performance requirements and the behaviors were pos- Performance Appraisals 241 TABLE 1 WORK HABITS BEHAVIOR ARRANGED BY RANK ORDER OF RELIABILITY Item No . 14 11 12 16 15 13 Item No. 1st Survey No . Times Mentioned 10 5 8 3 1 4 2d Survey Most Important 10 8 11 7 2 1 2d Survey Least Important 1 0 2 3 5 9 14. Organizes work schedule and uses time efficiently. 11 . Follows through on assignments. 12. Gives prompt attention to priority responsibilities. 16. Able to perform in absence of close supervision. 15. Adequately documents work so steps are not duplicated or omitted. 13. Maintains work area in a well-organized manner. sible on twenty-seven of the thirty-six items. The omissions could have been the fault of the job descriptions more than the critical behaviors listed by the employees. It should be noted, however, that those items categorized as ''social behavior'' are not the type of thing traditionally indi- cated in job descriptions. The results fur- ther confirmed the content validity al- ready inherent through the procedure applied in gathering the behavior state- ments. (These had been described as be- ing critical elements of the job and critical for job performance.) Additional Factors in a PA System To assist the library's management in meeting the three objectives of the per- formance appraisal, a series of questions is developed that require a narrative re- sponse (see appendix A). It is also recom- mended that the ratee be provided with an opportunity to agree or disagree in writing regarding the appraisal statements and to comment if needed. The training and instruction provided to the supervisors and raters is integral to the appraisal system. Research has indicated these will improve the reliability and accu- racy of performance ratings. 23 In addition, the importance of a supervisor's review and counseling session with the library staff member cannot be overstressed. This 11 discussion provides the opportunity for clarifying any differences in perceptions concerning the employee's performance which cause the person to feel that the rat- ing on a particular statement may not ac- curately reflect actual performance.' ' 24 1t is highly recommended that any newly de- veloped PA system be tested and evalu- ated, on a small scale, separately or con- currently with one already in use by the employer. CONCLUSION A library's performance appraisal sys- tem that fails to incorporate current stan- dards may have several negative conse- quences. It may not only trigger litigation when adverse impact results against pro- tected groups, but it may also impede em- ployee and managerial effectiveness as well. This paper has provided some checklists that library administrators may utilize in evaluating their present P A sys- tems or to develop alternatives that ad- here to current standards. A procedure was demonstrated that can yield a job- related performance appraisal instrument adhering to recent recommendations of professionals in the field of human re- source management. Although the exam- ple is specifically related to classified staff in library technical services, the methodol- ogy may be generalized to a wide variety and level of tasks in other organizations. 242 College & Research Libraries July 1983 REFERENCES 1. G. Edward Evans, "Another Look at Performance Appraisal in Libraries/' Journal of Library Ad- ministration 3:61-69 (Summer 1982). 2. Eileen K. Burton, "Measuring the Effectiveness of a Performance Appraisal System" (Ph.D. dis- sertation, Univ. of Washington, 1979), p.9. 3. Hubert S. Field and William H. Holley, "Relationship of Performance Appraisal System Charac- teristics to Verdicts in Selected Employment Discrimmation Cases/' Acaaemy of Management Jour- nal 25:392-406 (June 1982). 4. William H. Holler and Hubert S. Field, "Will Your Performance Appraisal System Hold Up in Court?" Personne 59:59-64 (Jan./Feb. 1982). 5. Lawrence D. Kleiman and Richard L. Durham, "Performance Appraisal, Promotion and the Courts: A Critical Review," Personnel Psychology 34:103-21 (Spring 1981). 6. U.S. E~ual Employment Opportunity Commission, "Guidehnes on Employee Selection Proce- dures,' Federa[Register35, no.149:12333-36 (Aug. 1, 1970). 7. Ibid., p.12334. 8. The EEOC recommends that appraisal instruments be content valid; that is, they reflect important dimensions of job performance. Content validity is concerned with representativeness and rele- vance of the behaviors described within a rating mstrument in terms ofthe critical elements of the job. Content validity is also concerned with whether the instrument adequately measures the be- haviors considered critical for effective job performance . The courts also stress the importance of this issue. See Dena B. Schneier, "The Impact of EEO Legislation on Performance Appraisals," Personnel55:24-34 (July/Aug . 1978). 9. U.S. Equal Opporturuty Commission and others, "Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures," Federal Register4, no.166:38290-38315 (Aug. 25, 1978). 10. The "Four Fifths Rule" is a rule of thumb and not a legal definition used by the EEOC for deter- mining adverse impact. Hiring and promotion rates for minority groups which are less than four- fifths or 80 percent of the rate for the group with the highest hiring and promotion rate are re- garded as evidence of adverse impact. See D. A. Cutchin, Guide to Public Administration (Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1981), p.43. 11. Kleiman and Durham, "Performance Appraisal," p.106 . 12. Schneier, "The Impact of EEO Legislation," p.26. 13. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. EquafOpportunity Court Cases (Washington, D.C. : Govt. Print. Off., 1979). 14. Wade v . Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service 12 FEP 1031 (1974). 15 . Watkins v. Scott Paper Co. 12 FEP 1191 (1976). 16. United States v. City of Chicago 16 FEP 908 (1978). 17. Burton, "Measurin9 the Effectiveness," p.171-73. 18. William L. Kandel, 'Performance Evaluation and EEO," Employee Relations Law Journal6:476-83 (Winter 1980/81). 19. Patricia Linenburger and Timothy}. Keareny, "Performance Appraisal Standards Used by the Courts," Personne1 Administrator 26:89-94 (May 1981). 20. Gary L. Lubben and others, "Performance Appraisal: The Legal Implications of Title VII," Person- nel57:11-21 (Ma,},'/June 1980). 21. J ule Sugarman, 'Some Realistic Criteria for Appraisal Systems,'' Management (U.S. Office of Per- sonnel Management) 1:16-21 (Spring 1980). 22. Gary P . Latham and Kenneth N . Wexley, Increasing Productivity through Performance Appraisal (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1981). 23. H. Bernardin and C. S. Walter, "Effects of Rater Training and Diary-Keeping of Psychometric Er- ror Ratings," Journal of Applied Psychology 62:64-69 (Feb. 1977). 24. Geor9e Rosinger and others, "Development of a Behaviorally Based Performance Appraisal Sys- tem,' Personnel Psychology 35 :75-88 (Spring 1982), p.82 . APPENDIX A: BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION RATING SCALE DEVELOPED FOR LIBRARY TECHNICAL SERVICES STAFF CODE: 1 Outstanding 4 Needs Improvement SUPERVISION 2 Meritorious 5 Unsatisfactory 3 Satisfactory N/A Not Applica- ble 1. Trains staff patiently and thoroughly and informs them of updated procedures. Performance Appraisals 243 2. Accessible to staff for answering questions and solving problems. 3. Handles problems impartially and provides those supervised with constructive suggestions. 4. Monitors and controls workflow in assigned area and anticipates problems. 5. Monitors quantity and quality of staff performance; evaluates and treats assigned staff fairly . JOB KNOWLEDGE 6. Understands assigned responsibilities and their relationship to end product. 7. Learns and applies procedures and policies and knows where to find them. 8. Periodically reviews procedures and suggests changes/improvements. 9. Accurately interprets information available in work tools. WORK HABITS 10. Organizes work schedule and uses time efficiently. 11. Follows through on assignments. 12. Gives prompt attention to priority responsibilities. 13. Able to perform in absence of close supervision . RESPONSIBILITY 14. Takes initiative in performing job and in handling minor problems. 15. Readily accepts suggestions and is receptive to new ideas and methods of accomplishing objec- tives. 16. Willing to accept added responsibilities -when required. QUALITY AND ACCURACY OF WORK 17. Thoroughly investigates and attempts to solve problems before referring them upward for resolu- tion . 18 . Checks own work for accuracy and completeness . RELATIONS WITH SUPERVISOR 19. Requests assistance when appropriate. 20 . Maintains and fosters communication channels with supervisor. HUMAN RELA TIONS /COOPEM TION 21. Conveys helpful, cooperative, and friendly attitude when dealing with library patrons and staff. 22. Interacts well with co-workers to perform assigned responsibilities. 23. Conveys a positive attitude toward work and co-workers. 24 . Resolves problems with co-workers and patrons in a mature manner . 25. Participates in resolving divisional problems and contributes positive suggestions. SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 26. Reports for work on schedule and has good attendance record . 27 . Avoids excessive socializing or disrupting others with noise. 28. Avoids abusing telephone or office equipment for personal use . OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 29. What are this employee ' s major strengths? 30. What specific steps may the employee take to improve performance? 31 . What job training or development programs are recommended to help further employee's prog- ress? 32. Other comments by supervisor. APPENDIX B: INSTRUCTIONS FOR LIBRARY ASSISTANTS Think about the specific jobs you and your clerks/secretaries perform. What are the most important job-related behaviors required by you and you_r st~f in your division? Some may be general behav- iors that are important for all within the division. Others may apply more directly to those just within your unit . A representative sampling of desirable and important behavior relating to jobs 244 College & Research Libraries July 1983 within your division is requested. These should consist of simple, brief statements. Examples might be: 1. Checks and monitors quality of work for clerks under supervision. 2. Attempts to resolve problems with library users or staff before turning them over to a supervisor. 3. Checks work for accuracy before submitting it for further processing. Advice: Try to begin the statements with a verb, i.e. knows, prepares, trains, delegates, completes, etc. This may not always be possible, however. I. IMPORTANT JOB-RELATED BEHAVIORS FOR LffiRARY ASSISTANTS (list minimum of five): II. IMPORTANT JOB-RELATED BEHAVIORS FOR CLERKS/SECRETARIES (list minimum of five):