1. Review the information in the Peer Evaluation Process handout and your team’s evaluation criteria.BA352 Organizational BehaviorMemoTo: BA352 Organizational Behavior Spring Term 2005From: Corrine Gobeli, Ph.D.Date: January 14, 2019Re: Final Team and Peer Evaluation MemoFrom Peer Evaluation Process handout: At the end of the term, in class, team members will discuss as a group the teams’ major strengths, areas where the team may have improved and how the team changed over the course of the term. In addition, each team member will talk one on one with each other member, exploring personal strengths and areas of improvement.Based on your overall team experience and the discussions and feedback, you will complete a final Peer Evaluation Form and a Team and Peer evaluation memo. You will note that team members may receive scores from 70% to 130%. The average of all team member ratings will be averaged and the instructor’s rating on the Resource Guide will be adjusted based on the average rating received.1. Review the information in the Peer Evaluation Process handout and your team’s evaluation criteria. 2. Complete the Final Rating Form. Follow all instructions on the form (numbers 1-5).3. Write a memo, addressing the following items.a. Overall group/team effectiveness. Address the three levels of team effectiveness, providingspecific details and rationale to support your evaluation. To what extent did your group/team meet course goals (both instructor’s and team’s goals)?How would you evaluate your team dynamics and effectiveness; could you work again together? What did you learn about yourself and team work? How satisfied are you with the experience?b. Team development. Discuss how your group changed from your first meeting to this point in time.What changes, if any, did you observe in group dynamics? To what extent did the group develop intoa team? What key events affected the team’s development? How did in-class exercises help orhinder team development?c. Individual member assessments: Provide written rationale, facts and specific data to support yourfinal rating sheet allocations. The reader should be able to read your rationale and understandclearly why you gave the scores you did. Remember that equality and equity are not the same. Thisis a time for you to be serious, reflective and honest. See the additional thoughts and reflectionsbelow.4. More Thoughts: Team and Peer Evaluation Processa. Considerations when allocating numerical ratingsBase the rating on the criteria and weightings agreed to by your team.1Consider the entire life of your team.Guard against measurement errors and strive for equity. Review Chapter 4, pages 69-72 and chapter 7, pg. 139-141 for more guidance. Remember, giving everyone exactly the same score on all dimensions may not be equitable, especially if one person, for example,demonstrated superior leadership skills, another demonstrated higher quality than others while others did their fair share. It is highly unlikely that everyone performed exactly the same on all criteria! Is it fair to deny one person’s outstanding performance or to fail to confront another’s lackluster performance?b. Considerations when supporting your ratings. Be descriptive and specific. Provide support for your final rating sheet allocation. See the examples below. Which rationale, in your estimation, provides a clearer sense of why the person received the ratings s/he did?J. Louis was a nice guy. He received an 85 because of the quality and quantity of his work. He was usually prepared, but missed some meetings and didn’t let us know ahead of time. He was really creative and helped us a lot. Sometimes he wanted to do things his own way, so I rated him down on cooperation. A. Lincoln = 105. Our team could not have completed our project without Abe. Fromour first meeting outside of class, when he encouraged us to have agendas and to follow them to the last meeting when he baked brownies as a thank you, farewell treat, Abe took a leadership role. He kept us on task with agendas and asked at the end of every meeting, “Okay, guys, how’d we do? What can we do better next time?”He definitely deserves a 14/10 for influence and leadership. He earned a 27/25 for quality of work. His section of the paper was well-researched, well-organized and needed the least editing of all. It was, however, a shorter part of the overall project, so he received a 9/10 on quantity of work.Our oral presentation was a skit - which was Abe’s idea. Whenever we did an in-class exercise, Abe seemed to come up with an idea that helped us do it better and faster. For example, in the Farmers task force, he suggested that we each take the role of one of the farmers - we finished first. He earned a 12/10in creativity.He was always prepared for class and our meetings. Because he was so well prepared, he was sometimes impatient with people who hadn’t read the chapter or finished their assignment. He’s very witty but his remarks sometimes hurt other people’s feelings; thus, he earned a 20/20 on preparation and 23/25 on cooperation. Page
View Full Document
Unlocking...