Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Performance Evaluation
Executive directors of nonprofit organizations are usually evaluated by the board of directors
or the personnel committee. The purpose of evaluating the executive director should be to
improve the way the organization is managed. To this end, executive directors should be told
in advance what issues and areas the board will be looking at when it does the evaluation,
and they should be given an opportunity to prepare a self-evaluation as well. A performance
evaluation of a management executive works strategically and benefits both the organization
and the executive when it serves to help the executive become aware of his/her strengths
and weaknesses and improve his/her job performance. The performance evaluation of a
management executive can take on a hostile tone, full of recriminations and criticisms,
especially if the evaluation takes place around the time of contract renewal. Rather than
serving as an exercise that increases tension and hostility, the performance evaluation of an
executive should be looked at as an opportunity for the board and the executive to strengthen
the organization by resolving any differences they might have regarding their roles and
responsibilities (Pynes, 1997).
Traditionally, the rabbi was the spiritual leader of the community. He provided moral
guidance and taught Jewish values. As Jill Davidson Sklar (2001) points out, because some
synagogues today are beginning to adopt a corporate model of structure and behavior, one of
the important questions being asked by many synagogues is whether the rabbi is the spiritual
leader, the chief executive officer, or both. This is an important question because as Rabbi
Sam Joseph, professor of Jewish religious education at Hebrew Union College points out, “If
you move into formal evaluation systems…then the rabbi is put on more of a corporate
track…That is a double-edged sword. If you start to use the symbols of business, you will be
treated as a business and CEOs are fired” (qtd.in Sklar, p. 41). Treating the rabbi as CEO
may not lead to firing him/her in every case, but as Rabbi Allen I. Freehling (2002), Rabbi
Emeritus of University Synagogue in Los Angeles, has observed, it can cause serious
damage to the rabbi-congregation relationship. Rabbi Freehling remarks, “Under these
circumstances the contemporary Reform rabbi has come to be identified by many or even all
congregation members as just another one of the synagogue’s professional staff – just
another employee who is no different than everyone else listed in the personnel roster. This
is detrimental not only to the rabbi, but also to most congregants who eagerly look up to or
would like to look up to their Rabbi as a special person in their lives” (p. 21-22).
The Reconstructionist Commission on the Role of the Rabbi (2001) recommends that
synagogues avoid following the corporate model when evaluating the rabbi. They suggest
that an evaluation should be done that focuses “on how the entire congregational community
is fulfilling its goals, mission and vision”(p. 71). The rabbi could then be evaluated as part of
that larger evaluation process, along with synagogue leaders, board members, committee
chairs and other staff.
Rabbi Joseph, Rabbi Freehling, and other commentators have noted that it is important to
keep Jewish values in mind when operating a synagogue and when establishing relationships
between the professionals and the lay people. They remind us that, as Jill Davidson Sklar
(2001) remarks, relationships in synagogues should be built on trust, not on the “cutthroat
tactics seen in the secular corporate world” (p. 41).