Condo Media - December 2009 - 22

ASKED & ANSWERED Performance Evaluations Annual Review Guidelines Q A QUESTION: We would like to formally evaluate the performance of our professional manager on an annual basis. Can you provide some guidance to help us develop standard evaluation criteria and suggestions as to how and when we should do this? ANSWER: A regular formal evaluation of your manager is an excellent idea. It can provide valuable feedback to the manager and helpful information and insights to the board. But the evaluation has to be structured properly to achieve those goals. The first step should come at the beginning of the contract or evaluation period, not the end. This discussion should identify the board’s specific priorities and concerns, as well as its general expectations. The manager should leave this discussion with a clear idea of the benchmarks against which his or her performance will be judged. Benchmarks may vary, depending on the age and stage of the community, its condition, the demographics and personalities of its residents, as well as past experience (good or bad) with other managers. Most evaluation checklists will cover some of the following areas: 1. Communication. Does the manager communicate effectively — orally and in writing — with the board and owners? This encompasses everything from how the manager provides information to the board, answers phone calls and responds to e-mails from board members and owners, to how he or she deals with complaints and resolves disputes. 2. Administration. Does he or she handle the association’s business effectively and efficiently? This includes, paying bills, managing records, scheduling and overseeing property maintenance, preparing financial and other reports, and all the other myriad tasks for which managers are responsible. 3. Organization. Is the manager wellorganized? Does he or she manage time and prioritize tasks effectively? Does the manager respond quickly and appropriately to requests from board members and owners? Does he or she follow up to make sure the individuals involved are satisfied with the information or services provided? 4. Leadership. Is the manager proactive? Does he or she alert board members to potential problems before they surface? Does the manager advise the board and suggest solutions, in addition to implementing decisions the board makes? Does he or she demonstrate good judgment, common sense and creative thinking in analyzing problems and responding to them? 5. Interpersonal skills. Does the manager interact positively and constructively with board members and owners, as well as with the other professionals (attorneys, accountants, insurance agents, etc.) and vendors providing services to the community? 6. Management. Is the manager a good manager? This sounds silly, but it’s important. Does the manager do a good job of supervising and motivating staff members, overseeing vendors, scheduling and monitoring maintenance work and managing larger community projects? 7. Industry knowledge. Is the manager well-informed about industry issues and best practices? Does he or she apply that information for the benefit of the community and share it effectively with board members and owners? 8. Crisis management. A crisis doesn’t have to be a disaster. Unanticipated challenges requiring fast but thoughtful responses come in all sizes. How does the manager respond to the unexpected? This isn’t a finite list by any means; you should add or subtract topics to reflect your community’s priorities and concerns. The evaluation also should encompass any specific projects or challenges that have arisen during the year. It is best to submit the evaluation as a written report to the manager, give him or her an opportunity to respond (also in writing), and then schedule a meeting to discuss the results. This is an evaluation, not a confrontation. The purpose is to provide feedback to the manager, which should include achievements and strengths for which the manager should be commended as well as problems, disappointments and weaknesses that should be addressed. Praise, where warranted, should be generous, and criticism, where necessary, should be specific and constructive. The logical time to schedule an evaluation is at the end of the year, as part of the annual planning process, or prior to the manager’s scheduled contract renewal. But, if you are working with a new manager or management company, consider scheduling an interim review, after the first 100 days or so, so you can address some of the “getting-to knowyou” glitches that are inevitable in any new management relationship. For other than new relationships, an annual review is fine. However, you don’t want to accumulate annoyances, big and small, throughout the year, and then dump them all on the table during the manager’s evaluation. The board should communicate openly with the manager throughout the year, providing continuous feedback and addressing concerns as they arise rather than letting them fester. CM CONDO MEDIA • DECEMBER 2009

Condo Media - December 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Condo Media - December 2009