writing on paper

Developing as Scholars and Writers: Part 4 of 4 – Evaluation

The Ed.D. in Leadership program develops you as scholars, practitioners, and leaders. This guide will help you articulate your position through application (Part 1), analysis (Part 2), synthesis (Part 3), and evaluation (Part 4).

Evaluation

Making judgments about the quality of the established position, based on objectively defined criteria. Instructors use rubrics to evaluate work; leaders use performance criteria to evaluate their employees; consultants use established criteria to evaluate an organization; and researchers use objective information literacy criteria to evaluate the articles they select.

[1] Provide the context or overall position of the article or book: This will provide context for the reader to understand why this resource was selected and how it connects to your position. Cite the resource.

[2] Specify the criteria discussed in the article or book that you’re referring to.

[3] Evaluate your situation, organization, article, or artifact based on this established criteria.

Example

The employee being coached may be experiencing a ‘Set-up-to-Fail’ type scenario. [1] Manzoni and Barsoux (2007) defined this term as a frequently occurring scenario between a supervisor and subordinate. The cycle often begins with some type of triggering event such as when the employee misses an important deadline. Then, in an attempt to correct the problem the supervisor singles out the employee and imposes more control on the situation to prevent an occurrence. The employee then feels dis-empowered and begins to withdraw from the productive work environment. The supervisor interprets this withdrawal as simply further confirmation of the employee’s poor performance. [2] In the last year, supervisors at XYZ Organization have noticed one employee’s declining attendance at meetings and important program events. The interpersonal dynamics between this employee and supervisors does not feel the same as when compared to the other employees. While not quantifiable, the communication that currently takes place leads an unbiased observer to believe a lack of trust exists between the employee in question and his supervisors. It appears supervisors impose more reporting requirements on this employee. [3] Given these observations, the ‘Set-up-to-Fail’ syndrome appears to be occurring between this employee and his two supervisors.