Supervision is a critical component for staff development within an organizational setting whose impact is undeniably far-reaching in skills development among corporate staff. However, it is pertinent to underscore that the efficacy of any supervisor-supervisee relationship cannot be determined in the absence of a practical performance evaluation criterion (Peterson,1982). It is in this light that the role of feedback becomes rationalized for purposes of effecting performance evaluation within the parlance of organizational behavior management (Pampino et al. 2004). In this regard, therefore, this paper is a concerted effort at developing a supervision plan for effectively evaluating the efficacy of supervisory activities in an organizational setting.
The System for Reviewing the Efficacy of the Impact of Supervision
As is explained in the above-discussed introductory section of this supervision plan, it is crucial to pinpoint that evaluation is a critical step in measuring the effectiveness of any supervision activity. While there are various criteria for assessing the efficacy of the performance of any supervisory business such as what Szabo et al. (2012) refer to as the balanced scorecard, it is unlikely to monitor progress in supervisory activity without performance evaluation. In this light, Pampino et al. (2004) contend that feedback is an essential component of monitoring the success or failure of a supervision initiative within the context of organizational behavior management. In a bid to ascertain practical performance evaluation on the efficacy of supervision impacts, it is crucial to adopt corporate behavior management as a trademark feature for quality control (Bucklin and Dickinson, 2001). By this, it is implied that training on evaluation is followed up by role-play, after, which comes procedural use or review of supervision coupled with continued feedback regarding job-performance executed periodically (Peterson, 1982). From these activities follows a thoroughbred criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of a supervision activity.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is critical to pinpoint within this purview that self-evaluation is a fundamental yardstick for effective monitoring of supervisory roles that organizations can only overlook to their peril. By adopting self-evaluation, organizational behavior takes cognizance of the input of the supervisee(s) in underscoring an assessment of the efficacy of their supervision strategies. However, Balcazar, Hopkins, and Suarez (1985) augment that self-evaluation risks losing its intended purpose should it forfeit the feedback aspect from its conduct. In this light, feedback monitoring becomes imperative in assessing the effectiveness of a supervision activity within an organization despite the contested efficacy of executing frequent feedback or periodical ones. Pampino et al. (2004) highlight that feedback collected on a supervisory activity after every two weeks proves to be as useful as that received once every week. The fundamental takeaway in this observation is that feedback gathered from self-evaluation activities or mediator-based activities coupled with other procedures is vital in performance evaluation of the effectiveness of a supervision effort (Peterson, 1982).
The assessment of the effectiveness of a supervisory strategy within an organizational context cannot be complete in the absence of a regular evaluation of supervisee feedback. Pampino et al. (2004) explain in their experimental study on supervision that gathering supervisee feedback on a regular (daily basis) per weekly posting is an effective strategy. Szabo et al. (2012) elucidate that it is pertinent for organizations to adopt behavioral systems analysis strategies since these aid in an assessment of supervisory arrangements and their performance measurement, thus aiding performance monitoring. To this end, it is, therefore, crucial for any organization to adopt effective strategies such as the ones highlighted in this supervision evaluation plan for monitoring the efficacy of supervision activities.
References
Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review of performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management , 7 (3-4), 65-89.
Bucklin, B. R., & Dickinson, A. M. (2001). Individual monetary incentives: A review of different types of arrangements between performance and pay. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management , 21 (3), 45-137.
Pampino Jr, R. N., MacDonald, J. E., Mullin, J. E., & Wilder, D. A. (2004). Weekly feedback vs. daily feedback: An application in retail. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management , 23 (2-3), 21-43.
Peterson, N. (1982). Feedback is not a new principle of behavior. The Behavior Analyst , 5 (1), 101.
Szabo, T. G., Williams, W. L., Rafacz, S. D., Newsome, W., & Lydon, C. A. (2012). Evaluation of the service review model with performance scorecards. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management , 32 (4), 274-296.
