The Evaluation Process
“By looking closely at the word evaluation, you will see the word value embedded in it (Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2001).” The noun “value” comes from the Latin “valere” meaning to be strong, or of value. The word has carried the meaning of “worth” of someone or something for centuries. Today the word “value” conveys the “worth” of something in an economic sense. The very nature of evaluation is a value statement. This begs the next question, who’s values do we use? The best form of evaluation will find its roots in grey thinking where one does not form and opinioin about an important matter until one has heard all the relevent facts and arguments (Sample, 2002 p.7).
Value is like perspective.
There was this little child; he was so excited that he had pulled a cornstalk out by its roots. When his father congratulated him, he beamed. ”And just think,” he said, “the whole world had hold of the other end of it.
Perspective is how one look at things and what one sees when looking. Ideally the values used will be an outgrowth of the data obtained with the core understanding that strategy and operations will move based on what is best for the organization, what is legal, what is socially acceptable, and in the case of a Christian ministry, what is theologically sound. However, those purveyors of research must be cognizant that most are trapped by what Sample calls binary, good bad, right wrong thinking. Added to the good bad, right wrong thinking trap are the trappings of politics.
Politics
Politics plays a role in most decisions in any organization. Performing and backstaging are
commonplace but must be done a climate of high moral values and personal conviction. Pettigrow (2001) reflects that a fine line exists between acting in a politically astute manner and acting unethically (Brannick, 2005). What complicates this entire process is that working as a change agent cannot always be done with openness, honesty, and transparency. This paradox of ethical behavior done without openness, honesty, and transparency places pressure on the leader and his or her superiors. Russ-Eft gives sound guidance for the evaluation process (2001) when he quotes Patton’s (1977) suggestions for evaluators: (1) consider your own intentions and moral groundings, (2) exercise ethical care in selecting projects to work on and stakeholders to work with, and (3) be clear about whose interests are being represented or not represented in the evaluation.
Rev. Al Loma
The leader knows where ethical convictions begin to diverge from pure, cold self-interest (Sample, 2002). One must avoid cold self-interests at all cost. If we learn anything from the Bernard Madoff scandal is that cold self-interest takes no prisoners.
