|
by Michael Shelton, M.S., C.A.C., C.F.T.
Several months after the ending of the 2002 camp season, a concerned
camp director contacted me. As the director of a small nonprofit camp,
he had received a bit of critical feedback from the board of directors
on his general performance. The director was angry and thought that this
was more of a personal attack rather than having anything to do with his
actual performance. Through questioning, it became apparent that this
man was intelligent and quite knowledgeable about the camp industry. Yet
when I asked him to explain how successful the past few seasons had been,
his answers indicated quite a bit of naivety. He stated that the past
three seasons had gone "very well." When I asked him to define
the criteria he used to formulate this conclusion, he looked at me as
if I was actually the one in need of coaching.
"I was there the entire summer," he informed me. "I know
more than anybody just how well the season went."
The belief that a camp director is the one with the most knowledge regarding
the success or lack of success for a camp season is quite prevalent. Indeed,
we would expect this to be the case with every organization. The top person
— CEO, president, or director — is expected to be the person
with the most knowledge about the overall success for his or her organization.
However, this is not necessarily true. Having worked as a camp counselor
and specialist, I can easily recall information that was never known by
the director and the administration, yet still known by the majority of
the other staff. We knew how much food was stolen by the kitchen staff.
We knew of the sexual assault on a female staff member that was not reported.
We knew of the use of the camp vehicle for “joyriding” after
hours.
Thus, when a camp director states that he had a “good” season,
I proceed to ask what this evaluation is based upon. In most cases, it
comes down to his or her general impression. When pushed further, he or
she will provide data — such as higher staff retention rates, fewer
complaints from parents, and/or fewer children sent home. When asked for
exact statistics — Just how many parental complaints did you receive
this year? How about last year? What is the comparison in staff retention
rates over the past three years?
Deciding whether a season was good or bad is exceedingly more complicated
than a director’s general impression. Reliance on one’s impression
as the determining factor is actually a setup for long-term failure. In
an example from psychology, researchers have found a consistent pattern
in humans of erroneous evaluations for recent events. In one experiment,
individuals were instructed to submerge one hand in a bucket of icy water
for a minute (this becomes quite a painful experience after only a few
seconds). After a brief break, they were given the same instructions except
that the length of time was ninety seconds. On the second trial —
unbeknownst to the participants — the temperature of the water was
raised slightly, though it was still uncomfortably cold. After a seven-minute
break, the subjects were called back into the room and informed that they
would have to repeat one of the above procedures. They had the choice
of which to undergo for a second time. Surprisingly, the majority of the
subjects chose the long procedure over the short even though this actually
resulted in more discomfort. In tests with aversive sounds and pictures
and even uncomfortable medical procedures, participants chose a longer
one with a decrease in discomfort at the end over a shorter one without
such a pain decrease.
How does this apply to evaluating a good or bad camp season? The quality
of an experience at its conclusion has a great effect on evaluations.
Thus, camp directors might have an awful season overall, yet a final few
good days will skew his or her perspective to a less negative evaluation.
Note that the opposite is also true. A bad event in the final few days
can mar the evaluation of a fairly good season. Again, an evaluation of
a camp’s season based on the director’s impression is often
meaningless without supportive data.
Obstacles to Face in Evaluation
There are other obstacles that directors face in their evaluations.
The human brain is a wonderfully complicated organ. It has allowed us
to ascend above all other creatures. In order to achieve this position,
the brain has had to make use of “shortcuts.” One of the tenets
of brain research is the brain prefers speed over accuracy. The brain
is constantly making decisions every second. These shortcuts are used
to process information rapidly. Unfortunately, this speed comes at the
price of accuracy.
Reliance on Memory
Many decisions require us to consider information we have learned in the
past. A problem with this tactic is that we use the stored information
in our memory that is most easily retrieved. A more vivid memory will
be recalled even if it is not the most representative example. One of
the most commonly cited examples is airline disasters. Statistic after
statistic shows that flying is far safer than driving. However, when a
person is making a decision to travel, a recent airline tragedy could
well sway the decision because of the perceived increased risk of danger.
If a camp director recalls numerous negative events over the season,
he or she may then decide that the season was “bad.” But was
it? There are without doubt other less-negative events that he or she
simply cannot recall, but the negative events are more easily retrievable.
Anchoring in the Present
The mood a person is in or the emotion he or she is currently experiencing
acts as an immediate anchor and influences the memories he recalls. An
individual who is angry will more easily be able to recall memories associated
with this particular emotion, even if the memories have nothing to do
with the immediate situation. An emotion of satisfaction will likewise
elicit other pleasant memories while, at the same time, inhibit negative
memories. Thus the current mood of the director influences what he or
she recalls. For example, on a “good” day, the director will
have excellent recall of all of the good events that occurred during the
camp season. This would lead him to evaluate the season as a good one.
The director truly cannot recall the negative events that occurred; this
does not mean that they did not happen.
Three Solutions
There is no doubt that directors can create long-standing successful
camp programs. But how does one determine from season to season if the
camp is truly going in the right direction and not just following the
director’s impression of success? Three general methods can be used
to assist a director in his or her evaluations of the success (or lack
of success) of a camp season:
Goal Setting
It behooves directors to set goals before the season starts. How many
parental complaints are acceptable? What number of staff is expected to
turnover during the season? Through goal setting, a director enters the
season with guidelines for success. If the director accomplishes —
or surpasses — these goals, this is indicative of success. The American
Camping Association even has a standard on strategic planning in its operational
management section of the Accreditation Standards for Camp Programs and
Services. Such a standard focuses a director’s attention to both
short- and long-term goals.
Satisfaction Surveys
Camp directors may wish to focus on ratings of staff, participant, and
parental satisfaction. This entails formal ratings that can be tracked
from year to year. In this way, several seasons’ worth of data can
be compared. The examples of general satisfaction surveys for parents,
campers,
and staff
to voice their thoughts and reactions to a traditional camp program are
included (see pages 20 and 21). These are starting points for devising
a basic picture of consumer satisfaction and can be used until a more
formal protocol has been devised. Satisfaction surveys are different from
performance measure evaluations — which are used to evaluate the
success of a camp in meeting its mission and stated objectives. These
too are another part of a comprehensive camp evaluation.
Involve Other People
All camp employees have valuable information regarding whether a season
is successful or not. A director is not omnipotent — he or she cannot
be everywhere at one time nor see what employees see. Make sure other
people have input into the determination of success or failure.
Feedback
Unfortunately, directors cannot be everywhere at one time in a camp.
Particularly during the height of the camp season, many directors believe
that their major role is to put out the small “fires” that
occur on an almost daily basis. Strategic planning for the future is simply
not a top priority when a director must deal with campers, their families,
and staff. It is therefore necessary for directors to have a sufficient
source of quality information.
Fortunately, there are numerous sources of information available to
a director on the success or lack of it in a camp. Every staff member
has his or her own perspective regarding the camp. Those individuals “in
the trenches” may actually have feedback that would be of great
benefit to the director. They may offer ideas that would save money, improve
programming to bring in more campers, or make the camp more organized
on a day-to-day basis. And, possibly the most intimidating, they could
have feedback for a director regarding his or her leadership abilities.
Camp directors who believe that they can make important decisions without
the input of others are risking very bad judgments. Indeed, psychological
research has clearly demonstrated that decision-making is not necessarily
a strong point for humans. In 1954, Paul Meehl published a highly influential
and controversial book titled Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction.
The book summarized twenty studies comparing the judgments of professionals
(in this case, psychiatrists and psychologists) to purely statistical
models. With the statistical model, the human judge is removed, and the
decision is based on strict relations between appropriate data. As an
example of this latter method, life insurance agents obtain data on a
person (age, health status, personal habits, etc.) and plug them into
already existing tables and charts that have been formulated to estimate
life expectancy.
In all studies in Meehl’s book, the statistical method was either
superior or tied with the clinical method. In no study was a personal
judgment superior to the statistical method. In the decades that have
followed, this result has been found over and over again. Even “experts”
in their fields have rarely been found to make better decisions than statistical
methods. Fields that have been studied include medicine, psychology, law,
and insurance. And though there has never been a study comparing the judgments
of camp directors to statistical methods, there is no doubt that the same
result would be found.
Obstacles to Feedback
Several obstacles may prevent employee feedback and participation. Even
employees who have wonderful ideas will likely refrain from approaching
a leader if the following factors exist:
- Fear — Leadership is not
a personality characteristic; it is comprised of a set of skills and
maturity. However, if leaders use coercion and punishment as the major
“motivator” for employees, they will likely be afraid to
approach him or her. Leaders who demonstrate a lack of emotional control
(e.g., sudden bouts of rage or who are easily angered) will also intimidate
employees into silence. No employee, particularly if they are seasonal
and therefore temporary, desires a confrontation with such a boss.
- Barriers — Directors may
have so many immediate distractions during the summer that they do not
have the time to meet with staff. One camp director who reported on
his “open door policy” during the staff training quickly
created a formal chain-of-command structure during a particularly hectic
season. Now staff were required to meet a unit leader, then the boys’
camp director, then an assistant director, until finally they were allowed
to meet with the director. The more obstacles that stand in the way
of an employee, the less likely he or she will exert the energy to overcome
them.
- Directors’ presentations
— Some directors clearly verbalize an interest in input from staff.
Others never mention it and make no efforts to seek such input. A camp
director who actively seeks input will certainly encounter more than
one staff member who portrays a lack of interest.
- Reliance on trusted staff —
Directors are only human and, in spite of attempts to remain neutral,
will have favorite employees. It is not surprising that these individuals’
input is requested. Unfortunately, in the intimacy of a camp setting,
a director’s chosen favorites become quickly obvious. Other employees
may experience jealousy or resentment and avoid offering suggestions.
The director, in turn, is reliant on a select group of individuals for
information. However, the more varied the input, the more quality information
is available to make a proper decision. It is often the employees who
a director really doesn’t like who have important critical feedback.
Additionally, each individual staff member has an internal life that
affects the decision to offer feedback. When a staff member conceives
of a suggestion or feedback, he or she does not immediately run to the
director and share it. Such a faulty understanding is illustrated in Figure
1.
Staff usually evaluate their ideas or feedback using secondary interpretations,
which either galvanize or prevent an employee in his or her attempt to
share the information with the director. Several common interpretations
are listed below:
- Is the idea any good? —
Before sharing the idea, feedback, or suggestion, the staff member will
consider its worth.
- Is it safe to offer this information?
— A staff member may have a great idea or pertinent feedback,
but if he or she determines that it is not safe to offer it (such as
with an easily angered leader), he or she will then refrain from sharing.
- Will the director listen? —
If the director has demonstrated a lack of interest in suggestions and
feedback, the staff member will not follow through.
- How much effort will I have to go through
to offer this suggestion? — A camp season is hectic for
all staff members; free time is limited. If a staff member decides that
too much time and energy is required to “sell” the idea,
the motivation to share it will decrease.
A more realistic depiction of the process of offering suggestions or
feedback is offered in Figure 2.
Encouraging Feedback
As Figure 2 illustrates, simply because a staff member has formulated
valuable feedback, there is no guarantee that it will ever reach the attention
of the director. Characteristics of the camp environment, the director,
and individual interpretations will effect the decision to share the ideas
or feedback. The following suggestions make it more likely that such information
does reach the director.
- Create a policy regarding suggestions and feedback and be consistent
in its implementation — Will there be an open door policy? Is
there a chain of command to be followed? Is there a suggestion box that
is emptied every day? Formulate a specific protocol for staff suggestions,
inform staff of it, and consistently follow through in implementing
it.
- Seek input from a variety of sources — do not rely on one’s
own judgments or those of favorite employees. Purposefully attempt to
obtain the feedback from quiet, disgruntled, and/or “problematic”
employees.
- Simplify the feedback process — the more accessible a director
is the more likely staff will offer feedback. Requiring a written request
three weeks in advance for a meeting is guaranteed to lessen staff enthusiasm.
Feedback is essential for leadership improvement. Additionally, staff
have numerous ideas that can truly assist the camp. Leaders who do not
make themselves accessible to feedback and suggestions are wasting valuable
resources. A camp director who does not seek feedback and suggestions
from staff is one who needs much more work in developing his leadership
skills. Furthermore, he or she might well be an obstacle to the growth
and development of the camp. In combination with satisfaction surveys
and goal setting, ongoing feedback will remove the onus of full responsibility
for evaluations of camp success from the well intentioned but likely faulty
recall and judgment of the camp director.
References
Meehl, P.E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical
analysis and a review of the evidence. Minnesota: University of Minnesota
Press.
Kahneman, D.; Fredrickson, B.L.; Schreiber, C.A.; and Redelmeier, D.A.
(1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological
Science, 4, 401-405.
Originally published in the 2003 September/October
issue of Camping Magazine. |
