The document provides a summary of the 2013-2014 performance evaluation of the Executive Director Roseline McKinney by the National Executive Board. It includes an overview of the evaluation process and categories assessed. It then details the results of the evaluation in each category, with the majority of responses praising McKinney's outstanding organizational, leadership, problem-solving and communication skills. A few responses suggested areas for improvement like delegating more responsibilities and being more open to new ideas. Overall, the evaluation portrayed McKinney's performance in a very positive light.

1. 2013-2014
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

2. 2
OVERVIEW
 Each member of the National Executive Board is
responsible for providing input to the National
President for the annual assessment of the
performance of the Executive Director, Roseline
McKinney. Twenty-nine Executive Board Members
answered the call.
 Your responses provided input for the National
President’s assessment of the Executive Director,
Roseline McKinney, for the rating period 2013-2014
. Each member was asked to consider the work
responsibilities of her position and your interactions
with her in that role during 2013-2014.

3. 3
EVALUATION CATERGORIES
 The specific rating factors were divided into six
sections, which included:
Section 1: Administration
 Planning
 Budgeting & Economic Management
 Organization of Work
 Compliance
 Problem Solving & Decision Making
 Evaluation & Control
 Risk (Liability) Management

4. 4
EVALUATION CATERGORIES
Section 2: Interpersonal Skills
 Oral Communication
 Written Communication
 Coordination/Collaboration
 Supervisory Control
 Leadership
 Staff Appraisal & Development

5. 5
EVALUATION CATERGORIES
Section 3: Individual Review
 Effort & Initiative
 Professional & Technical Competence
 Innovation
 Objectivity
 Credibility
 Flexibility

6. 6
EVALUATION CATERGORIES
Section 4: Leadership
 Coaching
 Empowering
 Modeling
 Team Building
 Visioning
 Self Development

7. 7
EVALUATION CATERGORIES
Section 5: What were the Executive Director’s
performance highlights in the past year?
Section 6: What could have been most improved
regarding the Executive Director’s performance in the
past year?

8. 8
SECTION 1 RESULTS
 Planning
31% rated the ED as outstanding in planning and
developing short and long term goals
24% stated the ED significantly exceeded expectations
21% had concerns that the ED is capable but does not work
far enough in advance to complete reoccurring projects
13.7% stated the ED needs improvement in developing
short and long term goals
3.4% rated the ED unsatisfactory in long range planning

9. 9
SECTION 1 RESULTS
 Budgeting & Economic Management
48% stated the ED exhibits outstanding detail to managing
and supervising budgetary responsibilities
10% stated the ED is very astute in the sorority’s finances,
works to minimize costs
20% stated the ED monitors and watches the budget to
maintain fiscal soundness
10% stated the ED needs improvement with forecasting
large ticket expenses for regional and national conventions

10. 10
SECTION 1 RESULTS
 Organization of Work
55% stated the ED has outstanding organizational skills,
promotes productivity and delivers work on time
21% agrees the ED significantly exceeds expectations
when organizing work
10% stated the ED is fully capable but needs to delegate
work more efficiently to other staff
10% stated the ED needs improvement in empowering and
delegating staff
7% rated the ED as unsatisfactory; fails to assign projects to
other staff members so that work can get done timely

11. 11
SECTION 1 RESULTS
 Compliance
51% rated the ED as outstanding; maintains accurate and
effective records
17% stated the ED conducts the sorority’s business in
accordance with legal mandates
17% stated the ED complies with rules and policies

12. 12
SECTION 1 RESULTS
 Problem Solving and Decision Making
31% stated the ED makes sound decisions and utilizes
effective problem solving skills
55% stated the ED possesses good problem solving skills
that arise, “on the fly”
21% stated the ED has the ability to make good decisions
and resolve issues
10% stated the ED needs improvement in solving and
resolving problems “slow to react”

13. 13
SECTION 1 RESULTS
 Evaluation & Control
28% rated the ED as outstanding; provides periodic review
of operations to maintain progress
24% stated the ED significantly exceeds expectations
21% rated the ED as fully capable
11% stated the ED needs improvement; does not debrief or
create “lessons learned” from activities so mistakes are not
repeated, too much control over staff

14. 14
SECTION 1 RESULTS
 Risk (Liability) Management
38% stated the ED has exceptional knowledge regarding
liability and risk and monitors operations for adherence
21% stated the ED significantly exceeds expectations;
works with our legal counsel to mitigate risks

15. 15
SECTION 2 RESULTS
 Oral Communication
34% stated the ED has outstanding communication skills
and relates well with others
21% stated the ED significantly exceeds all competencies
31% stated the ED communicates in a clear and concise
manner
3% stated the ED needs improvement; not readily
approachable, very stern demeanor

16. 16
SECTION 2 RESULTS
 Written Communication
34% stated the ED has 0utstanding written communication
skills
10% stated the ED has exceptional written communication
skills; reports are completed in a timely manner
34% stated the ED sends clear and concise emails
7% stated the ED needs improvement

17. 17
SECTION 2 RESULTS
 Coordination/Collaboration
28% stated the ED has outstanding coordination and
collaboration skills
28% stated the ED significantly exceeds expectations
28% stated the ED is fully capable
3% Stated that the ED needs improvement; does not readily
share information
7% rated the ED as unsatisfactory; does not collaborate
well with others

18. 18
SECTION 2 RESULTS
 Supervisory Control
17% stated the ED has outstanding supervisory control;
operates according to guidelines
21% stated the ED significantly exceeds expectations, does
a great job but needs to delegate and hold directors
accountable
14% stated the ED is fully capable, however, more
delegation and less micro-management, discipline of
employees not done timely
7% stated there is improvement needed; too controlling

19. 19
SECTION 2 RESULTS
 Leadership
28% stated the ED is an excellent role model for staff
17% stated the ED has a great relationship with employees;
could delegate more to include leadership team in decision
making
21% stated the ED gives clear and direct instructions to
staff on expectations and deliverables
7% stated the ED needs improvement; fails to empower
direct reports and no open line of communication
3% rated the ED as unsatisfactory; leads by fear and
intimidation

20. 20
SECTION 2 RESULTS
 Staff Appraisal & Development
17% rated the ED as outstanding
10% stated the ED significantly exceeds expectations
10% rated the ED as fully capable
7% stated that improvement and staff development are
needed
3% rated the ED as unsatisfactory; fails to provide
employee development

21. 21
SECTION 3 RESULTS
 Effort & Initiative
27% rated the ED outstanding; one of the ED’s greatest
assets, hard worker, requires little direction, self motivated
21% stated the ED exceeds expectations, takes the
initiative and is detail oriented
7% rated the ED satisfactory in effort and initiative
3% stated the ED needs improvement; ED works hard but
not smart

22. 22
SECTION 3 RESULTS
 Professional & Technical Competence
34% rated the ED outstanding, understanding of operations
and planning for regional conferences and national
conventions
31% rated the ED extremely professional; makes sound and
effective decisions
10% stated the ED performs satisfactorily

23. 23
SECTION 3 RESULTS
 Innovation
14% stated the ED consistently exceeds expectation
24% stated the ED significantly exceeds expectations
31% rated the ED competent; likes to use the same
methods, not a risk taker, manages with caution and
deliberation
14% stated the ED needs improvement; not open to
change, pushes back on new ideas
3% rated the ED unsatisfactory; focuses on past methods of
operation with little consideration to alternative operations

24. 24
SECTION 3 RESULTS
 Objectivity
55% rated the ED outstanding without further comments
17% stated the ED is very objective; evaluates each
decision on its merit
14% stated the ED makes an effort to be objective
7% stated the ED needs improvement

25. 25
SECTION 3 RESULTS
 Credibility
52% rated the ED as extremely credible; has gained the
trust of staff and membership
20% stated the ED’s reputation is outstanding
14% rated the ED as credible
3% rated the ED not credible; failure to follow-up in a timely
manner

26. 26
SECTION 3 RESULTS
 Flexibility
20% rated the ED has having outstanding flexibility skills, as
evidenced by her ability to adjust to the style of leadership
and personalities of presidents
17% rated the ED a very comfortable with status quo
24% stated the ED adapts satisfactorily to change
20% stated the ED needs improvement; does not adapt well
to change

27. 27
SECTION 4 RESULTS
 Coaching
17% rated the ED outstanding; communicates a positive
attitude, encourages employees and provides honest
feedback
14% stated the ED has very good coaching and
empowering skills
10% rated coaching performance as satisfactory
14% stated that improvement is needed; staff appears to be
intimidated
4% stated the ED lacks coaching skills

28. 28
SECTION 4 RESULTS
 Empowering
14% rates the ED as outstanding; staff is encouraged to
work and function independently with a feeling of ownership
10% rated the ED fully capable; has an effective
management style
21% rated the ED’s performance as standard
10% stated the ED needs improvement; staff is not
empowered to work independently
4% rated unsatisfactory performance; employees are afraid
to make decisions or take risks, very little ownership and ED
makes all of the decisions

29. 29
SECTION 4 RESULTS
 Modeling
24% rated the ED outstanding; has the utmost respect for
others
10% stated the ED believes in public service and treats
everyone with respect and dignity
28% stated the ED is a competent role model for staff
14% stated the ED is minimally capable of being a team
player

30. 30
SECTION 4 RESULTS
 Team Building
17% stated the ED has exemplary team building skills
14% stated the ED rewards staff for efficient performance
21% stated the ED satisfactorily recognizes and reward
staff
10% stated improvement is needed
3% stated the ED has unacceptable team building skills

31. 31
SECTION 4 RESULTS
 Visioning
17% stated the ED has plans for the future
14% stated the ED has very Good visioning, however, could
forecast with longer vision
14% stated the ED satisfactorily plans ahead for meetings
21% stated improvement is needed; does not see beyond
what is currently there
3% rated the ED unsatisfactory; no visioning capabilities,
does not have an open mind
 Self Development
Only 2 rated the ED as needing improvement but no comments to
substantiate the rating

32. 32
SECTION 5 RESULTS
 What were the Executive Director’s performance
highlights in the past year?
Overall 75% of the comments written complimented the
Executive Director on her ability to maintain order during the
Centennial programs, from the Rose Parade to the national
convention.
Her management of the transition of leadership was seamless .
She has shown outstanding organizational and leadership skills
during the planning and execution of the Centennial
Celebration.

33. 33
SECTION 5 RESULTS
 What could have been most improved regarding the
Executive Director’s performance in the past year?
51% of comments resounded, DELEGATE, DELGATE, and
DELEGATE!
Many wanted the ED to increase the use of technology, use
innovative thinking; utilize creative ways of engaging staff to
fulfill the needs of the sorority, our partners and sponsors;
increase accountability and responsibility of current directorial
staff and allow them to manage accordingly
The ED must treat Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. as a
business, and engage in the latest development opportunities
for all of the Headquarters staff

34. 34
EVALUATION PARTICIPANTS
 Responses were provided by the following 29 Board Members:
Billie Coachman Terrie Rivalte
Debra Bunkley Robin Jacobs
Daphne Maxwell Reed Joi Moore
Cheryl Turner Regina Predgen
Maxine Cormier Lorraine Dabney
Louise Rice Cynthia Butler McIntyre
Beverly Smith Jeanne Costley
Myrna Phillips Essie Jeffries
Jancy Curtis Banks Mary Sutton
Erica Donerson Joan Prince
Martha S. Lue Brittani Blackwell
Sandra Phillips Johnson Michelle Rhodes Brown
Sherina Maye Linda Wilson
Devesia Parris Deirdre White
Anna Jones

35. THIS CONCLUDES OUR
PRESENTAION