“Evaluator” sounds very formal; it makes me picture someone holding a clipboard, with an expression suggesting disapproval of everything I am doing. As I completed my own skills assessment, I entered the process with very low expectations about the skills I could contribute. To my surprise, I discovered that I possess many crossover skills aligned with those of a formal evaluator. As a result, I rated myself a 3 out of 6. I am not starting from zero, but I am not yet fully equipped for formal evaluation work.
I have developed strong informal evaluation instincts over my 26-year career within my organization. The gap lies in translating that intuition into formal, systematic evaluation practices.
This process highlighted two specific strengths: building trust and keeping teams on track. Beginning with AEA 5.4, “Builds trust throughout the evaluation,” my deliberate, relationship-centered approach enables both influence and project success. This was evident during a 14-month project with the instructional design team. Despite having more tenure than others on the team, I chose not to lead with authority. Instead, I invested time in side-by-side collaboration, learning each person’s skills, organizational knowledge, and even personal details. This approach helped me earn trust, which ultimately led to being invited into lab sessions where the team explored new ideas in the instructional design space. During this time, I also had the opportunity to pitch a branching-scenario concept inspired by The Return of Haji Kamal, which the team ultimately adopted for customer interaction training.
While AEA 5.4 was the primary connection, this experience also aligns with AEA 5.2 (listens to understand different perspectives) and AEA 5.1 (fosters positive relationships). The key takeaway is that trust was not assumed based on seniority; it was earned through intentional investment.
Another strength is reflected in AEA 4.8, “Monitors evaluation progress and quality and makes adjustments when appropriate.” I have a unique ability to monitor progress and redirect diverse stakeholders toward the core project objective.
The Portfolio Dashboard Project exemplifies this strength. This three-year initiative focused on replacing inefficient, difficult-to-navigate Excel spreadsheets with an intuitive online dashboard. The primary objective was to create a streamlined tool that customer-facing colleagues could use efficiently to manage their client portfolios. This effort required collaboration across a cross-functional team, including project managers, IT developers, customer-facing colleagues, and account managers.
In this role, I served as the subject-matter expert, responsible for articulating and demonstrating the dashboard’s value to stakeholders. Given the diversity of perspectives, team members frequently proposed features that did not align with the project’s core objectives. Rather than rejecting these ideas outright, I used a redirection strategy, acknowledging contributions while guiding discussions back to intended outcomes.
This relationship-centered approach, grounded in trust rather than authority, proved essential in maintaining alignment and momentum. Without consistent reinforcement of the project’s objectives, the initiative risked scope creep and reduced effectiveness. Redirection requires understanding multiple perspectives while maintaining focus on the overall goal, blending interpersonal and project management skills.
In both examples, trust enabled influence, and throughout my career, this has proven to be one of my strongest skill sets.
In contrast, there are clear growth areas where I feel less confident, particularly compared to AEA 5.4 and 4.8. The formal evaluation process is an area that, candidly, feels intimidating. This is especially true in relation to AEA 2.2, “Determine evaluation questions,” and AEA 2.4, “Determine and justify appropriate methods to answer evaluation questions.”
If I were assigned an evaluation project today, I would not know where to begin. It would feel like being handed a blank map and asked to find a destination. I am not yet sufficiently familiar with the formal vocabulary, the structure of effective evaluation questions, or the broader inquiry process. Evaluation questions drive everything: design, methods, data collection, and conclusions. Without well-developed questions, even strong interpersonal skills cannot produce a credible evaluation.
Stevahn et al.’s Category 2, Systematic Inquiry, identifies this as the technical backbone of evaluation. However, they also argue that it cannot be separated from situational analysis and interpersonal competence, areas in which I am strong, highlighting that true proficiency requires a balanced skill set.
Closely tied to asking the “right questions” is selecting the “right methods.” AEA 2.4 emphasizes the use of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, which is where my informal experience begins to show limitations. For example, in the dashboard project, survey questions had already been distributed before I joined the team. As a result, my perspective was shaped more by the stakeholder experience than by that of an evaluator, as I was not involved in designing the instrument or determining the methodology.
In both cases, I see a clear opportunity to increase my effectiveness as I transition from an informal to a formal evaluation role. This growth will require a stronger focus on the technical aspects of evidence-based, systematic inquiry for valued purposes, as outlined in the AEA 2.0 Domain Methodology statement.
One surprising outcome of my self-assessment was my difficulty evaluating myself on AEA 1.8, “social justice and the public good,” particularly from a business outcomes perspective. It is not that I fail to see its importance; rather, I struggle to understand how it applies within a corporate setting without further research and deeper exploration.
After reflecting on my self-assessment results, it is clear that the real work is just beginning. This effort will extend beyond this course and will require intentional practice, along with support from mentors within my organization. While learning the formal evaluation process begins now, meaningful application will depend on identifying opportunities within my role to actively participate in evaluation efforts.
As I begin Module 2, I am reading Chapter 7 of Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance, and Change with a focus on evaluation. I am excited to deepen my understanding of the formal evaluation process and challenge myself in my group project by taking on a role outside my core skill set, so I can continue to grow.
Resources:
Evaluator Competencies. (n.d.). https://www.eval.org/Portals/0/Docs/AEA%20Evaluator%20Competencies.pdf
Russ-Eft, D., Preskill, H., & Jordan, J. B. (2024). Evaluation In Organizations. Hachette UK.
Comments
Post a Comment