don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Yesterday, I described the purposes and problems with employee evaluation systems. Today, I'll describe how they are employed in one way in the wellness field, and offer an improved way to go about the process that illustrates the kind of reforms I favor from a self-management perspective. Sound good?

I mentioned that evaluations should focus on performance, and the difficulties of doing so can be seen in the ratings systems at wellness conferences. Yes, even at a wellness event focused on being positive, cheerful, loving, upbeat and all that, every speaker from keynoter to simple activity leader is assessed by all who attend his/her session. Here, too, the process can and does engender a lot of negativity. For the conference goers, the process is largely a nuisance. The review process encourages careless, hurried and non-substantive as well as impulsive judgments, that are rarely helpful and often annoying to the speaker assessed. The way this happens is that, just when audience members are preparing to bolt from the room for donuts and coffee, cigarettes and drugs (kidding), some nerdy official will stride pompously to the lectern and say: "Oh no you don't! Where do you think you're going? Well, think again, you brats! You just sit right where you are. I'll tell you when you can leave -- and it won't be until you have filled out an evaluation on our speaker!"

Well, I exaggerate, but the process IS abrupt as forms are hurriedly passed around the room and collected before people race off for the next workshop. (It is theoretically possible to place the completed forms in a central box set up for this purpose, but very few go to the trouble to do so.)

For the speakers, the evaluation process is either irrelevant and mildly amusing (they are secure in their work and know the process is without much merit or use) or (for those less experienced and secure) barbarous and humiliating! If I were given to rhetorical excess, I would say for these innocents the reviews are horrific, a form of professional rape, an intellectual beauty contest and a misguided ratings' game that invites negativity, bad vibes and ulcers which in turn lead inexorably to lowered self-esteem, poor posture, hemorrhoids and failure in life. Of course, I am NOT given to such reckless verbiage.

The question then becomes, is there a better, more humane and caring way to go about the review process? Of course! Why else would I be going on like this?

The WELLNESS alternative to evaluations is to have wellness ELECTIONS. The idea of wellness elections is to spotlight and celebrate WINNERS, speakers who knock your socks off, bring tears to your eyes, incite masses of rapt listeners to live marvelously forevermore and who, in short, inspire waves of admirers to rush the rostrum crying "Master, Master!" or utterances to that effect.

A new wellness evaluation based on elections will be affirmative instead of the negative-inducing ratings currently in use. Let us encourage conference participants to celebrate eagles instead of shooting turkeys, to glorify (and encourage) positive performances rather than immolating the pitiful wretches who already endured horrifying stage deaths. Indeed, let us praise the best rather than excoriate the worst. Finally, and most important of all, let us do what must be done to leave conference goers with feelings of warmth and love based on affirmations of excellence, not feelings of cold-blooded wrath occasioned by feeding frenzies of negativity. I hope this convinced you that evaluations as presently constituted are a Chernobyl of wellness, a meltdown of epic proportion, a harbinger of doom for speakers and gloom for participants. Something must be done about the matter -- and done soon.

Makes sense, eh? (Sure it's overstated, but this IS a "Don's Report" and visitors have come to expect wretched excess provided it amuses and illuminates. Ultimate truths, after all, are not pretty.)

"How can the evaluation process be improved via wellness elections," you're probably wondering? The answer is: By doing two things differently from the way things are done now. One is to change the standard EVALUATION form to an ELECTION form; the other is to distribute the revised evaluation forms not after each session but at the end of each day, at a special time that is well-publicized and where large numbers of conference goers are likely to be assembled. (At the NATIONAL WELLNESS CONFERENCE, this might be during the dinner hour each evening in the vast dining hall used for this purpose). Let there be an awards ceremony based on an election at the end of each day, and another at the conclusion of the conference, with varied categories that honor excellence (and ignore mediocrity or worse).

Think of the improvements a shift from evaluations to elections will permit. For starters, certain speakers will anticipate receiving their due from the crowd, visualizing the warm glow of adulation as their names are read and they come forward to take a bow and receive a prize, make a statement or whatever. Since the best speakers will look forward to a chance to be feted for their words, sponsors won't have to pay them so much, a necessity if the poor toads expect ungoverned animosity from an audience. Lower speakers' fees mean lower conference registration charges.

Also, it will be fun for individual participants who will enjoy the suspense waiting to learn if their favorite speakers are elected for honors. However, the highest value will be the effect of the election on speakers who do NOT get picked. Instead of being criticized and vilified anonymously, they are politely ignored and yet are witness to the joys and perks of excellence. Which will, naturally, spark lots of practice. The proposed election process motivates, the current setup does not.

If you would like to see an election process replace the present evaluation procedure, don't write your Congressman. Tell your favorite wellness conference organizer.

Wait! There is a mortal flaw in my proposal. What's more, I am unable to decipher an escape from the quandary in which I find myself inextricably intertwixed.

The flaw came to me in a dream -- or rather a nightmare -- and I've hardly been able to sleep since. The dream started so well: My "election rather than evaluation" scheme was ardently embraced by millions of SeekWellness visitors, by nearly all world leaders and, most important, by the ruling junta at Stevens Point, WI. At the National Wellness Conference, during the first day in which my brilliant system was in effect, the results of the first-ever wellness election were announced. As over 1000 wellness fans rose and extended a standing, tears-of-joy ovation, who strode forward to bask in the glory of love and compassion but Leo "The Big Gush" Buscaglia! Winner by a landslide! Oh, #$?~@!!!, sometimes it seems there really is no justice.

The flaw in my scheme that I discovered via my nightmare is this: What if the audience has a massive case of collective bad taste? What if my wellite friends ACTUALLY LIKE effusive displays of affection or enthusiasm from a speaker who emits a copious and egregiously excessive free flow of, of, well, of GUSH?!

But, then, this IS a democracy. What the people want, the people get. By the way, have you heard my new lecture, "Hugs For Wellness?"

Till then, be well and look on the bright side.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MEANING DOMAIN under the skill area of humor. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell