Classical Evaluation

The encyclopedia defines evaluate as: “To ascertain or fix the value of.” Whether it is a performance appraisal for one’s job, an evaluation of a project, feedback from a colleague, or criticism from a significant other, the feelings evoked by having one’s “value” fixed, ones faults, short-falls, and limitations pointed out, are troubling and unsettling.

In most situations, evaluation carries the burden of “judgment.” Even though most traditional evaluations point out successes as well as failures uncovered in an evaluation process, it seems to be human nature to focus on, if not to obsess about, those things that others declare (or that we ourselves fear) do not measure up to some standard assumed to define “perfection.” Furthermore, no matter what kind of intervention one makes in an organizational system, the conversation will, at some point, get around to the subject of monitoring and evaluation. Volumes have been written. Methods have been formulated and tested. Millions of dollars have been invested. We yearn to know how our inputs determine outcomes; whether our carefully crafted goals have been achieved; how much return we got for our investment.

We will argue in this chapter that applying the scientific methods of the Newtonian paradigm to human systems is flawed at best, if not actually a useless endeavor. It is one thing to count the number of vaccinations given in an area and relate that to the incidence of the disease in the area covered by the vaccination program. It is quite another to try to determine the impact of any person or group on the performance of a large and complex system.