Evaluation

I suspect that very few people write glowingly about how enjoyable, enlightening and empowering their annual review processes are. (At least not if they're the ones being reviewed.) So I'm try not to hold the one I'm currently being subjected to to a very high standard.

Perhaps it has something to do with being the data and computer science librarian, but I like things to be logical, impartial, quantifiable. (At least in my work life; at home I'm a disorganized romantic.) Sessions taught, patrons helped, guides and tools developed, feedback positive or negative. Output, that is; actual results. The success I've had in bringing data files and computer monographs to the masses. But as far as I can tell the only aspect of our job that is in fact evaluated quantitatively is collection development, which appears to be judged entirely on whether or not we spend our budget. Which strikes me as bizarre - what if I spent the entire budget on Winnie-the-Pooh?

All of which leaves me at something of a loss when dealing with the form I'm currently attempting to fill out. These are some of the sections I have to fill:

"Demonstration of ability to communicate effectively" with various (specified) groups of people. Well, I communicate with people all the time - talk to them individually, in groups, write them memos, send email. But how do I demonstrate that the communication was effective? Should I be keeping a running tally of how many people complained that they couldn't understand me?

"Demonstration of ability to work co-operatively" with same specified groups of people. Including patrons. If I let the patron ask the question and then answer it, am I working cooperatively with him or her to find the answer?

What if I can demonstrate that I have the ability, but I haven't actually been using it?

And this is my favourite, here in all its glory: "Demonstration of ability to relate assigned duties to the overall goals of the library." It seems that assigning me duties that serve to somehow advance the library's goals should properly be the task of my supervisors? If they've neglected to do so, should I be using this space to explain how I subverted my supervisors and managed to somehow fulfil library goals anyways? Or, am I supposed to just write a little essay discussing how my assigned duties are in fact congruent with the library's goals - that is, demonstrate that my supervisors did a good job in assigning me duties? Looking back, I think that's what I did last year, but the reasoning behind it escapes me.