Running Head: EFFECTIVE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Development of an Effective Employee Performance Evaluation Program for the

Transcription

1 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 1 Running Head: EFFECTIVE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Development of an Effective Employee Performance Evaluation Program for the North Ridgeville (OH) Fire Department John C. Reese North Ridgeville Fire Department North Ridgeville, Ohio

2 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 2 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I herby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another. Signed:

3 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 3 ABSTRACT The North Ridgeville Fire Department (NRFD) currently has an ineffective employee performance evaluation program. The problem is that the NRFD s current program for evaluating performance of employees is outdated, not consistent, and ineffective. The purpose of the research was to identify deficiencies in the current employee evaluation program and to develop a program that will actually improve or recognize the performance of the department s employees. This was accomplished by reviewing the NRFD s current procedures, the procedures of surrounding departments, and national standards. The results were the identification of how often employees should be evaluated, who should be evaluating employees, what type of activities should be evaluated, if employee self-evaluations are valuable and whether or not evaluations should be considered during the promotional process. Recommendations included referring to NFPA standards to establish the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA s) required for each position, establishing a minimum level of performance that must be obtained prior to being eligible for promotion, and developing a written policy or procedure for employee performance evaluations. The research attempts to support the hypothesis that an effective employee performance program will improve the safety of residents and firefighters.

4 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certification Statement 2 Abstract 3 Table of Contents.4 Introduction.5 Background and Significance..6 Literature Review...10 Procedures.. 18 Results 23 Discussion..26 Recommendations..29 References..31 Appendix A Efficiency Rating Sheet.33 Appendix B Personnel Performance Evaluation 35 Appendix C Current Employee Performance Evaluation Form.36 Appendix D Ohio Fire Chief s Questionnaire 38 Appendix E Ohio Fire Department Questionnaire Participants.40 Appendix F North Ridgeville Fire Department Questionnaire..42

5 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 5 Development of an Effective Employee Performance Evaluation Program For the North Ridgeville (OH) Fire Department INTRODUCTION The North Ridgeville Fire Department (NRFD) has 36 full-time employees who supply both fire protection and emergency medical services for the residents and visitors of the City of North Ridgeville, Ohio. The NRFD is made up of a fire chief, two assistant chiefs, three captains, six lieutenants, and twenty-four firefighters who are also trained paramedics. The NRFD operates three twenty-four hour shifts which are supervised by the three captains. The NRFD currently has a monthly performance evaluation which is only completed for probationary firefighters or newly appointed officers. The performance evaluations are based on a standard form which has been utilized by the department for approximately ten years. Prior to the current evaluation process, every employee was evaluated yearly and the evaluations were considered during the promotional process. The evaluation form that is currently being used asks the employee to evaluate himself or herself prior to the officer s evaluation. Both evaluations are then reviewed by another officer that signs off on the evaluation if he or she agrees with the content. The NRFD currently does not have a formal standard operating procedure (SOP) that addresses employee performance evaluations. Performance evaluations that are currently completed are not done so in a consistent manner by all of the officers. The problem is that the NRFD s current procedure for evaluating the performance of employees is outdated, not consistent, and ineffective. The lack of feedback to the employees is adversely affecting both

6 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 6 firefighter and civilian safety by not bringing performance deficiencies to the attention of the employees so that they can be resolved. The purpose of this research was to identify deficiencies in the current employee evaluation procedure and to develop a procedure that will actually improve or recognize the performance of the department s employees. Descriptive research was utilized to answer the following questions: (a) how often should employees have their performance evaluated, (b) who should be evaluating employee performance, (c) what type of duties or activities should be evaluated, (d) should performance evaluations be considered during the promotional process, (e) is employee self-evaluation valuable? BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE City of North Ridgeville North Ridgeville is located in Northeast Ohio 20 miles west of Cleveland. The city is still somewhat rural with a population of 28,768 residing in a 25-square mile radius (City-Data, (2012), P. 1). Originally established as Ridgeville Township on May 10, 1810, the city has seen subsequent growth. In the last several years, the city has been named the fastest growing suburb in the seven county region having added 1,347 homes in the past five years (City-Data, (2012), p. 1). The city has just over 11,000 housing units (North Ridgeville Building Department, 2011). The City of North Ridgeville was incorporated in 1961 as a residential and farming community (City of North Ridgeville, 2004). Corn has been the crop of choice and the community is known for its annual corn festival which is held every August. There are five industrial parkways that encompass the majority of the city s light industry. The City of North Ridgeville operates with a balanced budget despite having a 1% income tax with a 1/10 of 1% tax credit for residents that work outside of the city (City-Data, (2012) p.2).

7 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 7 North Ridgeville Fire Department On February 16, 1931 a special meeting of the Ridgeville Township Trustees was held for the purpose of approving bonds to purchase fire equipment and to appoint men to form a volunteer fire company. The motion was approved and the city s first 23 volunteer firefighters were appointed (North Ridgeville Fire Department, n.d.). On August 8, 1931 the fire department took delivery of its first fire truck which was a 1931 Buffalo Fire Apparatus (North Ridgeville Fire Department, n.d.). This truck is still owned and maintained by the city for parades and other civic events. In 1957, fire station one was constructed as a headquarters for the all volunteer fire department (North Ridgeville Fire Department, n.d.). In 1967, the NRFD began full-time operations by hiring personnel to staff the station 24/7. Initial staffing was three members onduty each day. Fire station one is located at the center of the city and can be called upon to respond anywhere within the city borders. In November of 1974, fire station two was completed on the south side of the city. It wasn t until February 1979 that three additional firefighters were hired which allowed both stations to be staffed 24/7 (North Ridgeville Fire Department, n.d.). Prior to this time, fire station two was only open when there was enough staffing on-duty. In 1995, the residents of North Ridgeville passed a paramedic levy to hire seven firefighters who were trained as paramedics and purchase all of the necessary equipment to provide advanced life support (North Ridgeville Fire Department, n.d.). In 2010, the NRFD was able to join four surrounding cities in a newly-developed regional dispatch center which freed up one member per shift to respond to emergencies instead of dispatching. The NRFD also hired three additional firefighters to increase personnel (North Ridgeville Fire Department, n.d.). Today, the NRFD has a total of 36 full-time members and a full-time administrative assistant operating from the two fire stations. Each shift has 11 members which consist of a captain, two

8 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 8 lieutenants, and nine firefighters. Each shift is on the 24/48 schedule. The NRFD also has a Chief and two assistant chiefs that are on a 40-hour schedule. The NRFD recognized the need to evaluate the performance of employees as far back as the late 1970 s (Chief Richard E. Miller, personal communication, January 5, 2012). Chief Miller (personal communication, January 5, 2012) reported that the NRFD was using an efficiency rating sheet (Appendix A) to evaluate employees when he was hired in Then in the mid 1980 s, the NRFD switched to an employee performance evaluation program which consisted of the shift officers filling out a new standardized form (Appendix B) annually for each member. This form was then included in the score on the promotional exams (Chief Richard E. Miller, personal communication, January 5, 2012). Chief Miller (personal communication, January 5, 2012) stated that several of the NRFD members complained that the evaluations were performed unfairly to allow certain members to have an advantage on the promotional tests. In 1998, the North Ridgeville Civil Service Committee decided against including the performance evaluations as a factor in promotions (Chief Richard E. Miller, personal communication, January 5, 2012). This action temporarily ended the department s employee performance evaluation program. In 2002, this author was promoted to captain and wanted to revive the employee performance evaluation program. With the permission of Chief Miller, a new employee performance evaluation form was developed by replicating a form used by a neighboring fire department (Appendix C). The form was only used by one shift for several years. Eventually, the shift stopped performing the evaluations and it was decided that they would only be used for probationary firefighters and newly promoted officers. Today, the NRFD continues the process of evaluating probationary firefighters and newly promoted officers on a monthly basis for their

9 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 9 first year. These employees are evaluated by their direct supervisors who have little or no training on how to perform an employee performance evaluation. One of the five United States Fire Administration (USFA) operational objectives is The USFA will focus on reducing the number of firefighter deaths by 25% over five years (USFA, 2001). An effective employee performance program within the fire department will have a direct affect on the safety of firefighters. An example of this is the firefighter that becomes nervous at every fire and fumbles with his or her self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) prior to making entry. The SCBA is the lifeline of every firefighter which is why all firefighters should be competent and confident in the use of their SCBA. If a firefighter is fumbling with their SCBA prior to entering a hazardous atmosphere, imagine how they will perform if they get inside and realize that they are lost or in trouble. This type of incident could eventually occur within the NRFD if an effective performance employee evaluation program is not implemented. The idea behind the employee performance evaluation is to recognize issues, such as a firefighter that is not proficient in the use of their safety equipment and to correct the problem before a traumatic event occurs. This is accomplished by pointing out the deficiency to the employee and setting goals to improve the employee s performance. This example provides a definite link between an effective employee performance evaluation program and the USFA operational objective of reducing the number of firefighter deaths (USFA, 2001). It also establishes a definitive link with the leading adaptive change objective in Unit 2 of the Executive Leadership Course Curriculum (United States Department of Homeland Security, 2011).

10 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 10 LITERATURE REVIEW Evaluation Periods Modern fire departments have become a cross between traditional paramilitary organizations and customer service oriented businesses. Members of the fire service are finding themselves faced with taking on more duties while trying to accomplish them with less and less financial resources. Public expectations and scrutiny appear to be at an all time high. It is more important now than ever that our members perform well. Today s employees demand feedback from their managers because they received a lot of feedback while being raised (Bruce, Hampel, and Lamont, 2011). Bruce et al. feels that failure to supply feedback to the younger generations such as Gen X and Gen Y just doesn t work. Like other service oriented businesses, it is vital that fire departments evaluate employee performance to ensure quality customer service. Poor performance by our members can have a direct affect on public perception and lead to a reduction in funding. Like other paramilitary organizations, it is vital that fire departments evaluate employee performance to ensure the safety of the public and our members. Swinhart (2008) has found that fire departments are beginning to view performance evaluations as valuable in facilitating both organizational and employee growth. Lloyd (2009) feels that every employee needs feedback and that we are not allowing our employees the opportunity to reach their full potential without providing them with feedback on their performance. Lloyd (2009) also feels that a solid performance appraisal system helps to motivate employees, but the lack of such as system has the reverse effect. Because the fire service is doing more with less, finding time for formal employee performance evaluations can be challenging. An effective performance management program

11 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 11 should include constant contact between the manager and the employee (Lloyd, 2009). Lloyd (2009) feels that employees should be provided with coaching, guidance, and feedback that are ongoing throughout the year. Let s face it, our customers are always evaluating our members, shouldn t we also be giving them continual feedback? Although Lloyd (2009) suggests holding a formal performance appraisal once a year, the information and data for that performance appraisal should be continuously gathered through interacting with the employee year round. If the manager is documenting an employee s performance throughout the year, it seems reasonable that the manager would have enough information to provide a fair appraisal of the employee s activities. Bruce et al. (2011) feels that the manager who only evaluates an employee s performance once a year is missing the point. A leader should be a coach by using praise and feedback throughout the year rather than being a judge once a year (Bruce et al.). It is reasonable though to give an employee an appropriate amount of time in which to show progress in areas of weakness. This idea may be where the practice of performing yearly evaluations may have originated. The proposed City of North Ridgeville Personnel Policy Manual (2011) requires that every city employee shall be evaluated at least once a year and that probationary employees be evaluated at least twice during their probationary period. Evaluators When employees think about performance appraisals, they most likely assume that they are prepared and presented by their immediate supervisor. Swinhart (2008) feels that this is because most fire departments performance evaluations proceed primarily in a top-down fashion. Lloyd (2009) suggests that feedback from the employee, feedback from the employee s coworkers, and feedback from the customers are the three main categories of performance appraisals. He also feels that a combination of all three of these categories would provide for the

12 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 12 most thorough evaluation (Lloyd, 2009). Arthur (2008) feels that the performance appraisal process should serve to strengthen the relationship between the employee and supervisor. In most cases, the immediate supervisor has more contact with the employee than any other manager. In the fire service, the immediate work group is called a crew and is usually made up of an officer and at least two or three firefighters. This work group arrangement would appear to be ideal when using the immediate supervisor or officer to evaluate the employees in his or her crew. Lloyd (2009) believes that the immediate supervisor is a good choice to perform performance appraisals because he or she can look back over a defined period of time and have a general overview of the employee s performance. This theory is legitimate in the fire service where an employee is usually on the same shift as the manager for an extended period of time. Researchers have found that the manager who conducts the evaluations is the person who usually decides if the system is effective or not (Lloyd, 2009). Lloyd (2009) is shocked by how many managers avoid giving their employees feedback. This is common in the fire service where managers live in the firehouse with employees and develop a family-like relationship. This makes it even harder for a manager to provide feedback that may be negative. The fact is a leader must lead, which includes holding employees accountable for unacceptable performance (Bruce et al., 2011). Traditionally, it has been accepted that the manager provides the only source of feedback during the employee appraisal process (Lloyd, 2009). Crawford (2003) feels that it is important in the fire service to have a trained observer, who is almost always the direct supervisor, to evaluate persons involved in critical incidents. This would be helpful in both the private and public sectors. Although the manager has direct contact with the employee, two additional sources of feedback improve the performance appraisal process (Lloyd, 2009). The two

13 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 13 additional feedback sources which Lloyd (2009) suggests are self-evaluations and 360-degree feedback which can both contribute to the improvement of sub-par performance. The first step in the NRFD s current performance appraisal program is an employee selfevaluation. Lloyd (2009) feels that giving the employee a blank copy of the evaluation form and asking them to complete it for him or her is one of the most powerful ways to open the evaluation process. The NRFD has experienced positive feedback and a willingness to participate by employees involved in this program. The employee self-evaluation allows the manager to compare his or her evaluation with that of the employee (Arthur, 2008). This can help the manager prepare before discussing the performance appraisal with the employee. Lloyd (2009) feels that it also sends a motivational message to the employee and helps to improve communication. The self-evaluations actually act as work assignments. If an employee puts no effort into the process, it tells you something about his or her attitude, work ethic, and motivation (Lloyd, 2009). Your employee probably has a realistic view of his or her performance if their self-ratings are in sync with those of the manager (Lloyd, 2009). Lloyd (2009) suggests that this is also a good indication that the manager has been providing the employee with effective feedback throughout the year. In the past, the self-evaluations of the NRFD have always been in-line with those of the managers. Actually, most employees have rated their performance lower than their managers have. There will be times though when an employee s self-evaluation will not agree with that of the manager. One reason that this may happen is that the employee is out of touch with reality or has not been receiving the proper feedback from his or her manager (Lloyd, 2009). Lloyd (2009) also suggests that if the manager has been vigilante with feedback and documentation, the employee may just be trying to manipulate the evaluation process.

14 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 14 The 360-degree evaluation is another motivational tool used in the performance appraisal process. The 360-degree evaluation is made up of feedback that is received from anonymous raters in the workplace which include managers, peers, and customers (Lloyd, 2009). The anonymity is because an employee may not be honest while evaluating a fellow employee when there can be retribution if the evaluator is identified (Swinhart, 2008). For example, a firefighter with the NRFD would receive anonymous evaluations from his or her managers and members of his or her respective shift. The thought is that if a manager can gather meaningful data about an employee, multiple members that work with the employee can provide even more useful data (Lloyd, 2009). This concept allows employees to rate one another and provide feedback from another perspective. The 360-evaluation can also have a positive effect on the department s core values. Alyn (2011) believes that the accountability to the department s core values will go up because employees know that everyone around them will be part of their evaluation process. This type of feedback cannot be provided by the manager alone. Although input from the anonymous raters can be beneficial, managers should not substitute this input for their own appraisals and judgment (Lloyd, 2009). Lloyd (2009) believes that the best use for 360-degree feedback is when establishing a development plan with employees. Swinhart (2008) feels that this type of system should work well in the fire service. One word of caution, some experts feel that the 360-degree evaluation is more useful for personal development as opposed to promotional purposes (Swinhart, 2008). Duties and Activities The first step in evaluating performance is determining what types of behaviors, duties, activities, or skills to evaluate. Crawford (2003) feels that one reason fire departments fail in their performance appraisal programs is because they often select evaluation criteria

15 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 15 indiscriminately. In essence, what do our employees need to do to perform their jobs effectively? Alyn (2011) believes that the foundation of your evaluations should be the department s values. The primary purpose of the performance evaluation is for the organization to properly utilize the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA s) of the employee (Arthur, 2008). Crawford (2003) feels that supervisors should use the employee s job description to develop a written record of their subordinate s KSA s. This practice would allow us to increase productivity from our employees while improving motivation and morale. Bruce et al. (2011) reports that their research has pointed to the employee s lack of clarity in expectations as a reason for poor performance. It makes sense that an employee has to know what he or she is supposed to do before they can do it well. Once the employee knows what to do, the manager should then provide feedback so that the employee can learn, grow, and reach his or her full potential (Lloyd, 2009). Crawford (2003) feels that the cornerstone of any performance appraisal program is refining and exploiting strengths while minimizing weaknesses. In determining what criteria to use to evaluate your employees, you must make sure to reference their current job duties (Lloyd, 2009). How can you possibly evaluate someone on a duty that they never perform? NFPA 1001 Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, 2008 edition defines what skills a firefighter should have in order to complete the primary duties of a firefighter. Arthur (2008) feels that the criteria that are found in a performance program should be directly related to the primary duties of a particular job. The tasks found in NFPA 1001 establish a set of performance standards specifically for the fire service (NFPA, 2008). NFPA (2008) established the standard so that it can be determined whether an individual possesses the skills and knowledge to perform as a firefighter in any organization throughout North America. Lloyd (2009) suggests that the job description should

16 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 16 list the predetermined standards on which an employee s performance is measured. NFPA 1001 requires that the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) evaluate individuals on the performance of each of it s requirements (NFPA, 2008). The NRFD maintains job descriptions with specific duties for every position on the fire department. The job descriptions take into consideration specific job duties, as well as, those listed in the NFPA standard. NFPA (2008) provides public and private sectors a framework to establish job descriptions by establishing a set of professional qualification standards. Arthur (2008) feels that job descriptions can be used to define expected job performance since they are considered an informal agreement between the employer and the employee. Lloyd (2009) feels that an employee that understands the job description and performance evaluation has the knowledge they need to perform well in their position. The employee should have these documents in their possession so that they can review them whenever they have a question about what they are supposed to be doing. Both the manager and the employee have the opportunity to deliver positive results when clear expectations are set ahead of time (Bruce, 2011). Promotions It is hard to ignore that the human factor involved in employee performance evaluations can cause employees to question the legitimacy when it comes to promotions. Swinhart (2008) has acknowledged that the top-to-bottom evaluation by a single person may seem unfair if the employee feels that the evaluator has a personal bias. If the feedback is used for training and development, the employees may feel more comfortable than if it were used for promotions and raises (Lloyd, 2009). This appears to have been the case with the NRFD in 1998 when the performance evaluations were removed from the promotional process (Chief Richard E. Miller, personal communication, January 5, 2012).

17 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 17 If a performance evaluation is biased due to its role in the promotional process, it takes away from the credibility of the entire performance evaluation process. The performance evaluation is not meant to have workers competing against one another to decide who is number one, it is meant to encourage workers to continually improve themselves (Bruce et al., 2011). A different view is that dissatisfaction is promoted throughout the department when the wrong person is promoted (Lloyd, 2009). This would be the case when promoting someone with a weak performance record because that person scored high on a promotional exam. When it comes to promotions, performance appraisals actually provide supportive data for decisions made by managers (Arthur, 2008). Imagine promoting the employee that has a record of tardiness. The employee is probably not going to change his or her ways just because they were promoted. The performance evaluations that document the habitual tardiness can provide the documentation or basis needed to avoid an ineffective or inappropriate promotion. Employee Self-Evaluations Lloyd (2009) feels that having employees do a self-evaluation is a powerful way to begin the evaluation process. It also can put the employee a little more at ease by letting them see what the actual evaluation parameters look like on paper. It begins by giving the employee the evaluation form and asking him or her to complete it for himself or herself (Lloyd, 2009). Lloyd (2009) feels that self-evaluations not only demystify the process, but they also send a motivational message and improve communications. Anytime that an employer is giving feedback to an employee, there is probably going to be some type of change. Arthur (2008) agrees that there should be an employee self-evaluation included in employee performance evaluations. The self-evaluations assist the evaluator by giving him or her the employee s views

18 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 18 in which to compare his or her evaluation of the employee with. Employee self-evaluation just seems like an essential component of the employee performance evaluation. A legitimate concern in the employee performance evaluation program is the training of evaluators. Lloyd (2009) states Most businesses have not taken the time to explain the purpose of appraisals or train their managers on how to conduct them. This statement leads one to believe that some managers also cannot explain the purpose of appraisals to their employees. One could also assume that some managers conduct performance appraisals improperly because they have no training. Bruce (2011) would argue that training managers to effectively prepare and deliver a performance evaluation that is consistent with organizational policies and practices is the job of the human resources partner. The problem with this theory is that many small organizations cannot afford or do not have a dedicated human resources department. This has been the case according to the City of North Ridgeville s Treasurer Anthony Hatmaker (Treasurer Anthony Hatmaker, personal communication, February 28, 2012). Treasurer Hatmaker informed this author that the city is currently considering the creation of a human resources position (personal communication, February 28, 2012). In the meantime, Treasurer Hatmaker felt that the NRFD hiring a consultant to develop an employee performance evaluation program and to train managers is a reasonable option (personal communication, February 28, 2012). PROCEDURES The motivation behind this project was the occurrence of several recent employee disciplinary issues that may have been avoided if an effective employee performance evaluation program would have been in place. Bringing performance problems to the attention of these

19 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 19 employees and developing a performance improvement plan may have identified and cured the problem before it escalated to the level where disciplinary action was needed. The author chose the descriptive research method for this applied research project based on a problem that needed to be addressed. The problem is that the NRFD s current procedure for evaluating the performance of employees is outdated, not consistent, and ineffective. The purpose of this research paper was to identify deficiencies in the current employee evaluation program and to make recommendations that will assist in developing a program that will actually improve or recognize the performance of the department s employees. Research for this paper began in September 2011 with a literary search utilizing the electronic card catalog of the Learning Resource Center (LRC) located at the National Fire Academy (NFA) in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The search began by entering the following into the electronic card catalog search engine: employee evaluations, employee performance, employee performance evaluations, firefighter performance standards, and evaluating employee performance. These were then also entered into the Google search engine on the internet. The information that was reviewed included standards from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), past applied research projects, websites containing information about employee performance evaluations, magazine articles, and several textbooks. In addition to reviewing literature on employee performance evaluations, the author researched and reviewed other department s employee performance evaluations, current applicable standards and law, and recommendations on how to develop and implement an effective employee evaluation process. To receive additional information, the author utilized two different questionnaires. The first questionnaire (Appendix D) was placed on the Ohio Fire Chief s Association (OFCA)

20 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 20 website. The questionnaire was sent via to the 600 fire departments that belong to the OFCA and 154 (26%) were completed and returned (Appendix E). The second questionnaire (Appendix F) was distributed to our members who belong to the North Ridgeville Firefighter s Local 2129 of the International Association of Firefighters. The purpose of these questionnaires was to assist in obtaining information on the employee performance evaluation programs of other Ohio fire departments and to learn the opinions of our members with respect to employee performance evaluations. Both questionnaires were designed using a list of questions that would assist in the development of a more effective employee evaluation program for the NRFD. All questions and answers to both questionnaires were recorded accurately and completely. The first questionnaire was dedicated to NRFD personnel and the following questions were asked to assist with determining what is needed for an effective employee performance evaluation program which would be accepted by our members: 1. During our employment with the North Ridgeville Fire Department, has your job performance ever been formally evaluated? 2. If you answered yes to question #1, do you feel that the evaluators offered you enough feedback on your job performance? 3. If you answered yes to question #1, do you feel that the performance evaluations that you received were beneficial? 4. Although your officers are supposed to be providing you with constant feedback about your job performance, how often do you feel it would be beneficial to conduct a formal performance evaluation with written documentation including performance plans if needed? 5. Who do you feel should be evaluating your performance?

21 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation What type of duties or activities do you feel should be evaluated? 7. Do you feel that performance evaluations should be used in the promotional process? 8. Do you feel that the current employee performance program would improve if the evaluators received more training about how to conduct performance evaluations? 9. Do you feel that a departmental policy or procedure would improve the process and provide consistency in how employee performance is evaluated? The main limitation of the questionnaire was that there were several questions with yes or no answers. There were also questions where members were able to provide more than one answer which made the results confusing. It was found that many of the firefighters wanted to elaborate on their answers and would even write in thoughts or suggestions. The questionnaire worked well, but missed some opportunities for the members to elaborate. The second questionnaire was dedicated to other Ohio fire departments and the following questions were asked to assist with determining the following: 1. Does your department currently have a method for evaluating the performance of your employees? 2. How often do your employees have their job performance evaluated? 3. Who evaluates your department s employees? 4. What type of duties or other activities are your employees evaluated on? 5. How do your employee s performance evaluations figure into the promotional process? 6. What type of employee self-evaluation is included in your department s performance evaluation program?

22 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation What type of training does your department provide supervisors to enable them to evaluate employees? 8. How consistent are your performance evaluations and the performance evaluation faceto-face meetings from one shift or supervisor to the next? 9. Does your department have a written policy or procedure concerning employee performance evaluations? The main limitation with the questionnaire was the small percentage (26%) of the OFCA that completed the questionnaire. The OFCA was used as the source for input due to the fact that all of the members are subject to Ohio law and employee rights. The author interviewed Chief Richard E. Miller of the North Ridgeville Fire Department on January 5, 2012 in his office. The Chief was asked to give a history of the NRFD performance evaluation process during the time he has been with the department. Chief Miller has been with the department since 1979 and has served as Chief since Chief Miller was able to provide a detailed history of the performance evaluation process complete with forms that were used in the past. The author also interviewed Anthony Hatmaker who is the treasurer for the City of North Ridgeville. Treasurer Hatmaker also performs several of the duties that a human resources partner would be responsible for. This makes Treasurer Hatmaker responsible for two full-time positions. Treasurer Hatmaker was interviewed in his office on February 28, 2012 and provided valuable insight on the city s position concerning a human resources partner and employee performance evaluations. Five research questions were developed in order to provide guidance in the development of recommendations for use in updating and improving the current NRFD employee performance

23 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 23 evaluation program. The first two questions were designed to allow the author to determine and appropriate time frame in which to evaluate employees and who should be performing the formal evaluation. The second two questions were used to determine what activities an employee should be evaluated on and if the evaluation should play a role in the promotional process. The last research question was asked to determine whether an employee s opinion of his or her own performance is relevant. RESULTS Research Question One: How often should employees have their job performance evaluated? The literature review points out that finding time for formal employee performance evaluations can be challenging due to the fact that the fire service is being forced to do more with less. The standard theme of most of the literature resources used is that an effective employee performance management program should begin with constant contact between the manager and the employee. The OFCA questionnaire asked how often other Ohio fire departments evaluate employee job performance. A majority (63.7%) reported that they evaluate job performance on an annual basis. The next highest percentage (18.8%) claimed that they never evaluate the performance of their employees. The questionnaire completed by our members asked the question of how often employees feel that they should have their job performance evaluated. The results were 48% of our employees choosing annual evaluations and 40% choosing evaluations twice yearly. Lloyd s (2009) opinion corresponds with the results of both questionnaires in that a formal performance appraisal should be held once a year. The proposed City of North Ridgeville Personnel Policy Manual (2011) dictates that evaluations be held once a year for existing employees and at least twice a year for probationary employees.

24 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 24 Research Question Two: Who should be evaluating employee performance? Most employees just assume that their immediate supervisor will be evaluating their performance. Lloyd (2009) recommends that employees be evaluated through a combined effort of their supervisor, customers, and peers. Appraisal by the immediate supervisor is assumed because that is the authority figure who has the most contact with the employee. Unfortunately, many mangers avoid giving their employees feedback. The results of the OFCA questionnaire reported that the employee s immediate supervisor completes the employee performance evaluation in 61.8% of the Ohio fire departments that responded. The next person who evaluated employees most often was the fire chief in 22.6% of departments. Peers were only included in the process 9.7% of the time. The NRFD members disagreed slightly with the practices of the other departments. A resounding 96% of the NRFD personnel agreed that the immediate supervisor is best suited to conduct performance evaluations. The difference was that peer review was the second choice. Swinhart (2008) suggests an anonymous version of peer review because an employee may not be honest while evaluating a fellow employee when there can be retribution if the evaluator is identified. Peer review has become more common through use of 360-evaluations that allow peers to evaluate one another. Swinhart (2008) feels that this type of system should work well in the fire service. Research Question Three: What type of duties or activities should be evaluated? The key to a successful performance evaluation program is determining what type of behaviors, duties, activities, or skills to evaluate. The results of the OFCA questionnaire reported that 62.8% of the departments evaluate employees on general performance items such as

25 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 25 appearance, attendance, and attitude. The next highest reported was 54.1% of departments who evaluate their employees on the performance of duties and skills listed in job descriptions. Alyn (2011) supported the results of this questionnaire by expressing that the foundation of the evaluations should be the department s values. This would include items such as appearance, attendance, and attitude. Arthur (2008) felt differently in saying the primary purpose of the performance evaluation is for the organization to properly utilize the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA s) of the employee. The questionnaire that was completed by the NRFD members reported that 92% of our personnel feel that they should be evaluated on the skills listed in their job description. The next closest category was general performance items (i.e. appearance, attendance, attitude, etc.) which 84% of our personnel feel that they should be evaluated on. Research Question Four: Should performance evaluations be considered during the promotional process? There is some question about whether or not it is fair to consider evaluations during the promotional process due to the human factor which is involved. Swinhart (2008) has acknowledged that the top-to-bottom evaluation by a single person may seem unfair if the employee feels that the evaluator has a personal bias. Lloyd (2009), on the other hand, points out that dissatisfaction is promoted throughout the department when the wrong person is promoted. The OFCA questionnaire reported that in 43.8% of the departments, performance evaluations do not exist or are not used in the promotional process. In 29.3% of the departments, performance evaluation scores are a part of the promotional process. This may lead one to believe that the evaluations can be considered during the promotional process with success.

26 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 26 The questionnaire completed by the NRFD members reported that 76% of our personnel feel that performance evaluations should be used in the promotional process. These results would lead one to believe that the majority of our members would welcome the use of the evaluations in our promotional process. Research Question Five: Is employee self-evaluation valuable? Arthur (2008) supports the idea that some form of self-evaluation should be included in the employee performance evaluation program. The literary sources give the impression that an employee self-evaluation improves communication and eases employee anxiety when it comes to performance evaluations. Although 36.2% of the departments that completed the OFCA questionnaire report not including self-evaluations in their evaluations, 29% report using a written self-evaluation and 13.2% include a verbal self-evaluation in their employee evaluation process. The NRFD member questionnaire reports that only 36% of our personnel feel that the self-evaluation should be included. It appeared that the literary sources placed more value on employee self-evaluations than the respondents of the questionnaires did. DISCUSSION It is the belief of this author that an effective employee performance program in a fire department can improve the safety of the residents of the community and its firefighters. This is supported by the idea that our firefighters will perform better if they know what is expected of them and they are told when they are not performing their duties well. Lloyd (2009) supports this by saying that every employee needs feedback and we are not allowing our employees the

27 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 27 opportunity to reach their full potential without providing them with feedback on their performance. The North Ridgeville Fire Department (NRFD) has recognized the need for employee performance evaluations since at least the 1970 s, but recently has allowed the process to deteriorate. The reason that this has happened is that the department did not feel that the evaluations were as important after they were eliminated from the promotional process. Although this is a poor excuse, it can be supported by the fact that over 20% of the departments in Ohio that answered the OFCA questionnaire reported that they currently do not have a process for evaluating employee performance. Evaluating employees effectively takes time, effort, and training. The NRFD s current employee performance evaluation program is confined to probationary and newly promoted employees. Although the current process is accepted by employees, most of our employees (88%) feel that the current process would improve if the evaluators received more training. Our employees (92%) also feel that a departmental policy or procedure would improve the process and provide consistency in how employees are evaluated. Lloyd (2009) feels that a solid performance appraisal system helps to motivate employees, but the lack of such a system has the reverse effect. The bottom line is that we should be evaluating the performance of all of our employees. Although fire departments are currently being made to do more with less, our employees should be on a regular feedback schedule. Lloyd (2009) suggests holding a formal performance appraisal once a year, the information and data for that performance appraisal should be continuously gathered through interacting with the employee year round. The majority of the

28 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 28 NRFD members (48%) agree that a formal performance evaluation with written documentation and improvement plans should be held with each employee on at least a yearly basis. It seems to be an assumption that employees should be evaluated by their immediate supervisor and 96% of the NRFD employees agree. Swinhart (2008) feels that this is because most fire department performance evaluations proceed primarily in a top-down fashion. Although this practice is accepted, self-evaluations and 360-degree evaluations have proven valuable and should be considered in some form. Managers need to ask themselves what their employees need to perform their jobs effectively. Firefighters need the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA s) to perform their often dangerous jobs. The tasks found in NFPA 1001 Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, 2008 edition defines what skills a firefighter should have in order to complete their primary duties. It only makes sense that these skills should be used to establish both job descriptions and evaluation methods for fire departments. Because fire departments are finding that performance evaluations are valuable in facilitating both organizational and employee growth, feedback on items that support the organization s ideas such as appearance and attitude should also be evaluated (Swinhart, 2008). This idea was reported as acceptable by 84% of the NRFD personnel. The NRFD has a history of using employee evaluations when considering promotions. It was found that this practice was damaging both the promotional process and the employee evaluation program. Swinhart (2008) has acknowledged that the top-to-bottom evaluation by a single person may seem unfair if the employee feels that the evaluator has a personal bias. The NRFD employees (76%) feel that the performance evaluations should be considered in the

29 Effective Employee Performance Evaluation 29 promotional program. This author feels that a strong promotional process combined with a strong employee performance evaluation process could promote some type of compromise. The research has provided several ideas and measures that can help the NRFD, and other departments, develop an effective employee performance evaluation program. The final outcome lies in the ability of the city, fire department, and union leadership to recognize the current shortcomings and apply these ideas effectively. RECOMMENDATIONS The research for this Applied Research Project (ARP) has revealed that although the NRFD has made an effort to evaluate employee performance in the past, the department s current program lacks a formal process, acceptable training, and consistency. The NRFD must make a conscious effort in order to have an effective employee performance evaluation program. The recommendations for the NRFD to develop an effective employee performance evaluation program are as follows: 1. The department should review the job descriptions for each position and ensure that they correspond with the KSA s as defined by the respective NFPA standards. 2. The city administration should consider hiring a human resources partner or allow the fire department to hire a consultant to help in developing a more effective employee performance evaluation process and to train managers in it s use. 3. The fire department administration and the members of local 2129 should meet and establish parameters for the employee performance evaluation program.