improving employee performance evaluation for the appleton

Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 1

Running head: IMPROVING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

Improving Employee Performance Evaluations for the Appleton Fire Department

Eugene R. Reece, Jr.

Appleton Fire Department, Appleton, Wisconsin


CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby 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:


Abstract

The Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP) incorporates a class on Executive

Leadership. This class identifies the importance of feedback in employee growth. The U.S. Fire

Administration has also identified the importance of improving the fire and emergency services

professional status.

The problem is that the current employee performance evaluation process has been

identified as ineffective by the employees of the Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department. The

purpose of this applied research project is to develop an effective employee performance

evaluation process for the Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department.

Using action research methodology, the following questions will be answered to address

the identified problem. What are the standards for an effective employee performance evaluation

process? What laws and regulations impact the development of the process? How do other fire

department employee performance evaluation processes work? What components do the

employees of the Appleton Fire Department think should be included in an effective

performance evaluation process? What aspects of the current process could be incorporated into

developing the new process?

A literature review, survey instruments, and interviews were used in the research of the

problem, identifying that the current process is not seen as beneficial by a majority of the

members of the department, and that modifications need to be made to improve the process for it

to be accepted by the employees.

The following recommendations were identified: 1. The Appleton Fire Department

should establish a team of employees including members from all ranks within the department to

evaluate the current performance evaluation forms. 2. An evaluation of the current rating scale

should be conducted. 3. An evaluation of a 360-degree component be reviewed. 4. Formalized


training be provided for employees performing performance review. 5. Assign supervisors to

employees at the beginning of the evaluation period.


Table of Contents

Certification Statement………………………………………………………….. 2

Abstract………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………… 5

Introduction……………………………………………………………………… 6

Background and Significance……………………………………………………. 7

Literature Review………………………………………………………………… 11

Procedures……………………………………………………………………….. 19

Results…………………………………………………………………………… 22

Discussion……………………………………………………………………….. 37

Recommendations……………………………………………………………….. 45

References……………………………………………………………………….. 47

Appendix A Appleton Fire Department Employee Rating Form 1979……….. 50

Appendix B Appleton Fire Department Employee Rating Form 1990………. 51

Appendix C City of Appleton Employee Performance Evaluation 2002…….. 52

Appendix D City of Appleton Recruit Firefighter Performance Evaluation….. 53

Appendix E City of Appleton Firefighter Performance Evaluation ………….. 58

Appendix F City of Appleton Driver/Engineer Performance Evaluation ……. 63

Appendix G City of Appleton Company Officer Performance Evaluation..….. 69

Appendix H City of Appleton Acting Officer Performance Evaluation ……… 75

Appendix I Appleton Fire Department Employee Survey……………………. 78

Appendix J Appleton Fire Department Chief/Company Officer Survey……… 80

Appendix K Wisconsin Fire Department Cover Letter and Survey……………. 82


Introduction

The Appleton Fire Department has been conducting employee performance evaluations

since the 1970’s. The purpose of these evaluations was to recognize employee’s good

performance and for addressing employee’s poor performance. To accomplish the performance

evaluations, the fire department has incorporated an evaluation form consisting of a number of

measurement criteria for supervisors to utilize in the evaluation process. Over the last forty years,

these forms have changed numerous times to address changes in job requirements as well as

changes in the rating scale of employee performance.

A major overhaul of the performance evaluation system was conducted in 2002. This

change incorporated a self review component completed by the employee prior to the completion

of the performance review process by the supervisor. Since that overhaul, minor modifications

have been made based on feedback from the employees being evaluated as well as the

supervisors using the form to conduct the evaluations. Even with these modifications, the fire

department has continually received complaints throughout the employee ranks on the

performance appraisal process.

The problem is that the current employee performance evaluation process has been

identified as ineffective by the employees of the Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department. The

purpose of this project is to develop an effective employee performance evaluation process for

the Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department.









By answering the above questions, recommendations can be provided for the

development of an effective employee performance evaluation process.

Background and Significance

The City of Appleton is located in northeast Wisconsin. The city is unique as it sits

within three counties. The majority of the city is in Outagamie County with a portion in Calumet

and Winnebago Counties. Appleton is the heart of an area called the Fox Valley where eighteen

communities call their home. In 2000, the Fox Valley’s population was estimated to be

approximately 222,000 (Fox Cities Visitors and Convention Bureau, 2008). Appleton is the

largest municipality located within the Fox Valley area. In 2008, the city had over 72,000

citizens living within its borders. Additionally, Appleton is the largest populated community in

Calumet County, a mostly rural county. A very small portion of the city occupies Winnebago

County.

Fire protection for the city is provided by an all career fire department consisting of 98

career employees. The department operates six fire stations strategically placed throughout the

city. Each station provides a home for a single engine company, typically staffed with three

persons. The largest station, Station One, serves as the department’s headquarters and is the

home of an engine and ladder company task force. In addition, the station houses the shift

commander who responds as an incident commander during emergency incidents. The station is

typically staffed with seven people. In addition to fire suppression activities, the department also

provides regional hazardous materials and technical rescue response. The department provides

first responder level emergency medical response supporting Gold Cross Ambulance, a private

ambulance service overseen by the area hospitals. Outagamie County Public Safety Answering


Point (PSAP) provides alarm receipt and dispatching for the department. The Appleton Fire

Department responded to 3,155 calls for service in 2009.

The completion of employee performance evaluations has been a department practice

since the 1970’s. The initial evaluation form (Appendix A) was completed by the employee’s

supervisor based on ten job performance criteria, consisting of; Knowledge of Work, Quality of

Work, Quantity of Work, Cooperation, Responsibility, Dependability, Punctuality, Overall

Appearance, Supervisory Ability and Judgment. Each section was rated on a four level scale

including Outstanding, Above Average, Average and Unsatisfactory. The performance review

contained a general comment sections and a location for the rater’s and employee’s signature.

The reviews were completed annually.

In the 1990’s, the evaluation form (Appendix B) was changed to include more specific

identified tasks for evaluation. These tasks were broken into six criteria, including; Task

Performance, Communications Skills, Quality of Effort, Attitude, Knowledge of Job

Requirement and Initiative. A five level rating schedule was utilized for rating employees. This

included bottom, lower, middle, upper and top. Additionally, a development interview section

was added that captured performance strengths, improvement objectives, action steps and an area

for the supervisor to identify how they could help the employee in their performance.

In early 2000, there was a general concern being presented by the employees to the

management team that the employee review process was in need of overhauling. The concern

was based on both the evaluation form as well as the overall evaluation process. In conjunction

with the City of Appleton Human Resources Department, the fire department management team

worked on the development of a new performance evaluation form (Appendix C). Under this

performance evaluation process, a form incorporated the specific skills associated with each

position within the organization, including: Company Officer, Driver/Engineer and Firefighter.

The categories being evaluated for all positions consisted of: Suppression Skills – Engine


Company Practices, Suppression Skills – Truck Company Practices, Emergency Medical Duty,

Safety, Interpersonal Skills, Other Responsibilities, Rules and Procedures, Station Duties and

Out of Grade Work. A four level scale was utilized for the completion of the evaluation process.

The scale included outstanding, above expectations, meets expectations and below expectations.

The evaluations were conducted annually by the company and chief officers based upon the

supervisor level in the organization.

The process developed in 2000 was utilized until 2004 when the performance appraisal

form was modified. Supervisors raised a concern regarding the format of the performance

evaluation form and review process. The concern generated consisted of two key components:

consistency with the rating scale and the inability to rate employees based on the number of

times working with them. The supervisors voiced a concern over consistency with the four levels

of the rating system. They felt that the four levels created inconsistency with the use of

outstanding and below expectations. Their concern was that these sections were not being

effectively utilized based on the position that employees were not outstanding and below was

seen as employee failure. Secondly, company officers felt that they did not have adequate access

to employee performance based on employees being moved between supervisors to meet

department staffing needs. The supervisors felt they were conducting performance evaluations on

employees that they seldom worked with. These issues were addressed with the development of

a self evaluation component within the process. The rating scale was changed to adopt a three

level scoring criteria. This included exceeds expectations, meets expectations and not met

expectations. Performance Evaluation Forms were created for each position including: Recruit

Firefighter (Appendix D), Firefighter (Appendix E), Driver Engineer (Appendix F) and

Company Officer (Appendix G).

On July 27, 2009, during a company officer meeting, a discussion was held with

company officers on the performance review process. During this discussion, the group of


company officers discussed the inclusion of a 360 degree review process as a component of the

performance review process. During this meeting, significant feedback was provided to Interim

Fire Chief Dave Walsh on the problems and concerns with the performance review process.

Chief Walsh shared with the company officers that as an interim chief, he felt that any changes to

the current process should be handled once a permanent chief was appointed. Concerns again

generated around the fairness of the process, the forms being utilized, and the lack of training for

those supervisors completing the performance reviews. This message was delivered to the new

Fire Chief Len Vander Wyst as a concern voiced by the company officers upon his appointment.

In 2010, the department began evaluating the process of promotion of Lieutenants within

the department. The evaluation included discussions with the members of the City of Appleton

Police and Fire Commission. During these discussions, the commission felt that performance

evaluations were a critical component for promotion. Based upon this position, a new

performance review form was developed for the position of acting officer (Appendix H). It was

during this development that the concern over the entire performance review process was

discussed with Chief Vander Wyst and the problem statement for this research project was

developed.

Addressing the research questions of this applied research project directly relates to the

Executive Leadership course goal of “the chief fire executive will develop the ability to

conceptualize and employ the key processes used by effective executive level managers.”

Executive Leadership Student Manual, (2009). The course also provides two specific sections

dealing with the performance review concept. Unit Two speaks on the importance of Feedback.

Employee performance evaluations, if done properly, incorporate these components of feedback.

Unit Seven deals with Succession/Replacement Planning. Employee performance evaluations are

an effective tool in preparing employees for future executive leadership roles within the

organization. Additionally, the research addresses the United States Fire Administration


Operational objective #4 “Improve the Fire and Emergency Services Professional status” as

identified in the United States Fire Administrations Strategic Plan 2010-2014.

Literature Review The literature review of the employee performance evaluations began with an evaluation

of materials available through the Learning Resource Center at the National Fire Academy.

Additional information was gathered through an internet search of articles and periodicals on the

topic.

The Executive Leadership Student Manual (2009) identifies the importance of feedback

as a component of employee succession planning and leadership. The course goal identifies the

chief fire executive will develop the ability to conceptualize and employ the key processes used

by effective executive-level managers. One key component of this process is succession

planning. An integral component of succession planning is the preparation of subordinates to fill

the future leadership roles within the organization. A key to this preparation is the use of

employee performance evaluations.

State of Wisconsin Department of Commerce (2002), Chapter 30 Fire Department Safety

and Health Standards, identifies training and employment standards for firefighters, driver

engineers and company officers working in the fire service. Subchapter 6 of the standard deals

with training and education. In the section of Employment Standards, Chapter 30 references the

requirements for fire department personnel to be trained and qualified in accordance with

National Fire Protection Association Standards 1001 ”Standard for Firefighter Professional

Qualifications”, 1002 Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications

and 1021, Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications. The chapter requires that newly

promoted company officers be qualified to the Fire Officer 1 level.

National Fire Protection Association (2008) identifies within NFPA 1001 the inclusion of

a skills maintenance component for the Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications.


Section 1.3.8 identifies that firefighters at all levels of progression shall remain current with fire

protection technology. Additionally, the standard identifies the use of job performance

qualifications (JPQ’s) in identifying necessary performance for obtaining the qualification levels

within the standard. Section B.4 identifies employee performance evaluation and employee

development as another use for the JPQ’s.

National Fire Protection Association (2009) identifies within NFPA 1021 the inclusion of

a skills maintenance component for the Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications.

Section 1.3.4 identifies that fire officers at all levels of progression shall remain current with the

general requirements for fire officers, human resource management, community and government

relations, administration, inspection and investigation, emergency service delivery, and health

and safety. Section 4.2, Human Resource Management, identifies that a Fire Officer 1 involves

utilizing human resources to accomplish assigned tasks. This duty involves the evaluating of

employee performance. Section B.4 identifies employee performance evaluation and employee

development as another use for the JPQ’s.

The U.S Office of Personnel Management (2010) identified the chronology of employee

performance management in the federal government. The first federal law on appraisals was

adopted in 1912. This law required the U.S. Civil Service Commission (now the Office of

Personnel Management) to establish a uniform efficiency rating system for all agencies. In 1935,

the Commission established the Uniform Efficiency Rating System, identifying three areas of

performance factors, quality of performance, productiveness, and qualifications. There were five

rating levels within each category. In 1950, this scale was changed to a three level rating scale of

outstanding, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. In 1962, the Civil Service Reform Act, required the

development of appraisal systems for all Federal employees. This included that appraisals must

be based on job-related performance standards; agencies must encourage employee participation

in establishing performance standards; results of the appraisals must be used as a basis for


training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining and removing

employees. In 1991, legislation extended the performance management and recognition system

allowing the use of written statements of work objectives to establish performance requirements.

Rick Lasky (2004) identified that you must trust your employees. Train them,

give them what they need and let them go. A good way to do this is through performance

evaluations. Let them know they’re doing a good job. He identifies the importance of

documenting performance for future promotion opportunities.

Jason Hosea (2004) identified, whether you are an evaluator or the person being

evaluated, increasing your knowledge in the area of employee performance evaluations will

assist you in understanding the importance of evaluation and its effect on the employee and

organization. Hosea identified the importance that the employee evaluation process is to improve

the employee performance. That the process should be as positive as possible and should

motivate the employee to improve not be resentful. That it is important to be honest and if

needed not to avoid the unpleasant task of giving criticism. Hosea states that the agency should

develop an evaluation form that can be used for all employees within the same job category. The

form should focus on how well the employee has performed the various job duties. Identifying

that most organizations design their performance evaluations around the responsibilities of the

job position.

Linda Willing (2010) has identified that some fire departments have found routine

performance evaluations to be of such limited value that they have eliminated them altogether.

She found that there are two main reasons performance evaluations are ineffective. First, the

system in place is inadequate. The flaws may arise from evaluating the wrong things or applying

a qualitative scale to something that is quantitative. An example would be rating an employee on

a scale of 1 – 10 on whether that person has ever been late to work. The second problem she

identified was that most people who do performance evaluations have little or no training and


support in the process. This concern was one of the issues identified by the company officers in

their concern over the current review process.

Willing identified that if training is inadequate, the evaluator is “winging it” and can

easily fall into a number of evaluator traps such as:

Excessive leniency or severity – Evaluations that are either too harsh or accommodating.

Halo effect – if an employee is good in one area, rating the worker high in all areas.

Centralizing tendency – Evaluators choose the safe middle ground for all employees.

Recency effect – It may be tempting to rate an employee based entirely on a recent event.

Willing identified that evaluators need support to maximize performance evaluation

effectiveness. When the support is absent, the result may be worse than just making the process

meaningless. The performance evaluations support system at the very minimum includes

training, openness, and follow-up. Witting also identifies the importance of supervisors having

access to previous evaluations as an integral component of the performance review process.

Ron Hiraki (2010) identifies that writing clear and concise comments are essential for the

performance review process. He identifies that this can be a very challenging component of the

process. Hiraki identifies that there are many good reasons for conducting performance

evaluations. He states that reasons for conducting performance evaluations include improving

performance. How can subordinates improve if they don’t know what’s wrong? Motivating

employees, identifying that if employees are doing an outstanding job, why not recognize that

component of their performance? Lastly, identifying training needs. If performance evaluations

show that everyone is having trouble with a training area, the training program can be focused on

that area.

Hiraki states that giving criticism is difficult for both the evaluator and the subordinate.

As a leader, it is important to give this criticism. If you don’t, he states that the situation may

fester creating more hard feelings or a safety situation.


Paul Falcone (2008) identifies that performance reviews are a daunting task for

supervisors. He states that judging others work often appears exceptionally perception driven

versus fact driven. Providing honest feedback is potentially confrontational. He also identifies

that overinflating grades can create a situation for a legal challenge in the future when you need

to terminate or discipline an employee. This area has been identified as a concern by the

company officers and should be evaluated as a component of the research. One aspect identified

by Falcone is to reinvent the performance appraisals by shifting the responsibility of the initial

evaluation back to the employee. He states if you ask workers to grade themselves, you will find

that they are harder on themselves than the evaluator would be. Utilizing this method may place

your supervisors in a role of a career mentor of coach rather than decision-makers and

disciplinarians.

Business Management Daily (2008) identifies five warning signs of performance review

problems. 1. Employees are unpleasantly surprised by the ratings. Performance appraisals should

not contain surprises. 2. Ratings by one supervisor or department are uniformly excellent. It is

inappropriate to rate everyone at the same level. 3. Great employees don’t receive great ratings.

Employees who are strong employees should be receiving the best ratings. If they are not, the

appraisals are not rewarding those they should. 4. Employees who are dismissed have received

excellent ratings. If the performance appraisal doesn’t support a decision, it makes it more

difficult for the employer to defend their later actions. 5. Productivity generally goes down

during appraisal time. The goal of performance appraisals is to increase productivity. If the

process is not doing so, it needs to be replaced. Additionally, they identify two common errors to

stay away from when conducting performance appraisals. Evaluation of attitude not performance

and evaluation inflation. Both contribute to the unsuccessfulness of the process.

Kevin Royce (2009) when conducting research for his applied research paper identified

in his research that the following components were key to a successful performance review


process. They include properly updated job descriptions, communications of performance

expectations and standards, feedback from supervisors, supervisor training on how to conduct

employee performance reviews and a simple performance review form.

Royce identified based on information from the International City Management

Association (ICMA) (1997), that there are four major goals of an effective performance appraisal

process. These include, informing employees how they are doing, documenting employee

performance, evaluating employee’s strengths and weaknesses and providing information to the

employee to assist the employee’s professional development. He further identified that ICMA

identified twelve characteristics of an effective performance appraisal:

1. The appraisal should be simple and easy to administer

2. The Human Resource Department should be able to keep track of the appraisal easily.

3. The performance appraisal form should be easy to complete by supervisors.

4. The evaluation criteria should be concrete, specific, controllable and measurable.

5. Employee’s should have access to the standards being measured and the appraisal

form well in advance.

6. Employees should be given the opportunity to comment on the performance

appraisal.

7. The performance appraisal should be designed to fit the needs of the organization.

8. Job descriptions used in the performance appraisal process should be updated and

kept recent.

9. Supervisors should be properly trained on how to evaluate employees.

10. Performance standards or goals should be communicated to the employee before the

performance appraisal.

11. Performance appraisals should focus on specific job-related behaviors and not traits,

abilities or personal characteristics.


12. The performance instrument or form should be developed from a systematic analysis

of individual jobs.

Dominick Swinhart (2008) identifies that fire departments are beginning to use

performance evaluations as a valuable tool to facilitate organizational growth and employee

growth as individuals. He identified that performance reviews have been part of the business

world for decades and that traditionally fire departments have reserved the use of them primarily

as a component of the probationary process. Swinhart proposed that a way of improving the

performance review process was incorporating the theory of 360-degree performance

evaluations. In this process, everyone in the organization receives thoughtful evaluation and

suggestions for improvement from everyone with whom they come in contact with, including

supervisors, colleagues and subordinates. He identified that the primary purpose of performance

evaluations should be personnel as well as organizational improvement. It can also be invaluable

in identifying future leaders in the fire department. The added benefit of a 360-degree review is

that it provides evaluations from all around the employee not just from a supervisor. Swinhart

does identify that organizations that have an atmosphere of distrust or don’t open lines of

communications are poor choices for 360-degree evaluations.

Toolpack Consulting identifies that the best performance reviews let managers and

employees communicate, share ideas, opinions and information. Toolpack identified the problem

with traditional reviews is it put managers into the position of uncomfortable judges identifying

if the employee either fit the bill or didn’t. Toolpack identifies that new types of reviews coming

into play require that evaluations are done not for raises, promotions or bonuses, but more for

growth, development and communications. The most important piece identified in new

performance reviews is that communications between the employee and other people instead of

one-way communications with a supervisor are more beneficial for higher performance.

Toolpack shared four types of alternative performance reviews: peer review, self reviews,


upward assessments and 360-degree feedback. Peer review often have a high level of worker

acceptance, they tend to be stable, task-relevant and accurate. Peer reviews help peers better

understand each others work, airing grievances in a non-threatening manner, allowing workers to

get along better. Self reviews are based on the idea that employees are most familiar with their

work and their involvement is essential. Employees rate themselves on a number of criteria

usually with a formal survey form and suggesting improvements. This type of process changes

the role of a supervisor in the process to more of a mentor or coach. However, Toolpack does

identify that self reviews tend to have a halo effect and people may not see their own deficiencies

as others do, so this method should be utilized alongside other performance evaluation methods.

Upward assessments provide feedback to managers on their performance, allowing managers to

realize what they say sometimes does not match up with what they do. The process is more

important than a survey form and requires both the raters and the managers to open up if it is

going to be successful. It is suggested that this method be utilized at least every four years.

Toolpack identified that the 360-degree feedback process is the most comprehensive and costly

type of appraisal. It includes self ratings, peer review and upward assessment. Feedback is

sought from everyone. It gives people the chance to know how they are seen by others, to see

their skills and style, and to improve communications. The 360 degree feedback has high

employee involvement and credibility. Toolpack states that it may have the strongest impact on

behavior and performance. They identify the importance of involving employees in the process.

If they design the performance appraisal system, they may be more dedicated to it and both the

employees and the organization can benefit from the process.

The literature review identified a number of benefits to a performance review process.

These benefits impact both the employee and the organization. It identified the importance of

employee involvement in the process from the beginning development through the actual

completion of the performance evaluation. Additionally, a number of concerns with the process


were identified including the lack of employee training in the process for conducting

performance evaluations. This was one of the major concerns identified by the company officers

of the Appleton Fire Department.

Procedures

The purpose of this research was to obtain information to address the identified problem

that the current employee performance evaluation process has been identified as ineffective by

the employees of the Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department. The purpose of this applied

research project is to develop an effective employee performance evaluation process for the

Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department.








Research started with a review of literature from information available at the Learning

Resource Center of the National Fire Academy. Included in this review of literature was the

research previously conducted by other fire departments relating to the topic of employee

performance evaluations. Additionally, an internet and periodical search was conducted looking

for available information based on keywords of “employee performance” and “employee

appraisals”. The purpose of this research was to gather information related to answering all five

of the identified research questions. Using this literature review, information was gathered on the

benefits and obstacles of employee performance evaluations. This information was beneficial in

influencing the applied research project.


To gather local information on the concept of employee performance review, research

was conducted on the requirements for employee reviews through the State of Wisconsin

Statutes, Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters 14 “Fire Prevention” and Chapter 30 “Fire

Department Safety And Health”. A review was conducted of the City of Appleton City Policies

and Appleton Fire Department Policies and Standard Operating Guidelines. This information

was used to evaluate the legal requirements related to performance reviews found in research

question two, what laws and regulations impact the development of the process?

As a component of the review of the promotional process for the position of Fire

Lieutenant, a consideration to the formal utilization of performance evaluations for promotional

consideration was presented to the City of Appleton Police and Fire Commission. As this

component directly related to the purpose of this applied research project, a personal interview

was held on May 18, 2010 with Police and Fire Commissioner Ralph Evans. The purpose of this

interview was to gather information on the expectations of the Police and Fire Commission as it

relates to employee performance evaluations. The information was valuable in understanding the

position of the Police and Fire Commission as it relates to the importance of the employee

review process as well as the importance of the research for this project. A follow-up survey with

Commissioner Evans was conducted on May 27, 2010 to gather additional information.

Using examples of research conducted by others, survey instruments were developed to

gather information for the purpose of answering the following research questions: How do other

fire department employee performance evaluation processes work? What components do the



developing the new process? The survey was distributed to three target audiences.

The first survey, “Appleton Fire Department Employee Survey” (Appendix I), was

distributed to sixty-eight employees of the Appleton Fire Department. The purpose of including


this group was to gather information as to their opinion of the current fire department

performance evaluation process and to solicit information on how the employees felt the process

could be improved. This group included a selection of all employees currently evaluated under

the department’s performance evaluation process. Included in this group were company officers,

driver/engineers and firefighters. Of the sixty-eight surveys distributed, fifty-one surveys were

returned for a seventy-five percent return rate.

This survey provided valuable information as it related to answering research questions

about what components do the employees of the Appleton Fire Department think should be

included in an effective performance evaluation process and what aspects of the current process

could be incorporated into developing the new process from the perspective of employees being

surveyed.

It should be noted that one limitation identified within the distribution of this survey is

that thirteen employees were not included in the distribution of the survey as they were on leave

and not available to participate in the survey process.

The second survey, “Appleton Fire Department Chief/Company Officer Survey”

(Appendix J), was distributed to Appleton Fire Department Chief and Company Fire Officers.

The purpose of this selected group was to gain a perspective from them on the use of the current

performance evaluation tool as well as to solicit information from this group of supervisors who

utilize the tool to conduct performance evaluations on subordinates. A total of twenty-four

surveys were distributed, of which sixteen were returned for a sixty-six percent return rate.

This survey provided valuable information as it related to answering research questions

about what components do the employees of the Appleton Fire Department think should be

included in an effective performance evaluation process and what aspects of the current process

could be incorporated into developing the new process from the perspective of employees

conducting the employee performance evaluations.


It should be noted that a limitation to the second survey was the lower percentage of

participants returning the survey. This may be attributed to the fact that this survey was

distributed through electronic mail to the selected group.

The third survey, “Wisconsin Career Fire Department Survey” (Appendix K) was

distributed by the Wisconsin State Fire Chief’s Education Association through their electronic

mail distribution system. The purpose of this selected group was to gain a perspective of the

performance evaluation process being utilized by other career fire departments in the State of

Wisconsin. This group was chosen by of the career status of their department. A total of one-

hundred and thirteen surveys were electronically distributed, of which twenty-two surveys were

returned for a nineteen percent return rate.

This survey provided valuable information as it related to answering the research

question about to how do other fire department employee performance evaluation processes

work from the perspective of career fire departments.

Clearly, the lower percentage of return of nineteen percent was disappointing and should

be identified as a limitation in the results and effectiveness of this component.

Results

The results of the research were compiled through the use of a literature review, personal

interview and multiple survey instruments to answer the following research questions. What are

the standards for an effective employee performance evaluation process? What laws and

regulations impact the development of the process? How do other fire department employee

performance evaluation processes work? What components do the employees of the Appleton

Fire Department think should be included in an effective performance evaluation process? What

aspects of the current process could be incorporated into developing the new process?


To answer question one, what are the standards for an effective employee performance

evaluation process, a review of literature identified a number of factors that should be utilized in

an effective employee review process. Ron Hiraki (2010) identifies that writing clear and concise

comments are essential for the performance review process. Kevin Royce (2009) identified that

for a successful performance review process, the review should include properly updated job

descriptions, communications of performance expectations and standards, feedback from

supervisors, supervisor training on how to conduct employee performance reviews and a simple

performance review form.

Royce identified in his research based on information from the International City

Management Association (ICMA), that there are four major goals of an effective performance

appraisal process including informing employees how they are doing, documenting employee

performance, evaluating employee’s strengths and weaknesses and providing information to the

employee to assist the employee’s professional development.

Toolpack Consulting (2009) identifies that the best performance reviews let managers

and employees communicate, share ideas, opinions and information. Toolpack shared that the

most important piece identified in new performance reviews is that communications between the

employee and other people instead of one-way communications with a supervisor are more

beneficial for higher performance.

International City and Management Association (ICMA) (1997) identified twelve

characteristics of an effective performance appraisal:

1. The appraisal should be simple and easy to administer

2. The Human Resource Department should be able to keep track of the appraisal easily.

3. The performance appraisal form should be easy to complete by supervisors.

4. The evaluation criteria should be concrete, specific, controllable and measurable.


5. Employee should have access to the standards being measured and the appraisal form

well in advance.

6. Employees should be given the opportunity to comment on the performance

appraisal.

7. The performance appraisal should be designed to fit the needs of the organization.

8. Job descriptions used in the performance appraisal process should be updated and

kept recent.

9. Supervisors should be properly trained on how to evaluate employees.

10. Performance standards or goals should be communicated to the employee before the

performance appraisal.

11. Performance appraisals should focus on specific job-related behaviors and not traits,

abilities or personal characteristics.

12. The performance instrument or form should be developed from a systematic analysis

of individual jobs.

Swinhart (2008) proposed that a way of improving the performance review process was

incorporating the theory of 360-degree performance evaluations. In this process, everyone in the

organization receives thoughtful evaluation and suggestions for improvement from everyone

with whom they come in contact with including supervisors, colleagues and subordinates.

To answer question two, what laws and regulations impact the development of the

process, a review of federal, state and local standards was utilized. Most notably, it was

identified that there were no City of Appleton or Appleton Fire Department policies or guidelines

that mandated the need to conduct employee performance evaluations of members of the

Appleton Fire Department. One city policy was discovered which outlined the requirement to

conduct bi-annual performance evaluations for non-represented full and part time employees.


This would include the management team of the department but not the employees below the

level of Battalion Chief.

A review was conducted of State of Wisconsin statutes and administrative codes relating

to the requirement of performance evaluations. State of Wisconsin Department of Commerce

(2002), Chapter 30 Fire Department Safety and Health Standards, identifies training and

employment standards for firefighters, driver engineers and company officers working in the fire

service. Subchapter 6 of the standard deals with training and education. In the section of

Employment Standards, Chapter 30 references the requirements for fire department personnel to

be trained and qualified in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standards

NFPA 1001 “Standard for Firefighter Professional Qualifications”, NFPA 1002 “Standard for

Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications” and NFPA 1021, “Standard for Fire

Officer Professional Qualifications”. The chapter requires that newly promoted company officers

be qualified to the Fire Officer 1 level. Nowhere within the Wisconsin Administrative Code does

it require a fire department to conduct employee performance evaluations. The closest link would

be the adoption of National Fire Protection Association Standards dealing with professional

qualifications.

National Fire Protection Association (2008) identifies within NFPA 1001, the inclusion

of a skills maintenance component for the Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications.

Section 1.3.8 identifies that firefighters at all levels of progression shall remain current with fire




development as another use for the JPQ’s. National Fire Protection Association (2009) identifies

within NFPA 1021 the inclusion of a skills maintenance component for the Standard for Fire

Officer Professional Qualifications. Section 1.3.4 identifies that fire officers at all levels of


progression shall remain current with the general requirements for fire officers, human resource

management, community and government relations, administration, inspection and investigation,

emergency service delivery, and health and safety. Section 4.2 Human Resource Management

identifies that a Fire Officer 1 involves utilizing human resources to accomplished assigned

tasks. This duty involves the evaluating of employee performance. Section B.4 identifies

employee performance evaluation and employee development as another use for the JPQ’s.

Although these standards identify the concepts of skill maintenance and performance evaluations

as a requirement for company officers, there is no direct mandate that a formal performance

evaluation process is required.

The U.S Office of Personnel Management (2010) identified the chronology of employee

performance management in the federal government. The first federal law on appraisals was

adopted in 1912. This law required the U.S. Civil Service Commission (now the Office of

Personnel Management) to establish a uniform efficiency rating system for all agencies.

However, there is no direct link from the requirement for conducting employee reviews at the

local level based upon the review of federal requirements. Based on the review of literature, no

direct law or regulation would impact on the development or requirement for the completion of

employee performance reviews.

A survey instrument, Wisconsin Fire Department Survey (Appendix K), was used in

answering question three, how do other fire department employee performance evaluation

processes work. The results are as follows;

1. Type of Fire Department a. Career (10) 45% b. Combination (11) 50% c. Volunteer (1) 5%

2. Size of your department a. Less than 25 members (1) 5% b. 25 – 50 members (11) 50% c. 50-100 members (8) 36%


d. Over 100 members (2) 9% 3. Does your department conduct performance evaluations of your employees?

a. Yes (if yes please continue the survey) (19) 86% b. No (if no, please skip to question #14) (3) 14%

4. How often do you perform performance evaluations on your employees? (Circle all that apply, please explain if different timeframes are used for different positions such as probationary)

a. Quarterly (0) 0% b. Semi-annually (0) 0% c. Annually (18) 94% d. Bi-annually (1) 6%

5. The Performance Evaluation Form currently used by my department addresses the job

skills of the individual that is being evaluated? Strongly Agree (2) 10% Agree (16) 84% Disagree (1) 6% Strongly disagree (0) 0%

6. The current Performance Evaluation process promotes professional growth and

development of those that are evaluated? Strongly Agree (1) 6% Agree (16) 84% Disagree (2) 10% Strongly disagree (0)

7. The current Performance Evaluation process offers a valid measurement of their

performance? Strongly Agree (1) 6% Agree (14) 74% Disagree (4) 21% Strongly disagree (0)

8. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of the

career of the individual being evaluating? Strongly Agree (2) 10% Agree (12) 63% Disagree (3) 16% Strongly disagree (0)

9. The current Performance Evaluation Form has a direct impact of the future promotion

of the individual being evaluated? Strongly Agree (4) 21% Agree (11) 58% Disagree (4) 21% Strongly disagree (0)


10. Does your department utilize an employee self evaluation component of the

Performance Evaluation process? a. Yes (9) 47% b. No (10) 53%

11. The employee self evaluation process is beneficial for our department’s Performance Evaluation?

Strongly Agree (0) Agree (8) 88% Disagree (1) 12% Strongly disagree (0)

12. Does your department use a 360 degree evaluation process in which members of a crew

are evaluated by other members of the crew? a. Yes (1) b. No (17)

13. A 360 degree evaluation process is beneficial for our department’s Performance Evaluation?

Strongly Agree (0) Agree (1) Disagree (0) Strongly disagree (0)

14. List the three most important things that make an effective Performance Evaluation

Process? a. Honesty b. Fairness c. Consistency d. Positive reinforcement e. Provide opportunity for feedback f. Employee buy in g. Effective evaluation of job skills h. Employee feedback i. Allow for comments and rebuttal by employee j. Input by multiple people k. Qualified supervisor to complete them l. Set future goals m. Relative to position n. Give expectations at the start of the process o. Understanding department expectations

15. Please add any additional comments regarding the performance review process?

a. 360-degree evaluations are not valid subordinates felt they could not be honest


In evaluating the results of the Wisconsin Fire Department Survey, twenty-two fire

departments responded to the survey. Based on the number of surveys distributed, the response

equaled nineteen (19) percent. This was identified as a limitation of the survey. Of the

departments responding, forty-five (45) percent were career fire departments, fifty (50) percent

were combination fire departments and five (5) percent were volunteer departments. Fifty (50)

percent of the department had between twenty-five (25) to fifty (50) members, thirty-six (36)

percent had between fifty (50) and one-hundred (100) members, nine (9) percent had over one-

hundred (100) members and five (5) percent had less than twenty-five (25) members. Eighty-six

(86) percent of those surveyed conduct employee performance reviews. Of those, ninety-four

(94) percent conduct them on an annual basis. Additionally, ninety-four (94) percent of the

departments that were surveyed identified that their current process addresses the job skills of the

employee being reviewed. Ninety (90) percent of the departments surveyed identified that their

process was beneficial to the professional growth of their employees. Ten (10) percent disagreed

that performance reviews promoted professional growth and development. Eighty (80) percent

felt that their performance review process was a valid measurement of their employee

performance with twenty-one (21) percent disagreeing that it was a valid measure. Seventy-three

(73) percent felt that the process was important for the advancement of the career of the

individual being evaluated. Sixteen (16) percent disagreed, with seventy-nine (79) percent

identifying that the process has a direct impact on future promotions of the individual being

evaluated. Forty-seven (47) percent utilized a self-evaluation component of their process with

eighty-eight (88) percent agreeing that this was a beneficial part of the process. Only one agency

of those surveyed identified the use of and benefit of a 360-degree evaluation process.

General comments from the fire departments being evaluated felt that in order for any

performance evaluation process to be effective it needs to be honest, fair, consistent, and must

provide positive reinforcement. To be effective, employees must support and be active in the


process, including having the ability to provide their own feedback and to rebut comments of

their supervisors. The process needs to address job skills, provide for future goal development,

has to be relevant to the position and employees must be given expectations and understand the

timeline at the start of the process. It was also identified that it is important for supervisors to be

properly trained. One respondent was critical on the 360-degree process identifying that when

used, the feedback received was that subordinates were concerned about being honest in the

review and the process was not beneficial.

Questions four and five, what components do the employees of the Appleton Fire

Department think should be included in an effective performance evaluation process and what

aspects of the current process could be incorporated into developing the new process were

answered with two survey instruments, Appleton Fire Department Employee Survey (Appendix

I) and Appleton Fire Department Chief/Company Officer Survey (Appendix J).

The results of Appleton Fire Department Employee Survey (Appendix I) are as follows;

1. My primary position within the Appleton Fire Department is? a. Firefighter (26) 51% b. Driver/Engineer (14) 27% c. Company Officer (11) 22% d. Chief Officer (0)

2. The Performance Evaluation Form currently used by the department addresses my job

skills? Strongly Agree (1) 2% Agree (34) 67% Disagree (11) 22% Strongly disagree (5) 9%

N/A (0) 3. The current Performance Evaluation process promotes my professional growth and

development? Strongly Agree (1) 2% Agree (14) 27% Disagree (25) 49% Strongly disagree (8) 16%

N/A (3) 5%


4. The current Performance Evaluation process offers a valid measurement of my performance?

Strongly Agree (0) Agree (24) 47% Disagree (19) 37% Strongly disagree (7) 14%

N/A (1) 2%

5. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of my career?

Strongly Agree (1) 2% Agree (19) 47% Disagree (20) 32% Strongly disagree (10) 20%

N/A (1) 2%

6. The current Performance Evaluation Form clearly defines the criteria by which I am evaluated?


N/A 7. When working outside my normal position (Relief Driver/Acting Officer) the current

Performance Evaluation form offers a valid measurement of my performance? Strongly Agree (0) Agree (7) 14% Disagree (13) 25% Strongly disagree (5) 10%

N/A (26) 51%

8. The self evaluation of the Performance Evaluation process is a useful component of the process?


N/A (1) 2%

9. The current Performance Evaluation Process is beneficial for the Appleton Fire Department?

Strongly Agree (0) Agree (21) 41% Disagree (22) 43% Strongly disagree (7) 14%

N/A (1) 2%


10. List the three most important things that would improve the current Performance Evaluation process?

a. Honest - 3 b. Shortened – less specific - 8 c. Eliminate self-evaluation - 4 d. Value – use for promotion or incentive - 6 e. Peer comment - 2 f. Improve rating system - 4 g. People move and are evaluated by someone they did not work with – 12 h. Mentoring program – 2 i. Consistency - 2

11. What do you think should be included in an effective Performance Evaluation

Process? a. Feedback from all directions 360-degree - 11 b. Open communications between the supervisor and subordinate - 4 c. Quarterly/midyear evaluations - 3 d. Officers need to step up to do a better job - 8 e. Training on how to do performance evaluations - 2 f. Clearer understanding of expectations - 2 g. Goals for future improvement – 4

12. Please add additional comments that you would like to incorporate into the review

process? a. Define what the evaluation is used for – 5 b. Completely scrap the current system – 4

In evaluating the results of the Appleton Fire Department Employee Survey, fifty-one

(51) percent of those answering the survey were firefighters, twenty-seven (27) percent were

driver-engineers and twenty-two (22) percent were company officers. Sixty-nine (69) percent of

those surveyed felt that the performance evaluation form currently used by the department

addressed their job skills. Twenty-two (22) percent disagreed and nine (9) percent strongly

disagreed that the form addressed their job skills. Twenty-nine (29) percent felt that the

performance evaluation process promoted professional growth, while sixty-five (65) percent

disagreed that professional growth was addressed. Forty-seven (47) percent of the employees

surveyed felt that the evaluation process was a valid measurement of their performance. Thirty-


seven (37) percent disagreed and fourteen (14) percent strongly disagreed that the current

process was a valid measurement of their performance. Employees surveyed were spilt on the

importance of the performance review process as it related to the career advancement. Fifty (50)

percent agreed or strongly agreed and fifty (50) percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that the

process was important to their advancement. Clearly, seventy-four (74) percent of the employees

felt that the current form defines the criteria for which they are being evaluated, while twenty-six

percent disagreed. Again, the employees were equally divided on the value of the self assessment

component of the process. With fifty-seven (57) percent of the employees believing that the

current employee performance process was not beneficial to the department.

In evaluating the results of the survey, the general comments were an important aspect in

answering the research questions relating to the current employee’s feelings on the performance

review process. Most notably, twenty (20) percent of the employees surveyed identified that a

major problem with the current process is that supervisors are performing employee reviews on

subordinates that they are not or have not supervised. This was identified as an overall problem

with the current system. Eighteen (18) percent of the employees felt that some form of a 360-

degree evaluation would improve the current process. Thirteen (13) percent felt that the company

officer needed to do a better job for the current process to improve. Additionally, twenty (20)

percent felt that the process could be improved by shortening the form and improving the current

rating system. Seven (7) percent of the employees felt the current system should be completely

scrapped.

The results of Appleton Fire Department Chief/Company Officer Survey (Appendix K)

are as follows:

1. I have been a Chief/Company Officer with the Appleton Fire Department for? Less than 3 years (2) 12% 3 to 5 years (3) 19% 6 to 10 years (3) 19% Over 10 years (8) 50%


2. The Performance Evaluation Form currently used by the department addresses the job skills of the individuals that I have to evaluate?

Strongly Agree (0) Agree (13) 81% Disagree (3) 19% Strongly disagree (0)

3. The current Performance Evaluation process promotes professional growth and

development of those I evaluate? Strongly Agree (0) Agree (6) 38% Disagree (7) 44% Strongly disagree (3) 19%

4. The current Performance Evaluation process offers a valid measurement of their

performance? Strongly Agree (0) Agree (9) 56% Disagree (7) 44% Strongly disagree (0)

5. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of the

career of the individual that I am evaluating? Strongly Agree (0) Agree (3) 19% Disagree (9) 56% Strongly disagree (4) 25%

6. The current Performance Evaluation Form clearly defines the criteria by which I am

evaluating? Strongly Agree (0) Agree (10) 63% Disagree (6) 37% Strongly disagree (0)

7. When an employee is working outside their normal position (Relief Driver/Acting

Officer), the current performance Evaluation form offers a valid measurement of their performance?

Strongly Agree (0) Agree (6) 37% Disagree (7) 44% Strongly disagree (2) 12% N/A (1) 6%




9. The current Performance Evaluation Process is beneficial for the Appleton Fire

Department? Strongly Agree (0) Agree (8) 50% Disagree (4) 25% Strongly disagree (2) 12% N/A (2) 12%

10. A 360 degree evaluation process in which members of my crew are evaluated by

other members of the crew would be beneficial to improve their performance and advance their career?


11. A 360 degree evaluation process in which I am evaluated by my crew would be

beneficial for me to improve myself and advance my career? Strongly Agree (2) 12% Agree (11) 69% Disagree (1) 6% Strongly disagree (2) 12%

12. List the three most important things that would improve the current Performance

Evaluation process? a. Better rating scale - 2 b. Evaluate people you work with - 4 c. Too specific - 2 d. Benefit/Reward – means something - 7 e. Shorter form – 6 f. Employee buy-in - 3 g. Eliminate self-evaluation - 3 h. Honesty - 2 i. Officer buy-in

13. What do you think should be included in an effective Performance Evaluation

Process? a. Better rating scale - 2 b. More opportunity for continued follow-up - 4


c. 360-degree – 6 d. Training - 2

14. Please add additional comments that you would like to incorporate into the review

process? a. Battalion Chiefs should not be involved in Fire Fighter and Driver reviews

In evaluating the results of the Appleton Fire Department Chief/Company Officer

Survey, fifty (50) percent of the responding officers had over ten years of experience, twenty

(20) percent had six to ten years experience, twenty (20) percent had three to five years

experience and twelve (12) percent had less than three years of experience. Eighty-one (81)

percent of the officers surveyed felt that the current process addressed job skills of the employee

being reviewed. However, sixty-three (63) percent identified that the process does not promote

professional growth and development. The officers were closely split between agreeing and

disagreeing that the current process was a valid measurement the employees performance with

fifty-six (56) percent agreeing and forty-four (44) percent disagreeing. Eighty-one percent of the

officers surveyed felt that the process was not important to the advancement of the careers of the

employees being evaluated. Sixty-three (63) percent felt the form defined the criteria which was

being evaluated with thirty-seven (37) percent disagreeing. Equally split at fifty (50) percent the

officers identified the usefulness/non-usefulness of the self-evaluation component of the current

process. Fifty (50) percent of the employees felt the process was beneficial for the department,

with thirty-seven (37) percent disagreeing. Sixty-three (63) percent agreed or strongly agreed

that the 360-degree component would be beneficial to the members of the crew, with eighty-one

(81) percent identifying that a 360-degree review component would be beneficial for the

improvement and career advancement of the company officer.

General comments received identified that the current system could be improved if the

process provided some benefit or reward. Forty-four (44) percent of the officers surveyed felt

that the system and the employees saw no reward or benefit as the results were not used for


promotions or incentives. Fifty (50) percent felt that the form needed to be shortened and the

rating scale needed to be changed. Eighteen (18) percent felt the self evaluation component

should be removed.

Overall, the employee identified that the current process addressed their skill

requirements; however, the form was too long, the rating scale needed to be addressed and that

company officers need to be honest and more willing to provide feedback to the employees.

Additionally, it was identified by both the officers and the employees that one major flaw to the

current system is that supervisors are rating subordinates that they are not working with and as a

result, the validity of the overall process is questioned.

Discussion The Appleton Fire Department has been conducting employee performance reviews for the last forty years. This process has been changed a number of times during this timeframe to

address changes in the job descriptions, changes in the forms, changes in the rating scale and

most recent the inclusion of a self evaluation process.

In examining the concepts of employee evaluation, clearly through the literature review,

the process was identified as a beneficial process for both the employee as well as the

organization. Rick Lasky (2004) identified that you must trust your employees. Train them, give

them what they need and let them go. A good way to do this is through performance evaluations.

Let them know they’re doing a good job. He identifies the importance of documenting

performance for future promotion opportunities. Jason Hosea (2004) identified, whether you are

an evaluator or the person being evaluated, increasing your knowledge in the area of employee

performance evaluations will assist you in understanding the importance of evaluation and its

effect on the employee and organization. Hosea identified the importance that the employee

evaluation process is to improve the employee’s performance.


Ron Hiraki (2010) identifies that writing clear and concise comments are essential for the

performance review process. Hiraki identifies that there are many good reasons for conducting

performance evaluations. He states that reasons for conducting performance evaluations include

improving performance and motivating employees, identifying that if employees are doing an

outstanding job, why not recognize that component of their performance.

Dominick Swinhart (2008) identified that the primary purpose of performance

evaluations should be personnel as well as organizational improvement. It can also be invaluable

in identifying future leaders in the fire department.

Toolpack Consulting (2009) identifies that the best performance reviews let managers

and employees communicate, share ideas, opinions and information. Toolpack shared that the

most important piece identified in new performance reviews is that communications between the

employee and other people instead of one-way communications with a supervisor are more

beneficial for higher performance. The most important piece identified in new performance

reviews is that communications between the employee and other people instead of one-way

communications with a supervisor are more beneficial for higher performance. Toolpack shared

four types of alternative performance reviews; peer review, self reviews, upward assessments

and 360-degree feedback.

The literature review did identify concerns with the performance review process and

provides information relating to things that a department should be aware of when developing a

performance review system and when conducting performance reviews. Jason Hosea (2004)

identified, whether you are an evaluator or the person being evaluated, increasing your

knowledge in the area of employee performance evaluations will assist you in understanding the

importance of evaluation and its effect on the employee and organization.

Linda Willing (2010) has identified that some fire departments have found routine

performance evaluations to be of such limited value that they have eliminated them altogether.


She found that there are two main reasons performance evaluations are ineffective. First, the

system in place is inadequate, flaws may arise from evaluating the wrong things or applying a

qualitative scale to something that is quantitative. The second problem she identified was that

most people who do performance evaluations have little or no training and support in the

process. Willing identified that if training is inadequate, the evaluator is “winging it” and can

easily fall into a number of evaluator traps such as; excessive leniency or severity – evaluations

that are either too harsh or accommodating. Halo effect – if an employee is good in one area,

rating the worker high in all areas. Centralizing tendency – evaluators choose the safe middle

ground for all employees. Recency effect – it may be tempting to rate an employee based entirely

on a recent event. As a component of the Employee Survey (Appendix I) and the Chief/Company

Officer Survey (Appendix K), training concerns were raised as a potential problem with the

current employee review process.

Paul Falcone (2008) identifies that performance reviews are a daunting task for

supervisors. He states that judging others work often appears exceptionally perception driven

versus fact driven. Providing honest feedback is potentially confrontational. He also identifies

that overinflating grades can create a situation for a legal challenge in the future when you need

to terminate or discipline an employee. Again, the survey instruments used to gather information

to answer the research questions all identified a concern with and the importance of honesty and

openness in the review process.

Business Management Daily (2008) identifies five warning signs of performance review

problems. 1. Employees are unpleasantly surprised by the ratings. Performance appraisals should

not contain surprises. 2. Ratings by one supervisor or department are uniformly excellent. It is

inappropriate to rate everyone at the same level. 3. Great employees don’t receive great ratings.

Employees who are strong employees should be receiving the best ratings. If they are not, the

appraisals are not rewarding those they should. 4. Employees who are dismissed have received


excellent ratings. If the performance appraisal doesn’t support a decision, it makes it more

difficult for the employer to defend their later actions. 5. Productivity generally goes down

during appraisal time. Additionally, they identify two common errors to stay away from when

conducting performance appraisals: evaluation of attitude not performance and evaluation

inflation.

In addressing research question one, What are the standards for an effective employee

performance evaluation process? The International City Management Association (ICMA)

(1997), identified that there are four major goals of an effective performance appraisal process.

These include, informing employees how they are doing, documenting employee performance,

evaluating employee’s strengths and weaknesses and providing information to the employee to

assist the employee’s professional development. ICMA identified twelve characteristics of an

effective performance appraisal: 1. The appraisal should be simple and easy to administer, 2. The

Human Resource Department should be able to keep track of the appraisal easily, 3. The

performance appraisal form should be easy to complete by supervisors, 4. The evaluation criteria

should be concrete, specific, controllable and measurable, 5. Employee should have access to the

standards being measured and the appraisal form well in advance, 6. Employees should be given

the opportunity to comment on the performance appraisal, 7. The performance appraisal should

be designed to fit the needs of the organization, 8. Job descriptions used in the performance

appraisal process should be updated and kept recent, 9.Supervisors should be properly trained on

how to evaluate employees, 10. Performance standards or goals should be communicated to the

employee before the performance appraisal, 11. Performance appraisals should focus on specific

job-related behaviors and not traits, abilities or personal characteristics and 12. The performance

instrument or form should be developed from a systematic analysis of individual jobs.

In the interview with Appleton Police and Fire Commissioner Ralph Evans,

Commissioner Evans identified that the process must be specific to the job description.


Additionally, Commissioner Evans identified the importance for the components of the review

process to be observable as well as measurable. He stated that the employees must understand

the process, be aware of the job requirements and clearly understand what areas they are being

evaluated on. He also felt that the current Appleton Fire Department process was flawed by using

only a three ranking criteria. He felt this would promote the centralizing tendency in which

evaluators choose the safe middle ground for employees as a result of not appearing to over or

under rate employees. His suggestion regarding ranking systems is that a five level criteria would

be the most beneficial.

In addressing questions two, what laws and regulations impact the development of the

process, an analysis on literature, codes and standards identified that there is no clear

requirement for conducting employee performance reviews. Currently City of Appleton Human

Resources policies as well as Appleton Fire Department policies do not mandate the performance

of employee reviews. The closest identified link to the performance of employee reviews can be

found in the State of Wisconsin Department of Commerce (2002), Chapter 30 Fire Department

Safety and Health Standards. This standard identifies training and employment standards for

firefighters, driver engineers and company officers working in the fire service. Subchapter 6 of

the standard deals with training and education. In the section on employment standards, Chapter

30 references the requirements for fire department personnel to be trained and qualified in

accordance with National Fire Protection Association Standards NFPA 1001 ”Standard for

Firefighter Professional Qualifications”, NFPA 1002 “Standard for Fire Apparatus

Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications” and NFPA 1021, “Standard for Fire Officer

Professional Qualifications.” Chapter 30, requires that newly promoted company officers be

qualified to the Fire Officer 1 level. Nowhere within the Wisconsin Administrative Code does it

require a fire department to conduct employee performance evaluations; however, with the

adoption of National Fire Protection Association Standards dealing with professional


qualifications, National Fire Protection Association 1001 (2008) identifies the inclusion of a

skills maintenance component for the Standard for Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications.

Section 1.3.8, identifies that fire fighters at all levels of progression shall remain current with fire




development as another use for the JPQ’s. National Fire Protection Association 1021 (2009)

identifies the inclusion of a skills maintenance component for the Standard for Fire Officer

Professional Qualifications. Section 1.3.4 identifies that fire officers at all levels of progression

shall remain current with the general requirements for fire officers, human resource management,

community and government relations, administration, inspection and investigation, emergency

service delivery, and health and safety. Section 4.2 Human Resource Management identifies that

a Fire Officer 1 involves utilizing human resources to accomplish assigned tasks. This duty

involves the evaluating of employee performance. Section B.4 identifies employee performance

evaluation and employee development as another use for the JPQ’s. Although these standards

identify the concepts of skill maintenance and performance evaluations as a requirement for

company officers, there is no direct mandate that a formal performance evaluation process is

required. As these components are within an adopted standard, a link could be argued that the

only way to meet this requirement on an on-going basis is to review performance. As Section B

does identify the use of the standard as a component of performance evaluations, a weak link to

be identified as performance evaluations are required. This would be a very weak link.

In addressing question three, how do other fire department employee performance

evaluation processes work? Jason Hosea (2004) identified that the agency should develop an

evaluation form that can be used for all employees within the same job category. The form

should focus on how well the employee has performed the various job duties, identifying that


most organizations design their performance evaluations around the responsibilities of the job

position.

In the survey conducted with other Wisconsin Fire Departments, the following items

were identified as beneficial to an effective employee performance evaluation process: The

process needs to be honest, fair, consistent, and must provide positive reinforcement for the

employee. To be effective, employees must support and be active in the process, including

having the ability to provide their own feedback and to rebut comments of their supervisors. The

process needs to address job skills, provide for future goal development, has to be relevant to the

position and employees must be given expectations and understand the timeline at the start of the

process. It was also identified that it is important for supervisors to be properly trained.

In addressing question four, what components do the employees of the Appleton Fire

Department think should be included in an effective performance evaluation process? In

evaluating the results of the survey, the general comments identified the current employees

feelings on the performance review process. Most notably, twenty (20) percent of the employees

surveyed identified that a major problem with the current process is that supervisors are

performing employee reviews on subordinates that they are not or have not supervised. This was

identified as an overall problem with the current system. Eighteen (18) percent of the employees

felt that some form of a 360- degree evaluation would improve the current process. Thirteen (13)

percent felt that the company officer needed to do a better job for the current process to improve.

Additionally, twenty (20) percent felt that the process could be improved by shortening the form

and improving the current rating system. Seven (7) percent of the employees felt the current

system should be completely scrapped. The employees identified that the current process

addressed their skill requirements; however, the form was too long. The employees identified

that the rating scale needed to be adjusted to provide a better means of documenting

performance. This component was also identified as a concern by Appleton Police and Fire


Commission Ralph Evans. Employees felt that company officers need to be honest and more

willing to provide feedback both positively as well as negatively to employees. Additionally, it

was identified by both the officers and the employees that one major flaw to the current system is

that supervisors are rating subordinates that they are not working with. This is occurring as a

result of the number of employees that are moved on a daily basis to address staffing needs.

In addressing question five, what aspects of the current process could be

incorporated into developing the new process, the literature review would identify a number of

strong points. One aspect identified by Falcone (2008), is to reinvent the performance appraisals

by shifting the responsibility of the initial evaluation back to the employee. He states if you ask

workers to grade themselves, you will find that they are harder on themselves than the evaluator

would be. Utilizing this method may place your supervisors in a role of a career mentor of coach

rather than decision-makers and disciplinarians. In the departmental surveys, equally split at fifty

(50) percent the employees identified the usefulness/non-usefulness of the self-evaluation

component of the current process. However, sixty-three (63) percent of the chief and company

officers agreed or strongly agreed that the 360-degree component would be beneficial to the

members of the crew, with eighty-one (81) percent identifying that a 360-degree review

component would be beneficial for the improvement and career advancement for their position.

Additionally, although not directly asked, twenty-two percent of the employees surveyed

identified that a 360-degree evaluation would be beneficial for the improvement of the overall

review process.

Swinhart (2008), identified the added benefit of a 360-degree review is that it provides

evaluations from all around the employee not just from a supervisor. Swinhart does identify that

organizations that have an atmosphere of distrust or don’t open lines of communications are poor

choices for 360-degree evaluations. Willing (2010) identified that evaluators need support to

maximize performance evaluation effectiveness. When the support is absent, the result may be


worse than just making the process meaningless. The performance evaluations support system at

the very minimum includes training, openness, and follow-up. Witting also identifies the

importance of supervisors having access to previous evaluations as an integral component of the

performance review process.

Hosea (2004) states that the agency should develop an evaluation form that can be used

for all employees within the same job category. The form should focus on how well the

employee has performed the various job duties, identifying that most organizations design their

performance evaluations around the responsibilities of the job position.

Toolpack Consulting (2009) states that involving employees in the development process

will be beneficial. If they design the performance appraisal system, they may be more dedicated

to it and both the employees and the organization can benefit from the process.

Finally, the information identified by ICMA regarding the twelve characteristics of an

effective performance appraisal system should be considered in the revamping of the current

performance evaluation process.

Recommendations

As a result of the research conducted, the following recommendations are being

presented to address the problem that the current employee performance evaluation process has

been identified as ineffective by the employees of the Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department.

The implementation of these recommendations should address the purpose of this applied

research project, to develop an effective employee performance evaluation process for the

Appleton, Wisconsin Fire Department.

1. The Appleton Fire Department should establish a team of employees including

members from all ranks within the department to evaluate the current performance

evaluation forms. Clearly the research identified that the employees believe that the

form does address the components of the job duties but is complicated and too long.


Additionally, employee involvement in the development of the process may make it

more accepted within the organization.

2. An evaluation of the current rating scale – exceed expectations, met expectations, not

met expectations, be conducted to address the concerns identified both in the

literature research as well as information from the employee’s surveys regarding the

concerns of centralizing tendency of the employee performance review process.

3. An evaluation be conducted to look at the parameters of incorporating a 360-degree

component into the performance evaluation review process. This concept was highly

supported by the officers of the department as well as employees of the department in

the department surveys.

4. The department should provide formalized training for all employees performing

performance reviews. Lack of training was identified as a problem with employee

evaluations in both the literature review process as well as through the survey

process. Involving the City of Appleton Human Resources Department should be a

component of this recommendation.

5. Develop a method in which employees will be assigned at the beginning of the

evaluation period with their evaluator. This will address the concern identified by the

employees relating to the lack of consistency and being evaluated by supervisors that

they did not work with.


References

City of Appleton, (2009) Fire Department Annual Report, Appleton, WI: Author

Falcone, Paul. (2008) National Institute of Business Management 10 Secrets to an Effective

Performance Review. Retrieved on September 23, 2010 from: www.business

managementdaily.com

Fox Cities of Wisconsin Visitors and Convention Bureau (2009) {Electronic Version}.

Retrieved September 5, 2008, from: http://foxcities.org/vi-hist.cfm.

Hiraki, Ron (2010) Stepping up: Writing Performance Evaluations. Retrieved on

September 21, 2010 from: http//www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display/

2165384941.

Hosea, Jason B. (2004) Employee Evaluations: How does your organization measure up?

Retrieved on September 21, 2010 from: http//www.fireengineering.com/

Fireengineering/en-us/index/articles/generic-article-tools-template.articles.

Fire-engineering.volume-157.issue-8.features.employee-evaluations-how-does-

Your-organization-measure-up.html

International City Management Association. (1997) Performance Evaluations, A Manager’s

Guide to Employee Development. Washington D.C: Author

Lasky, Rick (2004) Pride and Ownership: The Love for the Job – Fire Chief. Retrieved

On September 21, 2010 from: http:// www.fireengineering.com/fireengineering/

En-us/index/articles/generic-articles-tools-templates.articles.fireengineering.

Volume-157.issue8.features.pride-and-ownership-the-love-for-the-job-mdash-the

Chief.html

National Institute of Business Management (2008) 10 Secrets to an Effective

Performance Review. Retrieved on September 23, 2010 from: www.business

http://www.business/�

http://foxcities.org/vi-hist.cfm�

http://www.business/�


managementdaily.com

National Fire Protection Association (2008) NFPA 1001 Standard for Firefighter Professional

Qualifications, 2008 Edition. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association

National Fire Protection Association (2009) NFPA 1021 Standard for Fire Officer Professional

Qualification, 2009 Edition. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association

Royse, Kevin D. (2009) Identifying Criteria for Firefighter Performance Evaluations.

(Applied Research Project). Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy, Executive Fire

Officer Program.

State of Wisconsin Department of Commerce (2002). Chapter 30 Fire Department Safety

And Health. Madison, WI: Department of Commerce

Swinhart, Dominick J. (2008) 360-Degree Performance Evaluations. Retrieved on

September 21, 2010 from: http://www.fireengineering.com/index/ articles/display/

337418.

Toolpack Consulting LLC. (2009) Effective Performance Appraisals and Evaluation. Retrieved

on October 19, 2010 from: Http://www.toolbox.com/performance.html

United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management

Agency, U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), National Fire Academy, (2010)

Executive Leadership –Student Manual, Emmitsburg, Maryland, 5th Edition.

United States Fire Administration (2010) America’s Fire and Emergency Services Leaders

Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2010-2014.

United States Office of Personnel Management (2010) Chronology of Employee

Performance Management in the Federal Government. Retrieved on September

22, 2010 from: http://www.opm.gov/perfrom/chron.asp

Willing, Linda F (2010) Performing Better Employee Evaluations. Retrieved on

September 21, 2010 from: http://www.fireegineering.com/fireengineering/en-us/

http://www.fireengineering.com/index/�

http://www.fireegineering.com/fireengineering/en-us/�


Index/articles/generic-article-tolls-templates.article.fire-engineering.volume-163

Issue-8.features.Performing-Better-Employee-Evaluations.html


Appendix A


Appendix B


Appendix C


Appendix D


Appendix E


Appendix F


Appendix G


Appendix H


Appendix I

Appleton Fire Department Performance Evaluation Process

Employee Survey

13. My primary position within the Appleton Fire Department is? (Circle only one) a. Firefighter b. Driver/Engineer c. Company Officer d. Chief Officer

14. The Performance Evaluation Form currently used by the department addresses my job skills?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

15. The current Performance Evaluation process promotes my professional growth and development?


Comments:

16. The current Performance Evaluation process offers a valid measurement of my performance?


Comments:

17. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of my career?


Comments:

18. The current Performance Evaluation Form clearly defines the criteria by which I am evaluated?



Comments:

19. When working outside my normal position (Relief Driver/Acting Officer) the current performance Evaluation form offers a valid measurement of my performance?


Comments:



Comments:


Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:


Evaluation process? a. b. c.

Additional items: (please add additional ways to improve the process)

23. What do you think should be included in an effective Performance Evaluation Process?

24. Please add additional comments that you would like to incorporate into the review process?


Appendix J

Appleton Fire Department Performance Evaluation Process Chief/Company Officer Survey

1. I have been a Chief/Company Officer with the Appleton Fire Department for? (Circle

only one) a. Less than 3 years b. 3 to 5 years c. 6 to 10 years d. Over 10 years

2. The Performance Evaluation Form currently used by the department addresses the job skills of the individuals that I have to evaluate? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

3. The current Performance Evaluation process promotes professional growth and development of those I evaluate? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

4. The current Performance Evaluation process offers a valid measurement of their performance?


Comments:

5. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of the career of the individual that I am evaluating?


Comments:

6. The current Performance Evaluation Form clearly defines the criteria by which I evaluating?



7. When an employee is working outside their normal position (Relief Driver/Acting Officer) the current performance Evaluation form offers a valid measurement of their performance? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

8. The self evaluation of the Performance Evaluation process is a useful component of the

process?




10. A 360 degree evaluation process in which members of my crew are evaluated by other

members of the crew would be beneficial to improve their performance and advance their career? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:

11. A 360 degree evaluation process in which I am evaluated by my crew would be beneficial for me to improve myself and advance my career? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:


Evaluation process? a. b. c.

Additional items: (please add additional ways to improve the process)

13. What do you think should be included in an effective Performance Evaluation Process?

14. Please add additional comments that you would like to incorporate into the review process?


Appendix K

“…meeting community needs…enhancing quality of life.”

September 24, 2010 Dear Chief, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I am Gene Reece with the Appleton Fire Department. I currently serve as Operations Deputy Chief for our career fire department. I am currently enrolled in the fourth year of the Executive Fire Officer Program at the National Fire Academy. As a component of the program, I am required to write an Applied Research Project (ARP). As a component of my ARP, I am researching the process for performing employee performance reviews. We currently use a process that includes employee self evaluation. Our department members have questioned the benefits of not only our current format for evaluation, but also the need to conduct performance evaluations. We currently conduct them annually for all employees with the exception of probationary and acting officer employees who are conducted quarterly. My goal is to develop improve our overall process of performance evaluations. Attached to this letter, is a survey soliciting information regarding performance evaluations. I ask that either you or a member of your staff complete the survey to the best of your ability and email or fax the completed survey back to my attention at [email protected] or 920-832-5830. Thanks again for your assistance in my research. I am requesting that the surveys be returned to me by October 4th. Sincerely yours, Eugene R. Reece Jr. Deputy Fire Chief

mailto:[email protected]�


As a component of my Applied Research Project (ARP) for the National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program, I am conducting a survey to gather information related to employee performance evaluations. I ask that you spend a few minutes answering the following questions. Upon your completion, please email this documents back to me at [email protected]. or fax it to my attention at 920-832-5830. Please return this survey by October 4th 2010.

1. Type of Fire Department (Circle only one) a. Career b. Combination c. Volunteer

2. Size of your department (Circle one only) a. Less than 25 members b. 25 – 50 members c. 50-100 members d. Over 100 members

3. Does your department conduct performance evaluations of your employees? a. Yes (if yes please continue the survey) b. No (if no, please skip to question #14)

4. How often do you perform performance evaluations on your employees? (Circle all that apply, please explain if different time frames are used for different positions such as probationary)

a. Quarterly b. Semi-annually c. Annually d. Bi-annually

5. The Performance Evaluation Form currently used by my department addresses the job

skills of the individuals that is being evaluate? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

6. The current Performance Evaluation process promotes professional growth and development of those that are evaluated? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

7. The current Performance Evaluation process offers a valid measurement of their performance? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

mailto:[email protected]�


8. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of the career of the individual being evaluating? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

9. The current Performance Evaluation Form has a direct impact of the future promotion of individual being evaluated? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:

10. Does your department utilize a employee self evaluation component of the Performance

Evaluation process? a. Yes (if yes please continue on to the next questions) b. No (if no please skip to question #14)

11. The employee self evaluation process is beneficial for our department’s Performance Evaluation? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:

12. Does your department us a 360 degree evaluation process in which members of a crew

are evaluated by other members of the crew? a. Yes (if yes please continue on) b. No (if no, please skip to question#14)

13. A 360 degree evaluation process is beneficial for our department’s Performance

Evaluation? Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:

14. List the three most important things make an effective Performance Evaluation Process?

a. b. c.

15. Please add any additional comments regarding the performance review process? Agency Name:__________________________ Agency Contact:___________________ Phone:________

Thanks for your assistance in my ARP project.

improving employee performance evaluation for the appleton

Documents