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
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 2
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:
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 3
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 4
training be provided for employees performing performance review. 5. Assign supervisors to
employees at the beginning of the evaluation period.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 5
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 6
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.
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 7
performance evaluation process? What aspects of the current process could be incorporated into
developing the new process?
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 8
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 9
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 10
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 11
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 12
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 13
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 14
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 15
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 16
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 17
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,
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 18
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 19
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.
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?
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 20
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
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? 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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 21
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 22
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?
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 23
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 24
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 25
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
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 26
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%
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 27
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)
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 28
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 29
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 30
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%
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 31
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?
Strongly Agree (2) 4% Agree (36) 70% Disagree (11) 22% Strongly disagree (2) 4%
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?
Strongly Agree (2) 4% Agree (24) 47% Disagree (14) 27% Strongly disagree (10) 20%
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%
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 32
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-
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 33
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%
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 34
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%
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 35
8. The self evaluation of the Performance Evaluation process is a useful component of the process?
Strongly Agree (3) 19% Agree (5) 31% Disagree (7) 44% Strongly disagree (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?
Strongly Agree (3) 19% Agree (7) 44% Disagree (5) 31% Strongly disagree (1) 6%
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 36
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 37
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 38
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 39
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 40
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 41
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 42
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
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 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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 43
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 44
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 45
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 46
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.
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 47
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 48
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/
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 49
Index/articles/generic-article-tolls-templates.article.fire-engineering.volume-163
Issue-8.features.Performing-Better-Employee-Evaluations.html
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 78
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?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
16. The current Performance Evaluation process offers a valid measurement of my performance?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
17. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of my career?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
18. The current Performance Evaluation Form clearly defines the criteria by which I am evaluated?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 79
Comments:
19. When working outside my normal position (Relief Driver/Acting Officer) the current performance Evaluation form offers a valid measurement of my performance?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
20. The self evaluation of the Performance Evaluation process is a useful component of the process?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
21. The current Performance Evaluation Process is beneficial for the Appleton Fire Department?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:
22. List the three most important things that would improve the current Performance
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?
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 80
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?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
5. The current Performance Evaluation process is important for the advancement of the career of the individual that I am evaluating?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
6. The current Performance Evaluation Form clearly defines the criteria by which I evaluating?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 81
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?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:
9. The current Performance Evaluation Process is beneficial for the Appleton Fire Department?
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Comments:
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:
12. List the three most important things that would improve the current Performance
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?
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 82
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
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 83
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:
Improving Employee Performance Evaluations 84
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.