Documenting Performance and Evaluations

BY LARRY MULLIKIN

How many times have you been challenged on a performance evaluation by someone in your department or human resources? Odds are that it is an experience that leaves you fumbling for answers, supervisors lost in the mental gymnastics of trying to remember, and the person being evaluated angry and ready to press the point. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that supervisors are responsible and accountable for documenting the full range of performance by their subordinates. I have found that very few fire officers really understand what they need to accomplish with documentation and how to explain it to firefighters in terms they can understand.

Because many of our evaluation systems lack defined steps in documenting performance, it has become increasingly important that we be good technical evaluators. Technical evaluators are good at recognizing critical performance elements that help the organization excel and deliver exceptional service and document it accordingly. Technical evaluators also rate subordinates on facts, observed performance, and supporting documentation. That is our goal-to become technical evaluators when it comes to those we supervise.

One side note: The City of Salina, Kansas, uses a performance system that contains ratings of Outstanding, Very Good, Good, Improvement Needed, and Unsatisfactory across a number of performance categories. Different systems use different terminology; however, there is always an “Average” type rating in every system. In our system, the rating of Good is synonymous with Average, and the terms are interchangeable throughout this article. As I will try and impress on everyone, our Average is Good and is reflective of the standard we are all held to by the citizens of our community.

There are many things that we’re good at documenting:

Patient condition. “Medic 1 responded to the report of a fall at 343 W. Crawford. On arrival, found patient in the west bedroom of the residence with a three-inch cut to the forehead that was bleeding profusely.”
Fire scene activities. “Responded to the report of smoke coming from the kitchen at 1010 E. Iron Street. On arrival, Quint-1 advised smoke was coming from the west end of the house above the brick and eaves.”
Fire inspections. “Sprinkler System-After noticing an escutcheon plate had fallen from the ceiling, the rest of the sprinkler system was inspected for compliance with [National Fire Protection Association] NFPA 13 and city codes.”

Unfortunately, job performance sometimes isn’t one of these good areas. But, it is critical when it comes to giving fire personnel fair annual evaluations or evaluations for promotions. If documenting firefighter performance were taken seriously, we’d find personnel files with notes like the one below:

Lt. Smith demonstrated exceptional leadership and decision making on the house fire at 123 E. Cloud Street by directing his crew to immediately enter the structure and rescue a five-year-old girl from a back bedroom before additional fire companies arrived on scene. Lt. Smith made the correct decision for the circumstance. It was an excellent example of judgment and leadership. 5/22/05 BC Don Jones.

To start with, that might seem like a bit much. But, I hope your opinion will change as you read this document. Honestly, it’s better than the familiar alternatives, which are inaccurate and incomplete documentation, and, in most cases, no documentation at all. Many times, officers are left with generalizations without any substance. Firefighters have been rated above average with such phrases as the following:

“He’s a good firefighter.”
“He’s very dependable and very honest.”
“He gets along very well with his fellow firefighters.”
“Firefighter Johnson uses his time well.”
“Firefighter Smith is an excellent EMT-Intermediate.”

They probably look familiar, and you may have written or received one of these accolades. These descriptions might be fine for coffee table talk, but they are woefully inadequate for justifying increased pay or promotions. We expect the average firefighter to be “good” at his job, to be “very dependable and honest” every day, to “get along very well” with everyone, to “know how to use his time,” and to provide “excellent EMT” services. What causes these efforts to fail is a lack of specifics-the “who, what, when, where, and why.” Who did it? What did they do? When was it done? Where was it done? Why is it notable?

The subject that causes most officers and firefighters problems is “Why is it notable?” For something to be notable, it must be compared to a standard or norm. In this case, it’s the “Average Firefighter.” What is the average firefighter? Better yet, what characteristics should the average firefighter possess or display? The following is a pretty good list with which to start:

Maintains effective working relationships with superiors and subordinates.
Gets along with others.
Stays calm; handles stress.
Uses common sense.
Listens to others.
Is flexible.
Is self-motivated.
Is decisive.
Counsels, supports, and is empathic toward others.
Works under stressful conditions.
Maintains emotional control.
Does repetitive tasks.
Works with little or no supervision.
Takes charge when needed.
Determines priorities.
Has a good sense of humor.
Accepts constructive criticism from others.
Is resourceful.
Handles critical decision making under life-threatening conditions.
Performs complex tasks under life-threatening conditions.
Works under tight time frames.
Performs tasks requiring logged periods of intense concentration.
Performs under unpleasant circumstances or in traumatic situations.
Works as a team member.
Maintains a positive attitude.
Is enthusiastic.
Is honest.
Has initiative.
Is innovative.
Has good judgment and common sense.
Is stable.
Is willing to be patient, nonjudgmental, and accepting of other people.
Desires to serve and help people regardless of who they are, where they are, and what their beliefs are.
Demonstrates a genuine caring attitude toward all people.
Has an awareness and understanding of differences among cultures.
Has an optimistic attitude.
Is driven by strong values and ethics along with an awareness to act on those values and ethics.
Is willing to put the best interests of the organization above personal interests or differences.
Is able to function as a member of a team.

Officers and firefighters may or may not be surprised to find many of these terms have been used to describe “above average” or “outstanding” job performance when, in reality, it’s what we expect as part of their job because they were selected with many of these characteristics already a part of their character.

You need to understand one basic principle throughout the remainder of this article: We are not comparing firefighters to other workers in the general population. We are comparing firefighters against how we expect them to perform based on their job description and against the characteristics we expect them to display in the performance of those duties. In this context, “average” is a pretty lofty place and shouldn’t be minimized.

I have always told firefighters, “Although you have one job, you were really hired for three-to learn and practice your current position to the best of your ability, to learn your supervisor’s job, and to teach your job to those below you.” It is within the context of the last two that a firefighter or officer has the opportunity to excel above the average. Exceptional evaluations necessitate exceptional performance above the norm whether that performance is internally within the organization or externally in seeking additional education and training through personal initiative.

Let’s think about this in another way. Everyone is familiar with the Kentucky Derby. It is a “race” of race horses. The horses in this race were selected to be there and earned the right to compete. They are the best of the best. Once the gate opens, the race is on. Most of the horses are in the pack. Are they average? Yes, when compared to their competition. Are they average when compared to horses at the county fair? Absolutely not! No comparison. It is much the same way with firefighters. We have gone to great lengths to select the best of the best. But, every now and then, someone breaks out of the pack.

We live and work around firefighters we regard as “above average.” But, what exactly makes them good? Is it physical condition? Is it judgment? The odds are that your opinion was formed by interactions, observations, and experience. If someone challenges your opinion of someone as a good firefighter, you will probably remember all of the instances that led you to that belief and will not hesitate to use them. You might respond by saying the following:

He was the first-in officer on that vehicle accident at 81 and Highway 4 last year and immediately took command and assigned Medic One to triage the patients in the Volkswagen and probably saved some lives.

That narrative description lacks a few things, but you begin to realize that justifying opinions can be accomplished only with facts: the “who, what, when, where, and why.” As facts mount up, the picture becomes clear. The more examples, the more facts, the more credibility is built into your evaluation.

If you don’t take the time to record significant events for use in an employee’s evaluation, you will have nothing to write about other than generalizations. Sufficient documentation doesn’t have to be burdensome, but it is a process of gaining the discipline as a manager to be consistent, objective, and honest by routinely documenting career milestones, key conversations, observed performance, and evaluation of work product that is couched in the who, what, when, where, and why. Instead, we find comments like the following:

“Honest without a doubt.” Don’t we expect everyone we work with to be honest?
“Very easy to get along with.” If it is dealing with attitude and harmony, focus on those traits.
“Makes good decisions.” We expect firefighters to routinely make good decisions, don’t we?

Care Enough to Write It Down

Keep track of the big occurrences. You can’t document everything, or that would be all you would ever do; but you can-and must-document management decisions, important observations, and the events that influenced them. So, what are some of the major occasions?

Counseling and other conversations regarding discipline, pay, transfer, promotion, demotion, and so forth that could be important in the future. Include meetings that you initiate (such as counseling an employee about tardiness) and meetings initiated by the employee.
Discipline, including verbal warnings, written warnings, suspensions, and demotions.
Evidence of training the employee received.
Changes in employment (such as raises, promotions, and transfers).
Observed performance (both exceptional and below your expectations).

If there’s ever a question about employee performance, you want an accurate record of what was expected, the rewards for meeting those expectations, the consequences of not meeting them, and the training and other support offered to help fire personnel meet them. You also want a record that is professional, concise, and based only on work-related issues-one you will be proud to show to a jury, if necessary.

Most interaction with fire personnel is conversational, so it’s lost unless you make a record of it. Document what was said (not word for word, but generally) by both of you. Note the outcome of the conversation. In the following example, identify the “who, what, when, where, and why.”

10/24/2005. I pointed out to Firefighter Raymond Johnson that he had to be reminded three times to replace his work shoes that had split on the side on the following dates: Aug. 9, 15, and 24. Each time, he stated that he would replace them, but he kept forgetting. The condition of his shoes clearly violates department policy, and I informed him of such. I told him I did not want any further instances of torn, ripped, or split-out uniform items. I also told him if there is a next time, I would initiate disciplinary measures immediately. Last, I told him to expect to see this on his annual review. He said he was sorry and would not let it happen in the future.

If a problem gets to the point that it is a performance issue, you as an officer have the responsibility to initiate a documented oral consultation. If the problem continues or related problems occur, consider a written reprimand.

On the other hand, what do you do when you observe outstanding or exceptional efforts? Those, too, should be documented and included in annual reviews or promotional ratings. There are basically two ways to document exceptional performance. First, give the member a short letter of commendation and keep a copy for your files. Commendations are not exclusively for the chief to hand out; simple recognition means a great deal.

TO: Firefighter Bret James

FROM: Captain Hicks

James, this letter is to commend you on your actions today at the vehicle accident on N. Santa Fe. The medical assessment and treatment of the one-year-old child were outstanding. Specifically, considering the trauma the child experienced to the face region, you accomplished the intubation on the first try-under extreme circumstances. It was an excellent example of decision making, paramedic skill, and confidence. Great job!

Second, make written notes to yourself containing the “who, what, when, where, and why.” Follow some basic principles when making notes or creating records:

Be prompt. No matter how well intentioned you are, you won’t remember the details of your conversations. Notes made weeks or months after the fact aren’t as credible as notes made right away. Do your documenting as soon as possible, and date whatever you write.
Be open. Let your firefighters know that you try and track all of their accomplishments or stumbles in an effort to reward them or help them become better firefighters.
Keep the documentation in a safe place. Department computers are used by a lot of people and are always subject to failure or replacement. Keep a backup copy of your records on a removable disk or in writing.
Limit access to the documentation. Keeping documentation in the file also keeps it confidential. The only people who should see it are the employee, you, members of the human resources staff, and senior management. Even then, no one should see it unless there’s a specific management reason to do so. You can password protect any file on the computer.
Don’t forget informal documentation. In addition to the formal documentation, it’s also helpful to keep informal documentation. Many reviews suffer from focusing only on recent events because that’s what managers can remember. You can avoid that if you keep notes when firefighters do something well or if you notice opportunities for improvement. Since the notes are for you, use any format that works, but keep them brief. For example, “Mel attended an NFA Fire Officer II class in May 05.”

Appraisals of Performance

Whether it is verbal or in writing, follow these basic points when discussing performance:

Be absolutely honest. Don’t sugarcoat the truth or praise fire personnel if you aren’t sincere (in hopes of motivating them, for example) or give compliments not relevant to their job performance. If there’s a performance problem, documentation should prove it, not refute it.
Stick to the facts. Don’t speculate, avoid hearsay, and don’t express generic opinions. For example, don’t only write, “I have lost confidence in this employee’s judgment.” Explain specifically what happened that caused you to lose faith in his judgment.
Stick to work-related facts. Firefighters’ personal lives, beliefs, race, religion, pregnancy status, marital status, and so on, are irrelevant to job performance and, therefore, have no place in documentation.
Verbal discipline isn’t worth the paper it isn’t written on. Some employees intentionally and unintentionally recall the praise and ignore verbal criticism.
Remember that documentation can be a double-edged sword. Never put anything in writing you would feel uncomfortable having read to a jury slowly, in detail, and while projected on a PowerPoint® slide. According to at least one expert, poor, incomplete, dishonest, and inaccurate documentation is the single most common reason that employees file and win employment-related lawsuits. Ask yourself, “Can I defend this rating with facts?”

Facts can be grounded in observations; documents; and, to a lesser degree, third-party reports. Observations are witnessed examples of performance either good or bad that are backed up by supervisor notes or documentation such as oral or written reprimands. Documents are essentially work products. Fire alarm reports, ambulance reports, truck check reports, and any other written records can serve as a basis for rating performance. Third-party reports may be from citizens, other supervisors, or other parties that reflect on the performance of a firefighter. If this type of performance criteria is verbal, the specifics should be documented in the same way as observed performance-with specifics (who, what, when, where, and why). If the reports are in writing and in some type of note or letter, keep them, and reference them in the rating with the relative specifics. This is decidedly different from another officer saying, “Bob’s a really good paramedic” or “Bill is a really good firefighter” or “Quentin lacks respect.” It’s impossible to use these kinds of statements in ratings without some factual basis.

In preparing to discuss an individual’s performance or complete an annual performance review, be aware of the following tendencies we all have that can unduly influence an officer’s perception of performance.

Over-strictness. Rating everyone too low often suggests that an officer expects too much.
Over-generosity. Rating everyone too high often suggests that an officer expects too little.
Mediocrity. Rating everyone in the middle often suggests that an officer fears appearing too negative or too complimentary.
Stereotyping. The biases common to everyone can create lawsuits, and officers should be keenly aware of the detrimental effects on firefighters over the course of their career. Give people a chance to change or improve through education or experience.
The Halo Effect. The supervisor fails to notice areas of improvement in the stellar performer.
The Black Hole Effect. The supervisor fails to notice areas of achievement in a performer who made one bad mistake; the mistake drags down the whole evaluation.
The Short Memory Effect. The supervisor looks only to the last two or three weeks and does not look at the whole period since the last appraisal; short memories produce poor evaluations.
The Long Memory Effect. The supervisor looks deep into the past beyond the period since the last review; he has a long memory and ignores the relevant time period for the review.
Birds of a Feather Effect. The supervisor gives higher ratings to people who are more like him than different from him.
The Gorilla and Kitten Effect. Trying to overcome the birds of a feather effect, the supervisor gives higher ratings to people more different from him than like him.
The Jack and Jill Effect. The supervisor once had an employee named Jack or Jill whose work became the standard against which he measures performance.

The truth is that all officers have at least one, if not more, of the aforementioned rating tendencies that are often referred to as biased. It’s important for officers to identify their biased tendencies and to work toward minimizing them through proper documentation. Rating systems, whether for promotion or performance review, should work to minimize the effects of these tendencies.

All performance appraisals are subjective in one way or another. The appraisal calls for the officer to make a judgment on actions and activities of firefighters within the context of their job descriptions and performance criteria established by the city. In considering the fire department’s performance reviews, the performance criteria are broken down into several broad areas. Essentially, we are asking supervisors to provide us documentation of performance in the following areas:

Job knowledge.
Job skills.
Decision making.
Stability and composure.
Compatibility and cooperation.
Communication skills.
Demonstration of organizational values.

The question is, “How are these measures demonstrated?” Obviously, a basic knowledge or skill can be tested. Fire personnel are routinely tested on basic emergency medical service (EMS) skills through refresher training. Basic skills and knowledge can also be observed through job performance by officers. Firefighters who are not hesitant in performing their duties are demonstrating basic knowledge. Firefighters who teach others, including other firefighters or the public in some setting, are also demonstrating basic knowledge or skill. What many officers fail to realize is that situations and events are often multidimensional when it comes to performance measures.

In the letter of commendation from Captain Hicks to Firefighter Bret James, one incident presents the observer with numerous performance measures to document and capitalize on. James’ performance could be highly rated in several areas such as EMS skills, EMS knowledge, decision making, leadership, and composure. The description of one event demonstrated several characteristics. A few of these examples, written in this way, go a long way in justifying a rating above average. Almost all incidents and activities involve more than one performance dimension. But, again, what is “Good”?

As mentioned earlier, the fire department’s recruit testing and selection process is targeted at selecting the best and brightest men and women for the fire department. Are they above average when we hire them? Certainly! They have proven they are a “cut above the rest.” Are they the same cut above the rest when they begin their work experience at a station? Hardly! The new recruits are surrounded by firefighters who went through the same selection process and have been exposed to advanced training and job experience. They are now part of a pool of talent and capabilities in which “good” takes on a whole different meaning. When you are rated against an intelligent, dependable, well-trained, motivated, and dedicated workforce, “good” is something to be proud of. To elevate someone above “good” will require extraordinary performance that is repeated time and again.

Does one observed very good performance justify a “very good” rating in a given area? It depends. Taken by itself, one performance at an emergency scene may be just that, one good performance. It may justify a commendation or mention in the rating, but it may not be enough to elevate a person “above the rest.” However, if it’s one of a series of very good performances over time, it can be used as a specific example of above-average work performance and can be stated in the narrative-for example, “This is one of many excellent examples of decision making, paramedic skill, and confidence I have witnessed in the past year.” Just be sure you have the notes to back it up if you are challenged on it.

Challenges rarely occur when a firefighter is rated up for job performance. Normally, challenges occur when someone is rated below “good” in an area or a skill. When this occurs, the person who is rated down (the subordinate) has the right to challenge the rating by asking for justification. The person doing the rating (the supervisor) has the responsibility to provide justification. The amount of justification depends on the type and nature of the material.

For example, the following single incident could be reason enough for giving an “Improvement Needed” rating:

November 10, 2005, Supervisor’s note: “Today, I told Jaden Burrows again to slow down when he’s driving the engine. This is the second time I observed him driving too fast for the conditions.”

December Annual Performance Review:

On December 3, 2004, Engine 4 was responding to a reported house fire at 2560 South Ohio. Driver Jaden Burrows was driving too fast as we entered the intersection and cut the turn from 19th onto Western too short and collided with a stationary vehicle at the intersection. This action endangered the lives of fire personnel and the citizenry. Driver Burrows exhibited poor judgment and decision making along with a disregard of earlier warnings to slow down. He is expected to keep the apparatus under control at all times and to follow my directions while driving.

Burrows will not like being rated down, but he knows what he did, when he did it, where it was, and why it was notable. Last, he knows what to do in the future and the expectations of performance. If challenged, the supervisor has his notes to fall back on.

When deviating from “average,” each category above or below requires increasing instances and documentation. An “above average” rating will take several documented instances of above average performance or an above average performance over an extended time. An “outstanding” rating requires just that much more. But, how much documentation is required with a “good” rating?

If there is ever a place for general comments concerning a firefighter’s performance, it’s within the context of a “good” rating-for example, “Firefighter Rodney Hughes exhibits good judgment at emergencies.” We expect firefighters to exhibit good judgment. A “good” rating does not require a lot of documentation, but it’s a chance to let the person being rated know you recognize his qualities on a daily basis.

All in all, employee performance ratings and reviews are not an exact science. They are subjective and will always be so. The most important part of the process is the supervisor’s sitting down with the employees and letting them know how they have performed and how to improve for the future. It is having a conversation. If there is a problem in a job performance or communication, it is always the supervisor’s responsibility to approach the employee to fix the problem, not the other way around. Let’s strive to become good technical evaluators.

LARRY MULLIKIN is chief of the Salina (KS) Fire Department.

Is It Defensible?

They’ve gotten excellent written evaluations for years, and all of a sudden, they get a “C”, says Michael Pitt, a Royal Oak, Michigan, attorney who is representing nine Ford employees.

Performance Evaluation: A Manager’s Primary Responsibility

BY RANDALL MILLER

After all is said and done, a manager’s first and foremost responsibility is to evaluate how well his unit has done its job. This guiding principle is central to every level of management from frontline supervision to senior-level positions. A manager must ensure established goals and objectives are successfully accomplished so that his organization continues not only to exist but also to thrive and grow in an ever-changing and challenging environment. Failure to adapt to meet these ever-changing challenges will threaten the very existence of the organization. Performance evaluation is the key to getting an organization’s job done (meeting an organization’s mission) while achieving desired results and maintaining the organization’s health.

Performance evaluation can be divided into two main responsibilities. The first is performance management, which refers to managing the overall performance of the entire organization, or subunit, for which the manager has functional responsibility. The second is performance appraisal, which addresses the work performance of individual employees within a scheduled and given time period. This can be daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually for nonprobationary employees. To ensure quality in the workforce, new employees should be evaluated as often as possible before their probation period ends.

Three-Step Process

A three-step assessment process is recommended to ensure comprehensive results with three standards of evaluation used in succession as measures of success.

Compliance

Ask yourself if business is being conducted according to the law, rules, or regulations of the organization. For example, are the employees arriving to work on time? Are they performing their duties as they should, or are they lounging around the water cooler, break room, or wherever excessively? Is pilfering of company goods taking place? Are the firehouse, equipment, and apparatus being cleaned and cared for per standard operating procedures (SOPs)? Is the budget being drafted and administered properly? These examples are input standards of measurement and should be based on job-related behaviors rather than individual traits such as friendliness or charisma. A successful manager must know the laws, rules, and regulations applicable to his organization and how to measure and enforce them.

Efficiency

This standard measures productivity or, in other words, how well the organization and its employees do their jobs and can reveal if optimal use of resources is being accomplished by the unit and the individuals. An efficiency standard of measurement is called an output and describes how well something is done. For example, Fire Service Organizational (Performance Management) Outputs include activities that would measure how well a fire department responds to a major emergency. Some key output behaviors would ask if the following actions are included in an emergency response plan:

• Designate an incident commander.

• Establish a command center.

• Establish communication channels for both internal and external uses.

• Contain the emergency.

• Rescue and treat victims and apprehend wrongdoers.

• Provide immediate relief for victims with major losses (Red Cross, Federal Emergency Management Agency, for example).

• Restore basic services and infrastructure.

• Plan cleanup and both short-term and long-term recovery.

• Keep records of what happened and who was involved.

• Evaluate the overall response through feedback and critique mechanisms, and make necessary changes.

Additional fire service organizational efficiency (outputs) measures are fire and emergency medical service (EMS) response times; the average “fire under control” time according to fire size, type, and severity; the number of building inspections completed within a prescribed time period; or the percentage of first responders who are fully certified.

Individual (Performance Appraisal) outputs would measure activities such as donning one’s fire gear in an appropriate manner and within the proper time; correct placement of apparatus at an emergency scene by the corresponding commander; or completing required firefighting forms correctly and within time limits. Remember that efficiency is productivity: how well something is done! It does not measure if desired results are accomplished, which brings us to the third and most crucial assessment.

Effectiveness

This standard measures the results of organizational and individual efforts toward the goals or mission of the organization. Effectiveness keeps the organization healthy and determines its continuation or demise. An effectiveness standard of measurement is called an outcome and indicates if the ultimate purposes of the organization are being accomplished.

The outputs for a college degree are the knowledge, skills, and abilities that the graduate possesses on graduation and include such behaviors as decision making, leadership, and planning skills; the ability to think critically, analytically, and clearly; and the ability to make a personal impact in a given situation.

Some outcomes for a college degree are higher career mobility; higher earnings and a higher standard of living throughout life, an increased overall quality of life; rational reasoning and actions; and a more diverse and questioning approach to the world.

Examples of fire service outcomes are the following:

• The provision of quality service delivered to a community as measured by citizen surveys.

• The reduction in property and life losses on a yearly basis.

• The reduction in the number of fires on a yearly basis.

• Compliance with fire building codes within a fire district.

• The percentage of buildings equipped with fire sprinklers within a fire district.

Efficiency vs. effectiveness is the differentiating factor between the public sector and the private sector. How they view the two standards are diametrically opposed to each other. In the public sector, efficiency and effectiveness are seen as separate and distinct values. Effectiveness in the provision of services must be the central goal of a public sector organization. Efficiency of operation is always desirable but is secondary to effectiveness. A public manager must obtain results for his organization to remain viable in the public’s perspective.

On the other hand, the private sector views efficiency and effectiveness as one value that cannot be separated. Profit is the ruling standard/value in the private sector, and its perspective is that maximum profit (effectiveness) can only be realized by maximizing efficiency. Therefore, the private sector always emphasizes efficiency of operation, which will naturally lead to effectiveness (maximum profit). Efficiency is essential for effectiveness. This is the reason the private sector places so much emphasis on efficiency in government. And, this is the reason that the public manager must strive to be efficient in the operations of his organization while balancing that emphasis with the realization that effectiveness always overrides efficiency in the public sector.

Following these guidelines will facilitate improved performance of the organization and its employees. They provide an easy, but structured, template to follow in the execution of managerial duties while providing the documented justification for performance evaluation necessary in today’s legal environment. Also, it will help to reduce stress for managers and possibly lead to more rewarding outcomes inside and outside the workplace.

Bibliography

Allen, Gemmy (2006). Supervision 2006, 2nd edition. Denton, TX: RonJon Publishing.

Denhardt, Robert B.; Denhardt, Janet V.; Blanc, Tara A. (2014). Public administration:

An action orientation, 7th edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Dresang, Dennis L. (2012). The public administration workbook, 7th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Emerson, Sandra; Menkus, Royce; Van Ness, Kathy (2011). The public administrator’scompanion. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Flynn, Jennifer D. (2009). Fire service performance measures. National Fire Protection Association: Fire Analysis and Research Division. http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Fire%20service%20statistics/osfsperformancemeasures.pdf.

Henry, Nicholas (2007). Public administration and public affairs, 10th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Milakovich, Michael E. and Gordon, George J. (2013). Public administration in America, 11th edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Pascarella, Ernest T. & Terenzini, Patrick T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.

Rosenbloom, David H.; Kravchuk, Robert S.; Clerkin, Richard M. (2009). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector, 7th edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Shafritz, Jay M.; Russell, E.W.; Borick, Christopher P. (2013). Introducing public administration, 8th edition. New York, NY: Pearson/Longman.

RANDALL MILLER, DPA, is an associate professor at Georgia Regents University at Augusta, where he teaches in the graduate MPA program and undergraduate classes in American government and public administration. He retired from the fire service in 1997 as training chief for the Peoria (IL) Fire Department. Miller has a B.S. degree in psychology from Illinois State University and an M.A degree in interpersonal communications from Governors State University, Illinois. He received his Doctor of Public Administration degree in 2002 from the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The Painful Approach-Sound Familiar?

For many years, “performance management” was an annual event dreaded by both the management and the workforce. For a week or two every year, the manager would virtually isolate himself and ponder the stack of review forms staring him in the face. Chances are very little data were tracked, so he’d try to rack his brain for the past year so he could “evaluate” his employees.

In the meantime, a silent tension was building within each of the employees. Always anticipating a “surprise,” they had no idea of what to expect. After all, “how far back could the manager remember?” and “what will he remember?”

Regardless of the outcome, everyone would breathe a sigh of relief when it was over.

EVALUATING PERFORMANCE TO CREATE OWNERSHIP
Stepping Up: Writing Performance Evaluations
360-Degree Performance Evaluations
Performance Appraisals: the Importance of Documentation