360 Eval

Question number 1 2 3 4 5 3.78 3.88 3.17 3.79 3.65 3 4 4 3 3 Staff averaged score Chief Smith score 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 These numbers correspond to the questions in Table 1 under Leading Change Question number Points 2 3 4 5 6 1 4.16 Employee averaged score Chief Smith score 3.80 2.38 3.52 3.60 3.43 5 3 2 4 3 3 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 These numbers correspond to the questions in Table 1 under Fire Department Leadership www.FireEngineering.com FIRE ENGINEERING July 2016 | 45 The 360° Performance Evaluation Tool B Y C R A I G A . H A I G H E ARLY IN MY CAREER, IT WAS DRILLED into me that it is important to get a 360° view of the emergency incident. Experienced officers will tell you that what is seen from the street side may be very different than what is happening in the rear. Tactical decisions based on a singular focus typically result in tunnel vision that can then result in disastrous consequences. We need to get a full view of the job at hand so we can operate efficiently and effectively and bring home all of the players we took to the game. As we climb the organizational ladder, the job changes, and we find ourselves spending more and more time focused on management tasks and leading peo- ple rather than making tactical decisions at emergency incidents. Days are filled with e-mails, meetings, questions from subordinates, calls from the mayor’s/ manager’s office, discussions with union leadership, and questions from residents as to why they received a bill for their recent ambulance transport. In the course of a single day, a fire offi- cer may serve as an emergency respond- er, an accountant, a human resources manager, a legal expert, a politician, a cheerleader, a marriage counselor, and a boss. 1 Most fire service command officers clearly understand the importance of the 360° size-up on the fireground, but how about a 360° of your job performance? None of us likes receiving our annual performance evaluation. Truth be told, even if you believe that your boss is generally pleased with your performance, there is still a level of anxiety as you get ready to hear someone else’s opinion of the job you have done over the past 12 months. Yet, the performance evaluation is as important as your annual health physical (most of us don’t like it either). The performance review helps make sure that our compass is still pointing in the right direction and we are still meeting the needs of the organization and those we serve. The annual evaluation is a critical management tool designed to help keep us relevant and focused. It should never be a disciplinary tool but rather a teaching tool for continuous self-improvement. Yet, the evaluations used by many organizations are typically top down. Our bosses review our performance based on a subordinate/supervisor relationship. But what about the opinions of those we lead? Would it be helpful to know how you are perceived by your subordinates? How do their opinions compare against how you believe you are performing? How about whether your management style and the decisions you make are pos- itively or negatively impacting the boots on the ground? One could argue that equally as important as your boss’s opin- ion are the opinions of those you lead. In the evaluation model used by most fire service organizations, we rarely get the chance to see how our performance is perceived by our people. That’s where the 360° evaluation tool comes into play. Figure 2. Leading Change Figure 1. Fire Department Leadership

46 | July 2016 FIRE ENGINEERING www.FireEngineering.com Evaluation Tool Table 1. FIRE DEPARTMENT 360 º FEEDBACK TOOL Chief Smith—Evaluation Period 2016 CHARACTERISTIC FACTORS OF PERFORMANCE RATING COMMENT POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT FIRE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP Question 1 Communicates a clear and compelling vision for the fire department? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Possesses knowledge of the fire service including area and national trends? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 3 Develops ideas and strategies that create value and vision? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 4 Is well-versed in department culture and history? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 5 Maintains a thoroughly professional and quality-driven environment and culture? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 6 Keeps others focused on the vision and strategic goals of the department? 1 2 3 4 5 LEADING CHANGE Question 1 Champions and paves the way for positive change? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Anticipates key changes affecting the department and the fire service? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 3 Identifies obstacles before they become a crisis? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 4 Challenges conventional practices in search of new/effective solutions? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 5 Inspires others’ creativity by being open minded to new ideas? 1 2 3 4 5 CUSTOMER FOCUS (INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL) Question 1 Understands what staff wants from their department? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Consistently advocates for quality? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 3 Anticipates needs and requirements and proactively works to present solutions? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 4 Is resilient and committed to find solutions with even the most demanding customer needs? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 5 Staff feels supported and valued? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 6 Represents the department well in meetings and communications with residents and businesses? 1 2 3 4 5 RESULTS ORIENTATION Question 1 Consistently delivers superior results and can be counted on? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Addresses problems head on and works to resolve them timely? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 3 Is driven to deliver on commitments and follow through on promises? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 4 Provides guidance and resources to others to enable results? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 5 Follows up and monitors situations to proactively develop solutions? 1 2 3 4 5 INTEGRITY AND TRUST Question 1 Sets a good example and models department values? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Is direct, straightforward, and honest in dealings? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 3 Accepts responsibility for problems and does not blame others? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 4 Ensures credit for “job well done” is given to appropriate parties? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 5 Can be trusted to represent my interests even if I am not around? 1 2 3 4 5 COMMUNICATIONS Question 1 Delivers a clear, concise, and timely message? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Adapts well in presenting information to different audiences and situations? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 3 Effectively communicates through all levels of the organization and shares information? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 4 Makes it safe for others to express concerns/ideas and listens openly? 1 2 3 4 5 Question 5 Actively asks for feedback and advice from others? 1 2 3 4 5

D E P E N D A B L E . QUALITY WHEN IT MATTERS MOST. every time. the best, most reliable & complete line of hose, cord, and cable reels BO BO BO BO OS OS OS OS OS OS TE TE TE R R R HO O HO O O O O HO HO S SE S S SE SE E E E S E E E E SE E SE SE S E SE SE SE R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R EE EE EE E EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE E E E EE E E EE EE EE EE E E EE E E E EE E E E LS LS LS LS LS LS L S S LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS L LS L L S LS L www.coxreels.com | 800.269.7335 reel solutions for: water, electric, dry chemical, hrt, utility air, and more. Evaluation Tool www.FireEngineering.com To request information go to fireeng.hotims.com The Data Collection Process By its very definition, the 360° evalu- ation is designed to seek input from all involved pertinent parties. It starts with the one being rated, it moves to gain the input of subordinates and coworkers, and then ultimately the information gleaned comes back to the one being rated in a comparative format. To accomplish this, the one being rated is given the 360° evaluation tool and asked to rate himself in a variety of categories. Likewise, several of his subordinates and coworkers are given the same rating tool and asked to evaluate the subject in the same catego- ries. The evaluations are then collected and compared against each other by a third party. A finalized report is generated that shows the details of the comparison and the revealed gaps in perception. This analysis, coupled with some significant self-reflection, is designed to help the one being evaluated to see his performance through the eyes of the team. How the 360° process is implemented varies from organization to organization and from individual to individual based on the individual’s overall sphere of influence. In a small 30- to 40-member volunteer/paid-on-call department in which the governing board is using the tool to evaluate the performance of the fire chief, all members of the organization may complete the evaluation tool. Anoth- er department may break the evaluation process into work groups. As an example, a battalion chief man- aging a shift of 15 to 20 personnel could easily have all members complete the evaluation, but he would exclude those members not assigned to his shift. The process could be modified for a division chief who has 75 to 80 members who indi- rectly report to him and who are within his sphere of influence. In this case, it might be much more efficient and accurate to obtain a sampling that includes battalion chiefs, the division’s administrative as- sistant, and select officers and firefighters who interact regularly with the chief. Or, in another case, a large department with multiple battalion chiefs working each day may want to do a peer 360° to determine the perspective of coworkers as it relates to effective daily interaction toward meet- ing the mission of the department. When it comes to selection of the eval- uation group, there are no specific crite- ria and model. Each department needs to handle the selection of participants on a case-by-case basis, carefully considering what makes sense for the organization, the information you are looking to obtain, and the administrators/supervisors/offi- cers being evaluated. The keys to gaining meaningful information from those who are doing the rating are confidentiality and trust. Encourage all parties to share their Table 2. Fire Department Leadership (See Figure 1) QUESTION NUMBER QUESTION AREAS OF CONCERN SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 2 Possesses knowledge of the fire service including area and national trends? Chief Smith believes that this is a personal strength with subordinates scoring at a lesser level. Work to better share Chief Smith’s knowledge in this area with subordinates. Might include more focused attention on communicating with personnel. 3 Develops ideas and strategies that create value and vision? Chief Smith rated himself lower in this category than his subordinates. Continue working in this area since success is being realized based on the analysis of subordinates (i.e., “keep doing what you are doing”). 4 Is well-versed in department culture and history? Chief Smith appears to be weak in this area. This is an area of importance in most departments. Chief Smith should focus specific attention here. Table 3. Leading Change (See Figure 2) QUESTION NUMBER QUESTION AREAS OF CONCERN SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 1 Champions and paves the way for positive change? Chief Smith rated himself lower in this category than his subordinates. Communication with subordinates is needed to determine why this disparity exists. 3 Identifies obstacles before they become a crisis? There appears to be concerns in this area. Analyze areas where decision making has been slow and problems/challenges have escalated or had potential to escalate. 4 Challenges conventional practices in search of new/ effective solutions? Chief Smith rated himself lower in this category than his subordinates. Communication with subordinates and self-reflection of past decision making are needed to determine why this disparity exists. 5 Inspires others creativity by being open-minded to new ideas? Chief Smith rated himself lower in this category than his subordinates. Communication with subordinates to determine what he is doing right and how he can continue/bolster his performance in this area.

You wouldnít drive an emergency apparatus on 15-year-old tires .... Why would you take a chance with outdated air bags? Trade in any qualifying bags to receive 20 the purchase of new MAXIFORCE G 2 bags, competitor bags welcome! paratech.com/tradein T o Evaluation Tool To request information go to fireeng.hotims.com opinions openly and honestly without fear of retaliation. To accomplish this, the process needs to be a blind data collection process. As an example, raters are sent the 360° evaluation form electronically; they com- plete the document, print it out, seal it in an unmarked envelope, and turn it in to a designated individual. This individual is re- sponsible for collection but also maintains a signature sheet whereby all assigned evaluators are tracked to ensure completion of the document. The one being evaluated completes the same 360° evaluation form as the raters except that theirs are marked with his name or some type of designated tracking method. An Internet-based survey system such as SurveyMonkey ® or a similar system can be used to accomplish the same goal and is incredibly effective. The importance is not in how the data are collected but in the quality of the data received. The only two true essential aspects are the following: (1) The process is mandatory and needs to involve each of the assigned raters, and (2) the process needs to be absolutely confidential. Developing the 360° Evaluation Instrument When developing the tool, emphasize what is being assessed and the ques- tions you want answered. The tool needs to be concise yet thorough and fairly easy to complete without being overly lengthy. A tool I have used successfully is mod- eled after one borrowed from private industry. 2 It is designed specifically for a high-ranking fire service leader and looks at 12 broad categories. It could easily be modified based on the desired analysis of any given team member (Table 1). Data Compilation Once the evaluation instruments are completed and collected, the data anal- ysis process begins. I have found that an Excel spreadsheet works very well. The goal is to use the data to create a line chart that compares the averaged ratings of the evaluators for each category and question against the self-ratings of the one being evaluated. The line chart visually displays the “gap” between per- formance perceptions. In a perfect world, the two would be identical. In the real world, a “gap” almost always exists. The 360° tool is used to help discover that “gap” so actions can be taken to correct or minimize the distance between the two perspectives. The analysis is not intended to make conclusions on who is right or wrong but to identify perceptions that can be addressed to improve overall performance. Figures 1 and 2 are examples of the line chart analysis. To help in understanding the process, I created a hypothetical evaluation using the generic “Chief Smith” as our evaluated candidate. Two of the 12 broad catego- ries identified in Table 1 are graphed in Figures 1 and 2. The charts show the “gap” rating for each question asked under the categories of “Fire Department Leadership” and “Leading Change.” The questions referenced as 1-6 and 1-5, respectively, are shown in Table 1 under the first two categories. Analyses of the two hypothetical scoring categories suggest that both Chief Smith and his subordinates rated his performance

Copyright of Fire Engineering is the property of PennWell Corporation and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.