Performance reviews are often an uncomfortable – some would even say useless – process, both for those being reviewed and those conducting the review. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
On a scale from 1-10: How rating systems skew results
Sometimes the flaw in the process is due to how the system was designed. I remember being subject to a performance review where every category was rated on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being perfect and 1 being most substandard.
There are many issues with this type of ranking system, but the biggest problem was the categories that were applied to it. “Wears the proper uniform” was one such category. “Shows up to work on time” was another. These are things that tend to be binary — you either do them or don’t. What does it mean to rate a 6 in wearing the proper uniform? Does it mean that 40% of your uniform is improper? Or do you only wear the proper uniform 60% of the time?
These types of ranking systems allow for personal bias in a process that, on the surface, may present as objective and data driven. If shift change is at 0800, an officer might rate a firefighter who shows up 45 minutes early as a 10, and one who gets there only five minutes ahead of shift change as a 2. But technically, they both showed up to work on time. One evaluating officer may mark someone down because a uniform shirt is slightly wrinkled; another may not notice or care. One officer may encourage firefighters to wear department T-shirts around the station; another may insist on formal shirts and collar brass during business hours.
Ultimately, these types of subjective systems allow the same firefighter to be rated very differently for identical behavior, depending on who is conducting the evaluation.
Some of these numerical ranking systems require that ratings either above or below average (usually in the 4-7 range) require the evaluator to make notes that specifically justify the ranking, whereas anything in the middle range can go unannotated. It’s no big surprise that such a system results in most rankings being average.
Many performance reviews involve a senior officer filling out a standard form and maybe making a few small comments in addition. Then the officer meets with the subject one-on-one to summarize the report to that person. Sometimes these sessions aren’t even done face-to-face. A copy of the performance evaluation may be sent to the subject without any feedback mechanism built in.
This type of system isn’t very useful for anyone involved. But what if a performance evaluation was an opportunity to have a two-way conversation that goes beyond rankings?
How to turn performance reviews into actionable growth
The first step toward more effective performance evaluations is to look critically at the system itself. How are performance evaluations designed and what are they used for? If evaluations are not being used for much in a quantitative sense, such as for promotions, then the system can be reconfigured as an opportunity for a conversation rather than a formal assessment.
For example, if someone is habitually late to work, that is a serious issue. But it needs to be talked about beyond just giving someone a low numerical score. Why is the person consistently late to work? What outside factors are contributing to this behavior? And what needs to happen for that behavior to change?
A performance evaluation conversation can be a time to give specific, directed feedback. It’s not useful to just tell someone they need to improve their driving; they need to know exactly what has occurred with their driving that leads to this conclusion. As the evaluator, have specific examples ready. Are they driving too fast, ignoring traffic signals when responding under emergency conditions, or not using backers as required? Don’t be accusatory, just factual.
Then allow time for the person to respond. Any criticism, no matter how well delivered, often provokes a defensive response. “Well, I drove that way on that call because …” may be how the person begins. Let them finish. Do not argue. Just listen. Are they making valid points? Were there areas of confusion or miscommunication? Do they need support that they are not currently getting? The point of any performance review or feedback session should be to find a path of improvement, not only for the person being evaluated, but for how the entire crew operates.
One question that should be included in any performance review is this: “What would you have liked to have learned or tried in the last year that you have not yet had the opportunity to do?” The answer to this question can provide a wealth of information to an officer and open the door to entirely new types of relationships among a crew. These discussions can reveal members’ aspirations, frustrations, and unknown abilities and talents that are being overlooked.
Don’t ban performance reviews, expand them
Many firefighters are cynical about the performance review process, so much so that some departments have abandoned the practice altogether. But reconfiguring evaluations in a way that is more personal, expansive and focused on actionable improvement can be a win-win situation. It may take some effort, but the results will be more than worth it – they’ll be productive.
