observed divergence in the attitudes of incumbents and...

1

Observed Divergence in the Attitudes of Incumbents and Supervisors as Subject Matter Experts in Job Analysis:

A Study of the Fire Captain Rank

Michael Mueller Greg Belcher

This study compares the attitudes of incumbent Fire Captains and their supervisors regarding critical aspects of a Fire Captain’s job. Fire Captains and supervisors (Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chiefs, and Division Chiefs) were held as separate subject matter exper t groups in an analysis of the Captain’s job. Data regarding the attitudes held by these SME groups concerning the criticality of Fire Captain job tasks and work required knowledge, skills, abilities and worker characteristics were collected through task inventory and worker attribute surveys. These data were compared to determine the degree to which the SME groups agreed upon the critical aspects of the Fire Captain’s job. The data indicate that Fire Captains and their supervisors substantially agree upon the criticality of Fire Captain tasks, and moderately agree upon the criticality of requisite Fire Captain attributes. The findings of this study have applications for current job analysis practice as well as point out areas in need of further examination.

Information developed through job analysis techniques provides the basis for a variety of Human Resource Management decision making: job classification, setting of compensation levels, selection and placement, performance planning and evaluation, employee and organizational development, and so forth. Although a variety of techniques have been developed for the purpose of gathering job-related information, most rely on the opinions of Subject-Matter-Experts (SMEs) to define and evaluate work behaviors and worker requisites. Often, SMEs are defined as job incumbents and supervisors of job incumbents. If incumbents and supervisors largely agree on the critical aspects of the job in question, one could reasonably conclude that the job is well described. However, if incumbents and supervisors disagree on critical aspects of the job, one could wonder which perspective is most correct; and further, which perspective is most in line with the strategic goals of the organization. By analyzing and compar- ing job analysis responses of incumbents with those of their supervisors, one can understand what differences exist in these groups’ respective perspectives. This understanding could then lead to better organizational planning and development.

2

Purpose of the Study

Findings of this study describe work behaviors and requisite worker attributes collectively considered by Fire Captains to be the most critical in the performance of the Fire Captain’s job. Findings of this study also describe work behaviors and requisite worker attributes collectively considered by supervisors of Fire Captains to be the most critical in the performance of the Fire Captain’s job. These findings can be used for strategic planning, and organizational, individual, and career development purposes. Major questions addressed in this study include:

1. Does a relationship exist between the attitudes held by job incumbents and their

supervisors regarding the criticality of entry- level Fire Captain work behaviors?

2. Does a relationship exist between the attitudes held by job incumbents and their supervisors regarding the criticality of entry- level Fire Captain worker attributes?

Review of the Research Literature

Job Analysis Understanding of the world of work has largely come about through various job analysis techniques.1 Job analysis is fundamental for virtually all modern human resource management systems.2 Legal mandates encourage the application of job analysis techniques in the area of employee selection. Specifically, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures require that selection validity studies:

…should be based upon a review of information about the job for which the selection procedure is to be used. The review should include a job analysis…. Any method of job analysis may be used if it provides the information required for the specific validation strategy used.3

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) invokes job analysis in the identification of a job’s

“essential functions,” in order to determine “reasonable accommodations” appropriate for the employment of disabled individuals.4 Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action require appropriately documented job content information.5 Ash lists job description, job classification, job evaluation, job design/ restructuring, personnel requirements/specifications, performance appraisal, worker training, worker mobility, efficiency, safety, manpower/workforce planning, and legal/quasi-legal requirements as other management uses for job analysis.6 Job analysis research and design has been substantial, and includes the work of Earnest McCormick (Position Analysis Questionnaire, PAQ), and Sidney Fine (functional job analysis), among others, as well as Cristal’s task Analysis technique (Comprehensive Occupational Data analysis Program, CODAP).

The Use of Subject Matter Experts in Job Analysis

Most job analysis techniques rely on the collection of data from job incumbents and their supervisors acting as subject matter experts.7 Job-related data may be collected through SME observation, interviews, checklists, or other techniques.8 These data may then be quantified by ratings assigned by samples of incumbents and supervisors identified as SMEs.9 Often, SMEs are asked to evaluate the criticality of work behaviors10 in terms of whether a specific task is performed, how often it is performed, how long it takes to perform the task,11 and the task’s impact on job success.12 Other job analysis techniques, such as the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ), are more worker- orientated, focusing the analyst’s atten- tion through SME

3

input on critical worker attributes required to successfully perform the job.13 A third job analysis approach combines the task inventory and worker attribute techniques

and, additionally, attempts to link worker attributes to critical tasks through SME observation, interviews, and questionnaire.14 Examples of this third approach include the Iowa Department of Personnel Job Analysis Questionnaire, 2nd Ed.,15 and the Western Region Intergovernmental Personnel Assessment Council (WRIPAC) technique.16 In these examples, SMEs are asked to evaluate tasks in categories such as importance, time spent, relationship to overall performance of the job, and performance of the task when hired, and worker attributes (KSAWCs) in categories such as criticality and necessary when hired.

Potential Bias in SME Ratings Guion suggested that except in cases where job content differs due to purposeful or inadvertent structuring (e.g., in response to affirmative action initiatives), or when stylistic “drift” occurs over time which manifests itself by settling in culturally distinct groups, “(t)he job content domain is independent of the characteristics of the people who hold the job.”17 However, job analysis relies on the judgments of job holders, and their supervisors, and the value of these judgments may be suspect. Human judgment is often fallible and may be subject to biases and undesired influences.18 “Boasting” and “self-interest” may encourage job holders to report inflated ratings for “ego-involved” or socially desirable elements, or deflated ratings for less desirable or unimportant elements.19 Different groups of SMEs may produce different job analysis results.20 The ability of SMEs to reliably link job tasks to work attributes is question- able.21

Job analysis research has demonstrated disagreement among job characteristic ratings of incumbents and non-incumbents in a wide variety of occupations.22 Wilson reported substantial differences between task ratings of job holders and those of their supervisors, in a study of food service tray line aides, department store retail buyers, and service representatives from the Social Security Administration.23 Some earlier studies were more ambiguous. Meyer reported a finding from a “Job Responsibility Questionnaire” of “a fairly high level of disagreement between foremen and general foremen regarding the responsibilities of the foreman” in a manufacturing environment,24 while Jones found a high degree of agreement between job holders and supervisors in job analysis used for compensation purposes of nonacademic jobs in a university.25

Potential Effects of SME Divergence Since the job analyst relies heavily upon the judgment of subject matter experts to describe and quantify the work of an organization, as well as the knowledge, skills, abilities and other worker characteristics required to perform this work, the validity of an organization’s human resource management system is dependent upon the validity of job analysis information obtained from job holders and those who supervise job holders.26 Morgeson and Champion report a number of potential consequences of inac- curate job analysis, including: adverse impact, increased recruiting costs, inappropriate licensure requirements, inflated compensation costs, inequities among employees, misidentification of training needs, inadequately trained workforce, and wasted training resources.27

4

Procedures

Data for this study were taken from a job analysis project conducted for the purpose of developing promotional procedures for the rank of Fire Captain in a professional fire service in Kansas during the months of November 1997 through February 1998. Data were collected through a review of relevant documents maintained by the agency studied (e.g., job descriptions, organizational charts, departmental budgets and reports, etc.), review of related literature regarding industry “best practices,” interviews with department command staff, and “brainstorming” sessions with incumbent Fire Captains. These data were validated by supervisory and command-level fire officers, and then quantified through a series of three job analysis surveys completed by incumbent Fire Captains and their supervisors in the organization. The three surveys focused on: 1) tasks Fire Captains performed (Task Inventory Survey), 2) requisite worker attributes (KSAWCs) (Worker Attribute Survey), and 3) the linkage between the job tasks and required KSAWCs (Task/Required KSAWC Linkage Survey). The first two of these surveys, the task inventory analysis and the worker attribute analysis, were the sources of the data analyzed in this study.

Population Studied The focus of this study was the position of Fire Captain. Data were gathered from persons believed to be most expert regarding the work performed and the underlying traits (KSAWCs) required to perform this work those persons actually holding the job (incumbent Fire Captains) and those persons who assigned, supervised and evaluated the work (supervisors). A census of the extant population was invited to complete the two job analysis surveys utilized in this study. This included all 31 persons holding the positions of Fire Captain (N = 20), Division Chief (N = 8), Deputy Chief (N = 2) and Fire Chief (N = 1) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Fire Depar tment Organizational Char t

Fire Chief

Deputy Fire Chief Fire Marshall

Deputy Fire Chief

Operations Medical Division

Division Chief (3) Safety/Training

Division Chief (1) Fire Prevention

Division Chief (3)

Operations

Division Chief (1)

Medical

Captains (20)

All persons within the department holding a rank above Fire Captain were considered in this study

5

as “supervisors.” This was done for a number of practical reasons:

• Depending upon the situation or assignment, anyone of higher rank could assign, oversee and evaluate the work of a Fire Captain.

• The department’s practice of rotating the assignments of Division and Deputy Chiefs exposed higher ranking members to the work and work products of Fire Captains.

• Because the supervisor SME group was relatively small, supervisor SMEs were not held separately according to current assignment or specialty.28

Development and Validation of Survey Items/ Instruments

Items for the task inventory analysis and the worker attribute analysis were developed following generally accepted procedures.29 Information regarding the Fire Captain job was gathered through supervisory interviews, incumbent brainstorming sessions, review of related departmental documents, and review of similar studies from other organizations. This information was condensed into a list of 50 task statements describing the work of a Fire Captain, and a list of one 100 KSAWC statements describing the personal attributes required of Fire Captains to perform this work.

Task statements were formatted according to techniques described by Davis, et al.30 and Willihnganz & Langan.31 KSAWC statements were developed through information gathered as described above (direct SME input, review of departmental documents, similar studies, etc.), and through an inferential process described by Davis, et al.32

The lists of task and KSAWC statements were validated through critical review of content, coverage, and clarity by the Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall, a Division Chief of the Operations Division, and a Division Chief of the Safety/Training Division. Several revisions to the original task and KSAWC statement lists were made based upon this validation review.

After the task and KSAWC statement lists were compiled and validated, these items were organized into two instruments, a task inventory survey and a worker attribute survey. The instruments were similar to the Iowa Personnel Department Job Analysis Questionnaire, 2nd Ed.,33 and the WRIPAC Task and KSA Inventory models (Willihnganz & Langan).34 The task inventory survey requested respondents to quantify job task information by rating task statements using three scale, “Importance,” “Frequency,” and “Needed at Entry”(Figure 2, next page). The worker attribute survey requested respondents to quantify KSAWC statements using two scales, “Needed at Entry” and “Importance” (Figure 3, following page).

6

Figure 2. Example Task Statements and Rating Scales from Task Inventory Survey

Fire District Impor tance Frequency At Entry

CAPTAIN – JOB TASK SURVEY Instructions: Rate each of the following task statements for the job of Fire Captain on “Impor tance,” “Frequency” of performance, and need “At Entry” by circling your response using the appropriate scale.

0 Not

performed 1 Minor

Impor tance 2 Impor tant 3 Very

Impor tant 4 Crucial

0 Never 1 Very

Seldom 2 Several

times/yr 3 Monthly 4 Every Shift

0 No 1 Yes

A. Task Statement: A Fire Captain…

T-1. Dons safety equipment (bunker coat, helmet, 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 air-pack, gloves) at station or emergency scene in order to protect self from injury, using depar tment supplied equipment, following SOGs according to the nature of the emergency.

T-2. Inspects emergency scene and conducts initial 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 “size-up” in order to identify appropriate response; considering safety issues, hazardous conditions, need for additional resources, & etc.; using risk/benefit analysis, following SOGs and ICS.

T-3. Directs operations at emergency scene in order to 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 facilitate access, and coordinate fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical treatment, and/or mop-up activities, following SOGs, inter-agency agreements, and emergency medical protocols.

T- 50. Explains depar tment activities and emergency 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 responses to repor ters and representatives of various news media in order to inform the public of emergency and potentially hazardous situations and routine depar t - mental functions, and to encourage positive public relations, using oral communications, interpersonal, and media relations skills.

7

Figure 3. Example Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Worker Characteristic Statements and Rating Scales from Worker Attribute Survey

Impor tance

Needed for successful Fire District At Entry job performance

CAPTAIN – REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE SURVEY Instructions: Rate each of the following KNOWLEDGE statements for the job of Fire Captain on “Needed at Entry,” and “Impor tance” by circling your response using the appropriate scale.

0 Not needed 1 Should have 2 Must have

0 Not needed 1 Desirable 2 Impor tant 3 Essential

A. Knowledge Statements: Knowledge of…

K-1. Fire gasses — sources, effects, hazards and 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 proper ties.

K-45. Basic budgeting and accounting techniques. 0 1 2 0 1 2 3

Impor tance Needed for successful

Fire District At Entry job performance

CAPTAIN – REQUIRED SKILLS SURVEY Instructions: Rate each of the following SKILL statements for the job of Fire Captain on “Needed at Entry,” and “Impor tance” by circling your response using the appropriate scale.



B. Skill Statements: Skill in…

S-1. Operation of emergency vehicles 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 (fire engines, tenders, squads)

S-7. Operating firefighting equipment / tools. 0 1 2 0 1 2 3

535

8

Figure 3. Example Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Worker Characteristic Statements and Rating Scales from Worker Attribute Survey (continued)

Impor tance

Needed for successful Fire District At Entry job performance

CAPTAIN – REQUIRED ABILITIES SURVEY Instructions: Rate each of the following ABILITY statements for the job of Fire Captain on “Needed at Entry,” and “Impor tance” by circling your response using the appropriate scale.



C. Ability Statements: Ability to…

A -1 . Read and comprehend relevant materials, e.g., 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 depar tmental communications, policies and procedures, NFPA standards, training materials, etc.

A-35. Perform risk/benefit analysis, to balance the losses 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 and gains, in terms of human health and safety as well as proper ty damage, in taking alternate actions.

Impor tance Needed for successful

Fire District At Entry job performance

CAPTAIN – REQUIRED WORKER CHARACTERISTICS SURVEY Instructions: Rate each of the following WORKER CHARACTERISTIC statements for the job of Fire Captain on “Needed at Entry,” and “Impor tance” by circling your response using the appropriate scale.



D. Worker Characteristic Statements:

C-1. Decisiveness — Willingness to make decisions 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 and/or render Judgments.

C-13 . Problem Analysis — Effectiveness in seeking out 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 per tinent data and determining the source of a problem; ability to identify alternate approaches or solutions and their consequences.

9

Distribution of Surveys and Collection of Data

A list of the names of the members of the population to be studied was drawn on December 4, 1997, from the employee database maintained by the Human Resource Department serving the fire department. Task Inventory Surveys were placed in individual envelopes labeled with these names and distributed along with a transmittal letter from the project coordinators, via inter/intradepartmental mail procedures, to the members’ duty stations. The transmittal letter informed members that the Task Inventory Survey was one of three Job Analysis Instruments to be used for the development of promotional procedures for the position of Fire Captain, described how the survey was developed, and provided general instructions for the completion and return of the survey. Members were asked to complete the survey on the shift they received it, place it in a sealed envelope, and to return it, via established inter/intradepartmental mail procedures, to the project coordinators in the Human Resources Department. The names and phone numbers of the project coordinators were provided, should members have any questions or concerns about the project. The Worker Attribute Survey was distributed in similar fashion on December 17, 1997, as was the Task/KSAPC Linkage Survey on January 22, 1998.

Processing and Repor ting the Data Task statements were ranked by both groups of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), incumbents and supervisors, according to a computed Task Criticality Index (TCI) following procedures similar to those described by Willihnganz and Langan.35

• Task statements receiving a “yes” response from a SME on “Needed at Entry” were assigned

a value of 1 for that variable, those receiving a “no” response were assigned a value of 0.

• The “Importance” and “Frequency” ratings by each SME for each task were added together.

• The sum of the SME “Importance” and “Frequency” ratings for each task were multiplied by the

“Needed at Entry” value to compute the SME’s TCI for each task.

• The average of all SME group TCIs is the overall SME group Task Criticality Index. Following these procedures, task statements may have a computed TCI of between zero and eight.

As discussed earlier, data for this study were taken from a job analysis project conducted

for the purpose of developing promotional procedures for the rank of Fire Captain. The focus of the job analysis was to describe “threshold” work behaviors, those tasks that Fire Captains would be expected to perform upon appointment, regardless of station or duty assignment. The procedures produced a TCI which was heavily influenced on the aggregate level by individual SME “needed at entry” ratings. Therefore, the importance of any task associated with an assignment to a specialized duty or resulting from subsequent additional training was purposefully minimized.

KSAWC statements was ranked by both groups of SMEs in a similar fashion. A “KSAWC Criticality

Index”(KCI) were computed by procedures modified from those described by Willihnganz and Langan.36

• The “Needed at Entry” and “Importance” ratings by each SME for each KSAWC statement

were added together to compute each SME’s KSAWC statement KCI.

• The average of all SME group KCIs was the overall SME group KSAWC Criticality Index. Following these procedures, KSAWC statements may have had a computed KCI of between

10

zero and five.

After the Task and KSAWC statements were ranked by SME group according to the computed TCIs and KCIs of each statement, the relationships between the rankings were tested using the Kendall Cor- relation Coefficient (Tau-c). This statistic demonstrates the degree to which job incumbents agree with their supervisors with regard to the rankings by criticality of tasks performed by entry- level Fire Cap- tains and the personal attributes required of entry- level Fire Captains to perform the job. The Davis Conventions37 are referenced to provide a qualitative description of the magnitude of agreement between the attitudes between SME groups.

Results

Findings of the Task Inventory Survey To determine which work behaviors are held to be most critical for an entry- level Fire Captain, Task Criticality Indices (TCIs) were calculated by each SME group (incumbent Captains and supervisors) as described. The TCIs with Captains as SMEs ranged from .22 to 7.59 (M = 5.09, SD = 1.68). The TCIs with supervisors as SMEs ranged from 2.14 to 8.00 (M = 5.77, SD = 1.48) (Table 1). Tasks were then ranked by TCI / SME group to determine relative criticality in each group (Appendix A and B).

Table 1. TCI Summary by SME Group

Mean SD Min Max

Task Criticality Index(Captains) 5.09 1.68 .22 7.59

Task Criticality Index(Supervisors) 5.77 1.48 2.14 8.00

Interestingly, upon initial examination, it would appear that incumbent Captains considered their most important tasks to be related to managing emergency situations, while their supervisors considered the Captains’ most critical tasks to be more routine and supervisory in nature. Many tasks rated highest by Captains are apparently related to emergency response. For example, tasks rated among the highest by incumbents include:

• Dons safety equipment; • Establishes incident command at emergency; • Conducts initial size-up at emergency; • Directs operations at emergency; • Assigns teams, units, etc., at emergency; and • Determines strategic goals and tactics at emergency.

However many tasks rated highest by supervisors were related to employee supervision

and/or station house management. For example, tasks ranked highest by supervisors include:

• Supervises subordinates; • Schedules and assigns routine tasks; • Coordinates and leads physical training; • Counsels employees; and • Writes routine reports.

11

There is less obvious disagreement between incumbents and supervisors regarding those tasks considered to be the least critical. Both incumbents and supervisors rated the following as less critical:

• Responds to customer complaints; • Explains activities and responses to media; • Recommends revisions to policies; • Inspects and testS fire hydrants; • Drives Fire Department vehicles; • Serves as expert witness; • Participates in disaster mock-ups; and • Prepares specifications…or purchases.

It may also be worth noting that, “Prepares specifications…for purchases” was ranked as

the least important task by both groups of SMEs. The correlation coefficient (Kendall Tau-c) between the rank order of the computed TCIs

of the two SME groups (incumbent Fire Captains and their supervisors) was found to be .69 (p = .00). Fol- lowing the Davis Conventions, this can be interpreted as meaning that there is a substantial positive agreement between the attitudes of Fire Captains and their supervisors regarding the relative criticality of job tasks that Fire Captains perform.

Findings of the Worker Attribute Survey

To determine which worker attributes are held to be most critical for an entry- level Fire Captain, Knowl- edge, Skill, Ability and Worker Characteristic Criticality Indices (KCIs) were calculated by each SME group (incumbent Captains and supervisors) as described. The KCIs with Captains as SMEs ranged from 1.00 to 4.94 (M=3.83, SD=.72). The KCIs with supervisors as SMEs ranged from 2.14 to 5.77 (M=4.12, SD=.77) (Table2). KSAWCs were then ranked by each KSAWC /SME group to determine relative criticality in each group (APPENDIX C and D).

Table 2. KCI Summary by SME Group

Mean SD Min Max

KSAWC Criticality Index (Captains) 3.83 .72 1.00 4.94

KSAWC Criticality Index (Supervisors) 4.12 .77 1.00 5.00

Incumbents ranked technical knowledge as among the most critical attributes required of Fire Captains. It can be observed that many of the most critical Fire Captain attributes ranked by incumbents were knowledge domains. For example:

• Knowledge of ICS (Incident Command System); • Knowledge of basic life support; • Knowledge of fire ground safety; • Knowledge of fire suppression; • Knowledge of rescue procedure; • Knowledge of standard operating guidelines;

12

• Knowledge of protective equipment; • Knowledge of emergency medical protocols; • Knowledge of building construction; and • Knowledge of radio communication.

Supervisors, however, tended to rank certain physical abilities or attributes as most critical.

Many of the attributes ranked highest by supervisors were of this nature. For example:

• Normal or compensated color vision; • Depth perception; • Eye-hand coordination; • Physical dexterity; • Ability to bend, stretch and stoop; • Ability to coordinate movement; • Ability to expend short bursts of energy; • Ability to maintain physical exertion; and • Ability to maintain balance.

Interestingly, both incumbents and supervisors agreed that “Knowledge of basic budgeting” and

“Knowledge of specification writing and purchasing” were the least critical Fire Captain attributes. The correlation coefficient (Kendall Tau-c) between the rank order of the computed KCIs of

the two SME groups (incumbent Fire Captains and their supervisors) was found to be .44 (p = .00). Accord- ing to the Davis conventions, this can be interpreted as meaning that there was a moderately positive agreement between the attitudes of Fire Captains and their supervisors regarding the criticality of attributes required of Fire Captains to perform their jobs.

Discussion

Conclusions The literature regarding the responses of incumbents and supervisors in job analysis ratings has generally, but not conclusively, supported the postulation that these SME groups differ in their views regarding critical aspects of jobs. Sanchez, Zamora, & Viswesvarian,38 Wilson,39 and Meyer40 reported these differences, while Jones41 reported a high degree of agreement between incumbents and supervisors in job analysis. The findings of this study, however, do not support this general view. Rather, this study finds that a substantial agreement exists between the SME groups’ evaluation of Fire Captain tasks, and a moder- ate agreement exists between the SME groups’ evaluation of requisite worker attributes.

Some differences, however, can be observed in the data describing the manner in which Fire Cap- tains and their supervisors rank the critical aspects of a Fire Captain’s job. Generally stated, the differences could be described as, Captains view tasks related to emergency response and attributes related to technical knowledge to be themost critical, while supervisors consider routine/supervisory tasks and physical abilities to be the most critical. These differences may be the function of a number of factors which include: 1) They may be the result of demographics not considered in this study; 2) They may be the result of command’s “vision” of the future; and/or, 3) They may reflect the individual SME’s status In the department.

Demographics. Demographics such as age, time in rank, or length of employment may have

14

influenced the data in an unascertainable manner. For example, younger employees, those with less experience in their current rank, or those with less service time in the department may be influenced by the excitement and technical aspects of emergency response (e.g., more eager to “eat smoke”), while older, more experienced employees may be more focused on maintaining operational readiness and the physical capability to respond appropriately. For this assumption to be supported by the data, a significant difference would need to be observed in the age, time in rank, and service time of the SME groups. Some differences are observed in these variables. However, these differences do not appear, on the sur- face, to be sufficiently significant to completely explain the divergent attitudes of the SME groups.

Command “Future Vision.” As stated earlier, the Fire Chief is the chief executive officer of the department that was studied. It is the Fire Chief ’s responsibility to plan, organize and direct all departmental activities. Given this, it may be assumed that it is also the Fire Chief ’s responsibility to develop and chart, or “vision,” the future of the department. Subordinate command officers are likely to be closely aligned with, or at least aware of, the Fire Chief ’s “future vision.”

Captains, on the other hand, are the first level of management in the department. They are respon- sible for the activities of a single station during a specific shift. They are focused on the day- t o- d a y activities of the fire station and employees they supervise. Their vision is likely to be somewhat limited to what may happen during a day’s shift, rather than on some unspecified future.

This divergence in SME group “future orientation” may influence the data in some inascertainable manner. The data presented in this study does not address this issue, and one can only speculate as to its impact.

Impact of SME’s Status. Subject Matter Experts, responses to individual survey items may reflect their personal status In the department. In this study, “Supervisors” routinely administer and supervise, while Captains routinely respond to calls for service, either personally or through subordinate personnel. This departmental role may color SMEs’ responseS in some unknown fashion. Although this influence may be speculated, the data examined in this study cannot resolve the issue.

Recommendations for Practice The results of this study suggest that Fire Captains and their supervisors are largely aligned in their attitudes regarding what a Captain does, and what is required to do the Captain’s job. This alignment likely reflects good departmental planning and communications, and has a positive impact on performance metrics. Some differences in the perceptions of SME groups, however, can be observed. These differences imply that some improvement can be achieved in these departmental developmental activities. A practical application of these findings within the department studied would be to seek ways to strengthen communications, planning, and development activities. This could include continued, or improved, department-wide participation in strategic planning initiatives; better communication of leadership vision; and wider involvement in individual, career, and organizational development activities.

The findings of this study also have practical application for job analysts and human resources managers. Contrary to other recent studies, this study supports the continued inclusion of incumbent and supervisor SME groups in job analysis. Incumbents and supervisors likely have differing perspectives regarding critical aspects of the job. However, the findings of this study suggest that these differences are not substantial enough to negate the potential positive impact of utilizing the viewpoints of those who do the work, and those who supervise the work, in describing critical job tasks and requisite worker attributes.

15

Recommendations for Future Research This study does point out the necessity for further research in job analysis methodology. Continuing research into the overall composition and balance of SME groups and the use of incumbents and supervisors as subject matter experts is clearly in order.

The impact of SME demographics on job analysis data has been the subject of considerable inquiry. Continuing research into the impact of the race, sex, age, time in rank, and service time on SME attitudes towards the importance of work-related items should continue.

The size of SME groups was clearly limited in this study. Future research should attempt to miti- gate any limitations imposed on findings by increasing the numbers of SME group members studied.

The concept of command’s “future vision” was introduced earlier in this discussion. Future research could include attempts to operationalize and measure the impact of this variable.

Additional research regarding other sources of job knowledge expertise may also be appropriate. For example, subordinate employees may be a potent source of job information. This could contribute to and be a natural extension of, 360-degree performance management techniques.

Reflecting the current emphasis in utilizing customers in defining organizational mission, methods and products, continued research could also include the use of customers as subject matter experts. With regard to this study, it will be, after all, fire department customers who ultimately shape the future of the fire service. It will be customers who determine what services the fire department provides and what qualities they wish to see in their fire officers.

Appendix A. Criticality of Tasks — Ranked by Captains (N = 18)

Task Mean TCI Std Dev

Dons safety equipment 7.59 .71

Establishes incident command at emergency 7.17 .79

Conducts initial “size-up” at emergency 7.17 .86

Writes routine repor ts 7.11 .90

Directs operations at emergency 7.06 .85

Assigns teams, units, etc., at emergencies 7.06 .83

Communicates…using radio or face-to-face 7.06 1.03

Determines strategic goals and tactics at emergency 6.83 .86

Schedules, plans & conducts training 6.83 1.82

Schedules and assigns routine tasks 6.83 1.86

Supervises subordinates 6.78 1.83

Performs basic life suppor t 6.61 1.20

Assumes/relinquishes command at emergencies 6.39 1.24

Supervises maintenance of station & equipment 6.28 2.40

Responds to non-emergency calls 6.17 .79

Briefs/debriefs others 6.06 2.82

Issues burn permits 5.72 2.24

Talks/listens to victims and witnesses 5.72 2.32

16

Evaluates patient’s medical status 5.67 2.00

Reviews subordinates’ repor ts 5.67 2.66

Inspects buildings or supervises inspection 5.61 1.61

Secures environment at emergency 5.56 1.65

Pulls, lays, and connects hose 5.53 1.42

Counsels employees 5.44 2.31

Appendix A. Criticality of Tasks — Ranked by Captains (N = 18) (continued)


Lifts and moves patients 5.44 2.09

Coordinates and leads physical training 5.39 3.03

Conducts triage of patients at emergency 5.33 2.20

Gains access by chopping, breaking, prying 5.33 1.88

Attends classes and studies related subjects 5.28 2.22

Supervises and performs salvage operations 5.28 1.18

Evaluates job performance of subordinates 5.22 2.62

Lifts, carries, and moves equipment 5.18 1.85

Conducts and maintains inventory 4.83 2.79

Secures station 4.78 2.90

Conducts tours of station & demonstrates equipment 4.56 2.71

Tests or supervises testing of equipment 4.44 2.53

Schedules & coordinates public education 4.22 2.82

Serves as depar tment liaison 3.50 3.09

Interviews victims and witnesses 3.44 3.09

Administers progressive discipline 3.44 2.38

Responds to customer complaints 3.33 2.74

Computes friction loss and nozzle pressure 3.33 2.14

Prepares pre-fire plans 3.28 2.19

Drives FD vehicles 2.94 2.22

Explains activities and responses to media 2.83 2.60

Inspects and tests fire hydrants 2.78 2.39

Par ticipates in disaster mock-ups 2.28 2.65

Recommends revisions to policies 2.11 2.32

Serves as exper t witness 1.67 2.20

Prepares specifications…for purchases .22 .94

17

Appendix B. Criticality of Tasks —

Ranked by Supervisors (N = 7)


Supervises subordinates 8.00 .00

Schedules and assigns routine tasks 7.86 .38

Dons safety equipment 7.71 .49

Communicates…using radio or face-to-face 7.57 .53

Coordinates and leads physical training 7.43 .79

Counsels employees 7.43 1.13

Writes routine repor ts 7.29 .76

Establishes incident command at emergency 7.29 .95

Evaluates job performance of subordinates 7.14 1.46

Determines strategic goals and tactics at emergency 7.00 1.29

Secures environment at emergency 7.00 1.15

Performs basic life suppor t 6.86 1.46

Assumes/relinquishes command at emergency 6.86 1.68

Talks/listens to victims and witnesses 6.71 1.38

Supervises maintenance of station & equipment 6.71 2.98

Schedules, plans & conducts training 6.71 2.98

Briefs/debriefs others 6.57 2.94

Issues burn permits 6.57 .98

Assigns team, units, etc., at emergencies 6.57 2.94

Directs operations at emergency 6.57 2.94

Conducts initial “size-up” at emergency 6.57 2.94

Conducts triage of patients at emergency 6.43 1.51

Supervises and performs salvage operations 6.29 1.38

Reviews subordinates’ repor ts 6.14 2.79

Responds to non-emergency calls 6.14 1.77

Evaluates patient’s medical status 6.14 1.77

Conducts tours of station & demonstrates equipment 5.86 1.35

Inspects buildings or supervises inspection 5.86 2.73

Lifts, carries, and moves equipment 5.86 1.86

Serves as depar tment liaison 5.71 2.75

Attends classes and studies related subjects 5.71 2.75

Conducts and maintains inventory 5.57 3.82

Pulls, lays, and connects hose 5.57 1.81

Secures station 5.29 2.93

Administers progressive discipline 5.29 2.69

Prepares pre-fire plans 5.00 2.53

Tests or supervises testing of equipment 5.00 3.51

18

Appendix B. Criticality of Tasks — Ranked by Supervisors (N = 7) (continued)


Lifts and moves patients 5.00 2.83

Gains access by chopping, breaking, prying 4.86 1.68

Computes friction loss and nozzle pressure 4.71 1.60

Schedules & coordinates public education 4.33 3.50

Responds to customer complaints 4.14 2.34

Explains activities and responses to media 4.14 2.04

Interviews victims and witnesses 3.71 2.93

Recommends revisions to policies 3.71 2.98

Inspects and tests fire hydrants 3.43 2.37

Drives FD vehicles 3.14 1.46

Serves as exper t witness 2.86 2.12

Par ticipates in disaster mock-ups 2.29 1.70

Prepares specifications…for purchases 2.14 2.12

Appendix C. Criticality of KSAWCS — Ranked by Captains (N = 17)

KSAWC Mean KCI Std Dev

Knowledge of ICS 4.94 .24

Knowledge of basic life suppor t 4.94 .24

Knowledge of fire ground safety 4.88 .33

Knowledge of fire behavior 4.82 .53

Knowledge of fire suppression 4.76 .56

Knowledge of rescue procedures 4.71 .47 Knowledge of standard operating guidelines 4.71 .59

Knowledge of protective equipment 4.71 .77

Knowledge of emergency medical protocols 4.65 .70

Knowledge of building construction 4.65 .79

Knowledge of radio communication 4.59 .71

Ability to work under adverse conditions 4.59 .71

Stress tolerance 4.56 .73

Technical knowledge 4.56 .73

Ability to recognize signs or symptoms 4.53 .80

Skill in operation of basic life suppor t equipment 4.53 .94

Knowledge of elements of fire 4.53 .72

Knowledge of fire streams 4.53 .87

19

Appendix C. Criticality of KSAWCS — Ranked by Captains (N = 17) (continued)


Ability to perform risk/benefit analysis 4.53 .80

Ability to prioritize tasks 4.53 .80

Knowledge of Depar tment policies 4.50 .82

Knowledge of hazardous gasses 4.47 .94

Knowledge of hose practices 4.41 .71

Knowledge of grass & open-range fires 4.41 .87

Knowledge of fire gasses 4.41 .80

Knowledge of ventilation 4.41 .87

Ability to Lift and carry equipment 4.41 .94

Skill in operating fire fighting equipment 4.37 1.02

Knowledge of water supply 4.35 .93

Decisiveness 4.29 1.05

Judgment 4.29 .99

Skill in operation of emergency vehicles 4.24 1.03

Knowledge of forcible entry tools/techniques 4.24 .90

Ability to interpret maps 4.24 1.03

Ability to read and comprehend 4.24 .97

Knowledge of flammable materials/combustible metals 4.18 1.01

Knowledge of proper repor t formats 4.18 .95

Improvement orientation 4.18 .88

Human relations skills 4.18 .81

Ability to coordinate movement 4.18 1.07

Knowledge of _________ County policies 4.12 1.05

Knowledge of salvage and overhaul 4.12 .99

Leadership 4.12 .93

Initiative 4.12 .93

Flexibility 4.12 .99

Problem analysis 4.06 1.06

Impact 4.06 .97

Physical dexterity 4.06 1.14

Ability to bend, stretch and stoop 4.06 1.14

Ability to maintain physical exer tion 4.06 .97

Knowledge of basic math 4.00 .94

Ability to expend shor t bursts of energy 4.00 1.06

Knowledge of ropes and knots 4.00 1.00

Knowledge of related formulas and equations 4.00 .94

Knowledge of hazardous materials 4.00 1.46

20



Skill in operation of computers 3.94 1.09

Knowledge of salvage and overhaul 3.94 1.20

Ability to pull objects 3.94 1.14

Ability to communicate orally 3.94 .97

Knowledge of defensive driving 3.94 1.29

Management control 3.94 .93

Ability to write accurate repor ts 3.88 .99

Planning and organizing 3.88 .81

Ability to maintain balance 3.82 1.01

Knowledge of inter-agency agreements 3.76 .97

Normal or compensated color vision 3.76 1.25

Ability to describe events orally 3.71 .92

Eye-hand coordination 3.71 1.05

Knowledge of por table extinguishers 3.71 1.05

Ability to stand for extended periods 3.65 1.06

Knowledge of English grammar 3.65 1.00

Skill in maintenance and operation of pumps 3.59 1.37

Knowledge of automatic sprinkler systems 3.53 .94

Knowledge of fire suppression 3.53 1.07

Ability to express criticism constructively 3.53 .94

Normal corrected far vision 3.47 1.07

Normal corrected near vision 3.47 1.07

Knowledge of proper lifting techniques 3.41 1.00

Knowledge of inspection techniques 3.41 1.12

Knowledge of memorandum of agreement 3.41 .94

Knowledge of __________ County 3.41 1.18

Ability to intercede in crisis situation 3.41 .71

Ability to observe and recall details 3.35 .70

Depth perception 3.35 1.06

Knowledge of effective training technique 3.35 .93

Ability to deal with upset persons 3.29 .99

Knowledge of high-rise fires 3.29 1.05

Ability to communicate in writing 3.29 .85

Ability to compute basic formulas without calculator 3.29 .69

Knowledge of depar tment education standards 3.29 .92

Knowledge of correct spelling 3.29 .92

Ability to maintain positive media relations 3.29 1.26

21



Ability to work in moving vehicles 3.25 1.34

Knowledge of EEO & fair labor laws 3.24 1.15

Ability to lift using rope & pulley 3.18 1.24

Ability to facilitate instruction/discussion 3.18 .95

Ability to communicate in non-technical terms 3.12 .93

Skill in maintenance of SCBA 3.00 1.37

Ability to work in crowded conditions 3.00 .89

Knowledge of proper station-house inventory 2.94 1.25

Knowledge of EAP 2.88 .93

Knowledge of alarm systems .82 .88

Knowledge of fire investigation 2.76 .97

Skill in public speaking 2.65 .93

Knowledge of building and construction codes 2.41 .87

Knowledge of aerial ladder operations 2.35 .86

Knowledge of judicial processes 2.00 1.00

Knowledge of basic budgeting 1.00 .95

Knowledge of specification writing and purchasing 1.00 1.00

Appendix D. Criticality of KSAWCS — Ranked by Supervisors (N = 4)


Skill in operating fire fighting equipment 5.00 .00

Skill in maintenance and operation of pumps 5.00 .00

Skill in operation of basic life suppor t 5.00 .00

Knowledge of protective equipment 5.00 .00

Ability to prioritize tasks 5.00 .00

Normal or compensated color vision 5.00 .00

Depth perception 5.00 .00

Eye-hand coordination 5.00 .00

Physical dexterity 5.00 .00

Ability to bend, stretch and stoop 5.00 .00

Ability to coordinate movement 5.00 .00

Ability to expend shor t bursts of energy 5.00 .00

Ability to maintain physical exer tion 5.00 .00

Ability to maintain balance 5.00 .00

22

Appendix D. Criticality of KSAWCS — Ranked by Supervisors (N = 4) (continued)


Ability to work under adverse conditions 5.00 .00

Ability to recognize signs or symptoms 5.00 .00

Skill in operation of emergency vehicles 4.75 .50

Knowledge of ICS 4.75 .50

Technical knowledge 4.75 .50

Stress tolerance 4.75 .50

Judgment 4.75 .50

Ability to pull objects 4.75 .50

Ability to Lift and carry equipment 4.75 .50

Ability to deal with upset persons 4.75 .50

Knowledge of Depar tment policies 4.67 .58

Knowledge of County 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of emergency medical protocols 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of radio communication 4.50 .58

Knowledge of fire suppression 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of fire streams 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of salvage and overhaul 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of ropes and knots 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of water supply 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of ventilation 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of forcible entry 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of basic life suppor t 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of fire ground safety 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of rescue procedures 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of grass & open-range fires 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of building construction 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of hazardous gasses 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of flammable materials/combustible metals 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of fire behavior 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of elements of fire 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of fire gasses 4.50 1.00

Problem analysis 4.50 1.00

Ability to describe events orally 4.50 1.00

Ability to write accurate repor ts 4.50 1.00

Ability to observe and recall details 4.50 1.00

Ability to work in moving vehicles 4.50 1.00

Ability to work in crowded conditions 4.50 1.00

23



Ability to communicate orally 4.50 .58

Ability to interpret maps 4.50 1.00

Knowledge of EEO & fair labor laws 4.25 .96

Knowledge of proper lifting techniques 4.25 .96

Knowledge of standard operating guidelines 4.25 .96

Knowledge of hose practices 4.25 .96

Knowledge of por table extinguishers 4.25 .96

Knowledge of basic math 4.25 .96

Knowledge of hazardous materials 4.25 .96

Initiative 4.25 .96

Impact 4.25 .96

Ability to intercede in crisis situation 4.25 1.50

Ability to stand for extended periods 4.25 .96

Normal corrected far vision 4.25 .96

Normal corrected near vision 4.25 .96

Ability to read and comprehend 4.25 1.50

Knowledge of effective training techniques 4.00 1.15

Knowledge of defensive driving 4.00 1.00

Knowledge of automatic sprinkler systems 4.00 1.15

Knowledge of salvage and overhaul tools/techniques 4.00 1.15

Planning and organizing 4.00 1.15

Leadership 4.00 1.15

Improvement orientation 4.00 .82

Decisiveness 4.00 1.15

Ability to lift using rope & pulley 4.00 1.41

Skill in operation of computers 3.75 .96

Knowledge of proper repor t formats 3.75 1.50

Knowledge of memorandum of agreement 3.75 1.26

Knowledge of fire suppression 3.75 .96

Knowledge of related formulas and equations 3.75 .96

Management control 3.75 1.50

Human relations skills 3.75 1.50

Flexibility 3.75 1.50

Ability to perform risk/benefit analysis 3.75 1.50

Ability to express criticism constructively 3.75 1.50

Ability to communicate in writing 3.75 1.50

Skill in maintenance of SCBA 3.50 1.73

24



Knowledge of alarm systems 3.50 1.73

Knowledge of building and construction codes 3.50 1.29

Knowledge of English grammar 3.50 1.29

Ability to facilitate instruction/discussion 3.50 1.29

Ability to communicate in non-technical terms 3.50 1.29

Ability to compute basic formulas without calculator 3.50 1.29

Knowledge of inspection techniques 3.25 1.26

Knowledge of depar tment education standards 3.25 1.71

Knowledge of inter-agency agreements 3.25 1.71

Knowledge of correct spelling 3.25 1.26

Knowledge of high-rise fires 3.25 1.71

Ability to maintain positive media relations 3.25 1.50

Skill in public speaking 2.75 1.71

Knowledge of aerial ladder operations 2.75 1.50

Knowledge of proper station-house inventory 2.75 1.71

Knowledge of __________ County policies 2.50 1.73

Knowledge of EAP 2.50 1.73

Knowledge of judicial processes 2.25 .50

Knowledge of fire investigation 2.00 .82

Knowledge of basic budgeting 1.67 .58

Knowledge of specification writing and purchasing 1.00 .82

25

Notes 1 Richman, W L., & Quiñones, M. A. (1996). Task Frequency Rating Accuracy: The Effect of Task Engagement and Experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 512-524.

2 Butler, S K., & Harvey, R.J. (1988). A Comparison of Holistic Versus Decomposed Rating of Position Analysis Questionnaire Work Dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 41, 761-771. 3 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978); 43 Federal Register (August 25, 1978) 4 US. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (1991). Americans With Disabilities Act: Questions and Answers. 5 Veres, J G. III, Lahey, M. A., Buckley, R. (1987). Practical Rationale for Using Multi-method Job Analyses. Public Personnel Management, 16, 153-157. 6 Ash, R A. (1988). Job Analysis in the World of Work. In Gael (Ed.), The Job Analysis Handbook for Business, Industry, and Government, Vol. 1. 765-766. 7 Richman, W L., & Quiñones, M. A. 8 Cornelius, E T. III, & Lyness, K. S. (1980). A Comparison of Holistic and Decomposed Judgment Strategies in Job Analyses by Job Incumbents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 155-163. 9 Landy, F. J., & Vasey, J. 10 Richman, W. L., & Quiñones, M. A. 11 Cornelius, E. T. III, & Lyness, K. S. 12 Schmitt, N., & Cohen, S. A. (1989. Internal Analyses of Task Ratings by Job Incumbents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 96-104. 13 McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., & Mecham, R. C. (1972). Position Analysis Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5 6 , 347- 368. 14 Veres, J. G. III, Lahey, M. A., & Buckley, R. 15 Davis, C. P. III, Lundquist, D. G., Lookingbill, D. L., O’Leary, R. C., Kroon, B. A.,& McCarthy, W. M. (1977) Job Analysis Questionnaire, (2nd ed.). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Personnel. 16 Willihnganz, M. A., & Langan, S. A. (Eds.). (1993). WRIPAC Job Analysis Manual (2nd ed.). Western Regional Intergovernmental Personnel Assessment Council. 17 Guion, R. M. (1978). Scoring of content domain Samples: the Problem of Fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, P. 502.

26

18 Madden, J. M. (1962). The Effect of Varying the Degree of Rater Familiarity in Job Evaluation. Personnel Administration, 25, 42-46. 19 Smith, J. E., & Hakel, M. D. (1979). Convergence Among Data Sources, Response Bias, and Reliability and Validity of A Structured Job Analysis Questionnaire. Personnel Psychology, 32, 677-692. 20 Mullins, W. C., & Kimbrough, W. W. (1988). Group Composition as a Determinant of Job Analysis Outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 657-664. 21 Sanchez, J. I., & Fraser, Scott L. (1992). On the Choice of Scales for Task Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 545-553. 22 Sanchez, Juan I., Zamora, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (1977). Moderators of Agreement

Between Incumbent and Non-Incumbent Ratings of Job Characteristics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 209-218.

23 Wilson, M. A. (1997). The Validity of Task Coverage Ratings by Incumbents and Supervisors: Bad News. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 85-95. 24 Meyer, H. H. (1959). A Comparison of Foreman and General Foreman Conceptions of the Foreman’s Job Responsibilities. Personnel Psychology, 12, p. 445. 25 Jones, A. M. (1949). Job Evaluation of Nonacademic work at the University of Illinois. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 15-19 26 Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, Michael A. (1997). Social and Cognitive Sources of Potential Inaccuracy in Job Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 627-655. 27 Ibid. 28 According to Willihnganz & Langan. “(i)t is important to select SMEs who are either

(1) fully knowledgeable of the job classification being rated or (2) incumbents or supervisors of the class if it is a relatively small class of positions. It is important to emphasize to the SMEs that they should base their ratings on the typical or average position in the classification not just the position they occupy or supervise.” p. 32.

29 See for example: Davis, C. P. III, Lundquist, D. G., Lookingbill, D. L., O’Leary, R. C., & McCarthy, W. M. (1974) Job Analysis Guidelines. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Merit Employment Department (IMED), Examination Research and Development Section; and Willihnganz, M. A., & Langan, S. A. (Eds.). (1993).

30 Davis et al., 1974. 31 Willihnganz, M. A., & Langan, S. A. 32 Davis et al., 1974. 33 Davis, C. P. III, Lundquist, D. G., Lookingbill, D. L., O’Leary, R. C., Kroon, B. A.,& McCarthy, W. M. (1977) Job Analysis Questionnaire, (2nd ed.). Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Personnel.

27

34 Willihnganz, M. A., & Langan, S. A. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Davis, J. A. (1971), Elementary Survey Analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 38 Sanchez, Juan I., Zamora, A., & Viswesvaran, C. 39 Wilson, M. A. 40 Meyer, H. H. 41 Jones, A. M.

28

Authors Michael A. Mueller 1436 Woodrow Wichita, Kansas Mike Mueller is a Human Resource Management professional with over twenty years experience in public sector HRM. He is currently employed by Sedgwick County Government, Wichita, Kansas, where his contributions include work in public safety (police, fire, corrections, EMS, and emergency dispatch) recruitment, assessment and promotion.

Greg Belcher. Ph.D. Technical Education Department S21 Kansas Technology Center Pittsburg State University 1701South Broadway Pittsburg, KS 66762 Greg Belcher is an assistant professor in the Technical Education Department at Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, Kansas. His main duties consist of teaching Research Methods, Needs Assessment, Data Analysis and Curriculum Development. His doctorate degree was earned at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

observed divergence in the attitudes of incumbents and...

Documents