the command officer performance appraisal: what is really

The Command Officer 1

Running head: THE COMMAND OFFICER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: WHAT IS

The Command Officer Performance Appraisal: What is Really Needed?

Edward M. Beirne

Metro West Fire Protection District, Wildwood, Missouri


CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is

set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the

language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed: ______________________________________________


Abstract

The problem was that the Metro West Fire Protection District did not have elements of

performance appraisal for command staff officers. The purpose of the research project was to

identify elements of performance appraisal for command staff officers. A descriptive research

methodology was used to answer the following research questions: What elements do other

public safety fire agencies use to evaluate command staff performance? What are the evaluative

parameters for commanding officer's performance in law enforcement agencies? How is

executive level performance appraised in private sector settings? A literature review, surveys,

and interviews showed that fire agencies use oral and written communications and expectations,

financial management skills, goals and objectives and leadership qualities, initiative, quality and

quantity of work and supervisory skills, the job description, knowledge of the job, and

professional development and education to appraise command officers. Law enforcement

utilized professionalism, knowledge and expertise, judgment and flexibility, management, and

leadership. Private corporations used goals and objectives, profit margins, leadership skills, and

communications to evaluate their executives. Recommendations resulting from this study

included establishing a command staff technical work group to review and prioritize the research

findings into evaluative parameters focusing on goals and objectives, leadership,

communications, professional development and organizational mission support. Further tasks

included development of a collaborative process that includes the fire chief and Board of

Directors to establish and approve goals and objectives for each officer, and development of a

draft template document and appraisal process that includes periodic monitoring for review and

approval by the Board of Directors.


Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………….........……….. 3

Table of Contents ………………………………………………...……………………… 4

Introduction …………………………………….……………....……………………….…8

Background and Significance ………....................…………….…………...….…..…….. 9

Literature Review ..............................................................................................................13

Procedures ………………………………...........……………….……………….……….22

Results ………………………………………..........…………….…………….…………25

Discussion ……………………………….......………………….…………….………….29

Recommendations …………………........…………………….…………….……………32

Reference List ...................................................................................................................34


Tables

Table 1: Parameters Used to Evaluate Performance...........................................................26

Table 2: Elements of an Effective Command Officer Appraisal, Metro West Officers....28


Figures

Figure 1: Agency Responses to the Presence of a Command Officer Appraisal...............25

Figure 2: Comments on the Performance Appraisal Process.............................................27


Appendixes

Appendix A: EFO Command Staff Survey-General Distribution.....................................40

Appendix B: Metro West Command Staff Survey............................................................41

Appendix C: Interview Questions and Responses for Captain Steve Lewis.....................42

Appendix D: Interview Questions and Responses for Michael W. Noonan......................45


The Command Officer Performance Appraisal: What is Really Needed?

Introduction

The abilities of a command officer to effectively manage, lead, and grow a public safety

organization are rooted in the inherent skills acquired through experience and education. As

such, there are varying levels of competence throughout the fire service. How an individual

progresses in enhancing and improving skills is a by-product of the analysis of real-time

knowledge of performance. This facet of self-development is the key attribute of the system

commonly referred to as employee performance appraisal.

Although appraisal systems are myriad throughout the private sector, there is an

inconsistent application within the public sector, generally relating to the fire service, and

specific within the ranks of command staff officers. As the paradigm shift of operational

philosophy for fire agencies to be managed from a business perspective trend increases, and the

knowledge that the average fire chief will only last three to five years (International Association

of Fire Chiefs [IAFC], 2012) in their position and capacity to manage, the need for a system of

appraisal is magnified. Recent demotions within the command staff at Metro West have

highlighted the need for a cogent system of performance expectations and appraisal.

The problem is that there are no elements of performance appraisal for command staff

officers within the Metro West Fire Protection District. Identifying performance appraisal

elements will likely improve command officer performance and likely reduce the organizational

impact of command staff demotions. The purpose of the research project is to identify elements

of performance appraisal for command staff officers. A descriptive research methodology will be

used to answer the following research questions: What elements do other public safety fire

agencies use to evaluate command staff performance? What are the evaluative parameters for


commanding officer's performance in law enforcement agencies? How is executive level

performance appraised in private sector settings?

Background and Significance

The Metro West Fire Protection District is located in the growth corridor of west St.

Louis County, Missouri. The fire district is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri and

an internationally accredited agency providing fire protection, advanced life support emergency

medical services with transport, fire prevention and education, plans review, emergency

management, and business continuity and disaster planning. These services are provided to

approximately 76,000 residents in the cities of Ballwin, Ellisville, Wildwood, and Clarkson

Valley, portions of Chesterfield, Winchester, and unincorporated St. Louis County from five

stations strategically located throughout the 57.5 square mile jurisdictional boundary. The fire

district staff is composed of 96 employees, 89 of which are sworn and is governed by a three

member, publically elected Board of Directors. The fire district has been providing service to

west St. Louis County since 1934.

The elements of employee evaluation have a long history within the Metro West Fire

District. Since 1970, there has been some type of evaluative system to gauge employee

performance. The initial system of evaluation was anchored by an arbitrary set of performance

parameters that were non-policy based. These parameters measured appearance, attitude,

courage, quality of work, initiative, dependability, physical condition, and attitude towards

officers and employees (M. Mantle, personal communication, October 12, 2012). The evaluation

was performed annually and was utilized as the basis for monetary increases for the rank of

private. A standard ranking scale of one through ten was applied to each category with the total


compared to a rating scale to determine if the employee fell within the numerical requirements

for a pay raise.

Beginning in 1985, this system was enhanced to include a performance evaluation of

captains and lieutenants, as well as modifying the grading parameters for the privates to include

rating anchors based on job descriptions (D. Cavin, personal communication, October 28, 2012).

Further, the resultant score was no longer the sole determinant in the suitability for pay increases;

this was now incorporated within a matrix of merit raises based on time at grade and the opinion

of the battalion chief. The evaluation process had become an exercise that identified areas of

strength, but weaknesses were often overlooked or ignored. The evaluation of the

aforementioned line officers was simply a narrative description by the battalion chief of tasks

completed throughout the evaluation period and an appraisal of emergency scene skills.

The evaluation system changed dramatically in 2002 when the employees of the recently

organized labor force requested modifications that better represented job performance and

requirements and a weighted rating scale linked to proportionate values of the job descriptions

for each category. This included the bargaining unit members of privates, lieutenants, and

captains. The initial goal of the new system was to capture those elements essential to

emergency services and begin an evaluation of leadership skills. The nexus of this system to

past iterations was the obvious lack of addressing underperforming employees, especially

officers who were not bargaining unit members. Since the initial change in 2002, there have

been five separate evaluation templates utilized for privates and line officers that produced either

a numerical average, a meets expectations rating, performs within job description, meets or

exceeds goals, or a blended compilation of these anchors. In each instance, the rating criteria

and performance anchors were worded in such a manner that each descriptive category was


vague enough to confuse the rater and cause artificially inflated scores (Grote, 2011). Further, an

identified organizational culture dissuaded an officer from negatively evaluating a private.

Throughout the evolution of performance appraisal templates, many issues continued to

cause rating errors. The overarching complaint from many of the raters was the lack of a true

indicator of performance. Because the rating anchors were developed without the inclusion of

job performance parameters, particularly a time or abilities based system of measurement and

comparison, the appraisal never was indicative of how an employee performed, only that they

could perform. In essence, the annual appraisal was a mere formality. Regardless of what

systems were developed, an influential group was always absent: the command staff.

The command staff of the Metro West Fire District consists of all chief officers. This

group totals seven members and collectively facilitates the direction of the district. In addition,

this group also has oversight of all financial expenditures. These responsibilities are clearly

detailed within each job description for the ranks of battalion chief through assistant chief. The

fire chief, as a political appointee, serves at the will of, and is a direct report to, the board of

directors.

The position of command staff officer for Metro West is demanding and is based on a

high degree of motivation and dedication. As an appointed position by the fire chief, each

individual demonstrates a high skill set and a proven record of accomplishment of performance

as a company officer. This area is the divergence point within the organization. Past

performance at the company officer level is measured and reported; command staff performance

is not.

There has never been an official tool of performance measurement for a command staff

officer within the organization. Individual officers are left to determine their career path for


success in relation to professional development, education, and goals and objectives. Absent any

official assignments or committee oversight, the assumption is that each chief officer is expected

to understand and choose their operating methods for organizational excellence. Shortcomings

in this area are shared through an informal communication process. This system of management

presents an adaptive challenge. There has been no attempt to address the issues of how to

measure and report underperforming executive officers. As outlined in the Thinking

Systemically module of the Executive Leadership course, an adaptive challenge can be analyzed

in a reverse fashion to link effects with causes (United States Fire Administration [USFA],

2012b). Recent reassignments within the command staff highlight this challenge and the need for

a system of communication and appraisal.

In developing an information analysis of the events prior to the realignment, several

factors contributed to the causal relationship of the command staff changes and shortcomings in

perceived performance. Each of these elements comprises a system that deals primarily with

structure and default responses (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009) that directly potentiates the

exposure of functional flaws (USFA, 2012b). Foremost in this analysis was the lack of a plan for

professional development and poor emergency scene management skills. Although these factors

were the primary determinants in the eventual outcome, they merely added to other issues that

were not addressed. Included in this list are repeated financial performance issues, project

continuity, a positional superiority viewpoint, task management workflow, and leadership skills.

The majority of these factors are measureable and knowledge of the degree of success in meeting

the expected performance standard would be a benefit in developing a plan for attainment.

As the degree of influence by the command staff of the Metro West Fire District on the

vitality and achievements of the organization is analyzed, the continuity of success is a derivative


of performance and evaluation. If these tasks are managed within the current system of delivery,

there can be an expectation of repeated history; this is not acceptable to those we serve.

Developing a true system of performance measurement for the executive fire officer is directly

parallel and relates to one of the United States Fire Administration’s strategic goals of

“improving the fire and emergency services’ professional status” (United States Fire

Administration [USFA], 2012a, p. II-2) by creating a culture of accountability and excellence.

The organizational benefits of an executive level appraisal system cannot be overemphasized.

When the advantages of true measurement and its resultant effects (Kondrasuk, 2011) are

examined, it is not unrealistic to expect a balance that positively influences both the command

staff officer and the organization.

Literature Review

The topic of performance appraisals provided a large, but general informational array.

Narrowing the search topic to executive performance, chief fire officer performance, command

law enforcement officer performance, and chief public safety officer and executive measurement

terms allowed the literature review to focus its vision in relation to the research questions. The

National Fire Academy’s Learning Resource Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland was utilized

during attendance of the Executive Leadership course in September 2012. Post-attendance

research continued at St. Louis University’s Pius XII Memorial Library in St. Louis, Missouri;

Webster University’s Emerson Library in Webster Groves, Missouri; and The University of

Missouri – St. Louis’ Thomas Jefferson Library in Normandy, Missouri. In addition to reference

materials obtained from these facilities, extensive internet searches were also performed.

The concept of evaluating employee performance has been a staple of management and

has been refined throughout the years since its debut during the Industrial Revolution


(Kondrasuk, 2011). In its base form, an appraisal during that epoch usually linked poor

performance to reactivity and punishment as a vehicle to motivate the employee to do better,

which equated to increasing manufacturing of product (Jreisat, 2011). As the nation developed,

a sense of understanding of how employees responded to tasking, workflow, and their

expectations from work was analyzed by Frederick Winslow to begin the framework for what we

now know as performance appraisal (Grubb, 2007). As these theories developed over the years,

an important distinction began to emerge that the analysis of employee performance should not

be solely punitive but used as a motivational tool that trended towards rewards for work

performed (Howard & Thomas, 2010). This concept is addressed directly by Douglas McGregor

in his 1960 seminal work on “theory Y” assumptions of motivations of the worker in that

“people are intrinsically motivated and value such things as responsibility and development”

(Brown, 2007, p. 348).

With the foundation for varied performance appraisal models laid, a basic definition of

the system goal is appropriate. Simply stated, a performance appraisal is the manager’s opinion

of an employee’s work presented to compare a judgment value (Grote, 2011). In this definition,

opinion can be further delineated to describe potential bias and emotion, experience, and

observation. These clarifications are the origins that begin to highlight challenges in

performance appraisal: what to measure and how (Hammer, 2007). As the systems of appraisal

began developing, the aforementioned challenges were addressed through detailed analysis of the

quantitative versus qualitative lens. Measurement in itself is objective and dictates that a value is

identifiable, finite, and fixed, therefore able to be evaluated against a known parameter (DelPo,

2007). In contrast, qualitative information poses a greater challenge as the choice of what to

measure is subjective in nature and greatly influenced by emotion, creating potential bias and


error (Gallagher, 2010). Regardless of the appraisal system utilized, the foundation begins with

measurement. The selection of what to measure and how is varied based on the environment and

structure of the organizational delivery platform. Private and public sector models, particularly

public safety, show a diverse array of processes to accomplish the measurement.

The private sector is defined as the part of the economy that is not state controlled, and is

run by individuals and companies for profit (Curtin, 2009). With the fact that the organization

exists to provide a profit to investors, the elements of appraisal and the methods and selection of

what to measurement are easily identified. Within the private setting, performance must be

defined based on the needs and the goals of the business. In most instances, this equates to a

numerical calculation that is evaluated against a causal model of outcomes, decidedly financial in

nature (Lebas & Euske, 2007). In many instances, the sole determinant of performance is the

amount of revenue realized. This evaluative model serves a purpose where quantitative results

are easily measured but proves challenging when human factors are considered (Brown, 2007).

When pondering the organizational value a dynamic leader provides, the methods of

measurement become a bit more arduous as the intangibles of leadership are difficult to measure

(Austin & Gittell, 2007). Clearly, the key to performance measurement in the arena of leadership

value lies in clearly defined parameters and outcomes (Dubnick & Yang, 2011). Using these

factors, the executive appraisal elements are now noted and evaluated in the quantitative as well

as qualitative setting against not only internal controls, but as noted by Likierman (2009),

exterior benchmarks. When examining the appraisal elements of leadership, it is incumbent of

the organization to place a detailed analysis of traits and attributes. These are the primary

determinants within the leadership scope influencing knowledge, skill, and abilities (KSA), and

therefore competencies (Murphy, 2010). Where competency is defined as the evolution of the


aforementioned KSA set, the relevance of clearly recognizing their influence on leadership

measurement is critical (Schippmann, 2010). Notwithstanding these measures, the private sector

executive is still held to a higher standard. As mentioned previously, this standard is difficult to

define and quantify. Another aspect that warrants discussion is the model of key performance

indicators (KPI).

KPI is a management model that addresses organizational goals and the level of success

when evaluated against pre-determined values or targets in an efficiency rating based on quantity

and scaled quality (Xavier, 2009). When KPI is analyzed, it appears similar to the other models

that leverage KSA of the executive derived from a detailed job analysis (Pidd, 2007). This is

partially true. Where KPI draws its strength is the defined relationship between goals and

outcomes, the knowledge of these targets, and the degree of attainment (Chawla & Chawla,

2010). From the executive’s point of view, regardless of the model used for analysis,

performance appraisal must begin with a comprehensive review of the evaluating parameters,

and “the behaviors that are defined in the job description and those that are defined by the

organization’s social context” (Kline & Sulsky, 2009, p. 164). In this latter context, culture is

driven by leadership and identifying the unwritten norms of the organization will greatly benefit

the private sector executive (Curtin, 2009).

The fabric of appraisal will certainly evolve with any organization, but the base model

must contain clear definitions of the behaviors and objectives being measured and a component

of chronological evaluation. When objectives for the appraisal period are set to be specific,

measureable, applicable to the position and the strategic plan, relevant to the goal being

attempted, and framed within a specific time period, they are easily tracked; this process is

known by the common acronym SMART (DelPo, 2007). Communication becomes a key


element within the process as many models incorporate periodic reviews, and where the

executive is concerned, a subordinate review of performance through a two-way appraisal

(Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2008). In many settings, the culmination of the appraisal and

the subordinate review results in a final process of the appraisal exercise, reward.

Result-based rewards or incentives within the private sector are the cornerstone of the

executive level appraisal process and must be considered when developing an evaluation

template (Gallagher, 2010). Profits drive the private sector; there is an expectation that a

proportionate level of reward will be linked to calculated attainment of a target goal for the

executive (Howard & Thomas, 2010).

Regional factors frequently influence the specific elements of private sector executive

appraisal. To gain specific insight into the practices of businesses within the St. Louis area,

Michael W. Noonan, Senior Manager of the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Account Management

section of Express Scripts, was consulted for his opinions on measuring executive level

performance and elements of the appraisal.

In most instances, an executive will be appraised through a team concept. The team is

held accountable for the goals that are set by the corporation that are financially anchored to a

gross profit margin that results in dividends for the stockholder. These goals are different from

business unit to business unit, but center on the strategies employed by the team executive that

will achieve success. The unique facet of appraisal in many team settings is the measuring

matrix. All business unit executives, which include the individual board members, are graded

together on a bell curve. The ratings range from top performer to below threshold.

Evaluating an executive in this fashion measures quantitative values, such as the

percentage of margin achieved, and the difficult qualitative values of leadership. Leadership


should be viewed as an outcome. If you know what the desired outcome for the executive is,

such as productivity, the human resource skills of dealing with people and communication,

coaching and mentoring, and most importantly the stresses of corporate life, a true picture of

leadership can be examined.

Knowing the facets of executive appraisal within private sector settings, an examination

of public sector practices will show parallels, differences, and challenges.

The public sector can be defined, particularly in the United States, as the areas of society

administered by national, state, and local governments concerning critical services such as

defense, law enforcement, and firefighting (Van Wart, 2011). These critical areas show a

surface parallel with the private sector in that outcomes are measureable in the lower and middle

ranks (Casey, Peck, Webb, & Quast, 2008). Although the supervisory levels have similar

challenges mirrored within business delivery platforms, Pidd’s (2007) observation notes a key

divergence point when considering accountability. The supervisory levels within our public

sector have a higher stake within evaluation due to the nature of the product delivered, safety and

security, and the cause and effect of sub-optimal performance (Salmoni, Hart, McPherson, &

Winn, 2010). With these factors highlighted, the public sector performance appraisal for an

executive begins to look very different based on the type of service provided.

Within the military community, exhaustive repetition and review procedures produce a

very clear and concise pattern of appraisal. Knowing that the leadership capabilities of officers

are directly responsible for battlefield success, the precepts of leader behavior must be defined,

although a parallel exists across both private and public spectrum in that “the higher the echelon,

the less clear the leadership precepts become” (Ulmer, Jr., 2010, p. 141). As leadership is

essential, but difficult to measure, a central tenet within strategic leadership deals in three general


areas: style of management, interpersonal skills, and cognitive abilities (Salmoni et al., 2010).

Where cognitive abilities are concerned, a direct correlation to the adaptive leadership model

developed by Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky (2009) is noted. Battalion and brigade commanders

described stepping outside of events and “intellectual processes to observe in real time how they

and other officers learned as going up onto the balcony” (Salmoni et al., p. 73). These

qualitative measuring boundaries show a firm grasp on how to analyze the concept of leadership

performance.

Communication skills are an important evaluative element for the military commander

and must emphasize clear concise messaging and a noted strength in writing ability (Mann,

2011). Additionally, when strength in communications is high, the element of development and

mentoring evolves and becomes the key component of interpersonal relationships (Mann). As

these skills are developed, a natural transition to the examination of managerial style becomes

evident. Those leaders who mentor and communicate at high levels consistently rate higher

marks in measured leadership on officer appraisal templates (Ulmer, Jr., 2010). Although

similar in mission, the law enforcement branch of public sector government has a different

viewpoint when considering how to rate superiors. The understanding of performance appraisal

parameters in the context of the military model is useful when examining appraisal of

supervisors within the law enforcement community.

The perspectives of appraisal methods for supervisory personnel in a law enforcement

setting are varied and somewhat guarded. Knowing this, to gain an internal operational

framework of measurement, Captain Steve Lewis of the Chesterfield, Missouri Police

Department was consulted. Captain Lewis and Chesterfield Police were selected for this

interview based on the demographics of agency and community in relation to the Metro West


Fire Protection District. Each agency has a similar population, supervisor to subordinate ratio at

the command level and similar numbers of employees. Generally, each police agency

determines the areas of evaluation and the methods for measuring. In many instances, there is a

definitive link of success in performance measurement and a reduction in crime. Since these

factors are primarily statistical in nature with calculation and analysis later, the present

evaluation period will always reflect a lag in crime data. When the job performance

requirements of a supervisor are grouped into general categories, five areas of evaluation result:

professionalism, knowledge and expertise, judgment and flexibility, management, and

leadership. Each of these areas bases their value and ratings anchors within skill sets,

communication effectiveness and productivity of subordinates, vision, and planning. There is

wide latitude given to the evaluator in determining the rating of the behavior anchor and

significant narrative support is required when the employee does not meet expectations. Overall,

appraisal for supervisors is graded on how well they manage their subordinates and their

productivity, and how effective they are as leaders.

In contrast to law enforcement, fire service agencies have a unique challenge when you

begin to evaluate measuring parameters. Many agencies have eliminated routine performance

appraisals due to the limited value they provide for the employees (Willing, 2010). When

considering this fact, there would be no expectation that an appraisal would be feasible for a

command level officer in those agencies. In agencies where an appraisal does exist, consistent

with the definition found in the private sector, it becomes a formal interaction and discussion on

work performance with a tendency to ascertain strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for

development (Bruegman, 2012). From an organizational standpoint, the fundamental tenet of

appraisal concerning fire service agencies is its focus on accountability. Particularly where


administrators are concerned, accountability is commensurate with goals and objectives, both

personal and organizationally (Edwards, 2010). As noted previously, another challenge in

measurement deals with leadership. As a qualitative element, measurement must be based on a

clearly delineated process and defined outcomes specific to the leadership elements being

evaluated and not a tendency towards opinions or perceptions (Buckman, III, 2008).

The processes and elements of executive appraisal must be embraced culturally by the

fire service to be considered a tool for development and accountability. A primary vehicle for

this task is rooted within the common appraisal tool of the 360-degree evaluation. This process

ensures that all persons who interact with the command officer are given the opportunity to

provide feedback (Swinhart, 2008). The weighting given to the data from subordinates,

colleagues, and superiors must be analyzed by each organization for the process to have value

and ensure genuine feedback (Gayk, 2011). In light of the legitimacy of even performing an

appraisal as noted by Willing (2010), fire service executives and their governing bodies must be

cognizant that the process is valid. The analytical components of evaluation, communication, and

managerial skills within job performance requirements and leadership with labor management

relations, is a requisite performance requirement within executive fire officer standards (National

Fire Protection Association [NFPA], 2009).

The literature review provided a range of informative answers to the research questions.

In regards to analyzing what other public safety fire agencies use to evaluate command officers,

the available published data is weighted towards the general appraisal of performance for

firefighters. Although several authors noted ancillary evaluation parameters that could be

applied to a command officer, specifically the utilization of defined goals and objectives and a

delineated process that highlights expectations and outcomes, additional data specific to


command officers will be beneficial in this study. Performance evaluation within the law

enforcement setting equates to measures of success in reducing crime and displaying skills in

management, leadership, judgment, professionalism and knowledge. The information acquired

from the interview with Captain Steve Lewis was beneficial to the study as published data was

sparse. Where executive level performance in the private sector is concerned, the published data

was voluminous and shows a definitive link with value; value added as an increase in profits and

production. The executive in the private setting is held accountable for achieving mutually

agreeable goals in an established period. These goals frequently have a financial component and

rewards are the norm. The interview with Michael W. Noonan benefitted the study as a specific,

regional perspective of executive appraisal and viewpoints on performance reinforced that

discovered within the published documents.

The literature review influenced the scope and direction of the study by identifying the

need for more data targeted towards the elements used to evaluate command staff performance

within the fire service. The procedures for the study will address the need for further data

collection in the aforementioned area.

Procedures

A literature review began during attendance of the Executive Leadership course from

September 24, 2012 through October 5, 2012. The National Fire Academy’s Learning Resource

Center provided a comprehensive collection of industry-specific materials pertaining to fire

department administration, human resources, employee evaluations, and leadership topics.

Various search terms, such as “executive performance, chief fire officer performance, command

law enforcement officer performance, and chief public safety officer and executive

measurement” were used to guide the on-campus search. Additional research and literature


review continued post-attendance at St. Louis University’s Pius XII Memorial Library during

October of 2012, Webster University’s Emerson Library in Webster Groves, Missouri during

November of 2012, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis’ Jefferson Library in Normandy,

Missouri during December of 2012. The fifth edition of the Publication Manual of the American

Psychological Association was used to document references and citations throughout this

research study.

The analysis of the literature review provided direction as to the need for more specific

data in the areas of command officer evaluation from fire and law enforcement agencies.

Further, as executive level appraisal within the private sector is well documented, a narrower

focus on the regional aspects of executive appraisal was needed. Obtaining this data was

accomplished through the design of two survey instruments and interviews with Captain Steve

Lewis and Michael W. Noonan.

A survey instrument for general fire department distribution was designed to obtain data

on the presence of, and the elements of an executive appraisal (Appendix A). This survey was

designed using a web-enabled survey solution from formstack.com. The survey and its link were

requested for inclusion to the National Society of Executive Fire Officers (NSEFO) mail list and

the United States Fire Administration’s Training and Data Exchange Network (TRADENET) on

February 4, 2013. At the time of the requests, NSEFO had 839, and TRADENET 38,258

registered members respectively.

A survey instrument for all Metro West Command Staff members was designed to obtain

data on the need for appraisal and the elements of an effective appraisal. This survey (Appendix

B), designed again by formstack.com, was distributed to all seven chief officers by inter-

department electronic mail on February 4, 2013.


The opinions on executive appraisal within law enforcement were sparse in the literature

review. Specific data within this realm of public safety was obtained from Captain Steve Lewis

of the Chesterfield, Missouri Police Department. Captain Lewis was contacted by telephone on

February 4, 2013 to ascertain the best method of conducting a brief interview. Due to schedule

loads, the decision to conduct the interview via electronic mail was made. The narrative

questions (Appendix C) sought data on elements of supervisory performance review in law

enforcement. The questions were included in the body of an electronic mail message sent on

February 5, 2013.

The elements of executive appraisal in the private sector discovered in the literature

review were voluminous and covered a wide spectrum of measurement. A focused, regional

aspect of executive performance was obtained from Michael W. Noonan, Senior Manager of the

Pharmaceutical and Biotech Account Management section of Express Scripts. Mr. Noonan was

contacted by telephone on January 29, 2013 to determine the best method of conducting an

interview. Due to frequent travel and schedule loads, the decision to conduct the interview by

electronic mail was made. The narrative questions (Appendix D) sought data on how executives

are appraised and what is used to measure performance. The questions were included in the

body of an electronic mail message sent on February 5, 2013.

Survey returns were closed on March 4, 2013, and tabulation, analysis, and charting were

performed using Microsoft Excel.

The limitations to the procedures set forth for this study include the potential of low

return rate from the survey instruments or incomplete surveys, resulting in the potential of

sampling bias (Leedy & Ormond, 2012). Further, potential self-report data within the Metro

West command staff officer survey is noted. Although each of the survey responses was


delivered anonymously through a third party web server, all of the command staff officers were

aware of the subject matter of this research study. As the components questions dealt with

command staff performance, there is the potential that some of the respondents may have

answered as to what they believe the researcher wanted to hear (Creswell, 2009).

Results

Analysis of the returned surveys was used in developing and refining answers to the

research questions. In analyzing returns as to the use of command officer performance

appraisals, the evaluative parameters used, and general comments on the appraisal system, the

number of surveys returned was 83. The distribution audience for the survey was calculated at

39,097 using figures supplied by the USFA and NSEFO. This reflects a return rate of 0.002%.

Of the returned surveys, 46% of the respondents do not perform an appraisal of command

officers (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Responses of fire agencies (n=83) as to whether command officers receive a performance

appraisal.

__________________________________________________________________________


Of the agencies that reported an appraisal process for command officers, 40 of the

respondents provided examples of the evaluating parameters within their processes. 17% use

oral and written communications and expectations, 8% financial management skills, 35% use

goals and objectives and leadership qualities, 15% utilize initiative, quality and quantity of work

and supervisory skills, 30% use the job description, 25% use knowledge of the job, and 22% use

professional development and education to appraise command officers (see Table 1).

Table 1

Parameters Used to Evaluate Performance (n=40)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Parameter Number of Responses

Communications (Oral and Written) 7

Expectations 7

Financial Management 3

Goals and objectives 14

Initiative 6

Job Description 12

Job Knowledge 10

Leadership 14

Professional Development & Education 9

Quality and Quantity of Work 6

Supervisory Skills 6

_____________________________________________________________________________


Comments on the performance appraisal process were noted on 42% of the surveys

returned. Of the agencies providing information, 31% feel the process is effective, 11% noted

the form is generic and not applicable to the fire service, 43% feel the process is not effective,

9% feel the appraisal is subjective, and 6% report that training in providing appraisals is needed.

The notation and weight of appraisal non-effectiveness should be classified as relevant and

unexpected within this study (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Comments (n=35) on the performance appraisal process for command officers.

__________________________________________________________________________

Seven surveys were returned from Metro West command staff officers. This represents a

100% return rate. In regards to the elements of an effective command officer appraisal, 29% of

the surveys noted goals and objectives, and training and competency. Communications,

financial and project management, leadership and supervision, mission support, and professional

development and education were noted on 43% of the responses (see Table 2).


Table 2

Elements of an Effective Command Officer Appraisal, Metro West Officers (n=7)

________________________________________________________________________

Element Number of Responses

Communications 3

Financial/Project Management 3

Goals and Objectives 2

Leadership and Supervision 2

Mission Support 3

Professional Development & Education 3

Training and Competency 2

Within the law enforcement community, as noted in the interview responses (Appendix

C) by Captain Steve Lewis, supervisors are appraised by the evaluative parameters of

professionalism, knowledge and expertise, judgment and flexibility, management, and

leadership. Sub-categories of measurement include appearance and attendance, job description,

oral and written communications, planning, unit productivity and morale.

Specific private sector executive appraisal processes, outlined in the interview responses

(Appendix D) by Michael W. Noonan, note that target goals tied to a financial dividend are the

primary means of determining performance. Additionally, other areas of evaluation include

leadership traits viewed as outcomes, production, supervisory skills, and coaching and

mentoring.


Discussion

The findings of the study are based on an inferential analysis of data, are influenced by

the low return rate in the survey instrument, and may produce sampling bias (Leedy & Ormond,

2012). The value of performance appraisal across both public and private sectors is evident in

analysis of the survey returns and the interviews. When viewed through the lens of the private

corporation, the appraisal is used as a motivational tool for rewards and attainment (Howard &

Thomas, 2010). As noted in the interview with Mr. Noonan, the value of his unit is a direct

result of the performance of his team and their organizational goals. As noted by Hammer

(2007), many of the nuances of performance within a team are difficult to measure, especially

where leadership is concerned. When analysis of leadership is broken down into measurable

traits, the task of appraisal gains credibility and acceptance. In essence, the process transitions a

qualitative factor into a quantitative value (DelPo, 2007). Again, the intangibles of leadership

are difficult to measure due to organizational culture that essentially shifts each quarter based on

the profit and loss reports. The only true method to define what to measure is to identify what is

desired in an outcome (Austin & Gittell, 2007) and rely heavily on the requisite competencies

and traits of an executive (Murphy, 2010). There is a correlation noted in the value of leadership

in both private sector and the data sets. Leadership is noted to be the most frequent element of

appraisal in the general fire department survey and a significant component in the Metro West

data set.

The public sector seems to embrace the need for appraisal but also disparages the

process. This is evident in the fact that nearly half of the respondents do not evaluate their

command staff, and of those, 43% feel the process is ineffective. When we evaluate the

importance and contributions of an executive fire officer, this statistic is alarming, although not


surprising as the performance appraisal for firefighters has been shown to be of limited value

(Willing, 2010). The task of performance appraisal is noted to be challenging within the data set

and this observation is noted across all spectrums, especially when the additional factors of

training on how to appraise are considered (Salmoni et al., 2010).

The primary elements of performance appraisal noted within both the data sets center on

goals and objectives and performance indicators (Xavier, 2009). Of particular interest is the

application of the system of KPI. There appears to be a direct relationship of KPI to the

command officer and a system of mutually agreed upon outcomes (Chawla & Chawla, 2010).

Enhancing the value of a KPI-based system is the overwhelming presence of the job description

as an evaluative parameter. This was noted in nearly one-third of the general distribution

responses, solidifying this facet as a valid indicator of performance. When the benefits of this

system are analyzed against the data sets, there appears to be a parallel application that

inferentially occurs within current appraisal systems.

Any system that evaluates executive performance must utilize anchors that address

communications and accountability. Where communications are concerned, the degree of

success in oral skills is important, but the written word carries great value as well and must be a

component (Mann, 2011). Again, these tenets are prominent in both data sets. In any

organization, accountability is essential to gauge performance, but also to set parameters for

success and establish baselines and benchmarks (Edwards, 2010).

There are clear congruencies with the information analyzed from both of the surveys, the

interviews, and the literature review. This leads the researcher to interpret that the results have

valid applications. There are several cautions that must be noted. Initially, the quest for

information from the law enforcement perspective was sparse. The study benefitted greatly from


the interview with Captain Lewis, but this is one agency perspective. It does align, generally,

with the results seen from the surveys. Where results are concerned, there are a myriad number

of ways to measure performance, and these are based on the intricacies of the organization,

regardless of delivery platform.

One of the clear surprises from the data analysis is the number of agencies who perform

an appraisal, but note that it is ineffective. Interestingly, many of those ineffective appraisals

note their measuring and evaluating parameters. Regardless of the situation or reasons for the

process not producing desired results, this information is vital for transitioning to a formal

model. Assessing the ineffective measures with specificity focused on the organization will

produce a grade for the perceived benefits of inclusion in a formal process. Additionally, the

notation of communications in all findings is significant. There appears to be a prevalent

viewpoint that communications are a benefit to the process as well as a detriment. This

dichotomous relationship is certainly not unique to any single agency, but when majority

viewpoints show that both oral and written communications are important to any appraisal

process, the value placed on this element is magnified.

Although the appraisal process has been noted to have a limited value in a significant

number of respondents, the research points to substantial data that supports the effectiveness of

the process when it is anchored to goals and objectives. Establishing these goals and objectives

is a direct by-product of effective communications and closes the loop on one of the perceived

roadblocks in the process. If the appraisal process is truly of limited value, why is it continued?

Each organization must answer that question based on their culture and governance, but perhaps

a solution lies in the mission. If goals and objectives are well researched and linked with

organizational goals, the appraisal process becomes not only a personal evaluation, but also a


snapshot of the organization. Particularly where accountability is analyzed, the value of

performance appraisal cannot be minimized. The validity of the various methods employed in

the private sector has direct applications to the fire service. When we are faced with a decrease

in operating revenue, any system that highlights positive performance must be embraced, as

accountability equates to clarity in operations.

The implications of this research study for the Metro West Fire Protection District lie in

the current practices and personnel. The recent realignment of the command staff produced the

desired results, a return to administrative stability. However, success at this level is based on the

initiative, time management skills, multi-tasking capabilities, and abilities of each command staff

officer. While this system showed flaws as evidenced by the realignment, it was based on an

employee’s failure to produce. It can be argued that an appraisal system may have benefitted

this situation, but the current practice is open for examination. The study produced data that

must be analyzed for best practices and caution is advised moving forward as the transition to a

formalized program will be difficult. These obstacles are navigable if the prudent use of a

collaborative communication model that involves the command staff and the governing body is

applied. Success in this endeavor will be realized when all parties evaluate the needs of each

officer and the organization to develop attainable and realistic outcomes that are continually

monitored.

Recommendations

The results highlighted in this applied research project lead the researcher to conclude

that there are opportunities for improvement in the Metro West Fire District’s process of

command staff performance appraisal in the areas of evaluative parameters and communications.

The following recommendations are offered for achieving these levels of improvement:


1. Establish a command staff technical work group to review the research findings.

2. Prioritize the findings into evaluative parameters that focus on goals and objectives,

leadership, communications, professional development and organizational mission

support.

3. Develop a collaborative process with the fire chief to establish goals and objectives for

each command staff officer.

4. Develop a collaborative process for mutual agreement of goals and objectives that

includes the Board of Directors.

5. Develop a draft template document that incorporates the aforementioned prioritized

evaluative parameters.

6. Develop an appraisal process that includes the draft template document and periodic

monitoring for review and approval by the Board of Directors.

Recommendations for future researchers interested in replicating this study are based in

the difficulties experienced in validating data. A tremendous effort was expended in

categorizing the responses from the surveys into generalized topics for analysis. This burden

could have been reduced using a multiple choice, check box format in the survey. With this said,

the researcher’s choice of a narrative system was intended to reduce the presence of bias by

allowing the respondents to freely provide their opinions to the research questions and not what

the researcher provided as choices.


References

Austin, R., & Gittell, J. H. (2007). Anomalies of measurement: When it works, but should not. In

A. Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement: Unifying theories and integrating

practice (pp. 449-475). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, A. (2007). Measuring the performance of England’s primary school teachers: Purposes,

theories, problems and tensions. In A. Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement:

Unifying theories and integrating practice (pp. 339-360). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Bruegman, R. R. (2012). Advanced fire administration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Buckman, J. M., III (2008). Evaluating performance the right way. Fire Engineering, 161(8),

22+. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from

http://www.fireengineering.com/content/fe/en/articles/print/volume-161/issue-

8/departments/training-notebook/evaluating-performance-the-right-way.html

Casey, W., Peck, W., Webb, N. J., & Quast, P. (2008). Are we driving strategic results or metric

mania?: Evaluating performance in the public sector. International Public Management

Review, 9(2), 90-106. Retrieved October 13, 2012 from

http://www1.imp.unisg.ch/org/idt/ipmr.nsf/ac4c1079924cf935c1256c76004ba1a6/27f310

8114a5db55c12574e4004ed3ea/$FILE/Casey,%20Peck,%20Webb%20&%20Quast_IPM

R_Volume%209_Issue%202.pdf

Chawla, V., & Chawla, A. (2010). Performance appraisal: A key to human resource assessment

and development. Asia Pacific Journal of Research in Business, 1(1), 132-142. Retrieved

November 2, 2012, from http://www.skirec.com/images/download/vol-1-issue-1-

%20final/vol-1-issue-1-art-9.pdf


Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curtin, J. L. (2009, Fall). Values exchange leadership: Using management by objectives

performance appraisals to improve performance. Leadership Review, 9, 66-79.

DelPo, A. (2007). The performance appraisal handbook: Legal & practical rules for managers

(2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Dubnick, M. J., & Yang, K. (2011). The pursuit of accountability: Promises, problems, and

prospects. In D. C. Menzel & H. L. White (Eds.), The state of public administration:

Issues, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 171-183p. ). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Edwards, S. T. (2010). Fire service personnel management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

Gallagher, S. J. (2010). Linking individual performance appraisals with department outcomes:

Does the type of individual performance appraisal system influence departmental

performance? (Masters Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010).

Retrieved December 14, 2012, from

http://www.mpa.unc.edu/sites/www.mpa.unc.edu/files/SeanGallagher.pdf

Gayk, R. (2011, June). A means of motivation: If done right, performance evaluations can be

extremely helpful-not hurtful. Fire Rescue Magazine, 62-63.

Grote, D. (2011). How to be good at performance appraisals: Simple, effective, done right.

Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Grubb, T. (2007). Performance appraisal reappraised: It’s not all positive. Journal of Human

Resource Education, 1(1), 1-22.

Hammer, M. (2007). The 7 deadly sins of performance measurement. Growth, 35(3), 80-82.


Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and

tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2008). Management of organizational behavior:

Leading human resources (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Howard, A., & Thomas, J. N. (2010). Executive and managerial assessment. In J. C. Scott & D.

H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of workplace assessment: Evidence-based practices for

selecting and developing organizational talent (pp. 395-436). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

International Association of Fire Chiefs (2012). IAFC to prepare the next generation of fire

service leaders with support from Motorola Solutions Foundation: New executive

institute will provide executive development, leadership training taught by seasoned

chiefs, based on real world situations. Retrieved January 18, 2013, from

http;//www.iafc.org/Media/PressReleaseDetails.cfm?ItemNumber=6137&RDtoken=8631

&userID=21666

Jreisat, J. (2011). Governance. In D. C. Menzel & H. L. White (Eds.), The state of public

administration: Issues, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 424-436). Armonk, NY: M.E.

Sharpe.

Kline, T. J., & Sulsky, L. M. (2009). Measurement and assessment issues in performance

appraisal. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 161-171.

Kondrasuk, J. N. (2011). So what would an ideal performance appraisal look like?. Journal of

Applied Business and Economics, 12(1), 57-71.


Lebas, M., & Euske, K. (2007). A conceptual and operational delineation of performance. In A.

Neely (Ed.), Business performance measurement: Unifying theories and integrating

practice (pp. 125-139). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormond, J. E. (2012). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.).

Boston: Pearson.

Likierman, A. (2009, October). The five traps of performance measurement. Harvard Business

Review, 87(10), 96-101.

Mann, P. G. (2011). Breaking the mold: Identifying and developing top talent using a new officer

evaluation. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-

bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA545254

Murphy, K. R. (2010). Individual differences that influence performance and effectiveness: What

should we assess?. In J. C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of workplace

assessment: Evidence-based practices for selecting and developing organizational talent

(pp. 3-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Fire Protection Association. (2009). NFPA 1021: Standard for fire officer professional

qualifications. Quincy, MA: Author.

Pidd, M. (2007). Perversity in public service performance measurement. In A. Neely (Ed.),

Business performance measurement: Unifying theories and integrating practice (pp. 408-

429). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Salmoni, B. A., Hart, J., McPherson, R., & Winn, A. K. (2010). Growing strategic leaders for

future conflict. Parameters (Spring 2010), 72-88. Retrieved December 13, 2012, from


http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/2010spring/40-1-

2010_salmoniEtAl.pdf

Schippmann, J. S. (2010). Competencies, job analysis, and the next generation of modeling. In J.

C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of workplace assessment: Evidence-based

practices for detecting and developing organizational talent (pp. 197-229). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Swinhart, D. J. (2008, August). 360-degree performance evaluation. Fire Engineering, 161(8),

123-125.

Ulmer, W. F., Jr. (2010). Military leadership into the 21st century: Another bridge too far.

Parameters (Winter 2010), 135-155. Retrieved December 13, 2012, from

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/2010winter/Ulmer_Jr.pdf

United States Fire Administration (2012a). Executive fire officer program: Operational policies

and procedures. Retrieved October 12, 2012, from

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/efop_guidelines.pdf

United States Fire Administration. (2012b). Executive Leadership: EL student manual (6th ed.).

Emmitsburg, MD: Author.

Van Wart, M. (2011). Changing dynamics of administrative leadership. In D. C. Menzel & H. L.

White (Eds.), The state of public administration: Issues, challenges, and opportunities

(pp. 89-103). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Willing, L. F. (2010). Performing better employee evaluations. Fire Engineering, 163(8), 115+.

Retrieved November 14, 2012, from

http://www.fireengineering.com/content/fe/en/articles/print/volume-163/issue-

8/Features/performing-better-employee-evaluations.html


Xavier, J. A. (2009). Establishing key performance indicators for the senior echelons of the

public service. Journal Excellence, 1(1), 18-37. Retrieved October 27, 2012, from

http://www.mampu.gov.my/pdf/penerbitan/buku/journal_excellence/files/journal_excelle

nce_low.pdf


Appendix A

EFO Command Staff Survey-General Distribution

http://www.formstack.com/forms/?1389179-ieOwjSQ787


Appendix B

Metro West Command Staff Survey

http://www.formstack.com/forms/?1390093-DHqgGWAwNM


Appendix C

Interview Questions and Responses for Captain Steve Lewis

I am working on an applied research project as a component of my Executive Fire Officer

Program through the National Fire Academy. My project is an examination of command officer

performance appraisals. Specifically, I am trying to determine what elements should comprise

an appraisal of an executive level officer. As an executive officer within the law enforcement

community, I would like your professional input. I have two questions that I would appreciate

your thoughts on regarding the topic of appraisals:

1. Are command level officers appraised within the law enforcement community?

2. What evaluative parameters are used to measure performance?

Thank you for reviewing the questions and your responses. Please contact me if you have

any questions.

Edward M. Beirne Assistant Chief, Fire & EMS Services Metro West Fire Protection District P.O. Box 310 Wildwood, MO 63040 Office: (636) 821-5801 Fax: (636)458-2199 Cell: (636) 262-3301


Interview Responses from Captain Steve Lewis

Command officers are somewhat of a misnomer within the law enforcement field. Our

structures are a bit different from what you would see within a fire agency like yours, but what

you classify as a command officer is usually designated as a supervisor. That’s what we use here

in Chesterfield. Each level of supervisory rank, for example Sergeant, Captain, Colonel, or

Chief of Police would be graded on a similar scale. Therefore, the answer to the initial question

is yes, police supervisors are appraised.

How the supervisors are appraised varies from agency to agency and is generally a

product of input from our elected leaders and standards established by the state and county. I can

only speak to the process here in Chesterfield, but I do know it is similar to other departments

here in the area. We use a numeric grading scale that rates each measuring area as performance

above standard, satisfactory performance (meets standards), or performance needs improvement.

The major areas of measurement for a supervisor are professionalism, knowledge and expertise,

judgment and flexibility, management, and leadership.

Within each of these areas are sub-categories that further define the desired behaviors.

When evaluating professionalism, appearance and attendance along with adherence to

procedures and public contacts are the major areas. The knowledge and expertise section looks

at how we perform our jobs based on the description, our oral and written communication skills,

and our vision, foresight and planning talents. Judgment and flexibility, and management are

basically neutral and left to the evaluator to determine performance within the section.


Where we see the most impact and influence on our responsibilities is the leadership

section. This is where we are measured against other units in the department through the

productivity of our subordinates. Because crime influences our actions, the amount of citizen

complaints we address, number of arrests, citations, and investigations all play into a numeric

matrix for our appraisal as a supervisor. Quantity and quality of the unit’s production are

evaluated to determine the leadership value. Also analyzed in this category are the initiatives

and ideas implemented and the responsibility for the morale of the unit. Each section has a

narrative portion that supports the score given; high and low scores must have an associated

explanation for the score which is used as the basis for an improvement plan. The process is

performed annually and meets the needs of our department.


Appendix D

Interview Questions and Responses for Michael W. Noonan

I am working on an applied research project as a component of my Executive Fire Officer

Program through the National Fire Academy. My project is an examination of command officer

performance appraisals. Specifically, I am trying to determine what elements should comprise

an appraisal of an executive level officer. As a human resources executive within the corporate

community, I would like your professional input. I have two questions that I would appreciate

your thoughts on regarding the topic of appraisals:

1. How is executive level performance appraised within the corporate community?

2. What evaluative parameters are used to measure performance?

Thank you for reviewing the questions and your responses. Please contact me if you

have any questions.

Edward M. Beirne Assistant Chief, Fire & EMS Services Metro West Fire Protection District P.O. Box 310 Wildwood, MO 63040 Office: (636) 821-5801 Fax: (636)458-2199 Cell: (636) 262-3301


Interview Responses from Michael W. Noonan

Executive level employees within my corporation have a similar grading scale, based on

the unit they are assigned within. Each unit, whether it is managed care, pharmaceutical,

managed benefits or supply chain for either commercial or military client contract, has a CEO

and team, usually consisting of an executive vice president and general manager with several

vice presidents for each of the subordinate divisions. The CEO and his executive team receive a

target goal that is developed through our financial division. As you can imagine, that goal is a

number that represents a gross profit margin that allows a dividend to be distributed to our

stockholders. Each division’s vice president agrees to five or six goals, one of them being the

target amount of profit margin they will deliver and then develops a strategy to meet the goals

that he or she had agreed to deliver.

Regardless of what unit an executive works in, we happen to have five different units of

business, they are all graded together. Let me explain. Each executive from the CEO all the way

down to the senior manager level (which is my position) are grouped together at years end. This

also includes board of directors. A measuring matrix is employed that looks like a bell curve.

The segments of our bell curve determine performance based on statistics from the past year.

We use a scale of top performer, target, threshold, and below threshold. The below threshold

employees are terminated, threshold employees are coached for better performance and basically

put on notice for potential future termination if results are not improved. The target and top

performer employees are rewarded for goal attainment by contractual terms i.e. pay.

The parameters we use in my company to evaluate an executive fall in line with the

degree of success in delivering on the mutually agreed goals I spoke of earlier. Just like any


other company, leadership is very important but also hard to measure. I like to look at leadership

not through the lens of a number, but more of an outcome. It is easier to see if a person is

leading their division by how it produces, how the supervisor handles people, the daily stresses

of corporate life, and in my case, how effective are they with coaching and mentoring. In

essence, the appraisal can be whatever you make it, but the true value I see in it, and that I share

with my people, is the mutual goal setting and the inward reflection. I ask everyone to really be

honest and identify where or what they can do better. This self-reflection develops analytical

skills to make you better and ultimately empowers the employee to be directly involved in their

success.

One final thought on this topic is important from my perspective and that deals with

efforts and actions. On my side of the business, I am expected to deliver results. I expect the

same from my team. I preach that every action we take as that team must be focused on our

business plan and operating philosophy. I build my goals off that plan and I think that

everything you do for your business should be traced back to the plan; otherwise, your actions

may not be aligned with the vision of the organization.

Those are my thoughts on appraisal at an executive level. I hope these replies assist you

in your research study.

the command officer performance appraisal: what is really

Documents