FLORIDA FIRE SERVICE July 2017 28 I t’s no secret that designing and administering useful performance evaluations is problematic for both the private and public sectors. Much too often, employee evaluations are heavily weighted on the subjective feelings of the manager administering the evaluation. Additionally, many organizations have created evaluation instruments that hold all employees to the same set of standards, rather than creating evaluations that capture the essence of the specific duties performed by each employee, or group of employees with similar job functions. It is difficult for an organization to be successful without some type of employee evaluation system. Hiring employees for highly skilled public safety positions is an expensive and time-consuming investment. Objectively measuring employee performance is a major way to protect that investment. Additionally, employees can benefit by getting feedback on their performance in “real time.” Unfortunately, the performance evaluation process has often become an exercise dreaded by both the employee and the employer. Oftentimes, performance evaluations are done only because the organization requires them to be done, and little thought and effort is involved in the process. In many cases, the evaluation documents are generic, and are used for all classes of employees. It’s not unusual to view a completed employee evaluation document with the majority of the evaluation criteria marked N/A. Although, this type of evaluation response requires very little time and commitment, it’s not very effective for measuring employee performance. Another major drawback of “pencil whipping” employee evaluations is the “down- the-road” legal liabilities that come with trying to terminate an employee for poor performance. This is especially so if the employee has a history of good evaluations. It is difficult to terminate an employee for poor performance when the employee has a history of receiving satisfactory, or even outstanding evaluations. If an organization is going to conduct evaluations to measure employee performance, they must do so in a manner that adds value to the process. Done correctly, employee evaluations are a year-round exercise in providing feedback and recalibrating employee goals and responsibilities. Simply conducting a pro forma yearly employee evaluation because it is required by the organization is looking for future troubles. Unfortunately, conducting valid and reliable employee performance evaluations of public sector employees can be a daunting task. In many cases, the parameters of the evaluation are laid out in the employee’s labor organization’s collective bargaining agreement. This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing; however, it can certainly be a hindrance in effectively evaluating employee performance. Another problematic area of public sector employee evaluations is that managers have a very narrow opportunity to reward superior performance. Public safety pay scales are spelled out in the municipality’s policies, the labor organization’s collective bargaining agreement, or a combination of both. Therefore, managers can only reward superior employees within the confines of those documents. This also holds true for issuing employee disincentives based on a poor performance evaluation. The lack of public sector performance evaluation flexibility, sometimes results in managers taking the relatively safe approach of By Dr. Eric Smith, EFO, Assistant Professor of Public Administration, Barry University July 2017 FFS.QXD 6/27/17 8:06 PM Page 28