FORMAL AND INFORMAL COMMUNICATIONS What is working well?

Open Door Policy

 Ability to go directly to the chief, if you desire, or speak to anyone in the department

 Command staff have open doors – they will help you if you have a problem Meetings

 Regular meetings

 Some groups have regular monthly staff meetings but not all

 After the Chief’s meeting the notes may or may not be distributed (sometimes works well;

sometimes not depending on the BCs) – when they are distributed it is very helpful Formal Communication

 Benefits and information about open enrollment periods is communicated well

 A.M. Roll call – for some, captains share information during roll call

 When new captains provide information to the group and not to individuals Informal Communication

 Some informal communications, including the ability for one-on-one’s is positive

 Two-way communication from subordinates to officers

 We have developed informal networks out of necessity to get information out Email

 Email communication helps clarify things (i.e., changes to policies and procedures)

 Email chain of communications (prevents information from being misconstrued) What is not working well?

Chain of Command

 Breakdown in the chain of command sending information down the chain (i.e., equipment arrived without any advance communication; BCs were by-passed; chiefs should notify BCs and not break the chain of communication)

 Communication can get misconstrued as it goes up the chain of command

Attachment B – Summary of Focus Groups Management Partners

 Not all shifts get the same information – Information isn’t making its way down the chain

 The relief BC may or may not hold meetings with the captains

 Read things in the paper but hear nothing from command staff

 Multiple interpretations of what is coming down from the top – Can be very different from one manager to the next

Chief’s Meeting

 No official record from the Chiefs’ Meetings

 Every BC may not be at every meeting, so everyone may not receive the information following the Chiefs’ Meeting

 The distribution of information is fragmented pieces of information; one thing may be important to one BC but may not be important to another BC, so it is not passed along

Formal Communication

 Supervisor confidentiality is a problem

 Command staff edits out information before telling line staff

 Some departments receive information directly from the city manager, but not Fire, because it goes through the department head (Note: This became clear because the Airport director sends out much more information from the city manager than others.)

 Fire Department staff are isolated when it comes to communication

 Lack of communication between departments

 Lack of positive communication from the chief

 Gag orders are issued to prevent communication

 Lack of use of chain of command by command staff

 Deputies do not communicate well with each other

 Chain of command is used when it benefits those at the top of the chain; rules are written in disappearing ink

 Need to have formal policy interpretations; too much grey area; interpretation depends on who you are or who you ask

Email Communication

 Some people don’t check emails regularly; as a result passwords get turned off and they are left out of the communications chain

 Too many emails that aren’t relevant (turns into a city-wide Craig’s list) Personnel Issues

 Explain what information can and cannot be given out regarding personnel issues

 Some supervisors do not keep personnel issues private Informal Communication

 Lines are skewed between personal and professional regarding another employee’s performance; personal business and relationships influence professional behavior

Attachment B – Summary of Focus Groups Management Partners

 Informal communication is often negative – provides inaccurate information and promotes rumors, however, not all informal communication is negative

 Management/office/field staff all communicate differently – causes conflict

 An informal chat can quickly become a formal meeting and then feels like “a gotcha”

 We have to “fish” for information by asking the right questions Across the Organization

 Silos – not much understanding about what others do; not pulling toward same goal

 Pushing external communication rather than communicating with staff first

 From one battalion to another things are very different (like multiple departments inside one department)

 Inconsistency within the department based on battalion (includes operations, equipment and communications)

 Issues in the department may not get heard up the chain; could affect your career

adversely if you talk about making changes; fear of retaliation (Information often doesn’t reach a person who can actually make a decision.) –

 Decisions are not made based on input received (they listen and then do what they want) Ideas for Improvement

 Communication that is confidential should remain that way

ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE (including performance evaluations) What is working well?

 Fire prevention and arson Performance Review and Development evaluations (PRDs) relate directly to performance and clear targets

 In-house reviews after working fires (after action report) are a good learning tool What is not working well?

Process

 After-action reports are not consistently distributed Evaluations – Performance Review and Development (PRDs)

 Some people write their own PRDs and some supervisors do theirs

 Often the quality of how your PRD reads depends on how well your supervisor writes

 Some people get better ratings based on personality or relationship with the rater, not truly performance based

 It’s impossible to get an “Exceptional” rating so why have one?

 Points should be taken out for promotional purposes (Management Partners’ note: During the focus groups some participants mentioned they thought points had been removed, but no one was sure. They have, indeed been removed, but the fact that it wasn’t widely known illustrates the communications issue.)

 Many supervisors dread doing PRDs; a lot depends on the person’s writing ability

Attachment B – Summary of Focus Groups Management Partners

 PRDs should be less subjective; no one is rewarded for good behavior; more for negative

 Inconsistent ratings based on each captains’ idea of what is important; ideas are different among captains

 PRD forms are convoluted and confusing to follow; redundancy now takes half day to complete

 No clear grievance process if you don’t agree with the PRD rating (one person asked for a mid-year evaluation and didn’t get it)

 Not genuine rating by some (cut and paste) – not a good picture if not taken seriously – not equitable

 Command staff does not take performance evaluations seriously even though it affects promotions, raises and probation)

 Although the PRD process is supposed to focus on development, it doesn’t

 No consolidated positive feedback is ever given

 Few people get “exceeds” ratings by captains or BCs

 Sick time (two shifts) will disqualify someone from an “exceeds” or “above average”

rating on the evaluation

 There are supposed to be quarterly reviews but they are not done (many just sign during the annual evaluation)

QA Process

 QA process isn’t working – no consistency in grading

 QA process makes people accountable for things beyond their control (e.g., all hang ups in Communications Center)

 Five-level scale with 10 job dimensions doesn’t work well Compensation and Incentive Pay

 Seniority isn’t recognized; new employees are paid more than existing employees

 Captains are no longer exempt employees…. Hire-back issue makes it less desirable to be a captain than firefighter II

 City establishes market rate – hires at 90% - market rate increased but raises didn’t keep up – some employees are not paid at market rate

 Pay reviews that result in across the board salary increases do not recognize employees for good or above average performance, which makes people resentful

 If you distribute all incentive pay equally, everyone gets an “average” rating

 Citywide incentive checks; all employees would get incentive checks for meeting all objectives; this year it was cancelled by the city manager

 No ability to reward performance – managers cannot do this

 Provide seniority pay so that new employees do not come in making more than incumbents (based on market rate starting salaries at 90%)

Accountability

 Bad decisions by command staff regarding people who were fired; no repercussion for their mistakes

Attachment B – Summary of Focus Groups Management Partners

 Command staff may be wearing too many hats to be consistent

 Lack of ability for managers to deal with their staff

 Lack of accountability of command staff

 “It’s hard to break the rules when you make the rules” – Accountability all depends on who you are

 Inconsistency in application of discipline for ranks above captain; the same behavior results in different discipline for those above captain and those below captain

 Highest level in the organization exhibit poor managerial behavior and there is no accountability

 We get held accountable for things we don’t have control over (standards for promotion aren’t achievable because some other unit clears cases, but arson investigators are held accountable for clearance rates. This is a Police Department responsibility.)

 Essential employees – It’s unclear who is essential (it is in the process of being defined)

 One infraction will get three different results (from A, B and C shift); this used to be different when there was one operations person over all three shifts

 Retaliation was not prevalent under old chief Ideas for Improvement

Process

 Align promotional systems for uniformed Communications Center employees. (Step plans exist for all other uniformed employees, except Communications who are broad- banded and non-uniformed.)

 Ability to issue performance-based pay (at department level)

 Supervisors should observe employees in the work place before rating them on performance evaluations

 Change the evaluation system process for “exceeds” rating. Currently there is no incentive for a captain to give someone “exceeds” because they must then justify the reasons.

 Add more after incident critiques as a way to learn from each other QA System

 Improve QA system to broaden evaluation parameters for 9-1-1 hang ups and call times that include second language (Spanish language within 35 seconds)

PRDs

 Clarify the PRD rating (evaluation) form; it is redundant

 Eliminate having the PRD affect promotions

 Take the PRD system seriously

 Focus on the “D” in PRD (Development)

 Emphasize skills and nuts and bolts instead of personal appearance (e.g., tattoo policy) Department wide

 Return Coats for Kids program

Attachment B – Summary of Focus Groups Management Partners

DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCESSES