May 2013 Issue Number 154

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

360 Degree Evaluation

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, recently announced a new military initiative that will increase professional development programs for more senior officers, including generals and admirals. Among other programs, for the first time generals and admirals will be evaluated by their peers and those they command, a 360 degree evaluation process.

In the past, the military has resisted using this type of evaluation process that is common in the corporate world. Concern focused on potential damage to the hierarchical command system that is based on discipline and strict adherence to orders from above. The change comes in part due to a series of scandals involving high ranking officers. According to General Dempsey, "We need to assess both competence and character in a richer way."

Can this type of evaluation process work in very traditionally structured organizations like the military? Will subordinates feel safe enough to say what they really think about a high ranking officer? Will some people use the opportunity to be unfairly retaliatory? Will the information gathered be genuinely useful?

Not all 360 degree evaluation processes work well, but there are things that can be done to improve the outcome. First, designing a clear process for gathering information is critical. Second, all organizational members must be trained on the underlying goals of the system as well as specific skills on how to give feedback.

This new evaluation process is just one of several steps being taken to improve professional development opportunities for senior military officers. The demands of repeated combat deployments have diminished opportunities for educational programs in this area. Add to that the higher profile of military officers since 9/11 and some bad outcomes have occurred.

As General Dempsey said, "In my 39 years in the military I have learned that you are not a profession just because you say you are. You have to earn it and re-earn it and re-evaluate it from time to time."

These are words to live by that apply far beyond the military.

Source: The New York Times, April 13, 2013

An arbitrator has reversed the decision to demote a fire captain who posted inflammatory Facebook comments following the shooting of Trayvon Martin last year. The reversal was based on procedural issues and not the question of whether the fire officer had a First Amendment right to make the postings.

Sources: www.local10.com; www.firelawblog.com

Severe or Pervasive

There is a common misconception among many people that harassment is in the eyes of the beholder-- if someone says something is illegal harassment, then it is. But this definition has never been true. In reality, much of what an ordinary person might consider harassing behavior will fail to meet the legal cut.

Consider the case of Jennifer Westendorf, an employee at West Coast Contractors for around six months in 2008. In her short time with the company, Ms. Westendorf was disparaged for doing "girly" work, was sworn at repeatedly by her supervisor, was asked to comment on other women's breast size, was subjected to sexually explicit talk directed at her personally, was told to wear a French maid's costume while doing some routine cleaning, and was implicitly threatened by her supervisor. She initially tolerated the behavior but was told by the company president to report incidents, especially since there had been problems with that particular supervisor.

So Ms. Westendorf started reporting every incident, but little changed in her work environment except for increasingly retaliatory behavior from her direct supervisor. Ultimately, the company president told her he was tired of hearing her complaints and that she obviously had a problem getting along with her boss. Then he fired her.

Ms. Westendorf sued the company for both harassment and retaliation based on her complaints. And while her retaliation case was upheld in part, the court ruled that the treatment she experienced was not "severe or pervasive" enough to meet the standard for harassment that altered the conditions of employment. The rationale used for making this judgment was that Ms. Westendorf only experienced the behavior on average of once a week when at a particular job site, she was not physically threatened, and her work quality did not suffer due to the behavior.

It is unclear whether this case will be appealed. It does underscore the strict standards that courts use when considering the definition of harassment.

Source: Jennifer Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-16004

 

© Linda F. Willing, 2013