Assessment Centers for Officer Promotions
February 15, 2010
|
Return to February 15 |
IAFC On Scene: February 15, 2010
Your palms begin to sweat as you sit in the witness stand and the plaintiff’s attorney sizes you up. The icy glares of the jurors only add to your nervousness and you find yourself shifting slightly in your seat. "Chief," the attorney says with a sly smile, "knowing that Captain Baker was in charge at the time the accident occurred which injured my client, could you please tell the court just how it was that Captain Baker obtained the rank which placed him in command on that fateful day?"
Your mouth goes dry and you can taste your Adam’s apple. Trying not to look too nervous, you clear your throat and begin. "Well, you see we, the other chief officers and me, we get together and select the appointments for company officer and Baker got appointed this time around."
"A group selection, huh? Like a popularity contest, perhaps?" The attorney breaks into a grin from ear to ear as he turns toward the jury and a little voice in the back of your head tells you it’s all over...
Could that be you in the witness chair? Let’s hope not, but the truth is that thousands of fire officers across the United States in both career and volunteer positions have absolutely nothing to prove their credibility. Many others believe their years on the force or a pile of certifications can support their ability to perform. Such may not be the case.
If you use subjective selection as your means of appointing company officers, you could find that a jury doesn’t hold the same high regard for an individual that you or your fellow officers held when the selection took place. The same may hold true of appointments made after only interviews with the chief or reviews of the applicants’ personnel files.
There is a better way, and it’s not just for the big departments anymore. Even small departments, career or volunteer, can consider using an assessment-center process for selecting officers.
The whole concept behind an assessment-center process is to objectively evaluate the performance of promotion applicants within the context of the actual activities they’ll perform in the job. By doing so, you can show not only that they have the education and experience deemed necessary for the job, but also that they posses the ability to put that education and experience into practice.
Certainly, the decision to use an assessment center should consist of more than just reading this article, but let me at least give you a taste of what’s involved.
The first step in any assessment-center process is making certain you have developed a clear and complete, up-to-date job description. It must provide precise job anchors—those elements of the position essential to effective performance. It’s those job anchors that become the behavioral criteria the applicants will be measured against.
The actual assessment center used to create the work environment is limited only by imagination. The critical factor is that every behavioral element on which the applicants are evaluated must be directly tied to a specific anchor in the job description.
Likewise, a quality assessment center should try to find a way to cause the candidates to perform as many of the job anchors as possible under simulated working conditions. For example:
-
Applicants’ proficiency at administrative skills might be measured by having them perform such real-life tasks as composing a memo to the chief, prioritizing and delegating items from their in box or writing a performance evaluation.
-
Skills on the emergency scene can be measured in a tactical simulation, even if it’s just computer simulated, with some time constraints thrown in to create the needed stress.
-
Several candidates can be placed together in a group and provided a problem to solve so you can evaluate their ability to work in a committee setting.
-
Supervisory abilities may be observed by putting them in an uncomfortable role-play situation, with a trained facilitator playing the part of an imaginary smart-mouthed subordinate who’s committed some policy infraction.
