Prioritizing Fire Department Personnel Retention

After having one of those career evaluation moments trying to figure out where I’m headed and what I want to accomplish going forward, the thought of exit interviews came up. As I pondered this, I began to wonder why we even have them at all. As a supervisor—but more importantly, a leader in my organization—I had to ask myself, “What am I going to find out about someone when they leave that I already should have learned during the course of their career?”

Of course, exit interviews aren’t a new thing. Many employers conduct them as part of their separation policy. Theoretically, the results of exit interviews are utilized to better the organization. This begs the question: Why do we wait until it’s too late to do anything about staff members’ concerns? If we hire the right personnel, don’t we value their opinion and want them to stay?

In officer development courses, the value of personnel—that they are the best and most important asset—is promoted continually. However, somehow, the lack of regular input and feedback from people can lead to unrest both for the personnel and the organization. If we profess to care about personnel so much, why don’t we check in with them on a regular basis?

Evolve to a retention interview

Exit interview questions often tie to things that are learned about personnel while they still work with us instead of when they’re on their way out the door. The cautionary component of this philosophy is that it requires an agency to foster an environment in which honest feedback is encouraged and doesn’t create retribution when the answers don’t match your own. In essence, you’re completing an individual 360 survey on a regular basis.

Many typical exit interview questions that are used broadly should be posed to fire service personnel while they are a member of the department, not after they found a new employer.

Did you believe that you were equipped to do your job well? Fire service leaders want their personnel to feel that they’re equipped to do their job well.

However, if leaders don’t ask this question or if they assume that members are equipped to do their job well just because they have better equipment than what those leaders had when they were on the front line, do those leaders really know? True, personnel might bring up things that department leaders don’t have the ability to provide, but asking the question opens the line of communication and helps to start to develop a potential plan to get that equipment in the future.

How would you describe the culture of our organization? Leaders have an idea of what they believe that the department’s culture is, but what do personnel think it is? Does the organizational vision of what the culture is meet the needs of the personnel? Does their 10-foot view match their leaders’ 1,000-foot view?

Can you provide more information about the culture, such as particular examples? So often, we speak in broad generalizations so as to not hurt or offend, yet specificity often is needed to drive home the importance of the message.

Did you share your concerns with anyone in the organization? Are supervisors asking for members’ concerns, or are they waiting for staff to get frustrated enough to provide feedback after their concerns no longer can be addressed?

Has an environment been created in which feedback is encouraged and there’s no fear of negative consequences? This is one of the most critical areas that leaders must develop within their organization. Failure to truly foster open communication creates significant dissonance between what’s said and what’s done. Staff members’ opinions never should be sought just to be used against them later.

Were you satisfied with the way that you were managed? Management often is a key factor in an employee’s decision to leave. Department leaders must be open to critique as a supervisor and know that they might not like what emerges from that. Ironically, when leaders are willing to listen without retribution, personnel will be more willing to be honest while there’s time to do something beneficial. It also is important to understand the difference between critique and criticism. Critique should address what occurred or needs to occur; criticism is more focused on the individual themselves.

Were you given clear goals and objectives? Clear goals and objectives are key to personnel feeling and being engaged in an organization. They must know the expectation and that they’re integral to the success of those objectives. Leaders must be concerned less with how staff gets from A–Z and more about whether these people did it within the budget and parameters of the goal/project.

Did you receive constructive feedback to help you to improve your performance? Constructive, ongoing feedback is critical to keeping employees motivated. They aren’t seeking constant kudos, but remembering to tell them that they and the work that they do is appreciated is important for both individual and agency morale. Leaders can’t say that employees are the most important asset and never recognize their efforts.

Information black hole

Furthering the challenge for many agencies is the level at which exit interviews occur in the first place. For most, this is done at the chief officer or executive officer level if not by the human resources department. Unfortunately, that level of separation means that these agencies often lack the boots-on-the-ground interactions that are necessary to learn critical things about their agency personnel. Even when outgoing personnel complete an exit interview, rarely does the information get utilized to make tangible, positive changes within the organization.

Further, there’s the genuine lack of interest from the personnel on the way out the door. Think about nearly every class evaluation that you filled out after completion of a course. Was the process sincere, or were you just trying to fill it out so you could get your certificate?

In the case of the exit interview, generally, personnel say just enough to complete it on the way to their next job.

If an agency employs exit interviews but doesn’t use them to make positive organizational changes, this is more check-box leadership than growing the agency. Often, leaders complain about pencil-whipping many things, from apparatus checks and online training to verbalizing skills instead of completing them. Leaders never should expect personnel growth and development to be successful without active engagement.

It’s salvageable

If an agency currently isn’t addressing these concepts or doesn’t know whether they even exist, the concepts still can be applied at lower levels of leadership. This might not be the situation for every agency. (Smaller ones certainly have an advantage learning about their personnel.) That said, treating the exit interview concepts as ongoing retention tasks for battalion chiefs or company officers very likely aids in preventing the exit interview from ever occurring in the first place.