INCREASING THE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF VOLUNTEER EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS AT PROCTER & GAMBLE

EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP

Ray A. Webber The Procter & Gamble Company

Cincinnati, OH.

An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy as part of the Executive Fire Officer Program

March, 2006

2

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another. Signed: ___________________________________

3

ABSTRACT

This ARP examined workload redistribution of an industrial emergency response

team. The problem was that Procter & Gamble emergency response team (ERT)

members had little if any administrative, leadership, or support duties, while the site fire

chiefs performed nearly all operational and administrative tasks. The consequence of this

problem was that the ERTs were not as effective as they could have been. The purpose

of this research was to determine the best way to redistribute the ERT’s administrative

workload.

Descriptive research characterized the perceptions of ERT members as they relate

to workload redistribution. Action research was used to develop a delegation plan so that

site fire chiefs could effectively transition the right tasks to ERT members. The plan is

based on research that examined (a) how similar organizations promoted member

involvement in leadership and management, (b) what motivated ERT members to take on

additional roles, (c) how the ERTs could have been structured to increase effectiveness

and member participation, (d) which tasks could have been effectively delegated to

members, and (e) the attitudes of team members toward taking on additional roles and

responsibilities.

The main procedure used was a survey of ERT members. Additionally, literature

regarding motivation, organizational structure, and volunteer management was reviewed.

The results showed that many team members were interested and able to take on

additional roles and responsibilities. A wide variety of tasks could be delegated, and

numerous organizational structures could be used to redistribute workload. The specific

4

tasks delegated and the organizational structures used would depend on the specific needs

of the organization.

The recommendations from this research were to (a) market and implement an

ERT delegation plan, (b) develop the strategic leadership skills of the site fire chiefs, and

(c) further examine the concept of work processes as they relate to emergency response

organizations.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT 2

ABSTRACT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 INTRODUCTION 6 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE 7 LITERATURE REVIEW 11 PROCEDURES 24 RESULTS 28 DISCUSSION 37 RECOMMENDATIONS 40 REFERENCES 43 APPENDIX A (Delegation potential sheet) 46 APPENDIX B (NFPA 600 - Duties for industrial fire brigades) 47 APPENDIX C (ERT member survey) 49 APPENXIX D (survey results) 53 APPENDIX E (survey comments) 67 APPENDIX F (Summary of tasks for emergency response teams) 73 APPENDIX G (ERT delegation plan) 75

6

INTRODUCTION

Like many other large companies, Procter & Gamble (P&G) takes proactive

measures to ensure the right level of emergency response at each one of its global

facilities. Where the local jurisdiction has difficulty providing timely, capable

emergency response with sufficient staffing, Procter & Gamble supplements their

capabilities with in-house emergency response teams (ERT). Some teams have simple

missions such as providing first aid and occupant accountability. Other teams however,

can have complex missions, structures and equipment very similar to a typical fire

department.

For Procter & Gamble facilities in the greater Cincinnati area, these teams are

comprised almost exclusively of volunteer employees and are managed and lead by a site

fire chief. The way in which these volunteer ERT members are utilized has changed little

since these teams were formed. However, the administrative tasks necessary for effective

management of these teams have increased in number and in complexity. The problem is

that Procter & Gamble emergency response team members have little if any

administrative, leadership or support duties, while the site fire chiefs perform nearly all

operational and administrative tasks. The consequence of this problem is that the

emergency response teams are not as effective as they could be. Members have limited

opportunities for input and leadership development . More critically, emergency scene

effectiveness can be directly related to the presence or absence of key personnel.

Additionally, the site fire chiefs have limited time to focus on strategic management of

their respective ERTs as they are encumbered with nearly all of the ERT administrative

tasks.

7

The purpose of this research is to determine how best to re distribute the

administrative workload of the emergency response teams. Action research will be the

primary research method used in that a plan will be developed to help the site fire chiefs

distribute ERT related workload. Descriptive research will be used to characterize the

attitudes of ERT members toward their current level of involvement as well as their

attitudes toward taking on roles of increased responsibility. These two methodologies

will be employed to answer the following research questions:

1. How do similar organizations promote member involvement in leadership and

management?

2. What would motivate a volunteer ERT member to take on additional roles and

responsibilities?

3. How can the ERTs be structured to increase effectiveness and facilitate

member participation?

4. Which tasks could be effectively delegated to ERT members?

5. What are the attitudes of ERT members toward taking on additional roles and

responsibilities?

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Established in Cincinnati in 1837, the Procter & Gamble Company began by

making candles and soap. Today, Procter & Gamble markets over 300 branded products

in 160 countries to more than five billion consumers. Its business is focused on providing

superior products that improve the lives of the world’s consumers. P&G manufactures

and markets goods in several product categories and has three global business units

8

(GBUs): P&G Beauty, P&G Family and Health, and P&G Household Care (Procter &

Gamble, 2006).

P&G also markets several of what calls “billion dollar brands” including, Tide,

Crest, Iams, Bounty, Folgers, Pampers, Downy, and Pringles (Procter & Gamble, 2006).

In June of 2005, the company acquired Gillette whose products include razors, blades and

skincare products, Braun appliances, Duracell batteries, and Oral-B oral care products.

Cincinnati, Ohio is home to the company’s corporate headquarters as well as five,

major research and development facilities. Each of these major facilities is managed by

Procter & Gamble’s Global Business Services (GBS). GBS provides a number of back

office service lines including purchasing, finance and accounting, information technology

and employee and workplace services. Risk management, which includes fire protection

and emergency response, is provided by GBS to each of the following Procter & Gamble

facilities in the greater Cincinnati area:

• The General Offices (GO)

• Fabric & Homecare Innovation Center (F&HIC)

• Winton Hill Business Center (WHBC)

• Miami Valley Innovation Center (MVIC)

• Sharon Woods Technical Center (SWTC)

• Mason Business Center (MBC)

The level of service each site ERT provides is dependent on risk as well as the

capabilities of the municipal fire departments. In essence, the site ERT must make up the

difference between the municipal responder’s capabilities and those necessary to mitigate

the site’s risks. The ERTs are lead by the site fire chief who has full time responsibility

9

for facility fire protection and all phases of emergency response with the exception of

security.

Other than the site fire chief, the remainder of the ERT members are volunteers.

They have other, primary full time roles with Procter & Gamble or one of its major

subcontractors and receive no additional compensation for their services. Members are

recruited using many of the same methods employed by volunteer fire departments

(Busch & Schaenman, 1998). Training for ERT members is in accordance with

regulatory standards such as the United States Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, and recognized practices such as the National Fire Protection

Association.

Just as the fire service in the United States has evolved, so too has Procter &

Gamble’s emergency response teams. At one time, these teams provided only fire

suppression. Now, they provide a range of services similar to those provided by many

fire departments. For example, Mason Business Center ERT provides interior structural

firefighting, EMS at the medical first responder level, technician level hazardous

materials response, rope rescue, confined space rescue, and operations level water rescue.

While the services provided by the ERTs has increased, the management structures of

these organizations remains largely unchanged from the days of the industrial fire

brigade. With few exceptions, the site fire chief performs nearly all the administrative

and leadership duties for these teams.

This situation is becoming problematic for the ERTs. The site fire chief is now

directly responsible for everything from routine equipment inspections, to command and

control at emergency incidents to recruiting, training, and maintaining membership, and

10

developing potential successors. When these organizations were simple fire brigades,

one person could manage all these activities. Now that the ERT’s mission is more

complex, they cannot. This negatively impacts the capability of the ERTs in that the site

fire chief, is simply over capacity and cannot focus on strategic leadership.

An perfect example of an important ERT management function receiving little to

no attention is leadership succession and replacement planning. Unit six of the National

Fire Academy’s student manual for it’s executive leadership course tells us that “…there

is a strong need for bench strength in a public safety organization” (2003a, p. SM 6-3).

Currently, the bench for ERT leadership at P&G in greater Cincinnati is quite weak. The

National Fire Academy also states that succession and replacement planning is a key

element in organizational strategy, and that successful organizations are prepared to fill a

leadership spots immediately if needed. The National Fire Academy closely associates

succession planning with having a well trained workforce or in this case, well trained

volunteers.

As difficult as this situation is now, it will only worsen if allowed to continue. It

is a relatively safe assumption that the mission of the ERTs will become even more

complex as the company’s campuses and risks continue to evolve. For example, recently

the Mason Business Center ERT trained and equipped an operations level water and ice

rescue team. This was in response to an incident where an employee attempted to rescue

a dog from a partially frozen retention pond on the property. Although the municipal fire

department was not needed, it was discovered that they had a very limited ability to

respond to such an incident. Another example of this growing complexity is that the

Baby care GBU recently moved to Winton Hill Business Center. This organization

11

studies among other things, the fit and performance of diapers on infants and toddlers.

Since children are now present at the facility, the ERT had to develop and implement a

pediatric emergency medical protocol. This protocol will now need additional

development before September 2006. During this timeframe a day-care center will open

at the Winton Hill Business Center.

Despite growing burden on the site fire chiefs, little effort has been made to

delegate administrative or leadership tasks. When asked why they had not delegated,

each site fire chief, including the author, indicated his primary reason was that members

were already very busy with their regular work assignments. The site fire chiefs were

simply reluctant to ask for more commitment from an already highly committed group of

volunteers. The Fabric & Home Care Innovation Center ERT was the only exception to

this trend. Here, the sire fire chief had placed several ERT members in charge of

hazardous materials response and training. Several others were taking initiative to

reinstate the structural firefighting team.

The end result is that the Procter & Gamble emergency response teams are not as

effective as they could be. Improving the effectiveness of these teams is directly related

to objective 3.7 of the United States Department of Homeland Security which is to

“Strengthen nationwide preparedness and mitigation against acts of terrorism, natural

disasters, or other emergencies” (United States Department of Homeland Security, 2004,

p. 26).

LITERATURE REVIEW

A logical starting point for this research project was the study of volunteer

motivation, volunteer organizations, and tools and techniques used in the successful

12

management of volunteers. Pearce (1993) conducted research contrasting the differences

between paid and volunteer organizations which performed similar functions. These

organizations included, fire departments, poverty relief agencies, hospital gift shops, and

orchestras. Pearce found that one of the most striking differences between these

organizations was the design of the work itself. In paid organizations, employees work

more continuously, while in volunteer organizations more people do the work. Pearce

also found that work in volunteer organizations tended to be more autonomous. Not

surprisingly, Pearce indicated that one of the tools employing organizations had to

motivate employees was the power of sanctions, economic or otherwise. The volunteer

organizations studied in Pearce’s research largely lacked the ability to use such sanctions

and had less power to motivate their members in this way than did paying organizations.

Unit nine of the National Fire Academy’s (2003a) Student Manual for Executive

Leadership explains the different bases of power that are typically used in leading an

organization. The power to levy sanctions against an employee as described by Pearce is

an example of “coercive power” which is described in the National Fire Academy’s

Student Manual for Executive Leadership as “…the imposition of various forms of

sanctions and penalties for failure to accept orders” (National Fire Academy, 2003a, p.

9-4).

The understanding of these types of power and how they affect volunteer

organizations can be important because as Pearce (1993) noted, reliability of volunteers is

a significant issue. None of the organizations Pearce studied contradicted the assertion

that volunteers could not be relied upon to perform to the level of paid employees. Paid

employees were viewed as being more consistent in terms of attendance and performance

13

in the workplace. Pearce feels this is at least in part because employees are motivated

more by the use of coercive power than are volunteers.

What then motivates volunteers? Pearce, (1993) tells us that the motivations of

volunteers are still somewhat of a mystery. To date, there appears to be no solid answers

regarding why people join volunteer organizations or fulfill roles within them. Pearce did

however draw some conclusions about motivation and control of the volunteers in her

study. “The control of potentially unreliable volunteers is achieved primarily through

interpersonal influence, appeals to the shared values, and selection of task and domain”

(Pearce, 1993, p. 129). Task and domain, as explained by Pearce have to do with the

makeup of the work assigned to volunteers. Much of the published material available

stressed the importance of work design and makeup not just for volunteers, but for paid

employees as well. (Catagnus & Lee, 1999), (MacLeod, 1993), (Campbell & Ellis,

1995). It appears as if the work itself is thought to be a significant motivator to many

who volunteer.

Organizational theorist Fredric Hertzberg (1974) reminds us that workers tend to

be disillusioned when they find they have few if any responsibilities for their own work.

He classifies this type of situation as “ability without opportunity”. Hertzberg, father of

the “motivation hygiene theory” suggested that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were

produced by different factors. Satisfiers, or “motivators” as Hertzberg called them, relate

to the content of the job or work itself. Dissatisfiers, or “hygiene factors”, are related to

the context of the job or how well people are treated. Motivators include achievement,

recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, growth and salary. Hygiene

14

factors include policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working

conditions, salary, status, and security.

MacLeod (1993) states that work assigned to volunteer workers must be

meaningful and clearly linked to the goals of the organization, while the National Fire

Academy Executive Leadership Student Manual states that each person in an

organization “…must be aware continually of the strategic role he/she plays and how

he/she adds value” (p. 6-6). MacLeod was careful to point out that the work must be

valued and meaningful to the person performing it but not necessarily to the person

assigning it. MacLeod also pointed out that people respond favorably when they are

given increased responsibility, the opportunity for input on decisions, and the chance to

influence the direction of the organization (p. 150).

This is similar to views by Catagnus & Lee (1999) who advocate assigning

challenging and even sometimes difficult work to volunteers. The authors speculate that

more volunteers have left organizations because they were bored than because they were

worked too hard. They suggest that high expectations invariably lead to good results,

even with volunteers. On the other hand, low expectations can imply a notion of distrust.

Volunteers should be challenged to polish their performance and expected to constantly

improve. They also suggest that volunteer leaders should convey to their personnel how

much they are counted on, and how important their work is. This notion is not exclusive

to volunteer organizations. Catagnus & Lee recognize however, that some volunteers

may satisfy their need for complexity an challenge via other outlets and may find simple

work very appealing.

15

Work tends to be arranged differently in volunteer organizations than it does in

similar paid organizations. While studying the differences between these types of

organizations, Pearce (1993) found that volunteer organizations were less likely to group

tasks by type. Volunteers were more likely to share equally in interesting work, policy

setting and administrative functions while their paid counterparts grouped tasks by

homogenous skill or responsibility. Pearce attributes this to simple economics.

Volunteers are paid by the work itself. Hence they must share in the enriching,

rewarding tasks as well as those which are more tedious. In contrast, paid organizations

are under pressure to make effective use of highly paid personnel. Therefore, work is

designed so that the most complicated, technical tasks are done by the highest paid

individuals and the less complicated, often tedious tasks are done by personnel who earn

less.

Campbell & Ellis (1995) recognize that no matter what the size of the

organization, eventually the workload and expectations will exceed the level of support.

Many volunteer managers and administrators may be tempted to self perform all of the

tasks necessary to run the organization. Recognizing this, Campbell & Ellis offer a

comprehensive plan on how to build a management structure from existing volunteers.

This effort begins with a task analysis in which one considers “all the possible activities

that contribute to the effective utilization of volunteer resources, and analyze how they

relate to your particular situation” (Campbell & Ellis, 1995, p. 21). The task analysis

breaks a volunteer organization’s activities into functions, which are major cluster areas

of the job or running a volunteer organization, and responsibilities, which could be

considered key activities in each function. Fracaro (2006) illustrates the importance of

16

task analysis in that he includes it as one of the five steps to effective delegation. One

can simply make a list of their major job duties and classify them as management or non

management related. Unlike Campbell & Ellis however, Fracaro suggests that

management tasks be retained while non management tasks be delegated. Huffmire

(1984) supports Faraco’s assertion to a certain degree in that he states “Long range

planning and setting priorities for your operation are other tasks that should never be

delegated”(p. 31).

Delegation

After analyzing what tasks are completed in the organization, Campbell & Ellis

(1995) offer guidelines for effective delegation. Their delegation potential sheet, helps

the volunteer administrator determine which tasks are the easiest and most logical to

delegate to someone else and is included in Appendix A of this project. Campbell &

Ellis characterize these delegates as having so much importance that they should be

considered a “management team” rather than a collective group of persons doing jobs

management does not want. Huffmire (1984) supports this assertion in saying that

delegation is not moving unpleasant chores to subordinates, it is not an abdication of

authority, and it is not an avoidance of decisions.

Delegation has several important benefits for an organization. Both Huffmire

(1984), and the National Fire Academy (1994) conclude that delegation can increase

organizational efficiency by allowing managers to focus on planning, staffing,

organization and other strategic tasks. According to the National Fire Academy,

delegation a way to share authority, accountability and responsibility and distribute the

workload in an organization. The National Fire Academy goes on to say that it is a

17

“well-known fact” that organizations become stronger when their members assume

greater responsibility (p. DG-39).

Delegation also is beneficial to an organization’s members. The National Fire

Academy (1994) also asserts that delegation not only increases the productivity of the

present-day organization, but can also be an effective tool in preparing personnel for

future leadership roles. Foster (2004) expands on this by saying that delegation can be an

effective development tool, but it does not happen by accident. Managers should be

encouraged to delegate in a manner that both accomplishes the task and develops the

individual. Fister-Gale (2002) concurs with Foster’s findings regarding carefully planned

delegation. Here, the author finds that when employees are empowered to make

decisions and are held accountable for actions, potential leaders begin to emerge. In

many organizations however employees are given this empowerment along with a

leadership title, and expected to produce results. Fister-Gale contends that at least some

modicum of training and leadership development is essential to the success of these

employees and their assignments.

Knippen & Green (1990) illustrate that frequent delegation gives employees

exposure to different tasks, giving them a sense of worth, involvement and importance

which leads to increased motivation. Similarly, Vinton (1987) proposes that effective

delegation also leads to increased organizational commitment, motivation and job

satisfaction by making use of what organizational theorist Frederick Herzberg (1974)

called job enrichment. Job enrichment or what is sometimes referred to as vertical

loading adds meaning to the work rather than adding requirements for work output. This

concept is supported by the National Fire Academy (1994) which states that when

18

employees are given a new challenge, they are generally more motivated. When they are

given praise and recognition for a job well done, it increases their self esteem and self

confidence.

Campbell & Ellis (1995) show that delegation and organizational structure are

closely related. One approach to managing and delegating they offer is to construct a

team which would operate as managing body, similar in structure and operation to the

presidential cabinet. Each team member would be responsible for a working component

of the overall program and the entire team would meet periodically. The organization

leader would head the team and lead the meetings but their opinions may or may not

carry any additional weight. Another approach Campbell & Ellis recommend is to deal

with each member individually and consider them a “department head”. As in the first

option, team members are not advisors, they are in charge of the program functions and

report directly to the organization’s leader. Campbell & Ellis contend that is certainly

possible to combine these two basic structures to fit the individual needs of the

organization. A hybrid version might be a cluster of several related team members in a

decision making group. The leader could then meet individually with personnel who are

working on tasks unrelated to the issues confronting the team.

Organizational structures

Organizational theorists have concluded that there are only three basic families of

organizational design: hierarchy, matrix, and network. Hierarchy can be found where

“formal control and integration of sequentially dependent tasks is required” and was one

of the earliest forms of organizational design (Friesen, 2005, p. 33). “Matrix takes root

where formal integration of competing but known business objectives is

19

required….Network takes root where formal responsiveness or continuous innovation is

required” (Friesen, 2005, p. 33). This differs somewhat from work by Meares (1993)

who wrote that the two most commonly employed organizational structures were those of

matrix and project. In a matrix, individuals have more than one manager. In a project

structure, no employee reports to more than one supervisor. Mears does not advocate one

structure over the other. Rather, he states that the organizational structure must be based

on the specific needs of the organization. He does say however that any organizational

structure must give personnel opportunities to participate in business planning and

execution.

Hierarchy, one of the basic structures by Friesen (2005) was at one time

especially well suited to the coordination of multiple resources such as the military or

large industrial organizations. However, education, and the spread of democracy have

made “top-down” command and control less acceptable that in once was. Friesen tells us

that “people expect a greater say in all aspects of their lives including the workplace”

(2005, p. 35).

According to Friesen (2005), hierarchy and matrix structures have a disadvantage

in that they are not well suited for decision making in today’s data rich environment. In

traditional Hierarchical and matrix structures, managers often suffer from paralysis

brought on by over examination of data. Friesen goes on to say that because of the

problems with communication and data management in a hierarchical structure, the

concept of employee empowerment is questionable at best. Hierarchical structures do not

necessarily need to be abandoned according to Friesen though. To be effective however,

20

they should be overhauled and designed to facilitate information flow and rapid decision

making.

Both Kraines (1996) and Adizes (2005) concur with Friesen (2005) regarding the

dangers of a hierarchical organizational structure. Adizes says that these types of

structures inhibit change and make organizations less nimble. Kraines states that

hierarchies are often viewed as stifling motivation and group initiative, and that top level

managers of these organizations often are frustrated at the inability of their people to

implement complex strategies. Kraines points out however that often times the structure

it-self is not to blame for organizational shortcomings. More often than not it’s an issue

of trust. Kraines says that the whole point of hiring someone is so that they can exercise

judgments to figure out the best way to do things and get them done effectively. They

should not be employed merely to follow simple directions given from management.

Kraines supports Friesen’s work when he states “The enemy of creative, adaptive and

ultimately successful work organizations is not hierarchy. It is bad hierarchy” (1996, p.

14). The author also says that when managers leverage the judgments of their personnel

to make adjustments to the workflow to better utilize resources highly effective,

accountable processes are created.

Volunteer emergency service organizations benefit from carefully designed

organizational structures. Bush, Schaenman and Thiel (1998) recognized the need for a

rigid, hierarchical management structure at emergency incidents. They also determined

that volunteer fire department members preferred a more decentralized management

structure while not on the fire-ground or emergency scene. They found it was possible to

combine the two into what they called the circle inside the pyramid. This approach

21

allows the strict control necessary on the emergency scene (the pyramid) and yet

encourages participatory management in most other work or tasks (the circle).

A delicate balance of organizational control is necessary because volunteer

responders tend not to work well under a strict, dogmatic leader, nor do they work well in

a lackadaisical setting. A related element of this careful organizational control is

explained by Catagnus & Lee (1999), MacLeod (1993) and Campbell & Ellis (1995).

They all strongly advocate the use of written job or role descriptions for different

volunteer positions. Catagnus & Lee say that role descriptions must be developed

“…regardless of whether the position is occupied by one volunteer or dozens” (1993, p.

16). All of the authors indicate that the role descriptions should be clear and specific and

set expectations for each job.

Work processes

Recall that Kraines (1996) talks about leveraging the judgment of employees to

create highly effective processes. Just what is a work process? Michael Hammer (1996)

defines a process as a “related group of tasks that together create a result of value to the

customer” (p. 5). Hammer emphasizes that most of the problems that afflict

organizations today are process related problems not related to the individual work tasks

themselves. That is, the work is being performed properly, but the problem is with the

way the work is structured. Davenport and Short (as cited in Malhotra, 1998) define a

process in a similar manner as “a structured measured set of activities designed to

produce a specified output for a particular customer or marked. It implies a strong

emphasis on how work is done within the organization” (p. 2). A “business process” is

22

defined as “a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business

outcome” (Malhotra, 1998, p. 2).

Porter and Millar (as cited in Malhotra, 1998) say that processes have two

important characteristics. They have customers, and they cross organizational

boundaries. Malhotra cites Davenport and Short again by saying that processes can be

further defined on three dimensions. First, processes take place between organizational

entities. Second, processes result in the handling of physical or informational objects.

And last, processes can involve either managerial or operational activities.

Process can be a bit difficult to define. Hammer (1996) draws important

distinctions between processes and tasks. Not all business functions can be considered

processes. While several iterations of the definition of a process appear above, a task is a

unit of work and is a business activity usually perfumed by an individual. Hammer uses

the example of order fulfillment, a process, which is comprised of tasks which include

order reception, data entry, credit checks, order picking, etc. Once processes are

identified, an organization must then decide which ones, if any, should be changed and in

what order. Generally this is done by evaluating processes in terms of dysfunction,

importance and feasibility of change (Muthu, Whitman & Cheraghi, 1999).

Many of the tasks associated with the emergency response work process are

derived from regulatory and consensus standards. The U.S Department of Labor

Occupational Safety & Health Administration, sets forth minimum standards for

industrial fire brigades in 29CFR 190.156. Although this federal law does not state that

any tasks are specifically required of an emergency response team, it does provide a

framework. In general, emergency response team leadership must ensure employees are

23

properly and sufficiently trained for likely incidents. They must also ensure their

personnel have access to properly maintained equipment and that certain portions of the

response program be documented in writing. The National Fire Protection Association’s

(NFPA) Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades, 2005 Edition delineates numerous tasks

and duties which must be preformed in the management of an industrial emergency

response team. These tasks include coordination of the overall program, planning,

inspection testing and maintenance of equipment, and training. A listing of these tasks is

included in Appendix B of this research project.

Literature influencing this research

The information presented by Pearce (1993) had a significant influence on this

applied research project. Recall that Pearce had made use of surveys to develop theories

about the organizational behavior of volunteers. Certain elements of the Pearce survey

were included in the author’s survey to determine if Procter & Gamble volunteers were

similar in some respects to those studied by Pearce. Also, information presented by

Hammer (1996) and Malhotra (1998) prompted the author to attempt to define the work

process of the emergency response teams, or at least list the tasks for which the site fire

chiefs are responsible. This linked closely with information presented by Foster (2004)

and Vinton (1987) and their views on delegation. The task list developed by the author

could easily be used to help which tasks were most appropriate to delegate. Works by

Campbell & Ellis (1995) and Catagnus & Lee (1999) as well as the National Fire

Academy (1994) are also helpful in determining how to delegate so that the organization

and its personnel are strengthened.

24

PROCEDURES

The purpose of this applied research project was to determine how best to

redistribute the administrative and leadership roles of the emergency response teams so

that the organizations can become more effective. The procedures used to accomplish

this consisted of a literature review, a survey and informal interviews with each of the site

fire protection leaders at the Global Business Services managed Procter & Gamble

facilities in greater Cincinnati.

The literature review was the first element of the research completed and was

used to collect information regarding management systems, volunteer motivation and

management, delegation strategies, and organizational structures.

The author primarily used web based search tools to search for relevant

information. The on-line research databases available through the Public Library of

Greater Cincinnati and Hamilton County were used to search for and obtain numerous

books relating to volunteer management and organizational structure. A search database

available to Procter & Gamble employees was used to obtain articles from periodicals

and professional journals which were specific to the topic. The Procter & Gamble

database was extremely beneficial in that it provided easier, more direct access to

periodicals and journals than similar databases available through the public library.

Individual articles did not have to be ordered. In most cases, the author simply

downloaded them electronically.

Other, more common web based search engines were used such as Google and

Google Scholar. However, these search engines did not return nearly as many results as

did the public library and Procter & Gamble search tools.

25

Shortly after the literature review was started, the author interviewed each of the

site fire protection leaders at the major Procter & Gamble sites in greater Cincinnati. The

purpose of the interview was to determine how each of the fire protection leaders was

distributing administrative workload and leadership responsibilities at the various sites.

This baseline assessment of leadership and organization appears in the background and

significance section of this research project, and helps frame the problem statement. The

author also compiled a list of non operational tasks which were being completed by each

of the emergency response teams. This list was then forwarded to each of the site fire

chiefs for their review and editing and appears in Appendix F. They were encouraged to

add any missing tasks to the list including ones which were specific only to their site or

team. The original task list was based on the author’s personal knowledge as well as

regulatory, corporate and consensus standards. This task list serves as a source from

which individual fire chiefs can select tasks they feel may be appropriate to delegate to

ERT members.

An electronic survey was forwarded to each ERT member at the Global Business

Services managed Procter & Gamble sites, and appears in Appendix C of this applied

research project. The site fire chiefs were not included on the survey distribution because

they are essentially “full time” ERT members. Rather than select a sample of the total

ERT membership to receive the survey, the entire population was used. This was done

with the intent of obtaining more accurate results. Also, the electronic survey tool made

it relatively easy to poll all P&G ERT members in the greater Cincinnati area. The

purpose of these 171 individual surveys was to determine ERT member’s attitudes

toward the concept of distributing leadership and workload on the various site response

26

teams. The survey examined each member’s willingness and ability to take on additional

ERT related tasks. Of the total surveys sent out electronically, 142 were returned for a

response rate of 83%

The survey used was Opinio, an internal web based survey available to Procter &

Gamble employees. Prior to constructing the survey, the author referenced a companion

document which gave detailed guidelines for the construction of internal company

surveys (Procter & Gamble, 2005). This guide was followed closely for word choice,

question phrasing and structure and scale selection. The e-mail addresses of all ERT

members were entered into the survey setup page. When the survey was opened for

responses by the author, the survey tool automatically e-mailed each ERT member a link

to the web based survey. Duplication of submissions was prevented using cookies.

Respondents remained completely anonymous however, each response was assigned a

unique numeric identifier. This enabled the author was able to see how individual

respondents answered without revealing their identity.

There were several limitations encountered during this research project which are

important to mention. First, during the course of this project, the United States Fire

Administration (USFA) was moved from the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This created a problem in that

it was no longer possible to view the USFA operational objectives. Recall that applied

research project topics should be selected in part, on their relevance to these operational

objectives (National Fire Academy, 2003b). The author determined however, that the

topic selected related to one of the previously published USFA operational objectives-

“To promote within communities a comprehensive, multi-hazard risk reduction plan led

27

by or including the fire service organization” (National Fire Academy, 2003b, p. II-2). In

this case, the local fire service organizations are the site emergency response teams.

Also, the research topic relates to DHS objective 3.7 which is explained in background

and significance section.

Second, the author expected to find specific information regarding how one could

use business process reengineering (BPR) to derive an effective organizational structure.

While there was no shortage of literature available regarding BPR, most of the

information presented the subject only in a theoretical framework or was very specific

only to information technology settings. Similarly, it was difficult to define the actual

processes of the emergency response teams. This exercise deserves the input of others

and if completed by the author for the purpose of this research would have amounted to

little more than speculation.

Third, many of the works referenced regarding organizational design were dated.

The majority of the sources were printed in the mid to late 1990s. There is a noticeable

lack of current literature regarding these subjects. Based on the author’s own

recollection, the rethinking of organizational design and work processes was immensely

popular in the mid to late 1990s. Newer works, such as Kontoghiorghes (2003) however,

begin to examine the limitations of organizational concepts such as total quality

management, reengineering, and employee involvement and empowerment.

Kontoghiorges indicated that the problem with these concepts was that they were easy

enough to start and initiate in an organization. The real difficulty however, lies in

sustaining them over time. The author speculates that organizations quite simply became

28

disinterested in these concepts over time. The lack of current literature may be

symptomatic of this perceived loss of interest.

Fourth, and perhaps the most important limitation is that one may argue quite

convincingly, that ERT members are not true volunteers, nor are they truly paid for their

ERT duties. While they’re performing ERT duties, they are being compensated at their

regular rate by their employer. However, ERT membership is “voluntary” in that

members may join of their own free will and this service is not required nor expected of

any employee. The author did not assume that ERT members were alike in every respect

to members of true volunteer organizations. The survey was used in part, to determine if

ERT members shared some of the same motivations and interests as volunteers in other

organizations. This was done to determine if other theories and techniques regarding

organizational behavior, and volunteer administration could reasonably be applied to the

ERT. It is beyond the scope of this research however to specifically quantify this

correlation.

RESULTS

A proposed plan for the delegation of ERT tasks is included in Appendix G of the

ARP. The plan represents a practical application of the results of this research.

Research question one: How do similar organizations promote member

involvement in leadership and management? One of the most effective way to encourage

participation is to eliminate dissatisfaction or “hygiene factors” as they are referred to by

Hertzberg (1974) . Pearce (1993) and MacLeod (1993) both show that volunteers

generally appreciate a degree of formality and structure for their roles for the same

reasons paid employees appreciate them. The authors indicate that such things as written

29

role descriptions, well planned work, and policies and procedures all appeared to be

good indicators of successful volunteer organizations. MacLeod, Catagnus & Lee

(1999), and Campbell & Ellis (1995) all advocate meeting with personnel to determine

where there interests lie before assigning specific tasks. The authors agree that

volunteers are more likely to perform a task reliably when they are interested.

MacLeod (1993) shows us however that often times, one must solicit or sell the

idea of taking on more work. That is, personnel in volunteer organizations are more apt

to take on additional roles if asked individually by the leadership of those organizations.

Pearce adds that persons are likely to be deeply committed to the work if the leader

establishes a clear link between the work they are doing and the overall goals of the

organization. Like MacLeod, Bush, Schaenman, & Thiel (1998) show us that matching

member interests to work is also an effective tool to promote involvement in volunteer

fire departments.

Research question two: What would motivate a volunteer ERT member to take

on additional roles and responsibilities? The literature review was used to examine what

motivates volunteers in general and what motivates people to take positions of increased

workload and responsibility. The survey was used to determine potential motivators for

P&G ERT members. The results of the survey appear in Appendix D while survey

comments appear in Appendix E.

Herzberg’s (1974) motivational hygiene theory shows us that achievement,

recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, growth, and in some cases

money are the motivating factors in any organization. Pearce (1993), in her studies of

volunteer organizations, indicated that volunteers are motivated by the opportunity to

30

contribute to the good of some cause and for some aspect of personal gain or growth.

Pearce also links volunteer motivation and satisfaction. When viewed from a leadership

or responsibility standpoint, this is furthered by Locke & Latham (1990) as cited in

Whittington & Evans (2005). Here, the authors use Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to show

that members of an organization who are satisfied and committed are usually ready to

accept additional challenges. Whittington & Evans also cite the work of Burns (2003)

who showed that many of the rewards derived from being a leader are quite similar to

those derived when one reaches Maslow’s concept of self actualization.

The survey results showed that many of the theories discussed in the literature

were applicable to ERT members. Question 15 of the survey asked what was appealing

about taking on additional roles and responsibilities. Nearly 14% indicated that the work

itself was intriguing to them, while 10% indicated they found satisfaction in being a

leader. The majority however, (25.6%) indicated that they know the help is needed and

they simply want to help. This very same reason was frequently given in Pearce’s (1993)

research. Furthermore, nearly 22% indicated that this was an opportunity to become

more involved with the ERT.

Based on the survey, the author finds that the motivations of P&G ERT members

are very similar to those studied in other volunteer organizations. They are motivated to

take on additional tasks primarily by the notion that this is simply something that is

needed by the organization. Some ERT members find leadership satisfying, while others

view it as a change of pace or an opportunity to gain management experience. Others

(18.9%) have no desire to take on additional roles. This may be in keeping with

31

Catagnus & Lee’s (1999) findings that some volunteers have no interest in taking on

additional roles and that they may find fulfillment of this need elsewhere.

Research question three. How can the ERTs be structured to increase

effectiveness and facilitate member participation? Unfortunately, the literature reviewed

did not propose many specific organizational structures designed to increase effectiveness

and facilitate participation. However, the basic hierarchical model as described by

Friesen (2005) appears to be a good fit for the P&G ERTs provided attention is paid to

managing hygiene factors as Hertzberg (1974) described. Bush, Schaenman & Thiel

(1998) recognize that hierarchy is effective on the emergency scene, but that a less formal

style of organizational control should be used in non operational settings.

An important consideration however, is that few ERT members surveyed (4.7%)

indicated that an organizational rank, as would be found in a traditional fire service

setting, is important to them. The assignment of any quasi military rank would appear

then to have little if any benefit for ERT members who agree to take on additional roles.

Of the limited organizational structures studied, no single one appears to have clear and

compelling benefits, or detriments for that matter, over any other. According to much of

the literature however (Kraines, 1996), (Catagnus & Lee, 1999) and (Fracaro, 2006) any

organizational structure should include at its core, the concept of employee involvement.

Research question number four – Which tasks could be effectively delegated to

ERT members? The listing of the tasks and duties necessary to manage an ERT as edited

by the Cincinnati area P&G fire chiefs appears in Appendix F. The author could

certainly justify the selection of which tasks to delegate and based on work by Fracaro

(2006), Huffmire (1984) or Knippen & Green (1990). These authors agree that simple

32

tasks are very commonly delegated and can be done so quite successfully. There appears

to be disagreement however about the delegation of more complex, strategic level tasks.

As Vinton (1987) warns, delegation can be viewed as subtractive by a manager. They

can view it as a loss of power, authority, expression, and achievement. Through informal

discussions, the author discovered that this may well be the case for at least one ERT

leader in greater Cincinnati. This individual is concerned that others may view

delegation as giving away his responsibility and work.

Rather than specify which tasks should be delegated, a more appropriate method

would be to summarize Campbell & Ellis’ (1995) task analysis method. This would

provide the individual site fire chiefs with a method by which they could select tasks for

delegation.

The results of the survey indicate that ERT members are at least interested in a

variety of tasks. Members were interested in helping with relatively simple tasks such as

checking SCBAs to fairly complex activities such as developing lesson plans and pre-

incident plans. Any limitation therefore would be more related to the management of

delegation itself than it would be to the interest level of the membership.

Research question number five: What are the attitudes of ERT members toward

taking on additional roles and responsibilities? As detailed in the procedures section, the

ERT member survey was distributed to all active ERT members at the GBS managed

facilities in greater Cincinnati. Perhaps the first result of note was that the overwhelming

majority of ERT members surveyed (37%) indicated they had been with the emergency

response team between one and three years. The next largest group, 15.75%, reported

that they had been with the ERT between five and seven years. 18.11% of respondents

33

were affiliated with GBS. While nearly 15% of respondents were in the Fabric & Home

Care GBU. The next largest categories were Beauty Care, Health Care, and Corporate

Functions, all with 10.24%.

89% of respondents indicated that they felt their management allowed them

enough time to adequately commit to their required ERT duties. To a degree, this

contradicts antidotal evidence from ERT members and site fire chiefs that members

simply did not have enough time to commit to ERT duties. According to the survey,

nearly 60% of respondents indicate that they log four hours or less per month on ERT

related activities. 29.92%, indicated they spent one to two hours per month, and 30.71%

indicated they spent more than two but less then four hours per month. The next largest

group, nearly 19% indicated they spent between four and six hours per month on ERT

related activities. The author found through informal conversation with survey

respondents, that for many, this may have been the first instance where they had to

quantify the time spent relating to ERT activities. Several respondents told the author

that they initially perceived their time commitment as being much greater than what it

actually was. However, it appears as if the forced choices caused some ERT members to

legitimately quantify their time commitment for the first time. After this cursory

analysis, some ERT members were surprised to find out that their time commitment was

less than what they would have originally thought. This is worthy of note, because many

respondents may not have honestly analyzed their time commitment. They may have

answered based on their “perception” of how much time they were committing, as

opposed to reporting the actual time committed.

34

Question seven of the survey asked ERT members what duties they performed

other than responding to emergencies and attending training sessions. Over half

(55.24%) of respondents indicated that they had no other duties. The majority of those

who did report having other duties (13.29%) indicated they assisted with maintaining or

checking equipment, while the next largest segment (9%) answered that they assisted

with training activities.

Question number eight of the survey was designed to gauge the respondents

attitudes toward assigning additional roles and responsibilities to ERT members. A five

point Likert scale was used with responses ranging from “I definitely would be in favor

of it” to “I definitely would not be in favor of it”. 72% of respondents indicated that they

would definitely or probably be in favor of the concept of taking on additional roles and

responsibilities. About 10% of respondents probably would not or definitely would not

be in favor of this idea, while 17.32% selected the neutral choice of “I may or may not be

in favor of it”.

Question nine was similar, but asked participants if they themselves would be

interested in taking on other roles and responsibilities. The question was structured in

such a way that it was only gauging interest or willingness, not necessarily ability to

commit to additional duties. The results show that just over 48% of ERT members are

willing to take on additional responsibilities, while a little more than 33% are not sure.

18.9% answered that they would not be willing to take on additional roles and

responsibilities. Respondents who answered that they were not willing to take on more

roles were automatically diverted to question 14.

35

Question 10 quantified the ability to take on more tasks from a time capacity

standpoint. That is, if an ERT member was interested in taking on more tasks, this

question examined how much additional time they thought they could commit. Nearly

35% of respondents indicated they could commit an additional one to three hours to ERT

duties, while 21% said they could commit an additional three to five hours. Nearly 10%

of respondents indicated that they were able to commit an additional five to seven hours,

and surprisingly, almost 8% indicated they were able to commit an additional 7 to 10

hours. The results to this question are perhaps the most important finding of this ARP.

Clearly, there is a wealth of untapped capacity in the ERT members city-wide. If one

multiplies the median number of hours for each selection in question 10, by the number

of respondents who chose that option, they would receive an estimate of how many effort

hours are available from that selection. For example, 36 respondents said they were able

to commit more than 1 but less than 3 additional hours per month. The median for this

selection is 2. Therefore: 36 people x 2 hours = 72 people hours (effort hours). If we

then add the total effort hours for each selection, we receive the median estimated

available work hours city-wide. Surprisingly, this amounts to 300.5 The actual range of

effort hours available would be more than 258 but less than 383.

Of the 20 respondents in question 10 who answered that they were willing but

unable to commit additional time, the majority (51.72%) cited a heavy workload as the

reason. Other reasons included business travel (24.14%), lack of management support

(10.34%), and “other” reasons (13.8%).

The respondents who were willing to commit more time were asked what tasks

they would be interested in doing. There was a relatively even distribution across the

36

categories, with a few exceptions. The majority (16.6%) indicated they would be

interested in helping to develop pre-plans while 14.7% indicated they would like to help

check equipment. Excluding the “other” selection, the seemingly least desirable choice

appeared to be keeping training documentation (8.14%). One can conclude from these

results that ERT members may be interested in doing a variety of tasks and may be a

matter of individual preference.

Question 13 attempted to examine ERT members’ motivations for taking on

additional roles and responsibilities. 25.63% of respondents indicated that they want to

help simply because they know it is needed by the organization, and 21.9% of

respondents indicated that this was simply an opportunity to become more involved with

the ERT. Another significant motivator cited by ERT members was that the roles appear

intriguing to them (13.9%). Almost 20% of respondents indicated that they either

derived satisfaction from being a leader or that they wanted an opportunity to gain

leadership experience.

Respondents who answered that they were unwilling to take on additional roles in

question nine, were re-directed to question number 14. This question attempts to

examine why individuals were not willing to take on additional roles. The vast majority

(55.4%) answered that their workload varied so they may not have the time required for

the job later. 13.2% indicated they did not feel they knew enough about these particular

tasks to do an effective job, while nearly 12% indicated their manager would not support

additional involvement. Very few responded in a manner that would indicate they had no

interest in additional duties. Only 1.89% said that they were not interested in the options

presented.

37

Question 15 included all respondents and was designed to examine Hertzberg’s

(1974) concept of hygiene factors and motivators. The majority of respondents (nearly

22%) indicated that periodic recognition sent to their management would make taking on

additional tasks more appealing to them. Nearly 19% of respondents indicated that it

would be desirable for this type of work to be included on their work and development

plan (W&DP). The W&DP is used by managers to document an employee’s

achievements or progress against goals in the past, and to establish new goals and

benchmarks for work and career development in the future.

Question 16 was a “free text” field and gave the respondent the opportunity to

comment on whatever they wished. Numerous responses were received and ranged from

everything to concerns about safety to a perceived lack of management commitment and

support for the ERTs. There did not appear to be any significant trends in these

responses relating to issues discussed in this ARP. The survey comment section is

included in Appendix F.

DISCUSSION

In many ways, the survey results paralleled the findings and work of others

discussed in the literature review. Question 12 shows that ERT members would be

interested in enriching, rewarding tasks such as assisting with pre-planning, helping to

specify new equipment, or creating lesson plans. This supports suppositions by

Hertzberg (1974), MacLeod (1993) and Catagnus & Lee (1999) that in organizational

settings, people generally like interesting, important work. Also, more than 25% of

respondents indicated they were willing to take on additional roles and responsibilities

simply because they knew this was a need in the organization. Again, this supports

38

Pearce’s (1993) assertion that often times volunteers are motivated to take on tasks

simply because it is needed by the organization. Pearce’s conclusions that people

sometimes join volunteer organizations to develop themselves or make themselves

marketable in some way is supported, although not conclusively, by the results to

question 13. In this instance, 9.66% of respondents indicated that they view this as an

opportunity to gain and develop leadership skills. Conceivably, these skills could be use

to help an ERT member obtain a promoted, non ERT related position in the company.

Question 15 of the survey shows that ERT members also exhibit characteristics of

Hertzberg’s (1974) motivation hygiene theory. The most popular selection for this

question was to send periodic recognition for additional ERT involvement to a person’s

manager. Remember that Hertzberg listed “recognition” as one of his motivators when

developing his motivation hygiene theory, and this appears to be quite important to the

ERT members surveyed. Additional pay, which is considered by Hertzberg to be either a

hygiene factor or a motivator, was the next most selected option at 16.5%. Other ERT

members (15.82%) indicated that incentives such as fitness center discounts or credit at

the employee bonus store would make taking on additional roles and responsibilities

more appealing. It is the author’s opinion that these last two examples are classic

examples of what Hertzberg would have considered “hygiene factors”.

The results show that the ERT members studied are not unlike volunteer groups

studied by Pearce (1993), nor are they unlike employee organizations studied by

Hertzberg (1974). In this case, Hertzberg’s motivation hygiene theory applies to

individual volunteer members. However, the organization as a whole, behaves similarly

to what Pearce would have predicted.

39

Regarding what tasks should be delegated, some of the literature gives conflicting

views. Campbell & Ellis (1995) advocate sharing almost all tasks in an organization

including higher level functions such as planning and strategy, while Fracaro (2006), and

Huffmire (1984) recommend that managers should retain these higher level tasks. It

became clear to the author that there is no easy answer regarding what tasks should be

delegated or share with ERT members. This should probably be largely based on the

comfort and ability of each of the site fire chiefs. Certainly, ERT members should be

capable of checking and maintaining equipment. But should these tasks be combined

with other more fulfilling, higher level tasks as advocated by Campbell & Ellis? This

particular question should be answered by the individual site fire chiefs. The answer

however, will depend specifically on what each chief is trying to accomplish. Are they

simply delegating to lighten their administrative load? Or, are they hoping to develop

potential leaders and competent incident commanders? If the latter is the case, what

they’re really doing is an element of succession and replacement planning. Recall that

Foster (2004) proposed that using delegation to develop personnel is possible but needs

to be done deliberately. The tasks must be designed with the intent of developing

personnel. Any workload redistribution would in this case, be secondary to personnel

development. One concept does not have any more merit over the other. One must first

examine why they desire to delegate tasks. They then can delegate in a way which fills

this need.

Regarding the design of the organization, the literature reviewed provided little

benefit. It seems obvious to the author that any organizational structure match closely the

type and nature of work being done. To aid in doing this, it would be helpful to attempt

40

to identify the work processes of each ERT. Hammer (1996) indicates that managing by

process is common and is an effective method of organizational control.

The implications of the results for the emergency response teams are clear. There

are certainly ERT members willing and to varying degrees able to take on additional roles

and responsibilities. In fact, between 258 and 383 effort hours per month are available

from ERT members in greater Cincinnati. In other words, this is about equal to two full

time equivalents (FTEs). If managed correctly, this large untapped resource, could have

significant implications for the effectiveness of these organizations. Improvements are

possible in operational proficiency, member satisfaction and commitment, leadership

development, and administrative work volume reduction for the site fire chiefs. The later

is important so that site fire chiefs can concentrate on leading in a more strategic fashion.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A delegation plan has been developed and is included in appendix G of this

applied research project. It is the author’s recommendation that this plan be implemented

by the Cincinnati area site fire chiefs in order to increase the effectiveness of ERTs

citywide. If implemented effectively, this recommendation will remedy the problem on

which this research project is based, that ERT members have little if any administrative,

leadership or support duties. It also answers the question brought about by the purpose

statement in that it provides the best way to redistribute leadership and administrative

tasks. As we saw from the results, the needs of the organization will dictate the method

or process used to delegate or redistribute tasks and workload.

The author proposes that this plan be “marketed” to the Cincinnati area P&G site

fire chiefs before they are asked to implement the plan at their sites. This plan represents

41

a significant organizational change as well as an initial increased volume of work. It

may be perceived as a threat by site ERT leadership. Hence, persuading the site fire

chiefs that this plan will in the long run be beneficial to them, will be difficult.

Therefore, the author recommends that the delegation plan be explained to the site risk

leaders (who supervise the site fire chiefs), and North American risk leader (who

supervises the site risk leaders) first, before it is explained to the site fire chiefs. This

should be done to ensure support, and to solicit advice on how the plan could be

effectively marketed the site chiefs.

While not specifically related to any of the research questions, it’s clear to the

author that an Organizational Capability Analysis (OCA) would be very beneficial to the

ERTs. OCAs are closely related to delegation, workload redistribution, and succession

and replacement planning as illustrated by the National Fire Academy (2003a). The

author recommends that an OCA be performed at two levels. First, perform an OCA of

the P&G city-wide fire chief’s matrix. This OCA would examine the strengths and

deficiencies of the ERT leaders as a working group. Next, each site fire chief should

conduct an OCA of their individual ERTs. This OCA could be used to identify priorities

which could be included in each chief’s work plan. Ideally, these priorities would

dovetail with the priorities identified in the higher level, city-wide OCA. It is anticipated

these OCAs would probably identify the need for workload redistribution, and personnel

development as it relates to succession planning.

Additionally, the author recommends training and career development for the site

fire chiefs. The proposed delegation plan represents a shift to a more strategic approach

to management and leadership. The current style of leadership may not be a good fit for

42

organizations where power and control are shared. Training, development and coaching

would be extremely beneficial in helping the site chiefs with any needed change in

leadership style. Courses, from the National Fire Academy such as executive planning,

executive development, and executive leadership may develop and reinforce the skills

necessary to lead a high performance ERT.

A final recommendation, especially for future researchers, is to examine

reengineering and process centering as they relate to emergency response organizations.

There is a wealth of literature on work processes in general business and industry.

However, little if any of it is specific to emergency services. Can business process

reengineering be applied to fire departments, or other emergency organizations? If so, to

what extent? These and similar questions would make for worthwhile research.

43

REFERENCES

Adizes, I. (2005). Beyond deadwood. Executive Excellence. 22 (1). 12. Bush, R. Schaenman, P. & Thiel, K. (1998). Recruitment and retention in the volunteer

fire service. Problems and solutions. National Volunteer Fire Council. Campbell, K.C. & Ellis, S.J. (1995). The (help!) I-don’t-have-enough-time guide to

volunteer management. Philadelphia: Energize, Inc. Catagnus, J.M. & Lee, J.F. (1999). What we learned the hard way about supervising

volunteers: An action guide for making your job easier. Philadelphia: Energize, Inc.

Fister-Gale, S. (2002). Building leaders at all levels. Workforce, 81(10), 82-85. Foster, T. (2004, May). Using delegation as a developmental tool: methods and benefits,

Training Journal. 28-33 Fracaro, K. (2006). Releasing the power within your employees. SuperVision, 67, 14-

16. Friesen, B. (2005). Organization design for the 21st century. Consulting to Management,

16(3), 32-51. Hammer, M. (1996). Beyond reengineering. New York: Harper Collins. Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation hygiene profiles. Pinpointing what ails the

organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-29. Huffmire, D. (1984). Learning to share the load. Nation’s Business. 72(9), 30 – 31. Knippen, J.T. & Green, T.B. (1990). Delegation. SuperVision. 51(3), 7-9. Kontoghiorghes, C. (2003). Identification of key predictors of organizational

competitiveness in a service organization. Organization Development Journal. 21(2), 28-42.

Kraines, G.A. (1996). Hierarchy’s bad rap. Journal of Business Strategy. 17(4), 13-15.

MacLeod, F. (1993). Motivating and managing today’s volunteers. Bellingham,

Washington: International Self-Council Press Ltd.

44

Malhotra, Y. (1998) Business process redesign: An overview, IEEE Engineering Management Review, 26(3). Retrieved December 28, 2005 from http://www.brint.com/papers/bpr.htm.

Meares, W. People smart organization. Manage, 45(1), 14. Muthu, s. Whitman, L & Cheraghi, S.H. (1999). Business process reengineering: A

consolidated methodology. Proceedings of The Fourth Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications, and Practice. San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved November 12 from www.themanager.org/knowledgebase

National Fire Academy (1994). Leadership: Strategies for supervisory success. Student

manual. Emmitsburg, MD: United States Fire Administration. National Fire Academy (2003a). Executive leadership, student manual. (4th ed.).

Emmitsburg, MD: United States Fire Administration. National Fire Academy (2003b). Executive fire officer program operational policies and procedures. Applied research guidelines. Emmitsburg, MD: United States Fire Administration. National Fire Protection Association (2005). NFPA 600 Standard on industrial fire

brigades. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. Pearce, J. (1993). Volunteers. the organizational behavior of unpaid workers. New

York: Routledge. Procter & Gamble (2005). A guide to developing surveys yourself @ P&G. Cincinnati,

OH. Procter & Gamble (2006). Balance and leadership. 2005 annual report. Retrieved

January 5 2006 from http://www.pg.com/investors/annualreports.jhtml U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2004). Securing our homeland U.S.

Department of Homeland Security strategic plan 2004. Retrieved January 3, 2006 from http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/DHS_StratPlan_FINAL_spread.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Fire

brigades, 29 CFR 1910.156 Vinton, D. (1987). Delegation for employee development. Training and Development

Journal, 41(1), 65 – 67.

45

Whittington, J. & Evans, B. (2005, Issue 2). General issues in management. Problems & Perspectives in Management. 114 – 122.

46

APPENDIX A

DELEGATION POTENTIAL SHEET

Job function / Task __________________________________________

Activity Analysis Can it be

delegated?

Steps of the work in sequence

Amount of time needed;

deadline Do I have to be involved

personally? Why? Fully? In-

part? Skills needed? Potential helpers

47

APPENDIX B

NFPA 600 DUTIES FOR INDUSTRIAL FIRE BRIGADES NFPA 600, 2005 edition

• Someone to coordinate the brigade safety program which includes – (1) Records and data management (2) Liaison with management, equipment suppliers, site or corporate safety, and medical and health

departments (3) Development and maintenance of standard operating procedures (4) Accident prevention (5) Equipment specification and maintenance (6) Accident investigation (7) Incident scene safety (8) Training and education

o Training records

• Industrial fire brigade management shall be responsible for the following – (1) Establishing programs to accomplish the items identified in the industrial fire brigade organizational

statement (2) Establishing the size and organization of the industrial fire brigade (3) Coordinating and scheduling necessary meetings (4) Establishing and maintaining fire protection equipment inspection programs for industrial fire

brigade equipment (5) Coordinating the maintenance and review of necessary reports and records (6)* Maintaining liaison with local fire authorities (7) Making information on hazardous materials and processes to which the brigade can be exposed

available to brigade members (8) Establishing job-related physical performance requirements for industrial fire brigade members 4.4.2 Industrial Fire Brigade Leader. The industrial fire brigade leader shall be responsible for the following: (1) Establishing a chain of command within the brigade to act in the absence of the brigade leader (2) Assisting in the selection process of brigade members (3) Establishing and maintaining a brigade roster (4) Selecting assistant industrial fire brigade leaders as appropriate to the size of the brigade and

keeping them informed of all operations of the brigade (5) Developing pre-emergency plans for site-specific hazards and making information on hazardous

materials and processes to which the industrial fire brigade can be exposed available to all industrial fire brigade members

(6) Selecting and maintaining equipment used by the brigade (7) Issuing written reports on the status of the industrial fire brigade to management, at least annually (8) Assisting in fire investigations Equipment 4.6.4 A written equipment list that the industrial fire brigade is expected to use shall be maintained on the site, reviewed annually, and updated as necessary. The list shall include the location of the equipment and procedures for obtaining the equipment when needed. 4.6.5 All industrial fire brigade equipment shall be inspected and maintained at least annually. 4.6.6 Operation and maintenance manuals for industrial fire brigade equipment shall be available to the industrial fire brigade.

48

4.6.7 Maintenance reports of industrial fire brigade equipment shall be available to the industrial fire brigade. Vehicles 4.7.2 All industrial fire brigade apparatus shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. 4.7.3 All industrial fire brigade apparatus shall be inspected at least weekly and within 24 hours after any use or repair to identify and correct unsafe conditions. 4.7.4 Industrial fire brigade apparatus found unsafe shall be placed out of service until repaired. PPE 6.3.4 Thermal protective clothing and protective equipment shall be used and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. 6.3.4.1 A maintenance and inspection program shall be established for thermal protective clothing and protective equipment. 6.3.4.2 Specific responsibilities shall be assigned for inspection and maintenance of thermal protective clothing and protective equipment. Drills A.4.3.9 Management should designate the person(s) responsible for planning and scheduling drills based on realistic scenarios for credible site-specific emergencies. Training

A.4.3.5 Management should develop a plan and schedule to provide training, education, and drills at the minimum specified frequencies required by this standard.

49

APPENDIX C

ERT MEMBER SURVEY

50

51

52

53

APPENDIX D

SURVEY RESULTS

Summary report Lists all the questions in the survey and displays summary information for each question. Text input is not included. Report date: Friday, February 17, 2006 10:30 AM Start date: Monday, January 2, 2006 2:15 PM Stop date: Friday, February 17, 2006 1030 AM Completed responses: 127 Number of invitees: 171 Invitees that responded: 142 Response rate: 83%

1. To which ERT do you currently belong?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Winton Hill 27 21.26% 27 21.26% 27 2. Sharon Woods 10 7.87% 37 29.13% 47 3. General Offices 24 18.9% 61 48.03% 119 4. Fabric & Home Care Innovation Center (ITC)

23 18.11% 84 66.14% 211

5. Miami Valley Innovation Center 23 18.11% 107 84.25% 326 6. Mason Business Center 19 14.96% 126 99.21% 440 7. Other 1 0.79% 127 100.0% 447 Total 127 100% 127 100% 447

T otal 127 responses

2. How long have you been an ERT member at your current site?

54

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Less than 1 year 13 10.24% 13 10.24% 13 2. Between 1 and 3 years 47 37.01% 60 47.24% 107 3. Between 3 and 5 years 16 12.6% 76 59.84% 155 4. Between 5 and 7 years 20 15.75% 96 75.59% 235 5. Between 7 and 10 years 13 10.24% 109 85.83% 300 6. Between 10 and 15 years 11 8.66% 120 94.49% 366 7. More than 15 years 7 5.51% 127 100.0% 415 Total 127 100% 127 100% 415

Total esponses:r 127

55

3. What is your current job function?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Researcher 40 31.5% 40 31.5% 40 2. Manager 21 16.54% 61 48.03% 82 3. Administrative / Technical 17 13.39% 78 61.42% 133 4. Mechanic / crafts 13 10.24% 91 71.65% 185 5. Engineer 9 7.09% 100 78.74% 230 6. Other 27 21.26% 127 100.0% 392 Total 127 100% 127 100% 392

Total esponses:r 127

56

4. With which organization are you affiliated?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Baby care 9 7.09% 9 7.09% 9 2. Snacks & Beverage 5 3.94% 14 11.02% 19 3. Family Care 4 3.15% 18 14.17% 31 4. Fem Care 3 2.36% 21 16.54% 43 5. GBS 23 18.11% 44 34.65% 158 6. Fabric & Home Care 19 14.96% 63 49.61% 272 7. Beauty Care 13 10.24% 76 59.84% 363 8. Health Care 13 10.24% 89 70.08% 467 9. Corporate Functions 13 10.24% 102 80.31% 584 10. MDO 7 5.51% 109 85.83% 654 11. Jones Lang Lasalle 11 8.66% 120 94.49% 775 13. Other 7 5.51% 127 100.0% 866 Total 127 100% 127 100% 866

Total esponses:r 127

57

5. Do you feel that your management allows you enough time to commit to your current ERT responsibilities?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Yes 113 89.68% 113 89.68% 113 2. No 13 10.32% 126 100.0% 139 Total 126 100% 126 100% 139

Total esponses:r 126

6. On average, how much time per month do you currently spend on ERT activities? This includes training, responding to emergencies, checking equipment etc.

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Less than 1 hour per month 8 6.3% 8 6.3% 8 2. 1 hour to 2 hours per month 38 29.92% 46 36.22% 84 3. More than 2 but less than 4 hours per month

39 30.71% 85 66.93% 201

4. 4 to 6 hours per month 24 18.9% 109 85.83% 297 5. More than 6 but less than 8 hours per month

10 7.87% 119 93.7% 347

6. 8 to 10 hours per month 3 2.36% 122 96.06% 365 7. More than 10 hours per month 5 3.94% 127 100.0% 400 Total 127 100% 127 100% 400

Total esponses:r 127

7. Do you have any duties or responsibilities on the ERT other than responding to emergencies and attending

58

training sessions? If so, please list them.

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. I do not have any other duties or responsibilities

79 55.24% 79 55.24% 79

2. Assistant fire chief 6 4.2% 85 59.44% 91 3. Checking / maintaining / testing equipment

19 13.29% 104 72.73% 148

4. Training 13 9.09% 117 81.82% 200 5. Tracking certificaiton & CEUs 4 2.8% 121 84.62% 220 6. Developing procedures / plans 10 6.99% 131 91.61% 280 7. Other 12 8.39% 143 100.0% 364 Total 143 100% 143 100% 364

T otal responses: 123

59

8. In general, how do you feel about the concept of assigning additional roles and responsibilities to ERT members, so that they may assist the site fire chief in leading and managing the Emergency Response Team?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. I definitely would be in favor of it 49 38.58% 49 38.58% 49 2. I probably would be in favor of it 43 33.86% 92 72.44% 135 3. I may or may not be in favor of it 22 17.32% 114 89.76% 201 4. I probably would not be in favor of it 10 7.87% 124 97.64% 241 5. I definitely would not be in favor of it 3 2.36% 127 100.0% 256 Total 127 100% 127 100% 256

Total esponses:r 127

60

9. Would you be interested in taking on additional roles or duties to help manage and lead your ERT? (Your answer should be based only on your "desire" to take on additional duties - not your time available or ability to do so)

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Yes, I would want to take on additional duties with the ERT

61 48.03% 61 48.03% 61

2. I'm not sure if I would want to take on additional duties

42 33.07% 103 81.1% 145

3. No, I would not want to take on additional duties with the ERT

24 18.9% 127 100.0% 217

Total 127 100% 127 100% 217 Total esponses:r 127

61

10. In addition to your existing ERT time commitment, how much time per month do you think you may be able to commit to additional ERT duties?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. I am not able to commit any additional time

20 19.42% 20 19.42% 20

2. Less than 1 hour 5 4.85% 25 24.27% 30 3. More than 1 but less than 3 36 34.95% 61 59.22% 138 4. More than 3 but less than 5 22 21.36% 83 80.58% 226 5. More than 5 but less than 7 10 9.71% 93 90.29% 276 6. More than 7 but less than 10 8 7.77% 101 98.06% 324 7. More than 10 but less than 15 1 0.97% 102 99.03% 331 8. More than 15 hours per month 1 0.97% 103 100.0% 339 Total 103 100% 103 100% 339

Total esponses:r 103

62

11. If you're not able to commit additional time to ERT duties, why not?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Heavy workload 15 51.72% 15 51.72% 15 2. Travel 7 24.14% 22 75.86% 29 3. Lack of management support 3 10.34% 25 86.21% 38 4. Other 4 13.79% 29 100.0% 54 Total 29 100% 29 100% 54

Total esponses:r 20

63

12. Below is a list of duties and roles common to many of the ERTs. Select all which may be interesting to you. This is not a commitment. It simply gives us an idea of what tasks ERT members may be interested in.

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Inventorying vehicles 17 5.54% 17 5.54% 17 2. Checking equipmemnt 45 14.66% 62 20.2% 107 3. Maintaining PPE 23 7.49% 85 27.69% 176 4. Creating lesson plans 26 8.47% 111 36.16% 280 5. checking SCBAs 30 9.77% 141 45.93% 430 6. assisting with preplans 51 16.61% 192 62.54% 736 7. Maintaining teamspace or shared drives

20 6.51% 212 69.06% 876

8. keeping training documentation 25 8.14% 237 77.2% 1076 9. None of these things sound interesting to me

10 3.26% 247 80.46% 1166

10. helping to specify new equipment 28 9.12% 275 89.58% 1446 11. Sending out communicatins 27 8.79% 302 98.37% 1743 12. Other 5 1.63% 307 100.0% 1803 Total 307 100% 307 100% 1803

T otal responses: 102

64

13. What is it about taking on additional responsibilities with the ERT that is appealing to you? Check all that apply to you personally.

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Its a chance to make the rules and set policy

12 5.04% 12 5.04% 12

2. Its something different, a change of pace

25 10.5% 37 15.55% 62

3. Its an opportunity to get some leadership and management practice

23 9.66% 60 25.21% 131

4. The roles are intriguing to me and seem interesting

33 13.87% 93 39.08% 263

5. I find satisfaction in being a leader 24 10.08% 117 49.16% 383 6. I know its needed, so I just want to help 61 25.63% 178 74.79% 749 7. Its a chance to become more involved with the ERT

52 21.85% 230 96.64% 1113

8. Other 8 3.36% 238 100.0% 1177 Total 238 100% 238 100% 1177

Total esponses:r 97

65

14. Why would you be hesitant or not willing to take on additional roles with the ERT?

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Its not what I signed up to do 5 3.14% 5 3.14% 5 2. That sort of thing does not interest me 3 1.89% 8 5.03% 11 3. I dont feel its the job of ERT members to do these things

1 0.63% 9 5.66% 14

4. I don't think I know enough about these things to do a good job

21 13.21% 30 18.87% 98

5. My work load varies so, I may not have the time later

88 55.35% 118 74.21% 538

6. I don't see the need 1 0.63% 119 74.84% 544 7. My manager would not support it 19 11.95% 138 86.79% 677 8. Other 21 13.21% 159 100.0% 845 Total 159 100% 159 100% 845

Total esponses:r 127

66

15. what could be done to make taking on additional responsibilities with the ERT more appealing to you? Check all that apply.

Option Count Percent Cum. count Cum. percent Cum. sum 1. Nothing could be done to make this more appealing to me

22 7.41% 22 7.41% 22

2. Assign some sort of rank to the position (ie, lieutenant, captain)

14 4.71% 36 12.12% 50

3. Additional pay 49 16.5% 85 28.62% 197 4. An incentive (bonus store cupons, fitness center discount, etc)

47 15.82% 132 44.44% 385

5. Include these duties on my W&DP 56 18.86% 188 63.3% 665 6. Periodic recognition sent to my manager

65 21.89% 253 85.19% 1055

7. More support from your management 27 9.09% 280 94.28% 1244 8. Other 17 5.72% 297 100.0% 1380 Total 297 100% 297 100% 1380

Total esponses:r 127

16. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

67

APPENDIX E

SURVEY COMMENTS

1. To which ERT do you currently belong? Multiple choice other field (Other) Governor's Hill2. How long have you been an ERT member at your current site?

3. What is your current job function? Multiple choice other field (Other) Principle ScientistFirst ResponderHRSecurityla

NurseIH&S LeadersecuritySecurityGlobal Executive Protection TeammedicalSafetySecurity staffsecurityCorporate SecurityNursesecurityconsultantprojectsCHOIH&SSenior Scientist/Manager4. With which organiztion are you affiliated? Multiple choice other field (Other) identifierHealth ServicescontractorClean HarborsHS&E

68

RDSS5. Do you feel that your management allows you enough time to commit to your current ERT responsibilities?

6. On average, how much time per month do you currently spend on ERT activities? This includes training, responding to emergencies, checking equipment etc.

7. Do you have any duties or responsibilities on the ERT other than responding to emergencies and attending training sessions? If so, please list them.

Multiple choice other field (Other) CE hours for my EMT cert.Cincinnati Right to Know Annual ReportRespiratory protectionoversightincident commanderERT duties related to GBUDispatch and Contacting Emergency ServicesLeadership Teamsponsor and help Rick to lead.record ERT mtg notesRespiratory Protection Program 8. In general, how do you feel about the concept of assigning additional roles and responsibilities to ERT members, so that they may assist the site fire chief in leading and managing the Emergency Response Team?

9. Would you be interested in taking on additional roles or duties to help manage and lead your ERT? (Your answer should be based only on your "desire" to take on additional duties - not your time available or ability to do so)

10. In addition to your existing ERT time commitment, how much time per month do you think you may be able to commit to additional ERT duties?

11. If you're not able to commit additional time to ERT duties, why not? Multiple choice other field (Other) depends on whatAlready spending time on this effortResponsible for Security CenterSecurity

69

12. Below is a list of duties and roles common to many of the ERTs. Select all which may be interesting to you. This is not a commitment. It simply gives us an idea of what tasks ERT members may be interested in.

Multiple choice other field (Other) trainingTrainingassist w/ drillsorganize trainingnothing specific just whatever is needed13. What is it about taking on additional responsibilities with the ERT that is appealing to you? Check all that apply to you personally.

Multiple choice other field (Other) I like EMSn/a: additional responsibilities aren't that appealingN/AKnowledge is necessary in todays world, area of that the company seems interested in retaining as P&GCurrent leadership does not maintain this wellNot interestedI have experience that can be used14. Why would you be hesitant or not willing to take on additional roles with the ERT? Multiple choice other field (Other) n/aI have a huge work load now. We keep downsizing and adding work to those left, it's tough to take on more.I'm not hesitant, I'm ready to go!would like to help, but can't promise that I will have enough time, work has been very very busy lately. It might be difficult justifying time away from regular work to my managers given the current heavy workload.already involvedI do enough already for the ERTNot hesitantNothing,I like being part of the ERTSecurity CenterWork as nurse in Health Services so duties correspond with ERT alreadynothing reallyWork load is very High!Management has never looked toward this role with a degree of importanceI'm willingN/ADue to attrition of several people within my area; my workload has increased dramatically.naAt my level, time is very limited for anything other than project worknew assignment must leave ERT

70

I have a heavy workload and am not rewarded by my management for time spent with the ERT. 15. what could be done to make taking on additional responsibilities with the ERT more appealing to you? Check all that apply.

Multiple choice other field (Other) just make them availableAccess to after hours training for con-ed classesnothing it should be part of the jobI'd like for our site Fire Chief to get more recogniton for the work he does and be allowed to get some certifications in Fire Safety related areasSince I work in security, I couldn't take on additional responsibilities with the ERT.Already involvedHaving backup for my other job dutiesI already have additional ert responsibilities on my WDP and haven't gotten anything from management so farMore time to be involed.No incentive necessaryIPMPpay always helps, but daytime hours are limitedleaving ERT but not my choiceClear communication of what is needed. If something is not getting done most of the ERT member will pitch in and make it happen if they know it is necessary.Some indication that my efforts were helping to improve the quality of the team.16. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Free text To keep skills current, periodic ride-alongs with local fire depts during the day would really help response and morale.I would have no problem taking on additional responsibities in the future, but would be very hard pressed to do so at the moment as my workload is very heavy.There just isn't enough time right now to take on any additional duties. I have trouble making the training. Glad to have the opportunity to serve the P&G community - would be happy to expand that service

I am pleased with the WHBC ERT. I find the group professional and fun to be a part of. Call volume is very low, a good thing, so keeping skills up is a constant challenge. More con ed and more con ed options would be great (esp outside normal work hours). I also think we should invest in better radio communications for all members. Each ERT member should have a "modern" 2-way radio. This aids in quicler alarm response, allows you to curtail response in route if not needed, and aids in tailoring the response.Being part of the ERT team has been very rewarding. I enjoy what we do as well as the folks involved. The GO has some great personel. Its my pleasure to be part of the team!G.O. personnell have been given the impression by our immediate manager that being an ERT member isn't part of our core responsibilities and we should not be involved in it, that it is a waste of our time and he does not support our efforts to help the ERT.Not at this time

71

Rank may help, but I don't think it is really necessary. I have volunteered to help with some tasks, but it wsn't ever needed. I am busy and unless some follow-up is done, I do will work on what makes the company money.noNAMy workload is such that I cannot take on more work right now in addition to the runs and training we are currently doing.I'm grateful that our site Fire Chief has developed strong relationships with our local Fire House. It's very helpful to have a positive relationship when they respond to the siteCulturaly there's little support of managers performing maintenance tasks (cost-to-the-company pressures).noThis is a great idea, Dean and I have been working at the site to delegate portions of the responsibilities to team members.I think everyone who joins the ERT teams should take on more responsibilities after a couple of years. NONot at this time.No

While it is obvious the need for an ERT. I feel the lack of volunteers or support for the ERT, is putting the people that do help at greater risk. Work overload and pressure. In some cases such as structural FF, I feel that should be a stand alone group (either in house or outsourced). And that is all they do. The first response is great....definately needed. And should be supported. The challenge is getting people involved. And to be honest, money and gifts are the only thing that I think will work.I think the employee's who participate in the ERT should receive recognition from their management for this. It should be included on their WDP and they should benefit from it. They are truely supporting the business and assisting the companies most valuable assests, fellow employees.I enjoy being a member of the ERT team. It adds "excitement" to my job here at P&G and I really enjoy helping people.

My management is somewhat supportive. However, I think we should get more management support. I have been wanting to take a first responder course for the past 3 years now. My project load has not allowed me to do this. I REALLY wanted to go down and help out the Coffee plant in Louisiana, but my project load did not allow me to participate. If I went to my manager and told him of the situation, I know he would tell me that he can't afford to let me go down there. We just need more understanding from upper management how important the ERT is at the site and some of the duties and responsibilities that come along with that. This should also be looked at as a positive thing for the site vs something that is taking time away from your normal project work. The hard part is getting the time from management. They say they support you but when the time comes for training there is always some test or meeting that is more important. They were supportive of me going to NOLA but that was a one time thing I think.noMy role with the ERT is documentation in the back ground only should there be an emergency. I'm not qualified to participate on the runs or during an emergnecy.

72

The preception of ERT needs to change. We run in the background and are only called when there is a problem. Management has never been vocal about supporting our job, but is definitely vocal about getting the building back into use during or after an incident. We support the organizations in ways that are not truly measured in the $ saved through work continuity. On my WDP there is a tag line that I work as part of the ERT, that is the extent of my contributions as management see it. Finally, WE DO NOT HAVE QUALIFIED PEOPLE ON OUR TEAM OR ENOUGH PEOPLE. When you need to be at every incident, that drains time. When you do not trust the people on your team due to insufficent training and the reasons they are on the team, that is DANGEROUS.Give the manaager's a bonus who allow employees to join or give them a recoginition lunch - it may help them understand what is needed and what is accomplished. Get more "buy in"/involvement from management at Associate Director / Director level to show the importance to the Section Head / manager levelI feel their should be more positive feedback than what is given by our current site fire cheif!Free fitness center for ERT would be nice (specify 3 visits/ week to keep it, and ERT members are kept fit to do their jobs)I would like to be more involved in my duties as an ERT member, though with my current job duties/work load and the structure of the company it doesn't leave ample time to commit. I currently have a hard time making it to trainings and even some calls. I will continue to do what I can to maintain my involement with the ERT.another job suggestion: proofreader for E surveys :)As a former P&G'er that is now with JLL, I no longer have the commitment to put myself in "harms way" for the company. I only want to contribute what I'm contractually obligated to do.

While I am interested in helping out wherever I can, I feel that I first need to be better trained to perform in an actual emergency. For example, we don't have mock drills. Currently, I would not respond to a fire situation as I feel I would only be in the way. Even if there are few actual fire events, it is important to make sure that ERT members are well trained and there are mock drills to ensure readiness. Otherwise you are just putting us at unneccessary risk should a serious event actually occur. Thus once I feel I have been sufficiently trained to respond to an emergency I would consider taking on other responsibilitiesIPMP is the same as P&G WDPno

I have enjoyed working and training ERT members. It is a valuable resource that is overlooked and not compensated. I have provided many additional hours to develop a proven ready ERT over the last 18 years. At my new level in the company and the decrease in FTE's, I do not have the time to continue in my traditional capacity. We need new members and a strong leadership/training team with support, compenstation and time to do things right.Thank you for the survey.no,I hove to acount for every minet that I am doing somthing

73

APPENDIX F

SUMMARY OF TASKS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS AS AMENDED BY THE SITE FIRE CHIEFS

Inspection / Testing / checks – • PPE

• Annual structural turnout gear checks • Annual acid suit pressure test • Annual SCBA bench test • Monthly SCBA checks • Recordkeeping for PPE • Maintaining / (minor repairs) to PPE • Fitting new members with structural turnout gear • Researching new standards / technology – finding out whats new • Arranging for hydrostatic test on SCBA bottles • Arranging face piece fit test for respirator wearers • Filling SCBA bottles when empty

• Vehicles • Monthly inventory of vehicles • Weekly skid unit run • Monthly inventory of hazmat trailer • Recordkeeping for vehicle checks • Researching new standards / technology – finding out whats new • Getting fuel for vehicles • Arranging for vendor to maintain vehicles • Keeping vehicles clean • Monthly operational check of vehicle

• Executing follow up items from check • Equipment

• Monthly AED check • Monthly O2 check • Monthly 1st in bag check • Recordkeeping for AED & O2 checks • Monthly check of confined space rescue equipment • Monthly check of rope rescue equipment • Monthly check of water rescue equipment

Training • Drafting the training schedule • Drafting lesson plans • Contacting training vendors / instructors • Reserving the room / facility • Ensuring attendance (sending out nag notes) • Physically setting up the room / facility • Attending / teaching training sessions • Physically tearing down / cleaning the facility • Keeping training records • Drafting make-up trainings (where applicable) • Distributing make up sessions • Monitoring state certifications (making sure everyone is current) • Finding CEU opportunities for medical 1st responders • On-boarding new ERT members • Qualifying potential FPLs

74

Responding to alarms / emergencies Documenting alarms / emergencies Drafting annual run / alarm report Placing equipment back in service after emergencies

Planning

• Drafting / updating ERT pre-plans • Maintaining other ERT documentation (HVAC zone maps etc) • Making recruitment brochures / posters • Talking with employees about ERT membership • Interviewing prospective ERT members • Draft / update ERT procedures

Networking

• Talking / networking with fire department • Attending community meetings (CAER / LEPC, etc)

Administrative

• Purchasing license plates for vehicles / trailer • Expense report for license plates • W&DPs for ERT members • Maintaining “team space” or “shared drives” for ERT • Sending out alERTs or other communications

Audits / assessments

• Attend annual HS&E audit • Perform annual ERT assessment • Perform annual Site Risk Analysis

Drills:

• Plan annual evacuation drill • Send out notifications • Lead drill operations (day of) • Collect results • Write drill report • Follow up on recommendations

• Plan annual severe weather drill • Send out notifications • Lead drill operations (day of) • Collect results • Write drill report • Follow up on recommendations

• Plan annual ERT operational drill • Develop scenario • Develop exercise team (controllers, evaluators, etc.) • Physical setup for drill • Execute drill • Write drill report

Follow up on recommendations

75

APPENDIX G

ERT DELEGATION PLAN ----------------- PART A. WORK TO BE DONE BY ERT MATRIX ------------------------ Step 1: Define the work processes of the ERTs

• Use the tasks identified by the site fire chiefs to begin to identify the ERT’s work processes. Processes may be different at different sites. The processes should be identified by the chiefs as a whole and not decided by one individual. For help in identifying processes, the chiefs can consult literature especially that from Michael Hammer, or P&G resources familiar with identifying and improving processes. George North, global research & development support services leader is very knowledgeable in this area.

Step 2: Determine why delegation is desired at each P&G site. Is it being used as a tool to develop potential leaders, or re-distribute the administrative workload of the site fire chiefs, or both?

• Each site fire chief will have to determine this individually as each site could have its own unique needs.

-------- PART B. TO BE DONE BY INDIVIDUAL CHIEFS AND THEIR ERTs ------------- Step 3: Determine which tasks to delegate. While ERT members can certainly assist the site fire chief in identifying these tasks, the site fire chief has the final decision on which tasks are right for the needs of the team.

• Select meaningful, challenging, tasks and work. Examples include pre-incident plans, specifying new equipment, developing lesson plans and teaching classes.

• Also select repetitive tasks such as checking equipment, ordering supplies, etc. • Select only those tasks which you are comfortable delegating (this may be

different at different sites) • Potential tasks which you can delegate appear in the “Summary of Tasks for

Emergency Response Teams”, as well as “NFPA 600, Tasks for Industrial Fire Brigades”

• These task lists are in Appendix B and F of the research project by R. Webber.

Step 4: Bundle tasks to be delegated. Group tasks so that they align with the ERT processes discovered in step 1. Not all tasks have to be bundled, some may stand on their own. Highly recommended to use a working group of ERT members to do this to enhance “buy-in” to the work.

76

• Consider bundling simple tasks with more challenging ones to promote a balanced approach

• Consider bundling so that a complete process or operation is in one bundle (ie, maintaining EMS supplies, maintaining PPE, on-boarding new members, etc)

• Design in flexibility if at all possible. Since workloads vary for ERT members, design tasks to be flexible. (ie, can work be web-based?)

• Bundles can be specifically tailored to develop individuals if necessary. For example, an assistant fire chief may need a wide variety of experience including incident command, researching equipment, purchasing, and parts of fire protection.

Step 5: Solicit interest for managing the bundled tasks. Site fire chiefs recruit members to manage the bundled tasks.

• First, solicit interest broadly such as a team e-mail. If no volunteers, contact individual ERT members. This approach ensures that everyone has an opportunity to volunteer other than the perception of “favorites” being chosen.

• Consider a team approach (ie, a group of 4 people to maintain EMS supplies, with one person serving as the group leader or point of contact)

• This is very effective if part of the intent is to develop leadership within the teams.

Step 6: Develop written policies for managing these bundles and tasks. Potential bundle owners must be included. This is their opportunity to make the rules and define the expectations for the jobs they are agreeing to take on. Written documents should include:

• Title of the position • What is expected of the position

• Periodic reports (when, how often, what should they look like) • Time commitment • “Final product” – Overall, what is the position responsible to produce.

• Authority of position • Degree of autonomy • Evaluation procedures (frequency, formal –vs- informal, etc)

Step 7: Formally obtain the volunteer manager’s support for the additional work being done. Forward to the manager the job description above. Ask for their support for a given time frame. Suggest 1 – 2 years Step 8: Establish the appropriate management structure for bundled and individual tasks. Organizational structure may be very simple. Bundle and task leaders may report directly to the site fire chief.

77

• Consider adding a layer of supervision especially if you would like to develop leadership ability and skills in ERT members. If this layer is needed, develop the positions starting with step 4.

• ERT members should assist in determining the best organizational structure Step 9: Provide structured coaching / feedback / monitoring to bundle owners. Establish a system to formally monitor progress including scheduled periodic meetings or discussions.

• Your job as the ERT leader now is to facilitate the work of the bundle and task leaders. Meet with them periodically to determine what they need to do their job.

Step 10: Continually evaluate and re-evaluate the effectiveness of the bundle and task leaders and the whole organization.

• Document successes • Solicit input from ERT members for evaluation of process and individual leaders • Take into account potential changes in the site, its risks and how the organization

should change with it. • Re delegate or re bundle when necessary