The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Mandated Entry Psychologicals - Does your dept. have one?
I had never really thought about it - I had taken a physical to get into my volunteer fire department, but I was never really given a psychological. I know that I, personally, am fine in that area, but we got a new member within the past year that has raised some serious red flags about his psychological competency.
The guy is nice and all, but one cannot help but get that weird feeling when they're stuck alone with him in the coffee room. He brings up awkward subjects, cracks stupid jokes that can be over the top at times, and so on. I understand possible social anxiety, and this is NOT it.
The member in question has talked, with a serious demeanor, that his family has been abducted by aliens and that he once was possessed by demons. He also said (although this isn't AS bad, but still... it's extreme) that he goes to 6 or 7 different churches every weekend. He's extremely religious (not always a bad thing, but it's to the point that it can get worrisome).
Physically the guy has potential - he's tall and stocky. It's just that he's not all there... psychologically. I am not the only one who has noticed this, either. I am honestly to the point that I would never have him back me up in a working fire. I fear for my, as well as my fellow firefighters', well-being.
Does your department have a psychological? Our department is to the point where I've talked to the President and he says that the board is contemplating psycologicals, primarily due to this current member.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremy Pickett on
-
My department does not have psychologicals, but it's not a bad idea. There are some similar members on my department. It's a good idea especially for big city departments. Firefighting can be as tough mentally as it is physically and it would be good to make sure new members can handle it. I would even be in support of a mandatory exam every 2 years.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
They really don't work they way you may be thinking here.
Firefighting can be as tough mentally as it is physically and it would be good to make sure new members can handle it. I would even be in support of a mandatory exam every 2 years.
There is a big difference between a diagnosis and treatment for psychological issues and the "psych" test used for pre-employment. There really is a big difference. Besides, a psychological exam, of any type, is subjectory based upon the reviewer. It is bad enough a pre-employment candidate isn't privy to their results, nor have a chance to clarify or back their answers, but then to make such a thing every couple years, really shows you don't understand what you are talking about here.
It is bad enough we see firefighters sustain injuries and the opinion of a single doctor can be the difference between returning to work or not. That is why there are second opinions and so forth, of which you don't get with a pre-employment psych test. Now you would want to make such a thing a mandatory requirement every couple years, I doubt you though that through. As mentioned the test is subjectory and incurs quite a cost, just for pre-employment, let alone every two years. Then there can be so much that could be argued etc that a second, or third opinion is almost a guaranteed to come into play.
Sorry, I don't think you thought this issue out too much, and I would bet you never been subjected to a pre-employment psych test to even understand the differences in which you say here and the actualities involved. A pre-employment psych test is up to a dept, I personally don't agree with them, however, I would adamently disagree with a psych test as part of mandatory exam every couple years.
Foremost, a pre-employment psych test makes no diagnosis nor indicates if the person would or wouldn't be a good FF. A psych test doesn't show, nor indicate is a person would be able to handle the stress of the job nor how they would react. A psych test is not going to be an indicator of potential emotional and mental issues in the future. The term "psych test" in itself is misleading as being an indicator of such things.
Then to look to make such a thing mandatory further complicates the issues. Anyone can have a bad day or endure a stressful event and despite CISD, CISM etc, doesn't mean someone would just let go of the memories. The person can still be a good FF, but now you would want to subject people to a psych test every couple years and for what? Is your dept ready to handle to fiancial issues from the testing itself, let alone endure the costs of treatment which will come about and furthermore the cost of losing members and unemployment costs because of what some subjective test may say? No.
Besides did you ever think that those administering the tests probably have no clue about the job they are evaluating, let alone make a diagnosis if a person is "fit" mentally and emotionally to do the job? Ever consider that these folks never been subjected to the same emotional stressors the job entails to be able to give a fair diagnosis? I would think the "walk a mile in their shoes" adage would definately come into play there.
There is a BIG difference between an annual physical and having a psych test, there is a big difference between a pre-employment psych test and then looking out for existing members. Members should NOT be subjected to a mandatory psych test every couple years, because there are many variables involved that you aren't seeing.
Instead existing members should have access to professional counselors as part of a dept or employer plan. Existing members should be encouraged to talk to others and the command staff and should be guided to necessary assistance if more is needed rather than be subjective to "testing" just to keep a job. You want a sure fire way to create animosity and to discourage FF's asking for help and looking for outs like drugs, alcohol, suicides, etc....then make a mandatory psych test.
-
-
If the tests have to do more with personality, then this guy would've been shot down after a few minutes of testing.
This just goes to show you really don't have a grasp on what I'm saying here and you probably never been through a "psych test". How can you say this guy would be shot down in minutes because of personality? Personality is about looking at characteristics and traits, vs mental or emotional issues. Personality is about what characteristics does a person who is Assertive show, an Introvert, etc. Even a complete nutjob is going to have a personality which has nothing to do with how they are mentally.
Besides, look at some of the most notorious serial killers and other individuals of psychological issues.....they were friendly, approachable, etc, the type of people you would want to be around. People like Bundy, Gacy, Rader, who had a good personality and most likely would pass such a test as these.
Honestly, I understand where you're coming from with your in-depth analysis about the testing in itself, but you truly need to meet this guy before making any judgements of my perception on the matter. This guy has a screw lose.I can understand there may be issues with this individual, I'm not even talking about the individual. I'm talking about the notion about these pre-employment psych tests that can be easily confused as to prevent such people from getting on a job. They don't do that, that is my point, the pre-employment psych is not a diagnosis, nor a means to treat, there is a big difference between what a pre-employment test will do and a basis for diagnosis or treatment.
As I mentioned to another poster, the people administering these tests most likely aren't on the job, nor have a intimate idea of the job to be able to say that someone will or won't be able to handle the job. The tests are more about personality and about consistency than they are about diagnosis mental issues or saying who will or wouldn't be cut out mentally for the job.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew on
-
We do, which is why I cannot comprehend how this guy got in.
There is a background and criminal investigation. After that is cleared then there is an interview of sorts with officers and other committee members. We, as a department, don't get to vote the person in, although I wish we could after a certain miniature probationary period.
-
-
I understand that it has more to do with personalities, thanks to you. The member in question has such an awkward personality that it should have been obvious that he is too unstable for such work, even if it is "only" volunteer work.
I think there should be some sort of test, whatever you want to call it, that looks deeply into their psychological past and current status. I know it wouldn't be called a "Psych Test," as you've stated, but something else, then. There has to be something set in place, because this guy, as I've stated a few times before, is a potential danger to himself, myself and others. On top of that, as I've also stated before, he's too irresponsible and immature for such volunteer work. I understand that there are times for jokes and to have fun, but there are other times when we need to be serious and buckle down -- the member in question cannot distinguish the difference. 90% of the time, when he isn't talking about religion, having been possessed by dark entities or being abducted by extraterrestrials, he's cracking stupid jokes or asking stupid questions (and I, myself, thought there was no such thing as a "stupid question," but he has proven me wrong). His questions don't consist of any value, meaning they don't add anything - they're just blank, stupid, irrelevant questions that lead to nowhere and are often off-topic. It's to the point that me - one of the most level-headed people - and others whom I consider VERY laid back and level-headed, are getting extremely annoyed. It's creating waves in our equilibrium and we don't like it.
I feel bad even saying all of this stuff about the guy, but I truly do fear for myself and others. The thought of him even lifting a stretcher makes me cringe, which is one reason I really don't like him riding in the ambulance when I am driving.
But, as I stated earlier in this post, there needs to be SOMETHING. Even if they pass this initial test, whatever you want to call it, there should be a miniature probationary period, too, that pertains solely to their psyche. It's hard to grasp someone in a matter or an hour, but it's easier when you get to converse and learn about them over the duration of maybe a month or so. Maybe after that month then there should be a vote on said member.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
"...there should be a miniature probationary period..."
Well there you go, it would appear your department doesn't HAVE a probationary period. There should be a minimum of a 6 month probationary period (12 months is very common, especially in large municipal departments), during which a probie is judged on a variety of things, not the least of which is getting along.
Of course, this is all closing the barn door after the horse got out, but establishing a probationary period will prevent this from happening in the future. For now, you need to establish (because I'm betting you don't have one) a Progressive Disciplinary Policy. Then Officers need to document an issue, follow the (generally, 3-step) Policy and after the third incident, hold the door open for this person.
Your issue brings up a number of areas in which your department is lacking and, quite likely those of other departments. Run with some of the suggestions in here and come back with what you were able to accomplish and the end result of your specific issue. Debating what should have been done or how it should have been done serves no further purpose.
Keep debating this issue and more than a few "members" in here will tell you to be more compassionate, more understanding and that there should be a place in your department for anyone that wants to be there. Well...you've seen where that got you. Your department needs to man up and deal with this situation.
-
-
I agree with Jack here, it sounds as though your dept is lacking in some significant areas when dealing with personnel, but like he mentioned you seem to be looking at changes which only help in the future.
There absolutely should be a Progressive Discipline Policy, so there is documentation involved and steps taken that can remedy the situations you are facing. You are describing many things in which the dept can work to fixing the problem with this guy or at least establishing legitimate grounds for termination, and it is THOSE issues which the focus needs to be placed, vs a "what if" about psych tests.
Even if they pass this initial test, whatever you want to call it, there should be a miniature probationary period, too, that pertains solely to their psyche.Why should there be a period pertaining solely to the psyche rather than the overall picture of which a probation period does. Limiting probabtion to just psyche strats to open a can of worms. Who's definition do you go by? Who determines mental stability? Are you, or do you have trained psychologists watching the whole time to make these determinations, let alone subjective analysis open to second, third, opinions?
This is why a Progessive Disciplinary Process is needed and that you need to look at how to fix the issues for the future, but anything you do for pre-employment or probation period is moot. There really is nothing that can be done with this guy now, that doesn't start to become an issue for existing members. Say you do decide to institute a dept psych test just to weed out one person, you pretty much are looking at EVERY current member being subject to the same test. So what happens if you or others don't pass the psych test? Is it really worth it.
Everything I'm seeing here is because of one individual, anything done from this point on means everyone is thus subjected to the same treatment. If you have legitimate concerns about safety and the lack of ability for this guy to do the job, then this is something the dept needs to step up and work on. This includes reporting the issue, talking with the individual, getting them the help, evaluate, and document. If things don't improve, then there should be a paper trail in place documenting the grounds for dismissal. Anything done pre-employment from this point won't affect existing members.
-
Permalink Reply by ashfire on
-
I can agree to the probationary period. When I joined I first had a 30 day peroid after which I was voted on by the membership to continue to the 6 month period to be sure I would meet the the training and requiremnets of the dept before I was voted to full time member. I have seen many bomb out in the 30 days or within the 6 months and never come back or ended up at another dept.
Now today in our dept it last longer because of background checks, physicals and required recruit classes before a member even rides a call. With our county fire service doing this it might take a couple of months for background checks and people get tried of waiting and leave. We have lost a lot of candidates for membership in years over the way the county handles everything.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Your recoommended "solution" is not the solution to this problem.
If "Lenny" is causing problems, the members should document the problems, take them to the Chief, and ask that the chief take action against the disruptive member.
You don't need a psych test that does not measure what you apparently think it does to take appropriate action against a disruptive member.
As for your claim that "Lenny" is "an ideal example of a guy that should NOT be in the firehouse..." - prove it. You can't prove that with an unsubstantiated opinion, you can't prove it with a firehouse popularity (or un-popularity) contest, and you can't prove it with a personality test. You must be able to prove that "Lenny" is doing things that are detrimental to the department. If you don't have written rules defining member behavior, then your department has a more serious issue than the actions or words of a single member who may just be a little different than everyone else.
-
-
Jack -
We DO have a regular probationary period integrated into our department, but that is in general regards to the ability to perform the job and get through the academy. He, somehow, made it through the training, although I can't really see how, as he can't handle a stretcher.
But let us get back to the point - this is about his personality and psychological competency, which is awkward and irrational, respectively.
By "MINIATURE probationary period" I meant a smaller period within the general probationary period. One idea is a 30-day period in which the member can be tossed from the department by the Board or by the majority of the department (a vote would be conducted at a department meeting) if they aren't up to standards, despite their original interview and orientation.
I have tried to be understanding and compassionate - trust me. I am one of the most level-headed people, and it takes a LOT for my to become agitated. I am all for being open about others helping, but I fear for myself and others when it comes to this member in question. On top of his inability (from what I've percieved) to perform basic rescue functions, his immature personality creates unnecessary tension that can be potentially dangerous (see my ambulance driving stories from an earlier post).
I appreciate the words of wisdom, though. However, it is not up to me (I am merely a FF within the department, not an officer or board member). Many other people have expressed verbally (and through mere body language) discomfort with said member. Even most of the old timers cannot stand him... and I've never seen them dislike anyone, except for an Explorer that is completely obnoxious.
-
-
When I stated that there should be a 30-day Probationary Period pertaining to their psyche, I meant a probationary period within the general probationary period (which I believe is a year in my department).
The point was that even though there is an initial interview and so on, that we cannot learn about someone's personality and psyche in such a short window. Instating a 30-day period gives the department much more time to study and evaluate how a new member acts in general, giving them more time to make a decision to keep them in the department.
Also, I'd say the decision should be made by the Board and/or the department via a majority vote during a monthly meeting.
Obviously this miniature probationary period wouldn't evaluate members already within the department, only new members coming into the department so someone like this doesn't fall through the cracks.
-
-
Andrew,
"When I stated that there should be a 30-day Probationary Period pertaining to their psyche, I meant a probationary period within the general probationary period (which I believe is a year in my department)."
Does you department NOT understand what a probationary period is for? It's to do exactly what your department did NOT do, weed out a person not suited for the job.
"Instating a 30-day period gives the department much more time to study and evaluate how a new member acts in general, giving them more time to make a decision to keep them in the department."
So a 30-day period gives the department MORE time to evaluate a new member than a 1 year period does? Please show your math.
"...we got a new member within the past year..."
As I understand this statement, this guy joined within the past 12 months. So.......is he still within your (you think) 1 year probationary period? Get Rid Of Him!
Honestly either you haven't a clue how your department runs or your entire department doesn't have a clue, period.
How could this person -as *off* as you claim this person to be- have been allowed to remain within whatever probationary period you have? Is this the Chief's son? Fire Commissioner's son-in-law? You keep harping on psych evals and a 'mini-probationary period' when you didn't use the probationary period you already had in place.
The further this discussion goes the more suspect it becomes.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
