A Dispatcher's Declining Performance After a Critical Incident
A dispatcher with 11 years of service and a strong record has, over four months, accumulated three late arrivals, two missed shifts, and a noticeable drop in radio traffic quality - more requests for repeat, slower acknowledgments, and one incident where a unit had to ask twice for a status check. The supervisor learns the dispatcher was the last voice on the radio with a responder who died in a line-of-duty incident six months ago. The dispatcher has not used the employee assistance program and says "I'm fine." The supervisor's chain of command is pressing for formal discipline on the attendance issues, citing consistency with how other employees have been treated. The supervisor is unsure whether to initiate discipline, refer to EAP, or both.
1. How should the supervisor balance consistency, performance management, and duty of care?
Read the worked answer
The supervisor should not treat this as an either/or. The defensible path is both, sequenced and documented:
- Address performance directly and specifically. Name the observable behaviors (late arrivals, missed shifts, radio quality) with dates and examples. Do not diagnose; describe.
- Make a confidential EAP referral as a supportive resource, not as discipline in disguise. Document that it was offered.
- Apply policy consistently but with discretion built into the policy. Consistency does not mean ignoring context; it means applying the same process. Other employees in similar circumstances should receive the same supportive referral.
- Separate the streams in the record. Performance documentation and confidential health/support information should not be commingled in a way that turns a wellness referral into a disciplinary exhibit.
The judgment: discipline without support is cruel and likely to fail; support without performance accountability is unfair to the team and the public. The supervisor must do both, in the right order, on paper.
2. What specific performance and safety risks must be addressed immediately, regardless of the underlying cause?
Read the worked answer
Radio traffic quality is a public-safety risk now, independent of cause:
- A unit having to ask twice for a status check is a near-miss. In a different incident, that delay could be the difference in responder safety.
- Recommended immediate actions: a focused quality review of recent radio traffic, a supervisor co-monitor or buddy assignment on high-risk channels, a refresher on radio protocol, and a documented check-in at the end of each shift.
- Set a short review interval (e.g., 30 days) with clear, measurable expectations for radio performance and attendance.
- If performance does not improve, escalate through the performance process - but with the safety measures already in place so the public is not exposed while the human situation is worked.
The supervisor's obligation is to protect the public and the responder first, and to support the employee second - but both are obligations, not alternatives.