Analysis of Firefighter Job Performance Based on General Characteristics

Abstract

This study employed a descriptive survey to examine the job performance of firefighters. Participants were 270 active firefighters who voluntarily agreed to participate after being informed of the study's purpose. Of the questionnaire's 17 items, 8 were on general characteristics and 9 were on work cooperation. Data were analyzed using SPSS 24.0, and all items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach's α of .831, exceeding the acceptable criterion of .60 and indicating satisfactory internal consistency. The main findings revealed that the overall level of firefighters' job performance averaged 2.49 out of 5 points. Significant differences were identified based on general characteristics such as years of service, job position, rank, and employment pathway. Although the study sample was limited to firefighters from a specific region, potentially restricting the generalizability of the results, it contributes meaningfully by determining the current status of firefighters' job performance and highlighting areas requiring additional support. Future research should expand the sample and examine these factors more comprehensively.

1. Introduction

Modern society comprises diverse organizations, each structured around individuals and groups working collectively to accomplish various tasks. For an organization to operate effectively, human, material, financial, and technological resources must be harmoniously integrated. Human resources are the most crucial element, as the capabilities of its members directly contribute to achieving organizational goals [1].

Although firefighting organizations share the characteristics of general organizations, they are structured to fulfill the specific purpose of protecting the lives and property of citizens. Firefighters—responsible for fire suppression, rescue, and emergency services— are a key human resource within a firefighting organization. Their expertise and capabilities are closely linked to their organization’s pursuit of public safety. The maintenance and performance of an organization are largely determined by the level of its members’ job performance. The word “job” refers to the roles and responsibilities assigned to members, while “job performance” refers to the actual performance achieved by engaging in such roles [2].

Job performance encompasses all activities undertaken to achieve organizational goals and can be understood as the process of assessing the level to which individuals have performed their assigned tasks. From this perspective, job performance may serve as a multifaceted, objective indicator to evaluate members’ task performance capabilities [3].

Borman and Motowidlo [4] distinguished job performance into task and contextual performance. The former refers to behaviors that directly contribute to the achievement of organizational goals by performing formal tasks required by the organization, whereas the latter refers to behaviors that enhance organizational effectiveness by strengthening the social and psychological context of job performance, such as supporting colleagues, complying with norms, and fostering an organizational atmosphere.

Therefore, the level of job performance of firefighters is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness and performance of firefighting organizations. This conceptual framework serves as a crucial standard for understanding the role of firefighters. Furthermore, the job performance capabilities they require to appropriately respond to rapidly changing disaster and accident scenes are considered a key variable affecting national safety and public protection [5].

Thus, job performance is based on the formal roles and responsibilities specified in job descriptions, and task performance is a critical component that directly impacts the operational efficiency and performance of an organization [6].

Firefighters perform diverse tasks, including responding to fires and disasters, handling complaints, imparting preventive education, and conducting safety inspections. Their jobs are inherently characterized by risk and urgency, the specialized nature of on-site activities, a team-oriented collaborative structure, and the need for strong physical and mental strength [7].

Meanwhile, the modern organizational environment is rapidly changing, becoming increasingly complex and unpredictable. If an organization fails to adequately respond to these internal and external changes, its members’ job performance and growth foundations will inevitably weaken [8].

Therefore, systematically examining the job performance of firefighters in a changing disaster environment is a crucial research topic for the effective development and implementation of human resources management strategies in firefighting organizations. As the role of firefighters expands in this dynamic disaster environment, understanding their job performance levels and their influencing factors becomes necessary. Therefore, this study aims to comprehensively analyze the job performance of firefighters and provide fundamental data for job improvement and organizational management.

2. Research Methods

2.1 Research Subjects

This study employed a descriptive survey by administering a structured questionnaire on the job performance of firefighters. The subjects were 270 active firefighters who understood and consented to the study’s purpose and objectives.

2.2 Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Data were analyzed using the statistical program SPSS 24.0. First, frequency analysis was conducted to not only determine the general characteristics of the study subjects but also calculate frequencies and percentages. Second, Cronbach’s α coefficient was calculated to determine reliability. Third, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to determine the overall level of firefighter job performance. Fourth, to determine differences in firefighter job performance based on general characteristics, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, followed by a Duncan test for post hoc analysis.

2.3 Research Tools

The measurement tool for firefighters’ job performance was modified and restructured based on the research of Lee Kwang-young [1]. It comprised 17 items, with 8 and 9 questions on general characteristics and work cooperation, respectively. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach’s coefficient of .831, exceeding the 0.6 threshold, thereby demonstrating internal consistency of the measurement data.

3. Research Results

3.1 General Characteristics of the Study Subjects

The general characteristics of the study subjects are presented in Table 1. A total of 270 participants were included. Their demographic variables were as follows: 226 (83.7%) were male and 44 (16.3%) were female. With regard to their age, 6 (2.2%) were in the 21–30, 67 (24.8%) were in the 31–40, 69 (25.6%) were in the 41–50, and 128 (47.4%) were in the 51–60 age groups. Regarding their length of service, 23 (8.5%) had ≤ 5 years, 60 (22.2%) had 6-10 years, 24 (8.9%) had 11–15 years, 30 (11.1%) had 16–20 years, 23 (8.5%) had 21–25 years, 39 (14.4%) had 26–30 years, and 71 (26.3%) had ≥ 31 years of experience. With regard to their job position, 25 (9.3%) were rescue workers, 63 (23.3%) were firefighters, 90 (33.3%) were paramedics, and 92 (34.1%) were office workers. By rank, 23 were firefighters (8.5%), 40 were senior firefighters (14.88%), 46 were fire chiefs (17%), 68 were fire commissioners (25.2%), 72 were fire superintendents (26.7%), and 21 were fire lieutenants (7.8%). By marital status, 220 (81.5%) were married and 50 (18.5%) were single. With regard to their employment pathway, 20 joined through rescuers (7.4%), 47 through emergency medical services (17.4%), 181 through general recruitment (67%), 3 through military recruitment (1.1%), and 19 through other sources (7.0%). As for their education, 44 were high school graduates (16.3%), 62 were junior college graduates (23.0%), 139 were university graduates (51.5%), and 25 had graduate school or higher education (9.3%).

Table 1. General characteristics.

3.2 Overall Level of Firefighter Job Performance

Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to determine the overall level of firefighter job performance, the results of which are presented in Table 2. Overall, the average was 2.49 points, falling between the “disagree” (2 points) and “neutral” (3 points) options. The average scores for the sub-item of work cooperation, were as follows: “I am well aware of which tasks are more important in my job” (M=2.57), “I feel that there are considerable difficulties in performing my firefighting duties” (M=2.77), “The firefighting duties I perform are not easy to achieve in terms of goals” (M=3.00), “I tend to achieve the objectives of my job” (M=2.82), “I handle a large amount of work” (M=2.86), “The results of my job performance are excellent” (M=2.03), “I complete my tasks within the given deadlines” (M=2.20), “I perform my duties in a professional manner” (M=2.07), and “If my supervisor were to evaluate me, my job performance score would be high within the department” (M=2.11).

Table 2. Overall Level of Job Performance Among Firefighters.

¹⁾ Likert 5-point scale: 1=t’s not like that at all., 3=normal, 5=That’s very much the case,

3.3 Differences in Firefighter Job Duties Based on General Characteristics

The differences in firefighter jobs based on general characteristics are presented in Table 3. The difference in job duties according to length of service was determined by the question item “The firefighting duties I perform are not easy to achieve in terms of goals.” A statistically significant difference (p<.05) was observed for: ≤ 5 (M=2.70), 6–10 (M=3.12), 11–15 (M=2.24), 16–20 (M=3.30), 21–25 (M=2.52), 26–30 (M=3.23), and ≥ 31 years (M=3.11) of experience. The difference was higher for those with 26–30 than for those with 21–25 years of experience. The results for the item “I handle a large amount of work’ were as follows for those with ≤ 5 (M=2.39), 6–10 (M=2.95), 11–15 (M=2.67), 16–20 (M=3.43), and 21–25 (M=2.35) years of experience. A statistically significant difference (p<.05) was observed between those with 26– 30 (M=2.87) and ≥ 31 (M=2.92) years of experience. The results of the post-hoc Duncan test revealed that those with 26–30 years of experience had higher scores than did those with 21–25 years of experience. For the item “The results of my job performance are excellent,” a statistically significant difference (p<.05) was observed between those with ≤ 5 (M=1.83), 6–10 (M=1.93), 11–15 (M=2.21), 16–20 (M=2.27), 21 –25 (M=2.17), 26–30 (M=2.00), and ≥ 31 (M=2.00) years of experience. The results of the post-hoc Duncan test revealed that those with 11–15/16–20 years of experience had higher scores than did those with ≤ 5/6–10 years of experience. The difference in job performance by position was statistically significant (p<.05) for the item “The results of my job performance are excellent” for rescue workers (M=2.48), firefighters (M=1.98), paramedics (M=2.07), and administrative staff (M=1.91). The results of the Duncan test—a post-hoc test—revealed that paramedics had a higher score than did administrative staff. The job differences by rank for “The results of my job performance are excellent” were as follows: firefighters (M=2.13), senior firefighters (M=1.88), fire chiefs (M=2.02), fire commissioners (M=2.24), fire superintendents (M=1.94), and fire lieutenants (M=1.90). A statistically significant difference (p<.05) was observed in the results of the Duncan test, which revealed that fire commissioners had higher scores than did fire chiefs. The job differences by employment pathway for “The results of my job performance are excellent” were as follows: rescuers (M=2.35), emergency medical services (M=2.13), general recruitment (M=2.01), military recruitment (M=1.67), and others (M=1.74). A statistically significant difference (p<.05) in the results of the Duncan test revealed that those who joined through rescuers had higher scores than did those who joined through military recruitment. With regard to the item “If my supervisor were to evaluate me, my job performance score would be high within the department,” a statistically significant difference (p<.05) was observed among those who were joined through rescuers (M=2.00), emergency medical services (M=2.00), general recruitment (M=2.20), military recruitment (M=1.00), and others (M=1.84). The results of the Duncan test revealed that those who were entered through general recruitment had higher scores than did those who entered through military recruitment.

Table 3. Differences in Job Performance of Firefighters According to General Characteristics.

*p<.05, **p<.01

4. Discussion and Conclusion

This descriptive study was conducted to determine the overall level of job satisfaction among firefighters. Key findings reveal that their overall average job performance was 2.49, falling between “disagree” (2 points) and “neutral” (3 points) options, indicating subpar overall job satisfaction. This suggests that firefighters underestimate their job performance.

The highest score was for the item “The firefighting duties I perform are not easy to achieve in terms of goals” (M=3.00), followed by “I handle a large amount of work” (M=2.86), “I tend to achieve the objectives of my job” (M=2.82), and “I feel that there are considerable difficulties in performing my firefighting duties” (M=2.77).

Firefighters perceive difficulties in achieving their job goals, experiencing relatively high workloads and encountering challenges in performing their duties. However, the scores for “The results of my job performance are excellent” (M=2.03), “I perform my duties in a professional manner” (M=2.07), “If my supervisor were to evaluate me, my job performance score would be high within the department” (M=2.11), and “I complete my tasks within the given deadlines’ (M=2.20) were low.

These results reveal that, overall, firefighters perceive their job performance and professionalism to be low. Considering the results of previous studies [9,10], which reveal that role ambiguity lowers job satisfaction and organizational effectiveness, the low job performance level of firefighters in this study could be attributed to a lack of role clarity and increased work demands within the organization.

In addition, their low job performance aligns with the results of a previous study [11], which found that organizational fairness and support increase job satisfaction and performance.

In other words, this suggests that the lack of fairness perception and a support system within an organization may lead to lower job performance. In summary, firefighters find it difficult to evaluate their own performance and expertise positively despite performing their duties under high workloads and encountering various challenges. This result is interpreted as a complex interaction of the characteristics of firefighting work, including unpredictable on-site situations, frequent dispatches, and personnel and resource shortages.

Therefore, institutional measures are needed to improve the work environment, clarify roles, expand organizational support, and enhance expertise. Furthermore, an analysis of job differences among firefighters based on their general characteristics revealed statistically significant differences in years of service, position, rank, and employment pathways. This is consistent with the findings of a prior study [12], which found that firefighters perceive job satisfaction differently based on demographic characteristics such as region, age, length of service, rank, and department.

Thus, differences in individual background characteristics and organizational role environments can systematically influence not only firefighters’ perceptions and attitudes toward their jobs but also their actual job performance levels. Such similarities with findings from prior studies demonstrate the need for customized support and management that considers both individual characteristics and organizational factors when understanding firefighters’ job performance. This can contribute to increased job efficiency and improved organizational performance. However, although this study confirmed differences in firefighters’ job performance based on general characteristics, its limited scope—covering firefighters in a specific region—warrants cautious interpretation and generalizability of the results. Nevertheless, this study is significant in that it assessed the level of firefighters’ job performance and identified specific areas requiring improvement. Future research is expected to expand the survey to a wider range of regions, enabling more systematic and in-depth follow-up studies.