Ronnie Garrett
Editorial Director
Law Enforcement Technology magazine
It’s no secret: hiring is not an exact science. If it were, I would have never employed someone who informed me before she quit a few months later that she didn’t realize the “hours were mandatory.†I thought it went without saying that a full-time job required full-time hours, but clearly I’d forgotten some of the wisest advice I’ve ever been given: Never assume anything… So, I guess I’m guilty as charged.
It is really impossible to know who you’re hiring from an interview. It’s a lot like dating - everyone is on their best behavior when he or she begins seeing someone new. Annoying quirks and other idiosyncrasies remain hidden until a commitment has been made. Dating’s smooth talker generally comes with an ulterior motive as does the charismatic job candidate who says all the right things but once hired seems more interested in office politics than hard work.
As for references, let’s face it, the people you’re calling are going to be one of two things: a personal or a work reference (neither of which is likely to give you a straight answer about an individual’s true character), or, on the personal side, the reference is probably a close friend or family member. What are they really going to say other than “he/she is magnificent?†With a work reference, many organizations are so hampered by litigation fears that they will tell you little more than: “Yes, that individual worked for us between these dates.†Not helpful insight into one’s moral fortitude.
So what’s a supervisor to do? Roll the dice, and pray for a miracle?
Such a cavalier attitude toward law enforcement hires can turn out to be a costly, and even fatal, mistake for the police department. Law enforcement is a high-risk, “customer service†job, and sometimes your “customers†are among the most difficult people around - even worse than your drunken Aunt Maud or your nutty cousin Phil. Now add to this equation low pay, long hours - where even on your day off you might get called in - and you see the problem. Today’s officer must be loyal, willing to go above and beyond and have excellent people skills.
In Crandon, Wisconsin, an off-duty police officer murdered six people with his SWAT rifle before turning it on himself. The officer in this case was 20 years old. As a mother of two 20-somethings, who at times seem to lack the sense God gave them, I struggle a bit with giving individuals that age a gun and a badge and allowing them to protect and serve.
Is an age requirement a good idea? Some agencies won’t hire anyone under age 25, feeling younger individuals lack the maturity required to handle the stress of the job. The University of Wisconsin - Madison Police Department is one such agency. It requires its officers to be older than the student population they serve. But many agencies - particularly those struggling to fill positions - put far younger officers on the streets. I know of one Wisconsin community that hired an 18-year-old to patrol its small-town streets. He got the job, not because of what he knew, but because of who he knew. That being said, this young man made chief by the time he was 21, and turned out to be an excellent cop. Perhaps age is relative.
What about psychological testing? The Wisconsin State Assembly is currently considering a bill requiring psychological profiles for all police officers in the state. Would a psychological work up help weed out the bad seeds before their first roll-call? Could it have predicted Tyler Peterson’s off-duty rampage?
Then there are agencies mandating college degrees. In fact, I recently heard of a Maryland department that cut a job candidate - a former military police officer - because he lacked an advanced degree. I’m not sure that was a wise - or even fair - decision. Does a piece of paper - or hard experience - indicate how candidates will conduct themselves in the field?
I’m guilty of all three of these things in my own experience hiring staffers for
Law Enforcement Technology and
Law Enforcement Product News. I’ve danced between employing recent college grads, because they have a passion and a fire for journalism that more seasoned people have lost, and hiring veteran reporters, because they have more on-the-job experience. To be honest, a few times, I’ve ended up the loser either way.
I’ve used psychological testing and found it helpful. It didn’t sway my decision to hire, but it did affect the way I managed individuals and my expectations of them. My profession requires a college degree; though I question at times whether advanced education truly measures up. Some college grads I’ve come across couldn’t write their way out of a paper bag.
So what do you think? Do you believe psychological testing, age limits or college degrees help uncover the winners in our workforce? Or would a crystal ball be a better solution? Because it seems like no matter what you do, hiring can still be a crap shoot.
