Self-Deception
Personnel problems that plague police organizations are really symptoms of the blame dragon. The blame dragon is caused by the choices we make about ourselves and others. Unfortunately, some people choose to deceive themselves by deciding that all problems are caused by someone or something else.
· Self-deception occurs when we betray ourselves by blaming others for our circumstances. Self-deception is the inability to recognize oneself as a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
Despite its destructiveness, self-deception is very tough for each of us to see in ourselves. Rather than accept responsibility for a problem, employees can first view themselves as a victim, nonetheless very loyal, extremely hardworking, and grossly undervalued. Second, they see co-workers as highly insensitive, totally unfair, always inconsiderate, and basically lazy. This self-deception leads to poor performance that may be behaviorally experienced as a lack of motivation, backbiting, lowered trust, and lack of commitment.
The obvious avoidance of or cure for self-deception is kicking aside self-betrayal and stepping forward to accept that you are causing harmful problems, and choosing to be a part of the solution.
Consequences
Ignoring or mishandling misconduct by problem employees is usually very time consuming and expensive for these reasons:
· Recruitment: Wise potential new hires are likely to know the agency has more than its fair share of malcontents, and will avoid the agency and apply to other police agencies. Because they’re selective, these are exactly the type of high-caliber new hires you want to employ.
· Retention: If you are mismanaging or ignoring bad conduct, it sounds an alarm to other police workers that the agency is drifting, in trouble, and lacks leadership. Your exemplary workers are apt to look for an agency with a more professional culture.
· Morale: An absence of discipline suggests a lack of integrity within the managerial and supervisory ranks. Poor morale begets lower productivity that creates performance shortfalls. Employees who chose not to leave the agency may “quit” and stay employed with your agency, by doing the minimum work necessary to get by, because they know bad behavior is tolerated.
· Lawsuits: Lawyers love police managers who mismanage personnel issues. Wrong decisions or no decision by a police manager/supervisor can be disastrous—for example, costly legal settlements and being forced to retain the very miscreant who should never have been hired in the first place.
· Money: All of the above reasons create a waste of valuable budget dollars and the manager’s time. One estimate has police managers spending 20 percent of their time combating wrongful behavior. With public scrutiny of the use of public resources at an unprecedented high, that’s a large chunk of taxpayer dollars.
HOW?
· Hire a fool or a drunk and you shoot yourself in the foot.
—Proverbs 26:10
No agency (I hope) intentionally hires or nurtures a malcontent, liar, or crook. But it happens. More importantly, how does it happen? Roughly there are three ways an agency can acquire a bad employee. Each category should be objectively probed for structural and contextual deficiencies.
Selection
Here we are looking at recruitment standards, pre-employment testing, background investigations, basic training, field officer training, and probationary periods.
· Recruitment: Is the recruitment process proactive and professional rather than a mere newspaper ad, craigslist.com ad, or wall poster? Is it ho-hum or attractively announcing the merits and rewards of being a police officer?
· Standards: Are the employment standards set for applicants with high intelligence, solid character, good work ethic, physical strength, and empathy to mention a few?
· Pre-Employment Testing: Does the testing include a general intelligence test, an oral board examination, a psychological examination, and a physical agility test?
· Background Investigation: Is there an investigator assigned to the applicant’s personal and work history? Is the inquiry more than a mere letter or telephone inquiry? Is the background investigator leaving every stone unturned, following all leads permissible under the law, including credit checks, social media, and other available public records, to lawfully probe for disqualifying behavior?
· Basic Training: Is the basic training program comprehensive and certified by a state certifying body? Is the applicant’s competency tested?
· Field Training Officer (FTO) Program: After the academy training, is the probationary officer subject to a formal, certified FTO program led by a highly trained FTO? Are written evaluations prepared for each phase of training so that the probationary officer can be carefully considered for advancement?
· Probationary Period: Is there a probationary period from which a supervisor and FTO can recommend permanent hire or termination? And is it used?
· Even with the rigorous application of all of the above personnel screening methods, some problem people are destined to slip through and become permanent members of a police agency. Nonetheless, the correct management decision must be to take every step and make every effort to identify problem employees early on and thus preclude them from contaminating the services of a police department and the department’s standing in the community. The greater the percentage of problem employees, the less these steps are being diligently accomplished.