PRADCO's Blog

I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to head up our safety force division.  Over the last year or so, many departments have approached PRADCO to handle their testing.  I thought that it would make sense to take a step back and see if our clients had specific reasons for choosing PRADCO.  Some common themes have surfaced:

 1)  Too many departments have been hurt by conducting “traditional” psychological pre-hire assessments,

2)  Generic promotional assessments do not always work, and,

3)  Testing firms have not done enough to learn about the specific cultures of the departments and the communities.

 Let’s talk about these in order.  I wish I had a dollar for every time a Chief has said that their psychological assessments rarely rejected any candidates.  This is not surprising because the old way was to screen for clinical deviancy and leave it at that.  That approach would never suffice for our clients.  While we look for psychological issues, we find out about the person’s motivation, work habits, interpersonal skills and judgment. Thank goodness most people do not show any type of deviancy but this does not mean that they can’t be lazy, have a bad attitude or be rude to the citizens.  These are the types of things we screen for and are most important in communities where strong bonds with the public must be formed.

 I would estimate that in the past 12-18 months, our promotional assessment business has tripled.  I wish I could say it was due to some greater marketing initiative, but I think it has been due to dissatisfaction from Chiefs, HR Directors and local Civil Service Commissions.   Candidates go to classes on how to pass assessment centers and they also know what exercises to expect in many cases.  Also, book tests alone do not necessarily lead to the selection of the best leader.  While they serve a purpose, are they really assessing what people will do or how well they memorize what they should do?  We have proposed individual leadership assessments which the communities have seemed to like.  Instead of focusing on what a person thinks he/she should do, we would rather get a good look at their past behavior on the job and determine how that applies to their future leadership role.  For example, I may know how to handle a coaching session with an employee, but if I am really an impatient and overly aggressive person who shows little concern for others, am I likely to behave in the appropriate manner?   Smart people will know how to answer hypothetical questions!  However, they do not always act on that knowledge.

 Are all police and fire departments the same?  Not really.  They can differ by call volume, type of call, expectations of the citizenry, experience of the police officers/firefighters, etc.  To go into a community and tell them what they need is the epitome of arrogance.  It is much more effective to find out about the culture of the department and the specifics of a community.  An officer may work well in a department with high call volume and may be bored to tears in another where he/she is expected to know every pet’s name in the community!  One type of supervisor may be best for a department where discipline may have been lacking but not appropriate where a softer style is needed.  It all comes down to fit.  Going into a community with a generic profile for a police officer/firefighter or supervisor can lead to some poor results.  I really enjoy having multiple conversations with the Chiefs and HR Directors to find out what will work in their communities.  This level of specificity increases the odds of an effective selection process.   

 Thanks to all the communities that work with us and for those considering using our services in the future.

This entry was posted on March 9, 2010 at 4:28 pm and is filed under Safety Forces with tags Larry Borodkin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.