When I’m looking at hiring a police officer, the salary is only part of what the department will spend on that person. By the time you add benefits, uniforms, equipment, academy expenses, field training, supervision, and the time other officers spend helping someone learn the job, you’ve made a considerable investment before that new officer can work independently.

I’m willing to make that investment. I expect to. Nobody comes into a new position knowing everything, and even experienced officers need time to learn how a particular department operates. But I also have to be realistic about the person I’m investing in. Training can develop someone with potential. It can’t necessarily turn someone who shouldn’t have been hired into the employee I need. And when you keep trying, the cost goes well beyond what you spent getting them through the academy.

Know what you can teach

I’ve always believed in giving people an opportunity to develop. Someone who’s inexperienced, unfamiliar with our procedures, or nervous during an interview may still become an excellent officer. I’d rather have someone who’s willing to learn, takes correction well, and has a strong work ethic than someone with years of experience who thinks they already know everything.

I can teach someone how we write reports, handle equipment, use our software, and follow departmental procedures. I can establish clear expectations and provide the training and supervision needed to meet them.

What I can’t reasonably expect is for another training class to make someone honest, give them a work ethic they don’t have, or convince them to accept responsibility when they consistently refuse to do so.

Those are the distinctions I have to make before hiring someone. I’m not expecting applicants to be perfect, and I’m certainly not expecting them to arrive knowing everything. But I need to see something I can realistically develop.

That’s why I pay attention to whether someone will accept coaching. An applicant who lacks a skill but wants to improve gives me something to work with. Someone who refuses to acknowledge a weakness or becomes defensive every time they’re corrected presents a much different problem.

A good interview can help me understand that difference, but I also know people don’t always turn out the way they appeared during the hiring process.

When the investment becomes the problem

Sometimes you make a decision based on the information available, and the employee doesn’t develop the way you expected. That doesn’t automatically mean they were a bad hire. People learn at different speeds, some need additional practice, and occasionally we discover that our own training or supervision hasn’t been sufficient. I have a responsibility to look at those possibilities before deciding the employee is the problem.

But there’s a point where I have to acknowledge what I’m seeing. If we’ve provided the training, explained the expectations, given the employee reasonable opportunities to improve, and they’re still demonstrating the same problems, I need to decide whether continuing is likely to accomplish anything.

I’ve seen how organizations can get caught in that cycle. Another class gets scheduled, another supervisor spends time coaching the employee, another deadline for improvement comes and goes, and management keeps hoping the next effort will finally produce a different result.

Meanwhile, the rest of the organization is paying for it.

Other employees may be covering shifts, correcting mistakes, handling complaints, or taking on work that should belong to the person we’re trying to develop. Supervisors can spend so much time managing one employee that they have less time for everyone else. Good employees notice that, particularly when they’re consistently meeting the standard while someone else is allowed to fall short.

Those costs don’t usually appear together on a spreadsheet. They’re spread across payroll, overtime, supervision, lost productivity, and the frustration of people who have to compensate for someone else’s performance.

In police work, there’s another consequence I can’t overlook. An officer carries authority and makes decisions that affect the public. If someone repeatedly demonstrates poor judgment, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to follow established standards, I can’t justify keeping them in that position simply because the department has already invested time and money in their development.

At that point, continuing to spend money doesn’t protect the original investment. It increases what the department stands to lose.

The decision still belongs to management

It’s easy to criticize a hiring decision after you know how the employee turned out. The harder responsibility is making a reasonable decision beforehand, giving that person a fair opportunity to succeed, and recognizing when the evidenceInformation or an item that may help prove or disprove a fact in an investigation or court case. no longer supports continuing.

I don’t want to become so afraid of hiring the wrong person that I pass over good applicants who need some development. That would be a mistake too. There’s a difference between taking a reasonable chance on someone with potential and overlooking problems you already know you can’t train away.

Staffing shortages don’t change that standard. An empty position can create overtime, disrupt schedules, and put pressure on everyone who’s still working. I understand those costs because I’m responsible for managing them. But I won’t lower my hiring standards to make the schedule look better.

Once I’ve hired someone, I owe them the training, direction, and supervision necessary to give them a fair opportunity. I also owe the rest of the department an honest assessment of whether that investment is working.

What I don’t want to do is spend another year trying to develop someone I’ve already determined isn’t going to meet the standard, simply because admitting the original decision was wrong would be uncomfortable.