Police Training Process
Other real-world examples of how organizations have used IOP to select and train employees are the State Police Departments. Police Department selection and training of employees are very similar to the Marine Corps’ recruitment process. According to the San Diego Police Departments Mission Statement, their purpose is to “maintain peace and order by providing the highest quality police services.” San Diego Police Department hired industrial-organizational psychologists to develop standards to strengthen the selection and training process; particularly police officer screening.
The I/O psychologists quickly came up with job analysis descriptions and developed various skills tests to initiate the application process for officer screening. …show more content…
The assessment process includes five steps: Select criteria, Choose a research design, Choose measures, Collect data and Analyze data and interpret results (Spector, 2012) The Kirkpatrick Model has been around since the 1950’s and proves to be one of the most useful tools in business today for this very purpose. The Kirkpatrick Model is a simple four-level process that begins with level one, which is the results level: SDPD and DOD used feedback questioners to obtain whether the consensus of the training was effective or not. Level two is learning phase where SDPD and DOD turned to on the job assessments and supervisor reports to evaluate the degree of learning gained from the training. Level three is behavior; it is important to assess this level thoroughly to determine if the behavior patterns learned from the training are being utilized and that the employee is not resulting back to previous behavioral patterns. A self-assessment is most commonly used for this level. Lastly level four consists of the results segment of the evaluation, this is by far the most important and crucial level of all. Financial and production reports are generated that ultimately show the effectiveness of the training. Reports such as forecasting and measuring costs, forecasting and measuring benefits and calculating return on investment (ROI). If these reports do not show satisfactory results …show more content…
Just as military employees are held to the highest level of integrity and knowledge of the laws that govern them; San Diego Police Department require the same attributes in their employees. The legal and/or ethical concerns that may arise within the training program for SDPD and military employees are its confrontational training environment and group thinking mentality. The confrontational environment creates a negative interpersonal atmosphere. The strict controlled environment causes the recruits to fear the instructors, which is counterproductive in a learning environment. Men who have experienced military service tend to score lower than civilian counterparts on measures of agreeableness — a dimension of personality that influences our ability to be pleasant and accommodating in social situations (Jackson, 2012). Furthermore, The training programs are usually managed and taught in groups or platoon settings; the group environment of training creates an environment of group thinking and minimizes the individuality. Social Psychologist, Irving L. Janis refers “Group thinking” as a “psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many
The I/O psychologists quickly came up with job analysis descriptions and developed various skills tests to initiate the application process for officer screening. …show more content…
The assessment process includes five steps: Select criteria, Choose a research design, Choose measures, Collect data and Analyze data and interpret results (Spector, 2012) The Kirkpatrick Model has been around since the 1950’s and proves to be one of the most useful tools in business today for this very purpose. The Kirkpatrick Model is a simple four-level process that begins with level one, which is the results level: SDPD and DOD used feedback questioners to obtain whether the consensus of the training was effective or not. Level two is learning phase where SDPD and DOD turned to on the job assessments and supervisor reports to evaluate the degree of learning gained from the training. Level three is behavior; it is important to assess this level thoroughly to determine if the behavior patterns learned from the training are being utilized and that the employee is not resulting back to previous behavioral patterns. A self-assessment is most commonly used for this level. Lastly level four consists of the results segment of the evaluation, this is by far the most important and crucial level of all. Financial and production reports are generated that ultimately show the effectiveness of the training. Reports such as forecasting and measuring costs, forecasting and measuring benefits and calculating return on investment (ROI). If these reports do not show satisfactory results …show more content…
Just as military employees are held to the highest level of integrity and knowledge of the laws that govern them; San Diego Police Department require the same attributes in their employees. The legal and/or ethical concerns that may arise within the training program for SDPD and military employees are its confrontational training environment and group thinking mentality. The confrontational environment creates a negative interpersonal atmosphere. The strict controlled environment causes the recruits to fear the instructors, which is counterproductive in a learning environment. Men who have experienced military service tend to score lower than civilian counterparts on measures of agreeableness — a dimension of personality that influences our ability to be pleasant and accommodating in social situations (Jackson, 2012). Furthermore, The training programs are usually managed and taught in groups or platoon settings; the group environment of training creates an environment of group thinking and minimizes the individuality. Social Psychologist, Irving L. Janis refers “Group thinking” as a “psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many