Excellence Is Achievable 652.4
As I watched nearly five dozen eager graduates of the Los Angeles Police Academy throw their hats in the air celebrating their achievement, I knew these were the survivors of a rigorous training and their journey wasn't over.
|
|
Ahead of them would be a full year of supervised field training, and it’s unlikely all of them would make it through their probation.
It’s difficult to cut hard-working and hopeful probationers, but if an organization wants to create a culture of excellence, its gatekeepers (those in charge of hiring, training, retention, and promotion) must exercise clear-eyed objectivity and demonstrate unflinching courage by weeding out those who are unwilling or unable to excel.
In policing, as in many other fields, the stakes are simply too high to knowingly accept less. No one wants a surgeon, teacher, or cop with mediocre skills or shaky character.
Yet everywhere we see signs of declining standards. Public and private organizations regularly lower their expectations due to political expediency, misplaced loyalty, forced diversity, or perceived necessity. Adequacy has become the shifting standard defined as "the best we can get."
Two results are inevitable when we lower standards: The quality of service continually sinks as fewer people strive for the best within them, and mediocrity becomes the norm as good people move up and out, leaving behind a growing proportion of so-so performers.
Two results are inevitable when we insist on excellence: Performance increases as everyone does better than they otherwise would, and some people will be asked to leave.
Management can avoid its responsibility, but it can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it. Excellence is achievable, but not without sacrifice and discipline.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
What do you think of this commentary?
Subscribe
Comments
This seems like such common sense to me. Whatever happened to common sense? I really miss it.
Posted by: Karen | January 6, 2010 12:06 PM
I worked for years in a public agency which routinely hired sub-standard and sometimes incompetent tradesmen because "if we don't hire somebody this year, we lose funding for next year." Guess what -- next year's budget went to fix the shoddy, and oftentimes unsafe, work of these new hires. It has spiraled down from there. Character is not solely a human trait. It is also found on the corporate level. If standards are not established and rigorously adhered to, then the whole of the corporate body fails.
Posted by: Jim Liston | January 6, 2010 1:22 PM
As a police officer who's married to a teacher, I find this article right on the money! I've been in law enforcement for 25 years, and my wife has been teaching for more than three decades. We have conversations about this topic frequently. Settling for "the best we can get" instead of demanding "the best there is" is beginning to show in our professions.
Time and time again we see young people starting out in professions we thought of as careers - a special calling answered by devoted people. Now we hear "rookies" talking about these professions as jobs with good opportunities - summers off for the new teachers and great benefits for the new cops.
Dedication and devotion are uniquely tied to character. Unfortunately, you can't teach dedication and devotion; I believe they have to come from within.
Posted by: Rusty Williams | January 8, 2010 3:49 AM
This is all very true, but one essential caveat has been left out.
Striving for and the achievement of excellence must also be encouraged and genuinely and authentically praised and rewarded. This reinforces positive behavior across the board. You cannot insist upon or demand excellence without letting people know their behavior and peformance have made a significant contribution to the vision, goals and objectives of the team.
Posted by: Jim Uhl | January 10, 2010 3:36 PM
It’s easy to lay blame on management for all that ails. Apparently none of you have ever run companies. If management has only X amount of dollars for staffing, then they have to spread it around as best they can. This may mean they are not able to attract “the best there is” and have to settle for “the best they can get.” The best and brightest usually flow to the higher paying companies. So, if you are not employed by the highest paying companies in your field, then, logically, you fall into the category of “the best they could get.” And don’t lay this on upper management – they don’t dictate the profit target of companies, the stockholders do. And you know who those stockholders are? They are your child’s teacher, your mailman, your doctor, and yes, YOU. So, if you reduce your own greed, then more money would be available to attract better workers. To paraphrase Michael, “You can shirk your responsibility, but you can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it.”
Posted by: Kimo | February 18, 2010 5:34 PM
So, Rusty has been a cop for 25 years and his wife a teacher for over 30 years, and all they can do is lament that the quality of the recruits is not as good as before? Why don't they do something about it? Have they instituted mentoring or training programs? Have they participated in recruitment or outreach programs to attract better applicants? Have they met with their superiors to discuss loyalty as a two-way street? Have they agreed to pay cuts so the new recruits can receive better starting wages? Can they explain why these should be viewed as careers when the organizations that employ them can lay them off at any time?
Posted by: Kimo | February 18, 2010 5:36 PM