It had been reported that a number of parties had input into the recent promotions announced by the Greensboro Police Department. These included police executives from other areas; business leaders; GPD command staff; non-police city staff; and representatives of neighborhood associations.
I requested from the city of Greensboro a list of these individuals, and it has been provided to me. Many of the folks were unknown to me, and I did not find any particular red flag-- with one exception. All three assistant chiefs were consulted, including Ron Rogers. Readers might recall that Rogers had some involvement in an incident last year.
The process included the submission of a resume; a writing exercise; a peer assesssment; a panel interview; feedback from the assistant chiefs; and selected interviews with the chief himself. The performance dimensions included written and oral communication; leadership; problem solving; community engagement; collaboration; work ethic; and decision making.
Specific language I have selected from the document is of interest.
On leadership: "Supports department mission and visibly demonstrates that support in the day to day work environment."
On work ethic: "Candidate demonstrates a stong work ethic through putting in the time necessary to get the job done."
On decision making: "Candidate has an unwavering commitment on ethical issues... Decisions inspire confidence."
The peer assessment required all command staff to rate the applicant based on the "performance dimensions" noted above.
In the case of James Hinson, who was promoted to captain, it is an open question as to how we could believe the peers consistently gave him favorable ratings. It is an open question as to how he could have scored acceptably well on the leadership, work ethic and decision making attributes described above.
We need to remain mindful about what we learned about Hinson in Jerry Bledsoe's series. How could a comprehensive evaluation result in his being promoted to captain?
I have one possible explanation. The process employed, as it was related to me, did not include any systematic evaluation of the applicant's work history.
But there is another possible explanation-- and one for which I have no evidence. Perhaps the process was somehow manipulated.
Some random thoughts: Suppose that there are officers in the department who fit the model that you, or I, think is best for leadership in the police department. Will they be discouraged and lessen the effort and integrity that they have been bringing to the job? Will others, perhaps rookies, emulate Hinson in hopes of rising to equal levels? Finally, I worked best and most faithfully for supervisors that I could trust. It will be interesting to see how the lower ranks respond to this leadership.
Posted by: Ken Hill | February 23, 2011 at 01:12 PM
Ken, the answer to both of your questions is inevitably, "Yes".
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 23, 2011 at 04:39 PM
Joe, anyone experienced in writing performance evaluations would tell you that what you have presented is poor management execution of performance evaluations. "On leadership: "Supports department mission and visibly demonstrates that support in the day to day work environment." This is unacceptable as it says nothing to describe "how" he has exhibited leadership. What is shown here is basically what the organization says leadership is. You can't evaluate someone's leadership without giving examples of how and when he supports the mission or demonstrates support. You can't read these comments and really picture how he demonstrated these competencies. A worthless evaluation. If I was running GPD's human resource department, I would have returned this and asked the manager to do it right. This is sloppy work, perhaps intentionally so.
Posted by: Stormy | February 23, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Stormy, these were not comments specific to Hinson, or an evaluation specific to Hinson. Instead, these were among numerous criteria to be used for the entire pool of applicants.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 23, 2011 at 04:57 PM
I have one possible explanation. The process employed, as it was related to me, did not include any systematic evaluation of the applicant's work history.
But there is another possible explanation-- and one for which I have no evidence. Perhaps the process was somehow manipulated.
I would probably say "all of the above" Beau
Posted by: Beau | February 23, 2011 at 05:49 PM
Beau, perhaps it was intentional that there was to be no comprehensive review of the applicant's work history. Who knows?
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 23, 2011 at 07:28 PM
Was this included in the evaluation?
On Race Relations: Candidates promotion will enhance the image of diversity in the police department.
Posted by: jaycee | February 23, 2011 at 07:32 PM
It was not, jaycee. But hey, this is Greensboro-- it does not need to be spelled out.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 23, 2011 at 07:44 PM
The truth will come out that the process was a sham.....how does one grade an essay test? How does one use a peer assessment to base a promotion, when the peers are competing against each other, did they Chief speak to all in the process? How much training did the assessors have? Did the Chief know any of the assessors himself? Why change the test from the one the Buracker Report suggested? Was there a actual list of ranking out for all to see? Joe ask those questions.
Posted by: Concerned | February 23, 2011 at 08:34 PM
Concerned, I will answer your questions:
1. The writing samples were given in a proctored environment and graded blindly by police professionals outside the GPD based on how effective the written communication was.
2. The peer assessment was done by distributing a "rating instrument" to command staff. They were to use an electronic survey to rate the candidates based on all the "performance dimensions".
3. It is not indicated that the chief spoke with all applicants. Miller said, "I reserve the right to identify selected candidates for an additional interview to assist me with my decision. That interview would be one-on-one with me."
4. It is not indicated how much training the assessors had. The chief had to have known at least some of the assessors. If the test was changed, I do not know why. I have not seen a "list of ranking", but I did not ask for one.
One needs to remain mindful that Chief Miller works for Rashad Young; and has to do what Young would expect of him.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 23, 2011 at 08:47 PM
Joe, I had misunderstood your comments. But, if those were the criteria used, what about the actual evaluations of Hinson on those comptencies? How did he rate?
Posted by: Stormy | February 24, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Stormy, I did not ask for that information, and I doubt they would have released it because of confidentiality issues. But for those three criteria I highlighted, it is hard to see how a positive evaluation would square with what we learned from the Bledsoe series and other sources.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 24, 2011 at 05:19 PM
Joe , While Ken Miller "works" for Rashad Young, Rashad's boss works for us. I can't even begin to imagine how this decision could be based on any real world assessment of this candidate's (now captain's) behaviour and performance as a law enforcement professional. This small southern mill town's police department stinks to high heaven with allegations and innuendo of corruption and always has. Did we really need to have a new chief come in and rub our noses in it? Same ol' story same ol' song and dance regrettfully.
Posted by: Joe Wilson | February 27, 2011 at 03:05 PM
Joe, great to hear from you. I have to agree with you for the most part.
If this decision was based on a desire to assist with the Hinson litigation, I am truly disappointed.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 27, 2011 at 04:22 PM