Triad Watch has a post that questions the premise in a N&R article Sunday that inadequate pay and/or benefits might be driving away Greensboro police officers (unposted).
Abner and his commenter raise some good questions.
Is the minor exodus from the GPD a reaction to the new chief enforcing higher standards and requirements among the ranks, and fighting crime appropriately? For years, the GPD had a psychology of entitlement that had infected the ranks. Is the new chief, in fact, doing these things?
Or is the exodus attributable to the possibility that he is not doing enough in this regard? In recent months, we saw James Hinson promoted to captain. Has the previous regime of racial preferences been dismantled? If not, it might be driving away good officers.
In order to determine why these officers left, a fairly comprehensive, structured questionnaire or interview would have to be performed in each case. Every officer has his or her own story; and his or her own reason for leaving. Sometimes an employee resignation can be a sign of a poor relationship with his or her supervisor. Sometimes it can somehow be a reflection of performance issues.
Abner is right that we cannot presume pay and benefits are the big issue. It might be a contributor, but we need more data.
Exit interviews are often used in private business. Is the exodus of officers composed of a greater percentage of one race than the percentage of that race within the department?
Posted by: Ken Hill | May 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Abner?
Posted by: Roch101 | May 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Roch, Abner is one of the folks posting over at Triad Watch.:)
Good question, Ken. And yes, I suppose it is possible exit interviews might have already taken place. And if so, it would be good to see an unbiased representation of the reasons given for leaving, in aggregate.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Probably was the money but when a new Chief arrives, not unusual for an exit of personnel to occur. Some fit in, some don't. Not a GSO thing. Happens all the time, in all industries, in all job places.
Posted by: Harold | May 31, 2011 at 03:04 PM
I expect you are probably right, Harold. And Miller did, after all, promise some changes. Some employees don't want change.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 31, 2011 at 04:53 PM
In these times, leaving a job is not done except in desperation or except to go to another job for which one has already been hired.
Posted by: Ken Hill | May 31, 2011 at 04:55 PM
Probably true, Ken. Perhaps some of these cops saw a path to career advancement elsewhere that they did not see for themselves at the GPD, for whatever reason.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 31, 2011 at 04:58 PM
Those who have never carried a badge think cops quit because of pay, or criminals being set free by a broken court system, or because they can't stand being hated by the public. Not true.
When cops leave en mass the department needs to look within and determine why so many officers are no longer satisfied working there.
Few cops leave a department over money. Most begin their career knowing and accepting that they'll never get rich, but love the work and so they pursue it as a profession despite the pay.
Some leave to continue their profession at a higher paying department.
Most leave because of internal issues, poor leadership, stupid rules, personality differences with supervisors, etc.
Some "resignations" are forced; often an officer is given the opportunity to resign before being fired. Look back at Chief Wray's "resignation" as an example.
Sometimes departing officers refuse to participate in an exit interview because they are moving on to another department and don't want their real reasons (dispute with management, poor working conditions, poor leadership, etc.) somehow becoming known at their new job and earning them a "whiner" label.
Posted by: jaycee | May 31, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Jaycee, what you are saying makes a lot of sense. There are probably many similarities with other kinds of workplaces when we consider the reasons for employee turnover.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 31, 2011 at 06:18 PM
Joe,
What jaycee says is true. Also, many times departees simply are not completely truthful about their reasons for leaving, for various reasons. You can garner some information from exit interviews, but the quality of it depends greatly on the credibility of the people doing the interviews. It is usually done by a Human Resource person, and if that department is not held in high regard, quality information is not shared. Also, many times people would be willing to share, but hold back as they don't want the plain truth shared back to the department head.
Posted by: Storny | June 01, 2011 at 04:23 PM
Motto of those who voluntarily resign: Don't burn any bridges.
Posted by: Harold | June 01, 2011 at 04:53 PM
I do not know whether this applies to employees of governmental entities, but back in my business days, consultants always told us that when a new CEO or head of a management committee takes the helm, more than 50% of the former employees leave within a couple of years. That's in the private world.
I would suspect that the numbers are not that high in the governmental entity world, for a multiplicity of reasons, but still relatively high.
A "culture" develops within any organization after a leader is in charge for a certain period of time. Additionally, some portion of the old employees who did not like the last chief's policies were still hanging around, and have now decided to leave.
I would suspect that many of the departures are those of the nature studied in organizational management classes, due to fairly human behavior traits, and that it would be difficult to trace them to any particular precipitating factor.
Totally apart from that, humans have a tendency to deceive themselves, something we occasionally call denial; so even asking them might not get your an accurate response.
I'd be curious at to the stats for departing officers over the past 100 years for municipalities of our size, departments of our size, and compensation levels of our level.
At the end of the day, someone who risks his or her life on a daily basis, and has a higher probability of being shot, mentally quantifies that risk. One officer might say $36K justifies the risk, another $55K, while another $85K. For most of us, even $150K would not attract us to the profession.
Policemen are a different type of human in terms of financial compensation expectancy. Most of us can't possibly make sense of it.
Posted by: Reggie Greene / The Logistician | June 01, 2011 at 06:18 PM
Reggie, thanks for the thoughtful comments. A loss of 50% of employees with new leadership in the corporate world might seem high, particularly with the current job market, but I think your point is well taken. New leadership introduces change. And Stormy and Harold, I agree that exit interviews might not always reveal the whole picture. Thanks.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 01, 2011 at 08:08 PM
I left one police department for another and took a $2000 a year pay cut in the mid-1980's, not sure what that would be in 2011 dollars. I never regretted the move.
The law enforcement profession is not about the money.
Posted by: jaycee | June 01, 2011 at 09:23 PM
An organization experiencing high turnover has to ask itself whether it losing the right people or the wrong people. As Reggie indicated, when management changes occur, an organization will experience a period of turnover, as some people do not like the new "program". But, again, is the organization losing the people that they would like to lose or the people they do not want to lose? The answer to that question tells them a lot about the quality of that management change.
Posted by: Storny | June 02, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Once again, this turnover that's occurred at the GPD comes on the heels of new management. Happens. Poor, and even good, performing employees leave when new executives come on board.
Always the conspirators....bless their hearts, still transfixed on the Wray thing.
Posted by: Harold | June 02, 2011 at 12:24 PM