Is There “One Best Way” to Select Law Enforcement Personnel?

Abstract

Police selection can be broadened in many jurisdictions, moving beyond traditional reliance on cognitive skills testing, but managers should be aware of dilemmas this process may entail. Jurisdictions differ from one another and trade-offs often need to made between competing values; therefore, there is no "one best way" to select law enforcement personnel. However, in light of several jurisdictions' problematic experiences, managers should take care not to place undue emphasis on any single knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) or demographic consideration. Also, personality measures have limitations and may never fully replace cognitive tests.

Cognitive Ability, Emotional Intelligence, and the Big Five Personality Dimensions as Predictors of Criminal Investigator Performance

“…Cognitive ability accounted for slightly more variance in job performance than EI. This finding supports Daniel (2001) and Pynes's (2001) suggestion with respect to EI and performance for law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, Joseph and Newman (2010) proposed emotional stability (neuroticism) as a disposition underlying the EI dimension.…”

“…Finally, this study is one of the first studies of EI among law enforcement personnel in general and federal investigators in particular. Results from this study provided support for the suggestion made by Daniel (2001) that EI be used to select law enforcement personnel. Our findings were promising in that they suggest that EI predicts some aspects of investigator performance better than the five personality dimensions and cognitive ability.…”

“…Although cognitive ability is generally an effective predictor of job performance, researchers have indicated a need to identify variables that explain the variance in performance that is not captured by cognitive ability alone (Cote & Miners, 2006;Daniel, 2001;Goldstein et al, 2002;Hunter & Hunter, 1984). The FFM personality dimensions may explain some of the missing variance (Barrick et al, 2001;Barrick & Mount, 1991;Hurtz & Donovan, 2000;Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).…”

“…In this meta-analysis, the authors suggest that EI is more likely to be a valid predictor of performance in settings where stress management and social skills are major components of daily tasks. Furthermore, a number of researchers have suggested that EI might be related to the success of law enforcement personnel (Daniel, 2001;Pynes, 2001); nonetheless, there have been very few empirical tests of this relationship. Among these related studies, Bond andDePaulo (2006), Fiori (2009), and O'Sullivan ( 2005) found a significant relationship between EI scores and ability to detect deception.…”

“…EI is a measure of a person's ability to interact with others and understand one's own emotions as well as those of others. In their review articles, Pynes (2001) and Daniel (2001) suggested that measures of EI be used to select law enforcement personnel. Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004) identified 57 studies that examined EI measures; however, none of the studies involved law enforcement participants.…”