The current fiscal environment for many law enforcement agencies requires innovative change in practices and procedures. While we may not be facing the stark challenges of retrenchment budgeting that were common in the 1980s, today many of us have insufficient budgets to achieve all that we seek to accomplish. A joint agency promotional assessment center may enable multiple agencies to realize the benefits of the assessment center at a substantial cost savings.
Human Resource Management costs are significant in public policing. As a rule of thumb 70-90% of any law enforcement agency’s budget is committed to some aspect of Human Resource Management (HRM). These costs have been predicted to grow in the future as a result of any number of factors. But a common factor in any HRM cost equation is the identification, selection and retention of competent and capable supervisors and managers.
Across the nation, several law enforcement agencies have adopted the promotional assessment center as a defensible and fair tool in the selection of supervisors and managers. However, as many readers know only too well – a functional promotional assessment is an expensive tool[i]. The costs present in any one of several forms – including the significant time commitment of both the candidates and assessors; the logistical support required for a successful center (video recording, appropriate exercise spaces, and scheduling trained actors) as well as the extensive and intensive planning required for a successful assessment center process. Continue reading
IPMA-HR is in the final stretch of finishing up the validation study on our entry-level firefighter (FF-EL) test series, but we still need your help! We are seeking a few more agencies who have administered a test from the FF-EL series to provide us the scores received by firefighters who were selected for the job.
Once we’ve received these test scores from you, we ask that each firefighter’s supervisor complete a brief 9-question performance evaluation. This will allow us to see whether our tests from the FF-EL series continue to be successful in predicting on-the-job performance.
For your help, you will receive $100 off your agency’s next IPMA-HR assessment order. In addition, your participation in this project will provide direct evidence supporting the validity of these exams and their use in your agency.
If you would like to participate, please visit the following link to provide your test scores:
Our Research Associate, Julia Hind-Smith, will then follow up with you to provide further instructions on completing the performance evaluations. If you have any questions about the study, please feel free to reach out to Julia at email@example.com.
(Please Note: All information gathered for this study will remain strictly confidential. The data gathered will be combined with data from other departments and only be reported in the form of group statistics.)
For this month’s blog, I will look at what is one of the hottest questions in private and public-sector personnel selection – “Should we be gamifying our assessments?” In my opinion, the answer is “Yes!” and I will take this blog to explain why.
“Gamification” falls within the larger topic of “how should I incorporate emerging technologies into my assessment strategies.” Now, one might legitimately ask how it is that someone who started doing math on a slide rule can claim to be an expert on emerging technologies. I will simply remind you that Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Paul Allen, Bill Gates, and I were born at roughly the same time. So, despite huge differences in our net worth, we do share a similar generational zeitgeist.
What Does Gamifying Mean?
Gamifying is one type of Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA). Related types of TEA include:
- games (so obviously there is a difference between games and gamifying).
- enhanced item types.
- the use of avatars.
- virtual reality.
- big data and advanced algorithms.
Gamification (or gamifying) is defined as “the application of game mechanics, elements, and features to non-game environments,” or in this case “the application of game-type elements to assessments used in personnel selection.” This differs from the use of true games in selection, although the difference is probably more of a continuum than a sharp distinction, as both games and gamification can be used in personnel selection. The differences between games and gamification can be summarized as:
- With games, the person knows they are playing a game, whereas with gamification, the applicant still knows they are taking a test.
- Games are meant to be fun and are structured to have clear rules that define the game play; gamified tests are seen as a more serious activity.
- Games have different play sections and winning is the goal; gamified tests are structured similar to traditional assessments and getting hired is the goal.