Trivia question: Who is the first MLB manager to win 600 games in both the National and American Leagues?
Hint: He is also the first MLB manager to win a World Series in both the National and American Leagues.
Bonus question: With what teams did he win those World Series?
Let me present you with 2 scenarios and see if you can see the same dynamics at work.
Scenario A should be familiar to most, if not all law enforcement agencies.
You have officers who commit some egregious violations, leaving you with no real choice but to terminate the officers. The violations typically involve use of force, failure to be forthright and candid during a personnel investigation, violation of a person’s civil rights, and/or other major ethics or even criminal violations.
Upon reflection of these officers’ careers, however long or short it may be, you can see a pattern of behavior during the officer’s probationary period that should have alerted the supervisors and managers that these officers had demonstrated a propensity for the kind of actions that ultimately led to their termination not to mention the sure to be coming lawsuits.
Although the more minor probationary period violations were noted in the officer’s personnel file, the officers were counseled frequently but were allowed to pass probation.
Why? Why would there be such a strong sense to retain these officers when there were numerous clues the officers may be bad apples?
Well, the main reason usually boils down to money. It is a significant financial investment to recruit, outfit, provide academy training, provide field training, provide ongoing training and pay salary and benefits.
There is also a time factor involved; it takes a year or more to go from recruitment to end of probation.
I’m sure many of the officer’s supervisors would say they thought the officer’s conduct could be corrected, given more time.
Interestingly enough, those bad apples with a track record of unacceptable conduct turn out to be the same ones that become the ‘cancerous’ officers who spread distrust, lack of accountability and questioning of authority within the department.
The operative question becomes, ‘Why, oh why, didn’t we use the probationary process as it was intended and wash these officers out during probation’?
Scenario B occurs when your department has a need for some software to track various data, and increase efficiency, record-keeping and other major issues, whether it be CAD, RMS, scheduling, property inventory, payroll, etc.
Your people canvass the industry, listen to the sales pitches, see the demos and settle on a product that seems to meet your needs.
Contracts are signed, specifications established, time lines and target dates for various steps toward implementation are set. Money changes hands.
Initially things seem to progress but soon enough little glitches start showing up. This progresses to the point where you determine the core functionality you need is not there. The vendor response; It is in development, with no firm date of completion mentioned. You’ve just become a slave to vaporware!
You continue on with other issues and the problems keep getting more and more significant with little hope of getting the major issues resolved.
Along the way there were several points where dissatisfaction led you to question whether you should continue with the purchase.
As problems continue you finally figure out this program will never be implemented and the core functionality will never be delivered in spite of what was promised. You seek to abort the contract and get your funds back.
The vendor says there is no provision in the contract for unilateral termination nor is there any provision for you to get your funds back.
Your agency attorney says the vendor is correct. You have no choice but to put the software in the round file.
In both scenarios the issues are very similar, just the players are different. In both cases there were early indicators there were problems, attempts to fix those problems were unsuccessful and actually got worse and promises were made and broken.
In scenario A it is difficult to cut an officer loose during probation after you re already have over $100,000 invested in him. But contrast that with even a minor lawsuit loss as a result of the officer’s misconduct. $100K judgments are just small potatoes in civil rights suits. And don’t forget your vicarious liability.
In scenario B it is also difficult to sever ties early on but what is the price you are willing to pay for vaporware and broken promises? Especially when specific protective language was not put into the contract.
Both cases are based on real situations (and continue to happen). Scenario A was in my own department, Scenario B involved one of InTime’s competitors.
In both cases: CAVEAT EMPTOR.
Trivia answer: Sparky Anderson
Bonus answer: Cincinnati (NL) Detroit (AL)
Be safe out there.
