MAR. 17, 2006
EVALUATION TIME

I'd rather face a man with a gun in a dark alley than have to write or receive an Annual Work Performance Evaluation. Unfortunately, it's a City mandate required of everyone at SFPD, from the Chief down to the rank and file.

So every spring, without fail, we find the evaluation forms on our desks. There's one part that really cracks me up, in the instructions on how to fill the form out.

It says, "Be honest and forthright; the employee will thank you, and the City will thank you too." I'm still waiting for those thank-yous to come rolling in.

When you're late writing an evaluation, Personnel sends out these cheesy red notices that start out as nice, friendly reminders and get progressively more firm the longer you put off turning your evaluations in.

Because of my rank, starting at around notice No. 2 little notes start appearing at the top of the page saying things like, "Set an example, Captain." I ignore them for a while, but usually by the fifth notice, I figure it's time to sit down with a big cup of coffee and hammer something out.

Sometimes my reviews are glowing, sometimes critical, and sometimes just plain B.S. That's the thing about these evaluations: lots of times, they're full of crap. No one likes filling them out. And I can only think of one person who looks forward to evaluation time: Randy Disher.

The problem is, it's pretty damn hard to explain why someone is a good cop just by answering 16 multiple choice questions. Same goes for describing the ... let's just call them "inferior" policemen. When you throw in all the political aspects of the whole process � wanting to support your friends, encourage a rookie with potential or get back at someone who you've had a difference of opinion with � you realize that the whole evaluation system can be a little skewed sometimes.

Here's an example of how these things can sometimes work. Years ago, Monk and I were working as partners on a murder case. The Medical Examiner couldn't make up his mind whether it was an accidental death or a homicide, but we had a hunch it was no accident.

We had a loudmouth sergeant at the time who kept taunting us, saying we'd never be able to prove it was murder. Then, what do you know, we followed the clues, came up with the evidence, and solved the case. The bitter sergeant still refused to admit that we had a case, and kept arguing that we'd never get a verdict of guilty.

Guess what? He was wrong again. The killer got convicted of second degree murder and sent away. And what did Sergeant Bitter do? Instead of apologizing or admitting that we'd done a good job, he reamed me in my next evaluation, calling me "disrespectful to rank," a "prima donna," and "a know-it-all when it comes to complicated murder investigations."

Monk, of course, got a glowing review. In those days, I was always taking the heat for being the mouthpiece. But you know what, it was worth it to get to work with him.

Adrian Monk is another example of how the evaluation system can be a little ... screwy. Monk's the best detective I've ever known, but there have always been things about the guy that you can't exactly capture in one of those multiple choice evaluations.

For example, in the categories of "Verbal Communication & Presentation Skills" or "Employee Relations" I don't know that Monk would necessarily earn top marks. And when it comes to "Flexibility/Adaptability," well, you might as well just skip the question and move on to the next.

Someone like Randy Disher, meanwhile, would get great reviews for his "Knowledge of Policies & Procedures" and "Initiative/Acceptance of Assignments," but that doesn't mean he's a better cop than Monk.

I try to fill out the evaluations honestly, and I always consult old evaluations when I'm looking to hire new detectives. They don't always tell you much, but sometimes you can try to read between the lines of the evaluation-speak.

Other Captains and Lieutenants might be scared off when they read that a possible hire is considered "head strong," "aggressive," "a loner," or a "prima donna," but I would consider that guy a little more closely � those are some of the characteristics that make great homicide detectives.

I guess what it comes down to is that every person � and every cop � has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, and what makes someone a good cop or detective can't always be captured on a generic evaluation form. I get why they make us fill out the forms, but I just try to remember � and I remind my detectives � that there's a heck of a lot more to being a good cop than getting decent evaluations.

And even though we might not like to admit it, we all have to be aware that we have some faults and that we could all use some help sometimes. When there's something I miss - it doesn't happen often, but it happens - I've got people like Monk and Disher to back me up. You've got to acknowledge your own strengths and weaknesses, and you've got to be willing to recognize the abilities and talents of the guys you work with. That's a big part of being a cop � and being a Captain.

Past Entries:

STOTTLEMEYER'S BLOG

MAR. 17, 2006EVALUATION TIME

MAR. 17, 2006
EVALUATION TIME