Captain Smith, After going through your program and a coaching session with your
son, I am currently in backgrounds with 2 departments in Southern California and
on the lists of 4 others. The background investigators for those two
departments told me that they will both have psychological evaluations and one
will have a polygraph. I want to make sure that I am prepared for these last
phases prior to hiring. Your son suggested I call you for advice.
Thanks, Randy
After you have jumped through all the flaming hoops you don’t want to be caught
flat-footed for the remaining steps in the hiring process. It’s 3rd down and 2
yards to go for the badge. You want to convert. You want to convert every step
of this process the first time through the line, or you could be thrown for a
loss, thrown in the penalty box, out of the game, and trying to fight your way
back in.
You can spin this anyway you want. But ask yourself if you would you show up
without preparing for the written? Not in shape for the physical agility? Have
you discovered you just can’t wing the oral? Then, why doesn’t it make since to
prepare for the remaining portions of the hiring process, the background, psych,
poly and medical?
Don’t be so naive to believe by the 4 inches between your ears you have an
explanation that everything in your past will be overlooked, especially if it’s
something you weren’t required to reveal in the first place. If you do, you
might still believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Come on in said
the spider to the fly. Don’t take the bait! It’s not the department but the
background investigators and the psychologist that could take you out. These
people are not your friends. They are experts being paid to eliminate you from
the process. The deck is stacked against you before you show up.
I get the calls when the background has not gone right for too many
candidates. The first words out of their mouth when I pick up the phone is
usually, "What do I do now?" I
ask them two questions. First, were you honest to a fault leaving not rock
unturned? Did you volunteer information that you were not required to
give? They usually answer yes to both. Than that’s probably why you
failed. The defense rests.
A candidate just called and said the background investigator told him a poly
would be given to verify his information. My first question, “Was it listed on
the job announcement that there was going to be a poly? No. If it was not
included in the job announcement and or they are going to give a poly to
everyone else, that’s BS. It’s not uncommon for a background investigator or
psychologist to say, “Will you submit to a poly to verify your answers? Or, a
poly could or will be given at the end of the process.” Are they
lying? Yep. Wait a minute, I thought everyone was not suppose to tell the
truth here? I’m not aware of any test where the candidates were held hostage
with the threat of a poly being given, when it was not included with the job
announcement, and they had to take one. I know of candidates who were turned
down and wanted to take a poly to prove they were telling the truth and they
couldn’t get one because they would have to give it to everyone else.
They often say, I didn’t think what I told them was any big deal, but some of
those little things that I really didn’t have to talk about amounted to causing
me big problems in the process. As one candidate said, "Hey,
I’m not a bad guy. But I volunteered a little something here and then
there. By the time they got done with me, they made me look like Charles
Manson! "
I had a chance to work with a psychologist in preparing our Conquer the
Psychological Interview Special Report. I couldn’t believe some of the answers
candidates tossed out in their interview with the psychologist. When I asked
the psychologist how did you get them to say that? He smiled and said,
"We just asked them." Wouldn’t
you want to be prepared so you wouldn’t just blurt out something you were not
required to say? Here is a segment of that report:
“Psychologists are given more power than they should,” says Robert Thomas Flint,
Ph.D., who sometimes did re-evaluations of potential peace officers and
firefighters who have failed psychological tests. Although he tends to agree
40-50% of the original decisions were valid, he finds that another 30-50% of the
rejected candidates are acceptable and can handle the job.
The psychological test is changing the fire service. Sure there are some folks
who have a lot of baggage and shouldn’t be hired. But most of the red-hot’s,
the backbone of the fire service, can’t make it through the
process. Surprisingly, the evaluations are based on the performance of those
already in the fire service.
More and more agencies are using the psychological test in their hiring
process. Psychologists are competing for this lucrative business and agencies
feel they need this service to hire the right candidates. In one large
department forty-percent of candidates were eliminated from the hiring process
through the psychological tests. Fire administrations feel their hands are tied
and get frustrated when they see that a high percentage of their superior
candidates who were eliminated by their physiological test are being hired by
other agencies. If the psych is so important why is it not used at all in
Canada? Some departments who have been using he psych have stopped because of
the candidates it was delivering.
Dr. Flint feels that the PhD has been watered down, i.e., many of graduates in
the last ten years, and the psychologist too often paint by the numbers and
disqualify a person because they might have an unusual background. These
psychologists do not have an adequate background in the statistics and the
research necessary to be fully competent in the use of tests with unusual
populations. That is, they are trained in identifying problems in the general
population but are less skilled in the identifying the strengths in special
groups such as firefighters. They also tend to have difficulty incorporating
unusual backgrounds into their reports. But, don’t a higher percentage of those
with a burning desire for this job fall into these categories?
Much of the problem falls on the cities themselves for not having control of the
guidelines that the psychologists are using. Left on their own, psychologists
will use their own devises to decide what to do, and this is not always related
to the department’s needs. If the guidelines are not well defined by the
agency, then the psychologist might wash the candidate out for reasons not job
relevant.
A large bay area city was a perfect example of this process. A member of
personnel and a fire recruiter teamed up to upgrade the selection process and
add the polygraph. Because of the cost of living this city was already pulling
their hair out trying to recruit candidates, particularly medics. This new
system only made the problem worst. Forty-two percent of the medic candidates
and half the lateral candidates failed. Many of these candidates went on to
pass other backgrounds, psych and yes, polys. In a conversation with the
recruiter at an exhibition I said you sure are losing a lot of candidates. His
reply with a snear was, not the right candidates. Well, with a new fire chief,
personnel director and firefighter recruiter they are trying to put the pieces
back together.
According to Dr. Flint, too much emphasis is placed on the paper and pencil
test. He feels strongly that unusual test scores should be evaluated in the
light of the candidate’s history. Very young candidates 21-25 often do not have
enough history to refute problems suggested on the test. All candidates believe
of course that they can handle the job, that they can meet any challenges, that
they will hold up well at emergencies. The psychologist’s job is to determine,
as closely as possible whether those beliefs are sound. To give someone the
benefit of the doubt maybe endangering them or someone else.
If a candidate can demonstrate that he has overcome areas of conflict that the
written test reveals and his early history demonstrates, then the test
interpretation should reflect that fact. The paper score then should be thrown
out, not the candidate.
Those who are critical about what we are saying here probably have never gone
through our program and usually don’t have a clue what we do. I want candidates
to be prepared for each step of the hiring process, where the land mines are and
understand the ramifications of the information they present in the process.
You have spent all this time gaining education, experience and training to get
this job. You finally get a shot at the badge. You get a conditional job
offer. You’re ecstatic. You call family and friends. You meet with the
background investigator. You think he’s your pal. You go for your psych. No
big deal right? Then a letter arrives from the department withdrawing their job
offer. You’re stunned! There has to be a mistake. You want to talk to
someone. You had the explanation you knew they would accept. No one will talk
to you. You’re out of the process. The reason? You walked in flat-footed not
prepared for the remaining segments of the hiring process.
As one candidate wrote: As for Backgrounds; they tell you to be honest. But
sometimes being honest can bite you in the ass. When a Background is being
conducted the only obvious things they could find out are things like your
driving, criminal and credit history. Don't be stupid and write down references
that hate you. I've know some good people that should be fireman/cops but get
disqualified for being to honest.
You’re a free agent. Make sure you prepare for the hiring process in a way that
will best put you in a position for a badge.
“Nothing counts ‘til you have the badge . . . Nothing!”
Fire "Captain Bob"
Author, book Becoming A Firefighter--The Complete Guide to Your Badge!
http://www.eatstress.com/goldpackage.htm
www.eatstress.com
888-238-3959