Personality and Recruitment
| Author | Frank Elmes |
| Published date | 01 March 1969 |
| Date | 01 March 1969 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6904200307 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
FRANK
ELMES
PERSONALITY
AND
REfJRUITMENT
Take a thousand adult members of the public at random and it is
fairly certain there wouldbe no common bond immediately apparent.
Short, tall, thin, fat, stupid, intelligent, clean, dirty, rich, poor,
energetic, lazy, honest, dishonest, all would be represented. The
common link of language might serve only to emphasize differences;
the common link of nationality only of importance if a common
enemy threatens.
Now take a thousand police officers and note the difference.
Training in law enforcement provides cohesion, a strong common
bond. None of the thousand will be really short, though they may
be thin or fat. Some will be extra intelligent but virtually none
extremely stupid. Few will be dirty, though quite a number will be
lazy and the odd one or two dishonest. As a group they will look
alike and one curious fact might bringitself to the notice of an acute
observer. Police officers are seldom ugly (except perhaps in later
life!) or bizarre. This is one obvious clue to police methods of
selection. Apart from general standards of physique, selectors
reject those who are too far away from the clean-limbed, athletic,
bright-eyed young man or woman who, on appearance alone,
appeals as being the "right type".
In terms of morphology (see Police Journal, November, 1968,
p. 496) it would be fatally easy to assume that the Police Service
recruits almost entirely mesomorphs, those of hard physique,
vigorous and ambitious. Possibly if recruiting went on in the 35to 45
age groups this might be the case because by then physique and
temperament have developed and settled. But police recruiting is
almost entirely among young adults, or, in the case of cadets,
adolescents, at which stage endomorphs, who will later be fat, look
like well-grown youngsters, and ectomorphs, the thin ones, look as
though they only need a few pounds of extra muscle to turn them
into ideal types. In the result police recruits, subject to reaching
basic standards, are drawn from all physical types. Morphology is
in practice of little help in police selection.
Present physical standards undoubtedly restrict the field of
recruitment to an unnecessary degree. If height, for example, is
really crucial one would expect a 6ft. 2in. officer to be much more
successful than one 5ft. 8in. In practice the extra height is only of
direct use in limited circumstances (though it has value as a symbol
of authority) whilst in others it is a positive disadvantage. And
if
a
difference of six inches upwards has little practical significance,
would one or two inches below the present minimum be any more
than a change to be accepted?
Physical standards, however, are much easier to set and reach
than personality requirements. This may be of benefit to policing
March 1969 113
To continue reading
Request your trial