Expert: Loren Stevens - 4/5/2010

Question
What are your thoughts on members becoming experts in their field. I work for a Police department in Australia and we are now going down a path where the management feel that there is no need for members becoming experts but to just have an overall knowledge. Five years in position is all that you can have at the rank of Inspector and then you must be rotated to another position. They are also looking at this for lower ranks. I was a former covert surveillance operative and know it took at least 5 years to be classed as an expert in my field. Under this new regime it would have me move on as soon as I am skilled in my field of expertise and move untrained person into my role. In the end we have a lot of members with a little knowledge of a lot of subjects but no experts in fields that really do require them.

Answer
Hello Chris,
If I understand your inquiry correctly, it is an old debate; "Specialization" versus "Generalists".
Both have their merits, and their short-comings. Much depends on external influences, e.g., budget appropriations, size of agency, static/dynamic populations, econ base of area served, crime rates, demand for services etc.
You might better understand what is being sought, by grasping the motivation for these administrative choices.
What is the primary and secondary rationales for this organizational model? What are the specific goals/objectives?
What organizational behavior patterns stimulated these changes. Is this stimulus-response oriented, or experimental?
Is there real v. imagined corruption influences?
What is the employee attrition rate? Is that consistent with other agencies within reasonable comparison? Is there a labor management dispute in the mix? What is the services satisfaction views of those being served? How does the media frame the agency skill-sets?
What I have listed, is not to be perceived as all inclusive, in terms of issues to entertain, but clearly more needs to be known prior to responding to this inquiry with a cogent answer.
Many small agencies need to be "generalists", as the nature of existing resources meet service demands. Usually, the larger the agency, the tendency for more specialization...with some exceptions.
To some extent, I subscribe to a wide variety of cross training considerations, as it allows the maximization of existing resources. Another gain, especially in the upper ranks, as it commingles LINE & STAFF personnel for better calibration. Otherwise, there seems to develope a drift, where neither appreciate the other's contributions.

Some specialization areas lose their value to the organization with time and exposure. Example, a trained covert ops officer. When that officer has made several cases, testified, open court, media exposure etc, s/he gets to be too well known in the subculture areas s/he is trying to continually penetrate. The window of risk, i.e., exposure becomes exacerbated exponentially with every public display.
There are also other considerations. It is easy to view all areas of expertise as equal, when counting or quantification "widgets", when in fact, these areas of expertise can be viewed as on a sliding scale of difficulty, and time to develop.
You can also enter onto a continuum, the value of each area of expertise. For a typical local agency, the PRIMARY area of importance, is uniform field patrol services. In otherwords, that function would be the last subdivision of the agency to be cut, or adjusted.
For a smart administrator, it usually comes down to "Want" versus "Need", in terms of allocation of resources, and unencumbered areas of potential responsibility.
If the administrative choices made in an organization did not favor those being served, and or those paying the bills, it won't be long until wholesale changes are forthcoming.
But basically, like the military, I subscribe to the reality that everybody, save none, in an organization is first and foremost a "basic grunt". which is to say, the entry level position, with expanded skill sets.
It's all about KSA's (knowledge, skills, abilities), as they collectively address the demands and expectations of that agency.
Hope this isn't too confusing, and is helpful to you. This is a complex area(s) of discussion, and really requires more ante of attendant matters.
Hopefully you'll see the stretch I have provided.
Good Luck,
Semper Fi,
loren