The Royal New Zealand Police College
Field Training Officer Training
&
Coaching and Feedback
Alan Richards
National Coordinator Workplace Assessment
The Royal New Zealand Police College
0
0
Introduction
The role of the Field Training Officer is a vital position in the New Zealand Police.
With your help the probationary constable wil move from a position of dependence
to one of independence and become a respected col eague in the shortest possible
time. Your efforts wil be repaid when you work with constables that you have
trained and then observe them performing to a high standard operationally.
Workplace Assessment is exactly what it says. It is the assessment where the
constable proves he or she is competent at a particular task.
Prior to this assessment you wil need to demonstrate to the probationary constable
how an efficient and knowledgeable constable attends numerous types of incidents
and communicates with members of the public whether they are victims, witnesses
or offenders.
It is imperative that you display professionalism at al times and support the New
Zealand Police by abiding by and supporting Police policies and best practices.
At the start of their career, probationary constables are searching for role models
to imitate and need to be shown exactly ‘what good looks like’. Please ensure they
have exemplary role models to fol ow.
By taking your duties as a Field Training Officer seriously and with pride, you can
make a real difference to the abilities and the stresses of the new col eagues
around you.
Alan Richards
National Coordinator Workplace Assessment
The Royal New Zealand Police College
1
What are we trying to achieve?
Why Workplace Assessment?
2
RISKS
Reduces errors by ensuring practice
Increases confidence because skills are learnt
Skills transfer from learning to practical use
Knowledge increase by practical involvement
Surety by the Police Executive on the level of skill of their staff
What is your role?
Trainer?
Coach?
Mentor?
Judge?
The Learning Cycle
Unconscious
Conscious
Incompetence
Incompetence
Unconscious
Conscious
Competence
Competence
3
Unconscious Incompetence
The PC does not know that they don’t know
what they need to know
No learning can take place
The
aim of the trainer is to show the
trainee what they need to know / do.
Conscious Incompetence
The PC is now aware that they don’t possess
the sufficient knowledge or the necessary
skills required
Learning can now begin
The
aim of the trainer is to model
‘what good looks like’
Practice now begins
Conscious Competence
With practice the PC obtains the ability to
reliably carry out the tasks so long as they
consciously think about the process
The trainee wil need to concentrate and
think in order to perform the skil
The
aim of the trainer is to monitor
performance and give quality feedback
Unconscious Competence
The PC practices the skil so that the task
becomes ‘second nature’
The skil enters the unconscious parts of the
brain
It becomes possible for certain skil s to be
performed while doing something else
Beware of complacency
The
aim of the trainer is to enjoy working
with a competent colleague
4
Assessing Performance
Remember always assess the performance and not the performer.
We must ensure that our personal views do not hinder the way we assess the
performance of others.
A schema is a mental structure we use to organize and simplify our knowledge of
the world around us. We have schemas about ourselves, other people, mechanical
devices, food, and in fact almost everything.
Schemas affect what we notice, how we interpret things and how we make
decisions and act. They act like filters, accentuating and downplaying various
elements. We use them to classify things, such as when we ‘pigeon-hole’ people.
Some people dislike police because they have a belief that Police are people who
perceive everyone as guilty until proven innocent. Other people feel safe around
police as they see Police as being community protectors.
Our personal feelings about others must never be brought into any assessment or
judgement. Be cold hearted and act as a camera. Assess what you see and hear
NOT who you are assessing.
By being aware that your personal views can influence your judgement will assist
you in making sound, fair and ethical decisions.
We evaluate incoming evidence according to what
we already believe, and select information to
support those beliefs.
Attributed to Tversky & Kahneman
5
Learning Styles Questionnaire
Name: _______________________________________
This questionnaire is designed to find out your preferred learning style(s). Over the years you
have probably developed learning "habits" that help you benefit more from some experiences
than from others. Since you are probably unaware of this, this questionnaire wil help you
pinpoint your learning preferences so that you are in a better position to select learning
experiences that suit your style and having a greater understanding of those that suit the
style of others.
This is an international y proven tool designed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford.
There is no time limit to this questionnaire. It wil probably take you 10-15 minutes. The
accuracy of the results depends on how honest you can be. There are no right or wrong
answers.
If you agree more than you disagree with a statement put a tick by it.
If you disagree leave the box blank.
1. I have strong beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad
2. I often act without considering the possible consequences
3. I tend to solve problems using a step-by-step approach
4. I beli eve that formal procedures and policies restrict people
5. I hav e a reputation for saying what I think, simply and directly
6. I often find that actions based on feelings are as sound as those based on careful
thought and analysis
I like the sort of work where I have time for thorough preparation and
7.
implementation
8. I reg ularly question people about their basic assumptions
9. What matters most is whether something works in practice
10. I acti vely seek out new experiences
11. When I hear about a new idea or approach I immediately start working out how to
apply it in practice
12. I am keen on self discipline such as watching my diet, taking regular exercise,
sticking to a fixed routine, etc.
13. I tak e pride in doing a thorough job
I get on best with logical, analytical people and less well with spontaneous,
14.
"irrational"
I take care over the interpretation of data available to me and avoid jumping to
15.
conclusions
6
16. I lik
e to reach a decision careful y after weighing up many alternatives
17. I'm a ttracted more to novel, unusual ideas than to practical ones
18. I don 't like disorganised things and prefer to fit things into a coherent pattern
I accept and stick to laid down procedures and policies so long as I regard them as
19. an efficient way of getting the job done
20 I lik
e to relate my actions to a general principle
21. In di scussions I like to get straight to the point
22 I ten d to have distant, rather formal relationships with people at work
23. I thri ve on the challenge of tackling something new and different
24. I enj oy fun-loving, spontaneous people
25. I pay meticulous attention to detail before coming to a conclusion
26. I fin
d it difficult to produce ideas on impulse
27. I beli eve in coming to the point immediately
28. I am
careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly
29. I prefer to have as many resources of information as possible - the more data to
think over the better
30. Flipp ant people who don't take things seriously enough usual y irritate me
31. I list en to other people's points of view before putting my own forward
32. I ten d to be open about how I'm feeling
33. In d
iscussions I enjoy watching the manoeuvrings of the other participants
34. I prefer to respond to events on a spontaneous, flexible basis rather than plan
things out in advance
35. I tend to be attracted to techniques such as network analysis, flow charts,
branching programs, contingency planning, etc.
36. It w
orries me if I have to rush out a piece of work to meet a tight deadline
37. I ten d to judge people's ideas on their practical merits
38. Qui
et, thoughtful people tend to make me feel uneasy
39. I of
ten get irritated by people who want to rush things
It is more important to enjoy the present moment than to think about the past or
40.
future
41. I think that decisions based on a thorough analysis of all the information are
sounder than those based on intuition
42. I ten d to be a perfectionist
43. In d
iscussions I usual y produce lots of spontaneous ideas
44. In me etings I put forward practical realistic ideas
7
45. Mor
e often than not, rules are there to be broken
46. I pre fer to stand back from a situation
47. I can often see inconsistencies and weaknesses in other people's arguments
48. On b alance I talk more than I listen
49. I can often see better, more practical ways to get things done
50. I thin k written reports should be short and to the point
51. I believe that rational, logical thinking should win the day
I tend to discuss specific things with people rather than engaging in social
52. discussion
53. I like people who approach things realistically rather than theoretically
54. In discussions I get impatient with irrelevancies and digressions
If I have a report to write I tend to produce lots of drafts before settling on the
55. final version
56. I am keen to try things out to see if they work in practice
57. I am keen to reach answers via a logical approach
58. I enjoy being the one that talks a lot
In discussions I often find I am the realist, keeping people to the point and avoiding
59 wild speculations
60. I like to ponder many alternatives before making up my mind
61. In discussions with people I often find I am the most dispassionate and objective
In discussions I'm more likely to adopt a "low profile" than to take the lead and do
62. most of the talking
63 I like to be able to relate current actions to a longer term bigger picture
64 When things go wrong I am happy to shrug it off and "put it down to experience"
65 I tend to reject wild, spontaneous ideas as being impractical
66. It's best to think careful y before taking action
67 On balance I do the listening rather than the talking
68 I tend to be tough on people who find it difficult to adopt a logical approach
69 Most times I believe the end justifies the means
70 I don't mind hurting people's feelings so long as the job gets done
71. I find the formality of having specific objectives and plans stifling
72 I' m usual y one of the people who puts life into a party
73 I do whatever is expedient to get the job done
8
74 I quickly get bored with methodical, detailed work
I am keen on exploring the basic assumptions, principles and theories underpinning
75
things and events
76 I' m always interested to find out what people think
77 I l ike meetings to be run on methodical lines, sticking to laid down agenda, etc.
78 I steer clear of subjective or ambiguous topics
79. I enjoy the drama and excitement of a crisis situation
80 Peopl e often find me insensitive to their feelings
9
SCORING AND INTERPRETING THE LEARNING STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE
The Questionnaire is scored by awarding one point for each ticked item. Simply indicate on the
lists below which items were ticked by circling the appropriate question number.
2
7
1
5
4
13
3
9
6
15
8
11
10
16
12
19
17
25
14
21
23
28
18
27
24
29
20
35
32
31
22
37
34
33
26
44
38
36
30
49
40
39
42
50
43
41
47
53
45
46
51
54
48
52
57
56
58
55
61
59
64
60
63
65
71
62
68
69
72
66
75
70
74
67
77
73
79
76
78
80
TOTALS
Activist
Reflector
Th eorist
Prag matist
10
Learning Styles Questionnaire Profile Based on General Norms for 1302 People
Activist
Reflector
Theorist
Pragmatist
20
20
20
20
19
18
19
19
17
Very strong
16
18
preference
15
17
18
14
13
18
16
17
12
17
15
16
16
Strong
preference
11
15
14
15
10
14
13
14
9
13
12
13
8
Moderate
7
12
11
12
6
11
10
11
5
10
9
10
Low preference
4
9
8
9
3
8
7
8
7
6
7
6
5
6
2
5
4
4
4
3
3
Very low
preference
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
11
Learning Styles - General Descriptions
Activists
Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They
enjoy the
here and now and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They are open-
minded, not sceptical, and this tends to make them enthusiastic about anything new. Their
philosophy is:
"I'll try anything once". They tend to act first and consider the consequences
afterwards. Their days are filled with activity. They tackle problems by brainstorming.
As soon
as the excitement from one activity has died down they are busy looking for the next.
They tend to thrive on the
challenge of new experiences but are bored with implementation
and longer-term consolidation. They are
gregarious people constantly involving
themselves with others but in doing so;
they seek to centre all activities on themselves.
Reflectors
Reflectors like to
stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many
different perspectives. They
collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer to think
about it thoroughly
before coming to any conclusion. The thorough collection and analysis
of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend to postpone reaching
definitive conclusions for as long as possible.
Their philosophy is to be cautious. They are
thoughtful people who like to consider all possible angles and implications before making
a move. They prefer to take a back seat in meetings and discussions. They enjoy observing
other people in action.
They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before
making their own points. They tend to adopt a low profile and have a slightly distant, tolerant
unruffled air about them. When they act it is part of a wide picture which includes the past as
well as the present and others' observations as well as their own.
Theorists
Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They
think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate
facts into coherent theories. They
tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until
things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesise. They are
keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their
philosophy prizes rationality and logic. "If it's logical it's good".
Questions they frequently
ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic
assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity
rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently
logical. This is their "mental set" and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it.
They
prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgments, lateral
thinking and anything flippant.
Pragmatists
Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in
practice. They positively
search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to
experiment with applications. They are the sorts of people who
return from courses
brimming with new ideas that they want to try out in practice. They like to get on with
things and act quickly and confidently on ideas that attract them.
They tend to be impatient
with ruminating and open-ended discussions. They are essentially practi
cal, down to
earth people who like making practical decisions and solving problems. They respond to
problems and opportunities "as a challenge". Their philosophy is: "
There is always a better
way" and "if it works its good".
12
Learning styles - a further perspective
ACTIVISTS:
Activists learn BEST from activities where: • There are new experiences/problems/opportunities from which to learn.
• They can engross themselves in short "here and now" activities such as business games,
competitive teamwork tasks, role-playing exercises.
• There is excitement/drama/crisis and things chop and change with a range of diverse activities to
tackle
• They have a lot of the limelight/high visibility, i.e. they can "chair" meetings, lead discussions, and
give presentations.
• They are allowed to generate ideas without constraints of policy or structure or feasibility.
• They are thrown in at the deep end with a task they think is difficult, i.e. when set a challenge
with inadequate resources and adverse conditions.
• They are involved with other people, i.e. bouncing ideas off them, solving problems as part of a
team.
• It is appropriate to "have a go".
Activists learn LEAST from, and may react against, activities where: • Learning involves a passive role, i.e. listening to lectures, monologues, explanations,
statements of how things should be done, reading and watching.
• They are asked to stand back and not be involved.
• They are required to assimilate, analyse and interpret lots of "messy" data.
• They are required to engage in solitary work, i.e. reading, writing, thinking on their own.
• They are asked to assess beforehand what they wil learn, and to appraise afterwards what they
have learned.
• They are offered statements they see as "theoretical", i.e. explanation of cause or background
• They are asked to repeat essentially the same activity over and over again, i.e. when practicing.
• They have precise instructions to follow with little room for manoeuvre.
• They are asked to do a thorough job, i.e. attend to detail, tie up loose ends, dot the i's, cross t's.
Summary of strengths
• Flexible and open minded and happy to have a go.
• Happy to be exposed to new situations.
• Optimistic about anything new and therefore unlikely to resist change.
Summary of weaknesses:
• Tendency to take the immediately obvious action without thinking and often take unnecessary risks.
• Tendency to do too much themselves and hog the limelight.
• Rush into action without sufficient preparation.
• Get bored with implementation/consolidation.
Key questions for activists:
• Shall I learn something new, i.e. that I didn't know/couldn't do before?
• Will there be a wide variety of different activities? (I don't want to sit and listen for more than
an hour at a stretch!)
• Wil it be OK to have a go/let my hair down/make mistakes/have fun?
• Shall I encounter some tough problems and challenges?
• Wil there be other like-minded people to mix with?
13
REFLECTORS:
Reflectors learn BEST from activities where:
• They are allowed or encouraged to watch/think/chew over activities.
• They are able to stand back from events and listen/observe, i.e. observing a group at work,
taking a back seat in a meeting, watching a film or video.
• They are allowed to think before acting, to assimilate before commencing, i.e. time to prepare, a
chance to read in advance a brief giving background data.
• They can carry out some painstaking research, i.e. investigate, assemble information, and
probe to get to the bottom of things.
• They have the opportunity to review what has happened, what they have learned.
• They are asked to produce carefully considered analyses and reports.
• They are helped to exchange views with other people without danger, i.e. by prior agreement,
within a structured learning experience.
• They can reach a decision in their own time without pressure and tight deadlines.
Reflectors learn LEAST from, and may react against, activities where:
•
They are "forced" into the limelight, i.e. to act as leader/chairman, to role-play in front of on-lookers.
•
They are involved in situations which require action without planning.
• They are pitched into doing something without warning, i.e. to produce an instant reaction, to
produce an off-the-top-of-the-head idea.
• They are given insufficient data on which to base a conclusion.
•
They are given cut and dried instructions of how things should be done.
•
They are worried by time pressures or rushed from one activity to another.
• In the interests of expediency they have to make short cuts or do a superficial job.
Summary of strengths:
• Careful.
• Thorough and methodical
• Thoughtful
• Good at listening to others and assimilating information.
• Rarely jump to conclusions.
Summary of weaknesses:
• Tendency to hold back from direct participation.
• Slow to make up their minds and reach a decision.
• Tendency to be too cautious and not take enough risks.
• Not assertive - they aren't particularly forthcoming and have no "small talk".
Key questions for reflectors:
• Shall I be given adequate time to consider, assimilate and prepare?
• Will there be opportunities/facilities to assemble relevant information?
• Wil there be opportunities to listen to other people's points of view - preferably a wide cross section
of people with a variety of views?
• Shall I be under pressure to be slapdash or to extemporise?
14
THEORISTS:
Theorists learn BEST from activities where:
• What is being offered is part of a system, model, concept, theory
• The have time to explore methodically the associations and inter-relationships between ideas, events
and situations.
• They have the chance to question and probe the basic methodology, assumptions or logic behind
something, i.e. by taking part in a question and answer session, by checking a paper for
inconsistencies.
• They are intellectually stretched, i.e. by analysing a complex situation, being tested in a tutorial
session, by teaching high calibre people who ask searching questions.
• They are in structured situations with a clear purpose.
• They can listen to or read about ideas and concepts that emphasise rationality or logic and are well
argued/elegant/watertight.
• They can analyse and then generalise the reasons for success or failure.
• They are offered interesting ideas and concepts even though they are not immediately relevant.
• They are required to understand and participate in complex situations.
Theorists learn LEAST from, and may react against, activities where:
• They are pitch-forked into doing something without a context or apparent purpose.
• They have to participate in situations emphasising emotions and feelings.
• They are involved in unstructured activities where ambiguity and uncertainty are high, i.e. with open-
ended problems, on sensitivity training.
• They are asked to act or decide without a basis in policy, principle or concept.
• They are faced with a hotchpotch of alternative/contradictory techniques/methods without exploring
any in depth, i.e. as on a "once over lightly" course.
• They find the subject matter platitudinous, shallow or gimmicky.
• They feel themselves out of tune with other participants, i.e. when with lots of Activists or people
of lower intellectual calibre.
Summary of strengths:
• Logical "vertical" thinkers and are rational and objective.
• Good at asking probing questions and have a disciplined approach.
Summary of weaknesses:
• Restricted in lateral thinking.
• low tolerance for uncertainty, disorder and ambiguity
• Intolerant of anything subjective or intuitive.
• Full of "shoulds, oughts and musts".
Key questions for theorists:
• Wil there be lots of opportunities to question?
• Do the objectives and program of events indicate a clear structure and purpose?
• Shall I encounter complex ideas and concepts that are likely to stretch me?
• Are the approaches to be used and concepts to be explored "respectable", i.e. sound and valid?
• Shall I be with people of similar calibre to myself?
15
PRAGMATIST:
Pragmatists learn BEST from activities where:
• There is an obvious link between the subject matter and a problem or opportunity on the job.
• They are shown techniques for doing things with obvious practical advantages, i.e. how to
save time, how to make a good first impression, how to deal with awkward people.
• They have the chance to try out and practice techniques with coaching/feedback from a
credible expert, i.e. someone who is successful and can do the techniques themselves.
• They are exposed to a model they can emulate, i.e. a respected boss, a demonstration from
someone with a proven track record, lots of examples/anecdotes, and a film showing how it’s
done.
• They are given techniques currently applicable to their own job.
• They are given immediate opportunities to implement what they have learned.
• There is high face validity in the learning activity, i.e. a good simulation, 'real" problems.
• They can concentrate on practical issues, i.e. drawing up action plans with an obvious end
product, suggesting short cuts, giving tips.
Pragmatists learn LEAST from, and may react against, activities where:
• The learning is not related to an immediate need they recognise/they cannot see an immediate
relevance/practical benefit.
• Organisers of the learning, or the event itself, seems distant from reality, i.e. "ivory towered", all
theory and general principles, pure "chalk and talk".
• There is no practice or clear guidelines on how to do it.
• They feel that people are going round in circles and not getting anywhere fast enough.
• There are political, managerial or personal obstacles to implementation.
• There is no apparent reward from the learning activity, i.e. more sales, shorter meetings, higher
bonus, promotion.
Summary of strengths:
• Keen to test things out in practice and are practical, down to earth, realistic.
• Businesslike - gets straight to the point.
• Technique oriented.
Summary of weaknesses:
• Tendency to reject anything without an obvious application.
• Not very interested in theory or basic principles.
• Tendency to seize on the first expedient solution to a problem.
• Impatient with waffle.
• On balance, task oriented not people oriented.
Key questions for pragmatists:
• Will there be ample opportunities to practice and experiment?
• Will there be lots of practical tips and techniques?
• Shall we be addressing real problems and will it result in action plans to tackle some of my current
problems?
• Shall we be exposed to experts who know how to/can do it themselves?
16
A Coaching Model: - How to GROW Performance
GOAL
What is the goal?
WAY FORWARD
REALITY
What are you
What is the current
wil ing to do?
OPTIONS
situation?
What are your options?
GROW Model - John Whitmore's Coaching for Performance 1996
Examples of GROW Coaching Questions
These are a few examples of questions you can use at each stage. Don't limit yourself though; listen
carefully so you choose questions that work for you and the person you're coaching.
The Step
Questions you could use
G = Goals
What do you want to accomplish?
What are you trying to do?
What is your goal?
How will you (and I) know when you have achieved it?
R = Reality
What is really going on, as you see it?
What is the reality of the
What's happening now?
situation?
What solutions have you tried? What worked? What didn't?
What alternatives do you have now?
What are the possibilities in front of you?
O = Options
What have you seen work in similar situations?
What are your options?
If constraints were removed what would you do?
What else do you need to consider?
Who might be able to help?
What are your next steps?
W = Way Forward
What might get in the way?
Who needs to know?
What are you willing to do
What support do you need and from whom?
What will it take to get moving towards your goal?
Some Pitfalls to Avoid
Don't Rush. Avoid skipping too quickly through the stages as this can result in:
•
A lack of full understanding of the performance gap
•
Insufficient exploration of Options which could limit thinking and result in the recycling of
the same old ideas.
•
Insufficient checking of the motivation of the employee to commit to the actions
17
Feedback
When giving quality feedback it is essential that you use some form of structure during the process. Often feedback good or
otherwise gets lost in general conversation and the point is inadvertently missed by the intended recipient.
D E S C
CRITIQUE
FACEUP
ASK - ADD
Headline
Describe
ASK What did you do
What I’m bringing to your
Focus on the problem
the behaviour
well?
attention.
Express
Playback
Agree what is
ADD What you also did
the impact
What you said/did
happening
well was …
Specify new or
Rationale
ASK What would you
Convey consequences
continued behaviour Why it did or did not work
differently?
ADD What you could /
Communicate the
Solution
Explore solutions
should or must do
Consequence
Why not try …
differently is …
Reflection
Unite on the solution
In the future what will you do…
Plan the next step
18
Notes
19
Document Outline
