Officer Turnover
Why Do Some Officers Stay While Others Leave?
by Dr. Lou Harris
In this article I will briefly look at the problem of why some law enforcement officers remain with a department until retirement while others voluntarily resign. I will begin by introducing the problem, looking at historical perspectives, describing a recent study, and end with implications for police administrators. This article is intended to help law enforcement administrators better understand the turnover dilemma and thereby make better decisions in predicting and managing turnover.
The Problem
Recently a high ranking officer in a metropolitan police department commented to some fellow officers that his department was having trouble retaining good quality personnel. This comment evoked an assortment of responses as to why this problem is common in most law enforcement agencies regardless of size. Someone eventually suggested that low pay was the number one factor responsible for high personnel turnover. After some discussion, everyone agreed that more pay, along with other financial incentives, would greatly reduce unwanted resignations.
Historical Perspectives
The problem of keeping good officers while “letting go” officers who are ill-suited or unmotivated to perform satisfactorily has faced law enforcement administrators for decades. O.W. Wilson (1950), Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, wrote about the need for the police manager to have personnel statistics to assist him in determining personnel policy. However, Wilson pointed out that understanding job satisfaction was as important as determining financial rewards in order to reduce unwanted turnover of personnel.
Since the 1960s numerous studies have been conducted by researchers in an attempt to identify factors leading to high turnover in police departments. Initially researchers focused on extrinsic factors (Herzberg, 1959) such as pay and working conditions as an explanation for turnover. However, other factors such as achievement, recognition, advancement, responsibility began to be recognized as possible reasons for officer resignations before retirement.
Due to high turnover at the Memphis, Tennessee Police Department in the late 1970s, Sparger and Giacopassi (1983) surveyed former officers and identified the following primary sources of dissatisfaction: perceived lack of promotional opportunity, departmental politics, lack of appreciation for their efforts, pay, and fringe benefits. On the other hand, Phelan (1991) surveyed 122 police chiefs in nine states and found that they were of the opinion that pay and retirement benefits were the primary source of officer dissatisfaction leading to turnover.
Another significant study of police turnover was conducted by the State of Vermont Criminal Justice Center (McIntyre, 1990). This study surveyed 152 officers who voluntarily resigned from police departments in Vermont in 1989. A variety of reasons were given for turnover among which the following were cited as most important: dissatisfaction with general benefits, pay, retirement benefits, opportunity for advancement, challenging position, leadership style of the chief, administrative policies, and personnel policies.
If the above studies appear contradictory, consider the different sources of information. Some studies gathered information from administrators while others surveyed officers who left. A third approach for obtaining information has been to survey officers who remained on the job. Which perspective is most accurate? Is only one source of information sufficient?
Current Turnover Research
In an effort to improve upon the research methods of prior studies, I designed a study that surveyed both stayers and leavers from the same law enforcement agency, a large metropolitan police department located in the Southeastern United States. About 100 officers who voluntarily resigned during 1992-96 were mailed a questionnaire asking the same questions administered to several hundred current officers. Their responses were compared to determine if any differences existed between the two groups.
The questionnaire contained questions about their level of satisfaction with financial benefits (pay, health care plan, clothing allowance, sick leave, paid holidays) as well as working conditions (assigned position, leadership of the chief, and personnel policies). Sixty of the one hundred departed officers responded while 232 of 240 current officers completed the questionnaire.
To my surprise I found that the officers who left reported higher levels of satisfaction with work conditions and financial benefits that those who remained. Stated differently, I found that those officers who remained on the job reported more job dissatisfaction at significantly higher levels than those who left for other law enforcement jobs and career changes.
Implications for Law Enforcement Administrators
From this study several inferences may be drawn. First, there is no one simple answer to the problem of turnover. Officers who are performing satisfactorily resign for a variety of reasons. While some officers rate pay as their primary reason for staying, most officers rate working conditions as their main source of job satisfaction. Second, a variety of sources of information provides more insight into the problem. Exit interviews of departing officers along with yearly surveys of current officers provide a comparative picture for administrators.
The problem of unwanted personnel turnover will never disappear no matter how high the financial benefits or how rewarding the work environment. Individuals have different perceptions of the same world and react differently. Nevertheless, an informed administrator is more likely to make wise decisions affecting his work force and ultimately better serve his community.
For more information about this topic, please contact Dr. Lou Harris at the Criminal Justice Department, Faulkner University, 5345 Atlanta Highway, Montgomery, AL 36109, 800/879-9816, e-mail lharris@faulkner.edu.