A TP DI from the South West Cluster says

"I just ask the question why? If this scheme does not replace the HPDS then why do we need another 'fast-track' route for promotion? It would appear that this scheme was launched last year, yet nobody seems to be aware of it, why? Inspecting ranks and the Federation do not appear to have been consulted, why?

As an organisation we seem to spend an inordinate amount of time reinventing the wheel and creating new schemes. Having had a bitter experience with last year's Inspector - Chief Inspector process I do believe that the current process needs reviewing. Whilst it promotes the very good and excellent it also promotes the poor and downright incompetent as well, and most of us within the MPS know that the process is a bit of a lottery. However, creating yet another scheme to run alongside the one that isn't working is not the answer, particularly when you don't appear to have consulted anyone prior to its launch nor informed your potential 'client base' that it exists afterwards.
Yours disgruntled, but not in the slightest bit surprised."

A C/I from the NE Cluster

“I completed the assessment centre having been successful at the application stage. If you think that the application smacked of nepotism, the assessment centre would have sickened you. Needless to say I am not an emerging leader.”

An Inspector within SCD says

“I am amazed and slightly disappointed by the comments on this strand and have to say that it really comes across as very bitter and twisted! The ELP was clearly advertised on the intranet with plenty of links to the HR site, which gave detailed information on the ELP’s aims and objectives. In addition to this, there were also open events for police officers and police staff where the scheme was explained and attendees were able to ask whatever questions they wished. What has not been made clear in the comments published so far is the fact that those applying had to provide evidence and be assessed at a level greater than just one rank change. The assessment centre was by no means easy and consisted of over eight hours of intensive business exercises.

The 31 police officers and police staff who managed to pass the process all worked exceptionally hard to gain their place and have demonstrated their potential to reach chief officer positions. For clarity, there is no longer an HPDS scheme for Inspector and Chief Inspectors; this has been replaced by the ELP. HPDS now only exists for constables and sergeants. Finally, each emerging leader has to be like a sponge and be readily, willing and able to take on new concepts and each member has to now put themselves in a position where they have to study for a master’s degree.

This is no easy ride, it’s an opportunity to train the future leaders of the police service to better serve the public and manage our organisation in a truly professional manner. Instead of looking at the scheme with tainted glasses, the federation should proactively engage and support the ELP and view this as an opportunity to influence the organisation”

An Inspector from the SW Cluster says

“This stinks, simply because of it has been kept 'secret' those on it are probably staff officers, chosen people and buddies. I would have applied had I known. I now cannot as I have less than 4 years to 30. Fairness and openness are dead, nepotism rules, which is evidence by the No of DCI selected to uniform 3/1”

A DI within SCD says

“I have just read the Inspectors Branch Board info regarding assistance given to 40 people a year to fast track them through promotion…………..didn't know it was there.  This really takes the biscuit, totally irate, but sadly not surprised.  What is the Commissioner doing about it………yet another Tiplady farce!”

An Inspector from TPHQ says

“It was extremely well advertsied on the MPS aware front page, though the timescales for application were shortish, there were also three diferrent seminar dates at NSY for those interested in the scheme. Yes, I sat it, and yes I got on the scheme, they only took 34 this year from the assessment centre of 72 places which was wittled down from the paper application process. You may not be aware that there was a "cull" of HPDS Inspector rank offcers, who were then offered the opportunity to proceed directly to the assessment centre without going through the application process.

I know of a few previous HPDS individuals who were not succesful at the assessment centre. I found the process tough - the ELP assessment centre was certainly harder than the CI process which I sat (and passed in the last process). Frankly, if an individual didnt spot the development opportunity advertised (I was not pre-briefed, I saw it and made an effort to find out about it), then perhaps thats an indication of their desire to self develop?

Certainly, I think the article published on the website makes little mention of the actual idea behind it, (which contray to the article is NOT an automatic accelerated promotion) it is about developing missing skills, through academic study and targeted mentoring and deployments. I think the article might be seen as negative and unbalanced in what the ELP is trying to achieve. Though I accept, if the case was that there wasn't sufficient consultation you rightly would question why you were not so briefed.”

An Inspector from the NW Cluster says

“I understand the need for the MPS to be equipped with good, effective police officers as its managers and leaders and I fully support the promotion of the best officers in the round.  However, it seems to me that the MPS is not comfortable that its own promotion process can provide this service, if it seeks to circumvent it for a select few and should therefore be taking time to make improvements in that process, there for all to aspire to rather than using precious financial resources on additional processes.

Select processes like this always smell to me, particularly when an alternative already exists in the mainstream arena (HPDS).  There's something clandestine in appearance, if not actually in fact.  For me they give the appearance of a leadership attempting indoctrination to a particular viewpoint (usually politically based) rather than persuasion - and nothing to do with effective leadership. If there are particular skills wanted then let the general process pick those up and require evidence of achievement, those 'in the pot' then know where the bar is and can make arrangements to achieve.

I always feel the dangers are that (particularly with the obvious restriction on those outside the system ever attaining their goal) you end up with a very narrow leadership base and a lack of invention or ability to think laterally.  Whilst I accept we are not a democracy (and am quite happy with a discipline service), there should be at least healthy debate amongst our leaders before directives are issued or policies adopted.  There's little debate to be had if everyone thinks the same”

A Inspector from North East Cluster says

"I read your article about the Emerging Leaders Programme (ELP) with interest.  I wasn't aware of all of the details and found your article interesting.  I am not on the ELP and neither did I apply.

My initial reaction was to wonder whether I should feel threatened by this programme.  Should I? I'm not sure that I or fellow colleagues in the Inspecting ranks should either.  It is a fact that the police service, along with the rest of the public sector is entering a period of fiscal austerity, These times will be challenging both at the professional and personal level.

Many of us have aspirations towards further promotion and some of us will of course be disappointed.  Fewer promotions will be the reality.  The police service still requires bright people to run the service and just as in the private sector, this is perhaps even more important during difficult times.

I am unsure why some believe the MPS should stop providing opportunities to develop and promote good people. I don't mind the ELP `package' offering a slightly different promotion process (coupled with development) as long as we are all entitled to apply for the scheme.  In closing your article, I believe you were right; it is cynical to suggest that dark forces may be at work with regards to the service promoting those it wants rather than those who deserve it." 

A DI from the South East Cluster says;

"I only found out about it by chance and thought I'd give it a go. Alas I failed, which I can live with however some of the things I am hearing are of a concern.
To put you in the picture the Equip to Achieve (ETA) scheme was set up first, which is a scheme for BE officers. Once selected they were all entitled to apply for the Emerging Leaders Programme (ELP).They were given specific briefings and external support in preparing for the ELP. All applicants who applied got selected. Which didn't surprise me, but what did surprise me was that an assessor I know I spoke to after the process said that he had failed at least one if not more of the ETA applicants. He had been told that the final marks of the ETA candidates would be liberally scrutinised when selecting the final successful candidates. Interestingly, I was told by a member of the ETA that the HPDS candidates had also received additional external support regarding the selection process.

I sent you the below email as I doubted whether any IBB member would have been party to the final (or any) decision making process. I am under no illusion that the ELP is a medium to get the ETA into senior MPS positions when some of its members would not be successful at traditional selection processes. If that was the case then openness and honesty at an early stage would have been appreciated. I'm aware Martin Tiplady has been instrumental in the schemes development.

I asked for personal feedback and was refused and referred to my generic feedback, which was inaccurate (by their admissions). I am all in favour of the right people for the job, but it must be equitable and fair - unlike the ELP.
Please see link below this is the official line of the ELP !!!  

  
 http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/cep/2010/100114/04/

I requested feedback from those that assessed me and was told this would not be possible !!! Additionally, I have requested details of how many appealed and how many succeeded, I am still waiting…….. 

To conclude, the Talent Management Team (mainly Police Staff, with Tamsyn Heritage securing two ranks in post !) are building an empire on a hidden agenda…...

For a so called centre of excellence in selecting the very best of the best my experience has been shocking. I don't want to rant as that's not my style, but I'm pleased that this is now on your radar…"

Another DI from the South East Cluster says;

"I write in response to your comments initially regarding the Emerging Leaders Programme, then the Equip to Achieve Scheme.

Firstly a bit about myself, I am a Detective Inspector with 29 years service and would describe myself as a career detective. I have been fortunate to have experienced a variety of detective roles both in specialist areas and core functions. I have spent the vast majority of my service in front line operational policing, not at a desk. I have not sought to rapidly climb through the rank structure at the earliest opportunity indeed the very thought of entering the HPDS scheme never featured on my radar as I am not an academic.

Being from an ethnic minority background I took advantage of the Equip to Achieve scheme to help enhance my leadership skills and went through a rigorous selection process to get onto this scheme and onto the Emerging Leaders Programme, not a simple paper application as suggested.

In preparing for these selection processes I devoted much of my personal time (annual leave and rest days). Others have benefited from being ‘struck off’ for weeks to prepare for the corporate process, good luck to them.

Now to pick up on some of the points you have raised.

Firstly you make a very sarcastic remark about not being made aware of the process until the 20th January. I am led to believe that you were informed of the process in advance of this date via e-mail and that the delivery status on Aware confirms this. If that is the case then you have been disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

The next is the process itself. The process is available to all including non-graduates, hence my interest. If applicants were able to find the process on Aware they arrived at the first step of anyone with leadership potential, initiative. This scheme was therefore not hidden away as you suggest but held on the Aware system, as a news item on 16th September and within People pages as you have correctly identified, I note the federation has its own website, I am not a regular visitor and would not suggest it is hidden away but I do know how to navigate the internet to get there. Another good attribute for potential leadership is to adapt to the ever changing world of media.

Thirdly ‘being good friends with your OCU Commander you are literally half way there’ is hardly a statement based on fact, rather one of lazy innuendo. There is nothing wrong with ‘informed’ criticism of a process and you as a representative of the federation are well within your rights to do so. However by attacking the integrity of individuals you need to be more considered. Nepotism has always existed and will continue to exist in this and other organisations. It is human nature to help those we like, don’t tell me this doesn’t happen in the federation.

You do make one good point in advising officers with aspirations of leadership to apply for the next Emerging Leadership Programme. Succession planning is the way forward and offering this opportunity to anyone regardless of age or academic background should be welcomed not ridiculed.

I now come to the responses your comments have encouraged, it is particularly disappointing to learn that you have expanded these into the Equip to Achieve Scheme that had no mention in your first comments and that this has now been aired in an external publication;

JANE'S POLICE REVIEW COMMUNITY - JANUARY 29, 2010
‘In order to gain entry on the programme, officers must complete an application form and seek a recommendation from the head of their operational command unit. However, people who are already on the high potential development scheme or the 'equip to achieve' scheme for black and ethnic minority officers only, will be able to skip this stage.

Mark Crake, general secretary of the Met federation's inspectors' branch board, said the organisation would be considering a legal challenge to this aspect of the programme. He said: 'Soon there will be no inspectors or chief inspectors on the high potential development scheme, which means there are two routes to get on the new programme for ethnic minority officers and only one for white officers’.

Met Inspectors Branch Board (IBB) website

TP Chief Inspector North East should consider the facts before attacking a colleague or as he disparagingly refers to him, ‘chap’.  The way these remarks are written, with no editorial intervention, it may be possible to identify the officer concerned. I leave you to consider the implications of potential libel action.

Training was provided by external companies.
ETA members did not get several days a month to study.

A mentor is not as important as suggested.

A TP Inspector South East disqualified himself because he had 27 years service. I have 29 years service so that dispels that myth.

SNT Chief Inspector South West heard people mention it (ELP) assumed it was an extension of HPDS and then describes his concern that people, I assume he is referring to his/her self, were not made aware. If this officer had a genuine interest in self development I would have thought a phone call to the Leadership Academy or HR might have provided the information sought.

SO DI fails to see the need for ELP when the HPDS exists, he also fails to understand the HPDS scheme now only takes officers up to the rank of Inspector.’

The theme continues in more or less the same vein.

Promotion processes are not ideal especially when they are so subjective, those who prosper are generally in favour, those that fail tend to come away with negatives. All I can say is that I have lived through many systems, they will all continue to attract criticism. Being open to criticism is part of taking on leadership responsibilities. It is only fair that this criticism is based on fact, not ill-informed invective.

To take this a step further and suggest officers from minority backgrounds are now getting preferential treatment is once again ill informed. Positive discrimination is unlawful and the MPS considered legal implications when setting up the ETA programme.

You have rightly identified the narrowing opportunities for promotion to Chief Inspector and Superintendent, this is also an issue for Sergeants and Inspectors. To lay the blame for this on this scheme fails to identify other significant factors where the federation may be better focussed. I refer to the 30 plus scheme, officers performing ‘acting’ roles whilst there are qualified officers waiting to be promoted and the ‘bid to retain’ or ‘business case’ all of which encourage nepotism and have all been ratified by the federation.

You also refer to officers at Inspector ranks working extended hours once again I agree with your observations however the federation have been looking at the on call duties performed by detective inspectors for four years now and have failed to address these very important issues.

Finally I come to the point on representing the  majority view. I too am a paid up federation member, I am also from a minority background. I take it that as the majority of your membership is white you now feel unable to represent my views. Sometimes being in a minority gives you a different perspective on life, try a little empathy every now and then, you might be surprised with what you find."