SCREENING PROCESSES FOR MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, RESCUE UNITS, FIRST RESPONDERS, OTHERS - PART V
- Moran Sciamama-Saghiv
- Sep 17
- 13 min read
Updated: Sep 27
I am Dr. Moran Sciamama-Saghiv, ex-Army officer and an expert of many years on screening processes (especially yet not limited to military with an emphasis on special forces; physical aspects). I offer consultation services and a variety of lectures related to the Israeli military. I would be happy to collaborate with you (if and when relevant).In the meanwhile, I invite you to read my five blog post series on the screening processes for military, law enforcement, rescue units, first responders, etc.
The Creation of Screening Activities:
The creation or improvement of screening activities rather if physical, non-physical, or combined is an art (if you ask me). It should not be taken lightly, rather than thought through as if you were paying handsomely for each activity included. Truthfully, since screening processes tend to be limited in time and resources, by including one activity, you might be excluding another. this begs the question, which activities are "a must haves", which are "moderately important", and which are "nice to include" if possible?
What are the main evaluation goals? - When creating or improving screening exercises and activities, we leave the physical part (if the activity includes a physical component) to last. There must be a clear understanding and base of evidence as to why this activity is crucial?
To answer this question, the activity must produce either important information about the candidates, a substantial extent of information, or a combination of both. We want to associate every activity with the traits and values most important that have been identified as part of the "operator's profile" we seek or is associated with a successful/excellent service. We try to reduce the number and extent of less than crucial traits and values being evaluated for a single activity or at all.
Last or first? - One of the most important aspects of creating an activity/challenge is are we aiming at protecting the lesser performing candidates (from injury) or aiming at pushing candidates to the upmost limits to see their "true" maximal abilities as early as possible. For example, do we mentally pushing them until they either "break" or not, taking the risk of long term psychological damage (injury), or not? are we screening to see who meets the minimum requirements or who meets the optimal requirements (that can be expected at this stage of the process and training)? - the answers to these questions will make an enormous difference!
Relevancy - We associate the activity with its relevancy to what the team/unit actually does as part of its operations (in light of the team's/unit's needs). For example - if a unit operates only on ground, is it relevant to test candidates in water? if operations never include dealing with heights, is it relevant to test for fear o heights?
Positives and negatives - We begin with defining what we want to see (positive performances and behaviors), what we do not want to see (negative performances and behaviors), or a combination. Too often do units define and determine what they want to see, while neglecting to define and determine what they do not want to see. This may result in under-evaluating candidates, and being "blind" to certain behaviors and occurrences. This is evermore important in the long run when the screening process has ended and their is no official documentation of behaviors and traits that are unwanted. This is a vary important evaluation aspect to invest time and thought into!!! (did you notice the three exclamation marks?)
Reward, penalize, or punish? - We continue to determine if we want to promote positive performances/behaviors, punish or penalize for negative performances/behaviors, or combine the two. For example, giving points only when a positive behavior is shown or a candidate has performed well, is one approach, while punishing or subtracting points (penalizing) for negative performance or behavior is another. This ties into the question of how is the overall score (if quantifying) achieved? - this is a meaningful question, worthy of our time as planners and evaluators.
Physical, non-physical or combined? - We next decide if this specific activity is completely physical, completely non-physical, or a combination. If it is a combination, we must determine how much is physical, and how much is not. As a rule of thumb, physicality should serves as a tool and not a goal as explained in one of the previous posts of this series of blog posts...
Basically, there are three ways in which the physicality of an exercise is chosen: 1) It is meant just to create the conditions for evaluation (what is physically done does not simulate actual activities and/or missions of the team's/unit's real work); 2) It simulates what is physically done as part of the actual activities and/or missions of the team's/unit's real work; 3) A combination of both.
Physicality as a catalyst - We determine how will physical elements be used (if at all) to cause certain behaviors to occur, or not. For example, people find it extremely annoying, aggravating, and painful to crawl facing down compared to run upright. Do we want to use physical elements to cause psychological reactions/influences? For example, using maximal (all out) sprints will cause the candidates to hyperventilate (which feels "yucky") combined with not giving them enough time to fully recover (or at all) between one sprint to the next, has substantial effects on their motivation, ability to think, develop strategies, and even tactics.
Physicality as punishment - It is very common to use physical elements as means of punishment. This by itself can hold advantages and/or disadvantages. On the one hand, the use of physical elements is easy, financially affordable (cheap), socially acceptable (usually), and effective is done correctly. On the other hand, we must be aware of the possibility of over-training and over-heating as promotors of injury and possibly death. Furthermore, we must be aware of the short and long term psychological and social damage that using physical element have. The more physical activity, exercise, and movement is associated with the idea of punishment, the less people stay active and exercise (research on the matter exists).
What does "resting" mean? - We want to determine if the idea of "rest" and "recovery" are allowed at the physiological level only or combined with psychological "rest" and "recovery" as well. For example, the fact that we let candidates sit and rest physiologically (from cardiovascular, cardiorespiratory, muscular, and body temperature aspects) does not mean I have to allow them to "rest" psychologically. While resting or recovering physiologically, I can ask them questions or give them cognitive and logical (thinking) assignments the entire time, causing them "to owe me" something all the time. Thus, while the physiological burden is relieved, the psychological one is not. you will be surprised by the effect that this has!
Instructions matter - Next we decide what is allowed and what is not. These are the basis for the instructions that will be given before each screening exercise/activity. It is important to standardize these instruction across teams to reduce errors and increase the likeliness of the process as a whole (making the screening process as the same as possible regardless of who the candidate is, who the instructors are, and which team the candidate is part of). Note that in some cases, the lack of instructions is part of the manipulations included as part of the exercises.
Which instructions are given and how, have an enormous effect on what we most-likely will get/see from the candidates (or not). If we share extremely detailed instructions, we are examining the ability to follow instructions, attention to details, the ability to deal with large extents of information, distinguish important information from less/not important, and sends a message that they do not have free choice in the next assignment/activity. it may also send a message of lack of trust or belief in their ability to figure out solutions on their own. Please note - it may increase their chances of success, unless the instructions themselves deny success from them.
If we limit the extent and depth of instructions, we are testing their ability to achieve a desired outcome with little information, their ability to function freely, their creativity, their tendencies as it pertains to rules, self-defined boundaries, common sense, critical thinking, and more. It sends a message of free choice, trust, and belief in their ability to figure out solutions on their own. Please note - it may decrease their chances of success, unless the lack of instructions removes limitations that would have denied success from them. Every choice we take a as the evaluators can lead to success or failure, intended or unintended. It is best that processes result the way we intended as much as possible, excluding examining their creativity.
Feedback (any thoughts to share?) - We further determine the type (if at all) of feedback given during an activity, is it always to the entire team? always individual? or a combination? Do we only use negative feedback (what is wrong, how bad it is, how they failed, how they will be punished)? only positive (what is right, how good it is, how they succeeded, how they will be rewarded)? or a combination? Do we use either type with an intent to unify or divide? One of the values/traits that we often choose to examine is the ability to deal with loss or failure. This raises the question of rather or not, the exercise/activity allows for success, partial success, or meant to cause failure at all costs and scenarios.
Be heard, be seen (or not)? - We determine if the exercise/activity includes visual supervision, hidden supervision, or a combination of both. For example, visual supervision means that the candidates see all their evaluators at all times, during the activity. Hidden supervision means that we cause the candidates to believe that they are not supervised at all, while a combination will include some evaluators being fully seen, while some are hidden. For example, we task a team of candidates with running around a hill or a marker that cannot be seen from where the visible evaluators are located (making the candidates believe that they are only seen when they are close to the evaluators' location).
The instructions require passing a certain point or circulating around a certain marker. Little do they know, that other evaluators are hidden and can see who cheats or does not meet all requirements. This allows us to evaluate the candidates' reliability, integrity, discipline when unwatched, values, and more. We determine if it is best (or not) to cause the candidates to believe we are not watching during breaks, meals, and other opportunities to identify wanted and unwanted behaviors. For example, disrespecting the line to food, disrespecting or bullying a certain member of the team when "unseen". We want to know if a candidate is not eating at all or not enough, or if they are not hydrating at all or not enough. To see their "natural" behavior or behavioral tendencies, we make them believe we do not see them.
All or nothing? - We can make it known that we are evaluating (for a certain activity or all or them) on an "all or nothing" basis. This creates a radical dynamic where some work, not enough work, or failure have a heavy price. It can be used to Polaris the group, see group dynamics in face of "winners" vs "losers", increase competition and push candidates to their limits. It tests their determination to succeed (at all costs?), and sends a clear message - "we accept only your best!".
Just me, myself, and I? - We can conflict the candidates by having choose between the success of the team and their own success. For example, imagine that the team's goal is to create as big and as tall a team's pile while the individual candidate's goal is to create as big and as tall an individual pile. This alone will conflict the candidate with their team, with themselves, and most-likely cause either the team or some individuals to fail. Notice the use of vague instructions that do not allow the team nor the individual candidate to determine how big is good enough...
The conflict and dilemma is substantial since they are chosen individually, yet there is a clear component to the test that is directed at team success. The more the instructions are vague, the greater the group and individual dynamics and dilemmas become. Such a scenario will cause deep conflict with the candidate's values and a profound sense of failure. How will each cope with that?
When instructors "lie" - We hate surprises of the negative kind, and so do candidates. This begs the question - do we use it in our favor and as a screening tool? - For example, what if we told the candidates they have 20 minutes to achieve a certain goal, yet stopped the activity after 10 or 15 minutes? - this is meant to send a message the strategies are not acceptable, only giving 100% effort at all times, all the time is acceptable. It also teaches them that things do not always go the way planned. Such an act confronts candidates with frustration, the need to deal with unwanted and unpleasant change, and the unfairness that reality can bring with it.
Are they ignoring me? - We determine if we implement the use of ignoring some or all of the candidates as a means to stir up group and individual dynamics, cause strategies and tactics to surface, or not. Do we value the development of strategies by candidates as a sign of skill and quality, or do we prefer that they "give us 100% no matter what" and we will deal with developing best strategies later? For example, in a team of ten, do we only give points to the first four that complete the task or do we rank everyone? do we answer questions or not? do we only respond to intelligent questions from candidates?
Mistakes vs sabotage - Before we discuss how this idea can be applied to the screening process, let us make sure that we understand the difference between a mistake and sabotage. A mistake is unintentional, meaning that the only "mistake made on purpose" is when you are teaching what constitutes as a mistake. What you may call " a mistake made on purpose" is actually sabotage (excluding the example given just prior). Sabotage can occur while the person is aware of it, or unaware (unconsciously), yet sabotage is sabotage, and a mistake is a mistake; they are not the same.
With that out of the way, we want to determine if we allow one candidate to sabotage another candidate's chances of success or not? if so, how and to what extent? what are the boundaries of such permission and how do we control it safely. For example, is injuring a person physically and/or mentally acceptable, or not? do we need to send a message that we value life and well-being above anything else, or send a message that sometimes people need to get hurt for the "greater good"? where is the line between yes and no run? could we perhaps, find out without actually hurting someone else.
Imagine we give each candidate 5-10 bean-bags. The challenge allows candidates to "steal" each others' bean-bags, and the ultimate goal is to individually have the most bean-bags when time ends. This is a clear implementation of the sabotage idea, meant to test proactiveness vs reactiveness, dominance vs submissiveness, willingness to "harm" a team member, strategy (offense vs defense; creating alliances if allowed), tactics (technique), perception of time elapsed, and motivation.
"Anonymity" or "celebrityhood"? - We need to determine if we allow any signs of individualism or not? how far do we go to "strip" them of their personal identity? - For example, do we address them by their names or do we give each candidate a non-personal (numeric or letter) identifier instead? do we ever ask them in-person about their background, family, goals, dreams, etc. or never?
A simple method of assigning candidates their ID is to combine the group's ID, with the candidate's ID, and possibly with the screening stage's ID. For example, the first group is "group 1", the first candidate within group 1 is "candidate 1" thus, their ID is 11. If we wish, the first half or third of the screening process (if the intention is to mix up the groups and their candidates) will be "stage 1", making the candidate's ID 111. If we want to make it a bit (not much) harder for the candidates to figure out, we can use letters, or combine numbers with letters. Although it holds disadvantages for the screening process administrative staff and processes, candidate ID can be made truly complex to the point where a deciphering key would have to exist.
Peer evaluations - We need to determine if candidates ever evaluate each other, and if so, what influence does it have (or not) on the decision regarding them? are they allowed to "vote out" candidates for any reasons or defined reasons? perhaps we use group/team dynamics surveys, social surveys, or ask them to rank each other from first to last or most to least (depending on the question itself)? - it is common to allow candidates to rank each other socially on such questions as "who would you not want to serve with" (candidates can also be asked to justify their answers.
The challenge is to eliminate or control the creation of "alliances" or the use of such opportunities for "retaliation" or "elimination" of competition. One of the ways that reduces the changes of "alliances" being created is requiring candidates to report if they know at all any of the other candidates, prevent (or at least reduce) the existence of candidates from the same school, city/town, family, etc. This is also an opportunity to test reliability, discipline, and truthfulness.
Scaling - We need to determine which evaluation type scale are we using for each activity/exercise, is it completely quantity based, quality based, or a combination thereof? what is more meaningful, what the evaluator/instructor wrote, or the numeric value recorded? - I believe it is important to invest the time (it is quite the time investment to be honest) to discuss every candidate separately.
Scoring "cutoff" - What is the cutoff score for each exercise/activity, or the whole process? - it is advised to determine if certain exercises/activities are "candidacy killers". Such exercises/activities mean that if a candidate fails one or more of them (needs to be determined as well), their candidacy is immediately terminated. It is also important to define the hierarchy between exercises/activities and what weight do they have on the total score/decision. Are all exercise/activities of equal influence or are some more than others?
Research and systemic memory - How do we incorporate as much research as possible before, during, and after the screening process? how do establish longitudinal research and "systemic memory"? who gets access to this information and for which purposes? which information is deemed "classified" and which not? why?
Services by Dr. Moran Sciamama-Saghiv:
Tags associated with this blog post include:
military training, law enforcement, rescue operations, first responders, tactical gear, combat readiness, special forces, counterterrorism, homeland security, border patrol, police units, fire department, paramedics, emergency medical services, disaster relief, crisis response, search and rescue, military tactics, SWAT team, defense forces, national guard, army rangers, navy seals, coast guard, air force, marines, peacekeeping missions, riot control, crowd management, protective services, K9 units, hostage rescue, urban warfare, cyber defense, intelligence operations, surveillance systems, command and control, mission planning, operational readiness, rapid deployment, humanitarian aid, emergency response teams, firefighter training, hazmat units, bomb disposal, EOD units, medical evacuation, field hospitals, casualty care, tactical medicine, active duty, reserve forces, veterans support, homeland defense, protective gear, ballistic protection, armored vehicles, military strategy, law enforcement training, disaster preparedness, mass casualty response, community policing, critical incident management, incident command system, firefighting equipment, emergency drills, tactical operations, anti-smuggling units, narcotics enforcement, crime prevention, forensic units, traffic control, security checkpoints, border security, peacekeeping forces, relief operations, combat engineers, evacuation protocols, emergency shelters, public safety, crisis communication, interoperability, mutual aid, civil defense, air rescue, water rescue, mountain rescue, survival training, situational awareness, chain of command, operational security, threat assessment, risk management, protective intelligence, officer safety, emergency dispatch, communications systems, emergency coordination, resilience training, field operations, emergency logistics, lifesaving interventions.
Comments