The best organizations have standards that select for personal commitment.

Seals for example, their training process is a fully voluntary course designed to maximize attrition, effectively selecting for personal commitment.

People with personal commitment raise standards, eventually an organization that doesn't select for this will invariably regress to lower standards when training becomes administrative and only addresses deficiencies below the established standard.

For example, you had to preface your comment with "In the old days..."

Personal commitment is the variance, not organizational affiliation.

(LEOs have a higher level of personal commitment than civilians, and older generations have a higher level of personal commitment than younger generations. This is why you are seeing a variance. You said "Some, Not All." I'm only trying to explain the variance you are seeing. Its not about the organizations as ABC is better than XYZ. Its the quality of character in the ranks that makes an organization effective. Any idiot can be taught to meet a standard and generally a cop is someone that can shoot a pistol. It takes very special people to elevate a standard (preventing regression) and maintain a strong esprit de corps and consistent reputation that spans multiple generations.)

Further, these people that have this quality can be found in any armed profession and organization and outside of these organizations as well, but they are always excellent. Its just a matter of which organizations draw in these kinds of people or if these organizations become repulsive to these kind of people.

The best organizations have standards that select for personal commitment.

Seals for example, their training process is a fully voluntary course designed to maximize attrition, effectively selecting for personal commitment.

People with personal commitment raise standards, eventually an organization that doesn't select for this will invariably regress to lower standards when training becomes administrative and only addresses deficiencies below the established standard.

For example, you had to preface your comment with "In the old days..."

Personal commitment is the variance, not organizational affiliation.

(LEOs have a higher level of personal commitment than civilians, and older generations have a higher level of personal commitment than younger generations. This is why you are seeing a variance. You said "Some, Not All." I'm only trying to explain the variance you are seeing. Its not about the organizations as ABC is better than XYZ. Its the quality of character in the ranks that makes an organization effective. Any idiot can be taught to meet a standard and generally a cop is someone that can shoot a pistol. It takes very special people to elevate a standard (preventing regression) and maintain a strong esprit de corps and consistent reputation that spans multiple generations.)

Further, this very special people that have this quality can be found in any armed profession and organization and they always excellent. Its just a matter of which organizations draw in these kinds of people.

The best organizations have standards that select for personal commitment.

Seals for example, their training process is a fully voluntary course designed to maximize attrition, effectively selecting for personal commitment.

People with personal commitment raise standards, eventually an organization that doesn't select for this will invariably regress to lower standards when training becomes administrative and only addresses deficiencies below the established standard.

For example, you had to preface your comment with "In the old days..."

Personal commitment is the variance, not organizational affiliation.

(LEOs have a higher level of personal commitment than civilians, and older generations have a higher level of personal commitment than younger generations. This is why you are seeing a variance. You said "Some, Not All." I'm only trying to explain the variance you are seeing. Its not about the organizations as ABC is better than XYZ. Its the quality of character in the ranks that makes an organization effective. Any idiot can be taught to meet a standard and generally a cop is someone that can shoot a pistol. It takes very special people to elevate a standard (preventing regression) and maintain a strong esprit de corps and consistent reputation that spans multiple generations.)

The best organizations have standards that select for personal commitment.

Seals for example, their training process is a fully voluntary course designed to maximize attrition, effectively selecting for personal commitment.

People with personal commitment raise standards, eventually an organization that doesn't select for this will invariably regress to lower standards when training becomes administrative and only addresses deficiencies below the established standard.

For example, you had to preface your comment with "In the old days..."

Personal commitment is the variance, not organizational affiliation.

(LEOs have a higher level of personal commitment than civilians, and older generations have a higher level of personal commitment than younger generations. This is why you are seeing a variance. You said "Some, Not All." I'm only trying to explain the variance you are seeing. Its not about the organizations in such as way as ABC is XYZ. Its the quality of character that makes an organization effective. Any idiot can be taught to meet a standard. It takes very special people to elevate a standard (preventing regression) and maintain a strong esprit de corps and consistent reputation that spans multiple generations.)

The best organizations have standards that select for personal commitment.

Seals for example, their training process is a fully voluntary course designed to maximize attrition, effectively selecting for personal commitment.

People with personal commitment raise standards, eventually an organization that doesn't select for this will invariably regress to lower standards when training becomes administrative and only addresses deficiencies below the established standard.

For example, you had to preface your comment with "In the old days..."

Personal commitment is the variance, not organizational affiliation.

(LEOs have a higher level of personal commitment than civilians, and older generations have a higher level of personal commitment than younger generations. This is why you are seeing a variance. This is the only point I'm trying to make. Its not about the organizations. Its about the character quality that makes an organization effective.)

The best organizations have standards that select for personal commitment.

Seals for example, their training process is a fully voluntary course designed to maximize attrition, effectively selecting for personal commitment.

People with personal commitment raise standards, eventually an organization that doesn't select for this will invariably regress to lower standards when training becomes administrative and only addresses deficiencies below the established standard.

For example, you had to preface your comment with "In the old days..."

Personal commitment is the variance, not organizational affiliation.