I've been watching quite a bit of crime television lately.
I recently finished all three seasons of the Turkish series Graveyard (Mezarlık), I'm currently on Season 3 of The Rookie, and I've finally reached Season 12 of Bones.
They are three crime procedurals that give me very different viewing experiences.
Graveyard is intense and often emotionally heavy. The Rookie is a much lighter watch, with plenty of humour and entertaining characters. Bones has been a long-running favourite, particularly because of its combination of science, criminal investigations, and character dynamics.
While watching these shows, I realised something about the characters that stood out to me across all three series.
Oscar Hutchinson from The Rookie
For example, the character Oscar Hutchinson from The Rookie. He is a ruthless psychopathic criminal - manipulative, opportunistic and certainly not someone I'd want anywhere near my personal or professional life.
But he's brilliant at surviving. He reads situations, identifies opportunities and makes himself useful when necessary. Even when circumstances are stacked against him, he somehow manages to find a way to stay in the game.
I find him thoroughly entertaining. You ask, would I trust him? Absolutely not. Hahaha. But I find his resourcefulness rather impressive, though it doesn't excuse his behaviour.
Inspector Önem from Graveyard
Then there's Inspector Önem from Graveyard.
She's truly capable, although she's severely underestimated in the beginning. She's determined and willing to challenge institutional failures, particularly when investigating crimes against women. She doesn't always have an easy relationship with the people around her, but she knows what she's doing.
What I enjoyed most about the first two seasons was the team dynamic between Önem, Serdar, Hasan, Selin and Berk.
They have different personalities, strengths and ways of approaching situations. They don't always agree, and they get frustrated with one another quite frequently. But they know how to work together when it matters.
However, Season 3 was disappointing. The storyline became unnecessarily complicated with an unsatisfying ending. After three seasons of investing in these characters, I expected a better resolution.
Still, I enjoyed watching how the team functioned in the earlier two seasons.
Dr Lance Sweets from Bones
And then, Bones! I've always appreciated the different expertise that each character brings to the investigations. Dr Brennan is exceptionally knowledgeable, Booth has his investigative instincts, and the Jeffersonian team (Hodgins, Angela, Dr Saroyan, and the whole rotation of interns) contributes its scientific expertise.
But my favourite character will always be Dr Lance Sweets. To me, he is the GOAT! Hahaha.
He's intelligent, perceptive, funny and kind. He understands human behaviour and can recognise things that others overlook. He doesn't need to be the most senior or authoritative person in the room to demonstrate his value.
What I particularly liked was how he could challenge Booth and Brennan without trying to compete with either of them. He knew what he brought to the table.
Competence, Likeability, Trust
Thinking about these characters, I realise that competence, likeability and trust are not necessarily the same thing.
Here's how I look at it:
Despite being a criminal, Oscar gets things done, but he primarily uses his abilities to protect his own interests, which means his intelligence doesn't make him reliable or trustworthy.
Sweets, on the other hand, combines competence with sincerity and a genuine concern for others, which makes him very likeable.
And Önem demonstrates her abilities through her actions, earning trust from her teammates, even when circumstances are difficult.
The Distinction That Matters Beyond TV Characters
Over the years, I've worked with people whose personalities and approaches are very different from mine. Some are systematic and detail-oriented; others are more intuitive or spontaneous.
I don't necessarily have a problem with either approach.
I can appreciate someone's abilities even when they work differently from me because I don't expect everyone to think the same way or arrive at decisions through the same process.
What matters the most to me is this: "Can the person deliver what they have promised and committed to doing?"
Trust is an important workplace "currency" that I associate with consistency, accountability, and demonstrated behaviour.
A confident personality who can make grand promises doesn't automatically establish competence. Neither does seniority, a job title or being particularly good at talking.
Likewise, having a difficult personality doesn't necessarily mean someone lacks ability or competency.
I've become more conscious of separating these things rather than treating them as interchangeable.
I can recognise someone's strengths without liking everything about them; I can appreciate intelligence without needing to know how it's used; and I have become very deliberate in creating opportunities to earn and learn trust, which is a very expensive "currency".
Perhaps that's also why I enjoy ensemble casts. Different characters contribute different abilities, and not everyone needs to be the star.
Anyway, I'm still watching The Rookie, and I'm quite happy to keep it as a light, entertaining series.
No need for every episode to provide an important life lesson.
Although, apparently, I can't even watch a fictional criminal like Oscar Hutchinson without thinking about competence and trust.
Hahaha.











