Ch. 3 of Managing Police Organizations Ten Trends Most of us view the future as a happening that is always stealing our security, breaking promises, changing the rules, and creating all kinds of problems. Nevertheless, it is the future that holds our greatest leverage. The past is of record, and if we are alert, we can learn from it. Things occur only in one place—the present. Usually, we respond to those things. • It is in the incoming future, and only there, where a police leader has the time to prepare for the present! Strange, isn’t it? When imagining the future, you can look at it as content or process. The “content futurists” concentrate on data about the future. The “process futurists” focus on how to think about such new and unusual data. The ten trends you’ll encounter now are the product of the imaginations of over 2,000 police managers whom I have been blessed to meet and train with over the past five years. Some of the trends we’ll cover are those you may be feeling and experiencing right now. One of the most critical leadership skills needed during times of uncertainty and turbulence is anticipation. Reliable anticipation is the outcome of reliable trend identification. Some anticipation can be analytical, but the most important aspect of trend forecasting is our unpredictable, exciting, at times wrong, but frequently right imagination. Trend 1: Flat World Thomas Friedman, in The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century (ISBN 13:978-0-374-29288-1), points out that broadband connectivity around the world, undersea cables, the omnipresence of computers, and the explosion of software, e-mail, and search engines have created a platform where intellectual work can be delivered from anywhere. Imagine, right now, some United States Attorneys and CPAs are using their services. Globalization is shrinking and flattening the world while empowering companies and police departments to participate in open-sourcing, outsourcing, off-shoring, in-sourcing, in-forming, and more. We’ve entered an era of cheap, easier, and friction-free technology that is literally transforming every aspect of business (police, too), every aspect of life, and every aspect of society. “The flatters” (flanking technologies) have been around (e.g., e-mail, Web browsers) for nearly two decades. They’re taking hold now because a growing cadre of police leaders is using them, and organizational cultures are shifting away from vertical command and control to connecting and collaborating horizontally (this is the “agile” organization that’s covered in a future chapter). Do you know any police manager who is not using a smartphone and living in a WiFi city? I don’t. Trend 2: Higher Tech When you write about “richer communications” today, within minutes (even nanoseconds) you’re obsolete. Today, intelligent terminals connect with intelligent networks that are wired and wireless, local and global. Together, they empower police personnel and machines to communicate and share information in an increasingly rich variety of forms: voice, handwriting, video data, print, and image. Networks that never sleep can find you and deliver a message, hold videoconferences across the nation or the world, or identify, locate, and apprehend criminals who operate outside national borders. The power of technology is indeed bringing police databanks together and giving them access to each other and to the information they want and need, anytime, anywhere—in ever new and useful ways. Around the world, police agencies now recognize (see Trend 4) that their professional future is linked to their communication and information infrastructures. More less-than-lethal weapons are available. Uniforms with wireless sensors to monitor life signs and measure stress levels, along with pin-hole cameras, are being tested. We now have handheld portable devices that see through walls and clothing and “bugs” that can be surreptitiously placed on individuals. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) are capable of locating us within less than three feet of our position. Clearly there are a lot of hardware gadgets and apps in the offing. Before moving on, it’s appropriate that we mention the most ubiquitous of all—the much-loved and dammed cell phone. The jury is out right now on the issue of whether it does more harm than good. If your agency does not have a policy on its use while officers are on duty, it should! Trend 3: Lower Touch We are experiencing a trend now of everyone being in touch and nobody being touched. It’s necessary to think and act high-tech. After all, no one wants to be a hit-and-run victim on the information superhighway. Regrettably, in our quest for more advanced communications technology, we are missing high-touch thinking and acting. We are a nation on a chaotic upwardand-onward race to make everything wireless, compress bits, increase fiber-optic bandwidth— make our future digital. There seems to be a collective faith that technology guarantees us a cyber-utopia of robot cops. E-mail has its functionality, but clearly it’s not a way to build a team, create enthusiasm, or elevate understanding and mutual trust. We see an out-of-control higher-tech trend that is causing lower touch and thus undermining community-oriented policing. Already technology is preventing police managers and supervisors from interfacing with their staff. The computer, cell phone, and hundreds of electronic messages have them captured by chips. As a consequence, police leaders must carefully and wisely apply the invading technology to areas that assist with both productivity and people. Leadership by e-mail just won’t work; being digital is not leadership. Add deployment to technology, and it makes sense that a lot of police employees do not feel engaged, lack a sense of individualism, and approach police work as merely a job. The 3-day/12hour and 4-day/10-hour allocation plans are a two-edged sword. One side is loved by the officers, in that they can spend more time elsewhere and commute less. Another side is detested by police leadership because it reduces face-to-face communication, trust, and teamwork. I have frequently heard from supervisors who were required to rate the performance of their staff when they did not actually observe their work. • Good news. Many police leaders have decided to combat this malady by pushing aside their computer, jumping over mounds of paperwork, and being physically present in the field of operation (not merely wandering through roll call with a smile). Some agencies have adopted policies that all watch commanders will be in the field 50 percent or more of their duty time. Here’s the kicker. So far the results have shown they enjoy it, and the line officers appreciate it. Trend 4: A 9/11 Partnership While somewhat unpleasant, some police managers and I brainstormed 9/11 for any potential benefits. Surprisingly, we found several (e.g., new jobs, new technology, increased patriotism, and more). Our federal system of governance separates our nation’s police apparatus into national, state, and local subsystems that recognize the need to cooperate and support one another. Shared computerbased criminal justice information is one example of this. Unfortunately, much of the desire for closer and fuller cooperation has been just lip service. 9/11 has changed latent parochialism into a fledgling partnership. The hurricanes that devastated New Orleans and threatened Houston with a similar fate underscored the lessons learned after 9/11—all of American law enforcement must act as one to be effective in coping with major disasters. To be effective, all levels of policing must be seamless. The terrorists love it when egos and politics scramble a united police front. Yet another benefit has emerged. Is being afraid to fly because of international terrorism any different from being afraid to walk in a neighborhood because of local gangs (terrorists)? The source is different, but the fear is identical—the terrorists have intimidated. Our newly formed international police partnership has discovered a lot of similar interoperable patterns and tactics between international terrorists and local gangs (which are actually national and international). This point is demonstrated in the recently established joint regional centers for anti-terrorism. Their mission includes an anti-gang component! Trend 5: Pension Envy When it comes to local government (that’s where the majority of policing occurs), usually the largest percentage of the budget is allocated to the police and sheriff’s departments. While it is an essential service, we cannot ignore that the fact that the cost of cops is high and growing. This is both good and bad news for our police officers. It’s good that many of the personnel are earning a fine income with an enviable benefit package. The bad news is that many taxpayers are beginning to voice reservations about both the number and the compensation of police employees. Some folks are expressing that yes, they’re important, but they’re overpriced. Across our nation many private pension programs have been modified, reduced, and even eliminated. Private-sector workers expecting a retirement income of “X” are being told, “Tough luck, it’ll be ‘X – 50%.’ Simultaneously they discover that their taxes are being raised to pay for better police pensions. This countervailing set of circumstances is on a collision course—police pension systems versus private ballot boxes. Already some police leaders have made tough decisions about retirement packages. For example, newly hired employees receive the same pay but have to contribute more to their pension or simply receive a smaller benefit. All of this is occurring when most police departments are struggling to hire new employees. It appears there is an increased likelihood that a greater percentage of police officers’ retirement benefits (especially the medical benefit) will be either contributed by the officer, or will be less at the time of their retirement. Another sidebar is the number of years needed to reach retirement. There are some pension programs whereby at age 50 you can receive 80 percent of your salary. The bottom line question is precisely the bottom line dollar, or “as a taxpayer how much am I willing to pay for my police?” Trend 6: From Bureaucracy to Agility Police leaders are confronting bureaucracy (the anatomy of an organization) and bashing it. From its inhibiting boundaries, boundarylessness and agility are evolving. Boundarylessness is a behavior definer, a way of getting police managers outside their organizational boxes and offices and working together faster. It also gets the police manager closer to the customers (the community), and most importantly, the work team. It positions them in front, in the lead. This behavior definer is encouraging police managers to cast aside thinking about teamwork and agility and actually practice it! They’re finding that it eliminates barriers that slow the department down and detract from its success. Boundarylessness will, if practiced, create an agile department, and an agile organization is: • • • • Speedy: providing a very fast-paced reaction to emerging crime and social problems. Problemoriented policing is a concrete example of boundarylessness and quick responses. • Teamwork-driven: engaged in a highly focused endeavor to tear all the walls down and put teams from all police functions together in one room to bring new operations, tactics, and services to life. • Responsive: delivering quick community/customer intelligence means an advanced method for accurately knowing what people really want. It is a process that gives every police manager direct access to the customer. Community-oriented policing (COP) is one way to make this happen. Trend 7: Volunteers In most police agencies today, if you work, you get paid. In some cases the reserve officers may be performing their duties without compensation. They may be hoping for eventual employment and/or just enjoying the excitement of police work. Related, but different, is the growing number of civilian volunteers. These people are willing to contribute their efforts to important causes. They can be observed serving in such capacities as • • • • • • search and rescue • patrol • clerical/records • mechanics • training • pilots • clergy • counseling • data processing People want to make a difference; they want purpose in life. We know of police organizations that are benefiting from thousands of hours of volunteer assistance. With more and more people living well beyond their retirement date, a reservoir of proven talent is building, and this talent seriously wants, and indeed needs, opportunities to be applied. • • • • The prudent agencies are welcoming volunteers as prized workers. The dollar savings are tremendous; the work results are exemplary. Volunteers count. The San Bernardino, California Sheriff’s Department has 3,000 officers and 3,000 volunteers. Trend 8: Empowerment We are convinced that the growing participation of police workers in decisions that affect them or their clientele will evolve into the mental muscle of more full and rich empowerment. (More on this subject in a forthcoming chapter.) What we wrote earlier on this subject will steadily become a routine practice. Police unions won’t cause it to happen; in fact, they may resist it. Preaching “humanism” won’t promote it. The demand for better police services and strengthbased leadership will cause it to happen. Trend 9: Cut-Back Leadership PMW Associates has been in the police training business since 1971. Until 2007, it’s most popular seminar was “Internal Affairs.” Currently it is “Budgeting.” Leadership is difficult enough with adequate resources. Without sufficient resources it requires undaunting courage. I’ve spoken to some very strong and fearless police leaders who have stated, “I’m tired of getting my butt kicked; I’ve decided to retire.” As I write, our nation and our world is facing a debt crisis. We went to the well too often, and now the water is gone. Many are anxious that we’re entering a double-dip recession. A few years ago no one would have thought that police personnel would be laid off. In some cases, no matter what the situation, overtime pay is curtailed. This is a time of leading a retreat from past horizons and hopes to a grim reality that the next few years will be a period of being thankful we have a job. Here is what the National Institute of Justice recommended in its study, “Strategic Cutback Management: Law Enforcement Leadership for Lean Times” (2011): • Avoid across-the-board cuts • Think long term • Do not just cut costs; look for revenue opportunities • Invite innovations • Look outside for help • Targeted layoffs are more effective than hiring freezes For a copy of the report see www.nij.gov. • • • • • • Trend 10: Social Media The verdict on the power, benefits, and detriments of social media is still coming in and will be for some time. One benefit of social media is being able to keep in touch with friends. One downside is sexual predation. In a recent survey reported on in “U.S.A. Today,” 70 percent of human resource directors are using social media to search for relevant information about job applicants. I know a lieutenant who was demoted to sergeant (the sheriff tried to fire him) when he posted on a media page that his sheriff was an “asshole”! Social media was successfully used by young adults to checkmate the police in the 2011 London, Birmingham, etc. street riots. The stories about the use and abuse of social media are large and legion, and growing. Some police agencies have found social media helpful in their criminal investigations. We can hope this continues, along with other positive “apps.” In the meantime, all agencies should adopt a policy on its use. For an example of such a policy, see the Web site of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (www.IACP.org—click Social Media). How did you rate yourself and your department? If your total approached 80 points, you and your agency are to be congratulated! Ch. 7 of Criminal Justice Organizations LEADERSHIP RESEARCH IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE As we have seen, little empirical testing of the theoretical models of leadership in criminal justice organizations has been attempted. What has been done, moreover, is still rooted in 1950s research of the Ohio State studies and the Michigan studies. This situation may be caused either by the slow testing of current theories of leadership within criminal justice organizations or the limited number of reliable instruments to test the new theoretical positions. However, some new research, particularly in the police field, does tell us about leadership in criminal justice agencies; from it, we can draw implications for management. Research by Kuykendall and Unsinger (1982) suggests that police managers have a preferred leadership orientation. Employing an instrument created by Hershey and Blanchard (1977), the researchers found that police managers are likely to use styles of leadership known as selling (high task and high relationship emphasis), telling (high task and low relationship emphasis), and participating (high relationship and low task emphasis), with very little concern for delegating (low relationship and low task emphasis). Of these styles of leadership, which are similar to those discussed previously, the most preferred style is selling. The researchers suggest that police managers are no less effective than managers in other organizational settings and that the selling, telling, and participating styles lead to organizational effectiveness. Similar findings were generated by Swanson and Territo (1982) in their research involving 104 police supervisors in the Southeast in the late 1970s. Using the managerial grid, the researchers found that their sample of police supervisors showed high concern for both production and people and emphasized team management in their organizations. Employing other measures, the researchers also found that police supervisors used a style of communication that emphasized the open and candid expression of their feelings and knowledge to subordinates rather than a style of communication that emphasized feedback from subordinates to managers about their supervisory capabilities. This research suggested that police managers had an open communication style with subordinates and supported the idea that police managers were indeed democratic in their leadership styles. (At least, they professed to be.) More recently, Madlock (2008) suggests that the leader's “communication competency” is a critical factor when assessing leadership effectiveness in organizations. In fact, he found that effective communicators not only were rated high by their subordinates regarding their communication abilities, but, more important, a high level of communication competence was strongly correlated to job satisfaction by workers. We may have to improve the communication skills of criminal justice supervisors to improve their leadership capabilities. Whether or not improved communication skills are associated with participative styles of leadership is still unknown. Research suggests that such a participative and democratic leadership style is not as ubiquitous in police organizations as previously indicated. Auten (1985), for example, found in his sample of police supervisors and operations personnel in state police agencies in Illinois that the dominant managerial model was the traditional paramilitary type with one-way communication. In addition, these police supervisors and operations personnel strongly believed that they had no meaningful role in organizational decision making. The researchers suggest that there were communication breakdowns between the supervisory and operations personnel and the administrative heads of the agencies. Not only is there limited consensus on what type of leadership styles predominate among police managers and administrators, but when police supervisors are asked to think about a leadership style as opposed to acting out a style in a specific situation, they also tend to change their approach to leadership (Kuykendall, 1985). Clearly, what a supervisor regards as an appropriate style of leadership may not be in agreement with what he or she actually does in a given situation. Current research, for example, on occupational stress, high turnover, absenteeism, and substance abuse in the police field suggests that the traditional paramilitary structure of police organizations, with its emphasis on an autocratic style of leadership, creates and perpetuates these problems. These problems may be traced to other factors in the police role, such as the danger associated with the job, yet it is important to examine how specific leadership styles contribute to many of these problems. Much leadership research in policing needs to be done. In the field of corrections, much of what we know about leadership is rooted in highly prescriptive material, which limits our understanding of the process. However, many of the problems experienced in police organizations are experienced equally in correctional organizations; hierarchical structure, limited and often rigid communications systems, and centralized decision-making authority in correctional organizations produce many of these problems (Archambeault and Archambeault, 1982). As with police research, leadership research in corrections is not only limited but also offers little information that is useful to corrections administrators. Given the current state of leadership research in both police organizations and correctional organizations, we recommend that future researchers address the following issues. First, we need additional research on how criminal justice administrators actually lead their organizations; from this data, prescriptions for policy can be made useful to the criminal justice manager. Much existing research is out of date and tells us little about the increasing complexities of the leadership process. Some current research, however, in the field of corrections lends credence to the idea that leadership does matter and does affect the quality of practice exhibited by employees. Dale and Trlin (2010) investigated the impact of a new public management scheme in New Zealand on the performance of probation officers. The research highlighted the initial tension that existed between management and workers as the former sought greater managerial efficiencies in exchange for less professionalism based on traditional practices. The authors contend that if new systems of efficiencies were to be created within the probation practice, more “supportive” relationships needed to be built by managers and leaders, buttressed by a clear articulation of professional values, expertise, and knowledge and a recognition that practice should be a defining element in assessing the effectiveness of both employees and leaders. Second, the contemporary models of leadership offered by organizational behavior theory need to be examined. Contingency approaches should be examined in relation to criminal justice organizations, along with refinement of instruments to test these theories in the criminal justice environment. The situational factors influencing the leadership process must be examined in the operations of criminal justice systems. Too often, research in criminal justice organizations has been set up to ascertain whether administrators are participative or autocratic in relation to their subordinates. It is possibly time to stop searching for the perfect criminal justice manager and to begin examining situational aspects of the work environment that constrain administrators in their leadership functions. Third, to fully understand the leadership phenomenon in criminal justice organizations, we must use the new methodologies to look at the intricacies associated with the leadership process. Traditional survey methods in criminal justice organizations have yielded some valuable information, yet field methods would provide information about the actual leadership mechanisms used by criminal justice administrators. To understand the leadership process, it is helpful to watch and document what criminal justice leaders actually do and, more important, be able to distinguish effective criminal justice leaders from ineffective ones. In this way, prescriptions for administrators would be informed by data and useful in their day-to-day interactions with subordinates. Finally, we need to discuss how much we can expect of our criminal justice managers in leadership. It is common to blame the poor performance of subordinates on ineffective management or leadership; we often hear this complaint in criminal justice organizations. Yet it is shortsighted to suggest that all problems in criminal justice can be attributed to faulty leadership. Criminal justice administrators have limited or no control over some aspects of the work of their organizations. As a result, requesting a new leader “to set the organization back on path” is probably, in the words of Hall and Tolbert (2005:160), “little more than a cosmetic treatment.” An uncertain and unstable political environment, for example, makes multiple demands on a police chief. Not being able to appease all groups all the time, the chief is constrained in decision making. On many occasions, because the chief has limited resources and multiple demands, all community expectations for police services cannot be met. Too often, the chief is viewed as an ineffective leader when leadership has little to do with the problem. To be effective, a leader must provide some degree of control over the external environment. But we need to be realistic about how much a police administrator can control. Perhaps for this reason, many experts recommend that incoming police chiefs develop clear and stable relations with local political groups so that expectations can be spelled out on both sides (Murphy, 1985). Similar concerns can be raised about leadership in the courts, prisons, and probation and parole organizations. Leaders of these departments have problems of trying to understand the political process and how it affects their organizations. Many have concerns about how much of their organizations they really control, particularly in tight fiscal times when resources are stretched and competition among social service agencies for finite dollars is fierce. Similar to police administrators, court officials and correctional administrators are expected to achieve aims that they neither agree with nor have resources to successfully complete. A prime example of this difficulty is the “three strikes” initiatives that swept the country during the early 1990s. For many departments of corrections' leaders and prison administrators, such a law was impossible to live with and had dire practical consequences for prison management, yet its political appeal was so great that political leaders jumped on the bandwagon to pass laws that were not only difficult to implement but in some cases also were draconian in their effects (Irwin and Austin, 2002). Under such difficult circumstances, how are criminal justice administrators to respond? An answer to this question may lie in a model of leadership education, to which we now turn. CJA/474 v9 Off the Rails: A Troubled Criminal Justice Agency The Spring Valley Detention Center serves as the jail for all law enforcement agencies in Smith County. While county jails are usually operated by the county sheriff, the Spring Valley facility is under the general supervision of a commission consisting of the police chiefs of two cities, the sheriff, the district attorney, and a representative from the county board of supervisors. The commission usually restricts its involvement to establishing policy and hiring a warden to oversee operations. Warden James Law has worked at the detention center for 22 years. For his first six years, Law was a corrections officer who worked a variety of assignments. Then he was promoted to sergeant and supervised a shift of 10-12 officers. Due to several retirements, Law became one of the people considered for the vacant warden’s position. Some members of the commission wanted to go outside the agency to bring in a fresh perspective and a modern ideology to the operation. Law’s long service convinced enough members to select him as the new warden. In his first few months as warden, Law corrected some longstanding personnel and procedural issues and filled all the vacant officer positions. However, after a year on the job, his activity has slowed and he neglects to address festering issues. Employees rarely see him, and his communication to them usually comes in the form of terse emails. Upward communication has all but ceased. Officers comment that Law has gone ROD—retired on duty. Deputy Wardens and first line supervisors speculate that the warden is suffering from burnout or perhaps is ill. Corrections officers are considering organizing a union to address the lack of communication and other problems that seem to be ignored. Two families have filed lawsuits over the deaths of inmates—one ruled a suicide and the other deemed an accidental fall. While the detention center has never been progressive in improving its operation nor agile in responding to problems, it now suffers complete stagnation. Supervisors merely maintain the status quo and make decisions with reluctance. They go through the motions of day-to-day operations but feel inadequate to address personnel issues that were once handled by the warden. Mid- and upper-management (deputy wardens and special unit managers) feel their hands are tied without support from the distant warden. A couple of employees have approached members of the commission informally. While some of the commission members have concerns about the situation, they are unsure what to do without specific allegations of misconduct against the warden. Copyright 2019 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment