So another boring story on management? Yes. No. Is it proper to use one word sentences? For this article it will have to be. Yes theorists have described multiple theories of management, no matter the business. Police work is no different.
We have the police “Autocrat” who rules with an iron fist. Unless the employees are blind sheep, this style is often inappropriate. No police officer wants a sergeant standing behind the officer and contradicting any action taken. This has a tendency to make the good officer gun shy and learn to not make a decision until the sergeant makes it for the officer.
The Autocrat police manager will show up at every traffic stop, demand the details of the violation and tell the officer if it is a good pinch or to just let it go with a warning. A domestic violence call will certainly be reviewed by the Autocrat before an arrest is made. This is justified by the manager as a way to protect the officer and the department from civil liability. I believe the manager is more concerned with his own vicarious liability because any officer who gets sued must have done something wrong and their next promotion to lieutenant may be hampered.
In this manager’s mind it is better to do nothing and keep an unblemished record than it is to do the right thing and see that justice is done. A rookie police officer who has an autocratic boss develops no sense of self-worth. This officer learns to sit back, do nothing so as not to get reprimanded or days off for a wrong decision in the eyes of the manager.
Where does the Autocrat do good work? How about in a hostage situation, when a team of officers will make entry on a house. We want the team to work as a cohesive unit. The entry sergeant tells each officer their function and expects them to carry it out. This is not the time for an officer to decide to disregard his instructions and enter via a different door to try to surprise the suspect. That is a good way to get an officer, hostage or suspect shot.
The Laissez-faire style manager, one who assigns a task and sits back and watches what happens would be awful in a hostage situation. But in a normal, non-emergency situation this manager allows the officers to go out, decide what area needs special police attention. This officer will learn to make his own goals, tactics and reap the results or change their technique to accomplish the desired result.
An example of this type of management is when a very good Chief of Police I worked for would assign me tasks and let me go at it. He once tasked me to study the feasibility of the City hiring a vehicle mechanic to do routine maintenance on all city vehicles.
After studying other agencies, talking to our department heads and doing a cost analysis, I suggested it was a wash to hire an inside person. The fire chief did all his own maintenance, the police and squad got a fleet discount. The presentation was made for and against the idea and the chief went with my suggestion. I was assigned many tasks similar to this and he, I and the department benefited. However this style of management would not be useful for the entry team sergeant.
So which style of management is best in police work? The two I have described each have their values and disadvantages. A good police manager will use the proper style of management for the particular situation. Managing by threats and discipline have their place but rarely are beneficial, causing lower morale, high turnover rates of good workers and a do nothing work force.
The same can be said of allowing your workers to go unsupervised. This can foster the attitude of employees needing a little supervision becoming disillusioned and decide if nobody is watching or cares what is being accomplished, “Why do anything that will draw attention or ridicule.”
A police manager who knows when to manage and when to facilitate will be a successful leader. Not an easy task when dealing with a bunch of “Type A” personalities. I’m sure managing me was simple and not at all frustrating. This is where the young people I work with now would type in one of those “lol” thingies.
