Effective Practices for Managers and Supervisors

profilewillis55
chapter9.docx

9 Problem Employees/Problem Bosses

In reality, problem employees are not a problem. They are a situation. And situations do not improve on their own. It takes a courageous manager to take control of the situation for the benefit of the organization.

Fact: All organizations have a few problem employees and a few problem bosses.

Question: What do you do about them?

Question: More importantly, do your actions or inactions make you one of them?

I still think all of the talent in the world doesn’t excuse deliberate rudeness.

—LEE IACOCCA

CHAPTER OUTLINE

We Choose Our Behavior

·   Self-Deception

·   Consequences

How?

·   Selection

·   Retention

·   Rationalization

Drawing the Lines!

·   Legalistic Misconduct

·   Professional Misconduct

·   Ethical Misconduct

What Lines?

Types of Problems

·   Unlawful Conduct

·   Professional/Ethical Issues

Helping the Problem Employee

Discipline

·   Types of Disciplinary Actions

·   The Firing Line

Problem Bosses

·   Profiles of Problem Bosses

·   Coping with Them

Competency Checkpoints

Flexing the Message

We all have good and bad days. At times our performance and motivation are not as keen as they should be. This is life—organizational life. This chapter is not about occasional mental mistakes or emotional grouchiness. It is about those few police employees who choose to harbor and then display chronic dysfunctional behavior. Some actually enjoy being miserable and, if possible, making others the same.

·  It takes only a few problem employees to wreak havoc in a department. While few in numbers, they can develop enough synergy to impede efficiency, lower morale, and ruin the image of the department. It can take the wrongful efforts of only a handful to destroy the hard, honest work of many.

The media and investigatory bodies expose—regretfully too often—embarrassing evidence of problem employees. The answer must not be “It’s only a few out of many.” The answer must be “We are striving for and will not tolerate bad behavior in our police department.” Not only do problem employees spark for attempting to erode morale, but they are costly to the organization, both monetarily and to the department’s standing in the community. For these obvious reasons, problem employees must be dealt with immediately.

·  What you allow, you encourage, and what you encourage creates new expectations.

Problem employees are typically thought about from the boss down. Here we’ll also examine those few managers and supervisors who cause turmoil and distrust in the department.

WE CHOOSE OUR BEHAVIOR

·  When we deliberately choose not to stay positive and deny joy a place in our lives, we’ll usually gravitate in one of two directions, sometimes both—the direction of blame or self-pity …

—Charles Swindall

Note above the term  behavior . Basically, our behavior is making choices about our values. From  Chapter 2  you learned that a value could be changed by either profound dissatisfaction or a significant emotional event (SEE). At times, a manager can cause one or the other to occur. But this is a rarity. Unfortunately, many managers consider themselves a failure when they cannot adjust an employee’s value or attitude in an effort to improve the employee’s work behavior.

·  A police manager cannot be held accountable for changing someone’s job-related attitudes or values. However, the police manager is responsible for controlling an employee’s unacceptable choices at work.

At the root of being a “good” employee is self-control and knowledge that regardless of how tough or confusing the situation, we always retain the power to choose what we think, say, and do. When we send up a smoke screen of blame and helplessness—“you made me do it,” “I couldn’t help myself,” “I had but one choice”—our work ethic runs amok. If we take control, we have control! If we don’t, then we’re going to be a problem employee. When we accept moral responsibility for our choices (behavior), we take charge of our lives.

Self-Deception

Personnel problems that plague police organizations are really symptoms of the blame dragon. The blame dragon is caused by the choices we make about ourselves and others. Unfortunately, some people choose to deceive themselves by deciding that all problems are caused by someone or something else.

·  Self-deception occurs when we betray ourselves by blaming others for our circumstances. Self-deception is the inability to recognize oneself as a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

Despite its destructiveness, self-deception is very tough for each of us to see in ourselves. Rather than accept responsibility for a problem, employees can first view themselves as a victim, nonetheless very loyal, extremely hardworking, and grossly undervalued. Second, they see co-workers as highly insensitive, totally unfair, always inconsiderate, and basically lazy. This self-deception leads to poor performance that may be behaviorally experienced as a lack of motivation, backbiting, lowered trust, and lack of commitment.

The obvious avoidance of or cure for self-deception is kicking aside self-betrayal and stepping forward to accept that you are causing harmful problems, and choosing to be a part of the solution.

Consequences

Ignoring or mishandling misconduct by problem employees is usually very time consuming and expensive for these reasons:

·   Recruitment:  Wise potential new hires are likely to know the agency has more than its fair share of malcontents, and will avoid the agency and apply to other police agencies. Because they’re selective, these are exactly the type of high-caliber new hires you want to employ.

·   Retention:  If you are mismanaging or ignoring bad conduct, it sounds an alarm to other police workers that the agency is drifting, in trouble, and lacks leadership. Your exemplary workers are apt to look for an agency with a more professional culture.

·   Morale:  An absence of discipline suggests a lack of integrity within the managerial and supervisory ranks. Poor morale begets lower productivity that creates performance shortfalls. Employees who chose not to leave the agency may “quit” and stay employed with your agency, by doing the minimum work necessary to get by, because they know bad behavior is tolerated.

·   Lawsuits:  Lawyers love police managers who mismanage personnel issues. Wrong decisions or no decision by a police manager/supervisor can be disastrous—for example, costly legal settlements and being forced to retain the very miscreant who should never have been hired in the first place.

·   Money:  All of the above reasons create a waste of valuable budget dollars and the manager’s time. One estimate has police managers spending 20 percent of their time combating wrongful behavior. With public scrutiny of the use of public resources at an unprecedented high, that’s a large chunk of taxpayer dollars.

HOW?

·  Hire a fool or a drunk and you shoot yourself in the foot.

—Proverbs 26:10

No agency (I hope) intentionally hires or nurtures a malcontent, liar, or crook. But it happens. More importantly, how does it happen? Roughly there are three ways an agency can acquire a bad employee. Each category should be objectively probed for structural and contextual deficiencies.

Selection

Here we are looking at recruitment standards, pre-employment testing, background investigations, basic training, field officer training, and probationary periods.

·   Recruitment:  Is the recruitment process proactive and professional rather than a mere newspaper ad,  craigslist.com  ad, or wall poster? Is it ho-hum or attractively announcing the merits and rewards of being a police officer?

·   Standards:  Are the employment standards set for applicants with high intelligence, solid character, good work ethic, physical strength, and empathy to mention a few?

·   Pre-Employment Testing:  Does the testing include a general intelligence test, an oral board examination, a psychological examination, and a physical agility test?

·   Background Investigation:  Is there an investigator assigned to the applicant’s personal and work history? Is the inquiry more than a mere letter or telephone inquiry? Is the background investigator leaving every stone unturned, following all leads permissible under the law, including credit checks, social media, and other available public records, to lawfully probe for disqualifying behavior?

·   Basic Training:  Is the basic training program comprehensive and certified by a state certifying body? Is the applicant’s competency tested?

·   Field Training Officer (FTO) Program:  After the academy training, is the probationary officer subject to a formal, certified FTO program led by a highly trained FTO? Are written evaluations prepared for each phase of training so that the probationary officer can be carefully considered for advancement?

·   Probationary Period:  Is there a probationary period from which a supervisor and FTO can recommend permanent hire or termination? And is it used?

·  Even with the rigorous application of all of the above personnel screening methods, some problem people are destined to slip through and become permanent members of a police agency. Nonetheless, the correct management decision must be to take every step and make every effort to identify problem employees early on and thus preclude them from contaminating the services of a police department and the department’s standing in the community. The greater the percentage of problem employees, the less these steps are being diligently accomplished.

Retention

What are you doing as a leader to make police work rewarding, exciting, meaningful, and fun? How many of your direct reports have been disappointed by a lack of praise on your part? Does your staff believe that you value their work to the organization? Do you express your appreciation for their work and take it a step further by affirming their personal worth?

Do you know their strengths and weaknesses? Do they really think that you care about their welfare? Are you setting an example that motivates them to try harder, do a better job? Do you help your employees set goals for progression and advancement within the organization? Finally, when you cause a problem for them, do you acknowledge your mistake and apologize to them?

Think about all of the ideas and lessons learned in the previous chapters. Start asking yourself questions about decision making, evidencing values, maintaining integrity, communicating a vision, listening, and so on.

·  Retention depends on job satisfaction and compensation. A leader influences the first, which is the most important of the two. I doubt many police managers would feel it necessary or be comfortable asking the above questions of themselves.

Rationalization

W. C. Fields commented about handling a nasty, unhappy person with, “At first you do not succeed, try and try again. Then give up. Don’t be a damn fool about it.” You should use every approach to correct the repetitive workplace monster. One-on-one conversations, psychological counseling, change in assignments, extra smiles … whatever. But at a certain point you must recognize to redirect your energies, micromanage the individual through progressive discipline, and help them to find other employment.

·  Don’t keep an employee you wouldn’t rehire.

STRUCTURED EXERCISE 9–1

The following are some signposts that help in judging if you were able to face the reality that you played a part in a problem—and also played a part in the solution. Think of a time you were complaining about someone or something else.

· • Ask yourself whether in that situation there was anything at all that you did to contribute to the problem.

· • Ask yourself whether the other person would say there was anything at all that you did to contribute to the problem.

· • Ask yourself what they would say you did to contribute to the problem.

· • Ask yourself what effect your contribution would have on the other person and how they would respond to it. What might they do or say in response?

· • Did they respond in any of the ways you would predict? If so, then you are most likely acting in a way that invites the behavior you complained about.

· • Did you make a change in your behavior? If so, did it improve the situation at all?

· • If you did not resolve the situation at the time, what do you think you could have done to resolve it?

DRAWING THE LINES!

·  Although the community may disagree with, or be vague about, what constitutes police misconduct, the police cannot.

Granted, without community consensus on the subject, the problem is a highly perplexing one for the police. Nonetheless, misconduct must be defined and policies must be set by the agency. Lines must be clearly drawn. Essentially, these lines should encompass three forms of misconduct: (1) legalistic, (2) professional, and (3) ethical (moralistic). The first involves criminal considerations; the second may or may not be criminal in nature but does entail professional considerations; and the third may or may not include professional canons but does embody personal ethics. Specific examples of three forms of misconduct are as follows:

Legalistic Misconduct

This type of misconduct can be “corruption” or crimes against people and property. Police corruption is an extremely complex and demoralizing crime problem, and it is not new to our generation of police personnel. Police corruption includes (1) the misuse of police authority for the police employee’s personal gain; (2) activity of the police employee that compromises, or can compromise, his or her ability to enforce the law or provide other police services impartially; and (3) the protection of illicit activities from police enforcement, whether or not the police employee receives something of value in return. Crimes against people and property include such behavior as use of excessive force, falsifying criminal reports, and lying under oath.

Professional Misconduct

This form of misconduct can range from insensitive verbal abuse of a citizen to negative body language. On the one hand, a criminal or civil violation may have occurred, while on the other, agency standards of professional conduct may be at issue. The possibilities for wrongdoing in this instance can fall within two rubrics: the law and professional conduct “unbecoming of an officer.” Again, the distinction between this type of wrongdoing and corruption is that no personal gain for the officer or others is involved. The key question is, what conduct is permissible? Hence there is a need for established policies, procedures, rules, and sanctions that explicitly encompass the conduct of police employees, both on and off duty.

Ethical Misconduct

If an officer thinks certain citizens are deserving of aggressive police practices, he or she is likely to behave aggressively, perhaps to the point of overreaction or even physical abuse. Or if the officer thinks certain citizens are deserving of no police attention, he or she is likely to behave passively, perhaps to the extent of refusing to help someone. Ethical misconduct is the very root of other forms of misconduct for which managers must be alert.

WHAT LINES?

·  Negative people are worse than negative occurrences. The argument is over in minutes; the person may hang around for years.

—Jeffrey Gitomer

Police agencies can make three costly mistakes about the legalistic, professional, and ethical lines. First, in not drawing them at all, or clearly. Second, once created, not conveying them to all employees with regular reinforcement. Third, not establishing guardrails that automatically trigger disciplinary responses.

· • While it doesn’t happen often, it does happen that some police employees will employ the “Duh” game when informed about their rule-breaking behavior. Here’s one type: “Duh! No one told me that this behavior was bad. So it’s not my fault; it’s the department’s fault.” Another is, “Duh! I don’t remember being told about this policy.” I recommend that you and all police managers do at least the following in the way of clearly drawing lines of conduct thereby attacking the “Duh” tactic proactively. In fact, to eliminate this so-called defense, best practices based on principles of fairness include routinely advising employees of the organization’s policies and procedures. Prentice-Hall graciously agreed to allow the preceding section, “Drawing the Lines,” to be reproduced. You are welcome to use or modify as you like the statement about the three types of police misconduct and indicate that police misconduct of any type (legalistic, professional, or ethical) will not be tolerated by the police agency. Put it in manuals, on the walls of your police buildings and have every employee read, sign, and date it. The person’s manager should do the same. Place the signed form in the employee’s personnel folder. Update the form annually.

· •  Exhibit 9-1  is a government form and is also for your use. Modify it as necessary. Then follow the same exact steps as above.

· • Return to  Chapter 2  and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics ( Figure 2-1 ). Again Prentice-Hall has O.K.’d your use of this document. Follow the same steps.

·  The above recommendations are not guaranteed to stop the “Duh” factor, but it will significantly diminish it. Moreover, it is likely to decrease wrongful conduct in general.

There is one other outcropping behavioralism that merits attention here. It involves obeying orders. There is a slogan, “Challenge Authority!” A manager who abuses or misuses his authority must be challenged, stopped! However, to question a manager’s legitimate command is borderline, if not, an overt act of disobedience. You may be recalling the earlier admonition about empowerment. About including people’s ideas and hopes in a decision you’re going to make about their work. Not that they’re going to make but that you’re going to make! The manager is there to manage; the leader is there to lead; and the staff is obligated to comply.

Some employees pride themselves in asking, “Why are we doing this? Why do you want me to do it this way? You owe it to me to tell me why there is this line!” Successful police departments do not, cannot function based on a hierarchy of “whys.” Suffice it to say, they function best on a hierarchy of commands. This is especially so in the “quasi-military” context, where the police department has even greater latitude to burden an employee’s rights, particularly when the exercise of those rights impact morale, harmony, uniformity, and trust in the ranks.

You don’t owe an explanation for everything you do or ask others to do. Your boss doesn’t owe you one either. At times understanding can wait, but obedience cannot. In fact, you may never understand some commands until you obey them first. Some of us pick and choose the commands we obey—this is thought of as “partial” obedience. But, there is no such thing as partial obedience. You either obey or disobey an order. And, when you disobey—even partially—this is  disobedience . Similarly, delayed obedience is  disobedience.

EXHIBIT 9-1 California Police Officer Code of Conduct

Source: State of California.

TYPES OF PROBLEMS

·  Yanking a dog’s ears is as foolish as interfering in someone else’s argument.

—Proverbs 26:17

The “three lines” covered earlier are now divided into two categories: unlawful conduct and professional/ethical issues.

Unlawful Conduct

This list is based on federal laws, state penal codes, and local ordinances. The list seems short, but in actuality it is extensive (e.g., burglary, theft, rape, and so on). Here are a few examples:

· • Use of excessive force

· • Hate crimes

· • Part I crimes

· • Perjury

· • Sex crimes

· • Misdemeanor crimes

The first-line of investigation is the supervisor. Once the supervisor has evidence of wrongful conduct, the case is immediately transferred to internal affairs or criminal investigations. This situation is handled like any other criminal case—only with the media banging on your office door.

Professional/Ethical Issues

Here the list of misconduct is long and not as definitive.

· • Low productivity

· • Malinger

· • Interpersonal difficulties

· • Disloyal

· • Insubordination

· • Lying

· • Cowardice

· • Chronic complaining

· • Improper dress

· • Improper use of technology (computer, e-mail, texting, etc.)

· • Chronic absenteeism

· • Alcohol/drug abuse

· • Negative personalities

· • Unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation

· • Unsafe behavior

· • Sexual harassment

· • Excessive citizen complaints

· • Careless performance

· • Reckless driving

· • Personal chores at work

Problem police employees are difficult to manage. They tend to upset the morale of the entire work group. Consequently, managers should consider (1) why potential problem employees are being hired in the first place, (2) holding them accountable on the job so that they reach maximum productivity with the least disruption of the team’s overall performance, (3) progressive documentation and counseling, (4) determining whether problem employees have become so seriously maladjusted that they need formal discipline, and (5) release from the service. Progressive documentation will be essential; such documentation includes, but is not limited to, problems, recommendations, actions taken (results), and Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) offered and utilized (or not).

An agency may be large enough to afford an internal investigations, or professional responsibilities, unit. Nevertheless, having an internal investigations unit does not relieve the manager of the need to maintain discipline. On the contrary, it strengthens it by providing assistance to supervisors in the investigation of alleged misconduct of their team members.

HELPING THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE

·  When a man points a finger at someone else, four of his fingers are pointing at himself.

—Louis Nizer

What follows does not pertain to the employee who is a law violator or was caught sleeping while on duty—disciplinary remedies are called for and will be covered in the next few pages. Dysfunctional employees require professional assistance, and some police departments have either full-time or on-call psychiatrists or clinical psychologists. With appropriate approval, you should refer troubled employees to such specialists and avoid diagnosing or trying “to go it alone” with these types of employees.

A police leader should attempt to help the problem police employee to improve his behavior only after having reassured the individual that the department wants to help them become a contributing and positive member of the agency. No approach does more harm with a person of this nature than the “better-get-yourself-straightened-out-or-you-will-lose-your-job” threat by the manager. Not to mention, such an approach with an employee with any type of actual or perceived mental or physical disability can get you into costly legal difficulties. The employee must be convinced that the department’s intentions are good and that help is available. Here are some ways to help:

· • Listen patiently to what the employee has to say before making any comment of your own. This act on your part may be sufficient to resolve the difficulties.

· • Refrain from criticizing or offering hasty advice on the employee’s problem.

· • Never argue with a police employee while you are in the process of counseling.

· • Give your undivided attention to the employee.

· • Look beyond the mere words the employee says; listen empathetically to see if the person is trying to convey something deeper than what appears on the surface.

· • Recognize why you are counseling an employee. Don’t look for immediate results. Never mix the counseling interview with some other action you may want to take, such as discipline.

· • Find a reasonably quiet place where you’re sure you won’t be interrupted or overheard. Try to put the employee at ease. Don’t jump into a cross-examination.

· • Understand that, depending on the nature of the situation, multiple sessions may be necessary. They should last from 15 to 30 minutes per session. If after two counseling sessions you are not making progress, you should consult with your manager concerning referral to a professional therapist or EAP.

· • Accept the fact that it is your responsibility as a manger to deal with the situation.

· • Look at your task as a fact-finding one, just as in handling grievances.

· • Control your own emotions and opinions while dealing with the employee.

· • Be absolutely sold on the value of listening rather than preaching.

· • Recognize your own limits in handling these situations. You’re not a clinical psychologist. You’re a person responsible for getting results from your assigned officers.

· • Give your people regular, honest feedback. Performance evaluations occur too infrequently these days. Some police managers avoid confronting the issue. Those managers harm their department and also the individuals they are evaluating. Let people know where they stand by candidly discussing their strengths and their development needs. Take ownership in helping them meet those needs as a way to advance their careers.

· • Realize that leaders also have to be ready to accept reliable feedback about their own performance even if it comes from subordinate employees or peers.

FIGURE 9-1 Eight Steps to Positive Discriptive of Problem Employees

· • Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can lead with your feet up on the desk. You lead by your feet being on the ground and constantly visible to your staff—in other words, managing (leading) by wandering around (MBWA).

You can achieve control when the employee responds to one or more of the above approaches. You simply want the person to get back on the right track. A results-oriented attitude should remind us of what we’re really trying to achieve here—getting the work done with the people at hand. That is the whole aim of management, and it is precisely the goal that should guide us in dealing with people when they make wrong choices about their behavior.

If all else fails, you still have your prerogative to use discipline.  Figure 9-1  depicts an eight-step process for addressing problem employees. It starts with counseling and proceeds into discipline, which follows.

DISCIPLINE

·  Don’t keep an employee you wouldn’t rehire.

—Michael Josephson

One of the complaints heard from both police managers and line officers is that disciplinary guidelines are not clear or the guidelines are not applied consistently to all employees. Many disciplinary policies are so voluminous that they are difficult to administer, with a course of action for every possible mischief a police officer might get into. Although some downfalls may be found in the same categorical group, the circumstances and consequences are usually different and deserve additional consideration. Some policies give almost no concrete direction. Perhaps the best (or worst) was “suggested” by one chief who said, “What I’d really like to have is a one-page general order with just three words—and have it work—’Don’t screw up!’” I understand what he was getting at when he handed me his department’s voluminous general orders.

Internal investigations are impeded at times by how and when officer complaints can be handled. Many states have enacted into law a peace officers’ bill of rights. Management is restricted in terms of the kinds of information that can be accumulated (investigation and personnel files) and what information can be made public to inform citizens of corrective action taken by the department.

·  The ultimate responsibility for the promotion of good versus the acceptance of bad behavior on the part of organization members rests with the police chief or sheriff, even though it is delegated via the chain of command and restricted by laws, court, and contracts.

Types of Disciplinary Actions

· •  Verbal Warning:  The purpose of a verbal warning is to allow a police manager to bring to the employee’s attention the need to improve his or her performance, work habits, and behavior or attitude and to serve as a warning against further repetition of such unsatisfactory conduct. The commander or supervisor can use the occasion to identify and define the area needing improvement and inform the employee as to how such improvement can be realistically achieved. Supervisors document verbal warnings on an employee incident form or as designated by a division commander (e.g., monthly activity log). This documentation eliminates any ambiguity as to what is required by the employee and gives the employee clear expectations for future behavior.

· •  Written Warning:  The purpose of a written warning is to assist a police manager to bring to the employee’s attention the need to improve his or her performance, work habits, behavior or attitude after a verbal warning has not resulted in expected improvement, or when an employee commits a more serious offense.

· •  Written Reprimand:  The purpose of a written reprimand is to facilitate a police manager to bring to the employee’s attention the need to immediately correct his or her performance, work habits, behavior or attitude after a written warning has not resulted in expected improvement, or when an employee commits a more serious offense.

· •  Suspension:  In the event offenses are continued or repeated and the employee has already received verbal and written warnings, and/or has received a written reprimand from the director of public safety, or if the nature of the offense is sufficiently serious, an employee should be suspended for a specific period of time, not to exceed 30 working days. Such suspensions can be with or without pay and, if for more than one day, are issued on a consecutive working day basis. A suspended employee should not be permitted to work on his or her normal day(s) off, nor take paid leave time, nor make up the time by working overtime in lieu of a payroll deduction for the period of suspension. Allowing suspended employees to do so takes away from the punitive nature of the penalty, although realistically speaking, many police unions provide “insurance,” so to speak, to officers who receive suspensions so that no pay is lost.

· •  Demotion:  In instances in which the employee is rated or in a promoted position and the nature of the offense is sufficiently serious, the employee may be reduced in rank.

· •  Dismissal:  For a continued series of lesser offenses, or on the first occurrence of a serious offense, an employee may be dismissed from employment. Let’s look at this subject more closely.

STRUCTURED EXERCISE 9–2

By the very nature of their task, police officers are sometimes confronted and involved with conflicting and disturbing occurrences. For some this may begin to have an effect on their behavior, whereas others don’t appear bothered at all. (Some of these might be personal off-duty occurrences, for example, domestic problems.) Each class participant is to make a list of several situations that he or she believes might fit into that concept. (If nonpolice personnel are in this group, they may list situations from their work or life experiences.) This could even be something such as working with a problem officer.

When this is done, select a group leader to briefly record these situations. Preferably, use a newsprint tablet and fasten the completed sheets on the wall. (The group may wish to store these for later review and comment.) Each participant will read his or her first entry in turn, and so on, until each entry is recorded. Duplicates will be scored with a mark behind the first listing. When all have responded, discuss the list and its relationship to officers, perhaps officers you have known.

Be sure to leave sufficient time for each participant to prepare a brief scenario (in writing) of how one or more adverse experiences has negatively affected an officer and how that officer has or has not affected others. (Do not use true names.) Submit these to the instructor, who will read and share the results, probably at a later meeting, depending on group size.

The other half of this exercise, at another meeting, is to share your thoughts on how this problem—if it was a problem—might have been or was diminished. Peer counseling is one good idea. Be creative. How would you protect yourself? How would you protect your friend? Discuss positive and negative ways in which some officers deal with this kind of adversity.

The Firing Line

The “firing line” is one test of a department’s leadership. Who, why, when, and even how someone is fired goes to the very heart of the character of a police agency, its management, and its leadership. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the leader to cleanse the system of those people who are not contributing or who are impeding the general efforts of all the others. Unfortunately, there are always some people in every agency who simply do not want to work. They may be lazy or disturbed or resentful or otherwise unlawful, but for whatever reason, they don’t do their share, nor do they want to.

EASY TO SEE

It is easy enough to recognize bad people in line jobs. In the ranks of management, it can be more complex. Nevertheless, everyone around such a person recognizes that he or she is a faker and a problem to the strength of the police agency. Even though it is easy for many in the agency to identify a problem employee or manager, many may be reluctant to tell the boss what is going on. Most do not want to point out problem managers due to a strong sense of loyalty and the importance of following the appropriate chain of command. But they will be watching the poor employee and judging management’s response to the poor behavior. And it is the duty of the leader to recognize and get rid of that kind of person for the overall good of the organization. If the leader fails to take care of the problem, the leader is the problem.

Alert police managers will recognize the clues and will move fast as soon as the facts are discovered. And when they do, they will earn the respect of all the others who are hardworking, imaginative, and productive and who have long resented the freeloaders and violators in their ranks. In that sense, firing people can be a constructive role of a department’s management. It clears the air and improves the climate, especially during lean economic times when your poor performers are earning the same or even more as your hardworking employees.

DIFFICULT TO DO

Firing people is always difficult. First of all, it’s the moment of truth for a police leader. You never face the problem of firing somebody without honestly examining the question of how much you yourself have contributed to the situation. Are you firing him or her because the department is under extreme political pressure, because of internal conflicts, or because you dislike the person? If so, then it isn’t the officer’s fault; it’s yours. You are supposed to run the department so that it will be strong enough to weather bad conditions.

Second, there are perplexing and frustrating legal bases to cover. Police personnel employment law is complex and often confusing. It seems that everyone wants to be involved—the agency’s attorneys, attorneys for the person terminated, civil service boards, other officials who act as arbitrators, trial courts, and the list goes on. Even with unpleasant repercussions, you must be courageous and not be intimidated and hesitant to take action. If you don’t act, you’ll lose your followership.

·  If the reasons and documentation for firing are founded and can be sustained, then the manager is obligated to move for termination. If others decide to overturn the manager’s decision, then they should be held accountable for any possible “negligent retention.”

REACTION

In physics it is well known that for every action there is a reaction. Every time a police manager takes an action for or against someone in the department, either firing or promoting a person, there is a reaction throughout the agency. The reaction is not simply between the boss and the employee. It reverberates to all the others down the line, and they pass judgment on what the boss did and the way he or she did it, and they react accordingly.

RETALIATION

All of your decisions, from a verbal warning on through dismissal, must be tied to proven facts and sound logic. Any appearance, factual or not, of you retaliating against an employee can be the basis for rejecting your recommended punishment and can also result in costly litigation. It’s not your job to get even with the malcontent or malefactor. It’s your job to stop bad behavior for the betterment of the entire police organization

THE RIGHT THING

Ultimately, a police leader must take action and do the right thing. No one wants his or her leader to be tolerant of incompetence through ignorance, indecisiveness, or weakness. No one will follow a weak manager. A weak manager is the worst kind. You cannot rely on the judgment of such people because you don’t know what they will do in a difficult situation. Much more respect and loyalty is given to the courageous leader, the one who is not afraid to make difficult and even unpopular decisions, as long as he or she is perceived to be decent and fair and reliable in his or her dealings with the staff.

·  Remember—problem employees are few in actual number, but they can, if not controlled, generate enormous adverse consequences for the operations of a police agency and you as a manager. Remember—they range from the gossipy malcontent to the vicious malefactor. Remember—a considerable degree of your success is measured by your ability to identify and discipline those who decide to act criminally, unprofessionally, or unethically.

PROBLEM BOSSES

·  The most exhausting thing in life is being insincere.

—Anne Morrow Lindburgh

Even with the most careful and sophisticated promotional process, a few employees who should not be managers will percolate upwards. Obviously, every effort (training, coaching, counseling, etc.) should be made to help them develop as managers and leaders. With repeated attempts and no success, they must be reduced in rank or in some other way removed from their position.

·  Imagine a police agency with 100 employees, five of whom are serious problems. Now think of this agency with one of those five commanding a division. While problem employees pose a threat to operational effectiveness, they present a horrendous threat when at or near the top of an organization.

Profiles of Problem Bosses

We’ll explore several profiles of problem managers. Regrettably, you may be a direct report to one right now. Worse yet, you may fit one of the profiles. As you peruse the profiles, candidly ask yourself, “Is this me?” If “yes,” then decide what action you must take to cast aside the negative and put on the positive.

·  The profiles do not include the really bad bosses—those who lie, cheat, are mean spirited, and ill tempered. They should be reprimanded, and if necessary, removed from command. You can read about how much harm they cause in Robert Sutton’s provocative and candid book, The No Asshole Rule, 2007 (ISBN-13: 978-0-446-52656-2).

·   Ticket Punchers:  A “ticket puncher” or careerist is a boss who daily maneuvers to advance in status, power, and especially rank. You can observe this person jockey for whatever is the best stepping-stone to the next tier above. Promotion is paramount. Accomplishment is incidental. They’ll do whatever is necessary to get ahead. Ticket punchers are diplomatic to the point of being devious and insecure. They can be seen thriving on process and giving lip service to progress.

·   Spotlighters:  “Spotlighters” require constant attention and center stage in a police agency. They demand recognition for all of the positive results (from their peers, the media, etc.). When things go sideways, the spotlighter is quick to disappear and then trains the light of accountability on others. Spotlighters rarely share success with others. They’ll go so far as to claim the recognition and praise due to others.

·   Megadelegators:  A cousin to the spotlighter is the “megadelegator.” Seldom does real work soil the desk or hands of a megadelegator. This manager refers to himself or herself as a “participative manager” and sees to it that everyone shares in doing his or her work. Eventually everyone realizes that the boss is essentially accomplishing nothing while they’re working their tails off. (This practice is also referred to as a delegation “dump.”)

·   Micromanagers:  The “micromanagers” are either insecure, perfectionistic, or need to control every aspect of work—theirs and those who work for them. To greater or lesser degrees, they probably possess all three characteristics. The micromanagers will sincerely attempt to delegate work. Regrettably, they find it difficult to share the required authority and power to accomplish it. They fear that the job may not be done on time or precisely the way they want it. They are convinced that only they are capable of getting it right. They do not wait for feedback; they seek it incessantly. (As mentioned earlier, if you have a direct report that is untrustworthy, then micromanagement is the required style.)

·   One Best Style Mine:  “One-best-style” managers are like micromanagers in being well intentioned. They truly want to see you do a good job. This manager believes, however, that there is only one particular style of managing that guarantees success—theirs. All other styles are suspected of gross imperfections and even disloyalty. In other words, if you manage exactly like them, you’re a winner. If not, you’re incompetent.

·   Gotcha:  The “Gotcha” police managers wander around not saying a lot—until they see something wrong. Superficially, this sounds right, doesn’t it? The inherent frustration with this manager is that the staff never learns what’s right in the first place. These managers expect you to read their mind for what they expect of you, what he prefers, and what the goals of the unit are. There’s no clarity—only “gotcha.”

·   Control Taking:  The “control-taking” manager craves power. Being in command, being right, and being the authority are the central values you’ll perceive in this manager. Force is foremost, control is critical, and being correct is imperative. This person thrives on competition rather than collaboration. When in a conflict, this manager has no concept of a win–win model. Only win–lose makes sense. They will define participative management as “I’ll manage and you’ll participate!”

·   Job First:  The “job-first” police managers relate well to the ticket punchers. This person is 110 percent job. Some would label this police manager a “workaholic.” Everything else in life is secondary or irrelevant, which includes family, friends, recreation, and fun. They especially question the real value of holidays and vacations. After all, they think, “Your agency comprises your family and friends. Your job is your recreation and fun. Holidays and vacations are unfortunate periods of time that you are separated from it.”

Job-first managers are big on family events (e.g., picnics, departmental parties, soft-ball leagues). The spouses and children are expected to participate. In the eyes of this manager, your first allegiance is to the agency. The real heroes are those that leave late or return early from a vacation to further the ends of the department.

This manager is not dictatorial, mean, or manipulative. He or she simply does not comprehend a greater purpose to life than the job.

·   The Phantom:  The “phantom” manager and the “job-first” manager should not be confused with one another. The phantom is uncomfortable with social interaction. This person attempts to remain invisible—his or her responsibilities are carried out by direct reports and e-mail. She or he is rarely seen and seldom heard. Another term for this person is “isolationist.” This person abhors lively, productive collaboration and interchange.

In some cases, a more socially adept staff person will act as a buffer, a spokesperson, or an alter ego for the phantom. Phantoms exert control in a covert manner. They are uneasy empowering others to do their work. They’re probably smart and shy. If you work for a phantom manager, be prepared for (1) infrequent face-to-face conversations, (2) at best, a hurried monthly staff meeting, and (3) a tough time getting policy and operational decisions.

Coping with Them

By this point in your working life, it is likely that you have worked for, or have had working for you, a problem manager. Or you may have experienced being managed by one of the problem bosses described above. Regardless of the situation, I’ll bet you remember it well.

STRUCTURED EXERCISE 9–3 Problem Boss

In this section, I list several typical problem boss (manager/supervisor) types.

· 1. After review, the group is requested to add any others that they have observed or are aware of.

· 2. From the complete list, select the one considered the most difficult type to work with or for.

· 3. Flesh out the identified problem boss persona with other negative traits—and since no one is all bad, be sure to identify some good ones that one might know or have heard about.

· 4. Now that the character is properly identified, discuss the immediate and long-range consequences to the organization, those working with or under this boss, the organization, and others if this behavior is allowed to continue.

· 5. Have a discussion to evaluate and to select two options, a primary and a backup, most likely to relieve the problem or bring closure.

· 6. Develop a strategy for implementation and a schedule.

· 7. Discuss the probable outcomes both in and beyond the workplace.

·  Good bosses combat the habits and traits of bad bosses minute by minute. Certain characteristics of a bad boss can be positive, depending on specific circumstances. Over the long term, however, bad bosses lead to bad or inefficient police work.

If you thought carefully about how bad bosses operate as compared to the need for “excellence,” “quality,” and “speed,” you’ve probably discovered that the good bosses are mainly other-or organizationally directed. Conversely, the bad bosses are self- or even inner-directed. Good bosses deal in terms of visions and values. Bad bosses are egocentric and uncaring.

Here is some “trickology” for coping with these stay-away-from folks. At first, the following 10 coping tactics may appear only downward-oriented. Several of them, however, are actually functional in an upward direction.

· 1.  Doing nothing.  Avoid the person, maintain a low profile.

· 2.  Acceptance.  Elevate your degree of tolerance, patience, and forgiveness.

· 3.  Managing stress.  Develop a stress-reduction regimen that includes everything from jogging to biofeedback.

· 4.  Managing your boss.  Figure out what your boss wants and needs. Then give some of it to him or her without compromising your performance or integrity.

· 5.  Talking one-on-one.  You already know about setting up a win–win situation. Your boss is not a candidate for a one-on-one relationship if he or she can’t take criticism, can’t listen, and is vindictive.

· 6.  Talking many-on-one.  There is usually strength and safety in numbers. However, it is vital that the group forges a plan and executes it in unison.

· 7.  Indirect feedback.  This option ranges from anonymous notes to humorous comments, which must be in good taste and not confrontational or belittling.

· 8.  Transfer.  Enough said. But make sure of what/who you’re going to get.

· 9.  Laddering around your boss.  This is a high-risk, low-chance-of-success solution. It may work, but if your boss’s boss supports him or her, you will be in deep trouble.

· 10.  Confrontation.  This option is best employed as your last resort. Comment carefully on everything that is wrong. Remain calm. Present your case logically to your boss with his or her understanding that you plan to carry it beyond him or her if necessary.

Competency Checkpoints

· • Most organizations have a few malcontents—even rule-and law-breakers—but while small in number, they can destroy the morale and reputation of a police agency.

· • Fortunately, for us, we are able to choose our behavior.

· • Self-deception is apt to cause blaming others for our own misdeeds.

· • Sloppy selection, wrongful retention and rationalization promise a problem worker.

· • The three “lines” of misconduct are legalistic, professional, and ethical.

· • All employees should read and sign any statement of ethics, policies, and code of conduct.

· • A direct and legitimate command requires obedience.

· • Having an internal affairs unit does not abrogate a manager’s need to exercise discipline.

· • There are several corrective steps for keeping a problem employee—the first and most vital is empathetic listening.

· • Discipline starts and stops at the top.

· • It is not your job to get even; it’s your job to stop bad behavior.

· • Bad bosses exert pervasive negative influence in the agency because of the sheer authority of their position.

· • The last resort for dealing with a bad boss is confrontation.

Flexing the Message

· 1. Revisit  Structured Exercise 9-1 . Now, ask the following questions of yourself and then act on your responses.

· a. What is one problem you frequently complain about?

· b. Before today, how did you interpret the cause of the problem? How have you blamed others? How have you acted and felt toward them?

· c. In what ways have you dealt with this problem? Are there things you should have done but didn’t? Are there things you shouldn’t have done but did? What is the deep truth about your conduct?

· d. List three people you have affected negatively by your behavior regarding this problem.

· e. Can you describe how both you and the other person blame each other for the problem?

· f. Focus on one of the three people you listed above. What could you do to help that person? What kind of help would they appreciate?

· 2. Contact two police agencies and inquire about their programs or procedures that they use to either prevent or help problem employees. (For example, some police and sheriff’s departments employ or contract for psychological counseling services.)

· 3. Self-deception and self-denial are twin towers of relational disaster. Return to the section on self-deception. Answer the following questions. First, how do you see yourself in your work relationships (e.g., respected and trusted or overworked and unappreciated)? Second, how do you view your co-workers (trustworthy and genuine or liars and fakers)? Think carefully about these two questions.

· 4. In the section “Helping the Problem Employee,” there are a series of recommendations on how to deal with problem employees. What would you add to the list of recommended tactics? Which tactic is least likely to work?

Whatever you identified above, go do it. Do it immediately if at all possible. If it can’t be done immediately, do it as soon as you are able.