Discussion week seven
Interagency conflict among entities with similar goals is not a recent phenomenon. In
law enforcement and intelligence communities, it primarily comes down to allocating resources
and power. Those in the communities that have and remain within the sphere of influence of the
President of the United States enjoy the unique opportunity to pitch the agency or department's
needs to senior white house staff and the president. The cultural feud between the two agencies
continued even after the attacks on September 11, 2001. The lack of cooperation in information
sharing contributed to the operational success of the terrorist attacks. The failure to collaborate
led to catastrophic consequences.
According to Raines (2020), collaboration is essential in workplace teams. Workplace
teams with cooperative approaches to conflict management, as opposed to competitive systems,
exhibited
higher levels of trust between team members (p. 22). Communication failures played a role in the
terrorist attacks propagated through the state, city, and tribal public safety systems in the United
States. Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies viewed state, local, and tribal public
safety officials not as a peer but rather as interference they occasionally interacted with. All that
changed after establishing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of
Director National Intelligence (ODNI), whose main job is to ensure information, communication,
and cooperation protocols are adhered to. Collaboration is also a form of communication in
which individuals or groups share information. A wall, in effect, was created between the two
agencies limiting their ability to disseminate data among themselves.
In months following the September 11, 2001, attacks, legislative remedies were
implemented. The USA Patriot Act removed the information-sharing barrier that kept the
communities from sharing data. According to Bjelopera (2014), Section 504 amended FISA by
adding a provision allowing federal officers who conduct electronic surveillance to acquire
foreign intelligence information to consult with federal law enforcement officers to coordinate
investigation efforts (p. 4). Subsequent reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act strengthens its
provisions for preemptive interdiction. The Patriot Act exemplified the need to allow and settle
interagency, intergroup, and interpersonal conflict, removing such a dynamic and implementing
a more inclusive ideology. According to Oghenechuko and Godbless (2018), organizations have
many ways to respond to conflict, choosing a particular method considering perceived
importance, context, or players. Thus, to a certain extent, organizational responses to conflict are
situation-or-context specific (p. 82).
An organization’s culture is not separate from how they deal with the intergroup,
interpersonal, and inter-organizational environment, allowing them to instruct how they do
things in the workplace. Organizational attitude trickles down throughout the organizations.
Oghenechuko and Godbless (2018), organizations with a warrior mentality of winning at all
costs usually have an evolved corporate culture that furthers that goal mirrored in the methods
employed to control and fight the threat of conflict (p. 82). It is imperative to understand how
organizational culture can infect the entirely private, public, or non-profit damaging the
institutional reputation and, in the case of nonprofits, can cause it to cease to exist.
Christin Worldview
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, and forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you
(Ephesians 4:32, ESV).
References
Bjelopera, J. P. (2014). The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations.
https://crsreport.congress.gov
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41780
Oghenechuko, O. J. & Godbless, E. E. (2018). Interest-Based Conflict Management Systems:
Beyond Traditional and ADR Systems of Conflict Resolution.
European Journal of Business and Management Vol. 10, No. 17, 2018
Raines, S. S. (2020). Conflict Management for Managers: Resolving Workplace, Client, and
Policy Disputes.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
The English Version Bible. (2001). Crossway.
Discussion #2, week 7
Law enforcement officers (LEO) represent the criminal justice system in the United States.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) within the justice system allows the state to exercise the
restorative justice ideology that western society has been promoting for decades. According to
Nolan-Haley (2020), the primary goal of the beneficial justice process is to encourage a mediated
discussion between an offender and victim to allow the victim to explain the impact of the
offenses (p. 2116). The impact statement gives the victim a better understanding of the causes
that led the offender to offend. The impact statement is also used to initiate the healing process
for the victim and their families.
Historically, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provided the opportunity for those who
otherwise have the chance to challenge the entities legally in the legal arena to seek some
recourse legally. According to Cohen and Albertstein (2020), the ADR movement sought, among
other goals, to help disempowered communities by narrowing the power imbalance between
litigants. Its members created mediation centers in poor neighborhoods and sought to address the
lack of efficiency (p. 9).
Throughout the United States, judicial representatives implement various steps that comprise
alternative dispute resolution, starting with direct negotiations. Direct negotiations allow
individuals like prosecutors to speak with the suspect(s) to de-escalate, which may lead to
positive interactions and better outcomes. The concept of alternative dispute resolution pertains
to societal disputes, and direct negotiations can be traced back to early Christian society.
According to Colombo (2020), early Christian ADR was not necessarily a mere, informal
attempt to forge a compromise. Actual rules of procedure and practice began to develop must,
likely mirroring those of the Jewish communities from which many Christians sprouted (p. 56).
Christian Worldview
Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the
Lord had given you, you must also forgive (Colossians, 3:13, ESV).
References
Cohen, H., & Albertstein, M. (2019). Multilevel Access to Justice in a World of Vanishing
Trials: A Conflict Resolution Perspective.
Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 1 No. 1 Article 1
Colombo, R. J. (2020). The Past, Present, and Future of Christian ADR
Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 45 Vol. 22:45
Nolan-Haley, J. (2020). Forward: Achieving Access to Justice Through ADR: Fact or Fiction?
Fordham University School Law Review Vo. 88 Issue 6 Article 1
Discussion #2, week 7
For decades the public’s trust in law enforcement depended on whom one spoke with at
that moment, their locality, race, and background—those who grew up in more affluent
communities positively interacted with law enforcement. In contrast, those that grew up and
lived in impoverished neighborhoods viewed police officers as an occupying force. Their
interaction with the community is limited, and their demands always involve anger and
resentment when required to communicate. The intergroup conflict dynamics were always such
that they propagated throughout the communities creating against them their ideology in the
police departments. This ideology was not just directed at the communities but also among their
fellow officers who were viewed as members of the outer group. According to Halevy and
Cohen (2020), blatant dehumanization entails more overt and aggressive forms of degradation
whereby individuals readily express their views that members of particular outgroups are animal-
like (p.162). Under the typical condition, this ideology is reserved for groups in direct
competition for scarce resources; however, in this scenario, the dynamics in play are those of
power. Law enforcement has the power and wants to exercise it on those.
Going back to the inception of policing in the United States as slave catchers, their
mandate allowed for a sense of superiority among its members. This sense of power over another
life provided conflict between the two groups. What developed was the dehumanization of a
targeted group. In this case, it was enslaved, Black people who had very little power to fight back
against the oppressive societal system. Paddy rollers in the southern states conducted the earliest
community policing. According to Durr (2015), Paddy rollers were to manage race-based
conflict in the south of colonies expressly by controlling slave populations (p. 3).
As law enforcement agencies and departments began to experiment with sociological
studies on group dynamics, did the concept of community policing come about? Community
policing allowed the community to get involved in their own policing as contributing members to
the plan. According to Pandey (2014), emerging conflict resolution models for normative order
and community resilience require the communities to be their partners (p. 1).
Christan Worldview
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your people, but you
shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
References
Durr, M. (2015). What is the Difference between Slave Patrols and Modern-Day Policing?
Institutional Violence in a Community Color.
http://10.1177/089699205594766
Halevy, N & Cohen, T. A. (2020). Intergroup Conflict 2020.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research Vol. 12, No. 2
http://doi.org/10.111/ncmr.12148
Padley, V (2014). Community Policing for Conflict Resolution and Community Resilience.
International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice Vol. 2. No.6.
The English Version Bible. (2001). Crossway.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
