Social media and community interaction

As a leader in a Law Enforcement organization it is not only important to provide direction, mentoring and coaching to your officers, but it is also important to engage and interact with our communities.  Today this engagement should include social media.

Last week I was asked to attend two community events, one was in support of gay pride and the other was a Juneteenth celebration.   For the gay pride event I was asked to partner with a local non-profit community center that serves the LGBT community; they requested that I join them in their both and answer community questions or concerns of a law enforcement nature.  For Juneteenth I was contacted by a local business district and asked to spend some time interacting with the community at their event.  I was happy to attend both, I see events like these as opportunities to engage members of my community in ways that allow them to see me as a person who happens to be a police officer, rather than the other way around.  Events like this help to bridge the gap between law enforcement and the communities we serve.  I often hear about community concerns through these interactions, concerns that I probably wouldn’t hear in any other way.

Both events are examples of traditional community outreach performed by officers in our profession every day.  While these activities are a necessary in today's high speed world they are only part of what is it means to engage the community.  With the advent of social media, our communities want and expect more.  The expectation is that our agencies will have a presence on facebook, twitter and any number of other social media.  Agencies must have this presence to fully connect with their communities.   This often requires the dedication of additional resources and funding to maintain that presence.

My agency for example has a full time civilian employee as part of our public information office who monitors and updates our social media channels.  I know a number of you are thinking this is a waste of money, but to not have such dedication would be irresponsible, especially in these difficult times.  At a national level, law enforcement as a profession, has been under fire, social media allows us to interact directly with our communities.  This helps to build public trust, and ensures that our side of any news story is communicated directly to the public without the possible interference of a third party editor.  We are also able to share the good stories of what our officers do on a daily basis, the type of stories that main stream media will typically ignore.  My agency currently has 29 thousand followers on facebook and over 55 thousand followers on twitter, we can reach out to all of those followers and speak directly to them and they to us.  This is something that could not have been done on such a large scale in the past.  I see it as a very good thing, how about you?   

Is our need for control causing problems with motivation?

When speaking to leaders in Law Enforcement organizations I am often asked questions that are along the lines of; how do I motivate my people? This is a difficult and complex question with no easy answer. When attempting to answer something this complex we must keep in mind that every situation is different and we must work to analyze what is the root cause of the lack of motivation. When we analyze what is going on, one of the first and most important things we should do is take a hard look at ourselves. What are we doing, and what messages are we sending with our behavior (intended or unintended)? Often employee motivates has a lot to do with our individual leadership styles. 

We need to ask ourselves, how much control do I allow my people to have over their work? A leaders need for control can be an incredibly destructive force. It is so destructive that it will attack an officer’s trust in their leader and consequently their trust in the organization. This lack of trust will ultimately affect their motivation. To find out how our behavior surrounding control is demonstrated we need to ask ourselves the following:

Am I a Perfectionist or a Bully? Do I chastise my people for minor mistakes? Do I refuse to allow any deviance from the way I believe things must be done (often my way)?

Do I demand conformance from my officers? No one dares to be creative or come up with a new way of doing things out of fear of what we might do in response. Do you tell your officers to be creative and express frustration because they won’t? Look in the mirror at what you are doing and ask yourself, is my behavior sending a different message than what I am asking for.

Do I believe I am the smartest person in the room? If I believe this then my behavior will reflect that belief. The result will be when I ask for input from my people they will not offer anything. In their minds they are thinking, why should I bother he/she won’t listen anyway.

Do my people avoid being around me? The more control I exert over my people, the more frustrated they will be. In order to avoid that frustration they will actively seek ways to avoid being around me, for example; changing days off or shift hours, taking vacations opposite mine, walking the other way when they see me coming.   

When Officers (and really all people) are not allowed to use their abilities to solve problems and learn from their mistakes, they will either leave the organization out of frustration or they will become mindless automatons waiting for instructions to come down from on high. Neither option helps the organization get to its goals. 

We hire people in our profession for their problem solving abilities (most agencies in fact test for this ability); we then exert control over them to the point that they no longer use that ability. We tell ourselves that we must use control with our officers because we are “accountable” for what they do. The reality is we are not accountable for what they do, we are however, responsible to hold them accountable for what they choose to do. We are not accountable for their behavior, they are. We must give our officers the ability to have control over elements of their jobs; doing so will unleash those problem solving abilities for which they were hired. 

Organizations grow and advance not because of the person at the top but rather because of the people doing the day to day work throughout the organization. We must work to find ways to release this untapped human potential. Remember: We can tell our people what we want done; we don’t have to tell them how to do it. Be a coach and mentor to help them figure out what works best for them. By relinquishing control over the how, we are empowering our people and increasing their motivation. This will create an environment where both they and our organizations will grow.

A leaders role in creating a resilient organization

I recently had the privilege of attending the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) - Leadership in Police Organizations (LPO) partner agency conference. During the conference I was asked to speak on the issue of stress and resiliency with the goal of addressing leader strategies to build a more resilient organization. Those of you who know me know that I have been speaking about the issue of stress in Law Enforcement for a number of years, which is why I was asked to speak on the issue at the IACP conference. I was humbled to be asked and I saw it as a great opportunity. I would be speaking to Law Enforcement leaders from not only the United States but Canada as well. I was notified that I was going to follow the key note speaker, US Army Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Ty Carter.

Sgt. Carter spoke to the group about the actions that lead to his being awarded the Medal of Honor. Sgt. Carter not only spoke about the events surrounding his award but about what he went through mentally and emotionally after the battle was over. He spoke of his struggle with PTSD and the associated problems that came up: drinking, disrupted sleep, and marital problems. Sgt Carter was wonderful to listen to and learn from, he stated that he felt that he did not deserve the award and that the men who died that day deserved it more. What he was describing I would call survivors guilt. It is something we experience a lot in our profession with our officers whenever we loose a fellow officer. Through his recovery, Sgt. Carter decided to use the medal as a way to raise awareness among soldiers regarding PTSD. He wanted to make asking for help a normal part of Army culture. He stated his goal is to make it OK for soldiers to ask for help and show that asking for help is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of strength. While listening to Sgt Carter share his experiences and his ongoing efforts to change the culture of the US Army, I couldn't help but relate it to my own efforts and passion that I have for doing the same for us in Law Enforcement.

When it came time for my presentation, I wanted to carry over from what we had heard Sgt. Carter speak of and show that there wasn't much difference for those of us in Law Enforcement. By the way, if you are curious what situation stress looks like, just imagine what it feels like to follow a national war hero as a speaker, and you will have a pretty good idea. For my presentation I focused my discussion on the issue of control. In Law Enforcement we are looked upon by society as those who have been chosen to bring order to chaos. In other words bring bad things under control. When I talk to a group of officers about stress I will point out that there are 3 primary sources of stress for them: the job itself, the organization or administration (depending how you want to look at it), and the home life. I will then ask, of the three, which causes the most stress in their lives. Every class has the same answer, the organization/administration causes the most stress.When I ask why they feel that way, the response usually has to do with "they are doing it to us" - in other words, making decisions that affect us and our jobs without any input. What they are really complaining about has to do with the issue of control. All human beings will complain about things that impact their lives that they do not have control over, for police officers this can become a real source of frustration. What I tell my students is relatively simple, and boils down to, if you can't control it why are you worried about it? All cops, and really all people, will complain about their boss, they will say things like, I love my job, if "they" would just let me do it. What I point out is that statements like that and the emotions that surround them show two things. 1) You are frustrated by something that was decided that impacted you. - and - 2) By your feeling of frustration you decided to give power over your emotional response to "they" that made the decision. I tell my students that you cannot control what "they" say or do, but you can control how you choose to respond. If someone is frustrating you, because of their decision making or leadership style, why then do you choose to give them more power by letting them be in charge of your emotions. I choose not to let someone else control my emotions and remind myself of this every-time I get frustrated by my boss. This is important for all of us to understand, because if I am frustrated by my boss and upset there is a good chance that I will treat the people I supervise in a similar fashion, and in the process make them frustrated and upset with me. As I was speaking I could tell from the students' reactions that they understood and could relate to the issue of control. As leaders in Law Enforcement it is important that we look for strategies that will lessen the amount of stress we are putting on our people.

As leaders our leadership style can, and often does, actually create more stress for our people. There are a number of studies that have shown demanding autocratic management styles will lead to a higher likelihood of employees suffering from cardiovascular disease (heartache) or other health related problems. These type of leaders will also have a higher than average level of sick time use from their employees, which will be very costly to the organization. The more we can have effective two-way communication and create an environment that values trust, by involving our followers in the decision making process, particularly when the decision will have a significant impact on their job, the less they will suffer from the long term health impacts of chronic organizational stress.

Once we understand why we think administrations or organizations cause most of our stress, and how we can minimize the impact of this type of stress on our lives, we can begin to focus on those sources of stress that can be devastating to our lives. Sources that are long lasting and often have catastrophic impacts not only on our lives but the lives of our followers. Those stresses are often referred to as cumulative stress, that is stress that piles up over time. I began my presentation by talking about how our long term exposure to critical incidents and trauma will manifest itself in many of the same ways that were described by Sergeant Carter. Those being substance abuse (largely alcohol), relationship problems, higher than average suicide rate, and a number of health related problems (heart disease, diabetes, cancer).

When I talk about the cumulative nature of secondary trauma I will use a stress bucket analogy. What I will describe is that when we come into this profession we are given a mental bucket. During our career we will put all of the bad things we experience in that bucket so that we can focus on doing our job. As police officers we see the worst of the human condition, for example human generated violence (murder, rape, aggravated assault, child abuse etc.). Because of our roles as police officers we cannot respond to the emotions we may feel, so we have to put those emotions somewhere so that we can focus on our jobs. The closer the trauma we are exposed to relates to our personal lives, the greater the chance that it will have a long lasting and possibly devastating impact. It is important that we find ways to empty our bucket or it will overflow and cause problems in all areas of our lives.

Why is it important for us to know this as a leader? There are a number of reasons but the biggest have to do with -  The impact cumulative stress has on our lives and our need to take care of ourselves. - and - The impact this type of stress has on our people. As leaders we have an organizational responsibility to help our people take care of themselves. Our job is to make sure we are in our best place mentally and physically, by taking care of ourselves, because if we are feeling stressed it will be transmitted to our people. As leaders we must work to create an environment and culture where our people feel OK to ask for help when they need it. It is our responsibility to provide resources and information to our people on how to empty their bucket. There are a number of tools to build resiliency and I would recommend that all leaders be familiar with the ten that are recommend by the American Psychological Association - http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx

Law Enforcement is a male dominated, "macho" culture, where asking for help is traditionally seen as a sign of weakness, really not that different from what Sgt. Carter had described as the culture of the US Army. I would submit that if a national hero and Medal of Honor recipient like Sergeant Ty Carter, can publicly talk about his struggles and how he asked for help, there is no one that has an excuse for not doing the same. It is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of strength. Our most important job as a leader is to work towards creating a resilient organization where our people can thrive.

Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. Ty Carter with the author

  

Do Organizations value Managers over Leaders?

After posting my last blog, that had to do with the difference between Leadership and Management, I was asked by one of my friends on Facebook to do a follow up blog on "why organizations tend to reward Management over Leadership?".

So for this blog I would like to make an attempt to answer or at least examine in greater detail what that question means. I would like to start by asking this, do organizations reward management over leadership? I would submit that it is not the organization, per say, but people in leadership positions who choose to be managers themselves. Why would someone choose to be a manager? you might ask. It is a choice after all to be a manager and not a leader, so why would someone choose to be that. The short answer is it is easier to be a manager than to be a leader. If you remember in my last blog I shared that managers tend to view all people as things to help them accomplish their goals. With that view of their troops, how much do they need to know about their troops and their individual needs? The answer is not much, they treat them all the same, so knowing anything about their personal lives or their individual needs is not necessary. They will view their troops as a resource to help them accomplish their goals. 

When we talk about leadership we need to have an understanding of French and Ravens Bases of Power. French and Raven's research basically showed that there were 5 bases of power that leaders will draw on to get things done. Those power bases are; Coercive (the hammer - the ability to punish), Reward (the ability to provide a reward), Legitimate (the rank or positional authority), Referent (people do what is asked because they like or respect you), and Expert (they do it because they trust your knowledge - you know what you are doing).  When we talk about people who view their troops as things to help them accomplish their goals, these supervisors will tend to lead with the hammer, in other words they will rely on Coercive or Legitimate power bases to accomplish their goals. These are the people that will point at the stripes on their sleeve or the brass on their collar and say do it because I said so, or do it or I will discipline you. People who lead with the hammer tend view all people as lazy and that the only way to get them to work is by force, threat or intimidation. 

The question then becomes why do they do it, they can't be successful, can they? The answer is yes they can, but they will only be successful to a certain level. People they supervise will perform (out of fear more than anything else), but they will only perform to a level that is just enough to avoid getting whacked by the hammer. I would then ask what do you think happens when the hammer takes a day off? The answer is the troops take a day off too, and their performance will actually drop when the hammer is gone. So what message does the drop in performance send to that supervisor? It actual confirms, or verifies, their belief, "see if I'm not here pushing them they won't do anything." Meanwhile the Leader who knows their people and strives to meet their individual needs, what do you think happens when they take a day off? The answer is the performance will sustain and may even go up. 

An example that I have shared with my students of the way individuals performance will drop when the hammer takes time off is an experience I had several years ago when I was a Detective. We were doing our vacation vote, which is based on seniority, and I was waiting for the Detective senior to me to vote his vacation so I could vote mine. I asked him why he was taking so long and he stated he wanted to know what vacation the Sergeant took so he could vote the two weeks before and the two weeks after, that way he would get 6 weeks off. People will actively look for ways to avoid working with or around the hammer type of manager. 

So why do organizational leaders tend to reward this type of supervision? As an organizational leader do you know the interactions that all of your subordinates have with their troops? The answer is probably not, you are relying on some type of performance tracking data (stats for example). And as I already said the hammer type of manager can be successful, it won't be overwhelming success but they will be getting performance, it will only be to a certain level though. The organizational leader only sees the success reflected in the stats and as long as that level of performance is acceptable to their standard, they don't get caught up in how it is being done, they are simply satisfied that it is getting done.

People who choose to be a hammer type of manager, do so for a couple of reasons. Number 1, it is easier, as I already addressed but it is also more exhaustive in the long run (these are the supervisors that will often tell us they can't take any time off). But another reason that is far more prevalent in our profession, is that they don't know any better. Earlier in this blog I mentioned that this type of manager will rely on Coercive (the hammer) or Legitimate (the rank or position) power bases to get things done. Supervisors in our profession are promoted from the officer ranks, what power bases do officers rely on to get things done in their interactions with the public? More often than not they rely on Coercive (do it or I'll take you jail) and Legitimate (do it because I am the police and I said so). We organizationally take that same officer and promote them to sergeant or some other supervisory position and expect them to know how to be a supervisor with no additional training on how to lead people. Is it any wonder then that when they are supervising their troops that they rely on the same power bases that worked for them in their interactions with public?

I don't know if I fully answered the question I was originally asked but as you can see it is a very complex question (in my mind anyway). Remember we are talking about people and not every supervisor is the same or does things for the same reasons. I like to think I have done my best to be a good leader during my career but I know that there are probably people I have supervised over the years that can point to times they believed I was the hammer. My motivation in doing this blog is to provide information so we can all take a hard look in the mirror at what we are doing with the people we supervise, and hopefully, in the process become better leaders. We can talk about and share our past experiences and try to learn from them but I guarantee every hammer that we complain about at one time was a peer who said he or she would never be that type of leader. 

To be a good leader takes a lot of work and conscious effort, and we should always remember that the rewards are big, not only for you and the people you supervise but the community and organizations that we all serve as well.

Leadership or Management?

During the last year I have had the pleasure of speaking to Law Enforcement leaders from all corners of the state of Colorado on how to become a better leader. I usually start with a discussion of what it means to be a Leader and what it means to be a Manager, and ask is there a difference? The answer in a nut shell is "you lead people and you manage things". Why is it important to understand the difference? The majority of what supervisors deal with in Law Enforcement revolves around people, therefore, our profession needs more leaders than managers.

While speaking to officers of all ranks, I have found that all Law Enforcement agencies struggle with many of the same issues. Law Enforcement as a profession traditionally operates as a para-military organization, typically with autocratic, top-down leadership. This type of leadership is problematic on several levels, particularly when you are supervising people. To illustrate this I will ask officers to think of the behaviors of the worst leader they ever worked for and conversely the behaviors of the best leader. Interestingly no matter where I am at or who I am talking to the behaviors of the two types of leaders are usually the same:

The worst leaders tend to think of themselves as the smartest person in the room, demonstrate a lack of trust, are knee jerk and reactionary (lack a vision), and micro-manage (we will talk more about the behaviors that lead to this analysis in a later blog). I then ask for someone to share an example of the worst leaders behaviors in action. For example, the worst person I ever worked for (I will never call the person a leader) once told me that I needed to know that everyone who I supervised was "lazy" and it was my job to make them work (he then put his thumb on the table to demonstrate what he believed I needed to do with my troops). His statement really showed his view of the world, all people are lazy and it's managements job to make them work. In my mind his statement said more about who he was as a troop than anything else.  

The best leaders tend to know their people, communicate effectively, educate, inspire/motivate, trust, reward publicly and council privately. As an example, the best person I have ever worked for did all of these things and more. He allowed me to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. He trusted my decisions, and once told me that while he might have done something differently, he knew there were a number of ways to get to the same goal and what works for him might not work for me. I operate with that philosophy today. He also helped me understand the greater control you give your people over those things that have a direct impact on them and their work, the better they will perform.

The difference in the level of performance of the personnel assigned to these two people was substantial. The worst person I ever worked for was such a failure that he was isolated by the organization and put in a position where he only supervised things (manager). While the best person left a lasting legacy within the organization (leader). Forty-two of us who had worked for him during his career had promoted to higher ranks. He retired a few years ago and we all thought so highly of him that we wanted to do something special for his retirement. We decided to take a photograph of all the people he had inspired to promote, and have it placed on a plaque to be presented to him at his retirement. In my mind the photograph was a physical representation of the legacy and impact he had not just on us individually but on the organization as a whole.
  

Organizations that want to be successful and better serve the public need to focus and work to develop leaders and not managers. We as individuals can learn from the examples of both the best and worst supervisors and we should constantly be evaluating our behaviors and the messages we are sending our troops (in words and actions). As a leader the better you know your people and work to meet their needs the more they will work to meet the needs of the community and organization. If you treat your people poorly, and like a thing for you to use to accomplish your goals, don't be surprised when the complaints come in from the public about how they are being treated.by your officers. If you want your officers to respect and treat the public in a professional manner make sure you are modeling that behavior in your interactions with your people.

If you focus on communicating, empowering, inspiring and coaching your people, they will amaze you with what they can do!