2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ 2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries / 2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso / govern / fbi / mys00795.txt < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-06-10 | 15.3 KB | 318 lines

September 1990 PROMOTION TO CHIEF: KEYS TO SUCCESS IN A SMALL DEPARTMENT By Carl L. Spicocchi Chief of Police Swatara Township Police Department Swatara Township, Pennsylvania "In May 1987, I became chief of the Swatara Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department. Like most communities in the country, Swatara's police department is small. Still, when I was appointed chief, I realized that I would be facing formidable obstacles. Some of these obstacles had been anticipated, and some had not. I had gained many advantages--or perceived advantages--as a result of my new position. Independence and more responsibility were the ``rewards'' for a career in law enforcement. But, as I quickly learned, the independence and responsibility of the position could easily become negative factors to a chief ill-prepared to handle them." "What follows is an account of some of the problems that I faced after becoming a new chief in a small department. I will present some of the hazards that confront a new chief and possible solutions or ways to avoid these hazards. This is a personal account, but one that may aid others when they become chiefs of small police departments." GOING FROM OUTSIDER TO INSIDER As a newly appointed chief from outside the department, I immediately discovered new problems that I would have to face. Understandably, various rumors circulated throughout the force about me, even before I took command. Since all in the department were concerned as to who I was and what I expected, I tried to minimize their fears of the unknown almost immediately upon taking office. Sometimes, subordinates view a new chief as a ``headhunter.'' Suspicion and general paranoia create an atmosphere that threatens efficiency and conscientious performance. I attempted to quell this belief by advising all of my management style as early as possible. I was careful not to build any unrealistic expectations; if I promised things that I could not deliver, I would only damage my credibility. In a small department, it is not only preferable but also essential for the chief to establish and develop a rapport with the officers. As a new chief, I sought to allay their natural fears and encouraged them to bring problems to my attention. Because they had been in the department longer than I, they were in a better position to know what policies and procedures didn't work or what needed to be modified. Together, we would focus on what needed to be done. (1) More importantly, I avoided saying too often, ``We did it this way in my former agency.'' Instead, I adopted methods with which I was familiar, but only if I thought these procedures could be adapted successfully to the needs of my new department. I also resisted being overly authoritarian. While departments that are experiencing severe disciplinary and morale problems may require a more autocratic management style, most departments benefit from a style that enhances cooperation rather than demands it. Managers who rely solely on power will cause the productivity of subordinates to plunge. They will shift their energies from doing their jobs to fighting the one in command. (2) While there is still debate regarding the autocratic versus participative management styles, practice suggests that the best choice may be a ``situational'' approach, in which a management style is adapted to the particular environment. (3) I found that adopting a flexible approach to management was more practical and more effective than attempting to maintain a certain management style for every situation. Another area that can cause problems for a newly appointed manager is the transition from individual performer to chief. I learned that this can be very difficult. If chiefs are not properly prepared and oriented, they may act inappropriately, causing problems that otherwise might not have arisen. As a result, they become problem managers, and so do the members of their command. For the new chief, developing a personal relationship with a more experienced chief can be very beneficial. This experienced manager can serve as a mentor to the newly appointed chief. I turned to a supportive chief in a neighboring jurisdiction to help acclimate me to the customs, values and social network in which I would be operating. (4) I found that in times of stress, especially during the first few months of transition, it was very helpful to have a source outside the department to turn to for support and a sense of reassurance. IMPLEMENTING CHANGE There are two opposing approaches regarding the implementation of change. One theory is to move slowly, since people and institutions are generally not receptive to rapid change. The second option for the new chief is to make change now, especially if a problem is significant, because the power to effect change may lessen in time. I realized that the most power that I might ever have was during my first 2 months in office. Initially, people yielded to what they perceived as my expertise. However, as is the case with most chiefs, once I was in office for some time and had alienated a few people, both inside and outside the department, I found that my authority remained the same, but my power to effect change had eroded. (5) I found that focusing on relationships and learning the intricacies of the department consumed most of my first few months in office. I also learned that evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes were the easiest to accomplish and were more readily accepted by personnel in the department. Most importantly, I found that input from individuals affected by any change was important, and should be sought before a decision to make a change is implemented. AVOIDING OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS There are many problems or hazards facing police chiefs today. As civil liability concerns continue to heighten, a single split-second act of one officer may result in the assessment of punitive damages against the chief and the officer. Another hazard relates to decisionmaking. I quickly realized that careful consideration must be given to every decision; if the chief makes the wrong decision too often, staff and officers begin to lose confidence. At the same time, a chief who hesitates too long in making decisions will be labeled as indecisive. I found that as chief, making decisions was not an easy task. Basically, I was also caught between both liberals and conservatives seeking to influence police operations. But what I had to remember at all times was that I had to decide what was best for the citizens, the department, and the community, regardless of the situation or the parties involved. Therefore, newly appointed chiefs must learn to deal effectively with problems of police management. New chiefs must work to enhance their personal leadership skills through mentors or executive management training, while simultaneously managing the operations of the department. (6) Vying for the top executive position too early is also an occupational hazard. Although wanting to ``move up the ladder'' as quickly as possible is a natural aspiration for a motivated, career-minded law enforcement officer, I would caution strongly against becoming chief too early. Middle managers in their thirties, especially in smaller departments, who want to be police chiefs ``now'' should be content with being number two (or three) for the present. A police executive is expected to be an innovative, dynamic, problem-solving leader, and it's difficult to remain in a high-pressure position such as this over a 20-year period. (7) DELEGATING AUTHORITY Time is limited for any chief. Like most chiefs, I found that contacts with the city council, mayor, middle managers, and other police officers accounted for much of my daily schedule. The demands of the organizational structure--conducting inspections, evaluations, and ensuring conformity within the department--consume even more time, as do the research and planning needed to run the department efficiently and effectively. With all of these demands, a new chief could quickly become enslaved by the position. I realized that proper delegation of duties would be essential to avoid this situation. Delegation is the art of gradually giving increased responsibility to subordinates. First, this means defining the functions and responsibilities that should be carried out by those having less authority but who can still complete tasks successfully. (8) Then, once these functions and responsibilities have been defined, the level of authority necessary to accomplish each of these tasks is established. Delegation involves a four-step process: * The chief must transfer responsibility for some tasks to a subordinate. * The subordinate must accept the responsibility. * A mutual trust must develop between the chief and subordinate. * A system of follow-up must be established to ensure that delegated tasks are completed successfully. (9) One of the key reasons for delegating tasks is to ensure time in a chief's day for personal solitude. Because of the many demands on my time, I realized that my temperament was going to be tested almost every day. I could either become run-down and react to every problem in an unfocused, knee-jerk manner, or I could renew my resolve each day to look calmly at problems and attempt to correct them. I realized that it was imperative to take time out of each hectic day and devote it to quality thinking. It is important for a chief to set aside time daily for creative thinking and planning for the future. I also discovered that my natural tendency was to try to do everything myself. Like most chiefs, I was very cautious in delegating authority. After all, I was the chief and every decision made ultimately reflected on my ability to lead. I soon realized, though, that delegating responsibility was not only a way to make more time for the things I had to do, but it was also essential to the smooth operation of the department. When delegating responsibilities to subordinates, I kept in mind the following five ``Rules of Monkeys.'' (10) A ``monkey'' is a term used to define a task, assignment, function or activity that must be performed. 1. Feed it or shoot it, but never let it starve to death. The chief must first decide whether the task needs to be performed. Once a decision is made to perform the task, and it is delegated to a subordinate, the chief must make sure to feed the monkey. In other words, the manager must track the progress of the subordinate in completing the task. This can be accomplished by instituting a tickler system of dates that remind the chief to check up on a particular monkey. 2. Only have those monkeys out that you can afford to feed. A manager should not delegate more assignments than can be tracked. The manager must not delegate so many monkeys that it becomes difficult to control the operation. The number of monkeys the chief can have running about depends on time commitments, the ability of personnel to accept the responsibility of working the tasks, and examination of activities currently being performed by the agency. 3. Never conclude a feeding without scheduling the next session. Every time a discussion is completed concerning the monkey, the next meeting must be scheduled. Specific goals should be set for the next ``feeding'' date. 4. Subordinates will find the time to work the monkeys if you have the time to feed them. The time that the chief saves by delegating tasks can be used more effectively in acting as manager and advisor. 5. Keep the ``monkey'' off your back. Become a ``monkey supervisor,'' not a ``monkey keeper.'' It is not the manager's role to become involved in constantly making sound decisions but to see that sound decisions are made. I found that the best way to do this is to sharpen the skills of subordinates by consistently giving them more sophisticated assignments and entrusting them with more authority. CONCLUSION To be successful as a police chief in a small department, I had to be a strong leader, while being sensitive to the needs of people both inside and outside the agency. In order to foster support for new initiatives, I had to ``sell'' my policies instead of force-feeding them. I had to be willing to adjust my management style to suit the situation. I also had to be an open, effective communicator, willing to listen to other points of view. I had to develop the art of delegation and trust my officers and staff to do important tasks. And, I had to set aside personal time each day to devote to planning and creative thinking. I caution any middle manager who is considering becoming chief in the near future to weigh carefully the advantages and disadvantages of the position before deciding. Being the chief of a department requires careful, but decisive, evaluation before every decision. A chief can effect real change in a community, but to be successful in the position requires maturity and a great deal of experience. FOOTNOTES (1) Robert H. Sandwich, ``The Newly Appointed Chief from the Outside,'' Police Chief, August 1981, p. 16. (2) Ibid. (3) Gary Brown, ``The Metamorphosis of a Police Executive: How to Climb to the Top Without Falling Off,'' Police Chief, November 1984, p. 28. (4) Ronald G. Lynch, The Police Manager (New York: Random House, 1987), p. 18. (5) Daniel J. Levinson, The Seasons of a Man's Life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985). (6) Harry W. More, Jr. and John P. Kenney, The Police Executive Handbook (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1986). (7) Ibid. (8) Supra note 4, p. 141. (9) Ibid. (10) Ibid.