💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › promoteleb.law captured on 2020-10-31 at 17:16:36.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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.