Communication Improvement Plan for the Sheriff's Department The Communication Improvement Plan (CIP) is an initiative that seeks to establish, formalize, and institutionalize proper communication protocols in the Sheriff's Department. The rationale for developing the CIP stemmed from the specific needs of the department, specifically: (i) to establish protocols that reflect proper communication flow in dealing with specific concerns or issues relevant to the work of members of the Sheriff's Department; (ii) to promote the establishment of "institutional memory" through consistent documentation of every activity and relevant issues and concerns that members of the Sheriff's Department deal with in the course of their work; and (iii) to serve as a guide to developing resolutions in issues, conflicts, or concerns that might arise among members of the department.

Creating proper communication protocols does not mean that informal communication will not happen within the department. Informal communication is inevitable, as each member of the department work with the same group of people and constantly engages with these people in both formal and informal ways. What the CIP seeks to accomplish is to create strong leadership through diligent observation of the rules that govern communicating department-related work, issues, and concerns. In the end, the Sheriff's Department would like its members to remain true to its Mission and values of cooperation, compassion, and communication.

To illustrate the purpose of the CIP, take as examples two scenarios that commonly occur within the department: ineffective communication between supervisors and staff. Ineffective communication could be a result of different factors that affect the perception of two or more communicators discussing an issue or concern at hand. The first scenario illustrates a supervisor...

In one instance, the supervisor assigned the staff to complete a task for the team; the staff, for some reason, failed to complete the task. Their history of conflict intensified when the supervisor sought the staff for an explanation on why the task was not completed. The staff did not feel compelled to explain to his supervisor, and what ensued after was a heated discussion between the two that, to the observer, would seem bordering on being unprofessional already.
In this particular scenario, a personal attack against each other could have been avoided if proper communication channels were observed. The supervisor could have formally written (in e-mail or an official document used in the organization) the directive and task directions to the staff concerned. This would have been the supervisor's basis for fulfillment of the task, and the staff would be held accountable if said task was not completed. In this scenario, the supervisor could have reprimanded the staff objectively based on facts and documentation. Unfortunately, the personal conflict between the two worsened and professional work inevitably affected because of a breakdown in personal communication and absence of a formal communication platform.

Another scenario that supports the argument for the establishment of a CIP is when a mistake at work has been committed, and there is a need to determine at what point the mistake had been committed and if relevant, by whom. As with the first scenario, if an activity or task was communicated informally, determining the point where the mistake was committed and who committed it would not be possible at all. And there would also be a high likelihood that members will not be honest enough to admit who committed the mistake. Documentation of instructions and…