Communication flow and organizational effectiveness

Criminal Justice Communication

Flow of communication

Communication within the criminal justice system: Upward, downward, and horizontal

Within the context of the criminal justice system, upward, downward, and horizontal communication all takes place on a daily basis. Downward communication, when an individual communicates with someone lower on the power hierarchy than him or herself, might occur when a police chief gives orders to a newly-promoted detective, or when an officer gives feedback and guidance to a subordinate during a performance review. Traditionally, there are said to be five types of downward communication within a criminal justice organization. The first is that of job instruction, such as in the case of officer training, for example. The second is that of job rationalizing, or communicating to officers how and why they must achieve certain goals: an officer might be urged by his or her superior to involve the community in a positive way in policing efforts to improve the department's public image and reputation. More specific is the third: communication can (and must) take place relating to organizational procedures and practices, such as how to interrogate a suspect or methods of handling evidence. Communication can also take the form of performance-related 'grading' of job performance. The final and fifth type of communication is that of indoctrination or motivational communication methods used to mobilize personnel, as in the case of a speech by a major public figure to officers, such as the police commissioner speaking to the entire ranks (McKinney, 2008, p.1).

Upward communication occurs when a lower-level individual communicates with a supervisor -- for example, when a police officer communicates with his superintendant about what he observed regarding a suspect's behavior. This is an example of upward communication in a formally-defined relationship. Upward communication within the context of policing has traditionally been problematic: "For example, if a patrol officer sees something that must be reported to the highest ranks, they first need to take the information to their patrol sergeant. Then the patrol sergeant needs to report to the lieutenant, the lieutenant needs to report to the captain, etc. As the report reaches the higher ranks, the individuals will reflect on the problem and put their own interpretation on it. It is possible that the information can become diluted or distorted. This process is also incredibly time consuming" (McKinney, 2008, p.2). Within criminal justice organizations, input from lower-level officers was traditionally discouraged, except in terms of the most routine factual reports that are conveyed only one 'rung' up the organizational ladder. Relationships are so formally defined in a power hierarchy within a police organization, the types of communication that could be characterized as 'upward' continue to be stymied because of the power asymmetries inherent in the relationships of a military-style bureaucracy.

Within horizontal or symmetrical forms of organizational communication, ambiguities about power relationships and informational content are more common than in either upward or downward communication. Horizontal communication is the proverbial 'grapevine' of information, such as gossip between partners. The exchange of information through horizontal channels can impact morale, but not always department policy, at least not as swiftly as in downward or even upward modes of communication. Also, although the power relationships between officers of the same rank may theoretically be clear-cut, this is not always the case -- popularity and reputation can influence the degree to which information is given credence through these horizontal channels. A popular officer who frowns upon racial profiling, for example, will have more influence than an officer who is widely disliked.

Frustrations about not being heard through the channels available in the upward communication process, or miscommunication of message or emotional intention in the downward communication process are common and frequently create interpersonal obstacles that hamper positive change and efficient operations. Confusion may also be rife if there are apparent contradictions between the message conveyed through the different channels: the force as a whole may be admonished by the police commissioner about the need to protect suspects' constitutional rights, but officers' direct supervisors may advocate a 'tough on crime' position and more lax enforcement of such laws. Officers will be confused about which policy to uphold, and this will create resentment as well as inconsistent police actions. Horizontal communication may likewise thwart the top-down message -- if officers collectively reinforce a lackadaisical attitude towards a suspect's 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches, this may carry more real weight than supervisor's stress on the need to do so, in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling.