Ethical Issues in Law Enforcement Organizations

Developing and Sustaining an Organizational Culture of Integrity
During an era in American history when charges of unethical business practices extend even into the White House, identifying opportunities to develop an organizational culture of integrity has assumed new importance and relevance. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the relevant literature concerning the importance of developing a culture of integrity and how this can be accomplished in organizations of different sizes and types, including law enforcement agencies. To this end, the construct of integrity is operationalized, followed by a discussion concerning what types of strategies have proven efficacy in developing an organizational culture of integrity. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning the importance of these types of initiatives and their implications for business practitioners in general and law enforcement authorities in particular are presented in the paper’s conclusion.
Review and Discussion
Definitions of integrity
It is reasonable to suggest that most business practitioners understand what the concept of integrity means, even if they fail to live up to these standards in their personal and professional lives. Some straightforward definitions provided by Aulette and Miller (2017) indicates that integrity is simply “acting with honesty in all situations” (p. 17) and as the “daily demonstration of moral values and professionalism” by Regina (2017, p. 41). Other popular definitions for integrity include the dictionary entries listed below:
· Firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values (Merriam-Webster at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity);
· Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty (Dictionary.com at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/integrity); and,
· The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles (Oxford Dictionary at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/integrity).
These listings, however, lack the definitional clarity needed to develop an organizational culture of integrity. As operationally defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (1990), though, integrity can also be more accurately conceived as “soundness or moral principle and character, as shown by one person dealing with others in the making and performance of contracts, and fidelity and honesty in the discharge of trust” (p. 809). In addition, in a organizational context, integrity can also be conceptualized as a “stool with three legs” (Lander & Nabon, 2015). Conceptualized in this fashion, the three legs of the integrity “stool” are as follows: (a) honesty means being open and truthful about one's feelings, and acknowledging past or present wrongdoings; (b) responsibility means taking 100% ownership of one's 50% in all situations, especially conflict situations; and (c) emotional closure refers to the intent of any actions as ‘closing the psychological space’ or increasing one's sense of community with self and others (Lander & Nahon, 2015, p. 74).
It is important to note, however, that while integrity may exist along a continuum, the concept is essentially an “all or nothing” proposition. For instance, although each of the foregoing three components of integrity is important in its own right, all three of the components must be present for integrity to truly exist in any organizational context at a given point in time (Lander & Nahon, 2015). This means that even in those cases where practitioners consistently demonstrate fidelity and honesty in their business dealings and are forthright in accepting responsibilities for their actions, integrity does not exist in those instances where they continue to hold a grudge against others for perceived or actual wrongdoings. In other words, integrity can be an elusive organizational goal, but there are some proven steps that corporate leaders can take to help inculcate and sustain integrity throughout their companies and these issues are discussed further below.
Developing an organizational culture of integrity
There is a growing recognition among business practitioners in all sectors that unethical practices can have profoundly serious consequences for themselves and their organizations. Indeed, the series of high-profile Enron-type corporate scandals that have surfaced in recent years underscore the seriousness of the problem. In this regard, Aulette and Miller (2017) emphasize that, “The countless number of scandals over the past couple of decades has contributed to an increased focus on ethics. Companies are searching for a way to avoid scandals and develop an ethical culture at all levels of their organizations” (p. 16). As a result, the search for effective strategies that can be used to develop an organizational culture of integrity has intensified in recent years, and the growing body of scholarship that has emerged includes both spurious as well as legitimate guidance.
On the one hand, it is easy enough for business leaders to proclaim that all of their employees will comply with organizational codes of conduct in ways that promote a culture of integrity, but on the other hand, actually achieving this desirable outcome is another thing entirely. Moreover, when corporate leaders say one thing about the importance of integrity in the workplace but fail to live up to their own standards, the hypocrisy is readily transparent to subordinates who will respond in kind. For example, a corporation that promotes integrity in the workplace through a comprehensive code of conduct that is routinely ignored by corporate leaders is simply setting itself up for unethical business practices from the bottom-up.
Just as integrity can be conceptualized as a three-legged stool with three integral elements that must be present for it to exist, so too is the process by which a culture of integrity can be developed wherein consistency and conformity with ethical standards by all stakeholders receive the highest priority. In this regard, Auletto and Miller (2017) emphasize that, “It has become increasingly evident that ethical principles need to be introduced to employees long before they are involved in an ethical dilemma. Ethics need to be a priority, not just at a corporate level, but also to individuals” (p. 17). Assuming that corporate leaders do in fact “model the way” and provide an example of ethical behaviors in the workplace, the next issue involves how best to ensure that all employees follow suit. This outcome will be facilitated by corporate leaders setting an example, but it will probably not be sufficient to develop an organizational culture of integrity.
One of the most common strategies for developing and sustaining an organizational culture of integrity is the use of codes of conduct (Tinsley, 2002). For instance, Allman (2009) reports that, “Effective detection and prevention of law or ethics violations require publicizing the values and imperatives deemed important by an entity's leadership. Most corporations have promulgated codes of conduct and provide training in the entity's significant values” (p. 55). Other steps that have proven efficacy in developing and sustaining a culture of integrity in public and private sector organizations include those set forth in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Steps to developing an organizational culture of integrity
Step
Description
Step One: Designate a Compliance Owner
Any compliance program must have a designated owner. This owner is often called the “compliance officer” or, even better, the “compliance and integrity officer” to denote that the program is about doing the right thing, not just legal compliance. This person should be a well-qualified member of senior management with direct access to the organization’s governing body, and with reporting responsibility to the top tier of executive management.
Step Two: Implement Written Standards and Procedures
Every organization needs a code of conduct. The code applies to all employees, and to those who do work on the organization’s behalf. The code is an important vehicle for communicating executive management’s clear commitment to organizational culture and ethics, integrity and compliance. The document should state the organization’s mission, goals, values and compliance standards—plus the requirement for appropriate staff to adhere to their professional codes of conduct. The risks that are addressed in the standards and related documents should track with the organization’s risk profile, with more attention being given to the organization’s unique high-risk topics, such as harassment, health and safety, and conflicts of interest.
Step Three: Conduct appropriate training and awareness
As part of the compliance program, organizations should require specific training on a periodic basis for all employees and other contracted staff. This is essential to communicate and reinforce values and standards, meet legal obligations and mitigate legal, reputational and operational risks. And training can help change behavior and reduce instances of wrongdoing through prevention.
The process for building an effective training and communication plan begins with the list of risk areas from a risk assessment. Determine the audiences needing education in each risk area, and the depth and frequency of training needed based their jobs and risk exposure. Then settle on education methods and establish a training calendar.
Step Four: Develop Open Lines of Communication
Offering employees a safe way to report problems and issues is critical for a strong organizational culture. Fear of retaliation is one of the most common reasons that staff refuse to speak up about poor care or other misconduct. Organizations should encourage open-door reporting to management. There should also be an open line of communication directly to the compliance officer and the compliance committee. Additionally, anonymous routes of reporting should be provided in areas where anonymity is permitted. This is commonly a toll-free helpline and a web-based reporting system, which complies with local data privacy laws. Combat skepticism and improve corporate culture by publishing anonymized or sanitized reports of issues that have been addressed. Not only does this demonstrate that the organization hears and takes such reports seriously, it also provides another way to educate staff on what is and is not accepted behavior—and how the organization will handle conduct that steps over the line.
Step Five: Centrally Manage all Reports and Allegations
Reported concerns should all be added to a centralized database. That database should also collect the helpline and/or web-reported cases, plus those that come directly to compliance staff and managers. A good case management system enables consistent data collection from multiple departments, geographies and people. This allows compliance professionals to complete an aggregate analysis of the issues so that data trends can inform improvements in policies, training or processes. Connecting data from various parts of the organization can also be an important tool in detecting and correcting broader problems.
Step Six: Respond Consistently and Appropriately to Alleged Offenses
Reports of misconduct cannot be ignored, discounted without inquiry or left to languish for long periods of time. Case managers must respond to all reports within a short timeframe to make sure the reporting employee knows that the complaint was received and is under review. Case managers will typically triage cases based on type of issue and determine—often along with the compliance officer or others—whether the issue can be handled directly, or if an investigation is warranted. All investigations should follow a written protocol or process to ensure consistency and to alert, consult and involve the right people. Investigators should have the training, expertise and subject matter knowledge to conduct an investigation effectively. Depending on the allegation, organizations should consider engaging outside resources—such as lawyers or auditors—to assist with certain investigations.
Step Seven: Audit, Monitor and Adapt as Needed
Compliance programs should include auditing and monitoring for violations of laws, policies and standards of conduct. They should also include audits of compliance program processes to ensure effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. Audit plans should be re-evaluated annually to ensure that they are focused on appropriate areas of concern with consideration of prior audit findings as well as new risk assessments. Results of the audits should be shared with the organization’s compliance officer for analysis of the compliance risk environment and implementation of any needed improvements. Achieving a strong organizational culture and ethics requires more than simply adding rules and additional layers of controls. There must be an integrated effort that aligns financial and compliance requirements with the organization’s mission and values. Positioned this way, employees are much more likely to understand and accept the necessity of compliance—and to do so while staying true to everyone’s commitment to creating a strong culture of ethics, integrity and compliance.
Source: Adapted from Understanding the Basics, 2018
The foregoing steps are relevant for virtually any type of public or private sector entity, but law enforcement organizations have some unique considerations that must also be taken into account when formulating initiatives that are designed to develop and sustain a culture of integrity (Jacocks & Bowman, 2006). While the process begins at the top just as with private sector entities, law enforcement organizations can also benefit from specialized training programs that are designed to provide police officers with the skills they need to navigate complex ethical dilemmas and avoid even the appearance of unethical practices (Jacocks & Bowman, 2006).
One of the most serious constraints to developing and sustaining an organizational culture of integrity in law enforcement is the so-called “code of silence” that is believed to be pervasive and perhaps even ubiquitous. For example, a study by Trautman (2009) surveyed 1,116 police officers in 42 U.S. states to determine the extent to which they had directly participated in the code of silence by failing to report instances of unethical or even unlawful practices by their peers and supervisors. The results of the Trautman (2009) study showed that nearly half (47.6%) conceded that they had “concealed the misconduct of other officers” (p. 69), and another 23% reported being pressured by others besides the police officers who had committed the misconduct. In fact, just slightly fewer (47%) of these 47.6% respondents reported that “they felt pressure to take part in the code of silence from the officers who committed the misconduct” (p. 69).
As noted in the steps outlined in Table 1 above, reporting instances of unethical or even unlawful practices in the workplace in fundamental to developing and sustaining an organizational culture of integrity, and it is clear that the process is severely diminished when law enforcement authorities feel pressure from their peers or their supervisors to conceal these types of activities. Another noteworthy finding to emerge from the Trautman (2009) survey was the fact that police officers who are engaged in certain types of law enforcement duties are more likely to conceal their own or others’ misconduct. For instance, Trautman (2009) found that on a scale ranged 1 to 10, patrol officers rated the pressure to conform to the code of silence the highest at 4.3, followed by supervisors at 3.9, administrators at 3.6 and civilians at 2.2. This finding underscore the need to focus scarce organizational resources where they are needed the most in order to overcome the powerful effects of longstanding codes of silence on an organizational culture that embraces integrity as its hallmark.
Finally, the most frequently cited types of unethical and unlawful practices by police officers in the Trautman (2009) study were as follows: (a) drinking on duty/not arresting off-duty officers who are driving while intoxicated; (b) illegal searches; (c) hostile or defensive narrative that included comments indicating misconduct; (d) field training officers doing personal business on duty while with trainee; and, (e) perjury. These types of practices can be exceedingly difficult to detect, especially when a code of silence protects the guilty, a process that only serves to further detract from developing an organizational culture of integrity.
Conclusion
The research showed that the adage that “individuals are not honest just because they have never had the chance to steal” is certainly applicable to virtually every type of public and private sector organization as the laundry list of high-profile corporate shenanigans that have dominated the headlines in recent years makes clear. Consistently acting in an ethical fashion in the legitimate workplace may be a universal expectation for all employees, but frail humans frequently fail to live up to these expectations by engaging in fraudulent activities that harm their organization or others while unjustly enriching themselves. When these types of unethical practices occur in law enforcement organizations, though, the stakes are far higher and the implications more severe since the community places an enormous amount of trust and faith in the police to not only uphold the law but comply with it as well.






References
Allman, T. Y. (2009, March-April). Fostering a compliance culture. Information Management, 39(2), 54-59.
Auletto, K. T. & Miller, A. J. (2017, April). Developing more ethical leaders. Techniques, 92(4), 16-19.
Black’s law dictionary. (1990). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Jacocks, A. M. & Bowman, M. D. (2006). Developing and sustaining a culture of integrity. The Police Chief, 73(4), 16–22.
Lander, N. R. & Hanon, D. (2015, Fall). The integrity model: An existential approach in working with men, culture, and identity. Culture, Society and Masculinities, 7(2), 73-78.
Regina, N. (2017, Winter). A lesson plan for developing internal culture while launching an external brand. Momentum, 48(1), 40-44.
Tinsley, P. N. (2002, Fall). Codes of ethics and the professions. CACP, 9–11.
Trautman, N. (2009, January). Special report: Ethics-truth about police code of silence revealed. Law & Order, 49(1), 68-71.
Understanding the basics. (2018) Compliance Next. Retrieved from https://www.navexglobal. com/compliancenext/understanding-the-basics/7-steps-to-creating-a-culture-of-ethics-integrity-/?page=2#read_body.