Law enforcement concepts and applications

Criminal Justice - Communication

COMMUNICATION WITHIN POLICE ORGANIZATIONS

Communications within Police Departments:

Communications of various types play different roles within police departments: police administrators establish official policies and procedures for formal dissemination in writing and unit supervisors provide specific instructions to their officers within the chain-of-command supervisory process. Unofficial communications also play a significant role: typically, senior officers (often regardless of official rank) communicate their expectations to junior officers, and individual officers engage in social conversations that include addressing various elements of their professional responsibilities as well as their sentiments about administrative policies and senior officers (Grubb & Hemby 2003).

Police organizations are not immune to the types of negative communications such as those that promote attitudes and beliefs that contradict official policies. In the most extreme cases, the evolution of an agency culture among first-line (i.e. patrol) officers may be characterized by general discontent. In that environment, informal agency culture may promote the communication of rumor and innuendo to such a degree that it may be capable of interfering with agency goals and objectives (Linsky & Heifetz 2002) by undermining the basis of chain-of-command authority and respect among officers for administrative regulations.

The Paramilitary and Civilian Communications Models:

Most police agencies operate along the lines of paramilitary organizations although they may vary substantially in the extent of their incorporating various components of private sector civilian organizations notwithstanding the fundamental differences between respective standards and communication policies. Traditionally, official paramilitary communications policies require dissemination of information along the chain-of-command hierarchy, often with a need-to-know basis that discourages unofficial communication of that information even within the organization (Grubb & Hemby 2003). The downside of this process is that it promotes alternative channels of communication among officers, such as gossip, rumor, and innuendo.

In comparison, civilian organizations are generally less restrictive about subsequent unofficial dissemination of information except that pertaining to trade secrets, proprietary information, and other confidential matters. Probably one of the most significant differences between law enforcement agencies and civilian enterprises is that the former are extremely resistant to input into policy or procedure from lower ranks.

Conversely, civilian business organizations often include non-supervisory employees in the communication chain and actively encourage such input and suggestions without regard to authority, rank, tenure, or responsibilities.

While the concept of "unofficial policies and procedures" is not entirely unknown in the private sector, it is highly doubtful that many non-police entities can rival the degree to which the law enforcement industry is plagued by significant discrepancies between official policies and the procedures actually employed by non-supervisory officers. Specifically, law enforcement organizations are often characterized by an insular agency-wide unofficial culture in which veteran officers communicate expectations of new officers, many of which may contradict official agency policy and procedures outright. In that regard, unofficial policies are communicated informally and reinforced by peer pressure as well as various negative consequences ranging from social ostracism to outright harassment and intimidation by threat or innuendo referencing the importance of solidarity among fellow officers who are responsible for each other's safety on the job.

Improving the Effectiveness of Communications within Police Departments:

One of the problems identified within police agencies is the purposeful withholding of information by superior officers as a means of ensuring (or increasing) their perceived value within the organization (Schaffer 2008). Countering this tendency effectively requires a two-pronged approach that includes (1) establishing objective criteria for advancement based on the performance and improvement rate of supervisees, and (2) conducting inventories of the degree to which supervisors disclose relevant information to all recipients whose performance may be affected negatively by withholding information for selfish purposes.

Eliminating the established dynamic represented by the typical police culture of unofficial "supervision" and "retraining" of junior officers by veterans in a manner that contradicts agency policies or objectives is, admittedly, more difficult. In many respects, this is problematic because involving administration in issues or conflicts among officers violates one of the most prevalent elements of police culture (Grubb & Hemby 2003).