Communication Improvement Plan for a Sheriff's Department

Introduction and Purpose of the CIP

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 stems from the specific needs of the department: (i) to establish protocols that reflect proper communication flow in dealing with specific concerns or issues relevant to the work of department members; (ii) to promote the establishment of "institutional memory" through consistent documentation of every activity and relevant issue that members encounter in the course of their work; and (iii) to serve as a guide for developing resolutions to issues, conflicts, or concerns that might arise among members of the department.

Creating proper communication protocols does not mean that informal communication will cease within the department. Informal communication is inevitable, as each member works alongside the same group of people and constantly engages with them in both formal and informal ways. What the CIP seeks to accomplish is to create strong leadership through diligent observance of the rules that govern how department-related work, issues, and concerns are communicated. Ultimately, the Sheriff's Department would like its members to remain true to its mission and values of cooperation, compassion, and communication.

Scenarios Illustrating Communication Breakdown

To illustrate the purpose of the CIP, consider two scenarios that commonly occur within the department, both involving ineffective communication between supervisors and staff. Ineffective communication can result from different factors that affect the perception of two or more communicators discussing an issue or concern. The first scenario involves a supervisor and a staff member who, prior to a work conflict, did not get along well with each other. In one instance, the supervisor assigned the staff member to complete a task for the team; the staff member, for some reason, failed to complete it. Their history of conflict intensified when the supervisor sought an explanation for why the task was not completed. The staff member did not feel compelled to explain himself, and what ensued was a heated discussion that, to any observer, would appear to border on being unprofessional.

In this particular scenario, a personal attack could have been avoided if proper communication channels had been observed. The supervisor could have formally written — by email or official document — the directive and task instructions to the staff member concerned. This written record would have served as the basis for confirming task completion, and the staff member would be held accountable if the task was not fulfilled. The supervisor could then have reprimanded the staff member objectively, based on documented facts. Unfortunately, the personal conflict between the two worsened and professional work was inevitably affected because of a breakdown in personal communication and the absence of a formal communication platform.

A second scenario that supports the argument for establishing a CIP arises when a workplace mistake has been committed and there is a need to determine at what point it occurred and, where relevant, by whom. As with the first scenario, if an activity or task was communicated only informally, pinpointing where the mistake was made — and who made it — would be nearly impossible. There would also be a high likelihood that members would not be honest about their role in the error. Documentation of instructions and work progress would have resolved this problem; unfortunately, because systems for formal communication were not in place, staff had no accountability for their work, and supervisors consequently failed to lead effectively.