This paper analyzes organizational conflict arising among thirty police departments within a single county as they compete over the allocation of a one-million-dollar federal drug enforcement grant. Drawing on Axelrod's work on cooperation, the paper identifies functional and interpersonal sources of conflict rooted in differing jurisdictional interpretations of the drug problem. It then proposes communication and coordination strategies, including the formation of a representative cross-departmental team, and argues that impartial oversight is essential for resolving interorganizational conflict within criminal justice agencies. The paper concludes that a purely business-as-usual approach is inadequate for organizations whose primary obligation is social rather than profit-driven.
The conflict examined in this case arises from differing functional and operational jurisdictions. A large part of the conflict can be considered functional in nature, stemming from the fact that each of the thirty police departments holds a different interpretation of the local drug problem. Further compounding the issue is the autonomy each department maintains over its own operations.
For example, the Milledgeville Police Department is the largest in the group, while the remaining twenty-nine departments are smaller and represent smaller communities. None of these departments shares the same view about the nature or severity of the drug problem. As a result, there are different — and often opposing — views about how a one-million-dollar federal grant for drug enforcement efforts should be used.
One police chief believes that the Milledgeville Police Department should coordinate the overall effort, arguing that a large part of the drug problem originates within his city. Chief Hayes, by contrast, believes that each department should receive an equal share of the money and be individually responsible for carrying out its own drug enforcement policy. Still other officers favor directing the funds toward a broader community cause. All of these competing positions represent both functional and interpersonal types of organizational conflict.
One approach to improving communication and coordination would be to assemble a team of police officers drawn from each of the thirty departments. A team representing all departments would be better positioned to assess the seriousness, advantages, and drawbacks of the various views raised by officers across the county. Rather than debating these issues in open forums, the team could meet with the chief of each department individually, work to address their specific concerns, and offer responses that focus on the broader goal of effective drug enforcement.
When police chiefs across the county reach a shared understanding of the problem, communication and coordination among the different jurisdictions can be strengthened to meet drug enforcement challenges more effectively (Axelrod, 1998). Cooperation theory supports the idea that structured, repeated interaction among competing parties can lead to collaborative outcomes that benefit the collective — a principle directly applicable here.
"Lack of consensus undermines task force effectiveness"
"Business approach fails social obligations of justice agencies"
"Neutral oversight body needed to unify enforcement efforts"
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.