How Police Management Affects Officer Use of Force

Introduction: Police Authority and the Use of Force

Protection of its citizens is the fundamental mission of any government. At the forefront of this mission are law enforcement officers, who represent the most visible arm the government utilizes to protect citizens and preserve public order ("Police Use of Excessive Force: A Case Study of Lethal (Deadly) Force," 2016).

To achieve these missions, the police are granted authorities that are unique in civil government and conferred by society — the authority to control the behaviors of citizens with the ultimate aim of protecting them from harm. In the most direct sense, the behavior of members of society is controlled and managed by police personnel and officers on a daily basis (Murphy, 2014).

This reality brings us to the undeniable fact that police will inevitably use force to some degree in order to implement public order and protect citizens. There have been instances in which the lives of officers or civilians were endangered because police failed to take prompt action and use force to control a situation.

However, there have also been many instances and allegations in which police used more force than necessary, used force when it was not warranted, or applied it improperly. This raises the question of how to manage police use of force so that it does not exceed necessary limits while still enabling law enforcement to uphold public order and fulfill its protective mission (Murphy, 2014). One answer that many experts have debated and advocated over the years is that proper police management must be undertaken in order to prevent incidents of excessive force and to train officers to use force when necessary and only to the extent necessary (Atherley & Hickman, 2014).

Thesis: Proper police management can meaningfully affect the way police officers use force.

The Force Continuum

Individuals — especially in arrest situations — have always challenged police officers and resisted law enforcement efforts at every level. To address any threat they encounter, law enforcement officers are trained according to a specific use-of-force continuum (PoliceOne, 2016). In many cases, officers and police have used force in responses made in split seconds. While such actions may be unintentional rather than planned, they are also considered necessary (Petrowski, 2002). It is therefore expected that police officers maintain control of any event in which they use force (Cronin & Reicher, 2006).

Data gathered during observations of police forces in St. Petersburg, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana — as part of a study titled the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) — aided in the development of a specific coding scheme formulated by researchers. That scheme revealed that the resistance offered to police officers by offenders did not necessarily match the level of force used (Terrill & Mastrofski, 2002). The research helped determine what influenced officer decision-making within the levels established by the force continuum derived from POPN data (Terrill, 2005).

Although the use-of-force continuum is no longer widely used in U.S. policing today after more than 25 years of successful implementation, it established the threshold that helps define levels of offender resistance and corresponding levels of force. Officer training and department policies regarding behavior in crisis situations remain based on force continuum models that have been refined over the past 25 years (Gallo, Collyer, & Gallagher, 2008).

The continuum codifies the level of force that should be used by police officers in situations where they face resistance from an offender (Terrill, 2005). Clear instructions govern responding with a level of force appropriate to a given situation, and an officer may shift from one level of the continuum to another depending on the degree of resistance offered (Dorriety, 2005).

According to the force continuum, there are six levels of use of force:

1. Officer Presence — no force applied; no resistance present.
2. Verbal Compliance — verbal force only; no physical contact.
3. Passive Resistance — officers use body and empty hands only to gain control.
4. Active Resistance — controlled through intermediate weapons such as the baton, Taser, or physical strikes.
5. Aggressive Resistance — officers may use intermediate weapons such as "flash-bang" devices or rubber bullets along with intensified self-defense techniques, but should not use lethal force.
6. Deadly-Force Resistance — officers are authorized to use deadly force (Terrill & Paoline, 2012).

This force continuum is an integral component of the police management curriculum and is taught to every police officer. It specifies the degree of force appropriate to a given level of resistance (Crow & Adrion, 2011). When adequately applied and adhered to, the continuum can serve as an effective mechanism for shaping the use of force by police officers.

Style of Leadership and Management

The leadership style of a police force is also an important consideration in the application of an appropriate degree of force in situations faced by law enforcement officers. It is assumed that law enforcement officers receive formal training in the use of force against offenders. This training also defines the distinction between unnecessary and necessary force. Until force becomes excessive or unnecessary, its use by law enforcement officers is not inherently problematic, since officers are expected to use force in the course of their tactical duties.

The primary issue in police use of force is the acceptable degree of force relative to the level of an offender's noncooperation. While the force continuum serves as an effective guide, it is equally necessary that the leader on duty be diligent in determining the appropriate use of force and in persuading other officers to do the same (Flemming, 2015).

From a police management perspective, it is therefore important that strong leadership skills be cultivated in police leaders so that instructions and directions are followed even in critical situations requiring split-second decisions (Masal & Vogel, 2016).

This is where the management of a police force or team — and especially of a police officer on duty — becomes critical. Experts have suggested that the right kind of leadership, grounded in sound management principles, can have a positive effect on police use of force.

Research has examined the relationship between use of force and the style of leadership practiced within a given police force. Such research has suggested that patrol officers' behavior can be influenced by supervisors, making it possible to manage both influence and accountability together (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, & Agassi, 2001).

Studies have also indicated that in many law enforcement agencies and police jurisdictions across various states and cities, there is very limited understanding of the relationship between effective leadership style and appropriate use of force. Researchers note that in some agencies there is no clear knowledge of which leadership style best suits a particular jurisdiction, nor how supervisory leadership in one agency compares to similar law enforcement agencies elsewhere (Banker, Chang, & Pizzini, 2004).

In a quantitative study conducted by officers working at a sheriff's department in New Albany, Indiana, significant analysis of field data and surveys was performed alongside field scenario experiments. The study was carried out on more than 90 deputies and jail officers across 15 different scenarios.

The study concluded that less force was used when officers followed the transactional style of leadership. This style entails that leaders do not attend to the personal goals or agendas of subordinates but instead focus on administering rewards or punishments based on the quality of work performed. This form of leadership directly links a subordinate's actions to the leader's expectations and dispenses rewards or consequences accordingly.

The study also noted that the laissez-faire leadership style — in which the leader delegates decision-making to subordinates and largely trusts them to act independently — resulted in greater use of force. However, the study found that transformational leaders, who inspire their followers and subordinates to pursue both personal goals and workplace objectives, were able to exert the greatest influence over subordinates and achieved the least use of force in de-escalating situations (Kirkbride, 2006).

This study reinforced prior research in the field and demonstrated the importance of an appropriate leadership style in police forces for shaping officer use of force. While no single leadership style is universally applicable, these studies have established a direct link between leadership style and officers' use of force. Leadership remains a central subject of management research, and police management must likewise incorporate this dimension in order to affect how officers use force.

The studies have also identified that police forces stand to benefit substantially from knowledge-based leadership styles (Van Wart, 2003), and that the importance of leadership style in improved policing and appropriate use of force deserves formal recognition.

Conclusion

Governments have the duty to protect their citizens as one of their fundamental missions. The police force, as the most visible arm of the government, is at the forefront of this mission and the primary instrument the government utilizes to protect citizens and preserve public order. Police are granted authorities that are unique in civil government and conferred by society — the authority to control the behaviors of citizens with the ultimate aim of protecting them from harm.

The use-of-force continuum is a useful police management tool that can impact and shape officer use of force. It codifies the levels of force that should be used in situations where officers face resistance from an offender, with clear guidance on responding with a level of force appropriate to the situation. Officers may shift from one level of the continuum to another depending on the degree of resistance encountered.

It is equally important, from a police management perspective, that appropriate and effective leadership skills be cultivated in police leaders so that instructions and directions are followed even in critical situations requiring split-second decisions. Transformational leaders — those who inspire their followers and subordinates to achieve both personal goals and workplace objectives — exerted the greatest influence over subordinates and resulted in the least use of force when bringing situations under control.

As is true of business organizations, police departments also need to take a fresh look at how they conduct their operations, keeping in mind the basic principles of sound management. There is significant room for improvement through management reviews, whether conducted internally or by professional consultants.

Finally, innovative training modules that incorporate management dimensions such as cultural awareness, sensitivity, and effective communication skills can prove beneficial for police officers in applying force appropriately in the course of their duties.

References

Atherley, L., & Hickman, M. (2014). Controlling use of force: Identifying police use of excessive force through analysis of administrative records. Policing, 8(2), 123–134.

Banker, R., Chang, H., & Pizzini, M. (2004). The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of performance measures linked to strategy. The Accounting Review, 79(1), 1–23.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.

Belasen, A., Eisenberg, B., & Huppertz, J. Mastering leadership.

Cronin, P., & Reicher, S. (2006). A study of the factors that influence how senior officers police crowd events: On SIDE outside the laboratory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 175–196.

Crow, M., & Adrion, B. (2011). Focal concerns and police use of force: Examining the factors associated with Taser use. Police Quarterly, 14(4), 366–387.

Dorriety, J. (2005). Police service dogs in the use-of-force continuum. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 88–98.

Flemming, P. (2015). Improving organizational performance through leadership and culture. Scholars' Press.

Gallo, F., Collyer, C., & Gallagher, P. (2008). Prevalence of force by police in Rhode Island jurisdictions: Implications for use-of-force training and reporting. Criminal Justice Review, 33(4), 480–501.

Herrington, V., & Colvin, A. (2015). Police leadership for complex times. Policing.

Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: The full range leadership model in action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 23–32.

Masal, D., & Vogel, R. (2016). Leadership, use of performance information, and job satisfaction: Evidence from police services. International Public Management Journal.

Murphy, J. (2014). Police use of excessive force in disorganized neighborhoods. Police Practice and Research, 16(2), 188–189.

Police use of excessive force: A case study of lethal (deadly) force. (2016). ESJ, 12(1).

PoliceOne. (2016). Can supervisory style influence police officers' use-of-force behavior? Retrieved February 23, 2016, from

Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001). Captain's leadership type and police officers' compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 273–290.

Smith, D., Skolnick, J., & Fyfe, J. (1996). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. Contemporary Sociology, 25(4), 538.

Terrill, W. (2005). Police use of force: A transactional approach. Justice Quarterly, 22(1), 107–138.

Terrill, W., & Mastrofski, S. (2002). Situational and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly, 19(2), 215–248.

Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. (2012). Examining less lethal force policy and the force continuum: Results from a national use-of-force study. Police Quarterly, 16(1), 38–65.

Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 214–228.