Focus on Leadership...The Unproductive Police Executive

The unproductive police executive is a critical, often neglected topic. In far too many instances, marginal performance on the part of a long-tenured police executive is seen as an acceptable norm. Considering the critical need for exceptional leadership, strong and innovative administrative skills, and pro-activity in order to deal with today’s special challenges, our organizations cannot afford leaders who fail to lead.  It is important to not lose sight of the fact that, in a challenging and dynamic environment, the efficient and effective management of the status quo is not leadership!  A harmful trait frequently exhibited by the unproductive executive is a degree of devil’s advocacy that often results in near-paralysis, with the initiative and energy of subordinates being unnecessarily stifled.  Those who suggest that such an individual, while of questionable suitability for a command, can still be productive in a staff assignment are mistaken.  The need for energetic and dynamic leaders is equally strong for both staff and command officers.

I am not aware of any organization that factors decreased energy and productivity into a declining salary scale for senior executives; to the contrary, such persons are typically among the highest paid and best compensated members of our departments, predicated on the assumption of the highest levels of performance and leadership!  Successful private corporations do not tolerate the continued presence of an unproductive person in a position of special trust and responsibility. As guardians of the public trust and given the honor of leading wonderful men and women who perform critical and often thankless tasks, our standards must be equally demanding. 

Command Assignments

The unproductive executive in a command assignment is devastating to a police organization!  Worse, the degradation is often not recognized as the organization gradually adjusts to a decrease in leadership and energy.  The consequences of a marginal commanding officer are many, including: failure to truly understand the needs of a community and allocate resources accordingly; failure to adequately fight crime and deal with issues that affect public safety; failure to adequately investigate crimes; failure to pursue the recovery of victims property; toleration of mediocre performance; failure to provide support and recognition to deserving personnel; failure to hold problem personnel adequately accountable for their actions; failure to ensure adequate processes that yield the best candidates for advancements and special assignments; failure to pursue questionable disability claims; degradation of community support; increased

Police Chief (IACP), March 1999                                     ENCLOSURE #2

cynicism and overall dysfunction throughout a command where subordinate managers are left to their own devices in grappling with issues that require high-level command and coordination. 

The highly visible nature of most command assignments further intensifies the myriad of consequences associated with an unproductive executive.  This reality magnifies the unproductive traits of a high-level leader, which collectively present a poor example for subordinates, raises legitimate questions of hypocrisy with respect to prevailing expectations, and sends the wrong message to other officials and to the public.

Staff Assignments

The adverse consequences of an unproductive executive in a staff assignment are arguably even greater than his or her unproductive command counterpart.  The unproductive staff officer, as opposed to having a negative impact on a single command, most often has a devastating impact on the entire organization, with severity that varies depending upon the specific assignment.  Once again, the degradation is often not recognized as the organization gradually adjusts to a decrease in leadership and energy.

Like his or her unproductive counterpart in a command assignment, the adverse consequences of a marginal executive in a staff assignment are many, such as: failure to pursue policies, procedures, and resources that command officers need to effectively manage their workforce; failure to ensure the prompt and appropriate resolution of conflicts, grievances, lawsuits, and related difficulties; the unnecessary loss and/or settlement of claims and lawsuits (often capitulating to less experienced and/or overworked government attorneys) which creates horrible precedence and increases the difficulty in managing the work force; increased inappropriate influence of special interests and/or vendors; and other problematic situations that would not exist, or which would be greatly mitigated, had the staff executive possessed the loyalty and energy truly required of the position.

 Conclusion

It is critical that we set aside personal loyalties and tenure considerations in the selection and retention of subordinate executives.  A simple inventory can help determine whether a person is continuing to advance the organization.  Ask yourself what programs, policies, and/or initiatives the individual has been responsible for that were truly the product of his or her initiative, imagination, or vision?  Ask yourself also if the individual creates and maintains a progressive environment, or if he or she exhibits a degree of devil’s advocacy that often results in near-paralysis, and has the effect of stifling the initiative and creativity of subordinates?  Finally, remember that the efficient and effective management of the status quo, including responding to unavoidable situations, is not leadership.

Those of us who have the honor of leading law enforcement organizations were selected based upon a belief that we would provide the best possible leadership, apply the strongest management principles, protect the public to the very best of our abilities, and do the best job we possibly can.  We violate that trust when we fail to insist that energy, enthusiasm, initiative, and pro-activity are among the qualities expected of our key personnel.  Our subordinate executives are highly visible to our personnel, civic leaders, and to the communities we serve. Their strengths and weaknesses are abundantly clear to all and are a continuous reflection of our own leadership and effectiveness. 

Those who argue that civil service procedures are so rigid as to prevent the decisive handling of an unproductive executive suffer from the same lack of energy and initiative as the unproductive executive!  Is it always easy?  Of course not, but we hold the positions that we do in part because our appointing authorities had confidence in our abilities to deal with and resolve troubling situations.  Certainly, our initial strategy must be positive, extensive, and intended to revitalize the unproductive executive.  Should efforts to revitalize such individuals fail, it is important that we resist the temptation to suffer in silence and wait for the person to retire.  We must take reasonable and necessary measures to ensure that key personnel are worthy of the positions they hold.  Our department, our personnel, and the citizens we serve deserve nothing less.