Gauging Employee Familiarization with Mission: A Qualitative Review of Service Delivery Attitudes

Published date01 March 2002
Date01 March 2002
DOI10.1177/0887403402131001
Subject MatterJournal Article
CRIMINALJUSTICEPOLICYREVIEW/March 2002Lumb,Miller/SERVICEDELIVERYATTITUDES
Gauging Employee Familiarization
With Mission: A Qualitative Review
of Service Delivery Attitudes
Richard C. Lumb
State University of New York at Brockport
Kenneth Miller
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
This article examines employee understanding of values, mission, goals, and result-
ing service delivery within the framework of community-policing. In a quasi-military
structure, it is often assumed that once the chief sets the direction,all employees will
comply in their behavior and actions. Change in organizationalstructure, aptly illus-
trated by the implementation of community-policing, disrupts core practices and is
traumatic to many employees. Determining employee understanding, core beliefs,
and readiness for a new program is an important first step to sustained change.
Jumping into a newprogram and providing employees with a single “one size fits all”
training program is not sufficient. This study examined employees’ perceptions
regardingcommunity-policing as practiced by their respective agencies. Focusgroup
sessions were conducted in four police or sheriff agencies,separating each group by
its rank or position. Outcomes of this study disclosed variations of definition, mean-
ing, application, and practice expectations, stratified by rank or position in the
departments studied.
In the field of policing, there is a tendency to believe that employees are in
synchronous agreement with the chief of police regarding matters of mis-
sion, goals, and service delivery.The reality of this phenomenon may lie far
from that belief, as individual staffmembers are more likely to harbor a vari-
ety of views and understanding of their work that differs from their col-
leagues. Using the vernacular of the police profession, conversations lead
one to believe that there is group consensus; however, were careful investi-
gation to take place, it would reveal the existence of multiple perceptions
surrounding a single common issue. Each individual, although able to voice
the expected response that signals safety from rebuke, holds within his or
her mind a set of beliefs and values that may or may not agree with the group
3
Criminal Justice PolicyReview, Volume13, Number 1, March 2002 3-20
© 2002 Sage Publications
at SAGE Publications on December 5, 2012cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
version. The use of occupational language instills the belief that everyoneis
cognizant of a common definition and that all members are applying it in the
same manner to the topic or issue at hand. As a case in point, if commanders
were asked the single question, “How does this department delivercommunity-
policing services?” one would hear a number of generalized or anecdotal
responses that refer to the most visible indicator of community-policing in
the agency. Staff may talk about neighborhood teams that are in place and
would likely echo that the department is practicing community-policing
and has been for Xyears. Individual interpretation of the philosophy of
policing and the mission of the department may not be part of the answer,
and it is equally unlikely that one would verbalize individual professional
beliefs and values concerning this topic. Asking that particular question and
receiving what is most often a generalized or anecdotal response, one might
walk away thinking that the department is truly a community-policing
agency and that there are few,if any, issues or concerns with the implemen-
tation or practice of this policing philosophy. If in-depth probing were to
accompany the primary question, one may find that community-policing is
not fully ingrained in the organization—that is, operationalized, supported,
and institutionalized as a collective value.
Operating in quasi-militaristic fashion, meaning one of reasonably strict
command and control, it is at best difficult for agencies to foster an environ-
ment of openness and candor. Nurtured by decades of practice, police orga-
nizational structure is aligned with the bureaucratic model, described by
Roberg and Kuykendall (1990) as including a top-down flow of authority,
rule-oriented conduct, hierarchical structure, a high degree of specializa-
tion, and position-oriented behavior based on rank and grouping of work-
related duties. Disagreement with policy and procedures generally is not
tolerated well, and descending rank holders are often subject to the opinion
and instructions of higher authority without the invitation or expectation of
discussion or debate. Such command and control structures have very real
but limited value in policing and fit most accordingly with police responses
to crises of public disorder and disaster. There are, however, many influ-
ences at work in police organizations that moderate top-down administra-
tive isolation. Included are police unions and associations, statutory regula-
tions, and a growing willingness to include employees in decision making.
The frequency of these events in the daily livesof police is at best quite lim-
ited and uncommon across the United States. As a result, continued reliance
on supervisory and administrative practices that closely mirror this bureau-
cratic model is archaic in the 21st century. This may seem harsh, but when
the emphasis of policing is focused on service, community relations, and
4 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / March 2002
at SAGE Publications on December 5, 2012cjp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT