Police Employee Disciplinary Matrix

Date01 March 2012
Published date01 March 2012
DOI10.1177/1098611111433026
AuthorJon M. Shane
Subject MatterArticles
Police Quarterly
15(1) 62 –91
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098611111433026
http://pqx.sagepub.com
433026PQX15110.1177/1098
611111433026ShanePolice Quarterly
1John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jon M. Shane, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 899 Tenth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, USA
Email: jshane@jjay.cuny.edu
Police Employee
Disciplinary Matrix:
An Emerging Concept
Jon M. Shane1
Abstract
This article explores the concept of a rational sentencing structure for imposing
internal police discipline that helps practitioners make more reasoned and consistent
decisions when dispensing discipline. The data consists of 360 hr of participant
observation of police trials involving sworn police officers and civilian employees
in the Newark, New Jersey Police Department. Various agency records provide an
understanding of the formal influences surrounding police discipline. The findings
suggest a disciplinary sentencing matrix is more rational than the traditional
discretionary method, which is largely informal and relies on best estimates. The
matrix may increase consistency in disciplinary sentences, which is an important
aspect of organizational justice that leaves police employees with a sense of fairness
in management’s disciplinary decisions.
Keywords
police management, discipline, sentencing matrix, proportionality, just deserts theory,
accountability, organizational justice
Introduction
How police employees are treated by their organization during disciplinary proceed-
ings is an understudied topic. Some research suggests there may be a direct correla-
tion between the way employees are treated by their organization and the employee’s
behavior, which may influence the employee’s commitment to organizational goals
(Greenberg, 1990). Organizational justice describes a series of related processes and
behaviors that take place in the work environment that influence employee behavior,
Shane 63
such as treating employees fairly, reaching equitable decisions, and imposing propor-
tionate penalties for wrongdoing (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Achieving greater
employee commitment and organizational goals may be predicated on whether those
employees hold favorable or unfavorable perceptions of trust, citizenship, and legiti-
macy in the organization (Kwong & Leung, 2002; Moorman, Neihoff, & Organ,
1993). The general belief is that the more an employee feels affiliated and embraced
by the organization, the more positive their performance. Conversely, when employ-
ees feel disconnected, alienated, or not part of the “in group,” there may be an increase
in disaffection and a decrease in performance.
Although the management and organizational psychology literature are replete with
studies showing the interaction between negative attitudes and behaviors in the work-
place (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Greenberg, 1986),
except for two technical reports (Providence External Review Authority, 2005; Walker,
2003a) and one article appearing in a trade publication (International Association of
Chiefs of Police, 2006), there were no peer-reviewed articles located that discuss solu-
tions for reducing disparity in police disciplinary sentences, which is an aspect of
organizational justice.
This is a neglected area of police management research and is the focus of this
article, which explores a single question: What is the prospect for increasing consis-
tency in police discipline through a rational-technical framework? Designing the
model then encouraging police executives to implement it could add value to the
largely unknown dimension of internal police discipline, as well as extend the organi-
zational justice literature. A rational sentencing framework is also an important and
overlooked aspect of police employees’ procedural due process that may keep man-
agement’s disciplinary decisions from being reduced or overturned (Bohlander, 1994;
Dhanoa & Kleiner, 2000; Fairbanks & Stewart, 1979; Florey, 1999).
Literature Review
Background
The majority of historical and contemporary literature on police discipline is focused
on accountability systems that address how complaints against the police are handled,
public access to the complaint process, citizen oversight, and how citizens are treated
by the police during the complaint process (e.g., American Civil Liberties Union
of New Jersey, 2009; Chevigny, 1969; De Angelis, 2009; Finn, 2000; Fogel, 1987;
Human Rights Watch, 1998; McCoy, 2010; Noble & Alpert, 2009; Page & Swanton,
1983; Smith, 2001; Stone, 2007; U.S. Department of Justice, 2001; U.S. Civil Rights
Commission, 1981; Walker, 1997, 2001, 2003b, 2005).
The focus has not been about administering internal discipline fairly and consis-
tently, such as the limits of upper police management’s discretion to impose discipline;
how officers are treated during the disciplinary process; what punishment is “just”
given the infraction; and the consequences of disproportionate sentences, such as

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