Even with the best intentions, some people in leadership positions will find themselves having a difficult time gaining or holding the respect of the people they are supposed to be leading. The leader may be trying their best to do everything correctly, but they still aren’t getting the results they wish, or the results they think they should be getting. And, quite often, they have no idea what they are doing wrong or why they aren’t getting those results.
As a police supervisor, at any level, your basic mission is to manage the resources for which you are responsible in order to provide the best possible police services to your town, city, county, or state. If you can’t effectively lead your people, you aren’t going to be able to do that.
The following is a brief list and accompanying explanations of a few mistakes I frequently see leaders making. I think these are seen so frequently because the fact that they are so common makes them counterintuitive. When a newly-promoted sergeant does the same things that he or she has seen every sergeant they’ve ever worked for do on a regular basis, it often doesn’t occur to them that the reason that sergeant never seemed very good at their job was due to these types of behavior.
This is certainly not a comprehensive list of common mistakes; there are probably an infinite number of errors a leader can make that will cause that leader to have a difficult time leading his or her people effectively, even when they are truly trying to do their best (which, sadly, cannot be said of all people in a leadership position.) However, eliminating these common mistakes is a good place to start.
1. Attempting to address “attitude” rather than “behavior”
Whenever I hear a supervisor complaining that they’ve told one of their officers or detectives to change their “bad” attitude, and that hasn’t happened, what I really hear is a supervisor admitting that they don’t know what they’re doing.
Attitude is the way a person thinks or feels about something. While attitude can certainly influence behavior, attitude is definitely not something a supervisor can change in a person simply by telling that person to change it. A good supervisor is likely to have a positive influence on someone’s attitude, and a bad supervisor is likely to have a negative influence on someone’s attitude, but neither supervisor is going to be able to change a person’s attitude by ordering them to do so.
Are there officers and detectives who have what would objectively be called a “bad” attitude? Certainly. So, what should you as their supervisor do about that? You need to be addressing their behavior, not what they may or may not be thinking or feeling.
For example: Let’s say you have a veteran patrol officer who regularly complains (in the locker room, in roll call, and in other situations away from the public eye) about having to act as a “marriage counselor” at domestic-type calls. He or she often vents about having to be an “adult babysitter” by mediating trivial arguments between couples that the officer feels should be able to deal with such issues themselves. This officer feels it’s a waste of time and resources, and they obviously dislike going to such calls for service. However, when they are dispatched to these domestic-type calls, they handle the situation professionally, objectively, and with what appears to be a genuine regard for the well-being of all parties involved. Their attitude is not good, but their behavior is exemplary.
Compare that to another officer on the shift who has the ideal outlook when it comes to domestic-type calls. He or she truly wants to help the parties involved and improve their situation. They believe it’s an important part of their job, not only taking enforcement action when necessary, but also providing the appropriate contact information for various social services and counseling agencies so the people can obtain assistance and hopefully avoid a situation where enforcement action becomes necessary. Unfortunately, when dispatched to these domestic-type calls for service, the officer often does a poor job handling the agitated parties. They get frustrated and short-tempered, and often end up escalating the situation. Frequently, they handle the situation so poorly that they wind up turning a “no-crime” event into a call where everyone winds up getting arrested. Their attitude is great; their behavior needs a lot of work.
For the officer in the first example, is there any behavior to address? Not really, though I suppose if the officer is an FTO it would be worth ensuring that he or she isn’t making those negative comments in front of their trainees. Other than that, they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and they are doing it well; what they think or feel about it is not something within your sphere of influence. If you as their supervisor try to counsel them on what they are thinking or feeling, it is not only going to fail, but it is also likely to lead them to conclude you have no clue what you are doing, because you are letting them know that what they think and feel is something you believe you can control.
By addressing the behavior, rather than the attitude, you can fix the problem. That second officer can learn techniques for dealing with agitated people at domestic-type situations, and they can be taught how to de-escalate conflicts without letting the call spiral out of control until the situation deteriorates to the point where everyone winds up getting arrested. It may take nothing more than having a patrol officer who excels in those situations go on those calls with that second officer so he or she can see another way of handling things. You can teach someone a different way to solve a problem far more easily than you can possibly teach someone to think or feel differently than they already do.
The only issue you may have as a supervisor with the first officer is that any officer who complains in such a manner is probably having some sort of issue in their personal life, their professional life, or both. You should be checking on their welfare in that regard, but from the viewpoint “Is there anything I can do to help?” rather than “You have a bad attitude and need to change it!”
To clarify, even though I’ve already said that you can’t control an officer’s attitude, you can (and should) recognize that a consistently “bad” attitude sometimes indicates a problem. There is a world of difference between a supervisor saying “You need to fix your attitude” and a supervisor saying “You seem a bit off, like there’s something bothering you. Is there anything you want to talk about?” There is also a world of difference between a supervisor who thinks “This officer has a lousy attitude! Why are they always giving me a hard time?” and a supervisor who thinks “This officer seems to be having a hard time; I’ll make sure to see if they need anything.”
When it comes to addressing unacceptable behavior, it is imperative that you focus solely on the behavior, and not at all on your perceived notion (which may be entirely correct) that they have a “bad” attitude. This is important for several reasons, not the least of which is that in order to correct an issue, that issue needs to be identified and a tangible method of fixing must be presented. Telling someone that what they are thinking or feeling is wrong is utterly pointless and is liable to have the opposite effect of what you want. If your attempt to identify the problem is to say “you have a bad attitude,” you are not actually identifying the problem. If you identify the problem as “we need to work on skills you can use to de-escalate various situations and calmly maintain control of a potentially volatile scene,” you have actually addressed the problem and also come up with a solution to fix it.
For example, if you have someone who is showing up 10-15 minutes late for work on a semi-regular basis, telling them that they have a bad attitude, while possibly being true, doesn’t do anything at all to help the officer or the situation. How should you focus on the behavior rather than the attitude in such a situation? A discussion with the officer is in order, with the goal being to identify why they keep being late for work, rather than why their attitude sucks and why they need to improve it. See if there are underlying issues, such as substance abuse, a medical problem, domestic issues at home, or the like. It could be as simple as the officer setting his or her alarm earlier in the morning, or leaving more time for the commute than they have been. The point is that you aren’t going to try to “fix” the way the officer is thinking and feeling, because not only is that not under your control, but it’s also none of your business. You are identifying the problem (being late for work) and working with the officer to fix that problem.
Think how you might feel in the same situation: You’ve made a mistake or two, and now your boss is telling you that how you are thinking and feeling about some nonspecific thing is bad and you’d better shape up or you’re going to get suspended. Would that be likely to help you or improve the situation? Or would you be more likely to feel that your supervisor is piling on and kicking you when you’re already down? Are you going to come away from that interaction with a positive opinion of your supervisor’s leadership skills? Is it likely to help the officer or the agency?
Along the same lines as not trying to convince your people that you can control what they think and feel, you should also avoid trying to control any and all things that are beyond your control and about which your opinion is irrelevant. If it’s none of your business, don’t try to make it your business.
We supervisors live in a world of general orders, rules and regulations, and, for the vast majority of us, union contracts. Just like your opinion of what an officer is thinking and feeling is irrelevant, so too is your opinion of the rules and/or the contract when it pertains to an officer or detective doing something they are permitted to do. If they are doing something they are allowed to do, keep your opinion to yourself. Trying to discourage behavior that is specifically allowed but that you personally don’t like is not what a good supervisor should be doing.
If, for example, several of your officers follow all the rules and contract language for taking vacation time on New Year’s Eve, and you are unhappy because now the shift will be at minimum staffing and you know it’s going to be busy, what you should do is keep your thoughts to yourself. If anyone hears you complaining that this person or that person took off on New Year’s Eve, that’s going to make you look foolish. Worse than that, it’s going to make you look like a control freak. What is your objective? To make them feel bad for taking time off that they are guaranteed by the contract? To make them feel guilty for not getting your approval before doing something they don’t require your approval to do? If your people are allowed to do something, your personal opinion is utterly and completely irrelevant and should be kept to yourself. If your boss was making negative comments, to your face or behind your back, whenever you do something you’re allowed to do, would it make it more or less likely for you to respect them and their abilities as a leader?
Try to keep in mind what I consider the first rule of being a good supervisor, which is: “It’s not about you.” Your people are not required to check with your personal opinions or preferences to see if they conflict with what the rules and/or the contract allows them to do. Your personal feelings regarding whatever they do (that is allowed by the rules and/or the contract) are completely irrelevant. Keep them to yourself.
2. Failing to acknowledge and appreciate “acceptable” behavior
Most supervisors don’t have an issue with acknowledging and rewarding truly outstanding behavior. But far too many supervisors, when it comes to what they consider “merely acceptable” behavior, are either unwilling to acknowledge and appreciate it, or they just don’t see any reason to do so.
Years ago, after being promoted to sergeant, I was sent to a class for new supervisors. On the first morning, after introductions, the instructor asked if anyone had any pressing questions to ask or issues to bring up. One person spoke up, asking (in a frustrated tone of voice) what we were supposed to do with the officers who “just did enough to get by” but who never seemed to put in any extra effort. I saw a number of my classmates nodding in agreement, and several offered examples from their own departments:
- What do you do with the officer who walks in thirty seconds before roll call is scheduled to start every single day, but who never bothers to come in a few minutes early and perhaps take a call for the off-going shift?
- What if you have “goals” for each patrol officer for, say, twenty motor vehicle contacts each month (including verbal warnings, written warnings, and infractions), and you have an officer who gets exactly twenty every month, without ever making the effort to get more?
The majority of the class, though certainly not everyone, were nodding in agreement, eagerly awaiting an answer to what they clearly perceived as a very common, very pressing problem. The instructor asked if anyone had a suggestion, and I spoke up to say that we should be acknowledging the work they already do and letting them know we appreciate it. Although the instructor indicated that was the best way to proceed, it was clear that many of my classmates disagreed. From observing other supervisors in action over the years, it’s also clear that many of them just don’t get it.
What’s another way of characterizing someone who is just doing enough to get by? That’s easy; the truth is that they are doing their job.
If you are at the firing range for qualifications, and the minimum passing score is 48 hits out of 60, what should you do with the officer who scores a 48? Fail them anyway? Make them requalify? Scold them for not putting in more effort? Of course not. You should mark them down as having qualified, because that’s precisely what happened.
If your squad is attending some sort of recertification class, and an 80% score on the exam is required to pass, what should you do with the officer who scores 80% on the exam? Make them retake the class? Tell them they failed and need to try harder? Tell them they have a bad attitude? No, you give them credit for passing the class, because that’s what they did.
If you have one or more officers or detectives who are “just doing enough to get by” and who rarely if ever put in extra time and effort to be really outstanding or do anything “extra,” what should you do with them? Scold them for having a lousy attitude? Counsel them for their lack of effort? Write them up and tell them they will be suspended if they don’t improve? Certainly not. You should be thanking them for doing their jobs and letting them know you appreciate it.
Police work is difficult. Not just the work itself, but also the schedule, the scrutiny by the bosses, the public, and the press, and the added bonus of sometimes testifying in court with a defense attorney whose case will only be helped if they can make you look incompetent, lazy, or careless. It’s all difficult work that requires a significant amount of effort to do well. If someone is doing “just enough to get by” then they are already expending considerable effort, and that’s worthy of acknowledgement and appreciation.
If you ever hope to have that officer or detective put forth even more effort, you need to acknowledge and appreciate the work they are already doing. Doing that is not a guarantee they will increase their efforts, but not doing that is virtually guaranteed to have a negative impact on their morale and job satisfaction, which is certainly not going to make them want to expend more effort than they already do.
3. Trying to be friends with everyone/Trying to be unfriendly with everyone
It’s relatively common for newly-promoted sergeants to be admonished with “You’re not there to be their friend;” referring, of course, to the people the new sergeant is supposed to be leading. While that is basically sound advice, it’s incomplete and inexact.
The common mistake here is actually two mistakes that are really flip sides of the same coin.
Some supervisors go out of their way to be friends with their people, usually in the form of leniency. Letting them get away with various things, not taking action when a good supervisor should, permitting them to ignore rules and regulations that people on other shifts or in other divisions are expected to follow, these are all examples of the sort of behavior a leader will exhibit if they are trying to be friends with their people. Perhaps they don’t want to be seen as a disciplinarian, or as an authority figure, because they are worried that such a view of them is incompatible with being seen as a friend.
The fact is, if you treat everyone fairly and with respect, and you make it clear by word and by deed that their needs come before yours, it’s a good bet that your people are going to view and treat you in a friendly manner. But that’s not why you do it; you treat everyone that way because that is the best way for a supervisor to proceed.
The flip side is that some supervisors go out of their way to be unfriendly to their people. Perhaps they are concerned that if they act in a way that could be interpreted as friendly, their people will think less of them, because they are going to assume they are worried about being friends. So, they intentionally behave in a distinctly unfriendly manner to avoid that. Or, as often happens with new sergeants, the people they are now required to supervise are already friends of theirs; they worked on the same shift or in the same unit for some length of time, and there was already an established friendship when the new sergeant received that promotion. In order to avoid what they fear will be an uncomfortable situation, where their friend expects them to take it easy on them or look the other way, they make it a point to be unfriendly and unreasonable so that there will be no mistaking the message; “I’m the boss now, not your friend.”
Just like wanting to be friends with everyone and letting that influence your behavior as a supervisor is wrong and counterproductive, so too is deliberately trying to be antagonistic with everyone. Neither course of action is what a good supervisor should do. Put your efforts into being fair with everyone, treating everyone with respect, and putting their wants and needs above your own, and don’t worry about being friends with everyone or making sure people realize that you're not there to be their friend.
It can be a fine line to walk, but it can be done. If you are unfailingly fair with everyone, and you always treat everyone with respect, you are most likely going to have a congenial relationship with your people, which will only help you and your agency. If you treat everyone with complete fairness, they aren’t going to get upset on the occasions when you have to correct them or even write them up officially. If they do, and they feel that you are betraying your friendship with them because you are doing your job, well… If they feel that way, they weren’t actually your friend to begin with.
If you feel it’s easier for you to be unreasonably harsh and authoritarian with everyone, so as to forestall any possibility of them expecting special favors due to past or current friendship, you need to be able to recognize the pitfalls inherent in that type of behavior. As I’ve said before, it’s not about you. It may seem like it will be easier to treat everyone badly in order to avoid having any of them expect leniency or special treatment because of your friendship with them, but you shouldn’t be doing things that hurt the unit or the department simply because it’s easier for you.
About the Author:
Michael O’Brien spent three years in the 101st Military Police Company at Fort Campbell and five years in the 344th Military Police Company (USAR) in New Haven as a sergeant and squad leader before joining the Brookfield (CT) Police Department in 1997. He was promoted to patrol sergeant in 2004 and to detective sergeant in 2009. He is an avid backpacker and hiker, traffic crash reconstructionist, and member of Mensa, and is also the father of high-school-age triplets. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
Michael O’Brien
Michael O’Brien spent three years in the 101st Military Police Company at Fort Campbell and five years in the 344th Military Police Company (USAR) in New Haven as a sergeant and squad leader before joining the Brookfield (CT) Police Department in 1997. He was promoted to sergeant in 2004 and to detective sergeant in 2009. He is an avid hiker and backpacker, a traffic crash reconstructionist, firearms instructor, and member of Mensa, and is also the father of high-school-age triplets. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
