New Paragraph

Make change for the right reasons
September 16, 2024

Cover Photo from www.quotemaster.org



Sometimes wholesale change isn’t necessary

I recently heard of an incident in a police service where an individual convinced the senior executive that an established unit was dysfunctional and needed significant changes. Without question or consultation, the Unit Manager was reassigned and a new Manager from the “A Team” (coincidentally the same individual that suggested change was required) was placed in charge. Many changes were implemented without consultation, and eventually most of the remaining staff members requested transfers. Those that remained were demoralized. They all felt that they were doing good work, had put their hearts and souls into their jobs, and all they had built had been destroyed.


Within a year, the unit was not showing signs of delivering better service, but staff and client groups felt the changes had diminished the effectiveness of the unit. Management then directed that methodologies largely return to the way they were, and the A-Team Manager was promoted and transferred. Life in the unit went on from there. It was too late for the ousted Manager that may never recover career-wise, while the A-Team “leader” was rewarded for the disaster.


Sound familiar? I know I could take that same template and apply it to a number of leadership catastrophes I’ve watched from afar. It often came down to who was liked by the bosses of the day and who they believed. As above, if an A-Team member said, “That place is a mess, it needs change, I can fix it”, then that was accepted as gospel. No study, no discussion with client groups, no assessment, just banish some committed and hard-working Manager to the backbench and ruin their morale and reputation, then the shining star A-Team member is sent in to “fix” it all. Most often it was not a success story down the road.


Similarly, I saw situations where a good Manager transferred or retired, and the new Manager told the senior executive, “What a disaster this area is but have no fear, I’ll fix it.” The good reputations of retired leaders were sullied forever by bootlickers that managed up and back-stabbed their entire career, but never had an original thought.


The fact that situations like this ever occur is a failure of leadership on many fronts.


Where was the immediate supervisor that the Unit Manager reported to? If the place was a mess, then why wasn’t he or she aware of that and take action to improve service delivery before some uninvolved person meddled for self-serving purposes. Also, before making significant change while ruining a career and the morale of other good employees, there should be some analysis of the business plan and metrics achieved, as well as discussions with staff and client groups. Significant change should never occur solely because of the feedback of an outside individual with a personal agenda. Making change too quickly or without foundation serves neither the unit, the clients, the organization or all involved people very well.


In our rapidly changing world, organizations that are continually assessing their internal and external environments and have developed a culture among personnel at all levels whereby they are constantly looking for ways to better deliver service, will make change for the right reasons. Change that isn’t for the personal gain of individuals but for the customers and the organization as a whole, will lead to success for the company and undoubtedly for the employees therein.


Conversely, companies and agencies that remain in the “that’s how we’ve always done it” rut, will remain stagnant at best and the likelihood of delivering the very best service possible to the client will not be high. But then again, when organizations are properly scanning and assessing their environments and the feedback from clients and employees indicates all is well, then there may only be the need for minor tweaking occasionally and not a need for wholesale change.


A cycle of continuous dialogue is the only path to success, but unfortunately in some work units and entire organizations it is not always seen or felt. In some instances, frustrated employees feel that only a chosen few of personnel have a say and therefore keep their opinions and suggestions to themselves. The default position of “let them figure it out” that emerges helps no one in the long run.


An internal culture of openness, honesty and the feeling of employees that their opinion not only counts but is encouraged, is the key to success on so many fronts, including identifying the “why” the “what” and “how” to implement change effectively.

 

By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
By Chris Lewis December 20, 2024
$1.3 billion is a lot of money, but it’s nothing more than a good start.
Share by: