Ethical Misconduct
If an officer thinks certain citizens are deserving of aggressive police practices, he or she is likely to behave aggressively, perhaps to the point of overreaction or even physical abuse. Or if the officer thinks certain citizens are deserving of no police attention, he or she is likely to behave passively, perhaps to the extent of refusing to help someone. Ethical misconduct is the very root of other forms of misconduct for which managers must be alert.
WHAT LINES?
· Negative people are worse than negative occurrences. The argument is over in minutes; the person may hang around for years.
—Jeffrey Gitomer
Police agencies can make three costly mistakes about the legalistic, professional, and ethical lines. First, in not drawing them at all, or clearly. Second, once created, not conveying them to all employees with regular reinforcement. Third, not establishing guardrails that automatically trigger disciplinary responses.
· • While it doesn’t happen often, it does happen that some police employees will employ the “Duh” game when informed about their rule-breaking behavior. Here’s one type: “Duh! No one told me that this behavior was bad. So it’s not my fault; it’s the department’s fault.” Another is, “Duh! I don’t remember being told about this policy.” I recommend that you and all police managers do at least the following in the way of clearly drawing lines of conduct thereby attacking the “Duh” tactic proactively. In fact, to eliminate this so-called defense, best practices based on principles of fairness include routinely advising employees of the organization’s policies and procedures. Prentice-Hall graciously agreed to allow the preceding section, “Drawing the Lines,” to be reproduced. You are welcome to use or modify as you like the statement about the three types of police misconduct and indicate that police misconduct of any type (legalistic, professional, or ethical) will not be tolerated by the police agency. Put it in manuals, on the walls of your police buildings and have every employee read, sign, and date it. The person’s manager should do the same. Place the signed form in the employee’s personnel folder. Update the form annually.
· • Exhibit 9-1 is a government form and is also for your use. Modify it as necessary. Then follow the same exact steps as above.
· • Return to Chapter 2 and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics ( Figure 2-1 ). Again Prentice-Hall has O.K.’d your use of this document. Follow the same steps.
· The above recommendations are not guaranteed to stop the “Duh” factor, but it will significantly diminish it. Moreover, it is likely to decrease wrongful conduct in general.
There is one other outcropping behavioralism that merits attention here. It involves obeying orders. There is a slogan, “Challenge Authority!” A manager who abuses or misuses his authority must be challenged, stopped! However, to question a manager’s legitimate command is borderline, if not, an overt act of disobedience. You may be recalling the earlier admonition about empowerment. About including people’s ideas and hopes in a decision you’re going to make about their work. Not that they’re going to make but that you’re going to make! The manager is there to manage; the leader is there to lead; and the staff is obligated to comply.
Some employees pride themselves in asking, “Why are we doing this? Why do you want me to do it this way? You owe it to me to tell me why there is this line!” Successful police departments do not, cannot function based on a hierarchy of “whys.” Suffice it to say, they function best on a hierarchy of commands. This is especially so in the “quasi-military” context, where the police department has even greater latitude to burden an employee’s rights, particularly when the exercise of those rights impact morale, harmony, uniformity, and trust in the ranks.
You don’t owe an explanation for everything you do or ask others to do. Your boss doesn’t owe you one either. At times understanding can wait, but obedience cannot. In fact, you may never understand some commands until you obey them first. Some of us pick and choose the commands we obey—this is thought of as “partial” obedience. But, there is no such thing as partial obedience. You either obey or disobey an order. And, when you disobey—even partially—this is disobedience . Similarly, delayed obedience is disobedience.