Types of Disciplinary Actions
· • Verbal Warning: The purpose of a verbal warning is to allow a police manager to bring to the employee’s attention the need to improve his or her performance, work habits, and behavior or attitude and to serve as a warning against further repetition of such unsatisfactory conduct. The commander or supervisor can use the occasion to identify and define the area needing improvement and inform the employee as to how such improvement can be realistically achieved. Supervisors document verbal warnings on an employee incident form or as designated by a division commander (e.g., monthly activity log). This documentation eliminates any ambiguity as to what is required by the employee and gives the employee clear expectations for future behavior.
· • Written Warning: The purpose of a written warning is to assist a police manager to bring to the employee’s attention the need to improve his or her performance, work habits, behavior or attitude after a verbal warning has not resulted in expected improvement, or when an employee commits a more serious offense.
· • Written Reprimand: The purpose of a written reprimand is to facilitate a police manager to bring to the employee’s attention the need to immediately correct his or her performance, work habits, behavior or attitude after a written warning has not resulted in expected improvement, or when an employee commits a more serious offense.
· • Suspension: In the event offenses are continued or repeated and the employee has already received verbal and written warnings, and/or has received a written reprimand from the director of public safety, or if the nature of the offense is sufficiently serious, an employee should be suspended for a specific period of time, not to exceed 30 working days. Such suspensions can be with or without pay and, if for more than one day, are issued on a consecutive working day basis. A suspended employee should not be permitted to work on his or her normal day(s) off, nor take paid leave time, nor make up the time by working overtime in lieu of a payroll deduction for the period of suspension. Allowing suspended employees to do so takes away from the punitive nature of the penalty, although realistically speaking, many police unions provide “insurance,” so to speak, to officers who receive suspensions so that no pay is lost.
· • Demotion: In instances in which the employee is rated or in a promoted position and the nature of the offense is sufficiently serious, the employee may be reduced in rank.
· • Dismissal: For a continued series of lesser offenses, or on the first occurrence of a serious offense, an employee may be dismissed from employment. Let’s look at this subject more closely.
STRUCTURED EXERCISE 9–2
By the very nature of their task, police officers are sometimes confronted and involved with conflicting and disturbing occurrences. For some this may begin to have an effect on their behavior, whereas others don’t appear bothered at all. (Some of these might be personal off-duty occurrences, for example, domestic problems.) Each class participant is to make a list of several situations that he or she believes might fit into that concept. (If nonpolice personnel are in this group, they may list situations from their work or life experiences.) This could even be something such as working with a problem officer.
When this is done, select a group leader to briefly record these situations. Preferably, use a newsprint tablet and fasten the completed sheets on the wall. (The group may wish to store these for later review and comment.) Each participant will read his or her first entry in turn, and so on, until each entry is recorded. Duplicates will be scored with a mark behind the first listing. When all have responded, discuss the list and its relationship to officers, perhaps officers you have known.
Be sure to leave sufficient time for each participant to prepare a brief scenario (in writing) of how one or more adverse experiences has negatively affected an officer and how that officer has or has not affected others. (Do not use true names.) Submit these to the instructor, who will read and share the results, probably at a later meeting, depending on group size.
The other half of this exercise, at another meeting, is to share your thoughts on how this problem—if it was a problem—might have been or was diminished. Peer counseling is one good idea. Be creative. How would you protect yourself? How would you protect your friend? Discuss positive and negative ways in which some officers deal with this kind of adversity.
The Firing Line
The “firing line” is one test of a department’s leadership. Who, why, when, and even how someone is fired goes to the very heart of the character of a police agency, its management, and its leadership. Obviously, it is the responsibility of the leader to cleanse the system of those people who are not contributing or who are impeding the general efforts of all the others. Unfortunately, there are always some people in every agency who simply do not want to work. They may be lazy or disturbed or resentful or otherwise unlawful, but for whatever reason, they don’t do their share, nor do they want to.
EASY TO SEE
It is easy enough to recognize bad people in line jobs. In the ranks of management, it can be more complex. Nevertheless, everyone around such a person recognizes that he or she is a faker and a problem to the strength of the police agency. Even though it is easy for many in the agency to identify a problem employee or manager, many may be reluctant to tell the boss what is going on. Most do not want to point out problem managers due to a strong sense of loyalty and the importance of following the appropriate chain of command. But they will be watching the poor employee and judging management’s response to the poor behavior. And it is the duty of the leader to recognize and get rid of that kind of person for the overall good of the organization. If the leader fails to take care of the problem, the leader is the problem.
Alert police managers will recognize the clues and will move fast as soon as the facts are discovered. And when they do, they will earn the respect of all the others who are hardworking, imaginative, and productive and who have long resented the freeloaders and violators in their ranks. In that sense, firing people can be a constructive role of a department’s management. It clears the air and improves the climate, especially during lean economic times when your poor performers are earning the same or even more as your hardworking employees.
DIFFICULT TO DO
Firing people is always difficult. First of all, it’s the moment of truth for a police leader. You never face the problem of firing somebody without honestly examining the question of how much you yourself have contributed to the situation. Are you firing him or her because the department is under extreme political pressure, because of internal conflicts, or because you dislike the person? If so, then it isn’t the officer’s fault; it’s yours. You are supposed to run the department so that it will be strong enough to weather bad conditions.
Second, there are perplexing and frustrating legal bases to cover. Police personnel employment law is complex and often confusing. It seems that everyone wants to be involved—the agency’s attorneys, attorneys for the person terminated, civil service boards, other officials who act as arbitrators, trial courts, and the list goes on. Even with unpleasant repercussions, you must be courageous and not be intimidated and hesitant to take action. If you don’t act, you’ll lose your followership.
· If the reasons and documentation for firing are founded and can be sustained, then the manager is obligated to move for termination. If others decide to overturn the manager’s decision, then they should be held accountable for any possible “negligent retention.”
REACTION
In physics it is well known that for every action there is a reaction. Every time a police manager takes an action for or against someone in the department, either firing or promoting a person, there is a reaction throughout the agency. The reaction is not simply between the boss and the employee. It reverberates to all the others down the line, and they pass judgment on what the boss did and the way he or she did it, and they react accordingly.
RETALIATION
All of your decisions, from a verbal warning on through dismissal, must be tied to proven facts and sound logic. Any appearance, factual or not, of you retaliating against an employee can be the basis for rejecting your recommended punishment and can also result in costly litigation. It’s not your job to get even with the malcontent or malefactor. It’s your job to stop bad behavior for the betterment of the entire police organization
THE RIGHT THING
Ultimately, a police leader must take action and do the right thing. No one wants his or her leader to be tolerant of incompetence through ignorance, indecisiveness, or weakness. No one will follow a weak manager. A weak manager is the worst kind. You cannot rely on the judgment of such people because you don’t know what they will do in a difficult situation. Much more respect and loyalty is given to the courageous leader, the one who is not afraid to make difficult and even unpopular decisions, as long as he or she is perceived to be decent and fair and reliable in his or her dealings with the staff.
· Remember—problem employees are few in actual number, but they can, if not controlled, generate enormous adverse consequences for the operations of a police agency and you as a manager. Remember—they range from the gossipy malcontent to the vicious malefactor. Remember—a considerable degree of your success is measured by your ability to identify and discipline those who decide to act criminally, unprofessionally, or unethically.
PROBLEM BOSSES