Law Enforcement and the First-Line Supervisor
There is a great deal of research that points to any number of issues law enforcement needs to address. In my current role as the President of the Women in Federal Law Enforcement Foundation, Inc. (WIFLE), I have been immersed in studying and learning from experts in this field. When I apply what I have learned, the following question comes to mind: “What is the one area of law enforcement that does not get enough attention?” As I think about this, one common theme that shows up in my research – and is frequently discussed within the law enforcement ranks – is the first-line supervisor. Here are three examples of why I believe we need to focus our efforts on the first-line supervisor.
Under the concept of procedural justice, which is the social contract that law enforcement has with the public, they (the public) want the police to treat them with respect, fairness, and to listen to their concerns. Our hope is that the public will, in turn, give law enforcement the power and authority to tell them what to do and they will comply. However, failure to honor this two-way code of mutual trust and respect erodes trust between the police and the communities they serve. As a result, this stark reality continues to be one of the most prevalent issues that we face today.
Now, researchers also queried law enforcement officers about what they want from their leadership. You guessed it. They want the same thing from their leadership as the public wants from their law enforcement agencies. If leadership doesn’t respect and trust their people how can the public get what doesn’t exist?
Researchers have also found that one of the leading causes of attrition is poor supervision and leadership. Even worse, they found that oftentimes employees do not tell the truth on exit interviews because they’re not quite sure if their former supervisors/leaders will tarnish their reputations or not – to a prospective employer. So, not only do law enforcement officers feel they are not respected, treated unfairly, and not listened to, they don’t seem to trust their agencies. When we look at the cost of attrition – in cases involving a special agent with the top-secret clearance – the amounts are estimated as being as high as a quarter of million dollars each. If an agency lost just 10 people to anything other than retirement, then that is 2.5 million dollars. Think of what you could do with that amount in your operating budget?
Lastly is the issue of sexual harassment and discrimination. Depending on the size of the agency, some estimates tell us that about 25% of the workforce has experienced some form of sexual harassment and/or discrimination. If that is true, then couldn’t that allegedly mean that up to another 25% of the workforce is engaging in the act? It is equally disheartening to think (if simple math indicates) that up to 50% of the workforce “could possibly” be engaging in activity that undermines the missions of our agencies? Additionally, and in some instances – the findings of harassment or discrimination are not often based on the merits of the case presented by the alleged victim. These findings are sometimes based on retaliation and/or reprisal for engaging in protected activity.
The one thing that these three examples have in common is the first-line supervisors. The
first-line supervisor not respecting or treating people fairly, harassing or discriminating against people in their charge, or failing to take appropriate action when one of their people is targeted, and finally not creating a sense of trust. They don’t trust their employees to do their jobs and they can’t be trusted to do the right thing. Supervisors are the cornerstone of any organization, not just in law enforcement. Without them, the organization cannot function.
It will fail – and yet, it is the one position that we, as a profession, spend the least amount of effort on.
Now, no one sets out to make poor selections. Nonetheless, this fluid conversation about
first-line supervisors – is still at the top of the leaderboard. To be honest, our processes don’t select bad supervisors. We have hired enough good people, and we have an excellent pool of people to choose from. However, we have also picked just enough “not so good” selections that we have a problem. Poor supervisors don’t grow up to be good leaders – and agencies cannot afford poor leadership.
We often use operational superiority as key to select our supervisors, and operational soundness is important. It is a key component of supervising. Before we select people to fill the supervisor ranks, we have put them months of meeting the hiring criteria, followed by months of basic training, followed by a probationary period, and then years of experience. All this to do the basic job. However, we spend no time preparing supervisors for the other three quarters of the job, which is coaching, mentoring, teaching, advocating, disciplining, protecting, and preparing their employees to become the future leaders of the agency.
How do we do this? Well, now that is the subject for another article.
This article was written by Catherine Sanz, President of Women in Federal Law Enforcement.
This column from Women in Federal Law Enforcement (WIFLE) is part of the FEDforum, an initiative to unite voices across the federal community. The FEDforum is a space for federal employee and law enforcement groups to share their organizations’ initiatives and activities with the FEDagent audience.
Be sure to subscribe to FEDagent so you never miss an update!
Life Insurance for Feds, By Feds. Since 1943, WAEPA has helped provide peace of mind for more than 46,000 Civilian Feds and their families. Apply for Group Term Life Insurance today at WAEPA.org.