Communicating Down

I’ll admit “we” get too focused on material things – gear – and training while neglecting fundamental skills. One of which is communication. There are a tremendous number of facets to that. On the radio, in person to victims/witnesses/suspects, with our peers. One that really stands out, because of the wider-reaching impact it can have, is communicating with those we are responsible for. Our subordinates. Often, that is best done through the chain of command. However, there are times when direct communication with a specific individual is necessary — rather than relying on others to convey the information and intent.

But this articles cover both. And in advance, I am exceptionally thankful to the administrators, managers, and supervisors who do it right. The names have been changed to protect the, uhm, yeah, them.

From a mid-sized police department somewhere in the center of the country:

After eight years of inaccurate, ineffective work by an internal planning and research division, the agency’s chief brought in an outsider to take over and improve that entity. Unfortunately, the chief’s announcement was a single sentence. No why, no explanation of the individual’s background or their mission. I’ll use “P&R” for him.

Rumor intelligence indicated the new guy had been a chief in a smaller department and had fired “good cops.” Oh boy, that set the stage, but not in a positive way. When the “P&R” started asking supervisors questions about what and how their units did things, he faced suspicions about his “real” goals, leading to “abrasive” and passive-aggressive responses.

Later, “P&R” background came out, as did his new mission. He wasn’t a retired chief welfare hire; instead, he had been a very successful homicide investigator who went to grad school. His degree was in statistics and organizational analysis. Those he had previously fired. Equally problematic, politicians protected senior employees involved in corrupt behavior.

As time went on, the chief and other administrators did not help “P&R,” themselves, or the department. They did not discuss how “P&R” cleaned out the deadwood in the section. Nor did they talk about the abilities and capabilities of those from various three-letter agencies, “P&R” brought in to staff that section.

Lesson Learned

After about a year, “P&R” ‘s crew began turning out some very exceptional real-time and long-term products with solid analysis. These efforts were on the front end of predictive policing and immediately supported patrol and investigative units. But only after a lot of grief and suspicion. Had the chief and his admin communicated his intent and the background of “P&R,” the transition would have been much smoother.

From the Western U.S.

A lot of us have seen or been through the aftermath of critical incidents. Sometimes the event, regardless of its legitimacy, has significant impacts over time on the community, the organization, and the involved individuals. On occasion, it is the event that affects those involved. Frequently, though, the aftermath has a greater impact. And it can be devastating.

Add a significant divergence from how employees were historically treated, especially when there was little or no communication with those involved. Add in the perceptions of others in the organization about what is transpiring, and what would happen to them.

Picture an officer-involved critical incident that involves a seemingly sympathetic suspect. Add in terrible reporting and the (hopefully, now long-gone) attitude of “No comment while the investigation is pending” towards the media. Those outside the organization are driven by sympathy toward the suspect and emotions, without knowledge of how the event transpired or the law. That becomes a self-licking ice cream of anger perpetuated by activists and attorneys.

Internally, a fear of leaks to the media developed. So, the administration stopped sharing information with both the organization and the involved employees.

Over Time

What if that cycle continues for months and years? Adverse impacts on those involved and their friends, partners, and peers? Who becomes demotivated or retires on duty? Who looks for other jobs? Are the activists and outside attorneys encouraged or discouraged? Who is encouraged to make additional, salacious claims about the employees and the organization?

While the above description is benign and shallow, it has happened in more than one place. In one organization, a patrol division with triple-digit numbers of cops was truly decimated. Ten percent left for other agencies or jobs. Pro-active police work plummeted. It took several years, a new leader, and another significant event to even begin to turn that place around.

Why? The old agency head would not communicate with the involved employee, the organization, or the larger community. Each of those had lasting effects.

Discipline

What about a situation in which an employee made a mistake, and discipline is being imposed? Doesn’t matter whether the mistake or the discipline is small or large or in between. Direct communication with the subordinate can resolve misunderstandings, especially those that could fester over time. Doing so allows the employee to present their side of the issue. In California, governmental employees have the right to a Skelly hearing before discipline is imposed. Maybe direct conversations would mitigate adverse impacts and ill will down the road?

Closing Thoughts

Regardless of why the conversation needs to be had, agency heads, administrators, managers, and supervisors ALL need to make the effort, to spend the time having direct conversations with those affected by their decisions. And, as much as many of us complain about government, word is this happens in the private sector quite often.

Since this will publish before Thanksgiving 2025, take time with your family and friends – be thankful for what they bring to your life. And take a moment to be thankful for those you have worked for or with who really did communicate with you.