Dealing with the implementation of troublesome guidance can be pretty tough, and often involves walking a difficult tightrope between organizational loyalty on one hand, and maintaining personal integrity and credibility on the other. The recommended approach enables you to support the chief while not placing your professional reputation in terminal jeopardy with others in the organization.
The boss may not always be correct, but the boss is the boss. He (or she) the person who had the right to make troublesome decisions and implement procedures, even those that appear questionable. However, for the managers and supervisors whose role it is to implement such measures, a special blend of both organizational loyalty and common sense is necessary to retain organizational credibility.
Troublesome Guidance from the Chief
Within any organization, there will just about always be differences of opinion as to whether the guidance from the chief is good, bad, appropriate or otherwise. There are also occasional situations where the staff feels so strongly that the actions of the chief are wrong, that they fear a loss of their credibility within the organization if they pass on and/or implement the questionable actions of the chief. Before going any further, let me be clear that we are not talking about the common and predictable differences of opinion, but an issue of such importance and magnitude that the guidance is so troublesome as to likely be perceived within the organization as “over the top” or just plain wrong.
Fortunately, these types of situations do not arise often, but when they do, the manner in which they are handled can create organizational scar tissue that can remain long after that chief has left the agency. Rank and file personnel are smart and insightful people whose confidence is essential for supervisory and management personnel, and who are quick to recognize and strongly condemn superiors who seemingly put their heart and soul into supporting an issue when it is clear that the support is artificial.
Motivation for Troublesome Guidance
This is an extremely difficult issue because chiefs often make appropriate and necessary decisions that others disagree with, and sometimes that disagreement is vehement. Chiefs have both the right and responsibility to make controversial decisions and implement controversial issues, and their subordinate supervisors and managers have a responsibility to support and implement the guidance from the chief. Having said that, there are occasional situations, fortunately rare, where the guidance is so troublesome and/or bizarre, but not illegal, where the supervisors and commanders place their own credibility at risk in caring out the guidance of the chief.
Unfortunately there are also instances, although rare, where an unhappy chief, whose tenure is likely to be short, will “push the envelope” beyond the likely bounds of propriety with respect to troublesome guidance and decisions. Such actions might include enforcement strategies that are at odds with municipal leadership, particularly controversial personnel actions, and the questionable expenditure of funds. In situations like these, the actions of the departing chief can result in horrific damage to the credibility of subordinate managers who try to “sell” actions that border on the bizarre.
Candor is Essential
As cops of all ranks, our job is to protect life and property, and that includes preventing citizens from committing suicide. We have a similar responsibility to prevent the chief from committing organizational suicide by doing something really stupid. After much thought and reflection, applying every possible bit of objectivity to the issue, and recognizing the role of a chief in often doing unpopular things, if you continue to believe that the chief is about to do something really troublesome, then you need to be candid in attempting to educate the boss with respect to the potential consequences of the issue. Hopefully, there is at least one subordinate leader who had the necessary degree of rapport with the chief in order to really get his or her attention, and to be taken seriously. People need to realize that true loyalty does not mean blind obedience. But loyalty also includes the courage, diplomatically of course, to give the boss the benefit of candid concerns, the severity of the concerns and the perceived consequences of the actions if carried out. This does not mean a subtle hint or suggestion, but “with the bark still on the tree.”
Such a candid sharing of perceptions with the chief should always be conducted in a closed-door session. Limit the number of messengers to as few as possible to avoid embarrassment or sense of “ganging up” on the chief.
Troublesome Actions & Guidance
Once all actions to educate the chief have failed, and there continues to be a determination on his or her part to move forward with the troublesome guidance, subordinate supervisors and managers have a responsibility, again only if legal and ethical, to implement the chief’s guidance. However, support and implementing does not mean lying to others in the organization! It is important to not criticize the guidance, but that does not mean that you have to falsely say that you believe what is being done is good and appropriate. In such circumstances it is appropriate to indicate that you are aware that there is controversy attached to the issue, that you did have concerns about the guidance, that you passed on your concerns to the chief, that you are convinced that the chief is aware of those concerns, but that the chief is the chief and as such had the responsibility to take the actions that he or she believes to be appropriate, and that others in the organization have the responsibility to carry out the guidance that is provided.
However, another reality is that the folks beneath the chief are usually in the organization for the long run, and if they support the chief vigorously and unconditionally in a truly troublesome matter, they potentially do so at their own professional peril. This is a very difficult situation that many of us have found ourselves in. We want to support the boss, but are we to be damaged beyond repair because of that support?
The following is an example of a statement that an implementing subordinate manager might make in a situation of the nature being discussed:
“Let there be do doubt that this is a troubling and controversial issue to some folks within the organization. I can assure each of you that these concerns have been passed on to the chief, and that he (or she) is well aware of the concerns and the potential consequences of the actions involved. He (or she) is the chief and the person who gets the big bucks for making these types of decisions. Our job, whether we personally agree or disagree, is to the support the guidance from our chief. Folks, this conversation is essentially over, the time has come to move forward with the chief’s guidance on this issue. Should anyone feel a need to further discuss this issue, I will be available in my office after briefing.”
Summary
Dealing with situations of this nature can be pretty tough, and often involving walking a very difficult tightrope between personal and organizational loyalty on one hand, and maintaining personal integrity and credibility on the other. The recommended approach enables you to support the chief, while at the same time not placing your personal credibility in terminal jeopardy with other members of the organization.
This is a very delicate art and certainly not a conclusive science. Good luck in getting it right.
FBI-LEEDA Newsletter, November 2012