Monday, January 3, 2011
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Unleashing the Power of Adversarial Perspectives
Some estimate that we self-talk (internal dialogue) at a rate of about 1200 words per minute. Given that, most self-talk takes the form of personal justifications (why I am right) and external blaming (reasons why others who are not completely useful to my rightness are wrong) it is little wonder that it is often said; “healthy people talk to themselves, unhealthy people listen to themselves.” In other words, all you have to do to hear a constant stream of personal justifications and external blame (which has the affect of destroying true; self-awareness, environmental awareness, responsiveness to others and thus relationships) is to fail to talk to yourself.
One example of effective self-talk is intentional valuing. Once I am humble enough to admit to myself that my ceaseless, natural internal dialogue (1200 WPM) is anesthetizing, blinding and destructive I come to value alternative and adversarial perspectives. I create an intentional value system that covets alternative/adversarial perspectives of those around me. I come to see adversarial perspectives as the best hope I have of breaking my natural proclivity to self-deceive.
This is counterintuitive so let us try an analogy. I have a friend for whom squirrels became a great source of loss and frustration. The squirrels would make nests in her car engine compartment and chew up the vehicle wiring harness, causing hundreds of dollars in damage, overnight! Imagine (the rest of this is pretend) if the damages became so repetitive that she could no longer afford to fix her car. As a result, she lost her job and was unable to pay her bills or even buy food. Eventually her hunger and deprivation caused her to begin to see the annoying squirrels as a source of nourishment. Now she studies the squirrels, discovers how to harvest them, clean them, prepare them and consumes them. Now she receives vital nourishment from what had previously been nothing more than a costly annoyance. Besides being nourished and strengthened, while harvesting and cleaning the squirrels she learns to be more aware of her physical surroundings and is thus safer.
Here is a critical point: The friend would not become a squirrel, by ingesting squirrel – rather the squirrels provide nourishment and strength as long as they continue to present themselves to her. If the squirrels leave the area, my friend looses the annoyance, but she also looses the nourishment.
We should learn to value alternative perspectives like squirrels. The adversarial perspective, once an annoyance, can become a source of nourishment and strength. Nourishing my situational awareness and thus strengthening my effectiveness. I must discover the best way to proactively capture alternative perspectives, clean them, prepare them and ingest them. I will not become or adopt the adversarial perspective by ingesting it; it will rather nourish and strengthen me!
Consider a recent training session where two women (not police department employees) who live in the inner city attended. These women had a rather adversarial perspective of the police. In a nutshell (pun intended), they saw the police as uncaring about the many tragic homicides. They also saw the police as oppressively consumed with mindless enforcement of minor traffic ordinances. As the women spoke, you could see the anger and disdain spread across the L.E. attendees (these members work hard and have the best of intentions the anger was rooted in fear). This adversarial perspective was consuming the wiring harness off the engine of self-justification. L.E. members predictably shunned and isolated the women during breaks, talking about them with hushed tones of contempt. On the third day, however (after “getting out of the box”) the women shared a similar adversarial perspective. But in contrast, during break, several L.E. members gathered around the women, leaned forward and were listening! The L.E. members had apparently begun to value the adversarial perspective. To the extent members “cleaned, prepared and consumed” the adversarial perspective their situational awareness was dramatically increased and their effectiveness was strengthened. They did however not become squirrels.
One example of effective self-talk is intentional valuing. Once I am humble enough to admit to myself that my ceaseless, natural internal dialogue (1200 WPM) is anesthetizing, blinding and destructive I come to value alternative and adversarial perspectives. I create an intentional value system that covets alternative/adversarial perspectives of those around me. I come to see adversarial perspectives as the best hope I have of breaking my natural proclivity to self-deceive.
This is counterintuitive so let us try an analogy. I have a friend for whom squirrels became a great source of loss and frustration. The squirrels would make nests in her car engine compartment and chew up the vehicle wiring harness, causing hundreds of dollars in damage, overnight! Imagine (the rest of this is pretend) if the damages became so repetitive that she could no longer afford to fix her car. As a result, she lost her job and was unable to pay her bills or even buy food. Eventually her hunger and deprivation caused her to begin to see the annoying squirrels as a source of nourishment. Now she studies the squirrels, discovers how to harvest them, clean them, prepare them and consumes them. Now she receives vital nourishment from what had previously been nothing more than a costly annoyance. Besides being nourished and strengthened, while harvesting and cleaning the squirrels she learns to be more aware of her physical surroundings and is thus safer.
Here is a critical point: The friend would not become a squirrel, by ingesting squirrel – rather the squirrels provide nourishment and strength as long as they continue to present themselves to her. If the squirrels leave the area, my friend looses the annoyance, but she also looses the nourishment.
We should learn to value alternative perspectives like squirrels. The adversarial perspective, once an annoyance, can become a source of nourishment and strength. Nourishing my situational awareness and thus strengthening my effectiveness. I must discover the best way to proactively capture alternative perspectives, clean them, prepare them and ingest them. I will not become or adopt the adversarial perspective by ingesting it; it will rather nourish and strengthen me!
Consider a recent training session where two women (not police department employees) who live in the inner city attended. These women had a rather adversarial perspective of the police. In a nutshell (pun intended), they saw the police as uncaring about the many tragic homicides. They also saw the police as oppressively consumed with mindless enforcement of minor traffic ordinances. As the women spoke, you could see the anger and disdain spread across the L.E. attendees (these members work hard and have the best of intentions the anger was rooted in fear). This adversarial perspective was consuming the wiring harness off the engine of self-justification. L.E. members predictably shunned and isolated the women during breaks, talking about them with hushed tones of contempt. On the third day, however (after “getting out of the box”) the women shared a similar adversarial perspective. But in contrast, during break, several L.E. members gathered around the women, leaned forward and were listening! The L.E. members had apparently begun to value the adversarial perspective. To the extent members “cleaned, prepared and consumed” the adversarial perspective their situational awareness was dramatically increased and their effectiveness was strengthened. They did however not become squirrels.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Chip Weighs in on the "Warrior" Discussion
Every so often, I find myself speaking to someone who questions what it truly means to be a Warrior. I am sure there are many different images that come to mind when you hear someone referred to in that light. Is the running back who rushes for 1000 yards in a single season a Warrior? How about the Heavy Weight Boxing Champion who wins most of his bouts by knockout, or the MMA fighter who is undefeated?
"Bushido" means "way of the warrior," and the word "Samurai" literally means "one who serves." On the surface at least, a solider or police officer must surely qualify for the title. Does graduating the police academy or completing basic training make one a Warrior? Perhaps....
Let's consider this from another perspective: Trained mechanics know how to change the oil in a car. I know how to change the oil in a car. Does that qualify me to call myself a mechanic? Certainly not. I am missing practically all of the other skills necessary to deserve that title. Using that logic, is it possible that one can fight and even serve others, without being a Warrior? I offer that someone can be an extremely skilled fighter or a selfless public servant without being a Warrior. So, what then is the difference?
Physical competence is very important. I think a Warrior must be skilled in combat and properly conditioned. She must be able to protect others and have the confidence to face deadly threats. The Warrior doesn't have to fight, but she must be prepared to do so if the need arises. I think a Warrior must have mental clarity. He must know what he can do and be astutely aware of his limitations and options. The Warrior understands that battles are won or lost in the preparation. A Warrior should have a spiritual certainty that permits him to lay down his life in the service of others. These things are all critical to Warriorship, but they are not unique to the Warriors among us. There is another, invaluable ingredient.
The true Warrior understands that the most important battle to be fought is an internal one, and the foe is extremely formidable. The Warrior's battle is the battle against his own fears, biases, prejudices and loyalties that prevent him from acting for what is right. It is a battle against self. A Warrior respects the humanity of all persons and, as a result, respects their adversarial potential as well as their individual rights. The Warrior is tactically and interpersonally effective. The ideal balance of compassion, love, virtue and viciousness. A Warrior faces ALL her fears, both internal and external.
The path of the Warrior is not for the feint of heart. Some of the attributes appear soft on the surface, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many people are at war with the notion of valuing the humanity of others. I was for a long time, and I continue to struggle with it everyday. The battlefield is in our hearts and minds, and the true Warrior exists for the fight....
"Bushido" means "way of the warrior," and the word "Samurai" literally means "one who serves." On the surface at least, a solider or police officer must surely qualify for the title. Does graduating the police academy or completing basic training make one a Warrior? Perhaps....
Let's consider this from another perspective: Trained mechanics know how to change the oil in a car. I know how to change the oil in a car. Does that qualify me to call myself a mechanic? Certainly not. I am missing practically all of the other skills necessary to deserve that title. Using that logic, is it possible that one can fight and even serve others, without being a Warrior? I offer that someone can be an extremely skilled fighter or a selfless public servant without being a Warrior. So, what then is the difference?
Physical competence is very important. I think a Warrior must be skilled in combat and properly conditioned. She must be able to protect others and have the confidence to face deadly threats. The Warrior doesn't have to fight, but she must be prepared to do so if the need arises. I think a Warrior must have mental clarity. He must know what he can do and be astutely aware of his limitations and options. The Warrior understands that battles are won or lost in the preparation. A Warrior should have a spiritual certainty that permits him to lay down his life in the service of others. These things are all critical to Warriorship, but they are not unique to the Warriors among us. There is another, invaluable ingredient.
The true Warrior understands that the most important battle to be fought is an internal one, and the foe is extremely formidable. The Warrior's battle is the battle against his own fears, biases, prejudices and loyalties that prevent him from acting for what is right. It is a battle against self. A Warrior respects the humanity of all persons and, as a result, respects their adversarial potential as well as their individual rights. The Warrior is tactically and interpersonally effective. The ideal balance of compassion, love, virtue and viciousness. A Warrior faces ALL her fears, both internal and external.
The path of the Warrior is not for the feint of heart. Some of the attributes appear soft on the surface, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many people are at war with the notion of valuing the humanity of others. I was for a long time, and I continue to struggle with it everyday. The battlefield is in our hearts and minds, and the true Warrior exists for the fight....
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Legacy of Excellence Conference in Calgary Canada
A couple of weeks ago Chip and I had the privilege of presenting our “Foundations” material at the Legacy of Excellence Conference in Calgary Canada. Brian Willis of Winning Mind Training, hosted and managed the conference extremely well and provided top-notch training. I could tell that the conference is truly a labor of love for Brian and his family!
One of the presenters was kind enough to provide in-depth feedback regarding “Foundations.” A couple of his comments had me thinking deeply for a couple of days before I responded. His concern arose after talking to a couple of younger officers over breakfast the day after our presentation. One concern regarded a need to provide the base motivation for participants, namely “What’s in it for me” WIIFM. The second concern surrounded the fact that Chip and his experience as an S.W.A.T. team leader presented him as practically superhuman and therefore irrelevant to the average officer. Below is a paraphrase of my response, which I thought was worth posting on the blog.
Without a doubt, WIIFM – has been a long standing lever, for our western culture generally and L.E. specifically. WIIFM is a holdover from carrot and stick management practices that are Newtonian in concept and output. (You only get out of something – an amount equivalent to what you are able to put into it). Current research proves this to be true (Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us – Daniel Pink, Predictably Irrational – Daniel Ariely, Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior – Ori and Rom Brafman) all support the same idea. If you appeal to the selfish / pleasure centers of the human brain, you shut down the altruistic center. The altruistic center is where Chip and I want to appeal and work! That is where our profession desperately needs to be. We are calling for a “Revolutionarily Traditional way of being police in the 21st century.” Revolutionary - because we call for a break from the current ME – ME - ME cultural mindset we live under. Traditional - in that we appeal to time-honored concepts of self-sacrificing service for a noble cause, much more inspiring and greater than our own myopic self absorbed, self-glutting motivations. We are pursuing quantum, synergistic, viral, rapid, deep change and outcomes. We can only get there by appealing to the altruistic centers of the brain and heart. If the officers you talked to did not see WIIFM, Chip and I did indeed fail them and for that I am truly sorry, not because we did not cover WIIFM, but because we left them thinking that way!
Please see these blog posts for more thoughts on this:
http://unleashingrespect.blogspot.com/2010/07/fear-has-lost-its-value-and-has-become.html - http://unleashingrespect.blogspot.com/2010/04/revolutionarily-traditional-way-of.html http://unleashingrespect.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-review-of-linchpin-are-you.html
As far as Chip not being, a “mere mortal” remember his stories of being a “recovering coward” and an “abject failure as a father”. What others are seeing is the natural outcomes of the quadrants – decisiveness with humility and empathy = synergy (discovering and unlocking the power of existing structure and order to accomplish critical mission – as opposed to always trying to control and subdue the differences and variances we encounter). To the casual observer, this appears superhuman. In reality, the outcomes are merely the exponential results that spontaneously erupt when unconditional respect for others releases their efforts and potential around the mission.
One of the presenters was kind enough to provide in-depth feedback regarding “Foundations.” A couple of his comments had me thinking deeply for a couple of days before I responded. His concern arose after talking to a couple of younger officers over breakfast the day after our presentation. One concern regarded a need to provide the base motivation for participants, namely “What’s in it for me” WIIFM. The second concern surrounded the fact that Chip and his experience as an S.W.A.T. team leader presented him as practically superhuman and therefore irrelevant to the average officer. Below is a paraphrase of my response, which I thought was worth posting on the blog.
Without a doubt, WIIFM – has been a long standing lever, for our western culture generally and L.E. specifically. WIIFM is a holdover from carrot and stick management practices that are Newtonian in concept and output. (You only get out of something – an amount equivalent to what you are able to put into it). Current research proves this to be true (Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us – Daniel Pink, Predictably Irrational – Daniel Ariely, Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior – Ori and Rom Brafman) all support the same idea. If you appeal to the selfish / pleasure centers of the human brain, you shut down the altruistic center. The altruistic center is where Chip and I want to appeal and work! That is where our profession desperately needs to be. We are calling for a “Revolutionarily Traditional way of being police in the 21st century.” Revolutionary - because we call for a break from the current ME – ME - ME cultural mindset we live under. Traditional - in that we appeal to time-honored concepts of self-sacrificing service for a noble cause, much more inspiring and greater than our own myopic self absorbed, self-glutting motivations. We are pursuing quantum, synergistic, viral, rapid, deep change and outcomes. We can only get there by appealing to the altruistic centers of the brain and heart. If the officers you talked to did not see WIIFM, Chip and I did indeed fail them and for that I am truly sorry, not because we did not cover WIIFM, but because we left them thinking that way!
Please see these blog posts for more thoughts on this:
http://unleashingrespect.blogspot.com/2010/07/fear-has-lost-its-value-and-has-become.html - http://unleashingrespect.blogspot.com/2010/04/revolutionarily-traditional-way-of.html http://unleashingrespect.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-review-of-linchpin-are-you.html
As far as Chip not being, a “mere mortal” remember his stories of being a “recovering coward” and an “abject failure as a father”. What others are seeing is the natural outcomes of the quadrants – decisiveness with humility and empathy = synergy (discovering and unlocking the power of existing structure and order to accomplish critical mission – as opposed to always trying to control and subdue the differences and variances we encounter). To the casual observer, this appears superhuman. In reality, the outcomes are merely the exponential results that spontaneously erupt when unconditional respect for others releases their efforts and potential around the mission.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Chip's Review of Force Science Institute Certification Course
I (Chip) recently had the opportunity to attend the Force Science® Institute Certification Course hosted by the San Jose, California Police Department. I cannot say enough good things about the quality of the instructors and the curriculum. The training was informative, thought provoking, and delivered in an extremely professional and digestible fashion.
The 5-day course began with opening remarks by Dr. Bill Lewinski, founder and director of the Force Science® Research Center and the Force Science® Institute, Ltd., which is a research, consulting and training organization focused primarily on human behavior in use-of-force situations. Dr. Lewinski’s passion for law enforcement was evident during his heartfelt opening statements, these comments set the tone for the weeklong course.
My fellow attendees and I received lectures by some of the best educators and practitioners in the areas of Psychophysiology, Neuro-Anatomy, Human Performance, Post Trauma Interviewing, Kinesiology and Legal Implications. Dr. Matthew Sztajnkrycer taught a block of instruction titled “Understanding & Leveraging the Psychophysiology of Emotional Intensity,” which dealt with fear, the arousal response and physiological and psychological changes experienced during moments of peak stress. Dr. Joan Vickers, a Professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology at the University of Calgary, Alberta, lectured the group on several aspects of Neuro-Motor Psychology. The most fascinating aspect of Dr. Vickers presentation dealt with a perception-action variable she calls “The Quiet Eye.” She was able to deftly apply lessons learned from working with elite athletes to decision-making scenarios officers are faced with during deadly force encounters. Mr. Chris Lawrence, a charter member of the Technical Advisory Board for the Force Science® Institute with over 30-years of law enforcement experience led a discussion on the Fundamentals of Human Performance. This talk outlined basic principles regarding human response capacity. Lawrence supported the content with empirical research and appropriately related the findings to post use of force incident investigation. Dr. Edward Geiselman, Professor of Psychology at UCLA and co-developer of the Cognitive Interview Technique®, shared memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing. Based on scientifically derived principles of memory and communications theory, Geiselman applied these interviewing techniques to the analysis of actual police interviews. This system is relatively easy to train and implement and has been proven to reliably increase the amount of information obtained during an interview. Clinical Forensic Psychologist Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, formerly of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, shared the results of 20-years of research into officer safety. The lessons learned by Dr. Pinizzotto and his team of researchers during interviews with hundreds of officers and suspects are invaluable to law enforcement. Dr. Lewinski returned to the podium periodically throughout the week to summarize the material presented by the other speakers. He also spent a great deal of time helping the class to understand the Biomechanics of Deadly Force Encounters. He utilized real-life case studies, video analysis, and actual research conducted by the Institute to demonstrate the effects of human factors and environmental features that press upon law enforcement officers who are engaged in deadly force decision-making processes. Finally, Mr. John Hoag, Esq., owner of the law firm Snyder and Hoag, LLC, lectured on Post-Shooting Policy and Legal Implication. The information gleaned from Mr. Hoag provided legal validation for operationalizing the scientific principles we had been learning all week.
The course was extremely challenging, but a whole lot of fun—especially if you enjoy learning from the best. Each participant was required to pass a comprehensive written examination—one of the tougher ones I have taken in my law enforcement career—and take part in a group case study, which was presented to the staff and fellow students on the last day of the course. I had a great time, which was made better by a surprise appearance by my good friend Dr. Alexis Artwohl, co-author of Deadly Force Encounters (http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force-Encounters-Mentally-Physically/dp/0873649354) Alexis stopped by for a couple of days to help the groups prepare for their case study presentations. Alexis, Josh Lego, and my new friend, Felipe Gonzalez of the New Mexico State Police, had the opportunity to eat lunch together and reflect on the lessons we learned during the course—as well as share a few laughs. This course is a MUST for anyone involved in use of force policy-making, training, and investigation. I encourage all administrators to consider the this invaluable content provided by Dr. Lewinski’s team of experts. The knowledge garnered from this course has the power to save lives, careers and operating budgets!
The 5-day course began with opening remarks by Dr. Bill Lewinski, founder and director of the Force Science® Research Center and the Force Science® Institute, Ltd., which is a research, consulting and training organization focused primarily on human behavior in use-of-force situations. Dr. Lewinski’s passion for law enforcement was evident during his heartfelt opening statements, these comments set the tone for the weeklong course.
My fellow attendees and I received lectures by some of the best educators and practitioners in the areas of Psychophysiology, Neuro-Anatomy, Human Performance, Post Trauma Interviewing, Kinesiology and Legal Implications. Dr. Matthew Sztajnkrycer taught a block of instruction titled “Understanding & Leveraging the Psychophysiology of Emotional Intensity,” which dealt with fear, the arousal response and physiological and psychological changes experienced during moments of peak stress. Dr. Joan Vickers, a Professor in the Faculty of Kinesiology at the University of Calgary, Alberta, lectured the group on several aspects of Neuro-Motor Psychology. The most fascinating aspect of Dr. Vickers presentation dealt with a perception-action variable she calls “The Quiet Eye.” She was able to deftly apply lessons learned from working with elite athletes to decision-making scenarios officers are faced with during deadly force encounters. Mr. Chris Lawrence, a charter member of the Technical Advisory Board for the Force Science® Institute with over 30-years of law enforcement experience led a discussion on the Fundamentals of Human Performance. This talk outlined basic principles regarding human response capacity. Lawrence supported the content with empirical research and appropriately related the findings to post use of force incident investigation. Dr. Edward Geiselman, Professor of Psychology at UCLA and co-developer of the Cognitive Interview Technique®, shared memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing. Based on scientifically derived principles of memory and communications theory, Geiselman applied these interviewing techniques to the analysis of actual police interviews. This system is relatively easy to train and implement and has been proven to reliably increase the amount of information obtained during an interview. Clinical Forensic Psychologist Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, formerly of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, shared the results of 20-years of research into officer safety. The lessons learned by Dr. Pinizzotto and his team of researchers during interviews with hundreds of officers and suspects are invaluable to law enforcement. Dr. Lewinski returned to the podium periodically throughout the week to summarize the material presented by the other speakers. He also spent a great deal of time helping the class to understand the Biomechanics of Deadly Force Encounters. He utilized real-life case studies, video analysis, and actual research conducted by the Institute to demonstrate the effects of human factors and environmental features that press upon law enforcement officers who are engaged in deadly force decision-making processes. Finally, Mr. John Hoag, Esq., owner of the law firm Snyder and Hoag, LLC, lectured on Post-Shooting Policy and Legal Implication. The information gleaned from Mr. Hoag provided legal validation for operationalizing the scientific principles we had been learning all week.
The course was extremely challenging, but a whole lot of fun—especially if you enjoy learning from the best. Each participant was required to pass a comprehensive written examination—one of the tougher ones I have taken in my law enforcement career—and take part in a group case study, which was presented to the staff and fellow students on the last day of the course. I had a great time, which was made better by a surprise appearance by my good friend Dr. Alexis Artwohl, co-author of Deadly Force Encounters (http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force-Encounters-Mentally-Physically/dp/0873649354) Alexis stopped by for a couple of days to help the groups prepare for their case study presentations. Alexis, Josh Lego, and my new friend, Felipe Gonzalez of the New Mexico State Police, had the opportunity to eat lunch together and reflect on the lessons we learned during the course—as well as share a few laughs. This course is a MUST for anyone involved in use of force policy-making, training, and investigation. I encourage all administrators to consider the this invaluable content provided by Dr. Lewinski’s team of experts. The knowledge garnered from this course has the power to save lives, careers and operating budgets!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Fear Has Lost its Value and Has Become a Liability (But don't tell anyone)
Fear or intimidation as a primary law enforcement tool has a long distinguished past. Because of that, when the tactic is challenged one will hear things like, “It’s the way we have always done it” - “It has always worked in the past” – “You have to intimidate ‘these kind of people’, it’s all they understand.”
Unfortunately, empirical support for these statements can be found, fear does produce results because it is the core emotion. As Seth Godin correctly states in Linchpin; “Fear dominates the other emotions, because without our ability to avoid death, the other ones don’t really matter much.” (p. 124)
For all these reasons, and many others, fear as a tactic is difficult to give up on. Law enforcement for generations past engraved the “social contract” manual of fear and intimidation into each succeeding generation, the cement has dried. One ought not to blame the line element officers for using fear as a tactic. Fear and intimidation has always been the favorite management tool of police commanders. It is the old “carrot and stick” regimen of gaining compliance. This is what officers have been taught and seen modeled since day one of their careers.
Fear and intimidation still reigns as the primary management tactic, and policing tactic, to this day. Regardless of the fact, the tactic itself has ceased to be a resource and has become a liability. This is especially true in a day of budget cutbacks, when we most need cooperation and synergy with our community to solve complex problems. Ironically, those on the outside of law enforcement, who would to change the culture, rely on the same fear and intimidation tactics; see the absurdity? Those who most resent the social contract of fear and intimidation – blindly use the same tactic to change the contact! Of course, all they do is strengthen the contract.
My point is this; we probably have dangerous cities with high crime rates because fear and intimidation as a tactic no longer works. The “wolves” are not intimidated – the vast majority of community members who would otherwise be partners, eyes and ears ARE. The “wolves” on one side and police “snarling sheep dogs” on the other side. I was recently speaking with a colleague who supervises a homicide squad. He told of a shopping cart with two decomposing bodies sitting in a neighborhood for days, a trail of blood leading to the “wolves” house who had perpetrated the murders. Not only did no one call police, no one “knew anything” during an area canvass. The military would call this a pro-insurgency environment. In other words, the social context of the neighborhood is such that the insurgents (criminals, drug dealers and gang members) are having their way. This is because in a fear based social environment (just to name a few of the more obvious ones):
· There can be no trust
· Safe, open, honest communication will not exist
· Creative solutions to complex problems will never emerge
· Everyone dodges accountability out of a sense of survival-blame shifting is normative
· Wolves move about with impunity doing what wolves do
We will soon reach a logical conclusion for the 9-1-1 hamster wheel. The final step is real time crime analysis, so we can be where the victims of crime are BEFORE they call to report the crime. Police will have reduced reaction time as low as possible. Law enforcement will hit a natural ceiling; we can no longer react to the tragic results of fear and intimidation as a tactic any quicker. Then what?
Unfortunately, empirical support for these statements can be found, fear does produce results because it is the core emotion. As Seth Godin correctly states in Linchpin; “Fear dominates the other emotions, because without our ability to avoid death, the other ones don’t really matter much.” (p. 124)
For all these reasons, and many others, fear as a tactic is difficult to give up on. Law enforcement for generations past engraved the “social contract” manual of fear and intimidation into each succeeding generation, the cement has dried. One ought not to blame the line element officers for using fear as a tactic. Fear and intimidation has always been the favorite management tool of police commanders. It is the old “carrot and stick” regimen of gaining compliance. This is what officers have been taught and seen modeled since day one of their careers.
Fear and intimidation still reigns as the primary management tactic, and policing tactic, to this day. Regardless of the fact, the tactic itself has ceased to be a resource and has become a liability. This is especially true in a day of budget cutbacks, when we most need cooperation and synergy with our community to solve complex problems. Ironically, those on the outside of law enforcement, who would to change the culture, rely on the same fear and intimidation tactics; see the absurdity? Those who most resent the social contract of fear and intimidation – blindly use the same tactic to change the contact! Of course, all they do is strengthen the contract.
My point is this; we probably have dangerous cities with high crime rates because fear and intimidation as a tactic no longer works. The “wolves” are not intimidated – the vast majority of community members who would otherwise be partners, eyes and ears ARE. The “wolves” on one side and police “snarling sheep dogs” on the other side. I was recently speaking with a colleague who supervises a homicide squad. He told of a shopping cart with two decomposing bodies sitting in a neighborhood for days, a trail of blood leading to the “wolves” house who had perpetrated the murders. Not only did no one call police, no one “knew anything” during an area canvass. The military would call this a pro-insurgency environment. In other words, the social context of the neighborhood is such that the insurgents (criminals, drug dealers and gang members) are having their way. This is because in a fear based social environment (just to name a few of the more obvious ones):
· There can be no trust
· Safe, open, honest communication will not exist
· Creative solutions to complex problems will never emerge
· Everyone dodges accountability out of a sense of survival-blame shifting is normative
· Wolves move about with impunity doing what wolves do
We will soon reach a logical conclusion for the 9-1-1 hamster wheel. The final step is real time crime analysis, so we can be where the victims of crime are BEFORE they call to report the crime. Police will have reduced reaction time as low as possible. Law enforcement will hit a natural ceiling; we can no longer react to the tragic results of fear and intimidation as a tactic any quicker. Then what?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Deadly Sexism – Deadly Ageism – Deadly Racism
I have been fond of saying, “Our judgments of others are somewhere between irrelevant and dangerous. Rather than judging others, we must learn to be aware of, and responsive to, their full human potential for good, and evil.”
After a brief chance conversation with some colleagues, I am changing my position:
“Our judgments of others are somewhere between irrelevant and “deadly.” We must constantly confront our natural subconscious prejudices, biases, fears and loyalties, which generate our judgments of others so that we can be aware of their full human potential for good and evil, and be equipped to properly interpret and respond to their behavior in the context of the situation.”
Let me set the context. I was talking with a friend in the hallway of the academy when an officer came from a seminar we were hosting regarding officer survival. The instructors were using data from the FBI LEOKA (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted) studies. The officer was beside himself regarding two separate incidents the class had highlighted where officers apparently ignored a male subject’s girlfriend. In each case, the girlfriend was able to obtain a weapon and kill officers. The point of the training seemed to be - honor female cohorts’ adversarial worth.
My mind instantly began reeling with another video I have seen of a Texas DPS Trooper stopping a motorist for not wearing a seat belt. The motorist pulls into the median strip to stop. A lone white man who was 72-years old at the time emerges from the driver’s seat and produces an assault rifle. The motorist walks toward the officer brandishing the assault rifle. Approximately 8 seconds passed with the brandished weapon in plain view and approximately 5 seconds passed after the man is standing within a few yards of the trooper pointing the assault rifle at the trooper before the man fires the first round from the assault rifle (ignoring repeated orders to put the weapon down). Other officers arrive who are held-at-bay for some time, unable to provide medical assistance for the wounded officer, but probably too close to safely deal with a shooter possessing an assault rifle.
On the other end of the spectrum was two West Memphis police officers gunned down May 20 by a teenager with an assault rifle as they struggled with the teen’s father. The youth emerged from the minivan with an assault rifle just as the struggle began.
Imagine if the exact scenarios were to happen again, and this time instead of the shooters being female or an elderly man or a youth – the suspect has the appearance of a “dangerous” gang-banger covered with jailhouse tats. Do the officers close the hesitation / cognitive dissonance / disregarding gap and survive?
Think of Fort Hood TX and the active shooter. If you take the shooter’s race and religion out of the picture and simply deal with the behaviors and the total context of the developing circumstances – is the Army able to objectively assess the situation and take decisive administrative action to avert the catastrophe?
If the answer to the questions posed by these tragic scenarios is yes – or even probably, we may have a case of deadly sexism, deadly ageism and deadly racism.
Again, our judgments of others are somewhere between irrelevant and deadly.
After a brief chance conversation with some colleagues, I am changing my position:
“Our judgments of others are somewhere between irrelevant and “deadly.” We must constantly confront our natural subconscious prejudices, biases, fears and loyalties, which generate our judgments of others so that we can be aware of their full human potential for good and evil, and be equipped to properly interpret and respond to their behavior in the context of the situation.”
Let me set the context. I was talking with a friend in the hallway of the academy when an officer came from a seminar we were hosting regarding officer survival. The instructors were using data from the FBI LEOKA (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted) studies. The officer was beside himself regarding two separate incidents the class had highlighted where officers apparently ignored a male subject’s girlfriend. In each case, the girlfriend was able to obtain a weapon and kill officers. The point of the training seemed to be - honor female cohorts’ adversarial worth.
My mind instantly began reeling with another video I have seen of a Texas DPS Trooper stopping a motorist for not wearing a seat belt. The motorist pulls into the median strip to stop. A lone white man who was 72-years old at the time emerges from the driver’s seat and produces an assault rifle. The motorist walks toward the officer brandishing the assault rifle. Approximately 8 seconds passed with the brandished weapon in plain view and approximately 5 seconds passed after the man is standing within a few yards of the trooper pointing the assault rifle at the trooper before the man fires the first round from the assault rifle (ignoring repeated orders to put the weapon down). Other officers arrive who are held-at-bay for some time, unable to provide medical assistance for the wounded officer, but probably too close to safely deal with a shooter possessing an assault rifle.
On the other end of the spectrum was two West Memphis police officers gunned down May 20 by a teenager with an assault rifle as they struggled with the teen’s father. The youth emerged from the minivan with an assault rifle just as the struggle began.
Imagine if the exact scenarios were to happen again, and this time instead of the shooters being female or an elderly man or a youth – the suspect has the appearance of a “dangerous” gang-banger covered with jailhouse tats. Do the officers close the hesitation / cognitive dissonance / disregarding gap and survive?
Think of Fort Hood TX and the active shooter. If you take the shooter’s race and religion out of the picture and simply deal with the behaviors and the total context of the developing circumstances – is the Army able to objectively assess the situation and take decisive administrative action to avert the catastrophe?
If the answer to the questions posed by these tragic scenarios is yes – or even probably, we may have a case of deadly sexism, deadly ageism and deadly racism.
Again, our judgments of others are somewhere between irrelevant and deadly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)