A 21st Century Western Front

Two Sides: L.E. in general suffers from multiple personality disorder.

• This is not surprising when it established all its systems and structures from industrial age / Newtonian concepts of behavioral management (carrot and stick). While many have moved on, L.E. seems to believe survival (not to mention the ability to get promoted) depends on maintaining status quo. L.E. organizational cultures pine to find coherence by maintaining rigid structures of status quo. Ironically, the process produces incoherence.
• A few “rebels” believe that adapting to challenges and ambiguity is what produces individual and organizational vitality and relevance. What allows organizations to endure is solid, ever improving processes that are dynamic, adaptive and creative responses. In other words, some members believe that the carrot and stick age has passed. Rather, authentic power to uphold justice is primarily by way of compassion and relationship, not force and coercion. Force and coercion are still very important tools, but must no longer serve as an identity.

One problem:
Well-meaning people on both sides line up from inside and outside L.E. organizations to support what they fervently believe to be right. It has become a 21st Century Western Front. This Front has entrenchments, battlements, offenses, strikes, air raids, guerilla attacks and many, many casualties. Both sides see themselves as the upholder of all that is right and the more effort they put into supporting their “side” the worse the problem becomes.

A Solution:
Chip and I intend to humbly position ourselves in “no man’s land” and demonstrate to both sides that the 21st Century Western Front is an epic waste of life, vitality, time and resources. We desire to lay a solid base for increased levels of tactical acumen and social intelligence. The goal: bridge the gap; unleash the synergistic power of unconditional respect into L.E. organizations and our communities.

Twisted Systems

Research has noted that the average time an officer listens before interrupting is seven seconds! When I share this data with officers, some laugh and say; "if people would just tell me what I need to know, I would not interrupt." This leads to assumption driven policing. We take decisive action that is irrelevant to the reality of what is really going on. It feels good, but solves nothing. In fact, it usually makes things worse. However, it does produce beans to count (stats) and job security – guaranteeing numerous callbacks and arrests to the same locations. Current systems institutionalize this twisted process.

Two of the Biggest Words in our Language - TO and FOR

I frequently have conversations with leaders / trainers of organizations who motivate (or manipulate) other members to listen to, and operationalize policies and teachings by saying something like; “We are absolved of culpability by teaching you this content. You had better do it, or you will be holding all culpability alone.”
In other words, they present the training or teaching as something done TO them, rather than FOR them. One can imagine how this would translate into contact with the public. If I follow the letter of the training expectation doing something TO you, rather than FOR you – while I do not break any policies, most members of our community will sense the ‘handling’ going on and will resent it.

Making Human Factors Work

Imagine all the benefits to your clients and organization as the most frequent occurrence, daily contact with constituents, becomes increasingly and measurably positive and productive.

The most effective way to mitigate high-risk exposure is to conduct everyday activities in a manner that is positive and productive.

A Revolutionarily Traditional Way of Being Police in the 21st Century

Chip and I just returned from the 2010 International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (I.L.E.E.T.A.) annual conference. The experience was nothing short of amazing as we sat under the teaching of, and had lengthy conversations with, some of the top subject matter experts in various disciplines of law enforcement and training. We also had the opportunity to present some of the concepts captured in our book. Two contrasting themes developed as the week progressed. Many attendees were "blown away" by the innovative and progressive manner of our content. However, top tier trainers were quick to remind everyone that what Chip and I were presenting came from basic traditional concepts obscured by our current cultural milieu and organizational groupthink.
Chip and I strive to maintain humility so we can constantly learn; we firmly believe that as soon as we think we have it figured out, we become the problem. We consider multiple disciplines for learning opportunities. For example, Robert Peel’s timeless principles, western and eastern military philosophies of war and soldier traditions, Plato’s Republic, warrior traditions such as Bushido, studies on brain functionality, social research, theology, philosophy, quantum physics as opposed to Newtonian, rich leadership literature and thousands of conversations with hundreds of cops and people from many diverse backgrounds. We listen and consistently discover unifying themes running through all of this diversity. Through this, we have come to some startling conclusions that have unprecedented implications for policing in the 21st century. Our two core statements regarding personal anima and basic mission for policing have far-reaching implications that provide course correction for our profession’s most pressing problems. For example, let us take a brief look at the willingness and ability for policing organizations to be adaptive and responsive to our communities.
Our organizational cultures struggle to find coherence by maintaining rigid structures of status quo. Ironically, the process produces incoherence. Individuals and organizations intuitively set up a few silos of perspective that all incoming information must go into. For police institutions, the informational silos tend to be: 1) Who can we blame? 2) Why is it not our fault? 3) Who can we put in jail? Up and coming managers are in charge of ‘washing’ incoming information so that it streams neatly into one of the three silos. People who have the audacity to give corporate level leaders “unclean” information are despised and maligned. We do this in our struggle to maintain stasis or equilibrium. However, these desires are contrary to policing in complex societies. Exerting organizational effort to maintain an artificial stasis is wasted energy and drains both individuals and the organization of vitality and relevancy.
Ironically, adapting to challenges and ambiguity is what produces individual and organizational vitality and relevance. What allows organizations to endure are solid, ever improving processes that are dynamic, adaptive, and creative. These processes only exist, as responses to challenges and ambiguities in the environment.[1] Responses will naturally become community orientated rather than inwardly orientated - dictated by rigid internal structures of control. The tools our book provides such as the Environmental Pyramid and Rule of 30 combined with the High Core Values /Basic Mission Sight Alignment allows the members of your organization to be responsive, adaptive, and reflexive while still maintaining personal and organizational integrity along with essential organizational identity. By developing an ability to be truly aware and responsive to the operating environment, the organization can continue to become more effecient in the use of time and resources and act on behalf of the community much more effectively.

[1] Margaret J. Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Berrett-Koehler. San Francisco.

Expectations and insanity

Everyone knows Einstein's definition of insanity, right? So why do law enforcement organizations keep doing the same things and expecting different results?
Or do they...expect different results? I am beginning to wonder. Maybe the issue is not results, but activity. Our culture has definitely become mindlessly activity driven. This violates basic Peelian principles of policing and brutalizes logic - but it seems to work in our culture.

Courage in a Bravery Rich Culture

What if we distinguished between bravery and courage? What if bravery was understood as acting for what is right regardless of personal danger when members of my social grouping (other officers) agree with the act. What if courage came to be known as acting for what it right, regardless of personal danger, when members of my social group do not agree with the act.
Law enforcement agencies have historically encouraged and instilled bravery, which is good! It is time to begin to encourage and instill courage rooted in integrity. This would begin to break down the personal deception of individuals, and the corresponding “blue wall of silence” that emanates from it. When courageous, relevant, respectful communication becomes normative in the police culture, it will produce true accountability around enduring principles of right and wrong at all levels of police organizations. This would inspire the trust of the members and citizens, unleashing their natural talents and creative energy around the basic mission of law enforcement. In time, this would produce greatness in organizations and synergistic productivity with their communities! This is evident in simple consideration of how social influence structures (e.g., the Nazis or the Communist Revolution) can lead to wholesale evil behavior, the opposite can also be true. Unleashing the power of personal anima, rooted in integrity and expressed in unconditional respect for all, will have tremendous positive results.