How is it that England, the world’s foremost military and naval power of the 18th century, was unable to defeat George Washington’s impoverished and ill-equipped Continental Army? Why did ragtag guerilla armies in Vietnam and Afghanistan not only defeat but embarrass the world’s two greatest military superpowers? Why did the world’s greatest intelligence agencies fail to detect the 9/11 terrorist attacks? These failures are not limited to government; similar debacles can be seen in the business world. How have upstart companies like Uber and Lyft brought the taxi industry to its knees, and why are big box stores going the way of the dinosaurs?

In each instance, a muscle-bound and rigid Goliath lacked the nimbleness and flexibility to think outside the box and react to a new asymmetric threat. They were good at doing what they had always done, and insisted on defining the world in a way that was familiar to them. The problem is their strength, structure, and rigidity were ultimately their weaknesses, and their adversaries successfully exploited their inflexibility.

A common theme here is that colonial England, the U.S. and Soviet militaries, U.S. intelligence, and large corporate entities were structured hierarchically. Hierarchy has long been considered the prescription for exercising effective authority and control, especially in complex organizations. However, when faced with a new environment, these muscle-bound behemoths were wholly reactive and incapable of adapting and developing relevant responses.

These anecdotes define the dilemma facing modern law enforcement (and other) organizations. Sadly, absent major structural changes that abandon hierarchical structures and the reactionary cultures of control and self-preservation they’ve engendered, law enforcement organizations are likely to fail to deal effectively with increasingly chaotic, accelerating and unpredictable social changes.

The Issue

In 2014, the author identified eight trends that are changing law enforcement (LE) operations in the 21st Century.¹ These trends include shifting populations and generations; immigration and the growing balkanization of society; the digitalization of society and the impacts on the quantity, quality, and controllability of information; increasing and more sophisticated threats from domestic terrorism and asymmetric operations; and accelerating technologies. Each trend has had formidable impacts on the expectations of communities and has consequently shaped community-police interactions; the nature of crime, interpretations, and expectations of privacy and constitutional safeguards; and definitions of jurisdiction, among other aspects of policing.

This is hardly the first time LE has had to evolve with the society it serves. While the values and guiding principles of policing have remained constant over the years, the characteristics of LE operations bear scant relation in 2019 to those in 1919, and even less so to those in 1819. Law enforcement organizations have always evolved. However, the pace of change has accelerated from the slower and steadier pace of the last century—and this increased pace stresses the ability of many LE organizations to adapt fully to rapid social, political, cultural, and technological change.

In short, the problem is that the culture and structure of LE organizations are typically hierarchical, and these pyramidal organizations are singularly unprepared to effect the high level of innovation needed to remain relevant while serving an increasingly complex and heterogeneous population.

The Nature of Hierarchies

German sociologist Max Weber wrote extensively on the “rational/legal” nature and structure of organizations. He identified key characteristics that could make organizations effective and socially responsible. While he was not specifically addressing LE organizations, he might well have been, given the predominance of the following concepts in LE organizations:

• • • Formal hierarchical structure. Each level controls the one below it and is controlled by the one above it to facilitate centralized planning and decision-making. This ubiquitous control necessitates accountability and the assignment of responsibility.
    • Management by rules. Overarching rules enhance control of a complex organization and its predictable operations at all levels.
    • Functional specialization. Individuals are hired and tasked to do what they do best (i.e., based on their technological qualifications) to ensure efficient and cost-effective operations.
    • Unambiguous jurisdiction. Organization components are run by one and only one individual (consistent with responsibility and accountability). The structure extols staying in one’s lane and operating within one’s chain of command.
    • The individual at the top of the pyramid exercises ultimate decision authority. Information flows up the chain of command and decisions flow downward to subordinate levels. The decision maker is far removed from the trenches where subordinates implement decisions and interact with the public.
    • Impersonal operations. Consistent with overarching rules, rational cost-benefit calculations, not individual personalities, drive organization decision-making and promotions.

All organizations must accomplish two basic functions: they must “produce,” and they must “innovate.”

All organizations must accomplish two basic functions: they must “produce,” and they must “innovate.”² Production refers to meeting the needs of customers (e.g., community members) by producing goods or services (e.g., law and order, community policing). Production is best served by the hierarchical organization described above, but only when the environment is stable. As long as the environment is stable, costs and benefits derived from experience are known, predictable, and calculable. Relationships within the organization are easily aligned with productive processes (e.g., patrol, investigation, booking, training). When the operating environment is stable, the organization’s culture and structure need not change, except perhaps, at the margins. Basically, the organization’s focus is on constancy and self-preservation. However, when the organization’s environment changes rapidly and significantly, the hierarchical structure is poorly suited to respond and adapt.

The Problems with Hierarchical Organizations

The first problem of hierarchical organization is the myth of homogeneity. Certainly, the mantra “to protect and serve” is a unifying goal, but how that goal is interpreted and achieved varies significantly within an organization. Individual components view their well-being as synonymous with that of the organization and adopt parochial positions within internal organizational deliberations. In the LE world, there is a constant battle for scarce human and financial resources between patrol, trainers, investigation, dispatch, and other divisions. This comes as no surprise because goals are not uniform within the organization. For instance, trainers will argue their mission is key to mission success because they facilitate officer professionalism and survival. However, their training programs may be opposed by patrol who may lack sufficient staffing to patrol while officers are in training sessions. The diversity of organizations leads one to argue that the leader of the organization must provide unifying direction and get all components marching in lockstep toward the same goal. However, while not impossible, there are difficulties with this prescription. First, the amount of information going up the chain can be overwhelming, and the information can be interpreted differently based on the perceptions and interests of the person or component sending the information forward.³

Second, even if information weren’t differentially interpreted by subordinates, information tends to be distorted as it passes through human information channels (both spoken and written) so, again, the question of information relevance and accuracy becomes paramount.

Third, the specialized nature of organizations requires specialized information and dedicated resources going to a particular component. Information is not shared, not only because it is an element of internal power within the organization, but because there is no need for non-specialized components to process this information. Further, the division of responsibility generated by specialization and accountability for failure mitigate against sharing information and encourages people to seek control of everything that potentially affects their component. The result is a culture of empire-building where decisions take on zero-sum attributes because they threaten existing distributions of funding, prestige, authority, and access to leadership. This stovepipe effect ensures the continuing culture of insularity of organizational components and, hence, destroys ability of the organization to act as a unified entity. For instance, sometimes vice units work cases in neighborhoods where other specialty police entities, such as special operations division and community police officers interact with the same population. Although they are seeking the same goal of reducing crime, they compete for scarce departmental resources. While these units may be successful in their respective pursuits, their results may be counterproductive—and the overall effectiveness of the organization will be reduced unless their activities are coordinated and assessed as to how they serve the department’s overall priorities and goals.

When an organization’s environment is stable, decisions are based on what has succeeded in the past. Changes are generally incremental, so information distortion doesn’t cause the same issue as when the organization must take significant innovative steps. The hierarchical organization’s static, insular perspective mitigates against significant organizational change. Incrementalism, where organizations change slowly and only at the margins, ensures continuing internal peace and the consistent delivery of goods and services (assuming they are at a satisfactory level). This outlook favoring marginal change is myopic. It does not look out and embrace efforts to make proactive changes that anticipate environmental change. Additionally, in the event of an unanticipated crisis that has a large and immediate impact on the organization (e.g., the Ferguson shooting), the organization lacks the nimbleness to adapt and innovate.

Other factors promote incrementalism. Most hierarchical organizations are risk averse. Specialization and the resulting diffraction of responsibility deprive a component of control over all the necessary information and resources needed to integrate operations. One is required to stay in his or her own “lane.” Further, the culture of accountability punishes failure. One way to insulate oneself from the consequences of failure is to take fewer risks, document everything (i.e., red tape), and diffuse decisions among so many that the failure cannot be attributed to one person. Another cause of incrementalism is the inability to make meaningful cost-benefit calculations in a dynamic and changing environment. When an environment is stable, costs and benefits for particular courses of action are known experientially and can therefore be calculated. However, by definition, when one is off exploring the unknown, he or she does not know what will be encountered. This problem hinders the development of out-of-the-box responses to asymmetric threats

A final problem plaguing hierarchical organizations is the authority-expertise gap.⁴ Hierarchical organizations are based on seniority, but, as one climbs the organizational ladder, he or she no longer has the time to remain current in one’s original area of expertise. Further, the leader is not proximate to the problems and developments confronting the organization. Therefore, reaction is the typical response. This results in a critical attention ratio problem. The police chief or sheriff, forced to deal with obligations attending personnel matters, budgets, and community relations, has less time to remain current in basic law enforcement operations. Therefore, the agency head is likely to assume tactics and operations are the same as when he or she was “in the trenches.” The problem arises when the chief or sheriff, who has the authority to make decisions by virtue of rank, may come to lack the expertise, based on current technology and trends, to make a good decision.

In summary, hierarchical organizations perform well in stable environments characterized by predictability and calculability. However, their culture and tradition, specialization and insularity of components, information distortion, and the inability to make cost-benefits calculations in a risk averse environment undermine their ability to innovate and respond to new and unanticipated environments.

A Way Ahead for LE Organizations

As noted in the beginning of this essay, the dilemma faced by leaders of hierarchical organizations is overcoming tradition, inertia, and other characteristics of pyramids to adapt to changing environments. These innovation challenges are faced by leaders of all hierarchical organizations, including LE organizations.

So, what’s a chief or sheriff to do? Simply, the leader must lead, not just administrate. It is the leader who makes or breaks an organization by keeping it supple and able to adapt. These are some things the leader can (and should) do:

Simply, the leader must lead, not just administrate.

1. Develop a long-term focus. Administrators tend to get caught up in the crisis du jour. Establish a command philosophy, but let the deputy chief attend to the issues consistent with one’s guidance. The goal of the chief is to adopt a long-term perspective. What’s changing out there? What could change out there, and what could cause these changes? The leader’s first step must be to ask where he or she wants the department to be in five years? Ten years? This must be known in order to identify a path to get there.
2. Prioritize goals. There are numerous goals that attend LE operations: officer safety, community support, liability avoidance, officer morale, departmental prestige, high closure rates, and so forth.⁵ It is impossible to achieve all these goals simultaneously, and the leader who tries will see his or her efforts diffused and ultimately unsuccessful. First of all, some goals, like training, precede others, like officer professionalism and avoiding liability—so they should be pursued in sequence rather than coincidentally. Second, some goals are not mutually supportive. For instance, avoiding liability may undermine officer survival and morale. Finally, different circumstances, including the size of the agency, danger levels in the community, funding, and recent significant events (e.g., an officer-involved shooting or a funding cut) may elevate some priorities over others. Also, the leader must recognize that priorities are not static; they shift over time, both in content and relative importance, with changes in the organization’s internal and external environments.
3. Make a plan. The leader must rank his or her priorities before a strategy can be mapped to achieve them. The development of this strategy will require the specification of all resources and assets on hand and needed to achieve the top priority goals. Once the inputs needed to meet a goal have been determined, as well as the effect of these inputs on specific goals, the leader will need to assess the agency’s current mission capability to identify immediate corrective actions needed to be made. (An article explaining “How to Evaluate and Improve Your Agency in 5 Easy Steps” describes this process.⁶)
4. Flatten/decentralize the structure. Remember: different divisions within the organization have different perspectives, goals, and priorities. It is the leader’s job to ensure all members are working toward the agency’s overall goals, not (or not only) the components’ respective goals. This will require getting the right people at the table, and these “right people” must abandon their parochial component goals, share information, and collaborate on agency solutions. To do this, establish a heterarchical structure, which is defined as “ a system of organization where the elements of the organization are unranked (non-hierarchical) or where they possess the potential to be ranked a number of different ways.”⁷ This is a more fluid task-oriented, rather than authority-oriented, structure and is a significant departure from normal organizational culture and structure—but dynamic challenges require dynamic solutions. In other words, locate the loci of authority at subordinate levels, closer to where problems exist. This change directly addresses the authority-expertise gap. Of course, this devolution of authority puts the leader at some personal risk. Therefore, the leader must ensure personnel at subordinate levels, now operating with increased authority, have received sufficient training and are apprised of the leader’s intent.
5. Establish a “skunk works.” Lockheed-Martin established its Advanced Development Programs, known as the “skunk works” in 1943. Multidisciplinary teams were encouraged to think out of the box and were given wide autonomy from bureaucracy and funding authorities to explore concepts thought fantastic and hare-brained by mainstream company scientists and leaders.⁸ If a skunk works is not practicable, a small strategic planning cell or even the appointment of a very creative officer directed to come up with good ideas may serve to promote out-of-the-box thinking. Another related option is a chief’s (or sheriff’s) advisory group.
6. Keep it fresh. People become complacent if left in one function or location for too long. Move a commander from one district to another or move an investigator into training. The personnel may initially oppose these changes, but ultimately, these shifted individuals will bring fresh perspectives and ideas to their new locations and assignments. Moving people around on occasion keeps everyone fresh and is a source of new ideas and ways of doing things. Also, don’t neglect those who are fresh out of the academy—they know the latest concepts of law enforcement and have a ton of passion. These Generation Z members are not wired like older generations and may have some interesting perspectives on recruitment, social media outreach, community policing, and other concepts. They want to feel valuable and to make a contribution so give them the opportunity, through regular and informal meetings with them, but not their immediate supervisors. Empanel a group of officers and meet with them quarterly to get their input and their perspectives on or critiques of your ideas.
7. Vacuum up information, both internal and external. A chief should not rely exclusively on department members to let him or her know what’s going on, what’s working, and what’s not. Some officers don’t want to give bad news to the chief and, as already noted, all the information that makes its way to the top will be partially distorted. The idea is to collect timely, relevant, and clear information from lots of different sources to understand the totality of the situation. Reach out to or create citizen advisory groups. Solicit criticism through anonymous suggestion boxes. Monitor social media. Start and regularly hold a “coffee with the chief” event and open it to community and department members. It offers a treasure trove of information about community activities, attitudes toward LE, and developing situations—if one is willing to listen.
8. Establish an active outreach program. In addition to establishing citizen groups, monitoring social media, and engaging outsiders to solicit information, provide timely and honest information about what the department is doing and why. If the department makes a mistake, own it, apologize with an explanation of the rationale, and make necessary corrections. Establish a newsletter, a social media site, and get a public information officer who can advertise good news and be prepared to address bad news. Also, don’t let this outreach be limited to outsiders—provide periodic direct communications to department personnel on these same topics to make them feel appreciated as worthy members of the agency.
9. Have a Plan B and even a Plan C. Stephen Covey, author of 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, said goals without plans to achieve them are fantasy.⁹ Even if one selects long-term goals and implements plans to achieve them, these plans may fail. The thoughtful leader will always ask “what if?” and plan alternative courses of action in case of failure or unforeseen developments.
10. Keep your eye on the ball. Many executives assume technology will help their organizations adapt to change more effectively. Sometimes, technology can help but avoid being seduced by deus ex machina solutions. Technology can improve production, but it also provides structure and sunk costs that can impede transformation. Remember that organizations are composed of people with perceptions, feelings, motivations, and relationships. Technology, while helpful in some regards, doesn’t substitute for or mitigate these crucial factors.

Conclusion

Law enforcement agencies are paragons of hierarchy, which has served them well in periods of low and slow social change. However, the relatively static social, political, cultural, and economic trends of the post-World War II era have disappeared. While LE agencies need to maintain the principles of their service, such as integrity, honor, courage, dedication, and fairness, agencies also need to evolve in the ways they conduct their operations.

The future of law enforcement will not reside wholly in technology, which is only a means, not an end. It will be determined by leaders who understand the need to change culture, the need to combat internal insularities, the need to get the right people at the table, and the need to stay connected with the people served by the agency, all while using, to the fullest extent, agencies’ most valuable resources: people.

Notes:

¹ John Weinstein, “Results: ‘Trends That Will Shape Policing,’” Campus Safety, October 9, 2014.

² See Victor A. Thompson, Bureaucracy and Innovation (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1969).

³ In physics, this dilemma, known as the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle, posits one cannot measure something without interacting with it, so there is no such thing is completely objective information.

⁴ Thompson, Bureaucracy and Innovation.

⁵ See John Weinstein, “How to Evaluate and Improve Your Agency in 5 Easy Steps,” Part 1, Campus Safety, June 13, 2016; John Weinstein, “How to Evaluate and Improve Your Agency in 5 Easy Steps,” Part 2, Campus Safety, June 14, 2016.

⁶ Weinstein, “How to Evaluate and Improve Your Agency in 5 Easy Steps.”

⁷ Carole L. Crumley, “Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies,” Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6, no. 1 (January 1995): 1–15.

⁸ The skunk works were responsible for numerous aircraft designs, including the U-2, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Lockheed Martin, “Missions Impossible: The Skunk Works Story.”

⁹ Stephen Covey, 7 Habits of Highly Successful People (Free Press, 1989).