Assignment Details
CJ345-3: Analyze behavioral theory as it relates to the supervision of criminal justice entities.
GEL-1.02: Demonstrate college-level communication through the composition of original materials in Standard English.
Write a 2–4-page paper (excluding title and reference pages) responding to the following:
Read the case study on pages 125-127 in Effective Police Supervision and apply critical thinking to construct persuasive arguments as to what you would you do if you were Sergeant Lou Maynard.
Use the questions at the end of the case study( case study in attachment) to help you construct your persuasive essay and be sure to address the following:
- Describe the motivational issues that exist.
- The basic need drives for each officer.
- Assess your management style and how it relates to Theory X.
- If your level of formal education, or the education of the officers, would be an obstacle.
Your viewpoint and purpose should be clearly established and sustained. Your writing should be well ordered, logical and unified, as well as original and insightful. Make sure the Assignment allows for a continuous piece of writing that allows for a sustained viewpoint with logical order and organization.
Your Assignment should follow the conventions of Standard English (correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling). The Assignment should be double spaced, using 12 point, Times New Roman font.
For assistance with this Assignment, refer to Chapter 4 of your text.
(PLEASE NOTE: This essay will require outside research.)
Case Study
Endings and Beginnings: Motivating Difficult Police Officers
Seaview is located in a small coastal community 75 miles from a popular beach-side resort. Seaview is one of the oldest towns in the State and attracts a diverse population ranging from a year-around artist colony to tourists in the summer and fall to retirees looking for a coastal-centered life style. The Seaview Police Department also has a somewhat unique history. Originally, law enforcement activities were provided by the Army and later the first Marshal was appointed as the early village community of Seaview grew when new residents, many of them immigrants, moved there to work in agriculture and timber. Seaview has a stable and productive police department that mirrors the largely positive environment that the community affords its residents.
* * * * * * *
Sergeant Lou Maynard, a 9-year veteran of the department, is in charge of the night shift. Thirty years old, he is married and the father of a 3-year-old son. He and his family live in a house that he inherited from his Mother. He and his wife have a number of extended family members living in the area.
Sergeant Maynard is low key and fits well into the law enforcement environment. He gets along well with peers, subordinates, and those of higher rank. His professional character and well-balanced personality was about to be tested.
* * * * * * *
Looking up from a stack of paperwork, Deputy Chief of Administration, Jane Stowkoski motioned for Sergeant Maynard to take a seat. “How’s the family, Lou?”
“They’re doing good. How about you and yours?”
Chief Stowkoski offered Lou a chagrined look. “Well, my boy and girl are now both teenagers if that answers your question?”
Lou smiled. “Enough said.”
Jane Stowkoski leaned back in her chair. “I know you have been given a heads-up about our meeting so I’ll cut to the chase. You have two officers I have received a number of complaints about.”
“That would be MaCallister and Timons,” Lou replied somberly.
The Deputy Chief clasped her hands together. “That’s right. Bill ‘Mac’ MaCallister is nearing the end of his career—just a year away from his pension and Delbert Timons is just beginning his. We need to figure out how we can help ‘Mac’ make it to retirement if possible and get Delbert on the ‘straight and narrow.’ As Shakespeare wrote, ‘all’s well that ends well’ and at this point, Mac seems intent on not making it to the finish line. And Delbert—God help him—needs a serious wake-up call before he drives his career off a cliff.”
Chief Stowkoski paused before continuing. “Lou, you are an excellent police officer and supervisor. I wish we had more like you. Your shift usually runs smoothly in large part because you take things in stride and take a positive approach with your team. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be working with Mac and Timons. What’s your take on the situation?”
“I hear you, Chief,” Sergeant Maynard replied. “I’m disappointed in both officers. I have talked to both of them and while their behavior has improved to some extent, there are still issues there. Mac used to be a solid officer. Starting about three months ago, he started slipping … too many sick calls, some complaints from folks about unprofessional conduct when writing them up for things like speeding, sloppy reports— even his personal appearance isn’t as neat as it should be. And he seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. One thing going around the squad is that he and his wife are separated. He could also be a little depressed about what he will do after he retires. He used to talk about traveling with his wife, but if that relationship is in trouble—well, who knows?
“Timons is another matter. I think he’s watched too many ‘Dirty Harry’ movies. He likes to talk more about fighting crime than providing public service. And his Dad’s a retired Marine who seems to be encouraging him to be aggressive. He likes to drive fast and has had a couple of fender benders. No doubt, he’s over-eager. He probably means well, but needs to tamp it down. I checked with Captain Smith at the Academy and he confirmed that while Timons was bright and graduated in the top 10 percent of his graduating class, he was too hyped up too much of the time.”
The Chief drummed her fingers on her desktop. “Hmmm. Check with our Employee Assistance professional and see if there are any preretirement services available? I know marital problems are a delicate topic to broach, but you might do some more checking and if you think it’s appropriate, talk with Mac about that option as well. And regarding our ‘Dirty Harry’ wannabe, it might be time for some tough love. How about working up an action plan and get back to me within the week?”
“Will do, Chief,” Lou replied.
What Would You Do?
As the immediate supervisor of the two officers, what would you do about putting together an action plan to motivate them to conform to the professional standards that are expected from police officers in your department? Why would just “waiting” for things to work themselves out probably not be a solution to their motivational problems?
A supervisor must take a multitude of factors into consideration when trying to understand the process of motivation. Central to that understanding is the human equation. A motive energizes one to take action and concerns itself with the choices one makes about goal-directed behavior. A motive causes one to act in a specific way as opposed to other options. Motives are the why of human behavior (Berryman-Fink & Fink, 2007). The preponderance of problems confronting an organization is unmistakably those identified as phenomena involving human conduct. Advances in physical and biological technology have not even identified what constitutes human behavior, much less presented a solution to understanding this complex area. There is a need for a technology of behavior, but this has not evolved and we seem to know little more about human behavior today than we did a century ago. Notwithstanding, supervisors must deal constantly with both acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Behavioral sciences trace behavior by utilizing such terms as attitudes, feelings, and state of mind. These concepts can be interpreted differently; consequently, problems have arisen as the field has evolved. There is a continuous struggle as efforts are made to identify and measure behavior and, while a comprehensive theory of behavior has yet to be set forth, the quest goes on. At the same time, current research would suggest that we are aware of four qualities of motivation that give a supervisor a frame of reference for making officers more effective and productive (Berryman-Fink & Fink, 2007).
- Motives are hierarchical in nature. Some motives are perceived as more important than others, and in some instances a motive can prove to be very strong and achieve importance as compared to other motives. At times, for example, the work itself might be more important than working conditions, but at the same time there appears to be a rank order of motives that stimulate officers; this is a condition that continually affects a supervisor’s motivational efforts.
- Motives may be unconsciousness. All of us have heard “I do not know what made me do that.” This is not unusual because many of us are unaware of how or why certain behavior occurred. In fact, some officers can provide a whole litany of reasons as to why something occurred, but in the end accept the fact that they are not really aware of the inner needs and drives that resulted in a specific behavior.
- Inference. When it comes down to it, a supervisor can actually observe a specific action or behavior, but the motive underlying that behavior can only be inferred. What this really means is that truly understanding motivation resulting in a certain behavior is still an unknown element in the motivation equation. Consequently, the actual determination of one’s motives, with our present knowledge, is to observe and attempt to draw a conclusion based on one’s best judgment.
- Variability. It is readily apparent that motives are changeable and have a limited stability. Time has a serious impact on motives and what works today might not work tomorrow. Motives are dynamic and leave us with the need to deal with the relationship of officers to the organization, the personal needs of officers, and the relationship that employees have with each other. It is a tall order, but achievable.
In the meantime, supervisors must deal with the behavior of subordinates and use all the knowledge at their disposal to motivate each employee so that organ izational goals can be achieved. Successful supervisors know that a great deal of effort must be expended in order to motivate employees. Motivation is not just something to be turned off and on at one’s leisure. It is a full-time, demanding process and can be all consuming. Employees will soon learn that a motivational speech at roll call asking them to “go out and make those streets safe” only serves to make the supervisor feel better. Rhetoric means little if it is not accompanied by positive and recurring reinforcements.
Behavioral scientists generally accept the proposition that behavior does not happen spontaneously—it is caused. Human behavior can be explained largely by determining basic human needs. Needs are fundamental to our basic existence and they cause things to happen. Needs cause one to act in a certain way, and goal attainment can result in need satisfaction. For example, before acquiring the rank of sergeant, an officer’s behavior was directed toward passing examinations successfully, allowing for goal attainment.
It seems the more humankind is studied, the more we realize the complexity of human behavior. In the past, it was believed that reason was capable of solving all problems. Aristotle believed that reason held sway over all human capacities (Nirenberg, 1986). Our current knowledge goes well beyond this. Our intricacy demands that a systematic procedure be followed in attempting to understand the internal and external factors that motivate individuals to act the way they do. In general, behavior will follow a pattern showing that:
- A need will activate the energy to attain an acceptable goal
- As the need increases in intensity, goal attainment is emphasized by the individual
- As the need increases, behavior follows, hopefully resulting in the attainment of goals and resulting satisfaction
From these patterns, the characteristics of human behavior become more apparent. A need arises and one’s perception mobilizes the energy needed for reaching a goal. If the goal is not attained, the person tries again, mobilizing additional energy. Additional attention is paid to excluding factors that do not foster goal attainment. The motivation cycle is a vehicle that aids in understanding human behavior. This cycle will allow you to gain an appreciation of the interacting forces and the resulting motivated behavior. Figure 4.1 depicts motivation as a continuous process consisting of three specific phases. The initial stage occurs when an individual experiences a need caused by external or internal forces, and there is a mobilization of these forces. In the next phase, a responsive behavior occurs, and there is an increase in energy. The last stage results in goal attainment and satisfaction results. The completion of one stage is not necessarily the end of the process. It can repeat itself or another need can arise.
Figure 4.1 Motivation Cycle
Adapted from Associates of the Office of Military Leadership, USMA (Eds.) (1976). A study of organizational leadership. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books
An individual’s motivation to act depends on two factors: the strength of the need and believing a certain action will lead to need satisfaction. For example, a patrol officer thought of becoming a sergeant and developed the desire to strive for the rank. The intensity of this person’s motivation and the satisfaction of the need depend on the perception of the real value of the goal. If his or her desire to become a sergeant is more than a transient wish and he or she wants the extra pay, the status, involvement in the decision-making process, and the power that goes with the position, the individual’s motivation will undoubtedly be high (Brown, 1992). Positional power should not be underestimated. When applied with caution and understanding, it can create trust and true understanding. Above all, favoritism cannot be justified as a supervisory technique and can prove to be highly disruptive (More & More, 2012; More, et al., 2013).
This simple example fulfills the requirement of motivation inasmuch as the need was strong and the individual pursued a course to satisfy that need. A manager has a responsibility to motivate employees. In fact, most agencies have a written directive stating that supervisory personnel are accountable for the performance of employees under their immediate supervision (CALEA, 2014). Supervisors must create conditions that maximize the productivity of the officers. Their efforts must be coordinated to achieve departmental goals. A first-line supervisor will soon acknowledge every officer as a unique individual and each individual is generally stimulated by different needs.
Officers can be motivated by one need today, and tomorrow the need may reappear or a new need may become evident. In other words, as the situation changes, the individual’s wants and desires can change. It is clear that subjective and objective features affect job satisfaction (Fincham & Rhodes, 2006). Fear, values, beliefs, interests, habits, culture, peer influence, love, moral standards, or other factors can motivate officers. It is evident that some of these factors are internal to the officer, while others are external. The combination of external and internal factors determines what motivates an officer to act in a certain way in a certain situation.
Motivational experts point out that the whole person is hired, not just a part. This means motivating the totality of a person’s drives. Motivation is as complex as human behavior. Therefore, a supervisor should keep an open mind about motivating individuals and not fall victim to the desire to find the panacea to the motivational problem (White, 2001).
At one time in the police service, the primary motivational force was based on power. If the order was to jump, the required response was “How high?” A supervisor might have the power, but the work environment is different, and employees, for the most part, will respond better to different motivational factors. It is a supervisor’s responsibility to develop officers’ needs and, when appropriate, make organizational needs overcome personal needs.
Effort must be directed toward attaining organizational goals through the work of individuals and groups. In order to accomplish this immense task, a supervisor should strive to create an atmosphere in the organizational working life in which most officers become self-motivated (Leonard & More, 2000).
The police supervisor who ignores the ecology of the organization will seldom be successful. A motivated employee is the product of interaction with the organization and the attitudes generated. Thus, the key to motivation is not just the individual, but also the department. There should be an organizational norm of supervisory activities that stimulate the development and growth of every officer.
Above all, this calls for a supervisor to demonstrate consistency in the performance of supervisory duties. Extremes of supervisory style, such as authoritarian or laissez-faire supervision, should be avoided.
The whole individual must be motivated. If an officer can be placed in a well-structured organization with identifiable goals, where the culture is such that one can readily identify with it, where tasks are challenging, and where accomplished individuals are rewarded, then the organization is really motivating its employees.
Historically, a number of police agencies have exhibited characteristics definitely incompatible with the aforementioned description. These agencies personify the authoritarian mandate leadership style reminiscent of the time when a manager gave an order and the only acceptable reply was: “When, where, and how much?” Fortunately, this type of supervision is outdated in most agencies (Charrier, 2000).
In our society, work is fundamental and a natural aspect of one’s daily life. In fact, work performs an exceedingly strong role in the economic, social, and psychological aspects of one’s life. Work is defined as effort directed to accomplish something. This definition is compatible with the concept of goals being attained through the efforts of individuals and groups.
Often an individual’s sense of identity is obtained from work, as evidenced by most people describing themselves as a member of a department or agency. While this means that most people identify work as having great importance in their lives, it has to be acknowledged that there are some individuals who view work as unavoidable.
Work provides officers with a sense of accomplishment, as well as something with which to identify. Police work especially challenges one’s skill and ingenuity. For many employees, the attainment of work-related goals has proven to be as important as material rewards. Most officers usually find police work challenging and demanding. In fact, everything else can become subordinate to work. Police work provides a sense of belonging, a sharing of duties, and a unique social bond.
A legitimate supervisory role is to create a work environment resulting in officer satisfaction. Two types of feelings come into play when one considers work. The first is global and describes an officer’s expressed feelings about the total job. The second is facet and reveals an officer’s feelings about one specific job element (Fincham & Rhodes, 2006). An example would be where an officer believes all promotions are based on “juice” (connections) and the support of a “rabbi” (mentor). Even with this as a dissatisfier, the officer expresses a positive global view of the job and believes that other job factors, such as importance of the work, feeling of accomplishing something, compensation, supervision, and equipment, are factors supporting a good working environment. In fact, a healthy place to work has five characteristics (see Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 Phrases that Describe a Good Workplace
Adapted from Robert Levering (2000). A great place to work—What makes some employees so good—and most so bad? (New ed.). San Francisco, CA: Great Place to Work Institute
Within a good workplace, the relationship between each employee and the organization is one of trust. The major finding of this unique book is that trust between managers and employees is the primary defining characteristic of the very best workplaces. When trust is present, officers get real satisfaction from the job. When managers and supervisors view employees as an important organizational component, it results in a realistic engagement resulting in participation that increases productivity and effectiveness (Brun & Cooper, 2009). Pride is another component of a good workplace relationship. The organization instills pride in each employee; in return, all employees feel pride in what they do. Officers enjoy working in an organization described as one in which trust is present and pride dominates the style of work. Thus, the workplace becomes a place where relationships are friendly, politicking is not present, and each employee is challenged to grow personally and professionally (Levering, 2000).
If there is one word that seems to be overworked in the managerial lexicon, it is motivation. We apparently have an insatiable appetite for keeping up with the latest motivational techniques. It has reached the point where some businesses use motivational seminars extensively as a means of boosting morale. Some have even used the fire walk technique, in which participants walk across 12 feet of glowing embers. The response of one participant was, “It was a great feeling to do something that I did not think could be done, and after doing it I felt that I could accomplish anything” (Roman, 1986). Whether this type of training produces a more productive employee cannot be answered at this time, but it does illustrate the extent to which some agencies will go in an effort to motivate employees.
Why is motivation so elusive? Why have we heard so much about it? Why is it accepted as a means of achieving goals or increasing productivity? Is it something magical? A basic assumption of this chapter is that managerial skills to stimulate and motivate employees can be learned. They are skills that are not tenuous, but real, and demonstrate (without a doubt) that motivation can be managed.
Motives for each member of the department are highly individualistic. Every person has their own motivational hierarchy based on needs, rewards, and values. Another important aspect of motivation is that it is not unvarying. Motivating factors can change over time. What causes someone to respond today might not be true tomorrow or the day after that (Haasen, 1997). Motives are not static, but dynamic. Consequently, while a supervisor can observe behavior, the motive for that behavior can only be inferred. Motives are generally considered insentient, and for the most part one is unaware of what motivates one’s behavior. Optimally, the best one can do is to work at changing behavior by using a variety of motivational techniques (Berryman-Fink & Fink, 2007).
Motivation is a mental process that produces an attitude resulting in an action leading to a result. Why do officers respond to a motivational factor? The primary reason is they derive a benefit from the result. Each person interprets and defines the reward differently. For one person it might be one thing, whereas for another the reward may be something entirely different.
The key to motivation is not only the individual, but also the organization. In practice, nearly every organization has its own approach to motivation, which is usually a difference of style, taste, or emphasis rather than one of substance (Gellerman, 1993). When an individual is placed in a department where the goals and values are easily identifiable, where there is room for growth, where one is allowed to be creative and accept a challenge, and where the officer feels secure and appreciated, as well as properly rewarded, then one finds an agency where the conditions are maximized for positive motivation. Police departments, however, have their own norms, and there are clearly those in which motivation plays a very important part and those in which it does not.
Where the dull are leading the dull, all the management experts in the world could not possibly improve the performance of employees. When a healthy culture evolves, it includes values, beliefs, and behavior built on a sound organizational base that develops and fosters the creation of truly committed and highly motivated employees. When the major motivational influence in the workforce is one’s internal drive to achieve, supported by and developed by the organization, then morale is high, which in turn enhances performance (Aragon, 1993). When that occurs, the organization can be described as performing successfully. In its simplest explanation, employees need to be empowered, involved, and true participants in the decision-making process. Every supervisor must work with employees in developing their abilities, skills, and knowledge, and every employee needs the technical knowledge and skill to perform assigned tasks. The supervisor must also provide conceptual skill training (Hu-TACK). This is an ongoing process of developing employees who can relate their own performance to the mission and value structure of the organization. Each employee has an understanding of the organization’s relationship to the community and how change in one part can affect the rest of the organization (Grant, 1990).
In order to become an excellent supervisor, a person must develop a plan that identifies obligations to both the officers being supervised and the immediate superiors. Some of the more specific responsibilities are listed in Figure 4.3. In reviewing the techniques listed in the figure, note that they are all part of what can be identified as an achievement–motivation program. The bottom line is that everybody works with greater intensity when there is something in it for him or her. A significant element of this process is that it demonstrates a caring supervisor who is concerned about those being supervised. Motivation is a complicated process and a number of theories are discussed later. Each theory is a foundation for supervisory techniques that can be used in work situations. Each theory is highly individualistic, and no single theory applies to all situations. Taken as a totality, the various motivational theories can provide you with a different way to look at behavior. The theories should be used by supervisors when working with line personnel, and experience shows that it will bring viable and positive results. A key is to avoid what a leading authority called the KITP (kick in the pants) approach to motivation as a process that was believed to be results oriented. Unfortunately, with this approach, short-term results could be positive but they have never had a lasting impact on the behavior of an individual within an organization. This position was set forth 40 years ago and it is as viable today as it was then (Herzberg, 2008). Motivational theories are numerous and a supervisor should consider all of them, keeping in mind that an eclectic approach, at this time, based on our current knowledge of the motivational process, is the best path to take.
Probably the most widespread motivational theory in use is that developed by Abraham H. Maslow. He postulated that people’s needs were exceedingly complex and were arranged in a hierarchy. His studies were based on a positive concept of mental health, and his research cohorts were the very best individuals he could identify (Globe, 1970). These individuals were described as being self-actualized
Figure 4.3 Techniques Supervisors Can Use to Motivate Officers
(S-A) and constituted less than 1 percent of the population. The self-actualized individual’s personality was found to be more harmonious, and his or her perceptions were less distorted by fears, desires, hopes, false optimism, or pessimism (Maslow, 1987).
Figure 4.4 Hierarchy of Needs
Adapted from Abraham H. Maslow (1987). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Interestingly enough, Maslow’s superior individual was found to be 60 years of age or older, and the most universal characteristic was the ability to see life clearly. The self-actualized person was creative, risk-prone, and possessed a low threshold for self-conflict. Additionally, the S-A individual possessed a healthy attitude toward work, finding it enjoyable to the point of actually being play. The ultimate key for a supervisor is to help employees actualize—in other words, let them become all they can be (Dessler, 1993).
Based on the S-A personality, Maslow created a theory of motivation showing that a number of basic needs that are clearly identifiable as species-wide, unchanged, and instinctual motivate human beings. This theory identified five need categories: physiological, security, social, esteem, and self-actualization (Figure 4.4).
Physiological Needs
The strongest and most fundamental needs are physiological needs (survival needs). These life-sustaining needs include food, shelter, sex, air, water, and sleep. Maslow showed that throughout life the human being constantly desires something. Man is a wanting animal, and complete satisfaction is achieved for only a short time.
As soon as one desire is satisfied, another takes its place. Imagine what it would be like to be hungry, to the point of almost being starved. This could not only cause physical discomfort, but could also lead to impairment or illness. It can readily be seen that such a state of need will be dominant. In most areas of the United States, police officers’ salaries place them beyond the point of minimum subsistence so their basic physiological needs are generally fulfilled.
From a supervisory perspective, it becomes necessary to understand the degree to which officers are motivated by physiological needs. If these needs are not fulfilled, it becomes apparent that the work they are involved in has no meaning to them. When management concentrates on physiological needs as a means of motivating officers, they have assumed that people work foremost for financial rewards. Emphasis is placed on wage increases, better working conditions, longer breaks, and enhanced fringe benefits as means of motivating officers.
Security Needs
Security needs emerge once a person’s basic needs are fulfilled. The dominant security needs are primarily the need for reasonable order and stability, and freedom from being anxious and insecure. Some officers have entered the police service because government agencies provide a secure and stable job. With security as a dominant need, officers will want stability and predictability above all else.
The managerial response should stress rules and regulations. Emphasis should be placed on traditional union demands such as pay and fringe benefits. In addition, management that meets security needs would limit efforts to encourage individual initiative, complex problem-solving situations, or any type of risk taking.
Security-minded officers want everything in black and white. The known is stressed over the unknown. Some officers never get beyond the level of satisfying security needs. Change is rejected and every aspect of their working life has to be geared to absolute safety. This creates difficulties for some officers who want things to be stable and predictable, as when courts change the time-honored practices revolving around procedures such as advising suspects of their rights or search-and-seizure techniques.
When a supervisor seeks security above all, it is obvious that everything is played close to the vest. Rules and procedures dominate, and absolute adherence to time schedules is demanded. Such a supervisor is organized to the point of rigidity. One’s boss is not only omnipotent, but also omniscient. Everything possible is done to please and placate individuals who are higher in the chain of command. The supervisor fixated with security needs ignores the needs of subordinate officers, uses manipulation when necessary, and the need to develop feelings of growth is rejected.
Officers are viewed as having no need to control their own lives and the key to success is close supervision.
It would seem realistic to examine one’s own security needs. How far should you go to cover up personal mistakes? Would you cover up mistakes made by your superiors? Would you do anything just to be promoted? Do you always agree with the boss just because that person is the boss? Whatever the answers, one should know more about oneself after answering these questions.
Social Needs
This level is a clear departure from the two basic needs just discussed. With the fulfillment of physiological and security needs, social needs emerge. Maslow pointed out that human beings will hunger for affiliation with others, for a place in a group, and will attempt to achieve this goal with a great deal of intensity (Globe, 1970).
When this need is not fulfilled by the organization, the officer can respond by an excessive use of sick leave and inadequate productivity. It can lead to loneliness, boredom, and a poor self-image—affecting mental health. Most individuals want to be accepted by peers and supervisors. In fact, everyone has a strong tendency to identify with groups, and some people will modify their behavior to meet the group’s criteria for membership. Central to this is acceptance and almost everyone strives for it.
When a supervisor becomes aware that social needs are motivating officers, then every effort should be made to promote social interaction. This can be difficult to do in a patrol unit that utilizes one-person patrol vehicles, but the supervisor can provide backup units whenever possible. In addition, the supervisor can act in a supportive manner whenever possible. A physical conditioning room, parties, or organized sports events can all provide a means for meeting social needs.
The socially motivated supervisor emphasizes officers’ needs and will ignore organizational needs. If options are available, the decision is always made on the side of the employee. Everything is done to ensure that the supervisor is part of the group. The approval of everyone is sought: subordinates, peers, and bosses. Supervisors must accomplish tasks through the efforts of others; thus, a good supervisor must help by supporting the efforts of those who are working to achieve departmental objectives. It is important that realistic objectives be attainable and when this is true it has proven to be a positive motivational factor. A realistic objective should be one that inspires and motivates achievement (U.S. Department of Energy, 1996).
What about your own social needs? When you become a supervisor, can you change roles and lead? How strong is your need to be socially accepted? When you are promoted, can you accept being a part of management? These are not easy questions to answer and demand real soul searching to determine where you stand in relation to your needs.
Esteem Needs
Maslow described two categories of esteem needs. The first was self-esteem, including such factors as a need for independence, freedom, confidence, and achievement. The second area was identified as respect from others and includes the concepts of recognition, prestige, acceptance, status, and reputation (Globe, 1970). It is difficult to imagine one who has attained a supervisory rank not fulfilling these two categories of self-esteem.
Officers who do not feel their esteem needs are being fulfilled through the job can become discouraged (if not disgruntled) employees. Officers want to be recognized for their accomplishments. This has been done in part by such things as commendations, medals, and longevity stripes. In some agencies, the rank of corporal is awarded for achievement; in some cases an unusual act of bravery or a politically sensitive arrest can result in a promotion to an investigative status. The key is to acknowledge achievement that is above and beyond the fulfillment of normal duties.
The aforementioned external indicators of status can fulfill an officer’s esteem needs, leading to feelings of worthiness, adequacy, and self-confidence. Supervisors who recognize the importance of esteem need to do everything possible to ensure that officers demonstrate self-confidence and have few self-doubts and a positive self-image.
The supervisor whose primary drive is esteem will, in all probability, be a successful manager. Such an individual will expend a great deal of energy in order to achieve recognition (Chandler, 2004). In the final analysis, the supervisor should take the time and expend the effort to convey to every officer that he or she is an important person, doing essential work, and occupying an important place. Nothing less can be expected.
Self-Actualization Needs
Maslow points out that when most of the esteem needs are fulfilled, then what man can be, he must be. This is the stage of self-actualization, which is characterized by the need to develop feelings of growth and maturity, become increasingly competent, and gain a mastery over situations. At this level, the individual reaches the point where all talents and potential are put to use. Motivation is very internalized and external stimulation is unnecessary. Efforts of an S-A individual focus on applying creative and constructive skills to work situations, and such individuals are never bothered by feelings of futility, alienation, or bitterness.
Supervisors who manage S-A officers should do everything possible to make work meaningful. Participation should be maximized so that officers can use their unique skills. Special assignments should be made when possible in order to capitalize on an officer’s talents. When task forces are organized to deal with unique police problems, the S-A officer should be assigned. The self-actualized individual has a need to demonstrate the ability to assume responsibility and involvement at the highest possible level.
Maslow did not view the hierarchy of needs as a series of levels that are very independent of one another. In fact, the categories overlap and are not entirely precise. He suggests that it is unsatisfied needs that influence behavior. Once a need is satisfied, it has a limited effect on motivation. Maslow estimated that the average person is 85 percent satisfied in physiological needs, 70 percent satisfied in safety needs, 50 percent in social needs, 40 percent in esteem needs, and 10 percent in self-actualization needs. Since the initial research, Maslow developed a new list of needs identified as growth needs (social, self-esteem, and self-actualization) as compared to basic needs (physiological and safety). He believed higher needs use basic needs as a foundation. Higher or growth needs are set forth in Figure 4.5.
Maslow pointed out that growth needs are interrelated, and when defining one value it is necessary to use the others. These values cannot be separated, and all values reflect the highest need category (see Figure 4.6). Maslow cautioned that we should not make the mistake of thinking that good working conditions will automatically transform all employees into growing, self-actualized individuals.
Figure 4.5 Higher or Growth Needs
Adapted from Frank G. Globe (1970). The third force—The psychology of Abraham Maslow. New York: Pocket Books
Figure 4.6 Behaviors When Needs Are Not Fulfilled
Adapted from Abraham H. Maslow (1962). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand
The hierarchy of needs motivational theory has numerous supporters, but the motivation–hygiene theory, while somewhat more controversial, has received increasing attention. Frederick Herzberg and colleagues developed this theory, based on semi-structured interviews with 200 accountants and engineers. Job satisfaction and its relationship were examined, and the central question of the investigation was “What do people want from their job?”
In this landmark study, researchers found 155 studies addressing this vital question. They found that different results were achieved when the research design was concerned with elements making employees happy with their jobs, as opposed to studies stressing factors leading to job dissatisfaction. In the Herzberg study, workers who were found to be happiest with their jobs identified factors relating to the performance of tasks, work events reflecting successful performance, and factors identified as growth.
The other aspect of the two-factor study related to feelings of unhappiness, and they were found to be totally unrelated to the actual accomplishment of work. These factors, identified as hygiene because they acted in a manner similar to medical hygiene, include supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, company policies, administrative practices, benefits, and job security. Figure 4.7 sets forth this theory.
Figure 4.7 Motivation–Hygiene Theory
Source: Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, & Barbara Snyderman (1993). The Motivation to work. © Frederick Herzberg, School of Business, University of Utah. Reprinted with permission of the senior author; Frederick Herzberg (2008). One more time—How do you motivate employees? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press
Motivational factors are readily identifiable because either they relate to the work itself or they revolve around such things as advancement, responsibility, or recognition. The hygiene factors are either determined by the organization or occur because of a memorandum of understanding negotiated by a police union. They are generally restricted to working conditions and policies, in contrast to the motivational factors that stimulate the individual. It is easy to see an immediate parallel between Maslow’s concepts of self-actualization and esteem needs. What the employee wants is either growth or recognition (Bergland, 1993).
The factors that address the needs of employees that result in job satisfaction tend to satisfy an officer’s needs over an extended period, in contrast to hygiene factors, which are more short-lived. A unique characteristic of Herzberg’s theory is that motivators can result in a positive feeling toward work, while at the same time, some individuals respond negatively.
Both motivators and hygiene factors meet employee needs, but it is primarily motivators that result in job satisfaction. Workers studied by Herzberg and collaborators found, for example, that achievement was present in more than 40 percent of what were identified as satisfying situations and in less than 10 percent of dissatisfying situations. In terms of recognition, more than 30 percent of the situations were satisfying and less than 20 percent were dissatisfying.
Herzberg viewed satisfiers and dissatisfiers as separate and distinct entities. One can be satisfied and dissatisfied simultaneously. This means that hygiene factors cannot increase job satisfaction, but only affect the amount of job dissatisfaction.
There are definite differences between the theories of Maslow and Herzberg, as well as similarities noted by the fact that both theories identify motivational factors; in some aspects, the theories overlap. Herzberg created a category not discussed by Maslow, and he identified these hygiene factors (non-motivators) as generally reflective of the components of a bureaucratic police organization. The Maslow theory differs because it views human beings as social individuals who can be viewed as multidimensional and suggests that individuals have the capacity to prioritize needs hierarchically. Supervisors should search for motivational opportunities and strive to turn negative experiences into positives so that officers can consistently contribute their best (Silverstein, 2007).
Theory X–Theory Y
Douglas McGregor developed one of the best-known motivational theories. It is a straightforward theory based on the belief that managers conduct themselves according to the assumptions, generalizations, and hypotheses they have about human behavior (McGregor, 1960). McGregor views employees’ attitudes and behavior as being in response to management’s perspective of their own job and their basic mindset about human behavior.
The traditional view of direction and control, identified as Theory X, is set forth in Figure 4.8.
This view of human behavior is still somewhat prevalent in the policing field and is reminiscent of autocratic leadership. What are the consequences of such assumptions about human behavior? What roles are supervisors and officers forced to take? Human behavior is very complex, and it seems appropriate to suggest that Theory X can explain the behavior of a few employees, but certainly not the majority.
Closely paralleling Theory X is another motivational theory called “carrot and stick.” Both theories seem viable when meeting an employee’s basic needs at physiological and safety levels. The job itself, working conditions, and fringe benefits can be very strong control features when officers are struggling to get by, but when basic need levels are reasonably satisfied and officers become motivated by higher needs, the theories leave much to be desired.
If managers view employees as a necessary evil, they actually view themselves as the chosen ones possessing special abilities. They view the majority of individuals as having limited abilities. Thus, employees are viewed as fundamentally lazy, preferring to have decisions made for them, and readily accepting (and actually wanting) forceful leadership. Employees will continually take advantage of the work situation and have no concept of the factors constituting a fair day’s work. If supervisors hold to Theory X, it will be reflected in every contact with those supervised.
Figure 4.8 Theory X
Adapted from Douglas McGregor (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill
Theory X places a strong emphasis on control and direction (Von der Embse, 1987). Procedures are devised for providing officers with close supervision (determining whether the task has been accomplished) and the creation of a means for providing rewards and punishments.
With increasing emphasis on the professionalization of law enforcement and an improved standard of living, fundamental needs (physiological and safety) have become less of a managerial issue. Thus, control becomes fundamentally inadequate as a means of motivating employees when they have developed a social, esteem, or self-actualization need. This means a supervisor should consider a new generalization about the management of human resources, namely, the assumptions outlined by Theory Y, which is set forth in Figure 4.9.
A careful analysis of the factors clearly suggests that management should respond to the employees with an enlightened strategy. The managerial perspective will have to be creative, discover new organizational principles, and develop new means of directing employees. It should be acknowledged that while the perfect organization might not be attainable, there is certainly room for improvement.
McGregor pointed out that the complete integration of individual and organizational goals was not realistic. The ultimate goal for which we strive should be a degree of integration whereby workers can attain their own goals by directing their efforts toward the success of the organization. Workers must be encouraged to develop to their highest capacity by acquiring knowledge and skills to make the organization successful.
Figure 4.9 Theory Y
Adapted from Douglas McGregor (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill
Interestingly enough, when a supervisor accepts Theory Y, it does not imply the abdication of his or her responsibilities of what has become known as “soft management.” Theory Y assumes employees will exercise self-direction and self-control if they are committed to departmental objectives. If commitment is slight or nonexistent, then self-direction and self-control will be slight or nonexistent. External influences will have to be exerted in order to achieve goals. If the commitment is great, then external influences should be minimal or, better yet, nonexistent.
An appropriate application of Theory Y reduces the need for external control and relies on other managerial techniques for reaching organizational goals successfully. Generally, authority will prove to be an inappropriate technique for obtaining departmental goals, but authority is something that has to be used when an organization cannot get a genuine commitment to departmental objectives. Theory Y assumes that authority is not appropriate for all situations.
It can be seen readily that when a supervisor applies the concepts predicated by Theory Y, each employee is viewed as a real asset. Officers have a definite capacity for growth and development. Employees can be highly creative and willing to accept responsibility. It is the supervisor’s job to create a working environment in which the potential of every officer can be tapped. Employees are usually not indolent, stupid, irresponsible, or hostile. The supervisor accepts that there will always be a few such officers, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Such an orientation requires the supervisor to be concerned primarily with the quality of interpersonal relationships. One’s effort is directed toward developing an organizational atmosphere that fosters a commitment to departmental goals. Each employee is given an opportunity to become self-directing, innovative, and growth oriented.
There are contrasting sets of attitudes when one compares Theory X and Theory Y. What, then, is the answer? What theory should a supervisor follow? Not surprisingly, neither theory can be applied in every situation. A supervisor probably functions at some point between the two extremes. When an officer is on probation and new to the job, a Theory X approach may be more appropriate until the officer is capable of functioning alone. During a narcotics raid is not the proper time for officers to question what is being done or take it upon themselves to deviate from the prescribed procedures. Safety is imperative and officers must follow orders.
However, as an officer grows and develops, control can be reduced and the officer can be given a greater opportunity for self-direction and self-control. The assumptions a supervisor makes about what theory to use depends on a detailed evaluation of each officer’s abilities and qualifications. The more knowledgeable and competent officers can be extended a great deal of freedom in their work environment. When these conditions are not met, the supervisor must emphasize control and dependent subordinate behavior.
Predicting behavior in organizations has always challenged behaviorists. A model predictor holding promise is one developed by Victor H. Vroom. This model is predicated on the concept that it is the internal state as well as external forces impinging on individuals that will cause them to act in a specific manner. In the final analysis, a worker will be motivated to put forth the necessary effort when it will result in the attainment of desired goals.
There are four basic assumptions about human behavior that serve as the foundation of the expectancy theory. They demonstrate the complexity of not only human behavior, but also of motivation. The first assumption is that behavior is not determined exclusively by the individual. It is a product of the vitality of an individual and the environment, and within this context, each individual will develop a preference for available objectives. When the preference is high, the acceptance will be greater. However, the employee will avoid undesirable consequences. If an individual values promotion over everything else, behavior will be adjusted in order to meet that need.
Second, employees have expectancies about outcomes. To put it another way, each person anticipates what will occur. If results are not compatible with efforts, then the activity is ignored or avoided. Expectations vary from individual to individual. What one police officer feels is important might be unimportant to another officer. Some individuals feel that job security is important above all else, whereas others want to perform demanding and challenging tasks.
One aspect of expectancy is called effort–performance (E–P), which refers to an individual’s motivation to choose a specific performance objective and the relationship of effort to that objective. Factors affecting an individual’s expectancy perception include such things as self-esteem, previous experience in similar situations, capability, and the style of supervision. This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but it does illustrate the range of such factors. It is believed that each individual seeks to increase self-esteem by searching for psychological success. One experiences psychological success when (Handy, 2005):
- A personal, challenging goal is set
- Methods of achieving that goal are set
- The goal is relevant to one’s self-concept
When an officer experiences psychological success, he or she feels more competent. The more competent one feels, the more apt that person is to take risks in perceived areas of importance. However, when one is not successful psychologically, it can lead to the lowering of personal goals as the person strives to protect his or her self-concept (Handy, 2005). While the importance of self-esteem is evident, the whole process should be approached with some degree of caution, especially if there are other influencing factors, such as limited manpower or inadequate equipment. Not all the desire in the world can achieve the impossible.
Another aspect of expectancy is performance–outcome (P–O), which deals with an officer’s anticipation of performing at a specified level and the outcome of those efforts. This can best be illustrated by a situation in which an officer may feel that a superior effort will result in different outcomes. Such efforts can undoubtedly result in unintended consequences. While a merit increase might be forthcoming, it might also foster resentment from peers and cause difficulties at home because of excessive absence from the family. It is clear, then, that any single outcome might be positive in some ways and negative in others.
Needless to say, one way of analyzing motivation is to view the consequences resulting from expectancies and valences. Then motivation can be viewed as:
Motivation = E(Expectancy × Valence)
Valence is defined as the strength of an individual’s desire for a particular outcome. Synonyms for valence include drive, incentive, or desire. Valences range from −1.0 to 1.0, and when the valence is in the negative range, the officer does not want to reach or attain the objective. When the valence is positive, the outcome is highly desirable. When the valence is zero, the officer is indifferent to the outcome (Luthans, 2010). It is important to realize that what really matters is the employee’s perception of what will occur.
Supervisors seem to underrate the factors necessary for motivating employees. They forget it is the officer’s perception that matters most—not the supervisor’s perception. The expectancy motivational model combines the previously discussed need theory with the concept of perceived outcomes. Officers are motivated, for example, by satisfying their esteem needs, such as receiving a promotion or obtaining a preferred assignment to a special unit (such as a SWAT team). They can be motivated by the successful completion of the probationary period because of the security it will provide. The interplay occurring between officers who are involved in team policing can fulfill the need for socialization.
Another study revealed that when studying three levels of employees (low, middle, and upper) there was hardly any difference among the levels when they rated the importance of needs (security, social, esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization). The real difference came when the three levels rated the degree to which needs were satisfied. Lower level employees were much less satisfied with the number of higher order needs being met on the job (Hawkins & Preston, 1981). The most successful supervisors will concentrate on helping officers to clarify their needs and on becoming aware of how officers perceive those needs. Once this is accomplished, the expectancies of outcomes can be dealt with through such techniques as training, delegation, and acknowledgment of a job well done or the granting of greater autonomy.
Fairness is the keystone of equity theory and is viewed as one of the process theories of motivation. Law enforcement executives are paying increasing attention to this theory as they struggle with how to reward officers and civilian employees for their work. When viewed from a motivational perspective, equity occurs when specific rewards are looked upon as fair and foundational to the total reward system (Cole, 2003). John Stacey Adams, a behavioral psychologist and a student of workplace behavior, created this theory of motivation, which has had considerable acceptance in business and public administration (Adams, 1965). It calls for rational stability between an officer’s inputs and outputs. Inputs are listed in Figure 4.10.
Adams postulates that when there is a feeling of inequity it is, in reality, a state of mind. Thus, when employees have a feeling of inequity in the manner in which they are treated, they will respond to eliminate the discomfort and restore a sense of equity to the situation (More et al., 2013).
It is readily apparent that when inequities are perceived there is a true imbalance in what officers see as incentives received for their output when compared to others within the organization who are expending an equal effort. This definitely violates the widely accepted norm that officers should be treated equitably. Under the concept of equity one expects acceptable job performance to be meaningfully rewarded. Within everyone there is a need to maintain a balance between inputs and outputs and maintain distributive fairness (Aldag & Kuzuhara, 2009). This occurs when each member of the organization believes that employees are getting what they deserve— not more, not less (Dessler, 1999).
Figure 4.10 Equity Theory
What occurs is that officers compare an existing condition or state with what is perceived as a standard. It has been found that employees continually compare their work with others on their team. Unfortunately, what occurs in some agencies is that a patrol officer will compare what they do with the work being done by someone in a specialized unit. As departments have moved from a traditional focus on control to one of community policing, comparison of duties of the work being done during the changeover was primarily noncomparable, but comparisons were drawn anyway; in one department, community policing-officers were called “plastic cops.” As a consequence, during such a transition many officers were left in the lurch and there was a tendency for morale to become lower. In another instance, an inequity occurred when selected officers received all of the overtime they wanted while other officers were denied. Under such circumstances it becomes difficult for management to justify work allocation. Even though managers think that everything is fair, what is important to the officers is their perception of fairness. The truism is that some degree of inequity is inevitable. Inequities exist when unequals are treated as equals, as well as when equals are treated as unequals (More et al., 2013). What it boils down to is that perceived inequities are inevitable when officers interact in an organization. Inequities come into existence because of the following factors:
- Pay differential
- Diversity, racial, sexual orientation, and social discrimination (perceived or actual)
- Preferential assignments based on longevity
- Political promotions
- Favoritism
- Lack of resources
Equity theory assumes that all employees compare themselves to others in terms of what they get out of a job (outputs) versus what they put into the work (inputs). In application, a negative inequity exists when a police officer believes that she or he is receiving less of a valued outcome than other officers engaged in the same activities. When the input/output ratio is equal, a sense of equity is experienced (Stroh et al., 2001).
When the reward for work equals or exceeds the fairness standard, it results in repeated behavior. If the reward is less than the perceived equity, dissatisfaction will set in and motivation to continue the activity will lessen. Adams believed that when there is inequity, cognitive dissonance and disequilibrium would set in and behavior of the following kinds would possibly occur.
- When a positive inequity is perceived, performance, workload, and other kinds of input justify higher rewards.
- When a negative inequity is perceived, there will be a decrease in performance, workload, and other kinds of input.
- Change of output through personal persuasion, collective bargaining, legal action, or dysfunctional behavior such as misappropriation, employee theft, and outright corruption.
- Change of output by persuading low performers to increase their efforts and discouraging higher performers from being rate busters.
Two authorities suggest that managers can control equity in their work unit if they follow the following rules (Aldag & Kuzuhara, 2009).
- Assess employee perceptions of equity.
- Identify those who perceive inequity.
- Determine the basis for employee perceptions on inequity.
- Evaluate management policies and practices to determine the validity of employee perceptions.
- Identify changes that can be made to address employee inequity.
- Implement changes and communicate them to employees.
It is thought that the rules just given will make the personnel process more objective. Research has demonstrated that the perception of inequity leads to reduced output, but there are detractors who tend to believe that it is a special-purpose theory rather than a general theory of motivation (Whisenand, 2010). The value of equity theory is that it gives police managers a framework for evaluating critical issues such as equity, fairness, and justice in the allocation of rewards.
Two researchers have suggested that the sensitivity theory can be used to identify individual differences reflecting basic motivational needs. Furthermore, they suggest that fundamental motives are the keys that in time will actually predict human behavior. This theory is a genetics–behavior–cognitive model of axiomatic motivation. It is the position of the two psychologists that human behavior can be separated into two categories based on the purposes of the behavior.
Means: This is indicated when someone performs an act for a useful purpose.
End: This occurs when an individual performs a behavior for no evident reason other than its own purpose.
When means are important to an officer, it might be indicated by the quest of a college degree solely to make one eligible to receive a monthly increase in salary for educational attainment. Another example is an officer who works additional shifts and enhances his or her income in order to purchase a sailboat. In both instances, money provides for goal attainment. The means allow one to attain a desired goal that has been identified and is believed to be reachable. At the same time, the goal is one that is personally beneficial and one for which an individual has no difficulty becoming motivated because of the reward that can be received at the end of the process.
This process differs from that involving the pursuit of an end. What is important is the nature of the involvement. In contrast, when someone walks or hikes for the sake of enjoyment or when an individual exercises for pleasure, the end is what is important. It does not really matter what has to be done as long as the anticipated result occurs. What occurs in this instance might serve a useful purpose, but it is something that was never intended.
Researchers postulate that human desire stems from 16 basic desires (see Figure 4.11). They range from abstracts, such as honor or social contact, to bodily wants, such as eating or romance, and to more intellectual ambient factors, such as idealism and order. Of special interest to the work situation are such fundamental motives as honor, power, curiosity, acceptance, status, and independence. A police manager can use these as a guideline for motivating officers. Some officers will strive for acceptance, whereas others will strive for independence. It is up to the supervisor to determine what “button” to push in order to achieve the meshing of personal and organizational goals.
Reflections of the fact that humans are social animals are such motives as social contact and social prestige. All of us are concerned with the 16 basic desires, but the intensity and the priority that one gives to them vary from individual to individual. If a supervisor finds that an officer focuses more on motives such as family, it presents an entirely different supervisory problem than an officer who is more concerned with order. When compared to other motivational theories, the list is extensive and encompasses a great deal of variance. It clearly demonstrates the complexity of human behavior. This theory goes well beyond those that stress the avoidance of pain and the maximization of pleasure (Reiss, 2002).
The theories just discussed have their place, and supervisors have been successful in varying degrees in applying these theories to the work environment. If there is a drawback in this application, it is that they are somewhat subjective. This is readily apparent when one closely examines the theories and such related terms as needs, satisfaction, psychological success, self-concept, and expectancies.
Figure 4.11 Fundamental Motives—16 Basic Desires
Adapted from Steven Reiss (2002). Who am I? The 16 basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putman. A copy of this list was provided by Steven Reiss
In analyzing the behavior of officers, it is necessary to study what will happen if a certain action is taken. It is important to determine what the officer believes the consequence of the act will be—not what the supervisor thinks. A supervisor utilizing the concept of behavior modification shapes behavior based on the belief that when an activity results in a positive consequence, the activity is apt to be repeated. If the activity results in a negative consequence, the activity tends not to be repeated. Within the framework of behavior modification, the supervisor works to influence officer behavior in such a way that organizational objectives and goals are attained (Laird et al., 1989). Officers generally take the position that when they expend efforts on behalf of the agency, they will be rewarded and, as a consequence, will pursue agency goals (Fitch, 2008). The advantage of this approach is that the supervisor does not need to become aware of such things as officer needs or motives, but can limit efforts to altering the behavior by altering some aspect of the reward system. This approach to people management has demonstrated over the years that not only can an officer’s behavior be changed regardless of what their attitudes might be, but once the behavior has changed, the attitude usually follows (Fournies, 2000). Interestingly, it is not events or communications that generate behavior, but it is the interpretation an officer gives to the phenomenon that will lead to a positive reaction and explicit behavior (Flaherty, 1999).
If, in the judgment of the officers, the consequences are important, then behavior can be viewed as being based on the following two principles.
- When behavior results in a positive consequence, officers will sustain that behavior.
- Officers will suspend or curtail a specific behavior when the result is negative.
On the surface, behavior modification seems to be quite simple, but it becomes somewhat complex in application. Karen Brethower, who expanded the theory to the job situation, suggests the following (Williams et al., 1985).
- When a specific behavior is desired, but another behavior results and there is a positive event, then the second behavior intervenes and dominates.
- When officer behavior results in a positive outcome in one situation, but negative consequences occur in another situation, the positive behavior will always dominate.
- When the task to be performed does not require a specific type of behavior or is of no consequence, such behavior is inconsequential and will eventually come to an end.
- When the consequence of a certain behavior is far removed (in time) from the behavior, there will be a smaller impact on the behavior of the officer.
By utilizing the two principles and the four corollaries discussed earlier, a supervisor can respond to the tasks performed by officers and engage in reinforcing activities, including praise, a commendation, special assignment, or additional training. Officers usually have a good understanding of what management expects from them (in terms of job performance) so they act accordingly. A supervisor who utilizes this process selects techniques that are appropriate to the given situation after considering internal and external variables.
If behavior is to be modified, consequences must occur immediately after a behavior occurs, not days or months afterward. To delay responding leads to either officer indifference or refusal to engage in such activities. Positive behavior must always be rewarded, not ignored. Ignored negative behavior will, in all probability, harm either the supervisor or the department.
In other words, when reinforcement is used to modify behavior, it must be done continuously and consistently. Any given task performed by a police officer can be performed as management desires or in an unacceptable way. Supervisors actually want officers to perform their duties with reasonable dispatch and effectiveness. If reinforcement is to work, it must be response contingent. Any response to officer activity should be clearly and definitely related to performance or the effort to reinforce will be blunted or even meaningless.
Positive reinforcement works because there is a greater probability that desirable behavior will occur. It is direct, simple, clear, and practical. Above all, it is not encumbered by negative side effects. If there is a problem with managing with a reinforcement focus, it is that our society in general deals with most negative performance by punishment or criticism. If a supervisor has been reared in a family where punishment dominated, and schools as well as the job reinforce this negative approach, it becomes apparent that when this individual becomes a manager, his or her first instinct is to deal with all undesirable behavior by punishing.
Punishment is viewed by some as the quickest and most effective way of obtaining compliance, but in reality it is seldom long-lasting and, when used exclusively, is generally ineffective. Another problem is that unpredictable punishment can easily lead to more negative consequences, such as reinforcing the schism between the department and a police union, or estranging officers.
Initially, punishment will eliminate or reduce undesirable behavior, but managing fear, coercion, or threats as a means of getting work done serves only to alienate officers from managers and from the department itself. Punishment is based on power, and the individual’s task is to conform or punishment will occur (Handy, 2005). In many instances, officers actually feel they are not extended the common courtesy of being treated as human beings, let alone individuals. As one expert pointed out, some supervisors, wanting to improve the performance of officers they are supervising, are so effective at punishing that they actually reinforce alienation. Viewed realistically, the officer who is treated with contempt and disdain by an immediate supervisor can be expected to react negatively (Nirenberg, 1986).
At some point, some employees will have to be punished, but punishment should be as a last resort, not a supervisory style. Certainly, punishment will provide a lessening of undesirable behavior, but once the punishment is eliminated from the supervisory process, the employee can resume unacceptable behavior. A punishing style of leadership requires the supervisor to operate continuously from a negative managerial style and always be alert to correct unacceptable officer behavior. It actually means that the supervisor must watch employees so closely that, in many instances, the officers are forced to react defensively and production is reduced, not increased.
Punishment as a managerial style can, and most often will, lead to a negative emotional reaction in which an officer can react with anger, become hostile, act out aggressively, or withdraw. Any or all of these reactions can create a working environment in which it becomes uncomfortable to work, the personal satisfaction of doing a good job becomes unimportant, and the atmosphere is devoid of positive motivational factors.
In police work, an additional consequence of a punishing atmosphere can be one in which the officers respond by becoming very inflexible in their enforcement of the law and officer discretion becomes nonexistent. In this instance, the public loses, and in the end, the department loses. As one officer pointed out: “If they want conformity, that’s what they are going to get—absolute conformity. Go by the book and toe the line because that’s the only way to keep out of trouble.”
A supervisor using reinforcement techniques is attempting to shape behavior. If the process is to be successful, it is necessary to use reinforcement thoughtfully and systematically. Initially, a supervisor must recognize that changing behavior is more difficult than sustaining and supporting the change once it has been put in place. This means that the supervisor should apply the greatest amount of reinforcement during the early stages, and the frequency of reinforcement should be greater during this period. If the initial employee efforts go unnoticed or are ignored by the supervisor, those efforts, in all probability, will not be sustained.
It is also important for a supervisor to respond to behavior after the fact, not before. If reinforcement is used before the desired behavior, it will not shape behavior. Reinforcement must be tied to a specific act by the employee and should occur immediately after the specific activity. This is one reason why annual or semiannual performance reviews generally prove ineffective in changing job behavior. Short-term behavior changes may occur because of a performance review, but the change in behavior seldom lasts more than two or three months. Lasting changes in behavior can be accomplished only by immediately responding to an act, not waiting until the next review, which might be one year away. A supervisor should reinforce every performance improvement, no matter how slight. When the desired behavior becomes an established pattern, reinforcement can then be used periodically or randomly. Behavior modification is used in counseling, applied behavioral analysis, self-protecting skills training, and treatment of behavioral problems (Martin & Pear, 2010; Miltenberger 2011).
When instituting a behavior modification program, a supervisor should consider the following (Williams et al., 1985).
- All employees need to know what is expected of them.
- Feedback is essential; officers need to know that what they are doing is right or wrong.
- If officers perform poorly because of a deficiency in knowledge, they should be coached, trained, or mentored.
- In most instances, punishment will have numerous harmful side effects.
- Positive reinforcement should be consistent and unbroken.
- Positive reinforcement will result in improved performance.
- Punishment should be used as a last resort.
- Reinforcement should be tied to positive behavior.
Reinforcement will modify behavior. It is a technique whereby officers can be motivated to work harder and with a great degree of effectiveness. This can result in an improvement in organizational pride, morale, and loyalty and give rise to a working environment that stimulates officers to achieve their potential. It can create a pleasant place to work with minimal organizational politics and leave officers with the feeling that it is a great place to work.
Case 4
“Endings and Beginnings: Motivating Difficult Police Officers” … Revisited
After reading Chapter 4, what might you do differently in developing a motivational action plan for Mac and Timons?
Questions
- What part does Theory X play in this type of situation? What effort would you make to modify their behavior? Are there negative consequences that could occur?
- Although the two officers’ problems are different, what are some “needs” that may be contributing to their unwanted behavior?
- Would you respond to the two officers differently? Why?
- Would it be more effective to approach Mac with more empathy and sensitivity and approach Timons with more candor? In both cases, would it be important to use as much positive reinforcement as possible? Why?
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L.Berkowicz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Aldag, R. J., & Kuzuhara, L. W. (2009). Organizational behavior and management—A skills based approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Aragon, R. (1993). Positive organizational culture—A practical approach. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62(12).
Associates of the Office of Military Leadership, & USMA (Eds.). (1976). A study of organizational leadership. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole.
Bergland, S. (1993). Employment empowerment. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62(12).
Berryman-Fink, C., & Fink, C. B. (2007). The manager’s desk reference (3rd ed.). New York: AMACOM.
Brown, M. F. (1992). The sergeant’s role in a modern law enforcement agency. The Police Chief, LIX(5).
Brun, J.P., & Cooper, C. (2009). Missing pieces: 7 ways to improve employee well-being and organizational effectiveness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
CALEA (2014). Standards for law enforcement agencies (5th ed.). Fairfax, VA: Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
Chandler, S. (2004). 100 ways to motivate yourself—Change your life forever (revised ed.). Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career.
Charrier, K. (2000). Marketing strategies for attracting and retaining Generation X police officers. The Police Chief, LXVII(12).
Cole, G. A. (2003). Management theory and practice (6th ed.). Cengage Learning Business Press.
Dessler, G. (1993). Winning commitment—How to build and keep a competitive workforce. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dessler, G. (1999). Management—Principles and practices for tomorrow’s leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fincham, R., & Rhodes, P. S. (2006). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.
Fitch, B. (2008). Motivation: Rethinking the supervisor’s role. Law and Order, 56(3).
Flaherty, J. (1999). Coaching—Evoking excellence in others. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fournies, F. F. (2000). Coaching for improved work performance (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gellerman, S. W. (1993). Motivation in the real world—The art of getting extra effort from everyone—Including yourself. New York: Dutton.
Globe, F. G. (1970). The third force: The psychology of Abraham Maslow. New York: Pocket Books.
Grant, P. C. (1990). The effort-net return model of employee motivation: Principles, propositions, and prescriptions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Haasen, A. (1997). A better place to work—How a new understanding, of motivation leads to higher productivity. New York: AMACOM.
Handy, C. (2005). Understanding organizations (4th ed.). East Rutherford, NJ: Penguin.
Hawkins, B. L., & Preston, R. (1981). Managerial communication. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Herzberg, F. (2008). One more time—How do you motivate employees?Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1993[1959]). The motivation to work. Somerset, NJ: Transaction.
Laird, D. A., Laird, E. C., & Fruehling, R. T. (1989). Psychology—Human relations and work adjustment (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leonard, V. A., & More, H. W. (2000). Police organization and management (9th ed.). New York: Foundation.
Levering, R. A. (2000). A great place to work—What makes some employees so good—and most so bad (New ed.). San Francisco, CA: Great Place to Work Institute.
Luthans, F. (2010). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. (2010). Behavior modification—What it is and how to do it (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miltenberger, R. G. (2011). Behavior modification—Principles and procedures (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
More, H. W., & More, T. L. (2012). Effective police management—Striving for accountability and competence. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
More, H. W., Vito, G. F., & Walsh, W. F. (2013). Organizational behavior and management in law enforcement (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Nirenberg, J. (1986). Motivation as if people matter. Supervisory Management, 26(3).
Reiss, S. (2002). Who am I? The 16 basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.
Roman, M. B. (1986). Beyond the carrot and the stick. Success, 33(8).
Silverstein, B. (2007). Best practices—Motivating employees: Bring out the best in your people. New York: Harper Paperbacks.
Stroh, L. K., Northcraft, G. B., Neale, M. A., Kern, M., Langlands, C., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Organizational behavior—A management challenge (3rd ed.). Florence, KY: Routledge.
U.S. Department of Energy (1996). Guidelines for strategic planning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
Von der Embse, T. J. (1987). The essentials of supervision—Managerial leadership for a new era. New York: Macmillan.
Whisenand, P. (2010). Supervising police personnel—The fifteen responsibilities (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
White, J. L. (2001). The work itself as a motivator. FBI Enforcement Bulletin, 70(2).
Williams, J. C., DuBrin, A. J., & Sisk, H. L. (1985). Management and organization (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-We