Organizational Culture Law Enforcement

Every culture is composed of four elements: “values, norms, beliefs, and expressive symbols” (Peterson, 1979, p. 137). Each police officer is influenced by the police organizational culture during training. After graduation fro the police academy, the officer is influenced by the more experienced officers of the department. Research conducted by several authors has found that peer influence never ceases even after years of experience in the field.

The subcultures of law enforcement officers exist within the ranks and will always pose a serious risk for misconduct. According to Leadership, Ethics, and Policing: Challenges for the 21st Century, the police subculture is one of the most important aspects of police officer’s attitude and behavior. It is defines the beliefs, values, views and understanding of the officers to the environment they are in. Ortmeier & Meese explain that subcultures describe the community of support and unity of officers through violence and hostility encountered on duty (2009). Often time’s police officers have the mentality of “us versus them” which creates a solid communal belief that every officer has each other’s back and when things get tough for officers they know they can rely on fellow officers for support. Within this “subculture” is also the cover up of misconduct by fellow officers. This is referred to as the “thin blue line” or “code of silence”. In a nationwide survey conducted in 1998, over half of the respondents

After the civil war, local politicians rewarded their supporters with jobs as police officers. The officer were not trained and there was not a standard to become an officer. The are were event when entire departments were involved in misconduct and corruption. There was not much hope in this era because there was a lack of supervision that allowed officers to behave the way that they pleased. (Walker, Samuel, and Richards, M. 1996)

First, between 1890 and 1930, the management of the police force was centralized. Virtually every decision had to go to the top for approval, with the goal of limiting the low-level officer’s exposure to temptation. To reinforce the hierarchy, specialized units were created to deal with such problems as drugs, youth, guns, and gangs. As Bratton described it, [The department] was divided into little fiefdoms, and some bureau chiefs didn’t even talk to each other…. Each bureau was like a silo: Information entered at the bottom and had to be delivered up the chain of command from one level to another until it reached the chief’s office.

Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert (1998) explain that through the police subculture deviance enters into law enforcement. The police character that is developed can be attributed to several paradigms such as psychological, sociological, and anthropological. The individual personalities of an officer and the authoritarian personality, characterized by cynicism, aggression, and conservatism, is that the psychological paradigm analyzes (p. 85). The socialization process which officers experience when they go through the academy, training, and field experience, contrast that dispositional model of the police personality, and this is the focus of the sociological paradigm. When officers internalize these norms and values that are learned, this professionalization occurs. The occupational culture of policing and the -beliefs, attitudes, and values that make up the subculture is seen as the anthropological paradigm or the culturalization perspective (Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert, 1998, p. 87-88).

Corruption has always been a danger to law enforcement, just as it has been a danger to all of mankind since the beginning of time. Since the very first police agency was formed in the 1800s, corruption has been widespread. The 19th century was an era in which politics played a very large role in police forces. Various political parties essentially had some police departments in their pockets, and as long as officers served to further those political parties’ agendas, the officers’ continued employment was guaranteed. Since politicians have not always been known for being straight-laced, one can easily see how corruption within police departments became prevalent. Since officers were not serving the people, but rather the political elite, their motives were constantly in question. It was not long before politicians began employing police officers to overlook and even protect their illicit activities. Through this practice, officers began to see the potential monetary and political benefits of allowing and participating in certain illegal actions. Even after the establishment of countermeasures such as police commissions, civil service exams, and legislative changes, corruption remained rampant. This corruption was perhaps best exemplified by none other than the actions of many officers within the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Therefore, if anything influences the public safety work environment in a negative way, it needs to be dealt with as soon as possible or it can destroy the organization from the inside out, so we need to insure that this never happens first and foremost. Since organizational culture can only be as “powerful when leaders can guide and control these types of behavior in the workplace every day, and be commitment make changes if need be to insure unity” (Cooper, 2001, p. 1). But nothing ever stays the same; because as races or cultures changes within the organization so do policies and something will not. For example, in the public safety organization there might be set culture that other races will not deviate from if not necessary, like certain beliefs, practices, and values, that will “govern how they will functions from the rudimentary level, and it is believed that employees will use this as a way to learn how to cope daily with internal and external issues that have proven to worked in the past” (Sumwalt, n.d., p. 4).

Many of the same problems discussed by Cronkhite (2013) in the King incident were also found in the Rampart scandal. Even after the King incident, administrators failed to investigate complaints and wide spread corruption within the department (Knowland & Nebbia, 2000). Prior to joining the CRASH unit, Perez was an ex-Marine, veteran police officer who had been squad leader of his academy class (Young, 2004). From the perspective of the client-centered theme, the administration did nothing to investigate complaints from citizens. Viewed from the organizational functions theme, the department did little to investigate incidents of police brutality and questionable shootings and other uses of force. LAPD also allowed the Rampart CRASH unit free rein. At the time all officers in LAPD were issued a ‘999’ key that would allow tem

In order to impose control on their employees, “ administrators are socialized by the organizations they work in and adopt behaviors and preferences that are consistent with organizational goals, thereby minimizing the influence of their own personal values on bureaucratic behavior” (656 Wilkins & williams). According to Wilkins and Williams, police are an oddity, in that they have an innate culture that pushes them away from the social norms they are used to. This article for example, is all about how African American police officers are socialized from “Black to Blue”. What this means is that the socialization of most police departments is so strong, that police officers can lose their prior identity. The overarching and powerful socialization begins as cadets, and continues over the course of their career. It becomes strong enough that it essentially replaces their existing set of norm, and replace them with the police’s.

Police executives have always had different issues within the police department. Most police executives try to find a quick fix in order to solve the issue of police misconduct. Police misconduct is defined as inappropriate action taken by police officers in relation with their official duties (Police Misconduct Law & Legal Definition, n.d.). In order to solve this issue, one must acknowledge their different challenges, overcome the “code of silence”, and find out the role of organizational culture.

The culture that I chose to write about is one that is part of the intelligence community career field. This can also relate to the Criminal Justice career field as some intelligence jobs intermix with those in the criminal justice world. An example of this would be an analyst position within the Department of Homeland Security such as ICE. It’s important to note that there are many roles that analyst can perform such as Tactical, Collection/Reporting, and Strategic. Although each career track is different, all are built on the intelligence cycle: planning, collection, exploitation and analysis, and dissemination and reporting ("Intelligence Analysts | FBIJOBS," n.d.).

When this loyalty to the subculture becomes too strong, the unity that follows can adversely affect the ethical values of the officers (Martin 2011). This type of work environment causes officers to feel like they are doing what is wanted by their organizations and the public and the officers may continue with the behavior because the pressure to produce results is greater than that to follow the rules. A law enforcement department might choose to punish an individual, but the fear of punishment usually is not enough to change unwanted behavior (Martin 2011).

The culture or shared values and underlying assumptions of the Sheriff’s Office consist of various things. One shared value of every individual that works at the Sheriff’s Office is the high ethical standard of each person. To work in law enforcement requires people to agree to abide by a code of ethics that you must follow in order to keep your job. Another belief and understanding of the office are to strive for constant improvement in all areas and to serve everyone in the county despite their race, sex, religion, or socioeconomic standing. The Sheriff pushes people to always be honest, even if a mistake is made and to be professional at all times because you never know who is watching you.

Culture within an organisation is a system of shared values, beliefs and norms of individuals in the organisation and how the value consensus creates a way in which people behave. The shared values have a strong influence on the individuals in the organisation and dictates how a person acts, dresses and performs in their job. A unique culture is developed and maintained by an organisation which provides guidelines and boundaries, through informal means, for the behaviour of the people within the organisation.

The Hofstede Centre (n.d.) defines culture as the “collective mental programming of the human mind which distinguishes one group of people from another.” Chipulu, Ojiako, Gardiner, Williams, Mota, Maguire, Shou, Stamai, and Marshall (2014), note that “culture can be at once tangible and observable; latent and unobservable; or even an abstraction altogether” (p. 367). Culture therefore has many dimensions. Some aspects of culture can be observed by analyzing symbols, ceremonies, dress, and other aspects. On the other hand, some aspects are not observable from the outside, but have to be experienced. Looking only from the outside gives us only a glimpse into the culture values. A large part of culture is the unwritten rules of how things are done. This part of culture is not necessarily observable to an outsider. To fully understand the cultural values of an organization, you need to be inside the organization with access to those with years of work experiences.