Impeding Change: Impacts of Micromanagement in Policing

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Tanya Settles
October 18, 2024

Law enforcement agencies across the nation are purposefully engaging in meaningful efforts to improve police culture. These nationwide efforts are led by inspired law enforcement leaders from across the country who have partnered with thought leaders and researchers with expertise on how to improve the culture of policing and transform agencies into healthy organizations based on trust, innovation and psychological safety for employees. This new approach challenges the worst parts of the traditional paramilitary organizational structure but retains the important elements that point toward operational efficiency and fairness. And the best news is that many agencies are reaping the benefit of true transformation where officers are safer, more trusted by their community and there are measurable improvements related to crime and disorder. The benefits cannot be overlooked. This kind of transformation doesn’t happen overnight, but when diligently planned and executed, the change is real and lasting. 

A challenge to the kind of culture that is needed in today’s policing environment is connected to communicating expectations and supporting behavior changes among individual contributors in public safety organizations. The supervisor-employee relationship is essential to long-term culture change, but regrettably, micromanagement is alive and well within many law enforcement agencies. Often, the traditional paramilitary organizational structure itself can support controlling micromanaging behaviors of mid-level supervisors. In other cases, the tension between veteran law enforcement personnel and the different expectations of a new generation of police employees come into conflict. 

Micromanagement in law enforcement chills organizational culture, and if left unchecked, kills it.  A micromanager is a person whose control and oversight is extreme, oppressive and unhealthy.  Micromanagers observe and control every move of those they supervise, even over relatively inconsequential things. Sometimes, micromanagement is the result of managers wanting to connect more deeply with line-level employees, but they lack the skills and knowledge to do so without dominating and decimating others. In the worst cases, micromanaging occurs because managers feel more capable of doing work than delegating it to those they lead. In other words, they can’t let go and they can’t trust others. The reality is that if you ask most employees, they’ll tell you they’ve worked for a micromanager, but nobody ever says they are a micromanager. 

Micromanagement is particularly deleterious in law enforcement in three important ways. First, it undermines the work of transforming law enforcement culture. Transforming law enforcement means building on a foundation of trust and respect within the organization that spreads to interactions with the community. Micromanagers do not trust employees, consultants, community partners or anyone else with a stake in effective law enforcement. When micromanagement lives under the surface, even in the most progressive agencies, a micromanager can tear at the fabric of change and impede organizational growth. 

Second, people who work under the supervision of micromanagers are more likely to lose motivation, seek other employment opportunities, experience depression and other mental health challenges and eventually leave for a more productive and healthy work environment. Law enforcement agencies are experiencing recruitment and retention challenges that are exacerbated by rapid turnover micromanagement can cause. This situation creates operational risk where staffing levels are below ideal, officers and professional staff are working long hours that lead to work/life imbalance and there is increased cost in the revolving door of recruitment, onboarding, training and retention of new officers and professional staff. 

Third, micromanagement stifles innovation and independent decision making. People who work under the supervision of a micromanager are less likely to raise concerns, advocate for innovation or feel confident in exercising the power of police discretion responsibly and independently. Police personnel who work in an organizationally toxic environment where micromanagement is allowed to exist question their decision making, hesitate because of self-doubt and continually seek out confirmation from a micromanaging supervisor on day-to-day decisions they should be able to make themselves. Eventually, those who report to a micromanager eventually tailor their work to minimum standards of productivity because they’ve learned the hard way that nothing is ever good enough. 

Resolving the damage caused by micromanaged toxicity takes work and focus. First, police leaders and command staff must engage in deep introspection and confront their own behaviors and commit to change. Then, when leaders model desired behaviors, they lead by example which gradually supports culture change throughout the agency. Finally, when line-level supervisors with micromanagement tendencies are identified, it is important to avoid punitive actions when possible and instead provide coaching, support and education so they learn more productive ways to lead and guide personnel that supports the change vision. Change in policing is possible, but it takes nuanced dedication to tackling past behaviors and building a foundation of trust for employees throughout the organization. 

---

Author: Tanya Settles is the CEO of Paradigm Public Affairs, LLC. Tanya’s areas of work include relationship building between local governments and communities, restorative justice, and the impacts of natural and human-caused disasters on at-risk populations. Tanya can be reached at [email protected]. The opinions in this column and any mistakes are hers alone. 

 

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...