I recall a time in a police service, where the senior executive table was simply a place for the Chief and Deputies to tell all their subordinate commanders what their latest organizational decisions were. It wasn’t a decision-making venue, it was “We know more than you, so here’s what we’ve decided” table.

Senior management team meeting discussions and decisions were a completely different animal from what they were originally designed to be. They were telling to watch. Who was “in” and who was “out”, was generally pretty obvious when one scanned the crowd over the course of the day. And moving from the A Team to the B Team could happen at the blink of an eye, if someone was believed to have erred.

When the Chief of the day announced a decision regarding a direction on a significant issue that the group would take going forward, most of the time the decision was new to all. Few if any of the other dozen-plus people in the room had been invited to provide input to the matter. Then came the test question to all: “What do you think?”

Inevitably, a few around the table would leap to attention and announce that it was the smartest decision known to mankind, and that they had always felt this was how the service should go. The Chief and Deputies would smile in approval and silently vow to promote those sycophants as soon as humanly possible. Then about half of those remaining would look at the floor and not move so much as a single muscle that might indicate their disagreement. No poo-poo was going to stick to them!

Then there was a handful of operational commanders that were normally sitting fairly close together, gritting their teeth and trying not to bite through their tongues as they quietly determined next steps. Eventually one would speak up and very respectfully disagree with the stated decision. All oxygen then left the room and that vocal participant would get the death-stare from the front of the room. Everyone knew that the handful at the very top were thinking the same thing, “Vile scoundrel, you did not agree with the Chief!”

Some others would pipe in to professionally try to explain why it wasn’t a good idea at the time and perhaps offer some prior considerations or first steps that might be taken. But all that did was add them to the growing “You didn’t agree” list. The decision had been made prior to the gathering, by the boss, with the input of a few – and not necessarily anyone that had a firm grasp on the issues or had ever been blessed with an original thought. Asking for the thoughts of the entire team so late in the game was clearly a waste of oxygen.

The room was clearly divided. Those that would agree to anything suggested from above; those that would quietly acquiesce to the direction of the prevailing breeze; and those that would quite honestly offer meaningful input – even if it conflicted with the views of the Chief and Deputies. Decision-making was a loyalty test: you were loyal to any decision made from above or not. In other words, you were on the train, or you were under it. There was no room for any thoughts or suggestions that didn’t show 100% support.

Loyalty should not mean an absolute and unwavering agreement with every word or action from above. That’s a dictatorship. Should there not be loyalty to do what is right? In the case of a police department, doing what is right should mean what is lawful; what is in accordance with oaths of office; and equally vital – what is in the best interests of community being served and the men and women that are serving it. 

I was a loyal soldier throughout my career. I didn’t always agree with the decisions made from supervisors on patrol; direction given from Incident Commanders on tactical calls; or managers of investigations I worked on – or even the decisions made at the very top, but often I did. Regardless, I’d speak my mind when the time and place was right and would move forward with the team. But when the big picture directional decisions needed to be made at the senior decision-making table in the organization, choices that would impact the majority of the police service and its members – perhaps for years to come, as a group we needed to get it right. I needed to honestly offer input regardless of the potential outcome.

An organization needs the right people to evaluate challenges and identify the best options, including the pros, cons and impacts for a team decision. How they get to that decision point varies depending on the complexity of the issue. Feedback from various levels of the organization including the union/association; holding focus groups; conducting longer-term studies, pilot projects, etc., should always be on the table, but are not always required. 

What is needed from every supervisor and manager across the service is 24/7 communication with those they lead and a culture of open and honest suggestions and feedback – including criticism. It’s too late to shoot for open dialogue and the development of trust if you only reach out to the men and women that are actually doing the job when a challenge is identified. Ongoing discourse must be a constant as opposed to an exception, so that executive team members are always relatively aware of what their people are thinking.

Once a big decision rises to the senior executive table, everyone in the room should be familiar with the issue, how their area of command is impacted by it and can contribute to the solution(s). The go-forward options and their impacts can then be openly discussed among the informed group and a decision made by the Chief, as opposed to the other way around.

As a leader, my decision-making model wasn’t complex: If it’s the right thing to do for the people we serve and the people we lead, let’s do it. But I wanted to hear the thoughts of the informed group prior to making the call. Then we needed to move together as a team to make it happen – for all the right reasons. The process shouldn’t divide the players; it should unite them.

Centralized and unequivocal decision-making at the apex of the organization will set an organization up for failure. Employees at all levels don’t only deserve a say, their input is paramount to team success. If they feel that nobody cares what they think, not only will they not row together as a team, but they also aren’t likely to help bail when the ship starts to leak.