Introduction: the leadership debate:
In this first in a series of blogs, we want to take the opportunity to positively critique The Police Foundation’s recent report – A New Mode of Protection, particularly through the lens of leadership. Our intent is to add value to the extensive work that has been carried out over the last two years and we hope our comments are viewed as coming from a constructive place. We have identified five areas for comment.
- The College of Policing
Firstly, we agree that the College of Policing quite rightly should be placed as a national delivery centre (recommendation 43) for learning and leadership development. Yet, for this to be successful a critical cultural change is required. The police service needs to buy-in to this development mandate by encouraging its best people, those who constantly demonstrate an excellence in their field, to join the staff at the College on a short-term basis. This will allow the individual officers and staff to broaden their own horizons whilst at the same time share their expertise with participants on national learning programmes. Evidence based policing is just as vital in the learning arena as it is in operational events and these excellent leaders will bring best practice from the regions, towards the centre.
Currently, unlike the military, a spell within a learning and development institute is not considered career critical or career enhancing for police officers or staff. We argue that a diametrically opposite attitude needs to be embraced: a spell at the College should be seen as critical for leadership potential and vital evidence for career progression to the most senior of ranks or the most demanding of roles. The College can only rise to the increasing demands this report places upon them, by attracting the most outstanding officers and staff to creatively write and deliver their products.
- A Return to Leadership:
From a leadership perspective, this is a somewhat vexatious report and this is not something particularly aimed at the authors or The Police Foundation. Rather, the comment is focused towards a series of previous Conservative governments, particularly under the stewardship of Theresa May as the then Home Secretary and subsequent Prime Minister who sought from 2010 onwards, to systematically close down well-established leadership learning structures that had been developed in liaison with many policing partner agencies. The symbolic closing of Bramshill College signalled a government displeasure with how policing leaders were being developed and the subsequent dismantling of leadership programmes ensued. Yet we will argue, this report seeks to establish a leadership recollection – a return to many of the processes, procedures and programmes that had been so vigorously undermined.
It is recommendation 37 in particular that emphasises this leadership recollection. The report calls for the establishment of a Police Leadership Centre which is actually a return to what was well established at Bramshill – and subsequently abolished by then Conservative government. No doubt this Centre will provide, as the recommendation suggests, national development programmes from sergeant through to Chief Constable, as well providing financial generating opportunities by offering international programmes. It will not be too long, we suggest, before the College of Policing seeks to establish a high-profile location, not unlike Sandhurst in the military. Hopefully readers are aware that – ALL of this was available a decade ago.
It is not that we disagree with the recommendation, we certainly do not and the emphasis on extensive sergeant training we see as a real advantage to the service. Rather, it is the fact that a government abolished established practices and then a decade later, ideas re-emerge and are repackaged in a national debate and in a manner that seeks to make them appear new and innovative?
We predict that the College of Policing will vigorously support recommendation 37 in order to increase its mandate and influence. This seems to us to be an appropriate approach as long as the College of Policing professionalises itself, is populated by outstanding current leaders on short-term contracts, and understands that the policing service is its core customer. Yes, it has a political role to liaise with the government of the day – that is absolutely appropriate in a democracy. Yet it must establish an appropriate strategy to ensure that the future direction of policing leadership is sufficiently protected in order to prevent it being undermined by the vagaries of the government of the day. This is a tough call for the College and it is why it needs to be populated by the best people. It must act as a true professional body, understanding and shaping its own mandate and must not be overly deferential to other professions passing judgement on its performance. This is about positively shaping and protecting the policing narrative; it’s about professionals developing professionals.
- A Licence to Practice:
We do welcome the emphasis on continuous professional development in order to evidence a professionalisation of the individual and the service. This needs to be about shaping the standards required to be a fully functioning professional police officer or member of staff. As the report notes, this is not something that in many cases has current organisational focus. Indeed, in many circumstances when resources are tight, learning and development is the first thing to be curtailed as if it were an add-on to someone’s career rather than being essential to policing performance.
We do support the continued use of personal portfolios to highlight individual performance impact. These needn’t be burdensome and should be managed by the individual in a manner that fits with their learning styles. So, a spreadsheet becomes just as legitimate as a mind map.
However, recommendation 33 ‘a Licence to Practice’ we consider to be superfluous to need. In practice this would create an absolute industry of bureaucracy that would outweigh any value it brings. Policing leaders have everything within their current policy base to deal appropriately with high performing members of staff who want to progress; and underperforming leaders who are a burden to their colleagues. What the service needs, as identified in recommendation 21, is the upping of skills based on holding challenging conversations in order to appropriately address underperformance. This aspect is about a leadership of encounter, not hiding behind an organisational policy!
Ironically, we believe a ‘licence to practice’ would allow the policy to be utilised by ineffective leaders who are unwilling to rise to the demands of their leadership requirements. Leadership is a person-to-person event particularly when dealing with both high as well as underperforming people. Both need proper attention and not the waving of policy to justify management action. The service can no longer accept sub-cultural behaviour that goes against the values of policing. Those whose behaviour falls short, need to be swiftly dealt with and policing already provides leaders with the tools to manage these people appropriately. The key to success centres on leaders stepping-up into the difficult arena. Nobody needs a ‘licence to practice’ policy to manage inappropriate behaviour.
- Senior Appointments
The report takes for granted that the introduction of Policing and Crime Commissioners has been an improvement for policing. However, it does not take much to be an improvement on the previous police authorities. We argue that this report should also have focused on the quality of leadership and skills base of PCC’s. We believe the lack of evaluative comment on PCC’s diminishes the report. If PCC’s are critical to the future of policing – why were they not appraised as part of the broader policing debate? The authors also omitted the fact that 85% of all PCC’s come from the same political party. This cannot be healthy for the political independence of policing.
Recommendation 39 calls for the establishment of Senior Appointments Board to ensure that PCC’s have an appropriate pool to select from with respect to executive appointments; a panel where other professional advice could be available for the PCC. We support this move. Again, this is something that previously existed and was abolished by the government. Therefore, a blueprint already exists. It should be implemented immediately!
- Defining Leaders:
Finally, we would like to address a couple of problematic issues within the report. Firstly, it too frequently aligns leadership with rank; secondly, it does not consider the extensive informal and ever-present leadership demonstrated by frontline operatives.
Whilst the focus on the behavioural abilities of sergeants and police staff equivalent is vital for the future of the service (recommendation 37), we argue that the report misses the leadership impact demonstrated by front line operatives. It has become a cultural norm for policing leadership to be equated with rank – we would argue that the College must not fall into this normative behaviour. Rather, we argue that national leadership opportunities should be created for constables and staff – the very people who take control of the critical and often tragic events in the everyday lives of the poor and the vulnerable within society. These leaders are vital for regaining of policing legitimacy that the report states is in decline and they must be given support to facilitate their constant learning. These are the leaders whom we argue elsewhere are core to a more localised and municipal style of policing.
These informal leaders are amongst the most skilful entrepreneurial leaders within the service. It is vital that they are not missed as the College of Policing starts to shape its new pathway for the coming decade. There may be a cost implication to train and develop them; there is certainly a greater cost implication to neglect them. We therefore would argue for the College of Policing having numerous members of staff coming from the front end of the business and sharing their excellence with other more formal leaders of the service at national level. Their knowledge of policing is vital in informing the future direction of the service.
In Conclusion
Our intent was to add value to the work that has already been carried out by The Policing Foundation. Through a leadership lens, we conclude with the following summary:
- The College of Policing needs to further professionalise in order to meet increasing demands being required of its services.
- The Service and the College need to stop being so deferential to other organisations who pass comment on their profession.
- Leaders in policing need to step-up their performance particularly when challenging rogue sub-cultures that undermine policing legitimacy.
- A Senior Appointments Panel should be established tomorrow – there is an existing blueprint
- Leadership is not about rank and some of the most skilful leaders are front line operatives. Their informal leadership needs as sharply developed as any formal leader.
Leadership success is critical to the future of the service and it is too important to be constantly destabilised by the vagaries of current governments. Greater self-belief and self-confidence in articulating the policing narrative is essential from the leaders of the future.
* Please watch out for subsequent blogs from the team to be published in the coming weeks.
Dr Mark Kilgallon