June 1999

Many police chiefs today are suffering from a lack of confidence--the confidence of their own employees. During the past year, a number of these leaders received votes of no confidence from their labor organizations; and some now see themselves as victims--blamed for the countless maladies plaguing the law enforcement agency and the community as a whole.

These chiefs perceive themselves as highly visible, vulnerable targets of discontent, caught in crossfire between politicians, the public, various interest and pressure groups and their own officers. To be sure, the police chief's job can at times be a thankless one. The following folk tale illustrates the dilemma in which some chiefs view themselves today:

So it is with the real-life police chief who is an exposed, susceptible target for both sides. He or she usually does an excellent job dodging and ducking the baseballs being thrown by the politicians, the public and the various interest and pressures groups. The really tough part of the job is when the employees and their unions begin throwing darts on the other side. And the job becomes toughest when that most devastating dart of all is thrown--the vote of no confidence.

Chief's Role In Productive Labor-Management Relations

Throughout the labor-relations process, the role of the police executive is a crucial one that needs to be thoroughly understood if a fruitful labor-management relationship is be achieved and maintained. Once the organization has recognized the union, the chief must be prepared to devote more time and attention to labor relations in general, and the union in particular. He or she must become educated about what is undoubtedly a difficult arena and be willing to work toward rapport with employees representing the union.

The chief who understands his or her role in the labor-relations process is likely to be one who deals open-handedly and recognizes fully the union's right to exist and to represent its members' wishes. Such a chief is also willing to commit to a harmonious relationship--bearing in mind that the union members are still employees.

Indeed, failure of a police executive to participate fully in the labor relations process and to recognize and communicate the need for an open, harmonious relationship with the union may itself be the root of the no-confidence vote, often even triggering it.

Purpose of the No-Confidence Vote

During the past twenty years, police unions have come to realize that power is derived from politics; as a result, they have become less militant and more politically active in efforts to achieve their objectives. Most relatively large police unions now have formal political action committees (PACs) and are involved in endorsing and lobbying local, state and national candidates to influence these politicians on pertinent law enforcement issues as well as to obtain improved wages and benefits. Union members have also become politically astute in using the media to seek support from the public on such concerns.

In line with their growing political shrewdness, unions have found the no-confidence vote to be one of the most popular, powerful, effective political tools at their disposal, using this means increasingly to apply political pressure to influence: 1) wages and the negotiation process; 2) policy and decision making; and 3) removal of the police chief.

Influencing Wages and the Negotiation Process
Unions threatening or actually taking votes of no confidence against the police chief often hope the resulting negative publicity will be embarrassing to the elected official who appointed the chief and will thus serve as leverage for obtaining higher wages or breaking a deadlock in negotiations.

Influencing Policy and Decision Making
Unions want to influence and have input into the police department's policy and decision making. If this input is denied, votes of no confidence have often been used to gain the chief's and top management's attention to communicate the union's frustration, thereby hoping to force the chief to listen to its demands.

Removal of the Chief
The no-confidence vote is the ultimate vehicle, after all other attempts have failed, to communicate to the community and the city management that the union perceives the police chief as incompetent, disinterested, non-communicative and/or uncaring. Unions have often taken no-confidence votes for the specific purpose of requesting that the chief be removed from office because of his or her perceived lack of leadership. When a no-confidence vote occurs, the chief should determine immediately why the vote was taken. Is the vote a political ploy to influence negotiations or decision making or is the union actually attempting to oust him or her?

Impact of the Vote of No Confidence

A city councilman was recently quoted as commenting that he saw the vote of no confidence as nothing more than a negotiation ploy on the union's part. "It's all part of the game, and I don't think the vote is particularly meaningful," he said.

While there are no doubt others who share this councilman's view, most observers see a vote of no confidence as a critical, disruptive event in the lives of the chief, the organization, and the community as a whole. Such votes often have harsh consequences, with approximately fifty percent of the chiefs involved losing their jobs either through voluntary or forced resignation. A 1991 study by the FBI National Executive Institute Associates revealed that over a five-year period there were 35 such votes; of these, half of the chiefs involved were removed from office. There is no recent information to suggest that today's chiefs are any less vulnerable to losing their jobs under these circumstances.

In addition to the negative impact a vote of no confidence generally has on the chief professionally, this action can be so demoralizing as to place an intense strain on him or her that extends to the entire family. "My family's getting upset and it's kind of snowballing. I just said 'the heck with it,'" reported one chief who resigned after receiving a no-confidence vote. Another chief wrote in his letter of resignation: "Due to the strain caused by the vote of no confidence against me, which has affected both myself and my family, I find this to be an appropriate action."

It is easy to say that no-confidence votes are just union negotiation ploys, but the chief targeted by this "ultimate dart" faces more than just acute embarrassment and the inevitable blow to his or her self-esteem and morale. This leader also faces a fifty-percent risk of losing his or her job.

Causes of the Vote of No Confidence

In most cases, a vote of no confidence is saying more than, "We want the chief replaced." It is more than likely saying,

We, the union members, would like you, the chief, to take a more responsive posture on certain issues; and we feel this is the only way that we can communicate, both publicly and internally, our displeasure over the policy decisions and other forms of action that have been taken.

While there are probably as many causes for as there are votes of no confidence, most reasons cited for these actions can be grouped into three broad categories: lack of leadership, lack of communication and lack of support--or caring for employees.

Lack of Leadership
Typical comments voiced as reasons for taking a no-confidence vote are: "We're like a ship without a rudder; you really can't tell which direction we're supposed to be going." "The biggest questions we have are about the chief's integrity, honesty and character; he certainly isn't interested in solving any of ours or the department's problems." "The chief has demonstrated a lack of leadership and support by his failure to pursue and speak out on the economic and job needs of his officers."

Comments of this nature indicate that votes of no confidence are, in essence, the union's way of saying:

We need a leader--a spokesperson--to speak out publicly on issues that are affecting the day-to-day agency operations. If you, the chief, will not be that leader--that spokesperson--then we, the union, will fill the void and the vacuum that we perceive has been created--or get a new chief.

What is this saying to the police executive who does not speak out publicly on issues affecting the efficient operation of the agency and the valid concerns of the officer in the street...and who does not set and define the organization's direction...and who is not above reproach--a person of integrity? It is clear that such a chief can expect the ultimate dart--a vote of no confidence.

Lack of Communication
In addition to lack of leadership, many votes of no confidence result from what is essentially a communications problem between the chief and the union members. Comments heard in this arena include: "It's the chief's way or the highway!" "We are told that we cannot voice our opinions or concerns about administrative personnel or their practices." "This seems to be a totalitarian philosophy not conducive to good working morale." "We're the ones out here on the street doing the work, and no one listens to us."

These union members are speaking loudly and clearly--they want to have input into the organization's policy and decision making process. The chief who denies this employee input by failing to practice good management principles can expect the union to take a vote of no confidence, or at a minimum, demand this employee input at the bargaining table.

Lack of Support or Caring for Employees
Perhaps most devastating to the department morale is the no-confidence vote that occurs because employees perceive that the chief simply does not care.

When officers believe that no one in the community or the local government, including the chief, care enough about them to listen to their complaints and correct the deficiencies at the root of these complaints, accusations such as these are commonly heard: "The chief doesn't show any support for the officers; he has got to stop trying to pacify everybody and start standing up more for the guys who stick their necks out every night." "The chief is aloof and dictatorial and has been unfair in promotions and discipline." "He absolutely does not care about the officers in this department." "He has no loyalty to the police department."

The chief needs to be keenly aware of and respond appropriately to such officers, who long for recognition and think they deserve it. Left to continue complaining bitterly among themselves, such officers often decide simply to seek attention and recognition and "get back" at the chief through a vote of no confidence.

The Dart is Thrown: What Should the Chief Do?

Too many chiefs are at a loss--simply do not know what to do--when they receive a vote of no confidence. It is important for the leader to understand, however, that his or her reaction upon hearing the news is not only crucial to survival, but it can actually be much more important than the vote itself.

Occasionally, as bizarre as it seems, a chief could look at a no-confidence vote against him or her as a "vote of confidence." The leader who has been hired to reinstate discipline and restore department accountability may receive a no-confidence vote by the union that is actually perceived by the city administration as a step in the right direction. If the union is seen as "whining" or complaining for unjustified reasons--and the chief is portrayed as doing the right thing--the no-confidence vote can backfire on the union and essentially provide support for the chief and the community.

In general, however, when a chief is threatened with or actually receives a vote of no confidence, there are a number of questions that he or she needs to ask: Was the vote valid? What is the cause of the vote? What is its purpose? What does the union want to achieve by it? What did I as chief do or fail to do to deserve the vote? What do I do now that I have received this vote? Should I ignore it? Should I fight it? What is the impact of the vote on my job? What can I learn from this experience to avoid any further such votes? What can I do to restore my employees' and the union's confidence in me?

Ascertain the Vote's Validity
As a first step, the chief needs to know if the vote itself is valid before deciding on any action. This is not the time to overreact if the union has threatened a vote and does not actually have the necessary support or if the vote taken does not truly reflect the attitudes or the majority of eligible voters. Therefore, the chief should determine as soon as possible how many employees (union members) participated in the vote and how many were eligible to participate. Of the votes cast, how many expressed no confidence?

The chief also needs to determine if there is some validity to the reason for the vote. Have, in fact, employees been treated unfairly or without respect? Has the chief failed to be open in communicating with officers or to show support? If a chief is to be successful in surviving a no-confidence vote, he or she must learn the answers to these questions quickly and understand how these answers will help to set the stage for the agency's return to a productive labor-management relationship.

In addition to addressing important questions, this is the time for the chief to acknowledge and correct mistakes, promise to solve the problems cited, and take other appropriate action as necessary. The chief who admits mistakes and promises to fix them is taking major, positive steps toward restoring personal credibility. In contrast, the chief who denies mistakes and refuses to recognize problems is unlikely to achieve or restore fruitful, harmonious labor-management relations.

When it appears that there is no validity for the vote of no confidence, or that the allegations for the vote are false or misleading, the chief must clarify the situation immediately. The leader cannot afford to let the union mold and shape his or her image in the media with inaccurate information. The chief must take an unequivocal stand by setting the record straight and actively defending his or her own character and practices, or risk not only a loss of credibility, but eventually, the job.

Avoid Becoming Emotional
The best advice to give a police chief who has received a vote of no confidence is simply this: Don't take it personally--don't get emotionally involved! Of course, such advice is almost impossible to follow. Your employees have announced publicly that they do not have confidence in you as their leader; false accusations may have been made; you are embarrassed and somewhat demoralized; your family, friends and boss are looking for some explanation; and your feelings are hurt--but remember--don't take it personally!

At this moment, the chief usually wants to lash out at his accusers with some derogatory remarks and take his or her own vote of no confidence against the union and the involved employees. Instead, however, the leader must recognize and control these emotions and react professionally by staying above the fray, addressing the issues without making personal attacks. The beleaguered chief would be well advised to heed the words of that great philosopher--Pogo--who once said: "I am careful of the words I say to keep them soft and sweet, for I never know from day to day which ones I'll have to eat."

Maintain High Visibility
There is a tendency on the part of some chiefs who receive votes of no confidence to withdraw and maintain a low profile. These are the chiefs who usually lose their jobs. As difficult as it is for the chief, he or she must be seen and heard discussing the issues openly both internally and externally. The chief who is inaccessible, especially during periods of crisis, cannot possibly expect to be perceived as trustworthy or credible. Thus, this is the time for the chief to be as visible as possible, circulating within the department and with the city administration, defending himself or herself in a positive, professional manner, if necessary, and showing everyone that he or she cares about the employees and the department.

Strategies for Avoiding Votes of No Confidence

The police executive who focuses on positive efforts to avoid threats or actual votes of no confidence, is, at the same time, generally setting the groundwork for fostering long-term labor-management cooperation within his or her agency. The leader needs to realize, however, that in some instances, no-confidence votes will occur or be threatened regardless of any action or inaction on the chief's part or how he or she is perceived by employees. The chief is not always the primary target of the vote. For example, one officer confided that, "just the threat of a vote of no confidence got some attention and response to our concerns from the city. The officers got everything they wanted (in negotiations) because the no-confidence vote would have been a tremendous embarrassment."

When the union uses the no-confidence vote in this manner--as a political ploy to influence negotiations, there is little that the chief can do to avoid it.

The chief also has little control over a no-confidence vote when the action is being driven by incompetent union leadership. A chief's worst nightmare is to have an inept union leader who cannot control the militant actions of a few members or who takes reckless steps for his or her own self-grandisement. Such a union leader may organize no-confidence votes simply to boost his or her own ego or to help ensure reelection by demonstrating fortitude to stand up to the chief and the city administration.

Thus, the chief needs to be aware that there are certain instances in which he or she can do little to avoid threats or actual votes of no confidence. For the most part, however, there is much that the leader can do to facilitate smooth, harmonious agency operations. The following six strategies, applied consistently, will provide the groundwork for productive labor-management relations:

Strategy Number One: Speak Out On Behalf of Your Employees
The police chief's job is an extremely complex, often stressful one, as evidenced by the short tenure for many major city chiefs. These leaders live in a political world; yet, they are constantly reminded that they should not be politicians. Thus caught in a very real management dilemma, chiefs must try to satisfy two usually opposing contingencies: the city administration, which demands that they be part of the management team and help present a unified front--and the union or employee organization, which demands their visible support for its goals.

Despite this dilemma, the chief needs to show ongoing, consistent concern for his or her employees; it is merely good common sense to do so. He or she must show sensitivity to their needs--what they want and how they feel--and must act on this information by speaking out publicly on employees' economic and workplace issues. Indifference on the chief's part--or worse--a negative attitude toward employees will provoke a vote of no confidence.

Strategy Number Two: Be Worthy of Employees' Trust
An officer participating in a no-confidence vote stated recently: "The feeling is that the basic principles associated with honesty should start at the top. The chief should be held to the same standards that we (the officers) are in regards to honesty." Employees want to believe that the chief's words can be trusted, that he or she is above reproach, honest, and a person of integrity. The chief is the ultimate role model for the agency and needs to lead by example.

When employees talk about the chief, they talk about what they can and cannot get away with in the department. They talk about what the chief stands for, what he or she believes in, what the standards are by which the chief chooses to live his or her life and to lead the department--they talk about his or her character.

"It is character that communicates most eloquently," said Waldo Emerson. "What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say."

Today's police executive need to seize every opportunity to express his or her beliefs and to uphold organizational values, such as integrity, fairness, respect, dignity, and compassion, emphasizing--particularly in a labor-management relations setting--what is right as opposed to who is right. To do anything less could give cause for a vote of no confidence.

Strategy Number Three: Build Relationships Through Open Communication
To ensure smooth, harmonious labor-management relations, there must be constant communication and cooperation between the police executive and the union leader. The latter should have easy access to the chief and should not have to go through the chain of command to see him or her. Through informal communications, periodic scheduled meetings, and/or the union president's participation in staff meetings, labor and management can often avoid or eliminate problems before they arise. At the very least, consistent efforts to maintain open communication can often diminish the disruptive impact of any labor-management problems that may surface.

The real challenge for police executives today, particularly in light of their officers' increased educational levels, is to identify innovative techniques for encouraging labor-management communication. New and varied tools for communication will facilitate development of employee commitment and early resolution or avoidance of labor-management problems. Some of the techniques now used effectively by police agencies for encouraging open communication include labor-management retreats and committees, advisory groups, department and union newsletters, open door systems, suggestion programs, surveys, etc.

One of the most viable, yet little used vehicles for open, upward communication is the employee association, or union itself. Police unions are attuned to the needs of the rank and file and the concerns of officers at the operational level. The chief should encourage officers' participation in and communication through the union. To avoid risking a vote of no confidence, and to assist in resolving organizational problems, it is essential for the chief to listen to and encourage input from these union members.

Strategy Number Four: Focus on Fairness
Unions are constantly accusing management of acting unfairly with regard to discipline, promotions, and assignments, claiming that officers' promotions are often based on ineffective and inaccurate performance evaluations and on perceptions or politics, rather than on merit and performance.

Admittedly, fairness is often in the eye of the beholder, but the chief wishing to avoid a vote of no confidence must focus on developing an organizational culture based on trust and fairness. Trust is the lubricant that keeps the organization's wheels turning, while fairness is the glue that holds it together.

The chief who is committed to maintaining a sense of fairness is one who:

• Avoids playing favorites;
• is more interested in giving credit to others than taking credit;
• treats employees with respect and dignity regardless of their positions;
• gives people the freedom they need to do the job;
• is open to hearing different opinions;
• treats others as they would wish to be treated;
• personally values individual and cultural diversity;
• gives people the support and encouragement they need; and
• gives consistently fair performance feedback.
  

Strategy Number Five: Develop A Political Power Base
Police executives must develop a political power base that they can call upon for support in the event of a no-confidence vote. Such a power base should consist of key community leaders; for example, the mayor, the city manager, city council members, and other influential community members. Good working relationships based on open communication between the chief and these leaders will be invaluable in the event of a no-confidence vote. It must be remembered that such a vote is a political ploy; thus, the chief must do his or her political homework (build relationships with the primary political decision-makers) if he or she is to survive the test.

Strategy Number Six: Care About Your Employees
Police executives who are committed to reducing employee dissatisfaction and avoiding no-confidence votes must focus on making the workplace a "worth place"--where people care about people and where both organizational and employee needs are emphasized.

Chiefs need to take the community policing philosophy of customer service and apply it internally--to communicate to employees that they are important customers by treating them with courtesy, dignity, and respect. If these law enforcement leaders would focus on getting their own houses in order first and foremost--by treating their employees as customers--they could then expect the employees to treat the external customers in the same manner. When we do not treat our employees as customers, when we fail to give them administrative support, when we do not show that we care, a vote of no confidence--the ultimate dart--is inevitable.

As police chiefs of the year 2000 and beyond, we could all more easily avoid most of those dreaded darts--the votes of no confidence that are hovering out there in the twenty-first century--by constantly reminding ourselves that:

People don't care what you know. What they want to know is, do you care? If you show your people you care, they will follow you anywhere.

Richard M. Ayres is the Director of the Center for Labor-Management Studies--a management consulting firm specializing in law enforcement leadership, supervision, labor-management relations and collective bargaining. A special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 26 years, Mr. Ayres served for 17 years on the faculty of the FBI Academy as both an instructor and as Unit Chief of the Management Science Unit. He can be reached at (540) 371-3179 or 1 Matoca Court, Fredericksburg, VA 22401.

The above article is part of a handbook, The Chief and the Union, which is available without cost by writing to S.A. Bud McKinney, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia 22135

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401