Are Good Employees Afraid of Bad Employees?

Employees are entitled to certain expectations in their work place environment. Those expectations include a well managed organization which is free from corruption. Being part of a well managed and respected organization may bring a sense of pride to that organization’s members. Likewise, the citizens that organization serves are entitled to expect a public service organization known for integrity, accountability and freedom from corruption.

No matter how hard an employer tries to hire good, upstanding, ethical employees, inevitably an employee will make a poor decision that impacts not only himself but the entire organization.

However, not all incidents of misconduct are equal. Some are willful and premeditated while others are simply the result of bad judgment. Some offenders have remorse while others do not. Some misconduct is a one-time individual act. In other instances the misconduct may represent a pattern of behavior committed by an individual or in collusion with others. Minor misconduct such as mistakes, lapses of judgment, or policy violations may be disregarded, but willful criminal violations should never be ignored.

Most public service employees are proud of the service they provide to their community and country. These are the good men and women who want to serve, help, protect and do the best job they can. However, these good employees sometimes encounter members of their organization who do not share the commitment to provide caring community focused service and whose misconduct places good employees in a difficult position. They are forced to make a decision about how to respond to their co-workers behavior.

Anyone who is fed up with corruption, misconduct, or looking the other way can supply information that allows them to follow their conscience and address the issues. An employee who makes a decision to follow their conscience becomes an asset to their organization by reporting wrongdoing. That employee becomes an asset who can have a positive and lasting effect on their organization by reporting dishonest or unethical conduct.

For most people, however, reporting wrongdoing is a painful experience whether the information is passed to a supervisor, an office which investigates employee misconduct, or an outside law enforcement agency. A consequence of reporting wrongdoing may be that the reporting employee is labeled a troublemaker and resented by management and snubbed by follow employees. Anonymous reporting of wrongdoing should always be considered and may offer protection to the employee who has decided to do the right thing.

Many bold determined employees have taken that honest but difficult step. They include Frank Serpico, arguably the most famous whistleblower, who reported pervasive corruption within the NYPD and Coleen Rowley, the FBI Special Agent who alerted Congress of the failings of the Bureau regarding the September 11th terror attacks. Also, the famous “Deep Throat”, W. Mark Felt, who was second in command of the FBI at the time of his cooperation with the Washington Post’s “Watergate” investigation that resulted in the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.

These three individuals shared a commitment to do the right thing despite the consequences and controversy caused by their actions. Serpico and Rowley both reported corruption overtly and both were denounced by their department’s leadership and follow officers. Felt believed he would be fired or criminally charged for his disclosures. As a result he protected his anonymity for more than 30 years although he was reportedly accused many times of being the informer.

Despite great personal risk there has been and will continue to be courageous employees who do the right thing and report corruption. Good employees do not have to tolerate or fear the bad ones.

John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. He served 35 years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and has been a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) since 2001. He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/12/06/are-good-employees-afraid-of-bad-employees/#sthash.nu8UIzI4.dpuf

Internal Affairs Personality

This article is a continuation of the examination of internal affairs issues.

Not everyone is qualified to conduct investigations of employee misconduct.  An employee investigation is a sensitive issue.  The employee under investigation, along with others directly or indirectly involved, can easily become upset and distracted.  The workplace and work product can be negatively affected.  The resulting stress and suspicion may cause a negative view of the internal affairs (IA) function of investigating employee misconduct.

The suspicion also can extend to the investigator who may be viewed as unfair.  The most qualified individuals must be chosen to conduct investigations in order to diminish the potential for adverse perceptions of the IA investigator and IA the function.  There is no one personality type that is best suited for conducting employee investigations.  However, empathy, objectivity and sensitivity are among the characteristics that make a strong IA investigator candidate.

The potential for distrust of internal affairs is not only the result of the attitude of the investigator, but also because the internal affairs function is part of an organization’s management structure.  Some employees will view IA as unfair despite strong departmental leadership that supports the IA function and presents it as fair and unbiased.  An investigator with strong credentials and appropriate characteristics can reinforce a positive perception of IA investigations.

Noted educator and author Stephen M. Hennessy conducted a study of police personalities published in Thinking Cop, Feeling Cop.   The study looked into personalities of police officers and how they take in information and make decisions.  The study looked at how police officers may choose assignments that likely match their method of taking in information (perception) and make decisions (judgment), and may explain why some officers either succeed or fail. Hennessy contends that officers may succeed or fail at their assigned task based on their information processing technique and its compatibility with their job requirements.  If an officer’s assignment does not match well with his natural information processing he is less likely to success in the assignment.

An investigator must know the sensitivity of an internal investigation and show respect to all employees to create a sense of mutual respect and cooperation.  An organization in turmoil will serve citizens poorly.  To be ignorant of the sensitivity of an employee investigation or disrespect any employee can cause anxiety and resentment.

Although a personality type should not qualify or exclude an individual from internal investigative duties, an investigator who shows concern for others and handles situations while showing regard for other’s feelings is certainly a viable candidate for sensitive internal investigations.

—-

John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. He served 35 years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and has been a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) since 2001. He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics, soon to be published by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/09/18/internal-affairs-personality/#sthash.a5wEgRgT.dpuf

Building Trust In The Internal Affairs Function

The integrity of any organization depends on the character and honesty of its employees and especially its leaders.  The internal affairs (IA) function, the investigation of wrongdoing by employees, is an important part of maintaining professional conduct in any organization.  An IA investigation is a sensitive issue with potential life changing consequences for the subject employee, and sometimes for co-workers.

Strong, fair and impartial leadership is essential to create an IA activity that is trusted throughout an organization. Whether the office conducting an employee investigation is called Internal Affairs, Inspector General, or Office of Professional Responsibility, it serves management and the organization as a tool to maintain and strengthen professional conduct.  The complete and unbiased investigation of any allegation ensures fairness and reduces the potential for misunderstanding the IA function.

However, sometimes the IA function is misunderstood.  A professional and honest internal investigation may be perceived as unfair and biased depending upon leadership support and departmental culture.  Just as strong leadership and an impartial investigation reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, the attitudes and actions of leaders also can taint IA actions and create an environment of suspicion, distrust and intimidation.

Leaders are not alone in creating attitudes and perceptions of the internal investigative function.  Employees also may have conflicting attitudes, perceptions and motivations.  Compounding the complexities of the IA function, the process includes others who may affect the perception of internal affairs.

Internal affairs investigators, community and political leaders, union representatives, the media, and citizens the organization serves all influence the perception of the internal affairs function.  An internal affairs investigation may be perceived unfavorably because of negative attitudes among the key players in the process even when IA actions are unbiased, just and void of undue influence.

The internal affairs function can be affected simply because of diverse interests.  Leaders may want to avoid or ignore tough issues that may complicate management of their organization. Offending employees may not admit wrongdoing and as their defense they attack the integrity of the internal affairs investigation.

Employees may feel powerless against management and the community may feel betrayed by politicians who act in their own self interest.  Unions may be deceived by management, management may be frustrated by union officials, and both, along with the rank and file may be ridiculed in the media and criticized by the citizens served. These conflicting interests may cause employees to feel unprotected and so they focus resentment on the internal affairs function.  An insensitive investigator also may create a sense of unfairness by unprofessional behavior.

The attitudes of some players, especially department leaders, can change the department culture and perceptions of others involved in the process.  The players in the process have the potential to build trust between the function and all who are affected by it.  In reality, the personal agendas of some participants may conflict with the best interests of the department and negatively affect employee professionalism and create a negative perception of the internal affairs function.

Supportive management, thoughtful selection of IA employees and continuing professional education can ensure an internal affair function that serves the best interests of the department, its employees and community.

—-

John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor for American Public University System with 35 years military and civilian security and law enforcement experience. He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth look at the People, Process and Politics, soon to be published by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/08/22/building-trust-internal-affairs-function/#sthash.LRNztvf0.dpuf