The Chief of Police stood proudly in the conference room and looked upon his “boys” as a parent looks upon their children. His favorite, “Bubba”, stood there with his hand out not all that unlike a teenager anxiously awaiting the keys to the family car. What Bubba was about to receive from the Chief was far more ominous and dangerous.
As the Chief placed the badge into Bubba’s hand, the word that are feared amongst mortal police officers, spoken only in whispers, describing only those that are perceived as omnipotent and believed to be as gods by rookies, the word “SERGEANT” and the gold badge came into view. Although new out of the box, the badge had already lost its luster in the eyes of the other employees who have to endure this new supervisor.
As Bubba stood and received his badge, his peers, who are more educated and more qualified for the position of Sergeant, look on in dismay. As the Chief promoted Bubba, he was also confirming Bubba’s membership into a very destructive, demoralizing, and antiquated clique whose members are known as the “Good Old Boys”.
The early influence of political appointments and the “Good Old Boy” system can easily be traced back to middle of the nineteenth century. “Although police executives can occasionally be heard avowing to “keep politics out of the department”, this unqualified posture is unrealistic. Personal politics exist in every organization, and democratic control of the policing mechanism is fundamental to our society” (Swanson 1993). The height of this influence and its peak can be seen during the Tammany Hall corruption scandal. This era was the “Good Old Boy” at it’s best. Political appointments, corruption, and graft were at their highest influence. “In New York City, at the middle of the nineteenth century, the approval of the ward’s alderman was required before appointment to the police force” (Swanson 1993). The period of history in the policing profession was established on a foundation based on “who you knew” not “what you knew”.
It wasn’t until the turn of the century that the people finally became fed up. “Our cities were staggering under the burden of machine politics, corruption, crime, poverty, and the exploitation of women and children by industry “ (Swanson 1993) A series of events, spawned by a society with a new sense of arousal, became the catalyst for the formation of many commissions and standards such as Civil Service and the Principles of Public Administration. “These events combined to produce movement toward reducing corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse in government; the desire to create a professionally qualified cadre of people committed to careers in public service; the rise of the civil service; emphasis upon proper recruitment, selection, and training of public employees; the freeing of government from the influence of machine politics; and the development of new theories, techniques, and models related to organizations. In short, these events were not only historical milestones, they unleashed a process of improvement that is still in progress today” (Swanson 1993).
The impact of the “Good Old Boy” system on an organization has both negative and positive aspects. The negative far outweighs the positive but both positions deserve examination. The negative effects are many and overlapping.
Integrity: When an administrator subscribes to the “Good Old Boy” system of management it is very difficult to exemplify the highest standards of integrity and ethics. A leader of an organization who is a member of the clique must be willing to compromise what is fair for all employees for that which shows favor to the chosen one. “There is no right way to do a wrong thing” (Blanchard) and when the leader of an organization sacrifices what is the right thing to do for what is advantageous to fellow members of the clique the employees of the organization will seriously question the integrity and ethics of their leader. Showing favoritism to certain employees erodes a leaders ability to lead those outside of the clique. Managing our friends is very difficult. When we step up into management positions we often times take a certain amount of “baggage or skeletons” with us. This “baggage or skeletons” can be used to influence a decision, right or wrong. Baggage can often times test or crumble our resolve.
We have seen too often in the news where police agencies entrenched in the “Good Old Boy” system become the focus of a corruption scandal. It always behooves an administrator to listen to input from all employees, especially those he/she may be close to. Having a confidant can be very advantageous. Ultimately, the decisions made must be based on what is right, fair and consistent. Employees will follow directives, it’s the nature of the policing business, but a leader of an organization should not be fooled into thinking they are being effective or are leading their people simply because their employees are following directives. Our integrity is all that we really have. Doing what is ethically the right thing to do is not always easy. When all is said and done, and we retire or leave our organizations, what are those left behind going to think of our effectiveness? Did we leave with our integrity, was our reputation intact?
Fair and Consistent Leadership: What is it our employees want? They want to be treated with fair and consistent leadership. Employees want to feel confident that their leader is truly looking out for their best interests. Fair and consistent leadership is impossible to achieve when the leader of an organization subscribes to the “Good Old Boy” system of management. The very nature of a management style grounded on favoritism is the antithesis of fair and consistent leadership. When leadership is applied through fair and consistent management the relationship with the employees is sufficiently strengthened to overcome some obstacles and setbacks. Employees are much more forgiving when they are confident that their leader is truly looking out for the their best interests. When favoritism is shown for a select few, the rest of the employees may ban together and form a labor group and/or become malcontents. Most importantly, the spirit of the organization becomes stagnant. When an organization looses its will to live because of favoritism shown to a select few, morale will plummet. After all, the organization is comprised of all the employees, not just a few.
Leadership in any organization is a complex process of constant assessment of effectiveness and perception. A basic process that must be mastered by all supervisors is the ability to separate personal likes and dislikes from professional neutrality. Effective leadership is severely hampered when we surround ourselves with those we “personally” like rather than those who can get the job done. It would be very naïve of an administrator to think that he/she is liked and supported by everyone in his or her organization. If you’re fair and consistent in the treatment of your employees you are much more likely to garner support of the majority of your employees, especially when they see that your friends within the organization do not receive special treatment.
Breeds Suck-Ups: Belonging to the clique has a certain amount of attraction. When employees see that the only way to get ahead, climb the career ladder, is to become one of “The Boys”, they can become very creative in their suck-up strategies. It’s comical to see who hovers around the administrator’s office. At one agency this author is familiar with, you were one of the “Good Old Boys” if you were a staff member and a big plus was being a golfer. Others frequently characterize suck-ups as cutthroats, brown nosers, and back stabbers, always looking for an edge to get close to “The Boys”. The “Good Old Boy” system breeds suck-ups as it’s only means to perpetuate its existence. If an employee didn’t suck-up then he/she would have no chance of receiving the favoritism desired. The danger in practicing sucking-up is that the “Good Old Boy” becomes rectally attached to an employee who could fall from grace and/or leave the organization leaving his/her appendage to fend for themselves in what would be a very hostile environment.
Discipline: The “Good Old Boy” system by its very nature makes effective discipline impossible to achieve. The major benefit to the “Good Old Boy” system is the preferential treatment received once a member of the clique. One of the most destructive pitfalls for an administrator is the failure to discipline employees equally. Imagine the message sent to the employees when an employee’s misconduct is treated differently than the same misconduct committed by an employee who is part of the clique. In effect, the administrator has drawn the line in the sand, so to speak, effectively telling all the other employees that they are on their own. The only person who is going to look out for their best interest, treat them fairly, is either themselves or their fellow officer, certainly not administration. Failure to effectively discipline employees can lead to the development of rogue officers who feel that they can have their own rules. Even the best, most proactive, professional administrators have trouble here because the fact situations surrounding an infraction are never the same. Additionally, investigations of employee misconduct are usually held confidential and the administrator cannot defend his/her actions. The only facts that the other employees hear are those relayed from the affected employee or through the rumor mill. The best we can hope for is to reinforce the perception of the employees that we are doing our best to treat them fairly in all aspects of administration, not just discipline.
Evaluations: A fair and unbiased system of employee evaluations continues to elude the policing profession. It is extremely difficult to evaluate people you like; some may even be your best friend. The policing profession has always been grounded on the theme of comradery, espre décor, the thin blue line, and brotherhood. Look at the many television shows that portray the policing profession as a closed knit, cynical, suspicious, eclectic and proud group of men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives for strangers. It’s no wonder that we become close in our personal relationships and show preferential treatment to one another. Because of these factors it is very difficult to separate personal from professional, especially at the time of evaluation. These conditions exist for all employees and evaluators. They are compounded when the “Good Old Boy” system is also in effect. When a subordinate and an evaluator are participants in this system it is impossible to eliminate favoritism in the evaluation process. Sometimes the favoritism is flagrant. Most employees can assess the effectiveness of other employees. They have a pretty good idea of who’s doing a good job and who’s not. It is very disturbing to see a marginal employee get a good evaluation because he/she is a member of the clique. This employee may feel comfortable with an inferior work product because he/she feels that they will be taken care of. Equally difficult is when the subordinate is a member of the clique and the evaluator is not. The evaluator can receive pressure to give the subordinate a good evaluation, which might not be deserved. The subordinates association with those of higher rank might intimidate the evaluator. Sadly, the evaluator might just acquiesce because he/she just doesn’t care anymore. The evaluator could become one of the many victims that the “Good Old Boy” system leaves in its wake.
Motivation: Professional administrators are supposed to be helping their employees be the best they can be. This is truly a win-win for the employee, the organization, and the future of the profession. When an organization supports the “Good Old Boy” system it forces the other employees to ask themselves “why should I try and improve myself if I cannot move ahead in this organization?” Imagine a lieutenant in an organization that has not opened a book on policing in 15 years, has a division in chaos, is ridiculed by his subordinates, has an inferior work product that is recognized by administration, yet gets goods evaluations and is not held accountable for ineffective management. This breeds such disgust in the employees who can’t help but wonder what’s the point in trying to go forward. Eventually, their career turns into just a job and all they want is to collect their paycheck.
There is very little positive about the “Good Old Boy” system. Those areas that can be construed as being positive are as follows:
Loyalty: Without a doubt the single biggest plus for the “Good Old Boy” system is that it has loyal members. Loyalty is the lifeblood of the “Good Old Boy” system for without it the system would crumble and the members would find themselves amongst the rest of the employees having to fend for themselves. In the movie Striking Distance with Bruce Willis, there is inscribed on a tombstone for a fallen officer “Loyalty above all else, except Honor”. We should all strive to be loyal to one another and our intentions should exemplify the highest sense of honor to the profession as possible.
Expeditious Promotional Process: The promotional process in the “Good Old Boy” system is frequently appointment to a position by the Chief of Police. If the organization has some semblance of a promotional process requiring a written exam, oral board or assessment center, the weight applied to seniority will usually be very high. There is a mathematical process whereby converting the scores in an oral board, written exam, and seniority points to 100% can add a disproportionate weight to the seniority points. The end result is that Bubba, who barely passes the oral and written test can beat an employee who gets perfect scores on the oral and written test. The appointment process is certainly more expeditious and assures the manager that the employee in the clique will get the position.
For those administrators that realize that the “Good Old Boy” system is alive and well in their organization and wish to break away will have to realize that this is a process that requires time. If an administrator thinks that the culture or subculture of an organization can be changed overnight he/she is very naïve. Certainly an employer can identify some of the “Good Old Boys” and terminate their employment thereby eliminating some of the problem employees and resulting in a very short-term solution. Unless there is a procedural and cultural change, this system will return. The following factors will assist an administrator in removing the “Good Old Boy” influence in an organization:
Take a Stand: It is imperative to success that an administrator take a stand that demonstrates his/her desire to put to death the “Good Old Boy” system. An administrator must be steadfast, as there can be significant resistance internally and politically. Many of the “Good Old Boys” can be well known and liked in the community. Taking a stand sends a message to all of the employees that participation in the clique will not longer be tolerated. It will be even more difficult if the administrator was one of the “Good Old Boys” and for whatever reason has learned that it is time to change. He/she will now be considered disloyal, outcast, and there will most likely be a movement by those left behind in the clique to undermine any positive initiative.
Communication: Open, honest, and accurate communication to the employees will help eliminate rumors and speculation. If it is the intent of an administrator to make a major cultural change in the organization then that needs to be communicated to the employees. The employees will only support that which they have confidence in and they cannot develop the confidence without data. Communicating to the employees that the “Good Old Boy” system will no longer be tolerated and that employees will be measured on their merit, not associations, takes resolve. If an administrator wants the majority of the organization to support any change the employees must understand the benefits to them and see that the administrator will stand firm on his/her decision.
Promote Continued Education: All administrators should be very proactive in encouraging their employees to continue with their education. Educating your employees tells them that they are valued for their abilities, not who they know or associate with. It also puts them on the same playing field when a promotion becomes available, virtually eliminating the “Good Old Boy” influence. Promoting education also sends a message to the employees demonstrating an administrator’s position to help his/her employees be the best they can be. “Good Old Boys” don’t like highly educated employees because they can be a threat. Some administrators will not promote higher education because they also lack a higher education. Is education the panacea for the policing profession? Absolutely not, but that degree unequivocally is the credential that opens the doors. Good, bad or indifferent, it is the standard the profession has set for upper management. Very rarely do we see ads for administrator’s positions without a degree requirement. Every administrator should strive to produce subordinates that one day will be their replacement and carry on their legacy. It’s fun.
Lead by Example: Talk is cheap. Leadership is more than verbose rhetoric that borders on the obnoxious. Expecting to excite employees with a plethora of exaggerated verbiage that requires them to extrapolate some vague meaning only leads to confusion. Anyone can use some big words. The challenge is not to just talk the talk but more importantly, walk the walk. Leading by example is an opportunity missed by many administrators. It shows the employee that you are not afraid to get your hands dirty. It speaks volumes as to your character. It illustrates the human side of leadership. Patton was a great leader who used leading by example as his greatest strength. Not only could he speak intelligently and inspire his troops, he was there on the battleground leading. He could not only talk the talk but he could most certainly walk the walk. The “Good Old Boys” can talk the talk but are afraid to walk the walk. Because talk is cheap it’s easy for a “Good Old Boy” to spout off about how he/she would do things yet invariably they don’t do what they say. As they are a collective group, they have collective thoughts. Individual reasoning and initiative different from the collective is stifled. “Good Old Boys” talk together and walk together. In an attempt to break away it is imperative for an administrator to lead by example. If he/she has previously been one of the “Good Old Boys”, there is probably zero confidence in what he/she might have to say. Saying that you’re going to be fair and consistent will fall on deaf ears. The employees want to see an administrator do what he/she says they will do.
Promotion: Most everyone in the policing profession would like an opportunity to promote. The promotional process and the ability of the candidates are where an administrator must pay close attention. In the “Good Old Boy” system there is frequently an appointment process, nothing competitive. If there is a competitive process there can be influence exerted to favor the chosen one or so much weight placed on seniority and other obscure areas as to lean the test toward the chosen one. A fair, open, and unbiased promotional process is one way to cripple the “Good Old Boy” system. When you put the candidates on an even playing field it tells them that you are equally impressed with their accomplishments. There are some “Good Old Boys” that are pretty smart and may end up being the best candidate for the position. The other candidates will have no room to complain as they had their equal and fair chance. Arguably, assessment centers are the best promotional process on the market today. With outside assessors, numerous dimensions, and variables assessed it is very difficult for a candidate to argue that he/she may have been treated differently or that the chosen one was given preferential treatment. The promotional process is so vital to the growth and legacy of an organization. Who is promoted will say so much about us, the administrators, leaders who should be molding the future.
Summary
The “Good Old Boy” system has been a part of the policing profession for many years and still exists in various forms, at different levels in the organizations, and exerts a certain amount of influence. Some form of the “Good Old Boy” system will always exist. As the policing profession continues to grow professionally, the “Good Old Boy” system will have less negative influence on the profession. There are many negative aspects of the “Good Old Boy” system such as the adverse impact on integrity and how, as a member of the “clique”, an administrator must sometimes compromise what is right for what would be socially acceptable to his/her friends.
The “Good Old Boy” system breeds its own offspring, suck-ups. You can see them hover around the administrators office brown nosing. These are the potential candidates for membership into the clique and they can be very creative in their suck-up strategies. They can also be dangerous to other employees as they can stab another in the back if it will help them get ahead.
All of the negative factors associated with the “Good Old Boy” system have a significant impact on the motivation of the employees and the growth of the organization. Eventually, for many employees this will no longer be a career. It will become just another job.
In spite of all the negative, there are a couple of positive aspects to the “Good Old Boy” system. The biggest positive is loyalty. The members of the clique are usually very loyal to one another and thereby perpetuating their existence. Loyalty is the “lifeblood” of the “Good Old Boy” system. Disloyal members in the clique would ultimately destroy the system.
To break away from this style of management an administrator must take a stand and be unwavering in his/her position. An administrator must establish open accurate communication; a promotional process that is fair and unbiased; promote education, help the employees be the best they can be; and most importantly, lead by example. Don’t be afraid to get your hands dirty.
The policing profession has come a long way since the Tammany Hall days of corruption and scandal. With a continued effort toward educated, professional employees the future for the profession is bright. Will things always go well? No, and the profession will get its hand slapped or receive a bloody nose on occasion for the actions of a few that don’t believe in honor, loyalty and duty. As leaders of this great profession we have an obligation to our employees and the profession to pave the way to the 21st Century. “Beam me up Scotty”
Resources:
C. Swanson, L. Territo, R. Taylor, “Police Administration”” Structures, Processes and Behavior, Macmillan 1993, p.2, p.3
K. Blanchard, N. Peale, “The Power of Ethical Management”, William Morrow and Co 1988, p. 19
