In August 1982, law enforcement executives gathered in the
FBI Academy auditorium to hear Alvin Toffler speak. In his
speech, Toffler suggested that because change was taking place so
rapidly, tremendous social pressures were occurring and will
continue to ferment and explode unless opportunities were created
to relieve those pressures. (1)
According to Toffler, law enforcement, like society, has two
possible courses of action. The first is to cling to the status
quo; the second, to facilitate social change. (2) For law
enforcement officers, this means not only protecting civil rights
but also ensuring that all lawful means of dissent and
petitioning of government concerning grievances are permitted and
protected. (3) This will help secure the ideals of democracy and
facilitate an orderly transition into what Toffler has referred
to as a ``third wave'' society. (4)
In support of these ideals, this article addresses major
societal change from an historical perspective, ongoing social
norm and value shifts, periods of reform in policing, the
research that addresses the phenomenon of resistance to
organizational change, and the implications for law enforcement
of maintaining the status quo.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Historically, the role of law enforcement has been to
maintain the status quo. However, this does not mean that this is
what ``should be'' in the future. Reliance on current practices
will not prepare law enforcement for the future. Therefore, to be
able to deal with change, law enforcement must understand the
process of change.
Toffler's comments offer a challenge to law enforcement and
suggest that unless the police are viewed by the public as
amicable, they will be perceived as adversaries. They must be
viewed as integral to the neighborhood and as indispensable
members of the community, not as an army of occupation.
One need only reflect back two decades to be reminded of how
destructive civil unrest and social injustice can be. Law
enforcement has made important and laudatory strides to heal
those wounds, but there is more to be done. Law enforcement
administrators must not allow themselves to be content with past
achievements. If law enforcement stops to congratulate itself for
the progress it has made thus far, it could drift backwards.
In addition, isolated and sometimes tragic events tend to
dramatize and exaggerate the excitement of policing. For some
police officers, the service function is something begrudgingly
tolerated while waiting for the hot pursuit and in-progress
calls. In fact, many police officers believe that the service
function should not be part of their responsibilities. This
belief is compounded by the lack of a concerted effort on the
part of police administrators to give the service function a
positive image. Therefore, systematically shifting public
perception, and the self-image of the police themselves from
``crime fighter'' to ``social engineer,'' seems appropriate. (5)
If law enforcement administrators do not plan properly
today, they may be forced to reassess the way their agencies
carry out their responsibilities tomorrow. For example,
California's 1978 Proposition Thirteen triggered a decade of
so-called ``cutback management'' for law enforcement and other
agencies nationwide. Such reappraisals are likely to come about
as a result of the kind of initiatives Toffler has called
``anticipatory democracy.'' (6)
Economizing measures, referenda, and trends, such as social
norm and value shifts, accreditation, education and training, and
consolidation, (7) will bear close scrutiny from now through the
turn of the century. If changes in these areas continue at their
present rate and direction, they are likely to lead to major,
unanticipated changes in both the role and organizational
structure of policing. Perhaps the most important, most subtle,
and most likely to be overlooked by police administrators is the
shift in social norms and values.
CHANGES IN SOCIETY
In his 1970 classic, Future Shock, Alvin Toffler discussed
the world's major social norm and value shifts. (8) In 1980, he
followed up with The Third Wave, in which he expanded his views
and drew an analogy between the waves of the ocean and the three
major changes of society: The Agricultural Revolution, the
Industrial Revolution, and the Technological Revolution. (9)
According to Toffler, the first wave, the Agricultural
Revolution, swept aside 45,000 years of cave dwelling about 8,000
B.C., and mankind shifted from a nomadic existence based on
hunting and gathering to domesticating animals, farming, and
settling on the land.
The second wave, the Industrial Revolution, began about
1760, and mankind moved from the field to the foundry. The
transition from plough to punch-press was filled with
consternation. In fact, from 1811 to 1816, bands of workmen,
called Luddites, destroyed machinery because they believed their
jobs were at risk from the technology of the day. Machine power,
they feared, would replace manpower. With the exception of a few
Third World countries, the Industrial Revolution provided the
economic base for second wave society.
About 1955, the Technological Revolution began, signifying
the third wave. Since that time, the American work force has
shifted from blue collar to white collar. In barely three
decades, a parade of high technology has marched into the home.
The driving force for this shift is information; the
economic base for third wave societies is the quest for
knowledge. The ubiquitous microcomputer, ushered in just over a
decade ago, has turned Western society inside out. In the wake
of this micro millennium, a new ``disease'' has been discovered,
cyberphobia fear of computers. Computer phobes today express
remarkably similar views about computers as 19th-century
Luddites expressed about mechanical devices.
CHANGES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
A rough correspondence to Toffler's wave analogy can be
drawn with respect to the historical changes in law enforcement.
Passage of the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 in England marked
the beginning of the ``first wave'' of major law enforcement
reform. Robert Peel and Charles Rowan were two visionaries who
brought order and the military model to policing.
A century later, in the 1930s, August Vollmer and O.W. Wilson,
two American police pioneers, advanced the goal of
``professionalizing'' law enforcement. Their efforts ushered in
the ``second wave'' of major law enforcement reform.
Standardization, specialization, synchronization, concentration,
maximization, and centralization dominated law enforcement during
this era. Toffler's ``Breaking the Code,'' in The Third Wave, for
example, is almost a mirror image of the history of modern
police administration. (10)
The civil unrest of the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s was
the impetus for the advocacy of the ``third wave'' of major law
enforcement reform. Change agents, such as Patrick V. Murphy and
Quinn Tamm, began to question the value of the bureaucracy and
the military model of policing.
Substantial improvements in law enforcement have taken place
since the mid-1960s, (11) but most efforts to change have fallen
short of their intended goals or have failed all together. (12) In
fact, law enforcement, being characteristically highly resistant
to change and intolerant of organizational dissent, has been
about as flexible as granite. (13)
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
There is a vast body of literature in organizational
behavior, (14) management, (15) and innovation (16) that
addresses the issue of resistance to change and reasons why so
many organizations are so unyielding. (17) In general, an
inverse relationship exists in bureaucracies between
organizational size and receptivity to change. The bigger the
organization, the more rigidity and less affinity toward
innovation there is. (18) As illogical as it may sound, in law
enforcement, it also appears to be the case that the smaller the
agency, the more resistance there is to change. Even though
positive, meaningful innovation is taking place, many police
administrators are unwilling to ``rock the boat.'' (19)
However, a 1983 study revealed that a surprising number of
police officers have begun to voice strong objections to the
rigid organizational structure and autocratic management styles
that typify so much of law enforcement. (20) In effect, the study
concluded that ``the traditional managerial methods are not
serving to motivate officers.'' (21) One reason for this
phenomenon may be traced to a decline of unquestioned obedience
to authority. (22) Until about 15 years ago, most police recruits
were men who had served in the Armed Forces. These men were
accustomed to unquestioned response to command. Today, however,
few of the young men and women entering law enforcement have
such experience. They often ask questions that are unsettling to
traditionalist managers, who often believe that people need to
be, coerced, controlled, and threatened. (23)
In a more recent study, a panel of law enforcement
management experts discussed the future of law enforcement. (24)
One of the issues examined was leadership styles and the
phenomenon of resistance to change. One panelist, a law
enforcement executive, stated, ``The general perception is that
things have worked well as they are and that there is no need to
change.'' Another panelist, who is a criminal justice scholar,
admitted that ``police executives are not risk takers and police
departments are getting more, not less, defensive.'' (25)
Today, there is ample evidence to indicate that insofar as
dealing with people is concerned, the good ole days may best
serve as memories, not models for future personnel practices.
Between now and the turn of the century, law enforcement
administrators will continue to be reminded that the
organizational and managerial methods of the past even though
enlightened for their time may no longer work. In the future,
the number of disciplinary cases and the use of annual and sick
leave will increase steadily under traditionalist managers.
Unfortunately, many police administrators will be oblivious to
these signs or will staunchly defend current personnel practices.
However, the astute administrator will recognize these indicators
for what they represent and will adjust accordingly.
IMPLICATIONS
What do such findings imply for law enforcement? For
administrators, what one does not want to hear may be precisely
what one needs to know. (26) For operational officers, some may
feel trapped and unable to leave; they will become cynics. (27)
Others will leave to join less bureaucratic and militaristic
organizations. The fact that many college graduates leave law
enforcement early because of autocratic management was recognized
over two decades ago. (28) But, the departure of personnel who
rebel against authoritarianism will likely not be an exodus of
college-educated personnel in terms of numbers, but of talent.
The discontinuity of social norms and values, which began
more than two decades ago, (29) is still evident today. (30) And, the
trend will continue over the next 20 years and beyond. As a
result, an effort has been made to highlight some issues viewed
as central to our ability to police such a changing society. It
is vital that law enforcement administrators understand that:
* Powerful dynamics are transfiguring virtually every facet of
American society
* The forces that are recasting social institutions will also
alter law enforcement organizations
* As society's values change, so will those of law enforcement
personnel
* To deal effectively with diversity, the process of change
must be understood
* The role and goals of policing must be clearly and concisely
articulated.
If the professionalization of law enforcement is truly
desirable, the fact that ``the reform movements may have
succeeded to some extent in creating the appearance without the
substance of fundamental reform'' must be faced. (31) Only by
``puncturing the myths and slaughtering the sacred cows'' (32) will
we advance the substance of policing. This has not always been
easy for law enforcement.
However, while the methodological rigor of past research
continues to be debated, the Kansas City Preventive Patrol
Experiment (33) represents a giant leap forward for police
professionalism and has demonstrated that it is ``o.k.'' to
question dogma. (34) However, problem-oriented policing (35) and the
Minneapolis domestic violence study, (36) for example, have been
received with more reticence.
Law enforcement is capable of substantive change, but this
requires an objective examination of policy and a willingness to
adjust and adapt. (37) Unexamined are a number of visionary ideas
that may have been ahead of their time. One such untested
proposal that evidences a great deal of merit is John Angell's
democratic model of policing, which calls for greater
organizational and decisionmaking decentralization. (38) He argues,
for example, that rigid discipline and authoritarianism fosters,
rather than discourages, corruption. (39)
CONCLUSION
Regardless of what lies ahead, law enforcement must
anticipate tomorrow in an imaginative, analytical, and
prescriptive manner. This means that law enforcement
administrators must not be seduced by the tried and true tenets
of the past. When ``experience'' becomes dogma, it can be not
only misleading but also dangerous as well. Administrators
should reflect on what has passed, not be driven by it. Law
enforcement administrators of today if they are to shape the
course of tomorrow must look ahead.
For 45,000 years, mankind huddled in the darkness of caves,
afraid to take that first step into the light of day. Will
history record each law enforcement agency's contribution as
Luddite or luminary? Bold leadership is essential today to
prepare for the ``fourth wave'' of law enforcement reform.
FOOTNOTES
(1) Alvin Toffler, Address before the 130th Session of the FBI
National Academy, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA, August, 5, 1982.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: William Morrow,
1980).
(5) James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, ``Broken Windows,''
Atlantic Monthly, March 1982, pp 29-38; James Q. Wilson and
George L. Kelling, ``Making Neighborhoods Safe,'' Atlantic
Monthly, February 1989, pp. 46-52.
(6) Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random House,
1970); supra note 4.
(7) William L. Tafoya, ``A Delphi Forecast of the Future of
Law Enforcement,'' unpublished doctoral dissertation (Criminal
Justice and Criminology), University of Maryland, December 1986.
(8) Supra note 6.
(9) Supra note 4.
(10) Supra note 4.
(11) Wayne A. Kerstetter, ``The Police in 1984,''Journal of
Criminal Justice, Spring 1979, pp. 1-9.
(12) Charles R. Swanson, Leonard Territo, and Robert W.
Taylor, Police Administration: Structures, Processes, and
Behavior, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1988), see especially
``Success and Failure Patterns in Planned Change,'' pp. 545-547.
(13) Dorothy Guyot, ``Bending Granite: Attempts to Change the
Rank Structure of American Police Departments,'' Journal of
Police Science and Administration, September 1979, pp. 253-284.
(14) Roy R. Roberg and Jack Kuykendall, Police Organization
and Management: Behavior, Theory, and Processes (Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole, 1990), see especially ``Resistance to Change,''
pp. 383-388; Stephen J. Carroll and Henry L. Tosi, Organizational
Behavior (Chicago, IL: St. Clair, 1977); Chris Argyris,
Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness
(Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1962).
(15) Rosabeth Moss Kanter, When Giants Learn to Dance:
Mastering the Challenge of Strategy, Management, and Careers in
the 1990s (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989); Thomas J.
Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. In Search of Excellence:
Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies (New York: Warner,
1982). Dilip K. Das, ``What Can the Police Learn from `Excellent
Companies'?,'' Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 13, No. 4,
1985, pp. 381-385. Harry W. More, ed., Effective Police
Administration: A Behavioral Approach (San Jose, CA: Justice
Systems Development, 1975).
(16) John Sculley, Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple...A Journey of
Adventure, Ideas, and the Future (New York: Harper and Row,
1987); Rosabeth Moss Kanter, The Change Masters: Innovations for
Productivity in the American Corporation (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1983); Leonard Territo, ``Planning and Implementing
Organizational Change,'' Journal of Police Science and
Administration, December 1980, pp. 390-398.
(17) Terrence E. Deal and Allan A. Kennedy, Corporate
Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1982); Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian
Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s (Los
Angeles, CA: J.P. Tarcher, 1980); Gerald E. Caiden, Police
Revitalization (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977); Warren G.
Bennis, ``Beyond Bureaucracy: Will Organization Men Fit the New
Organizations?,'' Tomorrow's Organizations: Challenges and
Strategies, edited by Jon S. Jun and William B. Storm (Glenview,
IL: Scot, Foresman & Co., 1973), pp. 70-76.
(18) Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston, MA: Little,
Brown & Co., 1967).
(19) J. Laverne Coppock, ``Police Management in Transition,''
Effective Police Administration: A Behavioral Approach, 2nd ed.,
edited by Harry W. More, Jr., (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing,
1979), pp. 45-56.
(20) William F. Walsh, ``The Analysis of the Variation in
Patrol Officer Felony Arrest Rates,'' unpublished doctoral
dissertation (Sociology), Fordham University, 1984, and ``Patrol
Officer Arrest Rates: A Study of the Social Organization of
Police Work,'' Justice Quarterly, September 1986, pp. 271-290.
(23) Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).
(24) Supra note 7.
(25) Supra note 7.
(26) Donald Sanzotta, The Manager's Guide to Interpersonal
Relations (New York: AMACOM, 1979), see especially ``The
Ill-Informed Walrus,'' pp. 113-115.
(27) Arthur Niederhoffer, Behind the Shield: The Police in
Urban Society, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967).
(28) Norman Pomrenke, ``Attracting and Retaining the
College-Trained Officer in Law Enforcement,'' remarks made at the
72nd Annual Conference of the International Association of Chiefs
of Police, Miami, FL, October 2-7, 1965, proceedings published in
The Police Yearbook (Washington, DC: IACP, 1966), pp. 99-109.
(29) Peter F. Drucker, The Age of Discontinuity (New York:
Harper & Row, 1968).
(30) Daniel Yankelovich and Sidney Harman, Starting With the
People (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1988); Ian Miles, ``The
New Post-Industrial State,'' Futures, December 1985, pp.
588-617; Daniel Yankelovich, New Rules: Searching for
Self-Fulfillment in a World Turned Upside Down (New York: Random
House, 1981).
(31) Gary W. Sykes, ``The Functional Nature of Police Reform:
The `Myth' of Controlling the Police,'' Justice Quarterly, March
1985, pp. 51-65.
(32) Louis A. Mayo, phrase coined as the theme for a 2-year
series of monthly meetings co-sponsored by the Section of
Criminal Justice Administration of the American Society for
Public Administration (ASPA) and the Police Foundation,
Washington, DC.
(33) George L. Kelling, et al, ``The Kansas City Preventive
Patrol Experiment,'' technical report (Washington, DC: The Police
Foundation, October 1974).
(34) Ibid.
(35) Herman Goldstein, ``Improving Policing: A
Problem-Oriented Approach,'' Crime and Delinquency, April 1979,
pp. 236-258.
(36) Lawrence W. Sherman & Richard A. Berk, ``The Minneapolis
Domestic Violence Experiment,'' report (Washington, DC: The
Police Foundation, 1984).
(37) Alvin Toffler, The Adaptive Corporation (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1985).
(38) John E. Angell, ``Organizing Police for the Future: An
Update on the Democratic Model,'' Criminal Justice Review, Fall
1976, pp. 35-51; ``Toward an Alternative to the Classic
Organizational Arrangements: A Democratic Model,'' Criminology,
August-November 1971, pp. 185-206.
(39) Carl B. Klockars, Thinking About Police (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1983).
About the author:
William L. Tafoya is an FBI Special Agent assigned to the
Behavioral Science Instruction/Research Unit at the FBI
Academy at Quantico, VA.
