A recent Article - Psychological Safety
I recently wrote for Policing Insight, on the subject of psychological safety. Have a read and let me know what you think on my Linkedin channel.
Safe House: Is there an obvious reason that policing isn’t moving forward?
OPEN 6th February 2023Derek Flint, Policing Lecturer, UCLan
With incidents of police misconduct ranging from inappropriate to criminal behaviour seemingly dominating the headlines, policing culture is increasingly under the microscope; former officer and Policing Lecturer Derek Flint looks at the issue of ‘psychological safety’, and the importance of leaders creating a ‘positive and productive version’ of safety that enables poor behaviour to be challenged effectively.
It is almost a daily occurrence now; another police officer under investigation for some level of misconduct, up to and including the most heinous offences on the statute book. In other news, reports of record levels of resignations – and a leadership whose primary role appears to be apologising for past and present misdemeanours – are adding to the mix, topped off by a service which plays the recruitment game akin to schoolboy football. Most people would doubtless agree that regrettably, once again, things have to change.
I’ve embarked on a Professional Doctorate in Elite Performance, determined to shine a light into some of the issues of leadership in the service. While not immune from bullying, misogyny and other issues, the comparison and contrast with the armed services is profound.
Sir Mark Rowley recently highlighted the difference between equivalent ranks and the development they receive, comparing a newly promoted superintendent with a lieutenant colonel The latter would have received about a year and a half’s pure leadership development up to that point. The former would be lucky if they had more than a few weeks, and depending on which force they had joined, even that is a bit of a lottery.
Psychological safety
The Army nails its colours to the mast. It’s Army Leadership Doctrine sets out plainly what it means to be a leader in that service. There is a wealth of other publications, written by respected authors which emanate from it.
Lt Col Langley Sharp’s excellent work The Habit of Excellence – Why British Army Leadership Works explains the doctrine ‘in action’, in a way which any leader in business or public service could understand and transpose into their own domain. There is a lot to learn and perhaps some quick-win shortcuts for those charged with developing the National Centre for Police Leadership.
As part of my research one particular area somewhat turned the big light on – psychological safety; what I found resonated so strongly with my own previous service that I believe it cannot be ignored.
However, as part of my research one particular area somewhat turned the big light on – psychological safety. It was my Doctorate Supervisor that nudged me to review a couple of papers, and what I found resonated so strongly with my own previous service that I believe it cannot be ignored. I found David Spencer’s recent article really powerful (There is nothing wrong with policing that cannot be cured by what is right with policing). He mentions the unavoidable truth that Couzens and Carrick were both members of the same Metropolitan Police Command, and also that even in his previous rank of chief inspector, David found it difficult to be able to speak up on occasions.
Both of these circumstances I would suggest have at their core the issue of psychological safety, which began to form as a theory in the 1990s with the work of Dr Amy Edmondson often being cited.
The idea behind it is that there is ‘a shared belief held by members of the team, that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking’. Tim Clarke, in his book The four stages of psychological safety sets out the pathway.
First, there is ‘Inclusion safety’, where members develop their feeling of safety within a team. Then, ‘Learner Safety’ allows them to develop through asking questions. This moves on to ‘Contributor Safety’, where the member feels safe to contribute their own ideas, finally leading to ‘Challenger Safety’, where members can question ideas or suggest significant changes.
Creating the ‘Safe House’
Anyone who has served in policing will recognise that such a utopia isn’t necessarily the norm. David Spencer mentioned MI5 chief Jonathan Evans, and his view that many of policing’s problems were down to a culture of “shut up, do what you’re told and salute”. Personally, I don’t think it is quite that bad, because it can’t be. It is often forgotten that the constable holds their own, independent office, and ultimately has much more latitude in how they discharge their duties than might be immediately apparent. And with that, comes its own problems, especially where the ‘really bad and naughty’ exist within the ranks. Was it just such a level of psychological safety within the Metropolitan Police Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command that provided the perfect culture for unacceptable behaviours to develop into almost an accepted norm?
As landlords of the ‘Safe House’, leaders of the service need to ensure that there is only one positive and productive version of that safety, which permeates throughout the organisation, right down to each of the small teams which make up its whole.
Did officers feel safe due to the embedded level of trust and the ‘way things are done round here’ to share content on social media groups which was clearly inappropriate in normal society? Was it that safety which allowed the awarding of nicknames such as ‘the rapist’ or ‘Bastard Dave’ without the batting of an eyelid?
If nurtured properly, psychological safety within the service could be a force multiplier in making good ground to the sunlit uplands. Staff should feel safe to challenge and report unethical or criminal behaviour. They should feel safe to ask questions, to challenge the orthodox and to be able to offer an orthogonal view without fear of consequence.
But equally, as landlords of the ‘Safe House’, leaders of the service need to ensure that there is only one positive and productive version of that safety, which permeates throughout the organisation, right down to each of the small teams which make up its whole. There needs to be constant and fearless surveillance to ensure that pockets of toxic safety are unable to survive in isolation. Without that, the service will continue to undermine its own mission with regular production of shocking headlines which will perpetually tarnish an already dull reputation.
I would conclude by suggesting that psychological safety has a large part to play in both recruitment and retention. Perhaps if what the Army called ‘a sense of belonging’ can be developed, we will see more diversity, neurodiversity and a willingness to stay the distance in what is an ever more challenging vocation.