This Matters

As someone who gave a significant chunk of their life to public service in the office of constable, I’ve found myself reflecting on the tragic events that resulted in the death of George Floyd.

George Floyd is a martyr. The world changed that day -and needs to change. Whereas people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf, and it remains a fact of life that people will continue to fight with the cops, either for sport, or at the point of arrest in an attempt to evade custody, it therefore follows that the police will have to continue to confront such situations, and apply reasonable force to take control. On 25th May, 2020, that application was not ‘weighed to a nicety’. It rarely is. Having to fight with people who want to fight is an ugly business. But once control is established, the role of the state changes; to make sure the person is OK. That didn’t happen, it was wrong, and nobody will disagree with that. Sit quietly for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, and just how wrong that continued application of force was, becomes shocking in the extreme.

But what of the aftermath? That has caused me to shout at the telly in equal measure, as people shout equally as loudly to ‘Defund the police!’ Do they really understand what it actually means? It is such a clumsy concept, that to knee jerk, and take it at face value is likely to create more problems than it ever would solve. However, if we can all just take some time to think this through, there is a lot to learn.

The issue, first and foremost, is that too many societies have become over-reliant on the policing function. This manifests itself in many forms. Maybe it is to quell the insurrection of the masses in some tinpot dictatorship, or perhaps, as in the UK by virtue of the service’s own inability to resist mission creep and a desire to save the world on a daily basis. Neither is right; in the former, the function tends to be carried out by poorly paid, equipped and trained individuals with focus on the combative, rather than the soft skills. In the latter, the police become all things to all people, plugging the gaps in the shortcomings of other departments such as mental health, and social care, doing the best job they can, but equally so, nowhere near the job that a properly funded and supported dedicated professional could do.

So how does that parallel to your own organisation? Are you caught in a continuum of high staff turnover because its all about the numbers, or are your staff nowhere near as effective as they could be because they are jack of all trades, but master of none? In society, it leads to cases like George’s. In business, it can lead to significant failures, which hopefully would not be so tragic.

Lets look at that societal over-reliance again. I’d wager that if the UK police force was to vanish overnight, that lawlessness on the streets would actually be a very small part of the impact. It would be the effect on all the other areas that the service has crept into that would really be noticed. So much is picked up by them, just because they have never been able to say ‘no’. So how are things at your place? Have you built an over-reliance on particular departments, or even individuals, just because of their willingness and ability to suck up problems and challenges? If you have, its a problem waiting to have its day, and that won’t be pretty.

Defunding the police is actually about building a better balance in society to start to address its fundamental problems with more vigour. Policing costs a huge amount to service, but what if that budget was in fact better balanced? What if the police stopped having to go to routine calls for help from mental health sufferers, just because there was nobody else there to do it. What if a chunk of the budget therefore went towards properly funding the mental health service? And what about deprived inner city communities, where deprivation and lack of opportunity leads to an unbreakable spiral into criminality. When the police are active in those communities, they are too often seen as the enemy, as they simply try and stem the tsunami of recidivism that costs lives and blights society. Could the money spent doing that not be better spent on investment in the built environment, social care, education, and incentivising business to create jobs and opportunity, thus creating a better future for disadvantaged young people?

How does that compare to your own set up? Are you focussed on doing the right things, or is the organisation now moving so fast that it has developed a ‘being’ all of its own? It’s great being say, a successful mover of people around the globe, but if the way you treat people on the customer service side is the pits, customers aren’t going to hang around for long when something better comes along.

Now, here’s the bad news; Its not that simple, and this is nothing new! Back in the late 90’s, I was a faciltator for the introduction of something called ‘Problem Oriented Policing’. Its a great concept on the face of it, where the cops look at a ‘right first time’ approach. Solve the issue, rather than having to go back multiple times. Doesn’t that make business sense too? But we know that the problems that exist today are multiple times worse than they were three decades ago. They are so systemic and deep rooted that even if we started tomorrow, they may take one or two generations to resolve. And that is why you can’t just suddenly ‘Defund’ - you have to double-fund. You might not be surprised to know that in the UK, the much vaunted Problem-oriented approach didn’t really work. It is because you effectively need two police forces; one to start off down that worthy route, whilst the other stands ready to keep a lid on things whilst you are at it.

How often do we see this in business and other organisations? A new department is created, but the budget is cut from somewhere else to make the books balance. Then we are surprised when things veer off course, profits drop, or customer service ratings plummet. The reality is that in the short to medium term, there’s a need to double fund, rather than de-fund. Over time, the new functions will make the difference we desire, and the old ways can gradually be phased out. But this all takes money, and a massive capacity for strategy. Adjustments will always be needed along the way, but it will need steely resolve by the executive, a solid plan and the most brilliant communications ever devised. That applies equally, whether it is constructing a brave new society, or regaining control of a business that may have lost its way.

The world needs to change massively in its whole outlook, and how the state services the community. But business can have similar needs, and re-evaluating purpose and delivery can lead to betterment. In both cases, expecting it to happen overnight, without spending money, is folly in the extreme.

Derek Flint Cert. Ed., MCIPR