As I was reading the article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press last Sunday about the two St. Paul officers that were fired, it struck me that the Chief most certainly fired the those officers anticipating that they would get their jobs back.   My interest is particularly peaked in cases involving discipline and law enforcement because of my background in both.  It is my experience both (in HR and as a police officer) that many times public officials will take a harsh stance in discipline to “send a message” to the officers involved and all officers overall.  Sometimes, however, the reason for discipline that won’t stick is for the benefit of the public.  The chief is managing public perception about his or her department.

I question the wisdom in consistently doling out discipline in a union environment in a way that can reasonably be foreseen as likely to be overturned.   Don’t get me wrong.  I believe that management needs to have the authority and ultimate decision making in how and when they will hold people accountable for negative behaviors.   However, when the discipline is consistently overturned because there is a message to be sent, what exactly is the message?   There is certainly a loss of credibility on the part of the chief in the eyes of the department and with the public.  And what kind of behavior does this foster overall from the union?  I can only imagine that once they realize the chief is doling out behavior that is likely going to be grieved by a union (and won) there is an inclination to grieve more discipline then not. 

If I were to give a piece of HR advice Police Chief John Harrington (or any police chief for that matter) I would say this:  Focus on what’s going to create a culture of accountability in your department and think long term.  Part of the culture of accountability starts with creating relationships with the union stewards that are based on mutual respect.   Although a union environment is adversarial at its heart, do what you can to minimize that conflict.  Work with the union to come to a solution in discipline cases that will be good for everyone.  This will benefit the officer(s) involved, the department overall, and the public.   Although the discipline is, and in my opinion should be, ultimately up to the chief (or executive officer) I still advocate for helping the union see what you are trying to achieve and hear what concerns the steward has in return.  Although this isn’t going to work in every case, I bet if that would have worked in one or both of the cases highlighted in the Pioneer Press they wouldn’t have made the paper at all.  And what would that mean for public perception?