1

Confidence, Conviction and Credibility: An Evaluation of the High Potential Development Scheme for the

National Policing Improvement Agency

Keith Grint & Clare Holt

Warwick Business School

2

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

3

CONTENTS Page 5 Executive Summary 9 Background to the report 11 HPDS – Aims and expectations 13 The Diploma curriculum 17 Evaluation research 21 Leadership development theory: An Aristotelian perspective 25 Comparative evaluation 27 Methodology 29 Summary of HPDS participant contacted 31 Results 67 Analysis 75 Recommendations 77 Conclusion 78 Bibliography 79 Appendix - Questionnaire

4

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The High Potential Development Scheme (HPDS) was re-launched in 2008 and was advertised as the ‘Revised HPDS’. The scheme was to be run and managed by National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). The academic partner recruited was Warwick Business School (WBS) which was responsible for the delivery of the academic element of the scheme. Compared to the previous scheme, it became a more structured 5-year programme open to all constables and sergeants across the 43 forces of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, including Jersey and the British Transport Police. The first cohort of the revised scheme has just completed their first two years and the Post Graduate Diploma in Police Leadership and Management, and are about to start the two year consolidation phase. This evaluation research was conducted after all six modules had been completed and the participants’ dissertations had been submitted.

METHOD A series of unstructured face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with 18 current

participants of Cohort 1; Four unstructured interviews were conducted with 4 non-HPDS officers who have recently

experienced rapid promotion; and An on-line questionnaire was constructed and sent to 55 non-HPDS officers who had attended

stage 3 of the HPDS selection process in 2008.

All interviewees were briefed to tell ‘their story of HPDS/their career so far’. This unstructured approach was to minimize external influences and it gave them the autonomy to phrase and sequence the interview to suit their thoughts, opinions and experiences with the scheme to date. By conducting this comparative research, it allowed the findings from HPDS officers interviewed to be analysed against the outcomes, successes, thoughts and experiences of other officers working within the police service.

RESULTS HPDS Cohort 1 Selection – Overall the application and selection process was considered fair, although many

did admit to feeling stressed and daunted by it. Support and guidance from NPIA was considered good, but support from the various forces was very mixed. Many commented that knowing how difficult the application process is gives the scheme legitimacy.

Warwick Business School (WBS) – The feedback was consistently good stressing how it gave individuals knowledge to think differently, how it was relevant but challenging and a key benefit of HPDS.

– Pre-reading: Some felt there was too much reading, especially academic reading which takes longer to read and digest. Many found they were not getting it all completed in time for the module.

– Module content: The majority agreed that most of the content was relevant, with the length of each module being just about right.

– Teaching styles: Overall there was a consensus that the mix in teaching styles was right due to individuals having different learning styles.

6

– Assignments: There was some apprehension but most agreed that the support was in place. Once the first essay had been completed, many found the following assignments less daunting.

– Relevance of academic content: Around two thirds of officers interviewed agreed that for constables it was very difficult to apply the new knowledge and skills to the ‘day job’. Inspectors and sergeants all felt it was very useful and relevant and so were able to use the learning almost immediately. It was discussed amongst all ranks on HPDS that, as a constable, it could become ‘dead knowledge’.

– Residential impact: 100% of interviewees agreed that this was of high importance, especially because of the ability to mix, socialise and network with peers in a dedicated environment. It allowed for discussion, debate, experience sharing and peer-group counselling covering both professional and personal matters.

National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) – Not everyone commented on the overall role of NPIA within HPDS. The officers’ who did, felt NPIA fulfilled their role as the overall ‘supporters’ for HPDS: funding, organising and managing. There were issues raised about their lack of influence over the police forces and the need to improve forces’ understanding of the revised scheme.

Development Advisors (DA) – Overall, the role of the DA does not appear to have been fully understood by officers. It is felt that the role could be better utilised to help with forces better understanding of HPDS.

Syndicate Groups and Action Learning Sets (ALS) – Although not much was alluded to regarding syndicate groups, the constructive intent behind syndicate groups was not so clearly understood. A few felt that they had got it right by taking it into their own hands to arrange speakers and themes, but most felt there was no structure to the meetings so it was more of a ‘chit chat’ with little real purpose.

Local force support – There was deep frustration regarding the diversity of support, and the lack of consistency and influence over how each force interprets and understands HPDS and the officers involved. Some officers have experienced improvements over time, but this is an area where understanding needs to be improved.

Mentors – There was overall agreement that mentors were necessary as part of the officers development, but many felt that there needs to be an element of self-selection of a mentor; this enables a more trusting and respected relationship to develop.

ACPO – Very little was said about ACPO but it was suggested that they should be more influential in working closer with the forces to ensure a better understanding of the revised HPDS.

Expectation - 67% of those interviewed felt it met with expectation, 22% said it didn’t, with 11% saying that it did in some areas and not in others. Even if they felt it didn’t meet with their initial expectations, most still had positive opinions about the scheme in general.

Reputation – Despite the old stigma attached to the previous HPDS format, the new scheme is still being tarnished with some of the myths underlying the officers and structure of the old format. This is leading to some officers on the new scheme not telling colleagues on an initial meeting that they are involved with the revised scheme.

Individual development – All officers interviewed felt they have gained from being on the scheme. Areas of improvement included increased confidence, being far more strategic, more objective, able to implement change and able to take risks with conviction. It was described by most as a tool to help break down barriers and give them more access to bigger projects. However, constables on the scheme admitted struggling to apply the learning, although they did feel more confident and prepared for the future.

Consolidation – In this area, there was an evident mix of opinion with some officers taking the initiative to move things forward by arranging placements and projects themselves.

7

Others were not so clear what the next two years were about and were hoping for more guidance and support from their DAs and forces.

Non-HPDS officers (Stage 3 selection) – questionnaire Selection – 58% rated the overall selection process fair with guidance given from NPIA being

clear and concise. Promotion – Only 16% of officers who did not make the scheme have been promoted in the

last two years, with 71% having completed their next promotion exams but they are still waiting for the actual promotion. There was considerable despondency regarding the lack of promotion opportunities in the next few years, with almost all forces suspending promotion opportunities except for HPDS officers; this seemed to be causing some resentment.

Mentors – 68% have not got mentors, but 81% of these would appreciate one. Perception – Comments demonstrated a lack of differentiation between the old and the

revised scheme, the eligibility of who could (or should!) apply, and the label that it is for fast promotion without experience. It is still seen as an ‘elite club’ for quick promotion with a lack of credibility.

Successful promotion without HPDS – case studies Throughout the four case studies there were common themes surrounding their thoughts on why they got promoted and what is lacking from fast-track schemes; experience, role models and credibility. The discussions also included what makes a good leader with credibility, respect and time being discussed at length.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Selection To avoid the issues of latent (time elapsed) knowledge, the lack of respect from peers who doubt the (time served) credibility of some of the participants, and to improve the credibility of the scheme and HPDS officers, it is recommended that consideration should be paid to increasing the selection criteria to a minimum of sergeant and a maximum of inspector, or a minimum of five years in the police service. 2. Development To overcome the negative reputation of HPDS officers ‘flitting’ from post to post, the focus of HPDS should be as a development scheme rather than a ‘fast-track’ promotion scheme. The relevant stakeholders need to work together to agree a minimum timeframe that officers should be in post to gain relevant experience, to be more accountable, and to consolidate the learning from the role. All these would contribute to enhancing an officer’s credibility and perform the role as a police leader, with increased confidence and greater conviction. 3. Support and understanding To help improve the understanding and support from forces, especially middle managers, the role of the ACPO Lead needs to be better utilised to work closer with NPIA and the DAs. Alongside this, it is seen that the current HPDS members should become more proactive in self-promoting the scheme to reach out to others who feel that it is beyond their abilities. This is especially important in communicating to colleagues, that the scheme is open to everyone (rank specific), not just the academically qualified. 4. Further evaluation Given the importance of time in leadership development it would seem critical to continue the evaluation beyond cohort one to allow NPIA and the other stakeholders to view the benefits to the individuals as well as the service as a whole. It would gauge whether or not HPDS officers are achieving ACPO status and being effective in their roles as police leaders.

8

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

9

BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT The origins of this report were during a conversation at the first Governance Board of HPDS in 2009. Although an evaluation of the scheme was not part of the original contract between the NPIA and WBS it was suggested that some form of evaluation would provide NPIA with a stronger foundation for long term decision-making about the scheme and help in the fine tuning of the scheme as it rolled into the second, third and fourth cohorts. The original suggestion had been for a jointly sponsored PhD studentship to focus wholly on the scheme but the ACPO lead at the time suggested that this would not provide the ‘objective distance’ between the researcher and the topic. As a consequence of this it was then decided that a much smaller investment in a pilot evaluation project of cohort one would be sufficient to provide the NPIA with a snapshot of current progress and a means for framing a subsequent and larger piece of evaluation research. Once the funding and timings were agreed the authors designed the project around the resource limitations and what follows is the result of this work. The report starts with a brief introduction to the evaluation process and sets out some of the critical theoretical perspectives in the field. The project itself consisted of several related sections: a review of the theories of leadership development evaluation, a comparative review of other evaluation programmes in related areas, and then the main body of the report – the focus on HPDS. This included interviews with participants from cohort one, an online survey of non-HPDS police officers, and interviews with very successful officers who have not experienced HPDS for a variety of reasons. All the interviews were carried out by Clare Holt who knew the cohort one participants having administered the programme, but was not involved in any of the teaching and therefore maintained a liminal position – half way between the programme and the participants, not part of the teaching staff, but sufficiently knowledgeable about the programme, and sufficiently well known to the participants, for them to engage honestly in the interviews. As will become clear, the difficulty with evaluating such a programme is securing this liminality: if the interviewer had been a member of the teaching staff then it’s unclear whether the participants would have been quite so open in their feedback, but interviews with unknown researchers for such a complex and personal project seldom yield the quality of conversation that is evident in this research. We would like to thank all those involved, including all those interviewed, all those who completed the on-line questionnaire, and all those individuals who helped formulate the research but especially Tina Kiefer, Andy Harris, Cameron Bayly, Charlie Phelps and Kath Miller.

10

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

11

HPDS – AIMS AND EXPECTATIONS The High Potential Development Scheme (HPDS) for police was first launched in 2002 to replace the previous Accelerated Promotion Course (APC). Speaking to officers who were successful in applying for the HPDS in 2003, it was believed to be open to graduate police officers up to the rank of Chief Inspector and external candidates. It has since been confirmed that it was open to anyone, not just graduates, but this confusion is symptomatic of both the original and the revised schemes. The scheme was originally launched to identify people with the potential to reach the rank of Superintendent. This format of HPDS was suspended in 2006 but was re-launched in 2008 after an 18 month review by NPIA. It was advertised as the ‘Revised HPDS’ and took a whole new format. Rather than successful applicants going to any academic institution and taking an unspecified amount of time to complete, it was designed as a five year fixed programme. An academic institution was to be involved, resulting in a nationally recognised Postgraduate Diploma and Masters qualification. After an intense tender process, in October 2008, a contract was signed and agreed with Warwick Business School (WBS), University of Warwick, to partner with NPIA in delivering the academic courses for the scheme. It is predominantly advertised on the NPIA website as “a scheme for serving police officers that is designed to develop the most talented individuals to become the police leaders of the future” (taken from http://www.npia.police.uk/en/8563.htm). The HPDS is also advertised and promoted on several police force websites (including the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)) as well as being strongly represented in The Times Top 100 Graduate Employers 2010-2011 (http://www.top100graduateemployers.com/employers/?id=75). As well as now being a bespoke five year programme in partnership with WBS, thereby giving NPIA more control over the academic qualifications being obtained, the eligibility goal posts have moved; unlike the old HPDS, Inspectors and high ranking officers are not eligible to apply, along with officers who have been selected for promotion to Inspector, therefore leaving it open to Constables and Sergeants only. It is also clearly communicated that it is not just for applicants with an academic background, it is stressed that non-graduates are considered, as well as officers from a wide range of backgrounds regardless of age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation. The scheme is sold to potential applicants who demonstrate “their desire, commitment and the potential to reach senior officer levels and progress to ACPO” (NPIA website, January 2011). It goes on to highlight the Post Graduate Diploma in Police Leadership, the two year consolidation, and the Masters in Police Leadership. In terms of future career progression, the website states that: “HPDS officers will normally be promoted to the next rank when they satisfy the Chief Officer that they are competent. This can speed up the progression of the HPDS officers as they do not have to wait for a vacancy to become available.” (NPIA website, January 2011). This has caused some confusion since not all forces seem to understand the policy in the same way. The selection process runs once a year and aims to recruit around 60 participants, making joining the scheme extremely competitive. It originally involved three separate stages, though stage 2 and 3 are now combined: Stage 1 – in-Force selection, with a recommendation made by the DCC for Stage 2.

12

Stage 2 – judgement and decision-making tests conducted by NPIA, covering managerial scenarios and a written exercise. Highest performers continue to Stage 3. Stage 3 – a three day assessment centre, using multiple styles of group exercises, presentations and interviews. Stage 2 and 3 were combined after a review of cohort one’s assessment. To help self-selecting individuals to initially apply, or for a colleague/line manager to indentify potential in someone, there is a section on the website asking What is high potential/Are you a talent spotter? An officer demonstrating high potential is deemed to be able to fulfil the following:

consistently makes a difference always achieves more than you would expect of someone in their position consistently delivers and performs to the highest standard has the ability to look at issues strategically, for example, is able to link their work to the

wider work of the police service thinks ahead and displays a broader perspective knows how to influence people to achieve goals, no matter what the situation and whoever

they are with challenges decisions or actions if they are inappropriate is confident when interacting at all levels of the organisation welcomes responsibility is self-motivated shows determination to succeed and make an impact is prepared to question and challenge the status quo demonstrates commitment to their own development and improvement has the capacity to be a senior manager in the future.

(taken fromhttp://www.ndpa.police.uk/file_uploads/PD051O1109%20HPDS%20DL%20leafletV4.pdf)

13

THE DIPLOMA CURRICULUM Module 1: Leadership and Public Value This module analyses the distinctive values and characteristics of the public and voluntary service sectors, the complex changes and challenges which it faces, and the contested meanings of leadership and public value as they apply in this complex, changing context. The content concerns the nature of police leadership; the distinction between Tame, Wicked and Critical problems and their associations with Management, Leadership and Command; the difficulties of change a police culture; the role of national culture in leadership; the role of language in leadership and the importance of negotiated leadership. Learning Outcomes The aim is that on successful completion of this module, you will, in the context of policing, demonstrate advanced knowledge and understanding of:

The various approaches to Leadership and Public Value.

The difference between Tame, Wicked and Critical Problems and the appropriate ways to address these.

Leading Negotiations.

The significance of culture for leadership.

The role of language in Leadership.

The importance of theory in evaluating case studies of police reform and leadership development.

Demonstrate the ability to communicate (in writing and verbally) this knowledge and understanding.

Practice a critical and questioning approach to police leadership, complex problem analysis and resolution.

Practice the application of this new knowledge and understanding through a range of case studies and examples of different approaches to, and understandings of, leadership in complex situations.

Module 2: Operations Management/Performance Management Learning Outcomes

Demonstrate the basic concepts of operations management and service delivery illustrating their significance in practice.

Confidently handle the language, concepts and application of some service operations management tools and models – project management, soft systems methodologies, rich pictures, critical path analyses, decision-support processes.

Demonstrate the value of employing an operations ‘lens’ on organizational activities.

Define performance management, performance reporting and performance measurement.

Critically assess the principles and criteria which should be considered to promote better implementation of performance management systems

Apply some tools and techniques within your own organizations related to and used for effective operations management, service processes and performance management systems.

14

Module 3: Managing People and Managing Change This module aims to develop and extend the understanding of the behaviour of individuals and groups in organizations, in the context of leading and managing people and organizational and cultural change. The module draws on organizational psychology, organizational behaviour, human resource management and strategic management to explore these issues. The module analyses examples from both the public, private and third sectors and critically assesses how concepts, theories and frameworks can be applied to make a practical difference. Some distinctive themes and features of the module include: • work motivation and the psychological contract • the role of emotion in organizational change • the role of multiple stakeholders, both internal and external, in organizational and cultural

change (including citizens, users, the public, and partners as well as employees, managers, trade unions and politicians)

• group and inter-group behaviours in the workplace • organizational change in a democratic and governance context • the role of central government in the procedures and/or outcomes of organizational and

cultural change • organizational learning and knowledge • the role of uncertainty in organizational change • change strategies at macro and micro levels • the impact of organizational change on staff • organizational culture • evaluating the effectiveness of change strategies. Learning Outcomes

Understand and be able to describe the key conceptual frameworks for understanding planned and unplanned change in organizations.

Understand the main features of public services innovation and its relationships with improvement.

Demonstrate a clear understanding of the roles and challenges of the change agent (both internal and external).

Demonstrate a clear understanding of some of the psychological and social psychological factors affecting individual responses to organizational change.

Apply understanding about organizational change to assessing the need for, and management of change, in real organizational examples.

Have gained an overview of the role of conflict management in organizational change and effectiveness.

Have practised a critical and questioning approach to leadership, values and strategic management of complex issues and decisions in the public and voluntary sectors.

Understand the dynamics of work motivation, work attitudes and job satisfaction, and how these are influenced by organizational context.

Understand key issues of group processes and inter-group relations.

Understand high commitment and the psychological contract.

Understand key factors influencing the relationship between personal attitudes and work performance.

Understand key elements of different approaches to human resource management.

Understand how conflict in the workplace arises and some ways in which it may be resolved.

15

Module 4: Partnership Working/Stakeholder Management/Community Engagement

Understand the conceptual distinctions between state, market and civil society (the public, private and voluntary spheres); between hierarchies, markets, and networks as forms of co-ordination; between traditional public administration, new public management and networked community governance, as paradigms for governance; the concept of public value, the strategic triangle and the authorizing environment as frameworks for leading and managing in a complex world with many stakeholders.

Analyse the policy drivers for the emergence and use of partnerships and inter-organisational networks.

Participate in academic and practitioner debates around the role of partnerships in modern local governance.

Critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of partnerships as vehicles for policy development and delivery, and the dilemmas of coalition-building, steering and of accountability.

Learn how to lead and orchestrate partnerships, and how to mobilize and align their resources behind common objectives.

Test this knowledge in an applied setting by improving the effectiveness and accountability of the local partnerships with which they are involved.

Understand the dynamics of user and citizen involvement in service planning, delivery and improvement.

A detailed understanding of the development of public policy in relation to community engagement and user involvement, and relate current thinking to the evolution of involvement policies in your own organisation.

Understand how to plan and implement user involvement systems.

Demonstrate an understanding of the impact on citizens, users and potential users of a high quality involvement system.

Demonstrate the ability to communicate an understanding of the tools for user involvement system design and implementation as well as their limitations.

Critically assess the impact of user involvement on service planning, delivery and improvement.

Demonstrated the ability to plan the development and application of a community engagement and user involvement system within your own work place.

Module 5: Policy Making, Strategy and Programme Delivery • Develop a critical appreciation of the challenges inherent in policy making and development

and implementation. • Develop a critical appreciation of current policy themes and their application in the criminal

justice sector. • Develop a critical appreciation of the broader political economic and social context in which

policy is made, nationally and locally. • Be able to apply insights gained during the module to tackling strategic and policy related

workplace challenges. Learning Outcomes On successful completion of this module, participants will: • Acquired knowledge of the changing political, economic, technological, environmental and

social context of government, and of the drive for reform and improvement of public and voluntary services.

16

• Developed an integrative understanding of general theories of public value, strategic management and leadership, and of their application in the public and voluntary service sectors, where values are made explicit and contested through democratic processes.

• Practised a critical and questioning approach to leadership and strategic management of complex issues and decisions in the public and voluntary sectors.

• Examined a range of case studies and examples of different approaches to leadership and strategic management in complex real-life situations in the public and voluntary sectors.

Module 6: Managing and Using Resources

Have a critical understanding of the fiscal basis of public services.

Understand the various ways in which financial information (as in budgets and accounts) operate in the public sector, with special reference to the police service, police authorities, and related services (e.g. local government, health).

Improve their hands-on understanding of the use of financial and non-financial performance measurement.

Have developed a critically and strategically aware approach to engaging with both technical and conceptual aspects of financial management.

Human resource management, recruitment and retention, the psychological contract, and culture.

Effective use of the new information and communication technologies.

Performance management, lean management and continuous improvement, public value management for community outcomes.

Dissertation/Work-based Project

Deliver a dissertation which is capable of making a significant contribution to the thinking and development of the police service or specific organization.

Demonstrate evidence of ability to apply learning from the Diploma to tackle a practical organizational challenge in the workplace.

Link theory to practice in addressing a real world challenge of leadership or management.

17

EVALUATION RESEARCH It has been a truism for some time now that leadership development programmes are impossible to evaluate with any degree of scientific objectivity (Burgoyne, et al, 2004) – even if some writers claim that a Return on Investment (ROI) is possible and indeed that development programmes are ‘guilty until proven innocent’ (Kearns, 2007:27). In fact, as Jones (2011) points out, Kearns’ attempts to objectively quantify the ROI descends into a quagmire of subjectivity:

The trick here is not to try and work to a higher standard of credibility than anyone else in the organization. If accountants are prepared to guess at amortization costs or marketing directors to guess about market share why should a trainer not be prepared to have a guess at the potential benefits from training? (Kearns 2007, p.67)

So if the most extreme supporter of objective evaluation turns out to have feet of clay then we can be assured that the problem of evaluation remains impervious to the claims of lesser mortals. Nevertheless we do need to provide some form of evaluation, even if it cannot reach the dizzy heights of science, because the anxieties of practitioners are well known. As Kirkpatrick (2006) – the guru of evaluation – notes, they are:

1. To justify the existence and budget of the training department by showing how it contributes to the organization’s objectives and goals; 2. To decide whether to continue or discontinue training programmes; 3. To gain information on how to improve future training programmes (p.17).

Yet, as Burgoyne et al acknowledge (2004, p.75), the world of leadership development is, like the world of leadership, too complex with too many intervening variables for us ever to be clear that any particular input led to any particular output. Even a report for the Department for Education, in 1998, based on surveys of 127 firms, failed to make a direct link between leadership or management education and tangible business results. As Jones (2011) summarizes their take on the problems of the report:

it attempts to impose a short-term process on phenomena that may take months, or years, to bear fruit;

it attempts to make tangible a phenomenon (leadership) that remains a hotly contested definitional terrain. It is likely that leadership will mean quite different things to participants, development practitioners and sponsoring organizations;

it claims objective measurement, yet in reality operates subjectively;

it fails to problematize the notion of ‘results’ within leadership. In this sense they seek to apportion attribution to a process that may be one of many factors underlying a particular success.

In contrast, Bryman (2004, pp.275-277) suggests that given such problems, research into the kind of fields that this report addresses ought to be rooted in a more qualitative approach in which the researchers displace anxieties about objectivity by being more transparent about the nature and limits of the research. This is done by comparing different accounts of the same issue, by providing different methodological approaches to the same issue, by allowing participants and other knowledgeable individuals to judge the validity of the results, and by being more self-consciously reflective of the research process than is otherwise the case with so-called objective research. Even Kirkpatrick’s respected four-level evaluation approach acknowledges that a qualitative approach is the only viable way to begin an evaluation project. The levels are:

18

Level 1: The immediate reaction of the participant.

This is useful because if the ‘happy sheet’ response is problematic then learning is unlikely. However, this is insufficient for any significant change or mutual learning because the participants may be evaluating the input on the basis of entertainment rather than necessary education: ‘edutainment’ as it is called in the business. In fact, there is a lot to be said for ensuring that the educational input is stimulating because if it isn’t then it’s difficult to see how student concentration can be maintained long enough to make any impact. That said, the student feedback system on the HPDS scheme has consistently generated positive feedback at this level with very few sessions falling below level 4 of a 1-5 scale system. The detailed feedback is available online to authorized viewers via the MyWBS site.

Level 2: The resulting increase in Learning (knowledge or capability).

This is the framework for much school education, perhaps best represented by rote learning methods – can the participants actually recall the information? Traditionally we measure the success of level 2 on the basis of examinations, or perhaps pre- and post-testing. Progress cannot be significant if the participants cannot recall the content or purpose of the input, but even if they can this does not mean that the knowledge can or will be put to great use. As the interviews clearly demonstrate, many participants could recall significant aspects of the programme but note the importance of a common language and framework here: there is little point in speaking a new language to a group that are totally unfamiliar with it. Indeed, if the language of the organization remains impervious to the new language of the participants then change is highly unlikely. This is the equivalent of changing the fish in a fish-tank but not changing the water: sometimes you need to do both. This is a very common problem with many leadership development programmes: they select individuals for development without recognizing that individuals rarely operate alone and that more successful development may require education of teams rather than individuals.

Level 3: The extent of behavioural improvement and implementation/application.

This is traditionally measured by noting behavioural changes amongst participants but note that there may be a temporal lag here or indeed the new behaviour may be unviable in the (still) unchanged context. This is the reason that Kirkpatrick suggests a longitudinal approach to evaluation – because change takes time and we should not expect instant behavioural change in an unchanged cultural or organizational context. This aspect has a double importance for the HPDS scheme. In the first instance it is clear that a snap-shot methodology – questionnaires etc., - can only really capture level 3 change if they are repeated across time. In the second place behavioural change usually requires participants to engage in change, not just to know about it. In other words, since the application of much new knowledge in the work place depends upon the rank or seniority of the officer, many young or new constables may not have the opportunity to apply the knowledge and thus seldom get involved in testing models of change in practice. This has profound implications for the level at which the HPDS should be applied.

Level 4: The resulting effects on the business or environment.

This last level, according to Kirkpatrick, is not the equivalent of assessing ROI or bottom line results or, in this case, crime levels. Even if a ‘before’ and ‘after’ assessment could be made it is notoriously difficult to establish a direct and unmediated correlation, never mind causation, between input and output in the field of leadership ‘effects’ (Grint, 2005a; Rosenzweig, 2007). In place of this pseudo-science Kirkpatrick recommends an ethnographic approach which takes on

19

board the complexities of the culture and the difficulties of measuring change. This was an original part of the HPDS research design but was never executed because of the cost implications. If the research is to be expanded to other cohorts, or even extended over time with cohort one, then we would recommend the use of ethnographic methods. As will be clear from the comparative evaluation section, this approach has clear advantages.

20

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

21

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT THEORY: AN ARISTOTELIAN PERSPECTIVE ‘The young man,’ wrote Aristotle (1998: 3), ‘is not a fit student of Moral Philosophy, for he has no experience in the actions of life’ (see Grint, 2008). Aristotle was actually talking not about age in terms of how many years had passed, rather than how much experience individuals had accumulated in those same years, but the point is well made: there are few good leaders who are without experience. Does this mean that individual experience is the critical criterion for leadership development? Not necessarily, we also need to recognize that learning to lead is itself a social process rather than an individual event (Lave & Wenger, 1991). But it does imply that even if we can learn to lead that does not mean that leadership can be taught: it is possible that the process of learning is simply too complex, unconscious or non-replicable to teach. Partly this is because leadership is always a complex process of translation from theory to practice and never simply a unilinear act of transmission. In other words, knowing something - in theory – or being able to do something – in practice – may be insufficient for successful leadership; it may require what Aristotle calls ‘wisdom’. Wisdom, Aristotle implied, had less to do with learning a body of theoretical knowledge – episteme - and could not be adequately captured by replicable skills – techné – but was rather something more akin to practical prudence – phronesis. Here, understanding the potential collective good in a concrete situation is then realized by the practical wisdom of leaders. Aristotle suggested, in his Nicomachean Ethics, that techné – ‘knowing how to’ – was the equivalent of craft knowledge, it was an art (hence the term ‘Artisan’) and was manifest in concrete form that was variable and context dependent (Higgins, 2003). Techné refers to things that do not have an inner purpose – their purpose is to produce other things – art, health, poetry and so on, or in this case productive efficiency or effectiveness. However, the problem for many puzzled leaders is that such training courses often seem to be inadequate to the task; being required to be more transformational or emotionally intelligent or charismatic or having a better vision may be easier to write about than to do. Furthermore, such a conventional response to the ‘problems’ induced by adopting the ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate’ leadership style, or misunderstanding the situation or the followers, is some kind of remedial action: we try and ‘fix’ the leader’s lack of skill through a training course, providing counselling or a coach, or whatever is the current fad or fashion, so they have a greater level of ‘know how’. Thus we provide courses in presentation skills, public speaking, financial management or whatever is presumed to be missing from the tool-box of skills carried by the leader in question. In short, we start with a deficit model of leadership: we begin by blaming the leader. This may well be an accurate assessment of the problem, but it may also be an easy route to a convenient scapegoat. In other words techné-based approaches are symptom relievers rather than cause removers; if there is no understanding of why leadership is necessary or what skills are required there seems little chance that successful leadership will emerge either spontaneously or through some skill-enhancing training course. This reflects the difference between single and double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). The requirement to ‘know why’ rather than just ‘know how’ (techné) brings us to Aristotle’s second category: episteme. If knowing how to fix a problem is inadequate because leaders need to know why it is a problem and what kind of a problem it is, then perhaps we should try and ‘fix’ the leader’s lack of understanding by providing some educational activity that enables them to develop a greater level of knowledge (‘know why’). The enhancing of a leader’s understandings of leadership, an appeal to the intellect, is close to Aristotle’s notion of episteme – what we would now recognize as scientific knowledge – which is acquired by intelligence and is context-independent; indeed, it can be codified so that it remains valid without recourse to any specific individual. This ‘know why’, in contrast to the ‘know how’ of techné, does not necessarily embody any prescriptive advice because it is analytic in origin

22

and this reflects the current pejorative connotations of academia – if something is ‘just academic’ it may well be an accurate representation or understanding of events but it (allegedly) provides no utility in resolving, transcending or inhibiting those events. Knowing why gravity works does not, in and of itself, stop a brick falling on your head. Knowing why leaders have such difficulty in mobilizing their followers does not necessarily help leaders or followers in their attempts to improve their lives – though it might. Nevertheless huge investments are made in leadership development that are rooted in this approach; indeed, many undergraduate courses, for example, are wholly analytic in format – teaching why leadership failed or succeeded in particular cases, or teaching various leadership theories, but not attempting to provide students with any specific practical skills other than others induced through a greater ability to understand why things happen. Yet if providing the techniques to facilitate leadership without the reason to deploy it seems self-evidently contradictory, do the skills and reasons supply enough resource to generate more successful leaders? Indeed, if there is no opportunity to practice leadership, does not all the development seem pointless? Perhaps the issue is that improving one’s leadership requires more than either understanding how it works (episteme) or being able to practice an array of techniques (techné) designed to ensure task completion rather better. These are both necessary but not sufficient for the generation of wisdom and perhaps we should concentrate on developing these as quickly as possible and then turn to see what else is necessary. In pursuit of this we might turn to Aristotle’s third term: phronesis. Phronesis, or practical or prudential wisdom or even political wisdom, is a ‘reasoned and true state of capacity to act with regard to human goods’ (Artistotle, 1998: 1140), and it is essentially rooted in action rather than simply reflection, it is something intimately bound up with lived experience rather than abstract reason (episteme) but it is not a set of techniques to be deployed (techné). Thus wisdom is moral knowledge, or rather ethically practical action, and is entirely context dependent – in contrast to science or episteme which is context-free and invariable in space and time. Thus our wise leader is essentially pragmatic in means, if not in ends. Determining precisely what phronesis consists of might also be represented by these elemental questions:

Where are we going?

Is this desirable?

What should be done?

(and adding a concern for power that eludes Aristotle) Who gains and who loses? (Flyvbjerg, 2001).

Thus, the attainment of justice requires phronesis, the wisdom to understand what needs to be done in a particular situation, not just the skills and techniques to arrest the offender (techné), nor even just the knowledge of the law – which is universal and requires episteme (Kessels & Korthagen, 1996). But note that wisdom without knowledge or techniques is pointless and this is important because Aristotle is clear that all three elements are critical; the problem is that we often only resort to episteme and techné, omitting the role of phronesis which is the only one that can tell us in which direction to head. Aristotle implies that phronesis is always related to the ‘good’, but this is only because he severs any connection with the issue of power; once this is introduced it can be adapted for good or ill (Flvbjerg, 2001). The problem for our perplexed leader is that Aristotle suggests that phronesis cannot be directly learned because there is no formulaic element to moral discernment or prudence. Moreover, this also explains why science (episteme) and technique (techné) are unable to help – they have no mechanism for establishing what is good; they can only establish what is true and how

23

something should be done or made. It should also be apparent that the Prudential Leader cannot function outside of a social context because not only do leaders need followers, but what counts as leadership – and what counts as the collective good in any particular circumstances – depends upon the local social context. Indeed, what counts as the context is often a contested issue (Grint, 2005b). Phronesis, then, is not a method, and it cannot be reduced to a set of rules because it is dependent upon the situation and there is, therefore, no meta-narrative to guide the process. The good cannot be discerned by enquiring whether the action agreed upon is aligned with religious principles or the party line or the latest pronouncements of the monarch or president or any other higher authority because there is no higher authority to appeal to. For this reason phronesis cannot be taught in any lecture theatre but must be lived through; in fact it is rather closer to an apprenticeship or mentoring relationship in which the wisdom of the mentor is embedded in the novice over time but only indirectly through guided practice or engagement, not directly through formal teaching (Halverson & Gomez, 2001). The implications of this three-way division are significant because it suggests that classroom learning is necessary but insufficient; it also implies that improving skills through the programme is a necessary but insufficient requirement; what is necessary is to take these two and then facilitate the deployment of this knowledge and skills in practice whilst leading. In other words, unless the participants get the opportunities to lead, and that includes the opportunity to fail and to reflect upon failure, they can never acquire sufficient wisdom to lead successfully. In turn that implies that providing knowledge or skills for constables, who may not get to deploy either in a leadership position for many years, may be inappropriate.

24

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

25

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION Part of the commission of this paper included a brief comparative review of equivalent or related leadership development programmes. The programmes that we compared are:

The Postgraduate Diploma in Local Government Management and the National Graduate Development Scheme (PDLGM).

The Local Government Leadership Centre’s (now Local Leadership) Leeds Castle Programme for CEO and political leaders of Local Authorities (Leeds Castle).

The Fire and Rescue Service Executive leadership Programme (F&RS).

The Defence Academy’s Defence Strategic Leadership Programme (DSLP). The variety considered here is significant: the PDLGM scheme is primarily for young graduates, the F&RS scheme is for fast-tracked middle career fire officers and staff, the DSLP programme is for all new 1 star senior military officers and civilian equivalents (Brigadiers, Naval Commodores and Air Commodores) and the Leeds Castle programme for the most senior officials and politicians in local government. The PDLGM scheme was evaluated by a combination of discussion groups with senior stakeholders within local authorities, a literature review, and a commissioned report from Ipsos MORI. The Ipsos MORI report involved two online surveys, one to PDLGM graduates and alumni and another to line managers and placement co-ordinators, and 18 in-depth 30 minute telephone interviews with a range of stakeholders. The general conclusion was that the programme helped the participants in terms of linking theory to practice, improving critical skills, and understanding the local government context. As usual, the cohort effect was particularly strong and the power of building social networks self-evident to the participants. This ‘mixed methods’ approach to evaluation is close to the assessment process used to evaluate the Leading Powerful Partnerships (originally called the Independent Command Programme) run by the National College of Police Leadership at Bramshill in conjunction with the Home Office. That evaluation involved an on-line questionnaire completed by 181 participants, supplemented by 52 interviews within a week of the course, and a smaller number of further interviews three months after the course (Meaklim and Sims, 2011). The three other schemes were all evaluated within a programme of research undertaken by Owain Smolovic Jones at Cranfield University under the supervision of Keith Grint. In each case the ‘happy sheets’ (Kirkpatrick’s level 1) were supplemented by ethnographic work which included in-depth interviews with participants (Kirkpatrick’s level 2), periods of observation at the back of the class rooms, and extended mini-ethnographies (lasting 2-3 weeks usually) in which the researcher shadowed various members of the programmes at their work place several months after the programme to assess their learning (Kirkpatrick’s level 3 and 4). For example, the case of Leeds Castle combined both managerial and political leaders so that the tension between the two requirements remained a persistent thorn in the side of the participants. Indeed, the credibility of both managerial and political leadership hinged around this and it remained throughout as the ‘elephant in the room.’ In this case the programme involved a module abroad and a significant amount of theoretical input on systems thinking, Wicked Problems and leadership, as well as time devoted to methods such as World Café, RADA, and coaching. A similar methodology was adopted for the evaluation programme of in-depth interviews and work shadowing and the main conclusions were that:

Confidence building was a critical element of the programme.

26

The construction of a safe place for risk-taking conversations was crucial in generating the trust necessary to develop social networks.

The elite nature of the selection process and the venue boosted the aspirations of the participants.

Alliances, or social networks, were recognized as the building blocks for success in leadership.

The programme would have been better had the participants engaged in ‘real work’ – considering how to address a Wicked Problem, for example, rather than just reflecting on past action.

In contrast, the F&RS programme involved a significant element of experiential activity and personal reflection that often ran counter to the action-oriented culture of the organization. Two complete programmes were observed from the back of the class, two participants were shadowed for two weeks each and ten other participants were interviewed at length as were the colleagues and peers of the two observed participants. This kind of methodology generated a pattern of conclusions that are reflected in our own research on the HPDS:

Development programme are very dependent on change in the broader organization if they are to be effective. In short, the credibility of the programme rested on how it related to the wider cultural context of the FR&S.

Success is rarely an individual phenomenon and usually relates to the power of the social network.

The most successful examples of change in action were rooted in compelling theoretical innovations that were aligned with existing skills, tested out in practice and reflected upon. In effect, all three elements of Aristotle’s trilogy were present.

The selection of participants is critical: in one case a ‘reluctant’ participant actively sabotaged a programme and undermined the learning for the whole cohort.

The final scheme evaluated is the DSLP for newly appointed one star military officers and their civilian equivalents in the MOD and the secret intelligence services. This programme is designed for officers moving to the strategic level – beyond their own specialist regiments or even branches of the armed services. It is a single residential week with additional elective options and it starts with psychological profiling and then proceeds with what is described as a ‘smorgasbord’ approach to leadership development in which participants are encouraged to adopt elements of the programme without concern for any overarching philosophy or pedagogy. The programme contains conventional academic inputs, ‘fireside chats’, coaching sessions and ‘encounter days’ with an external organization. Once again the methodology deployed involved ethnographic attachments to various military leaders, observational work at the back of the class room and in-depth interviews with participants and others. In this case the absence of any overriding philosophy or pedagogy proved a stumbling block for some since it provided them with a legitimation for disengaging from some sections of the programme, retreating from the ‘curse of abstraction’, and displacing the ‘incredibility’ of academic theory with the ‘credibility’ of military experience. We might summarize this section by noting that despite the diversity of development programmes, pedagogies and participants, it seems clear that development has to be cognisant of the existing cultural milieu that the participants come from and will return to. If the development is to maintain some form of credibility, to enhance the confidence of the participants and to give them the knowledge and skills to lead with conviction then there must be a strong connection between the culture of the development programme and the culture of the organization. In the next section we turn from comparators to the HPDS programme to establish whether these kinds of issues are also prevalent there.

27

METHODOLOGY To get a full understanding and evaluation of the revised HPDS, the experiences of the individuals on the scheme and how it was perceived and understood across the police service were the main areas that were targeted for the research. The best methods identified to do this were to give the current participants the ability to get their experiences, emotions, thoughts and opinions across with as little biased influences or external intervention as possible. To get honesty from the participants, trust and empathy needed to be ensured so each individual felt comfortable in being able to disclose how they felt about all aspects of the scheme. The evaluation required an interpretive approach to ensure that any conversations had with the participants would be orientated around the social reality of HPDS focusing on the individual and their points of view, alongside the ideas and meanings of the various practices surrounding HPDS within the police organisation (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000). Narrative analysis has become one of the more popular analytical methods for qualitative research, probably because it is sensitive to the sense that participants involved in the research tell their story, their experiences and their own interpretations of accounts. Weick (1995) has termed narrative analysis ‘organisational sensemaking’; it is a starting point for the researcher to gain insights into what it is really like within the context of the organisation being studied. Analysis of an individual’s narrative is unique to that individual and their story gives the researcher an opportunity to understand the meaning of the constructed chains of interrelated events undertaken by the other characters (Gabriel, 2004). To be able to do this evaluation effectively, it was decided that unstructured interviews would be conducted with approximately 20-25 of the current participants of Cohort 1. Alongside these current HPDS officers, to get a clearer perspective on the thoughts and opinions of other officers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to be able to viably compare these ‘stories’, two other groups were also considered for the evaluation; non-HPDS officers who had experienced the selection process and non-HPDS officers who have made it to middle or senior management without HPDS or another form of fast-track programme. In almost every case the interviewed officers seem to enjoy the interview process, often commenting on it as a cathartic experience. HPDS officers The research interviews with current members of the scheme could have taken the form of many different styles (Bryman & Bell, 2007) but it was decided that using a more unstructured approach would allow an individual’s experiences and opinions to be told in a more narrative style (Gabriel, 2004). This would allow more of a relationship to build between the interviewer and interviewee, in turn helping with building trust. It would also allow the officer to tell the story in their own eyes, and not be guided or influenced in any way by the questions being asked. A total of 24 officers were randomly identified from across cohort 1a and 1b, although care was taken to ensure that there was a mix of gender and BME officers. It was realised that due to geographical locations, some of these interviews would have to undertaken by telephone and not face-to-face, which was the preferred approach. At the start of each interview, each officer was briefed to tell ‘their story of HPDS so far’ from when they first decided to apply, through to where they were two years into the scheme. They were also reassured that any of the information that was shared would be totally anonymous and no names or forces would be used in the data.

28

During the interview itself, in case the interview started to go off track or the officer required some guidance, the interviewer used an aide memoir of questions to help keep the ‘story’ relevant to HPDS and the officer. Overall the officer being interviewed was given autonomy to phrase and sequence the interview to suit their thoughts, opinions and experiences. Non-HPDS officers To be able to compare the outcomes, successes, thoughts and experiences of the HPDS officers, it was decided to contact some of the officers who had applied for the scheme, but who unfortunately were unsuccessful at stage 3 of the selection procedure. NPIA sent out an email to 109 officers asking them to contact the researcher if they were interested in taking part in the evaluation; 55 came back acknowledging their interest. It was decided to undertake this part of the research by compiling a questionnaire asking for this group of officers to give their side of the HPDS, asking them questions around the selection process, why they applied and how they, their force and colleagues perceive HPDS. By using a questionnaire a higher number of individuals could be accessed in a shorter period of time, giving them the opportunity to respond within their own timeframe. The questionnaire was compiled using an on-line questionnaire website (Qualtrics) (see appendix for a copy of the full questionnaire). The weblink was then sent to these individuals via email to keep any postage costs down, and to ensure a far quicker response. Non-HPDS – Middle and Senior Ranked Officers To ensure the evaluation research involved a full comparison of what can be achieved in terms of leadership development without a fast-track scheme, four officers who have achieved a recent rapid promotion were also interviewed. This was to find out from them how they gained leadership development, their thoughts on leadership in general and their perception of HPDS as well as fast-track programmes in general. Before each interview, the officers were briefed about why the interviewer was there, along with the reassurance that no names or forces would be used in the evaluation data. As with the HPDS officers, each of the four case study particpants were asked to talk openly about their career to date: promotions, role models, awkward situations, memories. They were openly encouraged to tell their personal story of their policing history, with the guidance being given by the interviewer to treat the meeting as an opportunity to reflect on their personal career profiles.

29

SUMMARY OF HPDS PARTICIPANTS CONTACTED

Total number contacted 24

Number of respondents 21*

Number interviewed face to face 17

Number interviewed by telephone 1 (due to geographical location)

Total number interviewed 18 *3 did not respond, 1 interview cancelled due to snow, 1 cancelled due to workload.

Males Females Ethnic minority

Contacted Interviewed Contacted Interviewed Contacted Interviewed

16 12 8 6 4 3

Rank Number

Constable 3

Sergeant 5

Inspector 10 **

Chief Inspector 0 ** all but 2 have been promoted during their time on HPDS.

Years of service

1-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs 21-25 yrs 25 + yrs

5 5 3 3 2 0

30

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

31

RESULTS

Evaluation of HPDS – Cohort 1 participants Application and Selection process Applicants applying for Cohort 1 of the new revised HPDS started the process during the summer of 2008. Out of the participants interviewed, 10 were nominated by their line managers/senior managers and 8 self-selected themselves for the programme. Some of the reasons for applying included wanting more of a challenge, faster promotion, to become a better leader, wanting the academic qualification, to get more exposure to senior officers, to get recognised, a thirst for knowledge, and be able to influence change. The general feeling amongst the officers interviewed was that it was quite a daunting, stressful experience. Despite this, they all agreed it needed to be challenging because of the nature of the programme that they were applying for, with several even commenting that they enjoyed it! A couple of the applicants who were not from academic backgrounds did find it all slightly intimidating but felt more at ease when they arrived and realised that everyone was feeling as nervous as each other. When asked about the guidance and support given for the selection process, most agreed that it was adequate with 1 admitting to not preparing at all, 3 stressing that they had no support from their forces, and the others getting support from wherever they could find it (force, senior colleagues, NPIA website, other internet sites). Regarding the tests themselves, several comments were made about the time limits almost turning the exercises into a reading exercise, which in turn placed some real pressure on them to make very fast decisions, therefore doubting their success very early in the process. An officer who was just going through promotion to Inspector at the time described it as an “interesting hot-house effect of having a load of highly competitive individuals in a place where they are competing with each other but can’t be seen to compete against each other; it was fascinating to watch.” One female officer interviewed felt that the process was good at demonstrating that an academic background was not a necessity, and they were looking for smart, intelligent individuals who have the ability to think on their feet and ‘go that extra mile’. Another officer talked about how ‘down-to-earth’ everyone was, unlike people from the old scheme. The feedback was gratefully received and only positive comments were reported back about its quality, however several officers commented on how it wasn’t then proactively used by themselves, by their DAs, their forces or WBS; it was felt that the feedback ‘lost momentum’. It was noted that some felt that it was far more positive and detailed compared to the ‘usual’ police feedback. One more experienced officer stated that “anyone would walk away a better person after the experience and level of feedback.” Overall, it was felt that the process was fair, although two officers did comment on the complexity of some of the language used in the exercises and tests maybe being a disadvantage to those who do not hold English as their first language. They felt that the use of the tests could present a danger of being ‘slightly exclusionary’. To contradict this, a BME officer stated that they felt slightly ‘insulted’ that it was stated that spelling and punctuation was not going to be taken into consideration in the assessment. They also felt that withdrawing the psychometric tests for future cohorts was a disappointment because they actually enjoyed the challenge; if the NPIA are wanting the best individuals then it shouldn’t be removed just because it is deemed unfair to BME communities. In

32

their opinion they felt positively discriminated against because to be a senior officer in the United Kingdom, you should possess a high level of communication skills and intelligence, this includes writing to a required standard “you cannot do the job if language is a barrier, regardless what culture you are from…… BME officers got through the process so why change it?” Once individuals had completed the process, they admitted to feeling intellectually challenged, more positive about applying for HPDS, they felt proud to be a part of it, impressed by the process and it wasn’t as bad as expected. Knowing how difficult the selection process was to get through, they felt gave the scheme legitimacy. Many of them quoted during the early stages of these interviews, “hard to get on, hard to stay on!” Induction On successful completion of the application process, participants were invited to attend an induction at Bramshill. The 10 non-academic officers interviewed all thought that everyone else would hold a graduate qualification, with a couple of them being ‘pleasantly surprised’ how many didn’t. The perception was that ambitious people are nearly always academic. Having Chief Constables and Assistant Chief Constables in attendance, initially made one or two of the first cohort feel slightly intimidated and ‘bizarre’; but on a positive note, it gave the impression that HPDS was being taken very seriously by NPIA and ACPO. With that amount of talent in the room, individuals felt ‘hugely motivated’ and privileged to be selected for HPDS. One officer did feel ‘cherished’ but also felt it ‘dragged on a bit’ and they just wanted to get started. There was apparently too much crammed into the 3 days, but it did give a good idea of ‘scene setting’ the programme and gave a very strong message that it was going to be tough and high pressure. A less experienced constable pointed out that the induction made them realise what it would take to get promoted in their force; that they needed to be far more aware of the news, current affairs and ACPO. This individual knew that to succeed as a future leader they needed ‘to raise the game’ and start linking the White Paper to the actual job in hand – they realised they had ‘a lot to learn’ from this opportunity. Some of the more experienced officers did notice a slight feeling that NPIA were still trying to’ find their way’ and nothing was yet set in stone. This they felt was only to be expected and overall most would agree that NPIA managed to turn things around and succeeded in getting the revised HPDS underway. One of the main positive points raised about the induction was meeting the other participants and being introduced to the syndicate groups at this early stage. This helped make people feel more at ease about the academic part of the scheme which was fast approaching, and understand that they were all of a similar level of ambition and character. Some of the misconceptions that people seemed to have about HPDS appeared to be dispelled at this point, but not all; some are still now questioning the objectives behind HPDS.

33

Warwick Business School (WBS) Out of the 18 people interviewed, 10 had never undertaken an academic degree, and 8 had at least an undergraduate qualification. Despite this, the general comments and feedback were fairly consistent: “Exposure to different ways of thinking”; “Analysing situations”; “If I can cope with this I can cope with anything”; “It was a smooth process, received joining instructions in advance – very structured”; “Terrifying to start with because it was unknown, but failure was not an option. The support was there”; “Outline and support was useful”; “Enjoyed the knowledge and exploring it”; “Loved it! I’m analytically minded so took a lot from it”; “Pleasantly surprised – surprised at how relevant it all was”; “Academically I really enjoyed most of it …… especially working with a motivated group of people….”; “Warwick gave me the tools to help implement change at the force”; “Bloody challenging – but I got a lot from being their. Police like engagement”; “A key benefit of HPDS is WBS”; “A brilliant opportunity to gain an academic qualification – I never thought I would be able to”; “Inspiring!”; “WBS and NPIA have struck a really good balance”; “At the start I didn’t think it would have as much influence …….. now I can see the links between the academic work and what others are doing”; “The opportunity to get that [PGDip] through the scheme is a fantastic opportunity”. Two of the participants interviewed expressed how they felt that WBS was the only structured part of the scheme so far. Another felt that it made HPDS one of the more professional police courses they had been involved with. However, there were areas that could be looked at and improved to ensure that the academic part of HPDS meets with peoples’ requirements and expectations further. Pre-reading Five of the officers (four with no academic qualifications) highlighted there was too much pre-reading, especially with modules 2 and 3. The main problem behind this for them was that most of the readings were too ‘academic’, especially the journal articles. They felt that it was all too high-end and maybe there should be more of a mix of styles to help with better understanding of topics before attending. They had to read them several times; therefore not all readings were being understood in time for the module. A couple admitted to developing a better ‘reading rate’ as time went by, but still struggled with it all due to also being busy at work. Module content The majority interviewed agreed that the modules were relevant but with some of them being more motivating than others. Several of the officers occasionally couldn’t quite grasp where it would fit into the day-to-day work of the police, but on reflection they have now understood why it has been taught and have either implemented it or have certainly seen how it can be. When it wasn’t quite understood by an individual, as a group they were able to talk it through and bring it back to policing and help each other through the more difficult areas. This was especially obvious among the officers who had never studied before, and amongst those with little time in the police.

34

Out of the specific modules, most remember modules 1 and 6 most clearly, but 4 of the 18 interviewed also commented on module 3. Overall, one officer commented that he felt “it was all well put together”. Module 1 (Leadership and Public Value) was remembered as being motivating, impressive, a big effort made, sparking imagination. It was questioned by one officer that maybe this module should be last rather than first, but in hindsight he felt it was best first due to the nature of the content. Module 2 (Operations and Performance Management) was mentioned by three of the interviewees where LEAN has been used back within the force. One officer has introduced it to his team and is now leading meetings around this area. The other two felt that it has helped them get more involved in meetings and speak up about it with confidence and conviction. Comments were made about this module being very full - it was felt that it was of relevance but there was too much content. Module 3 (Managing People and Change), two officers were very interested in political awareness and since attending this module they have become more conscious of it within the workplace, especially during times of change. One officer had their assignment for this module used by their Chief Constable due to the relevance of the content.

Modules 4 (Partnership Working, Stakeholder Management and Community Engagement) and 5 (Policy Making and Strategy) were not mentioned or talked about in any of the 18 interviews. Module 6 (Managing and Using Resources) consisted of some divided opinions. Most felt that the content was out of date and not relevant for the role of a sergeant or inspector, especially not a constable. The overall feeling was that managing resources is important, but there is no requirement to actually learn how to complete the processes. All comments stated that it wasn’t necessarily the module leader or their teaching style, with one saying that she was very helpful, but it was more the content. Several commented how they struggled during the module and just ‘did what I had too’ to get through the assignment. However, two of the interviewees commented that the module was good and they learnt from it; “it’s important for the future of policing where managers will require more business acumen.” The length of the modules was an area where there was mixed opinion; some commenting that 3 days were not enough, others saying that the balance was just right. Several stated that they were happy with ‘cramming’ it all in and working from 8 until 8, but others said that the days were too long with not enough time to relax. One officer with no previous academic degree felt that on occasion it was ‘information overload’ but being able to reflect with colleagues in the bar helped them digest any of the information that could have potentially been missed. Teaching styles The various styles of teaching were touched on by several officers. Overall there was a consensus that the mix was right; most understand that everyone has different learning styles. Some commented that they would prefer less group work, but others felt more confident working in their smaller groups. One officer did feel that the group work wasn’t taken seriously enough by some of their colleagues, therefore preferring to work in the larger cohort group. Another officer said that they benefited from presenting; they believe all police ‘leaders’ should be able to present confidently. Most preferred working in the larger group to get the most out of ‘interactive debate’. A couple of the interviewees spoke about the speakers that were used during the modules. All this feedback was positive especially regarding the senior police officers who were invited to come and speak openly and honestly. They were described as “real speakers, talking about real problems”.

35

Work-life balance The work-life-study balance was commented on by all of the interviewees. One officer stressed how life became “exhausting - work, work, home and more work!”. They all commented that it was challenging to continue with the day job, especially if doing shifts alongside the studying. Several were also managing a young family as well as studying and undergoing promotion, so felt they were doing enough to ’just get through it’. For most, it is a relief that the first 2 years are over, but at the same time a huge achievement. Assignments Of those interviewed, 8 were very daunted and concerned about writing academic style essays. The other 10 were not as concerned, but were very aware that there was a certain style that had to be followed and were relieved to get the first one ‘out of the way’. Two of the non-graduates, who both stressed how nervous they were about the first assignment, both explained how they overcame the hurdle by asking for help from fellow colleagues and friends who they knew had got academic backgrounds. Both officers went on to achieve strong marks in their first assignments and continued with the others with far more confidence. For others without essay writing experience, one officer told how they ‘enjoyed learning, but not the essays’. They did go on to say that they felt the outline and support given by WBS during the induction was very helpful in getting them underway. One officer admitted that being a perfectionist meant that with their lack of experience, they realised that they would have to work harder than those who had recently completed a degree. They went on to confirm that once they got ‘the hang of it’ and discovered ways to go about it, as a police officer it is in their nature to overcome difficulties that get in the way. However, there were one or two who felt that with assignments being a new ‘concept’ to them that they would have benefited from a more comprehensive session/workshop on how to study, prepare and write an essay. What was provided they felt was aimed at those who had already been to university rather than providing more advice on how to structure the essay. One officer felt that the support was initially provided, but on reflection there could have been more; this particular officer also highlighted that the essay feedback wasn’t very helpful in providing guidance on how to improve as they went along – they eventually obtained guidance from a fellow colleague who had got experience. Application of academic content into the ‘day job’ This proved to be an area where two thirds of those interviewed agreed that being a constable on the course was too early. Despite making it interesting having the range of ranks and experience in the room, it was evident that the general feeling is that most of what is taught is ‘pointless below sergeant’. The other third of the participants interviewed were all sergeants or inspectors which could explain why they didn’t comment on any of these issues. The constables who were interviewed all agreed that although what they are learning is fascinating and stretching, there is no potential or opportunities for them to use it back in the workplace. One of them showed concern that before they have a chance to apply what they have learnt, it will become ‘latent knowledge and therefore dead’. Another constable felt that despite enjoying the academic gain of their time at WBS, it doesn’t have a direct impact on the job back in force. There is no way for them to marry up what they are learning into practical policing, despite realising that they have become more strategic – “As a constable your line manager wants you to your day job, but all you want to do is develop with

36

HPDS…… as a constable you can feel quite alone and lost…….it’s too difficult and too junior to implement the new knowledge”. This particular officer felt that if they had been promoted to sergeant or inspector first, then it would have been easier to approach people, make contacts and apply the learning in the more senior roles. Having spoken to colleagues about HPDS, another constable felt that leadership is not for constables but for inspectors/chief inspectors and a minimum being sergeants with experience. They felt that they applied for HPDS 2 years too early because the expectations and learning were possibly too high at this point of their career. As a constable they just don’t use it! One sergeant spoke about credibility and how in their force this is based around how much time you’ve ‘done the job’. Starting HPDS as a sergeant, for them, was just right; as a constable it would have been too soon for them to have understood the application of what was being taught. Other sergeants have been quoted as stating that the roles of constable and some less experienced sergeants wouldn’t use some of it because of the strategic level of the content. One advises potential HPDS applicants in their force to do what they want to do first in policing, and then apply for HPDS. They felt the audience needed to be more directed at inspectors and chief inspectors. This was echoed by another who eloquently spoke about officers who have the potential to be leaders making it to the rank of inspector on their own merit by showing ‘natural’ leadership; it’s at this stage there is a need for training and teaching to become a police leader. They continued to stress that it’s at this point in a policing career that officers would gain more from HPDS and it should be more about the ‘product’ of ‘brilliant leaders’ than just pure ‘promotion’. Despite being initially advertised for constables and sergeants only, several newly promoted inspectors were accepted onto the programme. One of these was quoted as feeling that this would have been far too early in their career if applied as a constable and there would have been no opportunity to use any of it; but as an early inspector it was all very useful. WBS gave them the tools and ability to manage the expectations of implementing change in their team back in the force; how to implement a better strategy was a big part of what was learnt at WBS. As an inspector they felt that it helped them ‘buy credibility’ with more senior officers, but if they were at a lower rank, it could have ‘lowered my credibility’ therefore damaging their overall reputation within the force. One participant who completed their inspector exams and was promoted during the last two years, agrees that it is all very interesting, but was it really relevant to everyone at this present moment in their careers? They felt that 95% was too strategic for the less experienced in the cohort, especially constables with less than five years experience. Residential impact All 18 participants interviewed at least mentioned, if not spoke very highly about, this aspect of the learning experience at WBS. One inspector felt that offering this level of hospitality from day one, from both perspectives of WBS and NPIA, is recognition that they ‘value’ the people chosen to be part of HPDS. Being away for the duration of the module didn’t seem to disadvantage any of those interviewed, even those with young families or greater distances to travel. One person did acknowledge that the weekend starts were not so ideal for those travelling greater distances, but they themselves weren’t necessarily affected by it. A couple of officers who were subject to greater distances did stress a preference for Ryton or WBS based modules; Bramshill is quite difficult to get to in comparison. The most positive aspect of the residential component of HPDS so far, was being able to spend time with and mix with peers. This was felt a big advantage over and above those officers who had

37

completed the previous HPDS programme. A less experienced officer interviewed, who has been promoted whilst on the programme, spoke in great detail about being able to have lengthy conversations with other HPDS peers over dinner or over a beer in the evenings. Whilst at work they find that conversations about the future of policing don’t tend to last very long because colleagues at work ‘switch off’, but the opposite happens in the environment that they find themselves in during each of the modules; there are great opportunities to sit and discuss in groups what has been taught and debate various opinions of how it could be applied. For many it was a key part of the learning process to be able to sit in relaxed surroundings and talk around what had happened that day, what was happening in policing and what was happening within a person’s life. Some officers used the word ‘networking’ but several felt that it was beyond that; it was more a group of trusted contemporaries who could be honest with each other in offering advice, share experiences and knowledge, talk through personal and private situations knowing that it would be understood and not judged. One interpretation was “…..it made me feel human; talking to others who are all in the same boat.” Another officer commented that he really enjoyed meeting officers from other parts of the country and they had made friends by “…meeting like minded people who are keen on policing and can talk about issues and policies that affect us all”. One recently promoted inspector commented that they “can’t see it any other way!” They admitted that they need the motivation of being in a focused environment to ensure they get the best out of the learning experience. If any of it had involved a distance learning aspect then they would have struggled to focus or get any learning or assignment completed. By being put in the residential environment with others, being made to almost ‘eat and sleep’ the experience made sure they got the most out of the entire experience. They felt that the knowledge sharing over a coffee or a beer would definitely be a great loss if it had not been for the residential module structure chosen. A sergeant also bought up the issue that ‘distance learning wouldn’t work’. They stressed that by getting away ‘you fully engage’ and benefit from mixing with colleagues and talking ‘policing problems’. Being made to be in the position where you are required to spend time and talk with other officers going through similar experiences was described as a very important and useful part of the overall development as a future leader. Being residential ensures this mix and interaction of various characters from different forces and focuses everyone to discuss the module and apply it through other officers’ perspectives. One comment from an officer summed it up; they articulated how they would ‘leave buzzing’ after each module.

38

National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) Most of the officers interviewed didn’t really have much to comment on NPIA other than they felt they had fulfilled and continued to provide the behind the scenes support for HPDS; funding, organising and managing the relationship with WBS. The role of NPIA in HPDS was described as ‘slick, as a facilitator they are great’. One inspector commented that the only time they have had anything to do with NPIA is the odd email. A couple commented that their dealings with the NPIA had been very supportive with one seeing the role of NPIA in HPDS as vital, however several said they felt that they were an under utilised resource; they needed to reach out more to officers of all levels. Another officer was not so complimentary and felt that NPIA had become too disconnected with too much bureaucracy and not enough visibility making them ‘quite far removed from operational policing.’ Several officers raised the issue of the lack of influence that NPIA had over the actual police forces, with one questioning “what’s the point in them running the scheme if they have no influence?” Because of the inconsistencies of support across the forces, it was questioned “Who owns HPDS?” Is it the force, NPIA, the individuals? With the consolidation period now upon them, a common issue raised was the lack of information being communicated by NPIA for the following two years: what is the structure, what is expected, what support will be offered? There were questions being raised in terms of the Masters in year five, and if you don’t qualify for the Masters what is the alternative? Since the interviews were conducted, some of this information has now been disseminated, but a couple of interviews held more recently still raised some apprehension over the lack of structure. A couple of the officers highlighted how in general, police like structure and will adhere to structure; without it, they could easily lose direction. Overall, NPIA is the logical place to ‘house HPDS’; with the planned demise of NPIA, this could be a problem. They are the organisation that has the facilities and skills to coordinate and take it forward. There were concerns raised over where HPDS would sit in the future and who would have a vested interest and commitment in facilitating it. One inspector went as far as suggesting that HPDS should be owned centrally by one organisation; to manage the careers of the participants centrally, move them around different forces to gain a variety of experiences and control the speed of their progression in line with an officer’s ability. Should that organisation be NPIA? Development Advisors (DAs) Comments on DAs have been predominantly supportive of the individuals but not necessarily the role. Some don’t really understand the role of the DA with others saying that it could be a far more productive role than it is now. Eight of the officers stressed how they used the DAs to ‘bounce’ ideas around and overall they had a good working relationship with them. They have been described as the link between the participants and the NPIA; although this has also been seen as slightly negative in terms of the role being just a ‘tick box exercise’ to report back to NPIA. One inspector commented that their DA was ‘on my side’ and that they were a great help to talk things through and rationalise things. They stressed that their DA was always available either by phone or by email and was very supportive with personal as well as work issues. It was felt that the DAs were there as a resource to be utilised. There were a few comments made by individuals on how the DAs have been on their side when it came to working better with their force, with support and understanding being ‘second to none’.

39

One person highlighted how problems had been overcome and the support of their force had improved as a consequence. However, four officers did feel that DAs had no real influence in this area and often got frustrated with the lack of progress/support/contact within the force; the DAs can’t influence the force enough so the participant was not getting back the promises from the scheme or their force. Despite the majority of the interviewees generally being pleased with the relationships with their DAs, there were five who were not so positive. A couple of the officers felt it was all too much psychological analysis and not enough support around applying new skills and knowledge to professional policing. One of these two officers felt it was a waste of their time! Another officer didn’t feel that their DA supported them at all; they commented how they ‘struggled to see what value the DA adds’. They admitted to regular meetings and career discussions but there needed to be more buy-in from the force and the DA didn’t seem to be making ground in this area. Of the five who were not so positive, four of them admitted to not really understanding the role of the DA; there was no challenge or direction in the role. It is felt that they are not really giving the officers anything that they don’t already know in terms of knowledge or proactive ideas. One officer admitted being “…..aware of their [DAs] existence, but have they impinged on my life? No.” There were four officers who were very complimentary about their DA in terms of character and willingness to help and get involved, but they hadn’t really felt that their help or advice was needed. They admitted to the odd email and telephone conversation, but saw the DA has someone to help them when they needed it, not as a part of HPDS. Some thoughts and recommendations that were mentioned regarding the role of the DAs include them maybe taking more of an intrusive approach so they can be utilised more proactively. It is felt their role should maybe be increased to tie-in more with the force development plans for individuals on the scheme. This could in turn help them improve the ability to coordinate between the NPIA and the force. Syndicate groups/Action Learning Sets (ALS) Most interviewees were happy with their syndicate groups and the relationships that they have developed. One officer did stress that they were struggling with their group due to most of the members being from one of the big metropolitan forces and they were from a small local force; although listening to their stories and experiences was interesting, the officer in question felt that they weren’t learning anything within the group. Another did point out that at the start the specified syndicate groups could have developed into ‘cliques’ but found that actually this turned out not to be the case. It was also noted that for one of the syndicate groups, geographical distances were proving a problem for them to get together on a regular basis. Overall, there was not much else reported about the syndicate groups and the perceived meaning for them. Comments and opinions on ALS were mixed; they range from ‘going very well’ to ‘it just turns into a moaning session – there is no structure’. The five officers who felt that they were positively benefiting from their ALS, gave the reason behind it being one particular individual in the group taking ownership of organising the sessions. It involved ensuring a policing subject area was chosen and occasionally a speaker would be invited to attend and contribute to the discussions. Most discussed how they tried not to take each other too seriously, whilst at the same time benefiting from being able to discuss policing issues with like-

40

minded people in confidence. One person commented how they had met up on three or four occasions with their DA occasionally joining them. It was felt that there was more open and honest discussion without the DA present, although the DA did help bring more structure to the session. The benefits of ALS were seen as an extension to what they were getting from the residential modules: relationship building, knowledge sharing, and networking. However one recently promoted sergeant felt that despite their syndicate group being very well organised and proactive, when they got together as constables and sergeants they didn’t really have ‘big enough issues’ to talk about; if they were a group of inspectors, chief inspectors and superintendents then there would be far more discussion and far more taken from the sessions. There were a few officers who noted that they had only managed to attend a couple of the ALS that had been arranged, but they had found them useful in terms of touching base with their other syndicate group colleagues. Eight of the remaining interviewees felt that there was little guidance around ALS. This in turn led to the meetings being unstructured and not constructive in the use of their time. There was a tendency for the session to turn into a ‘chit chat’ with ‘no tangible purpose’. For some, they only saw it as an opportunity to catch up and have a beer, therefore just an opportunity for gossip and not for development or achieving anything police related. One officer discussed how their syndicate group didn’t really gel and a consequence of this meant that ALS ‘didn’t really happen’; no one was willing to push for the ALS to get together. Two of the officers interviewed admitted not getting involved in ALS due to geographical distance being an issue and expensive for the force (or themselves if the force did not want to support these additional costs). Another felt that after attending the one session, that they were not of any benefit to them. Most people interviewed did stress that they hoped to get far more out of ALS over the 2 year consolidation period, but felt that the process was probably not running correctly with no set format communicated. Local Force Support One of the main issues facing HPDS is that across England, Wales and Northern Ireland there are 43 forces all doing things differently; treating HPDS participants differently and interpreting HPDS differently. This was very evident in all of the discussions that were had with all the interviewees. Even the eight officers who felt that they have support from their force were very conscious that this was not the case when it came to many of their colleagues from other forces. Frustration was evident from both the positive and especially the more negative cases that there needed to be far more consistency and influence over how each police force interpreted and supported HPDS participants. Six of the officers interviewed were not happy with the support they were getting from their force. It was felt that in-force support was where the underlying problem was with HPDS. There didn’t appear to be a structured approach to how the force was expected to manage HPDS. Another officer had observed that “NPIA can talk to them until they are blue in the face, but the force can make whatever decision it chooses”.

41

One officer felt that the positions that they were being put in were more for the requirements of the force rather than their own development. Despite working hard with their DA to put together a 5-year career plan, this had not been followed, therefore questioning the validity of the document and the forces commitment to HPDS. There were several officers interviewed from the larger more metropolitan forces; they all discussed that support from a borough level was there but not from the force in general (despite one of these forces having a growing talent management group). Overall, borough commanders have been using the individuals’ new knowledge and giving the individuals projects and work to get involved in. On a force level there has been very little support in allowing time off for modules and ALS, for studying and researching for dissertations. One officer said that they felt like a number and that “HPDS is my hobby!” In one officer’s personal view, HPDS is not on the force’s list of priorities and that the officers on HPDS are ‘troublesome’ because they were not selected by the force but ultimately NPIA. There were three officers from this particular force who found their support very positive, but again this was stressed more at the borough level, although they did compliment the support from the talent management group. One said that they were approachable and had helped review promotion forms for them, but overall their force did tend to ‘fight the battles of fast-tracking individuals’. Some of the more positive narratives from the eight individuals who were happier with the support from their force always felt that much of it came because they asked for it. One of the less experienced inspectors told how they saw HPDS as an ‘unlocked door’ and at most this door was only ‘slightly ajar’. He said how he felt that it was up to them to negotiate their way through this door and manage their career upwards: “I’ve grasped it [HPDS] by the horns and I’ve managed it”. They have managed to get the attention of their Deputy Chief Constable at least once every couple of months by setting up the meeting with an agenda including their career plan; they did admit during the interview that if they hadn’t ‘pushed the door wide open’ then they would still be sat waiting for promotion and other opportunities that have been given. Over the course of the first two years of HPDS, there were four officers interviewed that felt their force support had improved. This has been either due to DA support and persistence, a change in ACPO lead within the force or the individual ‘shouting louder’. A couple of officers told how they increased their exposure and promoted themselves to make HPDS work; “it is entirely up to me in my force – I’ve had to push [for improvement]”. A constable explained how at the start it was as if the force didn’t know what was expected of them; the force was unsure of their role in HPDS and they have learnt as it went along. Over time, the more senior officers have become more involved with an Assistant Chief Constable now taking responsibility for HPDS officers. This particular force is now arranging for HPDS participants to get together and meet with higher ranking speakers from across the force as well as talk to the other participants from the other cohorts. Mentors Overall all, those interviewed agreed that having a mentor was useful and important but there were differing views as to how the process was set up in force and what they got out of the mentor/mentee relationship. There were a couple of cases where the HPDS officers were instructed to source their own mentor. The more senior officers interviewed indicated a preference to self-select mentors, but constables reported feeling awkward in doing this. One constable, it was suggested, should find a mentor at a

42

rank of superintendent but they felt uncomfortable doing this because they do not mix at this level. Because of this, they do not have a mentor which they feel contributed to them feeling a ‘bit lost in the early days’. This individual was then meant to be allocated a mentor but nothing had yet been done. In this person’s mind, being allocated a mentor would have overcome the cross-rank awkwardness that they were confronted with. Half of the people interviewed had been allocated two mentors; one who was either a chief inspector or superintendent, and the other was a member of ACPO. A couple of the inspectors on the course felt they were at a rank where they could take more of an advantage of the ACPO mentor than those at a lower rank. For them it helped them gain more confidence and it opened doors and opportunities for them; one stressed that as a constable, there could be a confidence problem being faced with someone at the rank of assistant chief constable. They showed concern that some people could be easily intimidated by such high ranking officers and that maybe to help individuals overcome this DAs should be more proactive in supporting these meetings. This was evidenced during an interview with a constable who was very happy with their chief inspector mentor in force, but struggled when they met with their ACPO mentor; they felt there were too many barriers to overcome and found the person intimidating and not very approachable. Because of this they had only met with them once. The other mentor however, had been very helpful, giving insights and perspectives on how policing was today and they were always available on the end of the phone. The best mentor/mentee relationships seem to be between those that have had an element of self-selection. Some forces put forward a list of individuals who were interested in being mentors for the HPDS participant to then select someone who was right for them. Other HPDS participants had chosen and requested their mentor because of an ‘interpersonal connection’. This had helped the mentee select a person who actually wanted to be a mentor, along with someone who they could trust and respect to help them with understanding the force and professional policing. One officer who was set-up with a mentor didn’t feel comfortable about being set-up with just anybody. They stressed the importance of finding a mentor who they ‘admired’. It turned out that they didn’t use their official mentor, but had found themselves an unofficial mentor who “I can call about anything – his principles are excellent”. A couple of others also admitted to having informal mentors because there could sometimes be more trust involved by making your own choices over who you talk to about certain things. One inspector who was actually allocated their mentor felt very lucky at how they had an informal ‘chat over coffee’ relationship which was based on an ad hoc ‘need’ basis rather than formal meetings. This way the mentee felt that they could be supported when it was required. There were two officers interviewed who had been given mentors but didn’t use them. One officer said it was because they felt that they hadn’t needed a mentor and the other had only met with their mentor once; “I get more advice from my friends and colleagues in the force”. The individuals who had the better relationships with their mentors found that they were also becoming mentors themselves. Several of those interviewed were involved in mentoring other potential HPDS candidates that were in their forces, with one admitting to having mentored between 8 and 10 HPDS candidates, as well as trying their best to spot people with the potential to apply for the scheme and advising them to build on their potential.

43

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) During the interviews there were not many comments made about ACPO but some of the ones that were made were quite diverse. Within the forces, at least four officers interviewed spoke admiringly of their ACPO sponsors being committed, supportive, and approachable with a good understanding of HPDS. The officers usually in this position were assistant chief constables. There were three officers interviewed who were not quite so complimentary of ACPO members in their respective forces. One younger officer felt that ACPO were trying to build ‘empires’ and were too far detached “spending too much time responding and documenting, not preventing crime”. Another complimented his own chief constable and said that they found him to be very supportive, but ACPO in general they felt were too detached from HPDS. The third officer really was not impressed with ACPO, especially over the last few years. They felt that ACPO should be more aware of what was going on nationally and should be more involved with HPDS in terms of helping shape police leadership for the future. Two inspectors interviewed were far more proactive in how they saw ACPO fitting into HPDS. One stressed that he felt that ACPO were fully supportive of HPDS but the problem lay more with the lack of understanding at middle manager level. This was supported with the suggestion from the other inspector saying that maybe ACPO should be influential in communicating what HPDS was about and what was expected from the 43 different forces by working closer with line managers, middle managers and possibly mentors. WERE THE EXPECTATIONS OF HPDS MET? Towards the end of each of the interviews, as the interviewees were coming to the end of their HPDS stories, they were asked whether or not the scheme was meeting with their expectations so far. 67% of the interviewees said that it met with their expectations, 22% said it didn’t, with the remaining 11% saying it did in some areas and not in others. The ones who said it hadn’t met with their expectations still had positive things to say about the scheme. They realised that it had helped open doors for them, given them access to senior officers and more strategic roles and the academic input was ‘a fantastic opportunity’. However, two of the officers questioned the overall structure; one felt that WBS was the only structured part so far, and the other felt it wasn’t structured reliably for fast-track individuals with credibility. This particular officer explained this by feeling that the scheme ‘was not truly picking up the best talent’ and that the scheme is too far disconnected from public expectation and what was really happening in the police today. A recently promoted inspector said that it hadn’t met with their expectations as such, but they had found it extremely beneficial. They went on to question whether or not it was value for money; he concluded probably not, but it certainly could be. With regards to WBS, they felt it was a ‘well-respected’ business school for HPDS to be involved with, but with no real benchmark to compare it to, the officer did expect more. The two officers that were slightly indecisive in terms of whether or not HPDS had met with expectation both felt that it had helped raise their profiles. One, who was a constable, said it was different than they thought it would be. The expectation was more guidance from their force, but this has not been the case. It made them question what their force knew about HPDS and that maybe the NPIA should have made certain stipulations. On a more positive theme, they did stress

44

that the academic part had been a huge opportunity, although it wasn’t yet relevant in the workplace. An inspector who had mixed feelings, said that it had lacked structure, especially in his force; “you have to drive and push your own career”. Of the officers who were confident HPDS had met with their initial expectations, there were some positive statements: “100% with regards to NPIA and WBS, 80% within the force.” “Yes definitely – especially in terms of mental stimulation and opportunities in force.” “No – it’s probably exceeded my expectations…… I expected tangibles…. I didn’t expect an intangible level of development in personality and the way I see the world or a group of colleagues I can call friends, feeling comfortable with discussing all sorts of issues with.” “All round – I’ve enjoyed it! Yes, mainly on the WBS side because in force it is down to you how it works. You need to be self-motivated.” “Broadly yes – preparing me for the long term with a solid grounding.” “I suppose yes…….. I was expecting more structure and direction, but I’m happy to take ownership of my own career……pleasantly surprised at variety of people……. The taught course is practically transferrable….. very surprised how good it’s been so far.” “Yes it has – it’s widened my knowledge and makes me look at myself more. I think more about how leaders do things.” “Given me opportunities that I wouldn’t have had without it.” “Yes, I suppose it has. I didn’t have any great perceived ideas but I feel that I have grown with it.” “Beyond expectation what I have got out of it. It’s given me a different way of thinking.” REPUTATION – OLD VERSUS NEW Calling the new revised scheme the same as the old format could be risky in developing a positive reputation and view of the new HPDS. Many of the officers interviewed talked about this problem, but most now feel that the old stigma attached to ‘HPDS’ was now moving to a more positive outlook than it was 2 years ago. The old scheme initially was putting some of the officers interviewed off applying for the revised scheme. There was a perception that HPDS was the ‘old boys’ network’; you had to be a graduate, middle to upper class, know the right people, be aloof and arrogant. Rumour and gossip surrounded the old scheme, with officers saying how some took advantage of what was offered demonstrating the lack of discipline and structure associated with it. They were not deemed to be ‘real people’ and therefore ‘not respected’. Many of the senior officers who were working with the participants on the new scheme were still thinking of it as the old process, which caused frustration amongst the new scheme participants when trying to get the support from their force. One inspector felt that the old scheme was used by a stereotyped officer as a ‘rubber stamp’ for promotion, therefore leading to other officers treating the scheme with cynicism and disrespect. They were seen as ‘over promoted too soon’, using too many ‘buzz words’ and were not credible police officers. They were perceived to have an attitude that they were better than everyone else. Another officer who had been offered the old scheme turned the opportunity down because of the rumours associated with it ‘affecting your credibility’; it was deemed culturally unacceptable because it was too early in a policing career. Another officer was concerned because they didn’t want to be a person like this. Others feel that in their force colleagues see it as “old scheme, new scheme – they’re the same. 6 months here, 6 months there….”. There was a strong perception from other people within the force,

45

colleagues and supervisors, that you would not be there for long; they saw HPDS officers as ‘flitting and butterflying’ from role to role and not gaining any real experience, grounding or credibility in roles. Many senior officers reported seeing this aspect of HPDS as causing a lack of stability for officers and teams; it could take 6 months to even begin to make a difference and just get to know the team. An ACPO lead at one force noted this negative perception and was now encouraging HPDS officers to stay in each role for at least two years; allowing more time to work with the team and develop leadership skills by implementing change and being accountable for that change. Because of these perceptions and rumours, most of the new HPDS officers interviewed felt that with this type of legacy, they were better keeping quiet that they had been accepted onto the new scheme; “People always know someone who is an idiot on the old scheme”. A constable on the new scheme commented how you do not join HPDS to make friends, as it could lead to some ‘alienation’ from colleagues. As members of the new scheme, at least half of those spoken to felt that they were required to conduct themselves in a particular manner to promote the new scheme in a better light. Some had found that by keeping quiet and letting people get to know them first, makes others realise that ‘normal’ people can apply and gives them the confidence to find out more about the revised HPDS. “There is a perception that you could be aloof and self-interested in your own agenda….. not really interested in the day job. I work against this.” During one interview, a newly promoted inspector felt that the new scheme was ‘held in high regard’ within their force, but some colleagues, even in senior positions, just don’t agree with the system of fast-track promotion, and still see it important ‘to do your time’. Another recently promoted inspector felt that most of their colleagues were supportive of the scheme and it had a good reputation across the force; they did, however, question whether this was because of the scheme, their time in the police or their conduct and promotion of the scheme within the force. Within another force, the officer on the new scheme felt that because of failures of the old scheme, there were certain members of the management team who didn’t like HPDS; on reflection they personally felt this was more due to a lack of understanding of what the revised version of HPDS was now about and how it was now structured. Another had been quoted as saying they have experienced a ‘completely mixed reaction’. They felt that some were supportive and considered it a great opportunity, whereas others reacted with jealousy and mistrust. Again, this led to individuals being careful who they tell about HPDS, because “however good you are, you are then labelled with it”. “If you are a complete idiot you could very easily give HPDS a negative reputation. A lot of its reputation is on the individual ultimately.” Overall, it appears that new scheme members were experiencing less negativity as time has gone by and they were the advocates in promoting the revised scheme to other officers, especially officers who thought that it was out their reach. However there was a strong stigma becoming associated with the revised HPDS: hard to get on, hard to stay on!

46

HOW HAVE THE INDIVIDUALS DEVELOPED? All the officers contacted and interviewed had positively gained from being on HPDS so far. Some of the main areas of transformation that they had experienced so far include increased confidence, being far more strategic, ability to break down barriers, see the police from a more business perspective, be more objective and more ambitious, feel able to implement change, ability to challenge and question, able to take risks with conviction, and be more politically aware. A couple of officers initially joined the police more for the job security and good pension, where as now they view it as delivering a service to the public and view it as an organisation, rather than just a job. One officer was quoted as stating that they are “more passionate about policing – it’s my career for life!” Confidence is a word that was constantly being used during the interviews. Whether it was more confident working with senior officers, being able to contribute to conversations, chairing meetings, making decisions, in ability and knowledge, evidencing ideas or presenting to ACPO, all those interviewed have certainly gained from their experiences so far during the scheme. “I am certainly more confident in my self and my ability.” “HPDS has made a huge difference……. The knowledge gain has been invaluable.” “I’m more confident to think more broadly and organise my thoughts around policing.” A sergeant felt that they had certainly gained confidence across the board; being able to challenge and back it up with reasons; ability to make an impact within the team but also an impact on policing for the future; to take risks and make better decisions because they are now able to support them with evidence and knowledge; and, they now feel more able in supporting others. Another young inspector echoed this by saying HPDS had made them want to get to a position where they were able to influence the future, where they could offer a good quality service to the communities and keep them safe from harm – entirely different to the way they were 2 years ago. They concluded how it had changed them by saying “…. I see the process now as not just advancement for personal gain but advancement for organisation change.” Seven of the officers interviewed were clear that HPDS had made them look at the way they work, the organisation and the wider world. They all admitted to being more strategically aware and objective about policing and where it fitted in across the other public services. One inspector commented about how the scheme had made them realise that as a police leader, it was not all about managing tactics, but managing risk and being more strategic. Another officer said they had a far more global strategic view and now saw the organisation from a business perspective. Another area that was spoken about by most interviewees was the way the HPDS had helped break down barriers and given them access to ACPO and more senior officers. For the inspectors, there were opportunities to get involved with strategic projects, working directly with the assistant or deputy chief constables, even the chief constable on occasion. They all commented that this would not have been possible without HPDS and the exposure that it had given them to knowledge. Of the less experienced constables interviewed, despite their feelings of not being able to apply what they had learnt, they all felt that they had become more confident, more decisive, far more strategic and corporately aware, and more willing to take risks. However, with regards to approaching more senior officers and ACPO members, they were still struggling to overcome the intimidation and daunting aspect of working with some of them. One constable felt that although they were probably more confident overall, they did feel less confident when under pressure

47

because some of the knowledge they had gained had made things quite overwhelming; they found themselves second guessing their own decisions. There was one officer who felt that 80% of where they were today could have been achieved without HPDS. What it had done for them, however, was allow them the access to senior officers and ‘almost force’ them to make decisions about them. The officer felt that by just “asking nicely, justifying and telling them what’s in it for them” the senior officers had got them where they wanted to be after two years on the scheme. Everyone spoken to had experienced some form of personal transformation and progress through HPDS. It appeared to be the overall exposure to new things that they potentially would never have been subjected to if it was not for HPDS – knowledge, people, ideas, opportunities. “I now feel more valuable to the organisation and for the future.” “As an individual it has changed my thinking – I am more objective about policing, I’ve been stimulated mentally. Before I was all practical, now I use my brain.” “…….. now I look at the bigger policing picture and how we fit into the overall environment.” CONSOLIDATION – HOW IT’S BEING PERCEIVED The two-year consolidation period that cohort 1 were just approaching whilst the interviews were being conducted, opened up some very mixed feelings and showed how some were being more proactive realising it was up to them to make the most of this ‘calm after the storm’, with others wanting more guidance. There was one young inspector who stood out in terms of their interpretation of the next two years. They put it very clearly in terms of how they viewed it, and how they were personally managing it to get the best out of this time: “It is a relief to have finished the first two years…….. Thinking about the next two to three years, umm, it’s a little bit of an anticlimax after all the hard work. I’ve got some ideas of some attachments that I want to make………attachments are there for personal development so I’ve got an action plan that develops and explains why those areas are appropriate………[did you plan this off your own back or is your DA or force helping you?]…It’s off my own back….. I think if you wait for the help then it won’t come. I’ve made my DA aware along with the DCC and Chief and, you know, I think they appreciate the value it will bring……………Do I think I’m going to get true value out of the next two years? Do I feel like I’m probably going to stand still as far as the scheme goes for two years? Do I feel like I’m going to develop as much as I have over the last two years? No, I don’t think any of those things…. The personality type on the scheme are people who like to be stretched, that like to be challenged, like to be pushed, they get bored really easily…… someone coined a phrase I’d never heard before, but ‘rust out is worse than burn out’… People on the scheme prefer to be challenged and stretched…. I don’t necessarily see that the next two years will challenge and stretch…if people do achieve this it will be through personal motivation and that actually is not a good place to be because you are better off being challenged by others and having structures around you…the question I would raise is are we, HPDS, NPIA, Warwick, umm, achieving value out of the next two years? Probably not. Could there be low cost things that we put in place to ensure that people do develop themselves? … I think we need accountability, I think we need not to let people go off the boil…we are a commodity and an investment of the organisation… to ensure that investment is still developing…. personally I would like to be held accountable, I would personally like some systems, structures and processes – hoops to jump through.”

48

This narrative about the next few years basically sums up the mixed thoughts that others spoke about. The original plan had been for WBS to organize an array of work-placements and job shadowing opportunities for participants but this was drastically cut when the number of participants seeking to continue onto the Masters degree became clear. The replacement now consists of one or two conferences per year but there is little of the structure that once existed and many participants were uncertain as to the purpose of, and prospects for, this period. There was a group (four interviewed) who were taking the initiative and arranging external secondments and placements to stretch and apply learning in other organisations. These four did comment it would be nice not to do assignments, but start applying the learning, because ‘learning is important to me’. One of the four officers did say that they would like some work to do, but not necessarily assessed, but something that would stretch their thinking. There was another group of officers who were looking at the next two years positively in terms of working on their next promotion, applying the learning further, keeping in touch with colleagues and building on these relationships. An officer did wish that the masters was an option to complete straight away, but now in hindsight they were pleased there were two years to consolidate what had been gained; they did comment ‘not sure what to expect’ over the next phase. This more positive group did realise that it would be up to them what they made of it, but stressed that they still wanted an input from colleagues, NPIA and WBS. There were a couple of officers who were asking many of the questions that were raised in the statement above. They were fully aware that it was up to the individual to mark out their own path, but they agreed with the lack of milestones or framework. There was a feeling that their forces were unsure what to do with them over the next two years. It was seen that this potential flexibility was an advantage to them, but it was deemed a possibility that individuals could easily drift without any structure or ‘ownership’ of the consolidation period.

49

Non-HPDS – questionnaire feedback The web link for Qualtrics was sent by email to the 55 interested parties of which there were 43 responses, with 38 fully completed questionnaires; a 78% response rate, 69% success rate. All the data received is totally anonymous. (See appendix for a copy of the questionnaire.) An outline summary of the biographical data (Q 1-7) is shown below:

Gender Ethnicity Rank Male Female White White

Irish Asian British Indian

Other Constable Acting Sgt Promoted Sgt

Insp

71% 29% 84% 5% 5% 5% 32% 10% 50% 8%

Time in the police Highest academic qualification 1-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs 21-25 yrs Non-

graduate Graduate Post

graduate

24% 42% 16% 16% 3% 37% 45% 18%

Results Q 8: Why did you initially apply for HPDS? There were 18 possible reasons listed for individuals to rate using the scale of 1-5, where 5 represented a great deal and 1 represented not at all. The main reason why people seemed to apply for HPDS was ‘to help implement and be part of future change’ with 94% of people choosing either 4 or 5. Other reasons that seemed to stand out include ‘I wanted to expand my personal experiences’, ‘the challenge’ and ‘to become a better leader’ (with between 87% and 76% of individuals choosing either 4 or 5 for these reasons). Just over 50% applied to gain an academic qualification, but the majority of the individuals who completed the questionnaire already hold some form of academic qualification. Only 31% were applying to the scheme to build their personal confidence. Q9: How did you find the overall selection process? 58% rated the overall selection process as fair, 16% rated it as very fair and only 11% rating it as unfair. One of the main areas of comment was the level of assistance from the force. One individual felt if their force had been more supportive they would maybe have had a better chance. Another noted that there were large differences in how forces actually selected candidates; they were selected by the force ACPO lead for HPDS where others seemed to just be put forward with only self-selection. The preferred method was to be selected by a senior officer as this gave it more credibility. Q10: During stage 2, how relevant did you find the various written tests? The highest response (39%) was that all of them had some relevance, but only 13% felt that they were all very relevant and 21% felt that only 1 or 2 were relevant. 16% said that none were relevant.

50

Comments received were few, but clear. It was felt that generally they were not a clear indicator and were too subjective for the real world. Q11: Was guidance given for these tests clear and concise? 58% felt that the guidance given was clear and concise and 24% felling it was very clear and concise. Q12: The stage 3 assessment centre; how relevant did you find the group exercises? There was an equal balance here with 34% finding some of them relevant, and 34% finding most of them relevant. No one felt that none were relevant. Comments made were mixed: “They became a bun fight about who can get their voices heard.” “An excellent exercise – very relevant.” “Good exposure if you are boorish and overbearing, not if you are reasonable and thoughtful.” Q13: How useful was the feedback you received after the selection process? The distribution of opinion here was very evenly spread across ‘all of it being useful’ (29%), ‘most of it was useful’ (21%) and ‘some of it was useful’ (29%). 5% commented that is was not useful at all. The only comments made were related to those who obviously found the feedback useful, stating that it was useful and informative, constructive in providing advice and helping individuals understand themselves better. One person did comment that they never got a face-to-face session. Q14: Have you used any of this feedback to help you develop yourself further? 47% stated that they have used a small part of the feedback with 8% admitting not using it at all. 24% had used most of it. Comments made included ways that people have used the feedback helping with action plans, more aware of the way they do things, but one person commented how they had but because of failing the selection process their force has offered them no further help. Q15: During the entire process, in your opinion, were all aspects of diversity met? 71% answered yes, 11% no, 8% maybe and the remainder opted for no comment. Only one comment was made and this was related to the overall process being aimed more at people with a very high academic intelligence. Q16: Was the overall guidance and advice from NPIA useful in helping you with you application? 35% stated that some of it was useful and 35% saying most of it was useful. No one said that it was not useful. No comments were made. Q17: Was the advice and support from your force useful to you during your application? 45% felt that most of the support was useful, 21% said some, but 5% said that the support was not useful. Comments included those that were happy with the support from their force “I have excellent support from the British Transport Police HPDS coordinator and the DCC” but there were more directed at the lack of support:

51

“Almost non-existence, however I have made sure this has changed for future applicants.” “This varied greatly between individuals within the force.” “There doesn’t appear to be a lot of knowledge or understanding within force about HPDS – support was minimal.” “No practical help, unlike other forces.” “There was no advice or support provided by my force.” Q18: Have you any general comments to make about your experiences of the overall selection process? The comments made were very mixed. Twenty five of the thirty eight who responded to the questionnaire made comments with about half of the respondents being very proactive about the experience, with the other half making a further mix of honest comments to improve the process or how it made them feel. “A good process generally, however I’m not sure that every one of the role plays was a clear indicator of a future leader.” “The process was very fair and was run professionally.” “I felt I grew as a person and a police leader in all aspects of the process….. very challenging and competitive.” “A useful and valuable experience that was challenging and enjoyable.” “An excellent experience.” “I felt the process was too objective and lacked subjectivity.” “I failed the tests. It would have been better to get the results of that before embarking on the Bramshill stage – this would save a lot of time and money.” “….. I do have to ask whether this process is fit for purpose in assessing ‘potential’ and not experience.” “…….other forces had provided a large amount of support, mentoring and in some cases training, to assist them……” “It felt very unrealistic and it appeared to be best suited to those with academic qualifications.” “The whole process is bizarre…….It seems as though the process was designed by committee with no thought to public expense or the relevance of each test to actual police duties.” “I would never participate in such a procedure again. ……..It does not favour those from a working class background……. One of the examiners was positively rude.” Q19: Have you been promoted during the last 2 years? Only 16% of the respondents who failed the selection procedure had been promoted in the last 2 years. Q20: If no, have you completed your next promotion exams? 71% had completed their next promotion exams and were waiting for promotion. Very few comments were made but the one that stood out was the statement that “There are no boards being held for the foreseeable future, so I am unable to progress in my career currently.” Q21: How supportive has your ‘line manager’ been in your career progression? The spread of opinion on this was very diverse. 35% felt that they were very supportive but 35% felt that they were not very supportive or only at times. All the comments made were relating to the more positive experiences although one officer commented that the support they get was because “my work speaks for me and my line managers believe I am doing an outstanding at my job.”

52

Q22: How supportive has your force been in your career progression? As with Q21, the thoughts on support were diverse and spread. 55% felt that their force was not supportive or only at times. 29% reported their force as being very supportive. No comments were made. Q23: Do you have a mentor? 68% reported that they did not have a mentor, but at Q24 81% of those not having a mentor said that they would appreciate one. Q25: If yes, did you chose them yourself or were they allocated to you? The 32% who said they did have a mentor mainly chose whom they wanted; some chose from a list, whilst others sought them out due to being a trusted colleague. Another sought out a mentor within the organisation and another outside of the organisation who was in senior management. Q26: On reflection, are you happy with where you are in your career? There were several comments out of the 17 who felt they were happy; realisation that they need to gain more experience before promotion, personal situation suited their current role or they had achieved what they want to achieve, but most of the people who commented felt there were no opportunities, despite being ready for promotion. “Current climate, therefore lack of opportunities for promotions.” “I wish I had been given more support earlier in my career……….. I do not think I will fill my full potential.” “I feel that I am stuck and unable to progress….” “Promotion opportunities are limited in my force and I feel I am ready to move on……” “Progress slow so far……” “I have begun to feel that the police service is a dead end job.” “I don’t feel challenged enough.” “I am very keen to gain promotion and have been fortunate enough to spend the last 8 months as an acting inspector. I have now returned to my substantive rank and already find myself struggling with motivation.” “I am pleased to have attained [rank of inspector] all I have before just about all promotion opportunities have disappeared.” Q27: Are you confident that there are opportunities for promotion over the next 2-3 years? Just over 30% felt there were no promotion opportunities, with an optimistic 45% believing there would be some promotion opportunities. Only 5% believed that promotion was certain. Comments mainly all pointed at the budget cuts and it being the wrong time. Several commented on promotion freezes in their forces as well as others, but one officer did feel there would be plenty of lateral transfer opportunities with possible promotion after 2012. The last 3 questions of the questionnaire were phrased to gather comment and opinion on the individual, their thoughts on HPDS and their colleagues’ thoughts on HPDS. Q28: What are your aspirations for the next 5-10 years? 34 out of the 38 responded to this question, with the majority being very positive and optimistic about where they saw themselves over this period of time. The most common aspiration was along

53

the lines of chief inspector over the next 5-10 years, being ready for superintendent board in 10 years. A couple were hoping to ‘navigate’ their way to chief superintendent in this time frame. However, there were those who aspired to high levels of promotion but they were being very realistic in terms of the current state of budgets, staff cuts and therefore lack of opportunities that would be arising. “I wish to be promoted to inspector and eventually obtain the rank of superintendent…… This may be difficult now due to the restructuring of forces and the financial climate.” “I did have a lot of aspirations in the past………. Since failing the HPDS selection I feel that I have not received any support from my force…..with regards to my aspirations….. I have given up on a lot of them.” “To continue to develop myself, ensuring that I do not become stuck in a rut, as I become bored if I do not have any new challenges……. But without there being any opportunities on the horizon for a long time, I have begun job hunting outside of the police service.” “…… where I am applying for superintendent board in 10 years……. As a result of current economic constraints/promotion opportunities, this does not appear to be a plausible aspiration.” Q29: Can you please comment how YOU perceive HPDS within your force? 35 out of 38 of the respondents responded with some quite lengthy comments regarding this question. The opinions were very mixed. Despite many critical and negative comments there was a lot of positivity. There were also contradictions presented in terms of the advertising and promotion of HPDS. There were several comments made saying that they felt it was not widely publicised which officers could apply to HPDS, which in turn had led to a lot of ‘myths’ about what the scheme did; yet there were also comments about how it was well advertised and well supported. Most of the more negative comments were about a lack of understanding of HPDS, both between officers and across their forces. “It is an unknown quantity……. There appears to be a lack of understanding of what the scheme will bring.” “Not really talked about. Not understood.” “…… there is little knowledge about HPDS within force…..” The other feeling about HPDS which does seem to annoy some of the officers (8 commented) was that HPDS was all about promotion, without experience. “HPDS is at present a tool to be promoted.” “It is the only way to get promoted to the rank of sergeant.” “……participants who will inevitably be regarded as individuals who are good at career progression as opposed to being outstanding officers/managers.” “….. less operational and have very little or no operational experience who tend to be poor decision-makers ……..” “Does not allow a great depth of experience ….. you can shoot up the ranks….. whilst being a good leader, you do not have the relevant experience……” “A self promotion scheme for those from mainly middle class backgrounds who are not necessarily original thinkers…..” “The lucky few are given opportunities that others are not. It will be interesting to see what promotion opportunities are afforded to those on the scheme over the next few years.”

54

“I perceive it gives you the only opportunity for promotion in the current financial climate…….opportunity to fast track you career.” There is a mixed opinion on the reputation of the individuals currently on the scheme: “For me to comment on individuals would seem unfair as I have not met anyone currently on the scheme, but I have heard a very mixed bag of opinions regarding them; some being very positive and others not.” A couple of officers did say that HPDS was clearly getting better with “a clear improvement on its previous incarnations” but the stigma of being a good leader with no experience was still an issue that many kept raising. Q30: Can you please comment on how you think your COLLEAGUES perceive HPDS within your force? This question also got 35 of the 38 respondents commenting to this question, with many of them alluding to the issue of promotion too quickly combined with a lack of experience amongst the HPDS participants; this appeared to be leading to a lack of credibility which was affecting respect of HPDS officers from their colleagues. “There is a lack of positive, well respected leaders on the HPDS within our force.” “Most officers perceive HPDS as an easy way to obtain promotion…… an elite club….. not particularly respected and the value cannot be seen.” “Negatively…….Those on the scheme lack operational experience and exposure……” “There is the misconception that people are promoted above their ability.” “It is sometimes felt they are promoted above their operational capability because the scheme will promote you even if your colleagues don’t rate you as competent.” “….the promotion of people who talk a good game as opposed to being able to deliver.” “A guaranteed road to promotion, which produces poor leaders.” “…..They are not necessarily more intelligent, more thoughtful, or better managers, many are arrogant and with low levels of operational ability.” “Mixed perceptions. Treated with a certain cautiousness. Not at all respected due to lack of service….” “It is seen as a way of promoting to a high rank people who do not have the ability to perform as constables, who then use that rank to issue directives that negatively affect performance.” “Most officers view HPDS officers with suspicion that they have little practical ability……. Others are jealous of the opportunities they are given. Many unfairly wait for them to make mistakes to fit in with the stereotype….. it is obviously not easy to be on the scheme.” “FAST TRACKED OFFICERS WITH NO OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE!” “The scheme still seems to attract officers that do not have a proven operational background…..” Linked to this issue of credibility and promotion was the way some HPDS officers were moved around every 3-6 months from role to role; whether or not it was vertically or horizontally. “……those on the scheme are seen as transitory, never remaining in the same post for very long and not having to deal with the consequences associated with any changed which they have made.” “People on HPDS are promoted too quickly without becoming effective in their roles.” “……it is perceived in a negative way……the consensus of the masses is that HPDS officers move too quickly vertically when really they should be moving laterally…… officers need to slow down and gain respect.”

55

Many comments made highlighted the lack of understanding of HPDS, including the differences of the revised version against other similar schemes, amongst officers as well as forces. Many still saw HPDS for those who have a degree or are highly intelligent. “It is perceived as a tool at which is not open to masses and required you to be educated to a degree level.” “Out of reach for most. No encouragement from line managers. Must be a self-driven thing.” “There is not awareness of the hard work that officers have to put in to be successful from assessment centre to promotion.” “HPDS is viewed with suspicion…….. officers on HPDS are doing so for their own gains and not to benefit the force or service.” “….perceived as ‘only for the really high flyers’, and as such need a university degree to apply for it.” “…. It’s for the chosen few.” “HPDS is still very much perceived within force as the old accelerated promotion scheme…..viewed as an ‘elite club’ which can only be joined by the few whose faces fit. It is not accessible for all.” “Unfortunately most people think the scheme is for really bright people and these are the only ones that are now being selected for promotion due to cut back.” There appears to be the support for HPDS amongst officers who were aware of the scheme, but they were all also very aware of the myths and perceptions of the scheme amongst their colleagues. Some of the comments made by these non-HPDS officers evidence a need for better marketing and advertising of what the revised HPDS was about and who was eligible to apply.

56

Successful promotion without HPDS Of the four non-HPDS officers interviewed, one was a superintendent, two were chief inspectors and one was an inspector; two were male and two were female. They had all been in the police for more than 10 years. CASE 1: Female Inspector with 11 years in the police service This officer was a PC on shift for two years before she then became a tutor. At this two year point, she completed her sergeant’s exams and came off shift for a while. After three years service she became an acting sergeant for nine months at a satellite station within the force. The Inspector at this station empowered her to ‘get on with it’. The other sergeant at the station was dealing with some drastic personal situation so was not around that much; “I was left to it!” After this nine month period, she decided to become a detective. She started as a DC and after 18 months, due to boredom and needing a challenge, she went for promotion to a DS; at this point she was four and half years into her police career. A devastating life changing incident happened in her personal life which “mucked around with my head” so the new promotion to DS was a struggle at times. It was also made challenging due to being a DS with less than 5 years experience working with DCs with more than 20 years experience. She managed to adapt her personal leadership style to deal with this situation by giving the more experienced officers “a loose reign to do their own thing – to a certain point”. By giving the team the trust and empowerment to do what they had experience in, meant that they soon accepted her as a DS. After 6 years in service she completed her inspector’s exams and the Chief Constable at that time wanted her to go for promotion that year – she remembers this being around the beginning of 2006. The CC was foreseeing a possible mass retirement during 2010-12 so they singled her out as the officer, among a handful of others, to get promoted to inspectors at this time, to be chief inspectors by 2010/11. She decided not to go for promotion but took an opportunity to become a staff officer for the DCC who was the national lead for custody for ACPO. The opportunity was grasped and she felt that she worked very hard building up strategic knowledge and working relationships within Westminster, HMIC, IPCC and ACPO. It involved working on a 3-year strategy getting to know all the layers of policing – “As a constable you don’t see any of this.” At this point, after around 8 years of service, she got promoted to Inspector – “If you are going to go for a fast promotion then you need to know and have a realistic impression of what the job entails.” Initially it was acting up as an inspector at a relatively stable station, but then she got asked to move to a tougher area to manage a tougher shift – the force needed someone to turn the shift around. On arriving, the newly promoted inspector found that the previous inspector had been lazy therefore making the sergeants and the shift lazy. Some of the sergeants didn’t like the way that this new inspector was changing things so they left to get other jobs. She did communicate that there was no personal resentment but the staff didn’t like what was being implemented. However, overall there was an increase in performance on the shift and the job was done well. She admitted she can be a hard person, but overall the shift said many nice things and thanked her for showing them passion and drive; “if you cock up, tell me – don’t lie or else I’ll come down on you.” She does believe that her passion to develop the team, and develop them as individuals, gave them the encouragement to turn around and give her job satisfaction. It was at this point in her career

57

that her Chief Superintendent caught her shouting down the phone at someone, so he decided that she needed to learn to be more diplomatic! He moved the officer into a counter measurement role working with (initially) Muslim communities which then moved to the wider community to build resilience to extremism. It was a role that increased her cross boundary working, especially with the voluntary sector. Due to the Muslim community not liking the initial approach, she refocused it as more about extremist violence across the board. She did lots of reading around the communities that she was working with and took a very honest approach by being up front with the extremist groups. Looking back at the Government initiative that was behind this role, she admitted she didn’t like the way it was aimed at being a ‘prevent’ approach to extremist activity and the way it was a ‘tick box’ exercise, so she took the approach to do the best for the force and build it the best way she could. She was given so much empowerment to do things how she saw fit; attending meetings representing the county – “it was amazing to be an inspector being given this level of responsibility.” This role made her feel great! She built up an amazing passion for the role because of the trust and obligation that was owed to the people she was working with. It wasn’t necessarily about policing but more about social work; spending time learning and working with different cultures as part of a very small team. She feels she proactively took an unpopular government policy by applying her personality, devotion and trust to it; taking it from nothing, convincing councils and partners to buy into it, and turning it into a local success. She left this role in the summer of 2010, just before the policy was changed due to the new coalition government. She is now an inspector in the firearms department. Four or five officers went for the role of which most had fire arms experience. She got the job and knows it had something to do with her new boss knowing that she has proved herself in the past; “They knew they liked me and knew I could do the job.” It is a great job for this individual because she is given the freedom to do what she wants. She has been given the freedom to empower the four teams and five sergeants that she leads; although she still feels that maybe the odd person will try and trip her up. She feels that it is a tough job, especially because it is a quite ‘testosterone fuelled’ environment, but it is a great job. When she was asked why she has made it to the rank of inspector she admitted that it was about hard work but with a bit of luck. She did admit to having fun by challenging herself, and she feels extremely ‘flukey’ about it all happening prior to the cuts and promotion freezes being implemented. The cuts won’t affect any promotion aspirations to chief inspector for a couple of years, because she is fully aware of wanting to consolidate her new role as inspector in firearms and enjoy this point in her career. She is aware that once she is a chief inspector, she will have less control over which division and role she is posted to. Now is a time to enjoy the job; “I’ve put a huge amount of effort into it. I’ve not been given it on a plate – I’ve deserved it.” When discussing what has made her the type of leader that she is today, the first thing she alluded to was being brutally honest with people, followed by being completely fair. She is very conscious that she has also learnt from her own mistakes. As a sergeant she knows she was too ‘hard nosed’ and she realised that she didn’t let her personality come out. She felt she had two egos; one at home and one at work. It was by talking to colleagues, most of which were senior to her, who noticed that she was very different outside of work. Taking comments on board, she realised that she didn’t need to be so cold at work that she could show a bit more humility in the work place. The reason she gave for this cold behaviour, was being a female in a male environment, she needed to

58

be tough, but she has since realised that good leadership is not about being tough, especially in firearms; “you need to learn to adapt your style for those you are leading.” In terms of role models, her previous DCC was deemed as a “superb leader”. The explanation given was that he would give individuals “the time of day” and he still got involved with the PCs on night shift; he made people feel valued. She felt that they learnt a lot from the DCC and he also taught her how not to show emotions on her face when in difficult situations. Other signs of a good police leader talked about included honesty and “people who care and are in touch with what cops want……..People who take their time to get to the top value the staff, know their job, its complexities and demands that it has on young cops.” The conversation then turned to mentors. She had been allocated a mentor but she admitted to not really using them. She has therefore ‘self-selected’ her own mentors; a CC from another force and her current chief superintendent, amongst other superintendents that she knows she can be brutally honest with. She felt being given a mentor doesn’t work; there is no relationship and there is no trust. The mentor that she has been allocated doesn’t give anything to her development. The reasons why she has chosen her chief superintendent as her mentor included how he is “inspirational, tough but approachable, he listens and takes advice as well as giving excellent advice, extremely supportive and doesn’t lie to you…….work hard and he will reward you back.” Her thoughts on HPDS were not overly complimentary. She started by stating that officers were struggling to differentiate between the old HPDS and the new revised HPDS. It was alluded to that one of the fundamental problems behind both schemes was that people are being selected on intellect not professional policing; “I appreciate academia, but there is a time and a place for it.” It was observed that HPDS does help give individuals a strategic process, but as a Gold Commander policing is needed; a flaw of HPDS is it is too academic. To gain respect, trust and credibility from a team, she was passionate in stating that you need to “know the job to do the job.” She has observed that HPDS officers are struggling to integrate into teams and the label being attached to them doesn’t help. Another area that is not helping its cause is with HPDS officers only spending 6 months in a position or rank; it is becoming a real issue that this is not long enough. Of the HPDS officers that she has met, some, it was noted, lacked common sense and character or personality to be leaders; “To get them [officers] to believe in you, you need big enough shoulders and a presence; an aura to inspire.”

59

CASE 2: Male Superintendent with 26 years in the police service. The officer spoke about how he has always had a proactive ‘do something’ approach to life. When leaving school, he knew he didn’t want to carry on studying so became a police cadet with a handful of ‘O’ levels. Joining as a police cadet was more for the sport than policing at that stage of his life, but when he was old enough, he became a PC spending 5 years on patrol doing shift-work and rapid response work. After this, he worked for marine patrol for 4 years before going back to shift-work for a further 6 months. At this point he spent a year in the protection group then moved to working within the close protection team for 4 years. Towards the end of this time he became an acting sergeant but then it came to tenure of post so a decision needed to be made about his career: coming up to 16 years in service mainly as a PC, the idea of going back on patrol wasn’t appealing, so he took his promotion exams and became a uniformed sergeant. After 3 years he took his inspector’s promotion exams and became an acting inspector within intelligence. Another 2 years passed and some time as a neighbourhood inspector, he was acted up to chief inspector and got involved in partnership work. By 2009 he was made acting superintendent of two areas; “A real challenge – two of everything to manage!” In the past few months he was promoted to Local Areas Commander Superintendent. In the space of 7 years, this officer has been promoted from PC to Superintendent. How has he achieved this? He spoke quite clearly that it was mainly down to credibility and a variety of operational roles. Being a police officer is a difficult job; “you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t. As a leader and a commander you need to be able to empathise with the role that they do.” By demonstrating that you’ve done the job – credibility – it stops you making impossible demands on officers in the team “….because I’ve done the job.” He described how some of the job of being a police officer is common sense, but most of it can only be learnt through experience – there is only so much that can be learnt through training and courses. The superintendent isn’t against the idea of academic qualifications or increasing an officer’s access to knowledge and deep thinking, because he himself in the last 4-5 years has realised “how there is a world of information to assist you with the job – I love information!” He believes in the importance of looking at a different approach from outside of the police as an organisation. For him there just has never been the time to complete an academic qualification because he has always been consolidating his roles within the police service. So far he has spent five months in his current role as a promoted superintendent and he is learning all the time in his role. When asked why he sees himself as a respected leader he was very clear that his main characteristics are visibility and leading by example – “It’s the only way to lead.” An example of this is when in front of his staff he believes in ensuring that the job is not seen as a ‘tick box exercise’ but he ensures that they are rewarded for doing a good job; rather than email someone to acknowledge good work, he believes in writing them a letter and personally signing it to make it far more personal. He himself is passionate about victim care and he is encouraging his team in “…..going the extra mile.” He admitted to reading a lot of literature around leadership and he enjoys the challenge of being a leader. In the future when he has more time, he would like to complete an academic course, but at the moment it is a big enough challenging running his unit. When it comes to his career in the police, he did admit to have to having to ‘pinch’ himself, and if it was not for the tenure policy during the close protection days, then he would probably still be a PC. He never anticipated staying in the police for his whole working career as he never saw himself as

60

ambitious, but he fell in love with the job too much to leave. As a police officer he discussed how you need the desire to serve the public and be passionate about the service. Nowadays, the police service is not as vocational has it has been in the past – “…it’s losing its career for life image.” The new generation of officers being recruited he feels are very different; they are more self-fulfilling. In terms of HPDS, he admitted to not having much knowledge of what it’s about and probably knows more about the old scheme compared to the revised scheme. As a concept, he doesn’t have issues with it and believes that there are individuals with leadership qualities who should be given the opportunities that HPDS delivers. Not knowing much about it, he stressed that he hopes it does concentrate on ‘leaders’ and not ‘managers’. The police need leaders, who are transformational in nature, not more managers to just deal with processes. He did raise some concerns about HPDS. He fears that the new recruits of today are too focused on “working their way up the ladder and they are not making decisions for the public or what is best for their career.” His warning on this is that the police service is a risk-averse organisation and individuals tend to protect themselves rather than the public. Comparing what he does know of the revised scheme, he feels it is more scientific, but HPDS officers are promoted far too quickly; there is no time for consolidation - “…they are bouncing around too much which is damaging their credibility.” He spoke how 6 months was too short and he had noticed that some of the people he has met are lacking in valuable experience and humility towards their teams. His greatest compliment from colleagues is that they feel that promotion hasn’t changed him; “Don’t compromise your values!” HPDS participants need to be reminded that its people who lead teams not experts. If he was to advise anyone taking up a leadership role in the police service today it would be to ensure that “….. you are comfortable in your own skin – chat amongst the staff at the end of the day, be interested in your team. Make the time to do it.” This part of the conversation led him to start talking about role models and mentors. In terms of being a role model himself, he believes in making his team work for him. By trusting them and not micromanaging them, he empowers his staff by setting out goals and communicating a clear vision of what is required and when for; he then leaves them to get on with the how, unless they ask for help or advice. To ensure his own credibility is maintained and the job is being done, he admits to “dipping his toe in the water to ensure all is OK” although he did stress the importance of not “cutting through the next level” and delegating as much as possible. The way he leads now is very much based on an officer that he worked with in the past who he spoke of as his role model. This senior officer demonstrated the importance of ‘approachability’ by believing in an open door policy. The superintendent admitted to having two mentors himself, but only over the last 7 years. One of his mentors is an unofficial retired manager outside of the police who he uses as a “sounding board…… we have a great partnership.” He chose this mentor himself because of the strong relationship that they have. When it comes to being a mentor, he is one himself. Within his force, mentors are pooled and their skills-base is attached to their names to help mentees select the right person. He believes strongly that mentors should choose to be mentors and really want to do the role. The wrong mentor can be damaging to an individual, but also the number of mentees needs to be managed by the mentor or else it can become unmanageable. He believes that the relationship between mentor/mentee should be managed by the mentee: how often, how formal, how structured – “…the ball is in their [mentee] court.” Despite not regretting any part of his own career, he does admit to being a little frustrated with not embarking on the promotion trail sooner; he would have liked to have been in a position to have

61

implemented change sooner. In terms of his future, there is the potential to reach ACPO, but he has decided not to pursue it at this time because it’s more his style to get on with the job; “I don’t regret anything. I’ve enjoyed every part of it!”

62

CASE 3: Male Detective Chief Inspector with 17 years in the police service This officer left school with a few ‘O’ levels and ‘A’ Levels and knew that university was not for him. During his final year at school he was working Saturdays at Marks and Spencer. On leaving, the manager of the store he was working in suggested he applied for the graduate scheme. After 8 months he realised it was not for him as it was too much of a ‘hardcore sell’ job and he was getting very little ‘job satisfaction’; “I’m not finance driven – I am a people person, leading people, being with people.” As a child he had always wanted to join the police but was influenced by his parents not to pursue this as a career initially. After various short jobs, he decided to pursue his dream and apply for the police. He was only around 19 at the time and the police initially rejected him and told him to ‘go and mature.’ Still determined to join the police, he applied for a post in the civilian control room where he worked for around two and half years. From here he got a role working with the police in the force control room to gain experience of working with the police. After around 8 months in this role, he reapplied for the police and got accepted. By working in the force control room, he felt that he had been provided with a good insight into the police service and made contacts in the force. As a PC probationer and at the age of 21, he had a good time training and won two prizes; Best Turned out Officer and the Good Leadership award (which is apparently not given on every course but only to certain officers who achieve a certain standard). As a PC he worked both in the city and in a more rural station. He admitted to taking his sergeants exams early in his career and never acted up but was posted up as a reactive sergeant. After around a year, he was posted as a neighbourhood sergeant working closely with his inspector and managing a team of PCs. The next stage in his career was as a DS for 2 years in the Intelligence Unit. At this point he saw an opportunity to be seconded to undertake a research role at the force headquarters to review the value of crime. At the time, he didn’t necessarily enjoy it but in hindsight, it was a good move for career development as it was a very strategic role. After this secondment, he went back to his role as a DS but found that he had got ‘itchy feet’ so applied for a crime trainer’s role. Taking up this role, he had responsibility for all crime courses within the force; responsibility for managing it not necessarily delivering it. He ended up only being in this role for around two months because of his next role. It was at this point – August 2002 – which he was faced with the daunting and emotional challenge of being assigned as one of the family liaison officers for the Soham Murders. As the DS managing the crime courses, one of these was the Family Liaison Officer Course, he was seen as qualified to fulfil this difficult task. He spoke about the case with sensitivity because of the nature of the job in hand, but also with passion about how well the case was handled; not just by him or the force during the investigation, but also how well it was handled during the inquiry. Once the initial stages of the investigation were over he realised that he couldn’t go back to his old job, so continued with the ongoing investigation and inquiry; “……opportunities like this don’t come around.” He was very involved in handling all the sensitive disclosure of information; “….it was a very emotive role dealing with and engaging with the family.” He spoke very highly of working with the Home Officer, HMIC, Michael Bichard, and the senior officers involved. Despite this being an extremely stressful part of his career, he admitted to it being the most rewarding part of his career so far; “If I retire and that is all I have achieved, I will retire happy. I’ve got nothing else to prove!” Over the course of this period in his career, he felt that he learned a lot about himself but also he watched and learned from the senior officers involved. He watched how the then head of HMIC built up his relationship with the families; his positive approach and ability to communicate,

63

empathise and engage. However, during this time he also watched how there was another senior officer involved who didn’t have these skills; apparently they were only thinking of themselves and not the families. It was observed how this could have been damaging, and it was realised that keeping the media at bay is a very difficult job; “Damage that’s done by a lack of communication means you then have to work harder to put it right.” He talked about how it is important to understand people’s situations and being honest with these people; “If you lie, people find out…….. it is better to be up front about things.” Once the full investigation and inquiry were complete, he went back to his role as a DS. It was at this point he started to think ‘what next’ and needed to consider his work/life balance due to his personal situation changing. He admitted that he had taken his inspector exams during the Soham investigation but he hadn’t been successful. Now this stage in his career was complete, he decided the time was right to try again. To do this, he made an unpopular decision amongst his colleagues to relinquish his role as a DS and to become a PS, Custody Sergeant. He felt he had to do this to make studying for the exams easier; the shift work helped manage the work/life balance. It proved to be the right thing to do as this time he passed successfully. After completing part 1, he acted up as an inspector covering shifts working with different teams. This was good experience for him at the time because with the variety of managing the different teams, over time it could be easily identified what worked and what didn’t work; it was very reactive leadership rather than dealing with long term problems. During this time, it was seen that he was a good leader. The next promotion was to DI where he worked with a DCI who was on the old HPDS. This DCI viewed him as one of the stronger DIs and they developed a good working relationship. The DCI ensured that he was given plenty of development opportunities until a great opportunity within the HMIC came up for himself. This is where a big opportunity came about for the DCI to put in a proposal for the DI to act up as his replacement, thereby turning a development opportunity for the DCI into an opportunity for both of them. On reflection, he feels that if he hadn’t taken up this opportunity when he did, he would still be a DI. For 6 months he acted up as a DCI as crime manager. This role is regarded within the force as a very difficult role; “……it’s a standing joke you grey quickly!” It was a very steep learning curve, but he feels that knowing the division the role was in as well as he did – staff, criminals, area – provided him with a firm foundation to work upon. After 6 months the DCI returned to the role so he went back to being a DI, but this was only for a matter of weeks before he was asked to act up again as DCI for the Intel Bureau. An opportunity then arose for the next round of Chief Inspector promotions and he was encouraged to put himself forward by his DCI. In terms of his career path, it was sooner than he had planned, but he had proved he could do the role so why not! The promotion was successful and he was put as DCI in central division as the crime manager for 10 months. He then moved back to his first DCI role and has been there for around 18 months. When asked about why he is a DCI today, he strongly believes it is down to credibility; “Credibility is extremely important for any body to be recognised as a leader - you need to be able to speak from a position of knowledge, particularly in the crime side of policing.” He personally knows he would almost never have become DCI if he had never been a DS or DI. He believes as a credible DCI you need an individual who is confident in the role to be able to give confidence to the team. He admitted to not being ‘career hungry’ but feels he has progressed quite quickly because he had no particular role in mind but has demonstrated that he is good at what he does, this had been

64

recognised, so he took the next step; “I’ve been promoted on merit; I’m very proud of that.” In terms of undertaking any form of academic qualification, he said that there is no time with work and home life. In the future, he may consider it because he would like to increase his knowledge; the motivation would be for personal reasons not for career progression. In terms of HPDS or fast-track programmes in general, he spoke about how if you’re good at what you do, people will spot talent and allow these people to develop accordingly; that’s how he felt it has worked out for him. He realises this could be a subjective view because of it being seen as an ‘old boys network’ but he does his best to spot talent in his officers and help them develop and go for promotion regardless of this. From what he knows about HPDS, he feels that it is down to the individual to demonstrate whether or not it is the scheme that is working. One individual who is on the revised HPDS was apparently a DS for a short time and is now a DI. This person apparently is not seen as credible and is weak at leadership; they have been in various roles for too short a time so not being able to evidence what they do. The DCI feels that this is making HPDS look too much like a ‘tick box exercise’. He has heard that some individuals on the scheme are good, which is why he has come to the conclusion that it is down to the individual rather than the scheme. When talking about what makes a good leader, he spoke in detail about the importance of being seen, not just in meetings, but in general. He also said how giving a team empowerment and accountability helps motivate the individuals to do a good job by giving them more ownership of the tasks in hand. The issue of credibility was also talked about again; he spoke about the importance of making time to still go out and prove that you can do the job; “… you cannot underestimate the difference you make by spending time with them [the team].” Some poor leaders, he has found, tend to hide behind their rank; “Rank deserves respect and you need to earn that respect. It all comes back to credibility.” With regards to mentors, he has never formally had one. He has had unofficial mentors that he trusts and knows that he can confide in; “…..rather seek one out. I wouldn’t want one imposed on me.” The force has no mentoring scheme, but as a senior manager, he sees himself as one already by recognising talent and developing it. Looking into the future, he stressed how currently there are very few opportunities for at least the next 2-3 years. He realises that to continue to develop himself he may need to look at a sideways career move, but if the big promotion was to come along he knows that he would consider it for the challenge; “….if I think I can do it, then I would take the opportunity.”

65

CASE 4: Female acting DCI with 18 years in the police service. This police officer joined the service in 1992 as a shift PC with 10 GCSEs, 1 ‘A’ Level and 1 ‘AS’ Level. After her 2 year probation, she applied to join child protection but was unsuccessful so went into training where she ended up as top of the class. After another 2 years she became an acting sergeant in training for 2 years, before returning to shift work as a PC. At this point, she took her sergeant’s exams and became an acting sergeant until 2001. At this point she undertook a more strategic role at the force headquarters working on Best Value Corporate Performance. After this role, she spent a short amount of time as a promoted sergeant in uniform, before embarking on her current career in CID in the paedophile unit. Since moving to CID, she has spent 6 months undercover with the Met then she moved back to main CID office working in serious crime. In total at this point, she had been a DS for 12 years so she realised it was time to take her inspectors exams, coming fifth highest in the country in part 2. In 2007 she got a role acting up as a DI working in sexual offences where she earned various commendations for her leadership; nominated by ACPO for a British Association of Women Police award and a commendation for leadership bravery for undercover operations. In this area she then took on the management of domestic abuse, where 2 years into this role, the DCI left so she is now acting as DCI. Despite filling this role for around 2 years now, all inspector boards in her force have been suspended so she is still ‘temporary’ in the role. As a DI she spoke about how she struggled to get a position as a DCI because she found herself “surrounded by HPDS ‘leaders’…….they were automatically getting promoted”. It was her role working in the paedophile unit where her mentor saw something in her. He opened up an opportunity for her and pushed her to go for it. Without HPDS, it’s been hard to get promoted but because she has already taken her inspector’s exams, is now a substantive DI and has since been acting as a DCI, she now can’t apply for HPDS. HPDS had been suggested to her in the past (the old scheme), but she spoke about not having the confidence and belief in herself to go for it until she got her mentor a few years ago. At present, the only thing she feels she can do is keep her head down until a DCI post becomes available. This is all very unclear at the moment due to cuts in the numbers of DCIs in the force. She is doing her best in staying positive “especially in public view” and knows that she is in this role until April 2011, maybe December. She currently has a huge workload and is doing her best to make herself indispensable, but she is very aware of a DI working for her who is on the revised HPDS; her boss was on the old scheme. She does find in the force that people “don’t differentiate between the two.” In terms of her future, she knows it’s going to be a tough 4-5 years and all she can do is ‘wait and see’. She can’t transfer out of this force to another because of family so she knows that the only thing to do is consider sideways moves as a DI; without HPDS she knows that opportunities will be even more limited and that she is not the only one in this position. Her superintendent has made it publicly known that they want her as the permanent DCI, but the Chief Superintendent has said no because there is an HPDS person ‘ahead’ of her. She used the interview as an opportunity to also vent her frustrations with ACPO. She has been tasked with restructuring domestic abuse and has submitted 14 papers to ACPO in the last 18 months – not one decision has been made. She had observed that ACPO don’t appear to do detail; “…..in my world I need detail.” In her experience, most of ACPO is made up of officers who were part of the old HPDS and none of them are capable of making a decision. Her concern is that the revised scheme will produce police leaders for the future who are also unable to make decisions. Her

66

experience of the DI working for her at the moment is that they are also unable to make a decision; “As soon as he makes a decision they come up with a counter decision. He says he almost has too much knowledge.” She described how they over complicated issues and this also didn’t help with their ability to make decisions. There appears to be no evidence that this officer will change in time because she feels that their personality won’t support any improvement in this area. Her experience of both HPDS and ACPO so far is that there is “too much debate, too much talk and not enough action.” She questioned why no one seems to take the lead and be bold in taking more risks. Police leaders who have been through HPDS and are now in positions where decisions need to be made are being far too risk averse, too academic with not enough practical policing being applied. The HPDS individual that she knows well is not regarded by others as a credible police officer. The superintendent was making them ‘flit’ from post to post but she has managed to advise and persuade them to stay in this current role for longer to help with this credibility issue. She feels that the theory of moving officers around is wrong; “….. they need to prove themselves for the professions sake. They need to learn the trade.” Whilst having the conversation, she reflected back that maybe HPDS should not be based on rank but maybe it should be based on time; time and with that, credibility within the police service. She said that maybe it should be based on a minimum of 5 years in the police, when constables would be considering their sergeants exams. When people start in the police as a PC, some are not interested in grounding, but are more interested in rank; she feels this myth needs to be dispelled and HPDS is not helping. Outside of her force, she has recently met some other HPDS participants on the new scheme; she’s not been impressed with them all. Some, she said are good, but others just don’t have the credibility; there’s no confidence in their personalities, in their presence or their attitudes. One particular officer stood out because they admitted to failing their inspector’s exams which is why their force supported them to apply for HPDS. This has not helped the acting DCI when she knows that she was top 5 in the country with her part 2 inspector’s exam and she is now not eligible for HPDS, which in turn is her only opportunity of promotion because of the cuts! Because she is not HPDS she is trapped – her morale and motivation is low. Referring to HPDS as a fast-track programme she feels that there is far too much emphasis on ‘fast’. It should be more about development not fast promotion. Most roles require at least 18 months to 2 years to build knowledge, experience and credibility, except maybe a strategic role which she feels can be for around 12 months. Summarising what she thinks make a good police leader, the first thing she mentioned was honesty; “….. no waffle – straight talking.” Underrated characteristics included charisma and the ability to speak to people at all levels without intimidating the lower ranks. As she has already mentioned, leaders should be able to take measured risks and make decisions. A leader should also be able show that they empathise and care about their staff; she admitted to doing this with her team by making sure she has one-to-one meetings every month and ensuring that she is approachable to help with any personal issues that may be arising. As a leader, she has learnt from others not to show frustrations in front of your team; not to be rude or aggressive. “The worst thing that a leader can do is not listen. It’s important to make time to talk to people and make yourself available.”

67

ANALYSIS

In October 2010, Jane’s Police Review reported that officers on HPDS achieved a 95% pass rate in their Ospre Part 1 Inspector’s promotion exam; officers with less than 5 years experience achieved a pass rate of almost 76%. Officers with more than 21 years experience were only achieving a pass rate of 34%. This is good news for officers on HPDS, but for the officers with significant ‘experience’ it doesn’t look so good. These pass rates appear to contradict the results of the evaluation research undertaken, where most of the officers interviewed, HPDS or not, commented on ‘doing your time’ before you go for promotion but it may be that there is a limit to the amount of experience necessary for learning or acquiring wisdom: in effect Aristotle may be right, it is not that wisdom is correlated with experience (the longer the experience the wiser the individual) but with learning, and that learning may never occur despite a long period of experience. Doing your time! “Promotion too quickly can cause an officer to trade their integrity for that promotion.” Overall, one of the main messages coming out of the research was that HPDS wasn’t necessarily structured to enhance the credibility of fast-track officers. In the past, HPDS was regarded as more of an ‘old boy’s network’ which provided officers with a ‘rubber stamp’ to fast promotion up the ranks; officers were deemed by many outside the scheme as being promoted too soon. With officers being in a position or rank for such a short time, it wasn’t giving them the level of experience that was seen as necessary by other colleagues to warrant a movement up the ranks. The revised scheme seems to be mirroring this ‘6 months here, 6 months there’ fast-track method; which again leads colleagues in their forces to treat it with cynicism and a lack of respect. HPDS officers are still being judged as destabilizing forces for their teams, which, in some cases, is discouraging them from telling people that they are on HPDS; they are aware that HPDS can lead to slight alienation and doesn’t help with building relationships and social networks. And if personal success is rooted in the power of these networks then the temporary nature of HPDS duties is very problematic. To overcome this ‘butterflying’ between roles and help HPDS officers gain the relevant experience in posts, a DCC at one of the forces involved is ensuring that his HPDS officers remain in a position for at least 2 years. Another acting DCI has advised her HPDS DI not to move around so much, but consolidate her experiences. By doing this, the HPDS officers are able to get to know the team, implement any changes and then be accountable for these changes over a longer time frame. Any less than 2 years is not allowing officers to learn from potential issues that could arise through implementing change; this is critical because learning from your own mistakes is a large part of personal development. The non-HPDS officers who were interviewed all stressed that learning whilst doing the job is one of the reasons that they feel they are strong leaders of their teams today. Officers being in a post for a short time frame gave the old HPDS a negative reputation, and it is now not helping with local or national support for the new revised scheme. Non-HPDS officers are commenting how HPDS officers and the scheme overall are not respected: HPDS is not understood. How can damage limitation and support be improved for the revised HPDS? Understanding of the ‘new’ HPDS Time and again during the research HPDS officers were concerned about the lack of support and understanding they were receiving from their forces. Whether or not this is because of the ‘myths’ and gossip linked to the old version of the scheme, or if it is genuinely because of a lack of understanding of the differences between now and then, it is evident that significant work needs to be completed around the area of improving understanding across the police forces of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

68

One inspector did comment on their force supporting HPDS, but they questioned whether or not this was because of the scheme, their time in the police – credibility – or their personal conduct and overall promotion of the scheme within their force. Many believe it is a lack of understanding by the force of the revised scheme. With this appearing to be the case, then, this lack of understanding will not be promoting the scheme in the correct format to other police officers; if officers on the scheme are not being supported, then this is not giving a good impression to others. Despite HPDS meeting with officers’ expectations as a whole, the disappointment of where expectation was not met was predominantly from the forces. The challenge with this area is that there are 43 forces offering varying degrees of support to the scheme, which is leading to a mix of opinion, reputation and credibility for the scheme. NPIA have got DAs in place to try and overcome some of these issues, but there is obvious frustration from both officers and the DAs, that although some progress has been made in some forces, there are other forces where HPDS is not observed as being on the force’s ‘list of priorities’. Officers on the scheme, and others that have been through the selection process, agreed that the lack of support from the force is the underlying problem with HPDS. The main stakeholder involved with HPDS who has the ability to increase the understanding of HPDS is ACPO. Several officers felt that ACPO is too detached from HPDS and saw it as their role to be more proactive in the scheme. Each force has a member of ACPO who is the HPDS lead. These lead figures should be held more accountable for ensuring that the revised HPDS is more accurately communicated through the various ranks of the force, using the current members of the scheme as positive examples to show that it is open for all; not just graduates, the middle class or members of the ‘elite club’. Relevance of the learning Despite all HPDS officers interviewed expressing how they are far more confident, more strategic and objective, more able to break down barriers, etc. a big area discussed was that of the relevance of learning to the rank of officers applying and being selected for HPDS. The general feeling amongst all ranks interviewed, including the constables and non-HPDS officers, is that to benefit from the type of learning and apply it into professional policing, applicants needed to be sergeants or inspectors. The constables on HPDS all seem to be gaining confidence and knowledge, but this knowledge and associated skills are not being consolidated and applied into the day job. There should be a concern here that all of the hard work that these individuals are putting into the scheme now will all be forgotten in the long term; with the way that modern policing is changing, will it be relevant in the long term? There is potential that HPDS for constables with very few years in the service is just going to become ‘dead knowledge’. A couple of the constables are very aware of this saying that in hindsight they would have waited a few years before applying. Those who were substantive sergeants or recently promoted inspectors have found the learning very beneficial. It has helped them open doors to access and be more involved in strategic projects, working with senior ACPO officers and working with other public service partners. One officer raised a very interesting point in terms of officers who have the underlying potential to become inspectors tend to attain this rank purely on their own merit maybe by showing ‘natural leadership’. It is possibly from this point onwards in an officer’s career that they should be considered for leadership development. It was also discussed that HPDS has helped inspectors on the scheme to ‘buy credibility’ but it was felt that at lower ranks it could have ‘lowered their

69

credibility’ by undermining the need for experience, in turn damaging reputations of the individual and HPDS within their force. The learning needs to be consolidated; this can only be done if the position is right, the experience and therefore credibility is right, and the correct support is in place to bolster it. One recently promoted inspector felt that 95% of the learning was too strategic for the constables and less experienced members of the cohort. A thorough grounding in professional policing is required to ensure that the application of the learning is applied to benefit the service and the force, and also the reputation of HPDS. It’s more than networking….. All HPDS officers interviewed have found the social impact of the scheme one of the most beneficial elements so far; the ability to talk to like-minded people who are undergoing the experiences, emotions and issues, both professionally and personally, seems to have helped some of them see these issues from another’s perspective, or even to realize that what appear to be private problems are actually common to many. Whether it was talking through an academic theory and applying it into professional policing, or asking how someone has overcome a more private matter, the socialising over a coffee or a beer, sitting down for dinner, or a conversation over the phone, has been described as ‘more than networking’: Is it friendship, is it a group of confidantes, is it informal mentoring? Whatever it is seems to be helping officers manage and cope with their careers in the police service. The ALS which have been set up for the officers to expand on this type of socialisation and networking, don’t seem to be achieving their full potential, especially now the consolidation period is upon them. The success stories, where the individuals seem to be proactively driving the arrangements, will no doubt continue into the consolidation period and ensure that these strong bonds that have been developed continue into the future. There should be concern, however, for the ALS that are not being so well managed and the reasons why they are not needs to be addressed. Overall more guidance should be communicated to HPDS officers giving them a structure or formula on how best to gain momentum for these sessions, without them turning into ‘moaning sessions’ of general ‘chit chats’. Here is an area where the DAs can help with the groups who are maybe not being so imaginative and help them continue with this style of learning through this ‘networking but more’. The individuals – image, exposure, self promotion “If you are a complete idiot you could very easily give HPDS a negative reputation. A lot of its reputation is on the individual ultimately.” From all of the interviews and research conducted, there is an obvious lack of understanding of the revised HPDS and a perception about the people who are on the scheme. To find out more around the ‘gossip’ of the various opinions of the individuals and the scheme itself, various chat rooms were briefly reviewed; the information posted was similar to the views gathered by interview and questionnaire: “It’s for high flyers who are extremely clever and are looking at getting away from real policing asap.” (posted 1 May 2010) “I have never seen anyone on accelerated promotion that was actually a decent street copper to start off with…” (posted 13 May 2010)

70

“It speaks volumes about what’s required to get up the ranks.” (posted 29 May 2010) “…..knowing 3 HPDS members, I can say that they are all poor leaders with very poor interpersonal skills and little grasp of operational matters. Hopefully they are not representative of everyone on the scheme.” (posted 5 March 2010) There were some supportive comments but even those were alluding to a ‘stigma’ being attached to the scheme and individuals involved. To overcome this stigma, there are some officers on the revised scheme who are positively self-promoting and ensuring that they are properly represented to their colleagues. HPDS is being seen by a few as a tool of opportunity; it’s an ‘unlocked door which is slightly ajar’ where it is up to the individual to ‘negotiate’ their way through this door and manage their own careers. Others are not interpreting HPDS in the same way and are therefore fuelling some of the gossip and negativity surrounding the scheme by appearing to be aloof, arrogant and self-important. HPDS officers need to apply their new found confidence and political awareness, knowledge and other skills that they are taking from HPDS and continue to be advocates in helping ensure that overtime, they constructively promote and encourage a better understanding of HPDS throughout their forces. With the help of ACPO, DAs and a more positive self-image, this will continue to quash rumours about it being for the ‘elite club’. The big promotion freeze! In a recent copy of Police Review (4 February 2011), there is an article titled ‘Locked in Limbo’ which talks about the situation the police forces across the UK find themselves in with regards to suspending promotions. It immediately echoes many of the comments that were raised by a handful of the HPDS officers interviewed, and all of the comments around promotion that were raised by non-HPDS officers. A quote from this article highlights the potential developments of resentment that are becoming more common across the forces that have put a freeze on promotion. “I have passed my Ospre Part I and II and I have nine years of front-line policing shift work [experience], but there is no chance of promotion [in force] for the next three years, yet officers on the HPDS with two years’ service are getting promoted ahead of me. Why bother?” Three weeks later Sgt Richard Heslop was quoted in the same publication saying that promotion in West Yorkshire Police was ‘now only available to the “handful” of officers on the higher potential development scheme’ (Blain, 2011: 19). This is also echoed in Case 4 of the non-HPDS officers interviewed; her case demonstrating how experience and obvious talent has almost been penalised because she is unable to apply for HPDS as a substantive inspector. One of her officers – on the HPDS - will be the only person now considered for the DCI role she is currently acting in. HPDS, and now the suspension of promotion, has caused her career to stall; there is nothing she can proactively do about it. It is almost certain that she is not the only officer who finds their career in this difficult situation during these difficult times. Other non-HPDS officers are also demonstrating a high risk of becoming demoralised and de-motivated: “…….without there being any opportunities on the horizon for a long time, I have begun job hunting outside of the police.” “The lucky few are given opportunities that others are not.” “……..HPDS are prioritised when promotion places are available. So if you are a non-HPDS promotion candidate and have been waiting for a year for a spot, you can expect the HPDS candidate to jump the queue. I will let you judge whether that is fair or not…!” (posted 5 March 2010)

71

“I feel I am stuck and unable to progress.” “I have begun to feel that the police is a dead end job.” The HPDS officers who are experiencing promotion ahead of their colleagues appear to be handling it in different ways. One inspector has done their best to demonstrate their work ethic and prove how hard they are working alongside HPDS to ensure they retain respect from their colleagues. They feel that they have done this well, although they did admit to not knowing what was being said behind their back. Others are just not telling their teams and colleagues that they are HPDS; although in smaller forces everyone knows who is on the scheme anyway. In the Police Review article (4 February 2011), Peter Fahy, the chief constable of GMP and ACPO lead on workforce development has acknowledged the situation as ‘a huge problem’. Others have been quoted commenting on the difficulties that are arising out of recognition, reward and remuneration if opportunities of promotion are no longer available. Some senior officers are doing their best to ensure their officers are encouraged to think more positively about the situation and take on lateral development opportunities. In the case of the acting DCI in case 4, she has said she will try to do this, but knowing that a less experienced DI who she has been informally mentoring will ‘leap frog’ her for the role she is currently doing could potentially be soul-destroying. Irene Curtis, vice-president of the Superintendents’ Association has stressed in the article how that officers’ in the police force today expect promotion, and with the current situations that forces are finding themselves in, this ‘automatic promotion’ culture needs to end (Police Review, 21 January 2011). She was quoted in commenting how 25 years ago you only got promotion with experience (8-12 years); now the perception is if you are keen it will happen in less than 4 years. In addition to this experience issue, Simon Ash, ACPO lead for reward and recognition and chief constable of Suffolk, concluded the article saying that the police service will always need leaders of the highest standard at all levels. With regards to the research evaluating HPDS, is this all about credibility or is leadership development the answer?

72

Further analysis – the role of the stakeholders There are fundamentally 3 levels to HPDS: the National level, the Local level and the Individual level. Within each of these areas, there are stakeholders involved that cross over into each level. Having looked closely at the evidence gained from the interviews on how HPDS is developing over time, the 3 levels and 7 stakeholders involved are shown in figure 1 below. Fig.1 3 levels of HPDS and their Inter-relationships

The Development Adviser (DA) appears to be at the centre of the 3 levels. Although employed by NPIA, they are the connection between all of the levels and evidence shows that they could be used more proactively and their role could be utilised to better improve relations between the force and the individual, as well as the force and NPIA. It has been observed that ACPO could become more involved in HPDS and they appear to be the link to ensuring that senior managers within the police forces are better advised and educated in terms of how the revised HPDS is now structured and what it is designed to achieve (especially regarding the consolidation period). It was identified that the lack of understanding by these senior and middle managers was preventing the relevant support and opportunities for the HPDS officers. If middle managers are not seen to be supporting the revised scheme, then this can easily continue to feed the negative reputation and opinion that is held amongst many non-HPDS officers. The allocation or self-selection of mentors appears to be an area that there appears to be some success but there are issues. Mentors need to be willing and supportive, but also they need to understand the revised HPDS. The force should provide willing mentors with the correct advice to continue the required relationship from the HPDS officer. There appears to be benefit in allowing a degree of self-selection for mentors; trust and similar values being amongst the supporting evidence for this. The partnership between NPIA and WBS is in place to ensure all the learning received by the individuals’ is relevant and up-to-date. So far feedback has been very good relating to how this partnership is working out from the position of the participants on the scheme. There are obvious benefits experienced by the HPDS officers and except for the issue of it being too early in a constables’ career being raised by most, it seems to be providing all officers involved with the tools to become well developed strategic leaders of the future; but what about this issue of credibility?

Mentor

NATIONAL NPIA

INDIVIDUAL HPDS Officer

LOCAL Force

ACPO

DA

WBS

73

Analysis – a damaging reputation? In an organisational culture, it is hard to eradicate the ‘canteen gossip’ based on rumours and exaggerated stories. As is the case with stories, they travel around an organisation and tend to stay, they cross boundaries and get exaggerated. In the past not enough attention has been paid to what employees within an organisation tend to ‘gossip’ about, but there are vital clues that can be drawn upon experiences that reveal the true extent to what people actually believe within an organisation (Gabriel, 1994); this is what has been happening over the years with regards to the reputation and interpretation of HPDS. It is not just affecting the credibility of the individuals on the programme, but also the credibility of the programme itself. Evidence shows that the individuals are gaining from HPDS, but due to the gossip and rumour that has developed over time, their credibility is being undermined. Therefore several recommendations are being put forward to overcome these rumours and opinions, and improve the overall credibility of HPDS.

74

[THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

75

RECOMMENDATIONS How can NPIA and the other stakeholders improve the credibility of HPDS; for the individual and the scheme itself? Selection It has been evidenced by both HPDS and non-HPDS officers that recruiting constables onto the scheme has not necessarily been benefiting the forces. This has also been causing some interesting debate as to whether or not selection should be rank-based or time-based. To avoid the issues of latent knowledge, lack of respect from peers and improve the credibility of the scheme and HPDS officers, it is recommended that consideration should be paid to increasing the selection criteria to a minimum of sergeant and maximum of inspector at the time of application or a minimum of five years in the service. There are obviously situations where an officer shows early talent of being an effective leader; with relevant support from senior officers, there could be the occasional constable who would benefit from the learning experience, but only if their sergeants’ exams have been completed to ensure learning remains relevant. Development One of the issues affecting the officers involved with the old scheme, that seems to have continued into the revised scheme, is the problem with flitting from post to post, and promotion too quickly. Focusing on promotion and being described as a ‘fast-track scheme’ is not the answer; it should focus more on being a development scheme. Not allowing officers the time to consolidate, learn from their successes and mistakes, be accountable, and build on their professional policing is damaging overall credibility. It is recommended that to support both the HPDS officers and the scheme, DAs, mentors and ACPO leads should all agree on a minimum timeframe that individuals should remain in post. It has been evidenced by a couple of forces that around 18 months to 2 years is about right in terms of consolidation and taking responsibility for any change or processes that have been implemented by an individual. Support and understanding There are some senior and middle managers who are more aware of the failures of the old scheme and are brandishing the revised scheme with these failures. This is therefore causing difficulties for HPDS scheme members. Better understanding by these managers of the perception that HPDS is now ‘hard to get on, hard to stay on’ could help with improving and slowly stopping negative gossip and rumour. To improve the perception of ACPO, along with the understanding and support networks required to improve the credibility of the revised HPDS, it is recommended that the ACPO Leads in each force are better positioned to ensure that senior and middle managers, especially mentors, better understand the requirements of their roles for the revised programme. This in turn should translate into better support for HPDS officers as well as officers who want to apply in the future. The strong message needs to be that anyone can apply – it is almost becoming HPDS ‘folklore’ it is just for the intelligent, middle class, old boys’ network: This needs to be stopped. This support also extends to the current HPDS participants and the overall support of their DAs - their abilities, knowledge and support of the programme - should be utilised to help them self-promote themselves and make other officers realise that it is not just for the elite. The DAs have been struggling and fighting some forces. There is the thought that their role needs to be more enhanced to give them more power in supporting the officers on the scheme. The recommendation for increasing visible support and better understanding of who can apply for HPDS, and the support they will get throughout, has the potential of improving the overall credibility of the scheme and the individuals on it. By them demonstrating how much hard work it is, the ‘if I

76

can do it, then you can do it’ attitude could help defuse some of the resentment that appears to brewing in some forces. The future – further evaluation Despite the many leadership development programmes that exist, there are very few where any longitudinal research has been implemented to gauge the results of any investment made. The ability to access participants of these programmes and longitudinally evaluate the benefits to them as individuals along with the benefits to the organisation, does not just improve the structure and input over time, but can also provide evidence in supporting future programmes and development. The revisiting of some of the HPDS officers so far could help in assessing how the knowledge and skills gained through HPDS have been applied over time: Have constables managed to apply their learning? Do officers on the scheme finally achieve superintendent? These are questions that can only be answered through longitudinal research, preferably in conjunction with an evaluation of the effects of all prior ‘fast track’ schemes. In response to the evaluation so far, many of the officers interviewed – HPDS and non-HPDS – have commented how they found the process of being interviewed cathartic and reflective; it gave them the opportunity to talk openly and honestly about their own personal experiences. It was common for them to express how looking at things more critically was giving them more awareness of how much they had developed and how their careers were taking shape since joining the police. The recommendation would be that a further round of interviews would be undertaken with the same group in around 18 months or two years time to see how much had been achieved. It would also be highly valuable if this could then be repeated over the course of 8 years to gain an insight into the effectiveness of the scheme. This would ideally be undertaken by a semi-independent interviewer who has an overarching understanding of the scheme as well as the police in general.

77

CONCLUSION HPDS does seem to be a scheme that is working, at least in the short run and at least as far as Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 & 2 evaluation formats are concerned; level 3 & 4 may take a little longer to emerge though there are already some individual examples of development. However, if Aristotle is right then it may be more appropriate to rethink the level at which the scheme is positioned: it may be that since constables cannot demonstrate the use of theory in practice that the bar ought to be raised to sergeants and inspectors. This is also important for the reputation of HPDS and all those in it. The crucial criteria for success in the police seems to be credibility: if the individuals on the scheme are adjudged by others as using the scheme just to secure rapid promotion at a time when promotion for all others has virtually ended, then the credibility of the scheme will be damaged. HPDS can provide its people with the confidence to lead and the conviction to manage, but the wisdom to deploy these two depends upon the accumulation of experience – reflective practice. HPDS, then, should be reconfigured as a development programme, not a promotion scheme. There are, of course, many issues raised in the research that also need attention: the reputation of the old scheme not being a positive spring board for the revised scheme, HPDS officers who are not positively promoting themselves, a lack of understanding amongst senior and middle managers in the local force, ACPO not playing a bigger role, are all contributing to the reputation of what is fundamentally a very good development tool and opportunity for gaining knowledge from beyond professional policing to help enhance the ability of future police leaders.

78

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000), Doing Critical Management Research. (London: Sage). Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley). Aristotle (1998) Nicomachean Ethics. (London: Dover). Blain, M. (2011), ‘Opportunity Knocks’ Jane’s Police Review 25 February. Bryman, A. (2004), Social Research Methods. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Bryman, A & Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods. (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Burgoyne, J, Hirsh, W, and, Williams, S, 2004, The development of management and leadership capability and its contribution to performance: the evidence, the prospects and the research need. (London: Department for Education and Skills). Flvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gabriel, Y. (2004). ‘Narratives, stories and texts’ in Grant D, Hardy C, Oswick C and Putnam L (eds) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. (London: Sage). Grint, K. (2005a), ‘Problems, Problems, Problems: The Social Construction of Leadership’, Human Relations 58(11): 1467–94. Grint, K. (2005b), Leadership: Limits and Possibilities. (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Grint, K. (2008), Learning to Lead: Can Aristotle Help Us Find the Road to Wisdom? Leadership 3(2): 211–226 Halverson, R., & Gomez, L. (2001), ‘Phronesis and Design: How Practical Wisdom Is

Disclosed through Collaborative Design’. Paper presented at the 2001 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.

Higgins, C. (2003), ‘From Reflective Practice to Practical Wisdom: Three Models of Liberal Teacher Education’, Philosophy of Education. Available at: http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/2001/higgins%2001.pdf

Jones, O. (2011), The Three Fates of Leadership Development (Unpublished PhD, Cranfield University). Kearns, P, 2007, Evaluating the ROI from learning: how to develop value-based training. (London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development). Kessels, J. P., & Korthagen, F. A. (1996), ‘The Relationship between Theory and Practice’, Educational Researcher 25(3): 17–22. Kirkpatrick, D, 2006, Evaluating training programs: the four levels. (San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers). Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Meaklim, T. and Sims, J. (2011), ‘Leading Powerful Partnerships – a new model of public sector leadership development’, The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services 7(1): 21- 31. Rosenzweig, P. 2007, The Halo Effect. (London: Simon & Schuster).

Weick, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organisations. (London: Sage).

79

APPENDIX - Questionnaire to non-HPDS Stage 3 applicants

NPIA High Potential Development Scheme (HPDS)

Evaluation Research Questionnaire 2011 Personal Information Please circle the answer most appropriate to you: Age: 18-21 22-25 26-30 31-36 37-41 42-47 48-53 54 onwards Gender: Male Female Ethnicity: White British Irish Other White Background (please specify) ……………………………………… Black or Black British Caribbean African Other Black Background (please specify) ………………………………………. Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Other Asian Background (please specify) ………………………………………. Mixed White & Black Caribbean White & Black African White & Black Asian Other mixed background (please specify) …………………………………….. Chinese or other Chinese Any other background (please specify) …………………………………………. Rank: (Please specify) ……………………………………………………………………. Time in the police: 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years 26 years + Highest Academic Qualification achieved: (Please specify)………………………………………………………………… Last police/NPIA training course or examination attended/attained: (Please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

80

Section 1

1. Why did you initially apply for the HPD Scheme? Using a scale of 1-5, where 5 is a great deal and 1 is not at all, please indicate the extent to which, if at all, the following reasons influenced your decision to apply. 5-1 I was nominated by line manager It was my personal choice I wanted the academic qualification(s) I wished for a ‘fast-track‘ programme for promotion For meeting and networking with other officers from other forces I felt I needed more exposure I wanted to expand my personal experiences I knew I needed to become more strategically aware The challenge! Increase the potential for future membership of ACPO Easier access to senior managers I wanted to build my personal confidence I wanted to become more politically aware about the organisation I needed to learn new ways of doing things To help implement and be part of future change I wanted to become more influential Understanding other public sector organisations To become a better leader

81

Section 2

The Selection Process It consisted of 3 stages: Stage 1 – Application; Stage 2 – Situational Judgement Test and Written Exercises; Stage 3 – Assessment Centre. Please circle the answer most relevant to your experience.

2. How did you find the overall selection process?

Unfair

Fair

Very Fair

Comments:

3. During Stage 2, how relevant did you find the various written tests?

None were relevant 1 or 2 were relevant All had some Relevance

All were very relevant

Comments:

4. Was the guidance given for these tests clear and concise?

Not clear Some instructions were clear

Clear and concise Very clear and concise

Comments:

5. The stage 3 assessment centre; how relevant did you find the group exercises?

None were relevant Some of them were relevant

Most of them were relevant

All were very relevant

Comments:

82

6. How useful was the feedback you received after the selection process?

Not useful Some of it was useful Most of it was useful

All of it was very useful

Comments:

7. Have you used any of this feedback to help you develop yourself further?

No; it wasn’t useful No; haven’t bothered Yes; a small part Yes; most of it

Comments:

8. During the entire process, in your opinion, were all aspects of diversity met?

No

Yes Maybe No comment

Comments:

9. Was the overall guidance and advice from NPIA useful in helping you with your application?

Not useful Some of it was useful Most of it was useful

All of it was very useful

Comments:

10. Did your force provide you with useful advice and support during your application?

Not useful Some of it was useful Most of it was useful

All of it was very useful

Comments:

83

11. Although this process was some time ago, on reflection, do you have any general comments to make about your experiences of the overall selection process?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Section 3

The last 2 years……. Please circle the answer most appropriate to you:

12. Have you been promoted during the last 2 years?

No

12.1 If no, have you completed your next promotion exams?

No Yes

Yes

Comments:

13. How supportive has your ‘line manager’ been in your career progression?

Not very supportive Supportive at times Generally supportive

Very supportive

Comments:

14. How supportive has your force been in your career progression?

Not very supportive Supportive at times Generally supportive

Very supportive

Comments:

15. Do you have a mentor?

No

15.1 If no, would you appreciate a mentor?

Yes

15.3 If yes, did you choose them yourself or

84

No Yes

15.2 Please comment why?

were they allocated to you? Allocated chose myself 15.4 Please comment why

Comments:

16. On reflection, are you happy with where you are in your career?

No

Yes

Please expand on the reasons for your answer:

Section 4 Your future in the police Please circle the answer most appropriate to you:

17. Are you confident that there are opportunities for promotion over the next 2-3 years?

Don’t wish to be promoted

No promotion opportunities

Some promotion opportunities

Promotion is certain

Comments:

18. What are your aspirations for the next 5-10 years?

85

Section 5 HPDS in general Please complete the following questions in the spaces provided:

19. Can you please comment below how you perceive HPDS within your force?

20. Can you please comment on how you feel your colleagues perceive HPDS within your force?