Table of Contents Leadership Course: Supplemental Documents

Character Statement…………………………………………………………………………………... page 1 Acceptance of Character Statement…………………………………………………………………... page 2 Styles/Types of Leadership…………………………………………………………………………… page 3 CIS Supervisor and Commander Memo……………………………………………………………. page 4-6 Prelude to ‘Message to Garcia’……………………………………………………………………. page 7-11 A Message to Garcia……………………………………………………………………………... page 12-14 Leadership versus Management………………………………………………………………….. page 15-16 Managers vs. Leaders…………………………………………………………………………….. page 17-18 On Balancing Performance and Perception in Community-Based Organizations……………….. page 19-24 Resisting the Illusory Mindset of “Efficiency” While Providing Public Safety…………………. page 25-39 Who is it That I Work With Every Day?…………………………………………………………….. page 40

Character Statement By K.C. Poulin, President and CEO of CIS Critical Intervention Services (CIS) is an elite forerunner in the security industry. This is signified by a history of success hallmarked by individual integrity and organizational pursuit of excellence. Our mission statement is: “The staff of Critical Intervention Services is dedicated to providing each client with the finest quality of protective services available.” “Our commitment and dedication to professionalism, ethical and protocol conscious service is our trademark.” “Preserving, projecting and protecting our clients’ image and interest is our business.” To fulfill the mission statement and maintain our success, CIS is looking for employees who have the ability to achieve, the responsibility to proceed and the leadership to influence others. Our approach to meeting our clients’ needs is known as Community and the Character Based Protection Initiative (CCBPI). Character is the single most important trait in a CIS employee. Character includes integrity, honesty, loyalty, which are the trademarks of our agency. At the very foundation of our success is the honorable conduct of all who represent us. If you meet our standards of character and excellence and wish to become a part of our team of professionals, your potential to succeed will be limited only by your self-determination. We expect commitment to excellence from you and, in return, you will receive unwavering support from us.

-- CONFIDENTIAL -- Revised: 090608

CIS Acceptance of Character Statement -- CONFIDENTIAL -- Page 1 of 1

CRITICAL INTERVENTION SERVICES

Acceptance of Character Statement

CHARACTER STATEMENT

Critical Intervention Services, (CIS) is an elite forerunner in the security industry. This is signified by a history of success hallmarked by individual integrity and organizational pursuit of excellence. Our mission statement is:

"The staff of Critical Intervention Services is dedicated to providing each client with the finest quality of protective services available. Our commitment and dedication to professional, ethical and protocol conscious service is our trademark. Preserving, projecting and protecting our clients' image and interests is our business."

To fulfill the mission statement and maintain our success, CIS is looking for employees who have the ability to achieve, the responsibility to proceed and the leadership to influence others. Our approach to meeting our clients' needs is known as Community and Character Based Protection Initiative (CCBPI). Character is the single most important trait in a CIS employee. Character includes integrity, honesty and loyalty, which are the trademarks of our agency. At the very foundation of our success is the honorable conduct of all who represent us.

If you meet our standards of character and excellence and wish to become a part of our team of professionals, your potential to succeed will be limited only by your self-determination. We expect commitment to excellence from you and, in return, you will receive unwavering support from us.

I, _______________________________, understand, accept, and agree to abide by the “CIS Character Statement” as expressed above. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_____ day of ____________2011, by ________________________________________________________ Applicant/Employee Signature ___________________________________________________ (SEAL OR STAMP) Notary Public Signature ___________________________________________________ Print, Type or Stamp Name of Notary Personally Known____________________________________ Or Produced Identification______________________ Type of Identification Produced_________

Styles/Types of Leadership By K.C. Poulin, President and CEO of CIS Visionary: Crystal clear vision, future-oriented, idealistic, not easily discouraged, would die to fulfill vision; indefatigable energy for vision; faith to believe vision can and will be actualized if the dream is communicated and discussed enough Directional: Uncanny ability to select the right path when it is approaching a critical intersection; sorts through options, carefully assessing values, mission, people, strengths and weaknesses; willingness to change; wisdom Strategic: Ability to break vision down to a series of sequential, achievable steps so an organization can march in step to the actualization of the vision; forms game plans that everyone understands; challenges to "work the plan" and gets parts together (in sync) Managing: Ability in organizing people, processes, systems and resources for mission achievements; monitors and establishes appropriate mile markers on the road to achievement of the mission; feels satisfaction in achieving mission/goals Motivational: Ability to keep teammates inspired; insight to needs of teammates; encourages and doesn't get bitter or vengeful when moral ebbs; it's a challenge to come up with new ways to motivate Shepherding: Slowly builds teams, and loves, nurtures, supports, encourages and prays for teammates so much that the mission is accomplished almost through goodwill built in the team members; loves people into an earnest desire to do something together; reaches people who are starved for community Team-Building: Knows vision and plan for achieving it; supernatural insight into people to find the "right" people with the "right" abilities with the "right" character with the "right" relationships with other team members to put the "right" positions for the "right" reasons who will produce the "right" results; Clear Vision, stranglehold on strategy; might not nurture or manage well; right people/rights skills Entrepreneurial: Boundless energy, risk-taker; cannot provide steady, continued management; might possess any of the other styles; loves to be in the "start-up" mode and has to be involved with something new; Pioneer, something inside of them dies if they aren't involved with something new Re-engineering: Turnaround environment enthusiasm; revitalizes hurting organizations; may or may not want to manage long-term; looking for other overhaul possibilities

Bridge-Building: Ability to bring a variety of constituent groups together under one umbrella of leadership so a complex organization may achieve its mission; negotiates, brings everyone together; loves relating to a huge diversity of people; lifts vision of subleaders to bring the whole vision together; best friend and advocate of all various groups; seeks to unite groups into a "win-win" situation; political/electoral style

� Page 1

To: All Supervisors and Commanders

From: K.C. Poulin, President and CEO

CC: All Executive Staff

Date: January 24, 2000

Re: CIS Supervision

Now that you have been promoted to Command status – what does that mean exactly? I’ll tell

you what it means from my perspective. It means that you are expected to go out there and

not only be the professional that we know you are (which is obvious due to the positions that

you are in right now), but also to make everybody under you as professional as you. Your

responsibilities are to ensure that every officer under your care meets the standards set forth by

this agency, mandated by me, by those of our profession and by state. It is your responsibility

to ensure that the personnel under you follow each and every rule and every regulation that is

laid out for them, without allowing your friendships to interfere with discipline and the

professional performance of duties by all CIS employees. Cutting corners, or not following

through with duties and responsibilities as a supervisor is just simply not acceptable. You

have this agency’s liability, its reputation and its future in your hands determined by your

actions or your inactions. This is a tremendous responsibility.

That’s what it means on the surface, but it’s much more than that. I want you to set the tone

for supervisors well into the future. I want you to set the professionalism and the personality,

just as the officers did in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 and as they do today in the year 2000.

Supervisors set that tone and personality that CIS is known for.

CIS Directive Memo

� Page 2

When people think CIS, they think of a certain type of person, especially when they think

about a CIS supervisor. When a CIS officer thinks of a CIS supervisor, I want him or her to

have an image in his or her mind that says first and foremost, that there is honor in that person,

as without honor there is nothing. The first character trait is honor. Officers have to see that

there is honor in that CIS supervisor, in everything that s/he does, in decision capabilities, in

assessments and in the way the supervisor deals with people. Then and only then can the

word integrity breathe and get in and take hold as part of the personality I want you to create.

Integrity has got to be the cornerstone of the supervision style that CIS portrays. Integrity is

simply the cornerstone of personal character and it will not be negotiated. If you don’t know

integrity, if you don’t know the meaning of integrity, I suggest you look it up because it needs

to become synonymous with you.

The next characteristic that must exist in the command style is truth; I want you to set the

standard of truth so that it becomes embedded into the future of CIS’s command structure.

But make no mistake, both integrity and truth must be well refined to support each other, as

without integrity, there can be no truth. Truth has got to be the foundation, the end all-be all of

the CIS supervision style. Truth in dealing with yourself when you are assessing a situation

and deciding how to make a recommendation on discipline, truth on how you deal with the

troops and truth on how you deal with me and the agency.

Truth, integrity and honor are the three personality traits I want you to bring out into the

command structure. That is what I want you to embed for the future supervisors to follow.

Have no doubt about it; you are creating the management style of CIS’s future. From those

three words HONOR, INTEGRITY and TRUTH we can then get real responsibility and

professionalism. Responsibility and professionalism will be demanded of every officer in the

field. Demanded – not asked for, not begged for, not pled for – DEMANDED!

If an officer cannot deliver responsibility and professionalism, then that officer needs to leave

CIS, and if that officer is not willing to leave on his own, then it is your job to help him or her

along.

� Page 3

The bottom line is that you are responsible to supervise officers who themselves are

responsible for protecting people who have entrusted us with their safety. Thousands of

people… thousands of people every night go to sleep feeling secure that CIS personnel are

watching over them… thousands! Your responsibility is to make sure that the reality of our

performance is equal to what these folks believe we are doing. You are responsible for

thousands of people who put their lives in the hands of CIS officers every night. If you act

with that in mind, your potential—and the agency’s—is limitless!

“In a social order where one man is a superior and the other is a subordinate; the superior, if he

is a gentleman, will never dwell upon it; and the subordinate, if he is a gentleman, will never

forget it.”

“Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes”

Prelude to ‘A Message to Garcia’ Author Unknown Don’t miss the bigger message because of the military premise of the article. It has applications well beyond that. That was a very sobering moment for me. How many times have I been given a job or an assignment and I’ve complained about the difficulty of the task or something that was wrong? Why couldn’t I have just muscled my way through it and just got it done? I shortcut everything. One of the things I’ve come to realize that the thing you appreciate most is that which you have to struggle to attain. Totally against everything I have told myself over the years. That goes a long way to explain why my co-workers are often short with me at times when I get distracted. I’ve been accused of some shoddy work. That’s the last time I want to be accused of that. I have a new outlook on the things I have to do here at the House of Prayer. I want to be the one to take the letter to Garcia. Not that sometimes I would have to ask for help but I don’t want to complain about my situation. I find how much time I waste complaining about what I can’t do or what’s wrong instead of just finding a way to do the job and getting it done.

About That Message to Garcia... A signature American homily offers lessons on initiative, loyalty, hard work, and enterprise By Robert McHenry

Someone said to the president, “There is a fellow by the name of Rowan will find Garcia

for you, if anybody can.”

Does anyone read “A Message to Garcia” anymore? It was in my ninth-grade literature book, if I recall aright. At the time, at the age of 13, I had no idea who Garcia was and little more of where Cuba was, and I could not see why the delivery of some message—whose contents, by the way, are never disclosed in the essay—to this unknown person in an unimaginable place should be of concern to me. Yet, by some magic evidently known to educators once but now forgotten or dismissed by their successors, the story and its lesson have stuck with me. Garcia was General Calixto García e Iñiguez (1839–1898), who was from an early age involved in uprisings against the Spanish authorities in Cuba. By 1896 he was second in command of the insurrectionary army. It was in that capacity that he was drawn into an uneasy alliance with U.S. forces that began landing on the island in June 1898. So much for background. Now, what about that message, and why do we (some of us, anyway) remember it? To begin with, there was no message to Garcia. But there was a messenger. He was Lieutenant Andrew S. Rowan (1857–1943) of the U.S. Army. Rowan, traveling in secret, went ashore in Cuba on April 24, 1898, and made his way to Garcia’s headquarters in Oriente province. There he gathered information about the strength and disposition of the rebel forces, and he then made his way back to the United States. Having been promoted to captain while on the mission, he later served in the Puerto Rico campaign, in the occupation of Cuba, and in the Philippines. None of which military minutiae explains why generations of American schoolchildren were obliged to read about some imaginary message to Garcia, and why for decades into the next century it was possible to raise a chuckle with the graffito “Garcia—call your wife.” For that remarkable circumstance we must turn to one of the unlikely characters who have made themselves a prominent place in American life from time to time, the salesman-writer-bohemian-huckster Elbert Hubbard. Picture him: longish hair, a broad-brimmed soft hat, wide and flowing tie, frock coat, and cape. The very image of the Mauve Decade aesthete. And yet, that’s not quite who he was. Hubbard was born in Bloomington, Illinois, in 1856 (the year the Republican Party nominated its very first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont). After newspaper work in Chicago, he became a sales and promotions manager for the Larkin Company, manufacturers of soap, in Buffalo, New York. In 1892 he left Larkin to devote himself to learning and writing. On a visit to England he met the English writer and designer William Morris and evidently decided that America needed just such a promoter of artisanship. In 1895, in the Buffalo suburb of East Aurora, he founded the Roycroft Press, modeled on Morris’s Kelmscott Press. Gradually workshops were added to the printing works, and a corps of craftsmen and their students soon gathered to produce furniture, metalwork, pottery, and other useful and decorative items for the home, all in what has become

known as the Arts and Crafts style. Objects produced at the Roycroft shops are avidly collected today. From the beginning, the Roycroft Press was occupied chiefly in printing the writings of Hubbard, who proved to be a fountain of philosophizing. Biographies of various admired persons, padded out with much commentary, were issued monthly as Little Journeys. The Philistine, a monthly literary magazine of some daring, soon followed. To these he added the monthly The Fra in 1908. And he wrote some books as well, one of which bore the unfortunate title So Here Cometh White Hyacinths (1907). The torrent of text that flowed from Hubbard’s pen is astounding. As for what he wrote about, and with what authority, his wife Alice probably said it best:

Elbert Hubbard, the most positive human force of his time, is a man of genius in business, in art, in literature, in philosophy. He is an idealist, dreamer, orator, scientist…. He is like Jefferson in his democracy…. He is like Paine in his love for liberty…. He is like Lincoln in that he would free all mankind…. Elbert Hubbard is a unique figure in history…. Like Shakespeare, he has access to universal knowledge.

Well, let’s grant that Alice was a little biased. But in encouraging her to publish this encomium, Elbert was certainly not registering disagreement. Our everyday experience with men who throw themselves into a life of art, handicrafts, philosophy, and the delight of telling others how they should live usually leads us to expect that such a man will offer up some crackbrain muddle of socialism and medievalism as his solution to the ills of the world, as, indeed, Morris had. Not so with Hubbard. A muddle he may have offered, in that his writings amount to no clearly organized worldview—he is best thought of as a writer of miscellanea, enough to stock Borges’s Library of Babel—but Elbert Hubbard stood foursquare in favor of individual liberty and responsibility, hard work, loyalty, and initiative. He was, in short, a classical liberal with a strong disposition in favor of business. Here is an excerpt from his “Prayer of Gratitude”:

I am thankful for the blessed light of this day, and I am thankful for all the days that have gone before. I thank the thinkers, the poets, the painters, the sculptors, the singers, the publishers, the inventors—the businessmen—who have lived and are now living. I thank Emerson for brooking the displeasure of his Alma Mater. I thank James Watt, the Scotch boy who watched his mother’s teakettle to a purpose. I thank Volta and Galvani, who fixed their names, as did Watt, in the science that lightens labor and carries the burdens that once bowed human backs. I thank Benjamin Franklin for his spirit of mirth … his patience, his commonsense. I thank Alexander Humboldt…. William Humboldt…. Shakespeare…. Arkwright, Hargreaves, Crompton…. Thomas Jefferson…. Baruch Spinoza…. Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer…. Tyndall…. Draper…. Herschel…. Bjornson…. Adam Smith…. These men and others like them, their names less known, have made the world a fit

dwelling-place for liberty. Their graves are mounds from which flares Freedom’s torch.

Not the words, nor the heroes, nor the sentiments of a dandy or an ideologue. So what about that message? According to what Hubbard himself reported 14 years after the fact, it was his son Bert who suggested to him that Lieutenant Rowan was the hero of the Cuban campaign.

It came to me like a flash! Yes, the boy is right, the hero is the man who does his work.

In an hour he had written out the essay, some 1,500 words, in time for the March 1899 issue of The Philistine, which was just then going to press. All that was required was his natural prolixity and a generous dash of imagination:

Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia. How the “fellow by the name of Rowan” took the letter, sealed it up in an oilskin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days landed by night off the coast of Cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, and in three weeks came out on the other side of the Island, having traversed a hostile country on foot, and delivered his letter to Garcia—are things I have no special desire now to tell in detail. The point I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, “Where is he at?” By the Eternal! there is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing—“Carry a message to Garcia.”

The piece attracted the notice of an official of the New York Central Railroad, who had it reprinted in runs of half a million copies each for distribution to employees and others. Newspapers and magazines picked it up, and it was translated and widely distributed around the world in dozens of languages. Hubbard guessed that more than 40 million copies had been printed by the time he wrote about the phenomenon in 1913, and he modestly noted that it was said that this was more than any other piece of writing had ever achieved during the life of its author. Two motion pictures were made from the Hubbard version of the story, one in 1916 starring Robert Conness as Lieutenant Rowan, and the other in 1936 with John Boles (and Barbara Stanwyck, Wallace Beery, and Alan Hale in supporting roles).

I have carried a dinner-pail and worked for day’s wages, and I have also been an employer of labor, and I know there is something to be said on both sides. There is no excellence, per se, in poverty; rags are no recommendation; and all employers are not rapacious and high-handed, any more than all poor men are virtuous. My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the “boss” is away, as well as when he is at home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly takes the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of

chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets “laid off,” nor has to go on a strike for higher wages. Civilization is one long, anxious search for just such individuals.

Elbert and Alice Hubbard went down with the Lusitania when it was torpedoed by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland in May 1915. The idea of teaching American schoolchildren character through a homily such as “Garcia” would eventually be torpedoed as well—itself becoming history.

Robert McHenry writes the American Civilization column. The former editor of Encyclopædia Britannica, he last wrote for the magazine about the birth of the 20th century. Illustration by Edwin Fotheringham.

Who is Elbert Hubbard? Author Unknown Elbert Hubbard, of East Aurora, New York was a philosopher, soap salesman, entrepreneur, vaudville performer, bohemian, bigamist, horseman, humorist, printer, novelist, moralist, farmer, egotist, liar, plagiarist, avid supporter of big business, avid defender of individual rights, anti-intellectual, supporter of the arts, male chauvinist, pro-feminist, and college drop-out. Here's his most famous essay, "A Message to Garcia." The authors of The Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature call the piece "one of the most extraordinary documents ever issued in the United States." Hubbard said that it had a circulation of 40,000,000 copies distributed to Americans, Russians, Japanese, Germans, French, Spanish, Turkish, Chinese, and Hindustans. In all, the piece was apparently translated into over twenty different languages and became, according to John L. Munschauer, author of Jobs for English Majors and Other Smart People (1982), "a turn-of-the-century classic." At various times, it was reprinted by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Lansing Michigan, The Casualty Insurance Company, the Russian Railway, the New York Central Railway, the Japanese Government, the Westinghouse Company in England, and the Bon Marche in France. Hubbard claimed in a preface to a reprinting of the essay that it had "a larger circulation than any other literary venture [had] ever attained during the lifetime of the author" (Hubbard, The Liberators 288).

A Message to Garcia

By Elbert Hubbard

In all this Cuban business there is one man stands out on the horizon of my memory like Mars at perihelion. When war broke out between Spain & the United States, it was very necessary to communicate quickly with the leader of the Insurgents. Garcia was somewhere in the mountain vastness of Cuba—no one knew where. No mail nor telegraph message could reach him. The President must secure his cooperation, and quickly.

What to do?

Some one said to the President, "There’s a fellow by the name of Rowan who will find Garcia for you, if anybody can."

Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia. How "the fellow by the name of Rowan" took the letter, sealed it up in an oil-skin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days landed by night off the coast of Cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, and in three weeks came out on the other side of the island, having traversed a hostile country on foot, and delivered his letter to Garcia, are things I have no special desire now to tell in detail.

The point I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, "Where is he at?" By the Eternal! There is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing- "Carry a message to Garcia!"

General Garcia is dead now, but there are other Garcias.

No man, who has endeavored to carry out an enterprise where many hands were needed, but has been well nigh appalled at times by the imbecility of the average man- the inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a thing and do it. Slip-shod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, and half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him; or mayhap, God in His goodness performs a miracle, and sends him an Angel of Light for an assistant. You, reader, put this matter to a test: you are sitting now in your office, six clerks are within call.

Summon any one and make this request: "Please look in the encyclopedia and make a brief memorandum for me concerning the life of Correggio".

Will the clerk quietly say, "Yes, sir," and go do the task?

On your life, he will not. He will look at you out of a fishy eye and ask one or more of the following questions:

Who was he?

Which encyclopedia?

Where is the encyclopedia?

Was I hired for that?

Don’t you mean Bismarck?

What’s the matter with Charlie doing it?

Is he dead?

Is there any hurry?

Shan’t I bring you the book and let you look it up yourself?

What do you want to know for?

And I will lay you ten to one that after you have answered the questions, and explained how to find the information, and why you want it, the clerk will go off and get one of the other clerks to help him try to find Garcia, and then come back and tell you there is no such man. Of course I may lose my bet, but according to the Law of Average, I will not.

Now if you are wise you will not bother to explain to your "assistant" that Correggio is indexed under the C’s, not in the K’s, but you will smile sweetly and say, "Never mind," and go look it up yourself.

And this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity, this infirmity of the will, this unwillingness to cheerfully catch hold and lift, are the things that put pure Socialism so far into the future. If men will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit of their effort is for all? A first-mate with knotted club seems necessary; and the dread of getting "the bounce" Saturday night, holds many a worker to his place.

Advertise for a stenographer, and nine out of ten who apply, can neither spell nor punctuate—and do not think it necessary to.

Can such a one write a letter to Garcia?

"You see that bookkeeper," said the foreman to me in a large factory.

"Yes, what about him?"

"Well he’s a fine accountant, but if I’d send him up town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street, would forget what he had been sent for."

Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?

We have recently been hearing much maudlin sympathy expressed for the "downtrodden denizen of the sweat-shop" and the "homeless wanderer searching for honest employment," and with it all often go many hard words for the men in power.

Nothing is said about the employer who grows old before his time in a vain attempt to get frowsy ne’er-do-wells to do intelligent work; and his long patient striving with "help" that does nothing but loaf when his back is turned. In every store and factory there is a constant weeding-out process going on. The employer is constantly sending away "help" that have shown their incapacity to

further the interests of the business, and others are being taken on. No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if times are hard and work is scarce, the sorting is done finer—but out and forever out, the incompetent and unworthy go.

It is the survival of the fittest. Self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best, those who can carry a message to Garcia.

I know one man of really brilliant parts who has not the ability to manage a business of his own, and yet who is absolutely worthless to any one else, because he carries with him constantly the insane suspicion that his employer is oppressing, or intending to oppress him. He cannot give orders; and he will not receive them. Should a message be given him to take to Garcia, his answer would probably be, "Take it yourself."

Tonight this man walks the streets looking for work, the wind whistling through his threadbare coat. No one who knows him dare employ him, for he is a regular firebrand of discontent. He is impervious to reason, and the only thing that can impress him is the toe of a thick-soled No. 9 boot.

Of course I know that one so morally deformed is no less to be pitied than a physical cripple; but in our pitying, let us drop a tear, too, for the men who are striving to carry on a great enterprise, whose working hours are not limited by the whistle, and whose hair is fast turning white through the struggle to hold in line dowdy indifference, slip-shod imbecility, and the heartless ingratitude, which, but for their enterprise, would be both hungry and homeless.

Have I put the matter too strongly? Possibly I have, but when all the world has gone a-slumming I wish to speak a word of sympathy for the man who succeeds—the man who, against great odds has directed the efforts of others, and having succeeded, finds there’s nothing in it: nothing but bare board and clothes.

I have carried a dinner pail and worked for a day’s wage, I have also been an employer of labor, and I know there is something to be said on both sides. There is no excellence, per se, in poverty—rags are no recommendation—and all employers are not rapacious and high-handed, any more than all poor men are virtuous.

My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the "boss" is away, as well as when he is at home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly take the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets "laid off," nor has to go on a strike for higher wages. Civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals. Anything such a man asks shall be granted; his kind is so rare that no employer can afford to let him go. He is wanted in every city, town and village—in every office, shop, store, and factory. The world cries out for such: he is needed, and needed badly—the man who can carry a message to Garcia.

-THE END-

Policing.com 517-381-9884

LEADERSHIP versus MANAGEMENT

by Bonnie Bucqueroux

The best police departments

benefit from excellent leadershipand superior management. But

what we must remember are the differences between the two --

and the fact that the same person

may not be good at both.

Leadership - Leadership rests on

vision - what the late Bob

Trojanowicz characterized as the ability to paint the Big Picture. A

leader is someone who canpersuade other people to envision

a better future and inspire them to work enthusiastically to make

that dream a reality. Someleaders can persuade by sheer

charisma, but that can result in a

shaky foundation for long-termchange. Others wisely rely on

including key stakeholders in thedecision-making process,

grounding major decisions in consensus. The challenge of leadership also requirescommunicating, clearly and consistently, what the future should look like and what it

will take to get there.

LEADER MANAGER

Vision Implementation

"Big Picture" Detail

Long Term Short Term

Inspire Direct

Strategic Planning Action Planning

Outline Framework Assess Progress

Proactive Reactive

Motivate Facilitate

Change Agent Steady Hand

Delegate Delegate

Communicate Communicate

Management - Management is the ability to structure and supervise the changesthat can make that vision a reality. The manager's job is to focus on the individual

brush strokes that make up the Big Picture, prodding people to do their best, overcoming obstacles and pitfalls, and documenting and assessing progress toward

ultimate goals.

On rare occasion, a great leader is also a great manager and vice versa. Lincolnapparently not only had the ability to inspire, but also the skills to manage the steps

required to make his vision a reality. Yet it is more likely that a person is one or the

other. President Reagan, like him or not, was clearly an exceptional leader. His successor, President Bush, like him or not, was more the manager. The challenge for

police departments is to make sure that they strive for excellence in both categories.

Both are essential

It is a mistake to think of leaders as to managers. If a police department is going to

implement a change as profound as implementing community policing, it will needthe skills of both.

Leadership versus managementby Bonnie Bucqueroux – with thanks to Jim Golden1

It would also be a mistake to think of leadership and management as the sole

province of the chief and top command. As Drew Diamond of the Police ExecutiveResearch Forum notes, all people have both positional and personal power. The chief

clearly has the top leadership position, and that position has power. But in almost any police department, it wouldn't take long to come up with a list of sergeants with

the positional and personal power to make or break any chief's best-laid plans. Or think of the officer who, by force of personality, can inspire his peers to do their

best. The challenge is to harness the personal and positional potential at all levels inservice of implementing community policing.

-- Special thanks to Jim Golden of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock for his

thinking on these issues.

Leadership versus managementby Bonnie Bucqueroux – with thanks to Jim Golden2

Managers vs. Leaders Author Unknown Managers -- Emphasize rationality and control; are problem-solvers (focusing on goals, resources, organization structures, or people); often ask question, "What problems have to be solved, and what are the best ways to achieve results so that people will continue to contribute to this organization?"; are persistent, tough-minded, hard working, intelligent, analytical, tolerant and have goodwill toward others. Leaders -- Perceived as brilliant, but sometimes lonely; achieve control of themselves before they try to control others; can visualize a purpose and generate value in work; are imaginative, passionate, non-conforming risk-takers. Managers and leaders have very different attitudes toward goals. Managers -- Adopt impersonal, almost passive, attitudes toward goals; decide upon goals based on necessity instead of desire and are therefore deeply tied to their organization's culture; tend to be reactive since they focus on current information. Leaders -- Tend to be active since they envision and promote their ideas instead of reacting to current situations; shape ideas instead of responding to them; have a personal orientation toward goals; provide a vision that alters the way people think about what is desirable, possible, and necessary. Managers' and leaders' conceptions of work. Managers -- View work as an enabling process; establish strategies and makes decisions by combining people and ideas; continually coordinate and balance opposing views; are good at reaching compromises and mediating conflicts between opposing values and perspectives; act to limit choice; tolerate practical, mundane work because of strong survival instinct which makes them risk-averse. Leaders -- Develop new approaches to long-standing problems and open issues to new options; first, use their vision to excite people and only then develop choices which give those images substance; focus people on shared ideals and raise their expectations; work from high-risk positions because of strong dislike of mundane work.

Managers and leaders have very different relations with others. Managers – Prefer working with others; report that solitary activity makes them anxious; are collaborative; maintain a low level of emotional involvement in relationships; attempt to reconcile differences, seek compromises, and establish a balance of power; relate to people according to the role they play in a sequence of events or in a decision-making process; focus on how things get done; maintain controlled, rational, and equitable structures; may be viewed by others as inscrutable, detached, and manipulative. Leaders -- Maintain inner perceptiveness that they can use in their relationships with others; relate to people in intuitive, empathetic way; focus on what events and decisions mean to participants; attract strong feelings of identity and difference or of love and hate; create systems where human relations may be turbulent, intense, and at times even disorganized. The self-identity of managers versus leaders is strongly influenced by their past. Managers -- Report that their adjustments to life have been straightforward and that their lives have been more or less peaceful since birth; have a sense of self as a guide to conduct and attitude which is derived from a feeling of being at home and in harmony with their environment; see themselves as conservators and regulators of an existing order of affairs with which they personally identify and from which they gain rewards; report that their role harmonizes with their ideals of responsibility and duty; perpetuate and strengthen existing institutions; display a life development process which focuses on socialization...this socialization process prepares them to guide institutions and to maintain the existing balance of social relations. Leaders -- Reportedly have not had an easy time of it; lives are marked by a continual struggle to find some sense of order; do not take things for granted and are not satisfied with the status quo; report that their "sense of self" is derived from a feeling of profound separateness; may work in organizations, but they never belong to them; report that their sense of self is independent of work roles, memberships, or other social indicators of social identity; seek opportunities for change (i.e. technological, political, or ideological); support change; find their purpose is to profoundly alter human, economic, and political relationships; display a life development process which focuses on personal mastery...this process impels them to struggle for psychological and social change.

1

On Balancing Performance and Perception in Community-Based Organizations By K.C. Poulin, President and CEO of CIS Introduction

Individuals and small groups with diverse interests and points-of-view often look to larger community-based organizations for solutions regarding problems encountered in their daily lives. A single problem, such as a rash of property theft or vandalism, for example, local community-based organizations will receive input from many different sources in the community, each of which has a different idea about what the problem is, who contributes to it, and how to solve it.

In such circumstances, community-based organizations must find ways to mediate between those with input in order to succeed in their missions to help others. A fundamental task will be to manage conflicting perceptions while arriving at decisions that produce positive results. By the time those in the community have approached a community-based organization for help, emotions will be running high due to the frustration with the circumstances that has brought them for help.

Compounding matters even more, community-based organizations have limited funds with which to work with so occasionally they may find themselves tempted to make decisions based on the bottom line. Excellence in organizational leadership is therefore essential, and it must be the kind that sees beyond the bottom line. A community-based organization that appears indifferent to the community it seeks to help and appears concerned only with numbers most certainly will be met with high resistance, loss of reputation, and quite possibly cease to exist. Understanding the Environment through the “Art” of Leadership

When confronted with a problem, organizational leaders must observe the overall problem before they determine what kinds of actions to take. Will the choices made produce meaningful change in the lives those in the community? Is the community static or dynamic? Some communities change constantly while others seem to retain the same people over time. Some populations will have not changed much over time and their people less diverse and less complicated than what one might find in a more complex environment. Perceptions and needs of people in a suburban middle-income subdivision full of single-family homes may be easier to sort and contend than those in an urban middle- to low-income subdivision mixed with apartment complexes, single-family homes, and perhaps a trailer park with retirees living on very limited fixed incomes. In either kind of community, there may be people of differing age and ethnic demographics.

2

In addition different types of communities possess static or dynamic households of political, economic, ethical, moral, and spiritual values.

In a static environment, organizational leaders confronted with few variables may be able to make decisions using simple means to achieve a desired result. However, in a dynamic environment, organizational leaders facing many variables will need to make complex decisions to perform their missions well. The static environment will require more procedural approaches whereas the dynamic one will require less procedural approaches. A one-size-fits-all “scientific” approach for solving a problem may be implemented for the benefit of a static group, whereas a multi-faceted “artistic” approach may be required to produce positive results for solving the same or similar problem on behalf of a dynamic group.

“Scientific” solutions offer organizations with simple blueprints of efficiency for making decisions. On the other hand, “artistic” solutions allow for creativity in order to adapt to the unique needs of the community. “Artistic” solutions require a meaningful understanding of problems and concerns of those whose lives are being affected, with a promise to listen and respond in ways that are consistent with the communities and the many types of people in need.

Few communities today warrant “scientific” solutions handed to them by community-based organizations charged with solving problems at the grass-roots level. So instead, organizational leaders should emphasize the “art” of problem solving. To do so, they should cultivate certain character traits and skills: empathy, self-possession, sensitivity, honor, integrity, effective communication skills, critical thinking ability, and total commitment to the communities they serve. If organizational leaders were confronted with purely static communities, then they might not need such qualities. Their boards could hire people who are good at merely following orders, counting, and filling out forms. Mixed communities demand much more than that.

How can the director of a community-based organization call himself or herself a “leader” if that person “leads” by adhering to a performance leaning toward efficiency? For such a person, procedures can become counterproductive in dynamic environments. They can undermine organizational missions. In and of themselves, procedures handed to the stakeholders (community) from above can become barriers between community-based organizations and the people they serve. They can produce results that are, indeed, counterproductive to an organization whose job it is to restore hope and trust in a community.

Managers think and worry about efficiency; strategic minds think and worry about effectiveness. A truly great leader merges the two and is capable of spreading the concept of leadership throughout an entire organization. Setting low standards based on low expectations diminishes organizational and public trust. A leader implements performance models that encourage everyone in the organization and in the community at large to fully realize their creative faculties, their goals, and their highest aspirations.

3

A Model for Knowing and Doing the Right Thing

Emphasizing a one-size-fits-all model in dynamic environments that revolve around human conflict eventually causes a poor perception among stakeholders. So for community-based organizations the question becomes, “How do we ensure that the perception of our services equals our performance and that efficiency does not hinder our effectiveness?” That is a question for all levels of the organization, from day-to-day operations to community-wide strategic planning. In my agency, which is a for-profit enterprise, we have developed a process model that remains on the forefront of our minds as we make decisions that often have profound effect on the lives of many (see Figure One). In some circumstances, the judgments we arrive at are a result of following this model and may cause us to lose money. For example, in an apartment community in which one of our officers learns there is a woman being stalked by a former husband or boyfriend, we have been known to provide her with protective services at no cost until the threat no longer exists. Few security companies operating under a total efficiency-based business plan would do such a thing.

As a small part of our overall agency doctrine, short-term financial losses based on efficiency-driven business practices become irrelevant when compared to our social compact for community protection. We--and I believe that this is true for community-based non-profits, too—do not believe in “quick fixes” because we believe they are incompatible with serving the greater good. The road less traveled, as the poet Robert Frost conveyed in the poem “The Road Not Taken,” is usually the best one to take. Of course, the gap between knowing what is the right thing to do and doing the right thing can be difficult to traverse.

Figure One on the following page depicts a flow chart illustrating how to make decisions in complex environments. Organizational leaders must consider all things and explore the data as fully as time permits. Some situations warranting a decision will allow considerable time for such exploration; others will not.

To begin, the model introduces a concept called “decision space” that refers to the range of authority possessed by a person for taking in information, analyzing it, and figuring out what to do about it. The term expressed here is a modified version of a similar term from Juran’s Quality Handbook, considered the “bible” of business administration.

In Stage One of the model, an organizational leader encounters a problem, which is usually brought to that person’s attention by someone else--an aggrieved person in the community, for example. We can say that at this point the problem has entered the decision-space of an organizational leader, but the significance of it is not fully known.

4

Figure One: Decision Flow Chart for Managing Practitioners

Stage Two: Problem’s Details Broken Down in Decision Space

Stage Four: Exploration of Possible Corrective Plans and Consequences Occupy Decision Space

Stage Six: Execution of Plan

Stage Eight: Determination of Results

Stage Five: Selection of Plan

Stage One: Problem Enters Decision Space

Stage Three: Other Details Fill Decision Space

Stage Seven: Observation of Consequences

Decision Space

Problem

People

Place

Time

Context

Agency Realities

Laws and Policies

Managing Practitioner

Current State of Mind

SOPs

Community Needs

Solution Time

Strategic Foundation Role

Agency Image

Client Realities

Managing Practitioner Character

Risks

Possible Plans & Consequences

5

In Stage Two, the problem’s details are broken down in the organizational leader’s decision space. In that stage, organizational leaders assess the significance of a problem. They determine the problem’s people, place, time, and context. This is a stage that requires a leader to sort out fact from fiction. Leaders start asking basic questions such as “Who was or is involved?” “Where did the problem happen?” “When did the problem emerge?” “What has transpired in the meantime?” “What is the overall context in which it occurred?” “What caused it?”

In Stage Three, other details begin to fill the organizational leader’s decision space. Some of the things that enter the field of decision-making in the third stage may be situational; others, relatively stable. Some situational details might include the following:

• Time available to solve the problem • Liability and other risks involved in the problem • Organizational leader’s current state of mind • Needs of the community stakeholders • Organizational image

Relatively stable details might include these:

• Organizational mission • Relevance of organization’s standard operating procedures • Existence of local, state, and federal laws and policies • Organizational leader’s character • Realities of the organizations and community at large

Just as concerns regarding the initial assessment of the problem in the second stage of the flow chart, those in the third stage also consume the organizational leader’s decision space. In Stage Four, organizational leaders explore plans and possible consequences. At this point in the process, tensions between efficiency- and effectiveness-driven business models appear, as the kinds and amounts of resources required to solve the problem are weighed in. In a dynamic community, the views of diverse stakeholders will be brought to bear on the process of finding a solution to the problem. In Stage Five, organizational leaders select and create a plan and then try to lock stakeholders onto it. In Stage Six, having analyzed a problem and then decided what should be done about it, organizational leaders explain to the community what is to be done and what might happen. A very effective organizational leader will have proposed the plan in such a way that stakeholders believe they were the ones who were responsible for it. Organizational leaders will have found ways to empower the community so that they feel as if they have reclaimed their sense of dignity, honor, and control over their lives.

6

Stakeholders involved will help “work the plan.” At this point, organizational leaders and community stakeholders will have moved from a phase of decision-making and into one of action.

In Stage Seven, all involved will observe the decision’s real consequences. And after the plan has been executed, in Stage Eight, all stakeholders will make

judgments about the results of their collective work. Results may be positive, negative, or mixed. If the results show that the decision was beneficial and the plan worked, organizational leaders will want to congratulate everyone involved and enjoy a job well done. However, if the results do not produce the intended solution, then organizational leaders will have to go back to the drawing board and find another solution. Conclusion

For any community-based organization charged with providing services aimed at rectifying problems, it stands to reason that organizational leaders want to be effective at what they do and not just efficient. That is how we balance performance and perception. Organizational leaders have a responsibility for creating an environment in which all stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process. It is an environment in which stakeholders feel their voices are being heard, where they feel secure, where they feel their dignity is being restored, and where they feel they are on the path to empowerment.

Organizational leaders who interact with people in an “artistic” way to solve people’s problems are indeed showing leadership and compassion by listening to the concerns of those they are trying to help and finding a solution that best meets the needs of all involved in the process. You must gain an understanding of the problems facing the community even though you may not have first hand knowledge yourself. The process used to find what works should be fundamentally the same while the solutions will vary.

The most important job of a community leader is to not only care about those they

are helping but to teach everyone around them that careful consideration of all factors is a must when finding a solution.

1

Resisting the Illusory Mindset of “Efficiency” Whil e Providing Public Safety By K.C. Poulin, President and CEO of CIS Introduction Effective communication is the bedrock of balancing performance and perception in the private security and safety industry. It is a challenge the profession must not underestimate. Breakdowns in communication may result in loss of clients, high employee turnover, harm to life and property, and lawsuits. Because the stakes are so high, private security and safety agencies must dedicate themselves to the development, articulation, and practice of methods that allow for on-going evaluation of client needs and service delivery. That assessment process, as illustrated in these pages, is one that shares decision-making among managers and front-line practitioners. In so doing, private security and safety businesses can provide clients with tailor-made solutions to problems in the diverse environments where they live and work.1 How does performance in our arena meet the perception of clients, employees, peers, the public, and the industry as a whole? What kind of model is the best model for ensuring such excellence in leadership? In this essay, we posit that management of systems, methodology, and infrastructure involves assessing an agency’s efficiency and effectiveness through thoughtful discretionary use of procedures and control points in areas of operations, in which effectiveness takes precedent over efficiency in the overall performance model. Moreover, we maintain that high quality leadership in private security and safety harmonizes performance and perception by allowing front-line practitioners to follow the “science” of procedures while also permitting them to practice the “art” of adaptation in day-to-day operations. With these ideas in mind, we offer private security and safety leaders a fresh model upon which they may formulate their agencies’ strategic decisions and tactical actions. In the pages that follow, we explore the interplay of main viewpoints that influence the outputs of this decisional model, the types of environments that influence the strategic and tactical choices embedded within those outputs, and the essential kinds of strategic analysis and tactical actions for application in those environments. Afterward, we reconsider the implications for leadership in private security and safety by challenging private security and safety leaders to resist the temptation of purist efficiency models that may prove counterproductive in the communities they are charged to protect. 1 While private security and safety agencies maintain relationships with stakeholders to whom we may refer generally as “performance partners” (e.g., regulatory bodies, public sector agencies, other private sector agencies), this paper confines discussion to those clients with whom private safety agencies hold an exclusive contract to provide security (e.g., a jewelry store, energy corporation, apartment complex, private home development).

2

End-Users, Officers, and Command Staff: An Interplay of Main Viewpoints Explanation of a model for judging how well clients and private security and safety agencies perceive performance necessitates an overview of the viewpoints of the model’s primary stakeholders: end-users, officers, and command staff. The first viewpoint is that of end-users, who have their own sets of expectations for private security and safety services. For example, if an agency were providing uniformed security services in a bank, then the bank client, bank employees, and customers would be the end-users of that agency’s services. The expectations of end-users influence their perception of agency performance. Formation of their viewpoint hinges upon the actual service delivery by front-line practitioners. In addition, end-users base their judgment of that service delivery on the actions of officers and their interactions with them. In other words, end-users formulate judgments about quality of service on their daily relational experiences with the officers assigned to them. Having formed those judgments without prior objective knowledge about why officers act in a particular manner, they interpret the effectiveness of agency performance through a filter of subjectivity. These end-users perceive, accurately or not, agency performance. The second viewpoint is that of officers, who are the front-line practitioners providing service delivery to agency clients. These individuals also form their own viewpoints about the performance of their duties, especially whether they meet end-user and command staff expectations. The interpretation by officers of the services being delivered may be very different than that of end-users. For example, officers may believe that their performance is satisfactory because they know they are conducting security operations within agency protocol. End-users, however, may not hold the same view. This discrepancy could be caused by very minor things, such as the appearance of the officers, to more business-oriented issues, such as the officers not being customer-friendly toward guests of the assigned facility. The third viewpoint is that of command staff, who are responsible for the security deployment of front-line practitioners. Moreover, command staff answer to executive staff, who themselves hold the responsibility of maintaining positive client relations. These combined senior staff may formulate a very different view than either that of end-users receiving or officers providing agency services. Managing practitioners interpret the quality of performance in the field from a different place and from a different angle. Invariably, these managing practitioners form their opinions based on limited information that surfaces to the top of the chain of command from the field and from the clients. Unless managing practitioners are aggressive in their communicating directly with the field and its end-users, information may surface only when problems have escalated beyond the point of being managed effectively in the field. When information reflecting

3

perceptions of unsatisfactory service becomes available to command and executive staff, it often comes as a surprise to them. While private security and safety agencies should encourage field supervision staff to try to solve problems at their level, those same agencies should expect nonetheless that any bad news will be shared up the line of communication to senior staff. For, if not, the breach in communication may result in an error of perception: Managers will believe that performance in the field is satisfactory until the bad news surfaces. They will be that last to learn that performance does not equal perception. Nor should absence of end-user complaints or concerns about performance equate to the automatic assumption of client satisfaction. For example, managing practitioners assigned to oversee accounts may become aware of serious operational problems that have been festering for months, yet have not received a complaint from end-users until a totality of circumstances come into sharp focus during a client meeting.

Figure 1 Primary Stakeholders’ Fractured Perceptions of Agency Performance

As illustrated in the diagram above, it is entirely possible that end-users, officers, and command staff may hold fractured perceptions of agency performance. In our experience and discussed in depth below, models of efficiency giving rise to measurable, procedure-driven tactics in the field contribute to the illusions these stakeholders may hold. When there are breakdowns in communication among all three groups about performance expectations, the illusions of these stakeholders shatter. In turn, this creates a very difficult environment to assess and analyze. At that point, problems can reach critical mass and that is when an agency is met with litigation and loss of reputation. Leaders in private security and safety are responsible for protecting people who have entrusted their security and safety to those leaders. If all individuals working in the private security and safety industry act with that in mind, balancing performance and perception is achievable. Individual actions produce consequences that may cascade

4

throughout an entire organization, for better or worse. So when command and executive staff do learn about problems in the field, their role is to assess the problem, sort out truth from fiction, and then arrive at corrective measures for correcting the dysfunction in the most expedient manner. The charge of managers is to make sure that the reality of performance is equal to the perception of what our end-users believe agency field-practitioners should be doing. A Feedback Model for Balancing Performance and Perception In this section, we articulate a feedback model of combined strategic and tactical decision-making to reach an agency’s desired equilibrium of performance and perception. First, private security and safety leaders define the types of environments they are charged to protect. They may recognize these environments, generally, as static and dynamic. Second, in consideration of those types of environments, private security and safety leaders then ask certain questions: “To what extent do we care that we are effective?” “To what extent do we care that we are efficient?” “To what extent do we emphasize the role of control points? and “To what extent do we emphasize the role of procedures?” Whereas the first and second questions above focus on the mindset of managing practitioners who operate an agency, the third and fourth questions focus on front-line practitioners who work in the field. Moreover, while efficiency and effectiveness underpin strategic decision-making by agency managers, procedures and control points involve tactical decision-making for front-line practitioners.

Static environment—an area of security operations showing little or no change & lacking human vitality

Dynamic environment—an area of security operations showing significant change & rife with human vitality

Effective—pertaining to the ability to produce a desired result though not necessarily through systematic means Efficient—pertaining to the ability to produce through systematic means a desired result with minimum waste or effort Control Points—a set of parameters utilized with the intention to produce effectiveness in a given situation without dictating how Procedures—codified operations conducted in a proscribed sequence intended to produce similar results in similar circumstances

5

The significance of these aggregate business and operational concepts are further explored in the sub-sections that follow. For the remainder of this section, however, we offer some basic assumptions about them:

• In a purely static environment, efficiency and procedures might be an agency’s guiding principles; whereas in a purely dynamic environment, effectiveness and control points might produce the results that agency seeks.

• A comprehensive approach to addressing performance and perception dilemmas, assessment of efficiency and effectiveness further enables private security and safety leaders to define priorities within the organization and analyze conflicts among end-users, officers, and command staff.

Furthermore, how we think about and apply these concepts in different environments will determine how well our performance squares with the perceptions of our end-users, officers, and command staff. In the static environment, say an industrial or manufacturing facility, how agencies and their end-users perceive agency performance may mean ensuring that certain gauges are read within certain parameters, certain doors are opened and closed at given times, or that this or that switch is in its correct position. As such, these mechanical things need to be checked regularly and adjusted as necessary. At the other end of this spectrum, the dynamic environment, perhaps an apartment community in a culturally diverse and crime-ridden community, how end-users and agencies perceive performance means something poles apart from what is meant in the manufacturing plant, which is more measurable than the apartment complex. So, on the one end private security and safety leaders have a static environment where only a few variables need monitoring, and on the other end they have a very dynamic environment where there is an infinite number of variables at play at any given time (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Area of Operations Spectrum

Static Environment few variables simple metrics

Dynamic Environment

infinite variables complex metrics

6

Estimation of the nature of that area of operations determines our selection of procedures and control points--those tactical possibilities to help determine how to manage and direct a chosen level of efficiency in order to achieve a desired goal of effectiveness (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Tactical Possibilities for Static and Dynamic Areas of Operations

The process of analysis leading to judgment about whether effectiveness or efficiency represents primary managerial concern and whether procedures or control points represents primary tactical concern is similar to that of the OODA model used by military planners in their own areas of operations. The acronym stands for “Orientation, Observation, Decision, Action.” This model is intended for upper-level managers far removed from the battle space inasmuch as it is intended for boots on the ground. When confronted with a particular area of operations, planners and troops orient themselves to that space, observe it, decide what to do about it, and take action in it. The feedback model may be repeated as necessary, in order to make adjustments based on the needs of the moment. So in effect, the exercise of leadership is not limited to those at the highest rungs in the chain of command. The hypothetical cases below illustrate how private security and safety agencies might make strategic decisions and take tactical actions in purely static or purely dynamic environments, based on their questions about the roles of efficiency, effectiveness, procedures, and control points in those areas of operations. Decisional Analysis and Action for Static Environments For purposes of illustration, a facility with highly pressurized machinery is an example of a static environment. In this environment, machines and not humans dominate the lay of the land. The private, closed, mechanical nature of this facility renders what happens inside it highly predictable. Assigned to protect such a facility, an agency would conduct an initial assessment of it by orienting itself to and observing that environment. For managers in our industry, that geographical area of operations is unambiguous and easy to measure. Therefore, in terms of strategic assessment for meeting client security

Static Environment few variables simple metrics

Dynamic Environment infinite variables complex metrics

Necessitates more procedural approaches

Necessitates more control points approaches

7

and safety needs in this scenario, those same managers invariably would apply an efficiency model for managing its resources and measuring its performance. A model of efficiency will have been sought because it is feasible in this highly static environment. At this point in the feedback loop, agency managers will have moved from orientation and observation and into a decisional phase leading to action involving the agency’s implementation of an operational plan and deployment of resources. A “scientific” strategic and tactical plan will have been selected. What our industry refers to as the “science” of safety holds our attention in many ways, from forensics to the employment of technology to target vulnerabilities assessments to patrol procedures. Furthermore, this “science” delivers a managerial method, systematizing policies and procedures and fostering intelligent planning and resource usage. Often, “science” equates to a default setting for operations. I maintain that this is a valid approach for static environments but--and as I will illustrate below--is invalid for dynamic ones. Often thought of as a set of linear exactitudes to lead front-line practitioners through specific routines, procedures offer a blueprint of efficiency for day-to-day routines. Many patrol services, for example, require their officers utilize DETEX or similar control devices commonly referred to as “guard tour systems” to ensure that front-line practitioners properly work “according to plan.” With these systems, patrol officers are given timetables to maintain (i.e., procedures), which creates a ruler to measure performance. Usually, establishing patrol routes along with time frames dictate how much time is spent at each location. This time allotment could be around 15 minutes and might involve three or four visits per night at each location. These systems of tactical action deliver excellent performance in static environments where machinery--as opposed to humans--is the major feature of the environment. Established tour system routines allow officers to go from one critical asset to the next, repeating the safety patrol as needed. Hence, in the case of a facility requiring the protection of critical fixed assets, the tour system is an appropriate tool for achieving an agency’s performance. In this scenario, front-line practitioners working in the facility with highly pressurized machinery are analogous to trains running on a set of tracks. Tracks restrict the movement of the train, permitting little deviation with no adverse effect on performance. The train travels at a certain speed, makes certain stops, and--barring extraordinary circumstances--arrives to its destinations on time.

Decisional Analysis and Action for Dynamic Environments In contrast to the facility with highly pressurized machinery, an apartment complex in a high-risk community exemplifies a dynamic environment. In this environment, humans

8

are abundant, diverse, and unpredictable. This environment is also more public and open than the facility with machines in it. In having oriented themselves to and in having observed the high-risk apartment complex, leaders in private safety will have made strategic decisions and implemented tactical actions decidedly different than those in the scenario above. In a dynamic environment, the “science” of the security profession still matters; however, at this end of the continuum what leaders may call the “art” of safety is essential to successful agency performance. “Art” implies creative adaptation to particular circumstances instead of adherence to fixed operational plans. “Art” also allows friendship to develop between those entrusted with providing safety and those who require the service. “Art” also involves honesty, character, and integrity in the functional aspects of that same service. Furthermore, “art” implies a meaningful understanding of the constituencies served, with the promise to listen and respond in ways that are consistent with community needs. The artistic components of practitioners’ skill sets allow them to be effective at working through the human predicaments they encounter in the field. “Art” expressly requires that the protection firm be engaged for the long haul in the life of the community being protected. In addition, “art” allows the practitioner to consider alternatives to community problems identified that may not necessarily be real legal matters. In large part, performing the “art” of the safety profession allows the practitioner to address demanding tasks with interpersonal communication skills with sophistication and sensitivity. Control Points and the “Art” of “Anti-Procedures” Because the procedural metrics used for static environments lose their value to managers in dynamic environments, agencies instead may use control points, which give front-line practitioners that much-needed flexibility to manage areas of operations. Control points are sets of parameters carried out with the promise of resolving effectively any given situation without dictating how. They are loosely defined, couched in non-specific terms. Moreover, control points are behavioral guidelines for practitioners. They are painted with broad brushstrokes allowing practitioners to bring their own “art” to the canvas, instead of someone else’s paint-by-number system that diminishes imagination. In contrast to procedures, control points are not regimented schemes of metrics and directives that are better suited for static environments. So as environments become more and more dynamic, managers can phase out procedures and bring in control points, allowing for adaptive decision-making in dynamic environments.

9

Whereas procedures intentionally create structure focused at providing consistency in delivery of services, control points are markers enabling front-line practitioners’ ingenuity to play as large a role as possible. In a dynamic environment like the aforementioned apartment complex, a more efficiency-focused model never can deliver the requisite flexible platform for solving human-related problems. That is because dynamic environments resist codified routines like the “guided tour system,” which is based on the most minimum resources required. Indeed, reliance on such “old favorites” may prove counterproductive and perhaps even illusory. Not meaningful in the dynamic landscapes our front-line practitioners are assigned, procedures can be downright dangerous, in terms of the liability, if agencies insist on using them. Procedures and control points also differ from one another in that procedures are based on an individual’s ability to follow orders and to work within a strict regiment of behavioral patterns. Procedures tell front-line practitioners who to be, what to do, when to do it, and where to do it. As depicted in the diagram below, procedures dominate and limit what I call the “decision space” of front-line practitioners, assuming there is any.

Figure 4 Encroachment of Procedures on Front-line Practitioner’s

Abilities to Make Effective Choices in Dynamic Environments However, control points center upon why officers do what they do or what the purpose of their function is. They compel officers to consider the underlying philosophy of their actions. More importantly, control points promote leadership where, arguably, it is needed most, in the communities private security and safety agencies serve. As depicted in the diagram below, control points expand the decision space of front-line practitioners.

Procedurally Regimented

Scheme

Limited Decision Space

10

Paradoxically, and further articulated in the next sub-section below, application of anti-control points is predicated on the need in a dynamic environment to expand decision space (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Expansion of Front-line Practitioners’

Abilities to Make Effective Choices in Dynamic Environments

To advance illustration of this decisional model further, the analogy for front-line practitioners working in this ambiguous environment is not the train on the tracks but the car on the highway with guardrails on either side of the roadway and a concrete median in the center. The control points are the guardrails and the median. The guardrails allow for less restrictive travel and ensure broad latitude for decision-making and tailoring to sudden problems facing drivers. With guardrails a car is able to avoid obstacles through maneuver and situational adaptation, whereas the train on a set of tracks cannot. In addition, the concrete median--another control point--separates, for example, northbound and southbound traffic but does not restrict maneuver within those directional parameters of traffic flow. In the case of vehicle patrol services, a private security and safety agency uses control points such as requesting officers to visit a group of locations (Control Point 1) within close range of each other (Control Point 2) at least once every hour (Control Point 3). Unlike a linear procedural strategy such as the Tour System, control points involve no directives as to the order in which these locations should be patrolled. Instead, the agency encourages its officers to spend as much time as needed to troubleshoot any issues identified during the patrol. At the same time, officers on patrol get to know people living or operating within that area with the intent of creating a community network (Control Point 4) of eyes and ears.

Control Points

Greater Decision Space

11

Another alternative means to using the Tour System could be GPS tracking of the vehicle (Control Point 5). The advantage of using GPS is that it does not force officers to go to any specific point within a location during patrol routines (Control Point 6). More importantly, GPS tracking of the vehicle does not condition officers’ minds to focus on moving from one tour system checkpoint to the next while casing critical blind spots within their fluid environments (Control Point 7). Of course, GPS tracking also provides proof of performance (Control Point 8). In this example, eight different control points with wide flexibility are built into the vehicle patrol deployment strategy. These eight points are enacted in concert with a book of written policies that act as more rigid parameters directed at front-line practitioners in and of themselves. In this case, however, we are strictly discussing a deployment strategy. Toward Further Determination of Tactical Choices: Control Points and Anti-Control Points

Within its feedback model, we further distinguish between control points and anti-control points that determine the decisions and actions undertaken in an area of operations. We make this distinction because even a set of parameters could become meaningless in some of the dynamic environments in which front-line practitioners operate. With anti-control points managers purposefully do not task officers with specificity in their routes. Either they intentionally eliminate control points from the tactical schema, or they never implement them; and in so doing, or not doing, managers increase the range of decision space in their areas of operations. In turn, officers may apply their own creative powers to intelligently work in those dynamic environments. Anti-control points pose particular implications for accountability. As managers remove control points from the dynamic environment, estimation officers’ performance shifts toward the back end of an assignment, such as when GPS tracking data are compared and contrasted with officers’ incident and time reports, and then later compared and contrasted with data gleaned from end-users. This requires more work on behalf of supervisors in that they themselves must synthesize data, formulating a holistic picture of whether performance and perception are in balance. Finally, the nature of decision-making changes with application of anti-control points, increasing what is commonly called the “bottom-up” style. Decisions made by front-line practitioners hinge upon a strong sense of trust between command staff and officers in the field. That is because the difference between the two control points subgroups is predicated upon, one, the degree of influence exerted by command staff on practitioners in the field, and two, the level of freedom held by practitioners in the field to decide what kinds of decisions and actions they take--excepting, of course, company policies, ethics, and rule of law. As managers forfeit their direct decisional control to officers, they hand

12

over their decisional freedom to those same officers. In the process, the concept of leadership is further infused among all rungs of the agency. To further illustrate by example the role of anti-control points, recall first from the vehicle deployment scenario above that managers have charged officers with the responsibility to visit a given set of sites, in effect, telling them that they must do what they must at those sites in order to be effective. In that scenario, managers might have provided some directives and metrics in the form of reporting requirements or site specifics, and they might further monitor those same officers through GPS, the same reporting requirements, and client feedback. These are all control points. But what if some of the control points were removed from front-line practitioners’ frames of reference? To invoke once again the multi-lane highway example, the concrete median (i.e., a control point) now no longer exists, offering opposing lanes of traffic more options for maneuver. Only the guardrails remain, or in the case of vehicle deployment, the area of operations itself. Or comparatively, in the example of the apartment complex, removal of a control point would involve the absence of a mandate that officers visit certain locations within an assigned area of operations. In turn, officers may visit all locations in the area of operations, depending on the needs of the day and knowledge about the environment. In other words, in deciding to use anti-control points to expand decision space in the field, managers say to officers, “Here is an area of operations for you to manage, you know what kinds of tools you have in your box to manage it, so we trust you to use those tools at your discretion.” Control Points and the Character of Front-line Practitioners In order to be effective in private security and safety, field practitioners need the flexibility of control points to think on their own when faced with human-generated conflicts. In turn, those same parameters raise the bar of standards for the types of front-line practitioners agencies hire: officers must possess excellent critical thinking ability, communication skills, personal demeanor, self-possession, empathy, sensitivity, focus, total commitment, and a host of other attributes that form the foundation for practitioners to be effective within the security environment. Control points also rely on the honor, integrity, intelligence, and free will of practitioners, while procedures reinforce traits of consistency that would otherwise cause every employee act the same way in every situation--or, worse yet, not at all. Uniformity is very efficient; however, in the amorphous environments where private safety agencies operate, it isn’t necessarily effective. Private security and safety agencies must seek artistic practitioners who take the tools they have and work within a control point environment while staying within the spirit of the policy guidelines. Artistic practitioners are people who effectively utilize such latitude with responsible, sober conduct.

13

If agencies were confronted with purely static areas in which managers might select only procedures as the appropriate means for producing good results in area of operations, front-line practitioners need not possess such character. Agencies could lower standards by hiring people who are merely good at following linear orders, who can count, and who can fill out a simple form. The reality is, however, that most areas of operations are a mixed environment combined with mechanical things or buildings requiring periodic safety and security checks and people requiring an understanding that transcends tight procedural controls. In that mixed environment, managers and practitioners can employ both procedures and control points, recognizing that the more dynamic the decision space is, the more significant control points and anti-control points become in the operational schema. Minimum resources coupled with routines premised on minimum effort become therefore a secondary support mechanism--a “bolt-on” strategy that is usually in the form of a procedure to make a function operate more smoothly in a mixed environment. So effectiveness supersedes efficiency in this feedback model for determining performance. A focus on efficiency and its tempting reliance on procedures never can deliver the requisite flexible platform for solving human-related issues. Efficiency models should not undermine performance. To the contrary, they should enhance it. When human lives are at risk, effectiveness must be the measuring stick of success. This is especially true in operating private security and safety agencies. Effectiveness should be the end result leaders in private security and safety look for in order for their agencies to grow responsibly while maintaining their reputations for excellence. Implications for Leadership: Avoiding “Efficiency C reep” How can we call ourselves “leaders” if efficiency is all that we are and procedures are all that we do? How can we call ourselves “leaders” if only the managers in our agencies think of themselves as “leaders”? Leaders in the private security and safety industry are responsible for “getting the job done” and in taking corrective action when that job is not “getting done.” In that respect, efficiency and effectiveness organizational assessment models remain a constant source of concern. We maintain, therefore, that inflexible procedures and efficiency-based models of strategy and tactics are counterproductive illusions in the dynamic environments we are charged to protect. Experience suggests that our primary stakeholders become disillusioned when we have let the linear mindset of efficiency seep in because efficiency-driven decisions undermine our mission to protect life and property. One example to which most can relate involves our nation’s efforts to reduce school crime. Here, we have seen the proliferation of zero-tolerance policies in K-12 education. Zero-tolerance allows no leeway in decision-making, stifling the art of practicing public safety. Most readers have heard of zero-tolerance cases in which policy is interpreted so uncompromisingly that schools have expelled students in good standing and no history of criminal behavior. A young woman

14

with a bottle of Midol given to her by her mother should not be characterized as if she were in possession of illicit drugs. A student who inadvertently leaves a kitchen knife in her car after a family picnic should not be treated as a criminal in possession of a lethal weapon. Similarly, the latitude we give our officers is essential for turning crime-ridden, moribund environments into enclaves of peace and vitality. On a case-by-case basis, officers need room to draw distinctions. Where managers think and worry about efficiency, strategic minds think and worry about effectiveness. The great leader merges the two. He sets the stage for expectations of effectiveness and how that can be gauged. He also creates metrics that allow performance to be monitored so managers can ensure it is line with, or working toward the ultimate goal of effectiveness. More importantly, however, the great leader infuses the concept of leadership throughout the entire organization by implementing performance models that encourage front-line practitioners to fully realize their creative faculties. Even outside the private security and safety arena, efficiency is the standard for measuring how well a business performs. Efficiency is the desired focus, and rightly so, because efficiency under the right conditions does achieve great performance. McDonalds is a good general example of efficiency leading and affecting good performance. Fast food establishments are so efficient that they can deliver a hamburger meal, made to order, within a few minutes of ordering. For McDonalds to be efficient makes them effective at delivering fast food because this is the service they provide. Private security and safety, however, does not and cannot have that same luxury. Indeed, lowering quality is anathema to the security and safety imperatives of services private security and safety leaders provide. Emphasizing efficiency models as primary means to deliver services and to determine performance is irresponsible in those dynamic areas of operations where resources are deployed. For example, emphasizing efficiency to deliver services that revolve around human conflict hinders front-line practitioners’ ability to perform, dampening the impact a practitioner may bear on a given situation. Ultimately, efficiency models create an environment where poor perception of services becomes the end result of efforts. In addition to fast food restaurants, other businesses rely upon efficiency models because the nature of those businesses demands an efficiency standard. Overnight package delivery services like FedEx or UPS rely on efficiency as a primary strategy to accomplish their business model in order to accomplish effectiveness. For example, if FedEx delivers a package in good condition by 10am the next morning, it was efficient in its systems, which enabled them to be effective in delivering that package by a deadline and ultimately in performing the services FEDEX sells. In turn, FEDEX entertains high customer satisfaction. This represents a good example of perception equaling performance through a proper balance of efficiency and effectiveness. Despite the potential risks (e.g., death or personal injury, loss of assets, loss of credibility, lawsuits), private security and safety businesses typically favor efficiency for assessing how well they operate and serve their clients. They focus on efficiency in large part

15

because application of instruments, means, and actions is easier to manage and measure. The larger the agency, the truer this is. Efficiency is unambiguous, whereas effectiveness is not. Given that the private security and safety industry differs from fast delivery services such as FEDEX or UPS, the goal of private security and safety is not driven by expediency. In addition, we also should agree that the McDonalds approach of fast and cheap for lower quality food is not a responsible model for implementing protective services. So the question then becomes, “How do we ensure that the perception of our services equals our performance and that efficiency does not hinder effectiveness?” This question is as important to answer on a day-to-day operational level as it is at the agency level. Indeed, attention to that question is vital for the growth of any private agency. In performing services involving client and end-user problems, it stands to reason private security and safety leaders want to be effective at it and not just efficient, for effectiveness signifies the ultimate standard of operational success, client retention, and client acquisition. Therefore, our managing practitioners bear responsibility for creating an environment that allows our front-line practitioners to perform the art of their profession without being constrained by stringent standards and procedures. In so doing, they allow the proverbial “boots on the ground” to be leaders, too. Performing this art of managing situations, interacting with people, and trouble-shooting the dynamics constantly at play in the environments the private security and safety arena protects necessitates as much flexibility as can be leveraged in any given situation. For that reason, the feedback model proposed in this essay prefers effectiveness and control points for strategic decision-making and tactical applications in the field. This model is the most sensible, realistic one to apply. While the model involves strategies and tactics that are difficult to measure, achieving equilibrium between performance and perception requires that private security and safety businesses manage the process by not reducing their decisions to one-size-fits-all approaches. They do this by resisting exclusive reliance on dehumanizing, mechanized systems. By not following the proverbial “plan,” they achieve success--although they might not be able to measure it.

Who is it That I Work With Every Day? A special note of thanks By K.C. Poulin, President and CEO of CIS Who is it that I work with every day? This is a question I ask myself often. Deep in my soul, within the walls of my conscious being, I know that you are men and women of integrity and that you take on responsibility as a way of life. I know you are private individuals living with an unquestionable and inherent desire for community service. You are practitioners who bring some peace of mind to those who live with fear in an ever-dangerous world. You are a group of professionals who sacrifice their own safety and well being to ensure the same safety and well being of others. I can truly say that I have never encountered such a magnificent group of professionals who are so dedicated to what they do and get so little in return, yet every day you return for more. This blend of courage, integrity, commitment and sacrifice is so common in this group of individuals while being so uncommon in our contemporary society. This profession rests on the trust earned by you from the community, and that trust is the definition of what public safety should be, in the tradition of Henry and John Fielding and Sir Robert Peel. Except in few instances, this brotherhood gets very little thanks or recognition and appreciation. You give to your community of your own time and energy to help better the community you serve, yet are seldom thanked. You protect children from drugs, crime and sometimes even their own parents, yet are seldom thanked. You have saved the lives of so many people who found themselves under threat, yet are seldom thanked. You have even saved the lives of police officers injured in the line of duty and still get little thanks. Shameful is what this is, and it is without doubt infuriating and saddening to me. I for one know what you do every day and night and I thank God, and you, for what you do. I truly give thanks for your efforts and compassion and perseverance. No matter who you are or what assignment you have, you play a roll in making this agency functional and at keeping people alive. It doesn’t matter if you are in the operations center, where you watch over officers, calm people who call with emergencies and ensure that an officer is sent to their location; if you are a field unit who responds to distress calls from other officers and civilians; or part of the command staff being vigilant and making sure that the troops are cared for—YOU are vital. You are a practitioner in the truest sense of the meaning. You protect tens of thousands of people every day and I thank you for that. You bring me great pride and I am humbled by your accomplishments.