Police Practice and Research An International Journal ISSN: 1561-4263 (Print) 1477-271X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gppr20 ‘There is no justice in a police department’: a phenomenological study of police experiences Paul Reynolds & Jeremiah Hicks To cite this article: Paul Reynolds & Jeremiah Hicks (2015) ‘There is no justice in a police department’: a phenomenological study of police experiences, Police Practice and Research, 16:6, 469-484, DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2014.931229 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2014.931229 Published online: 23 Jun 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 142 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gppr20 Download by: [Gazi University] Date: 24 October 2015, At: 14:26 Police Practice and Research, 2015 Vol. 16, No. 6, 469–484, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2014.931229 RESEARCH ARTICLE ‘There is no justice in a police department’: a phenomenological study of police experiences Paul Reynolds* and Jeremiah Hicks Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 School of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA This is a qualitative study using a phenomenological approach that examines police officers’ experiences with and perceptions of justice within their departments. The main research question under investigation in this study is: How do officers perceive organizational justice within their departments? Interviews with current and former police officers were conducted over a five-month period, and the officers’ responses were analyzed in order to identify themes related to the research question. Findings indicate that most police officers experienced or witnessed some form of unfairness within their department and these perceptions are related to the officers’ sense of value. Keywords: policing; organizational justice; fairness; police departments; police officers; phenomenology Introduction Advances have been made in our understanding of how organizations influence police officers’ behaviors and attitudes (Beckman, Lum, Wyckoff, & Larsen-Vander Wall, 2003; Skogan & Frydl, 2004). Be that as it may, there is a lack of research concerning how police officers’ experiences shape their perceptions of organizational justice. Many ideas have surfaced throughout the centuries of what justice is and what people perceive to be fair (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). The term organizational justice was used by Greenberg (1987) to explain the role of perceived fairness in the workplace. To the knowledge of the researchers in this study, there has not been any qualitative research that has described individual police officers’ perceptions of organizational justice (or fairness within a police organization). Perceptions may have a direct impact not only on the way employees view their organization but also on their work-related behaviors, attitudes, and sense of value within their organization. Further, these perceptions may lead to a better understanding of the behavior of the organization itself. There are two basic approaches used to conduct research in the social sciences: quantitative and qualitative. In the field of criminal justice, researchers rely heavily on quantitative research methods to conduct studies (Tewksbury, DeMichele, & Miller, 2005). Howbeit, some of the most influential researchers and studies in the area of policing have used qualitative or mixed methods to further our understanding of police organizational structures and behaviors (e.g. Muir, 1979; Reuss-Ianni, 1982; Van Maanen, 1973; Wilson, 1968). For example, Van Maanen (1973) noted that researchers seldom utilize qualitative methods to study police-related issues; instead, they predominately rely on data collected using surveys. *Corresponding author. Email: pr1100@txstate.edu © 2014 Taylor & Francis Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 470 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks The present study uses a phenomenological approach, which has also been utilized in previous studies of policing issues, including: utilization of deadly force (Broome, 2014), disciplinary consequences (Haberfeld, Klockars, Ivkovic, & Pagon, 2000), acute stressors (Dick, 2000), the impact of administrative polices (White, 2000), driver training (Dorn & Brown, 2003), perceptions of interviewing children with special needs (Aarons, Powell, & Browne, 2004), and workplace trauma (Regehr, Johanis, Dimitropoulos, Bartram, & Hope, 2003). In phenomenology, the researcher attempts to capture the essence of past experiences, as well as the individuals’ feelings and perceptions, in order to gain greater understanding of a particular phenomenon (Anderson & Spencer, 2002; Fischer, 1984). This qualitative approach is useful, because participants are able to convey their thoughts, feelings, and understanding of the experience in their own words, without biases (Creswell, 2013). This process allows for researcher to derive meaning and themes of phenomena from individuals with similar or shared experiences. In this particular study, police officers’ experiences and perceptions in regards to organizational justice and injustice are examined using this qualitative approach. The main focus of this study is to understand how officers define and perceive organizational justice within their departments. In addition, this study attempts to capture the essence of officers’ experiences with injustice, which may reveal reasons for why officers react to injustice the way they do. Fischer (1984) purports that researchers often ‘stumble around’ researching topics indirectly instead of using individuals’ experiences to directly examine a phenomenon. He argues the necessity of using actual experiences to fully capture the essence and understanding of a specific phenomenon (Fischer, 1984). The main research question that guides this study is: How do police officers perceive organizational justice within their departments? The purpose of this study is to examine police officers’ personal experiences with organizational justice and their perceptions of fairness within their departments. Literature review There are three important areas that are relevant to understanding what is under examination in the present study. The following three research areas are discussed in this literature review: (1) organizational justice, (2) organizational justice within the workplace, and (3) organizational justice within police agencies. Organizational justice Organizational justice is most often separated into three related dimensions of justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). In addition to these three dimensions, some researchers suggest that interactional justice actually consists of two components: interpersonal and informational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013). Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of an outcome or decision. This perspective is derived from early equity theory research, which focused on perceptions of fair outcomes (Adams, 1965; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013; Greenberg, 1988). Procedural justice refers to the processes used to determine the outcome (Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interpersonal justice refers to how employees are treated. This dimension of justice applies to situations in which supervisors treat employees with dignity and respect and refrain from demeaning or inappropriate comments (Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt et al., 2013). Informational justice is the perceived Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 471 fairness in organizational explanations for the existence of certain procedures and distributions in the workplace (Colquitt et al., 2001, 2013). As a whole, organizational justice focuses on how employees determine fair treatment within their organization and how their perceptions influence work-related variables, such as task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and counterwork behaviors. The actions of organizations have an effect on the quality of employees’ work. Policing is an occupation and police officers are employees, so police officers should respond in a way that is similar to employees in other occupations when they perceive organizational injustice is occurring. Also, officers that perceive their organization as fair will have favorable attitudes and behaviors. There is an expectation that police officers will utilize their authority in a fair and impartial manner in the community (Johnson, 2004). Yet, researchers have paid little attention to whether officers themselves are treated fairly within their own organizations. Research within the field of criminal justice has supported the relationship between perceptions of organizational justice and employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g. De Angelis & Kupchik, 2007; Farmer, Beehr, & Love, 2003; Shane, 2012; Taxman & Gordon, 2009; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Studies indicate organizational justice is related to increased organizational commitment, positive interaction with the community, and performance, but perceptions of injustice have been linked to reduced employee output, counterwork behavior, and employee deviance (see Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990). Prior studies of organizational justice within the workplace Organizational justice refers to the role of organizational fairness in the workplace (Greenberg, 1990), as well as employees’ perceptions of fairness (Cropanzano & Folger, 1998). The concept of fairness in the workplace has been studied extensively in social psychology and the number of studies covering the issue has increased over the last decade due to relationships found between fair treatment and favorable employee behaviors and attitudes (see Colquitt et al., 2005). Three meta-analyses performed by CohenCharash and Spector (2001) and Colquitt et al. (2001, 2013) found that organizational justice is related to employee behaviors. Furthermore, perceptions of injustice have been found to be related to negative behaviors (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013). These negative behaviors include counterwork behaviors and reduction in performance (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Colquitt et al., 2001, 2013). Prior studies of organizational justice within police agencies Research within the field of criminal justice examining the effect of organizational practices on employee behaviors and attitudes has continued to increase (Shane, 2010). There has been an increase in the study of organizational justice among policing scholars for both its theoretical and practical implications (Shane, 2012; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). However, there is not much research in regards to how organizational justice relates to police officers’ behaviors and attitudes. Research that does exist has found perceived fairness (justice) is related to favorable attitudes and behaviors and perceived unfairness (injustice) is related to negative attitudes and behaviors (Shane, 2012; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Research findings in studies that have examined the effects of organizational justice on police officers within the organization support similar findings in other studies performed on other occupations (Colquitt et al., 2001). Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 472 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks Wolfe and Piquero (2011) examined perceptions of organizational justice utilizing survey data from a random sample of 483 police officers that consisted of topics such as: officer misconduct, adherence to the code of silence, and justifications for noble cause corruption. The findings indicated that officers who perceive that organizational procedures are fair are less likely to engage in police misconduct. In addition, favorable perceptions of organizational justice are related to lower likelihood of adhering to the code of silence or perceptions that corruption in pursuit of a noble cause is justified (Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Shane (2012) found officers were more likely to perceive that the disciplinary process is fair when supervisory discretion and uncertainty were reduced by utilizing a disciplinary matrix for disciplinary outcomes. De Angelis and Kupchik’s (2007) study revealed that investigations into citizen complaints conducted by the administration in a fair and objective manner result in police officers’ positive perceptions of the organization, regardless of the outcome in the investigation. Overall, these studies indicate that if police organizations are transparent and have predictable procedures for handling disciplinary issues, then officers will perceive that the organization is fair towards its employees. On the other hand, if the organization does not have policies and procedures in place, deviates from policy, or there is no consistency in outcomes, officers will not perceive that the organization is fair. In summary, prior studies of organizational justice in police departments have found a relationship between organizational actions and employee performance and attitudes towards the organization. Likewise, officers’ perceptions that unfairness may be occurring within the organization have a similar effect. The purpose of this study is to examine these relationships more in-depth. Quantitative studies have found relationships exist, but a qualitative study will help answer the question, why do these relationships exist? Further, besides enhancing previous findings, this study may reveal relationships which have not yet been measured statistically. Methods Participants The present study includes a purposive sample of 24 current and former police officers located in multiple states throughout the United States. A purposive sample was used in this study in order to insure that individuals who were or are police officers are included in the sample. The criteria for inclusion in this study’s sample included the following: (a) current or prior police experience, (b) agreement to audio recorded interviews, and (c) willingness to voluntarily discuss issues concerning organizational justice. Twentytwo of the participants were male and two were female. Fifteen of the participants were White, six were Hispanic, two were Black, and one was Asian. Twenty were current police officers and four were former police officers. The years of experience as a police officer for the participants ranged from 1 to 18 years, with 8.9 years being the mean number years of experience. Thirteen of the current officers have considered leaving his/her department and seven have not. A total of eight police departments were represented by the sample. The police departments where the participants currently work, or had previously worked, vary in size, location, and organizational style. Each participant was provided a consent form and voluntarily participated in the study. No compensation or other incentive was offered to anyone in exchange for participation in this research. Maintaining confidentiality was an important concern in this study. Each participant in the study received a pseudonym in place of his/her real name and the pseudonym Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 473 was used for all documents related to the study. Interviews were conducted away from work locations and while current police officers in the study were off duty. Finally, participants were asked to not provide any names of individuals or their departments while being interviewed. This was to insure that their responses could not be connected to the individual who provided the response in this study. Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Data collection Data collection involved semi-structured interviews of the study participants. After the study was approved by the university’s institutional review board, potential participants were contacted via telephone or email. Individuals were provided a brief description of the research and asked if they might be willing to participate or could recommend other officers. Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone in order to: (1) allow the participants to feel more comfortable about where the interview would take place, (2) allow for flexibility in interview locations or times, and (3) give the researchers access to more participants. The interviews were conducted over a five-month period. Guided by interview procedures found in other phenomenological research (e.g. Anderson & Spencer, 2002), all interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews generally lasted between 5 and 20 min, depending on the length of the participants’ answers to the interview questions. An interview protocol was used by the researchers. Pre-tests of the interview protocol were conducted to insure the validity of the interview questions. Interviews continued until the researchers began to notice participants’ responses did not yield new information. Between 10 and 25 interviews are recommended when conducting a phenomenological study (Creswell, 2013). These numbers are typical of other phenomenological police studies in the literature (e.g. Regehr et al., 2003). The researchers recognize that one weakness of the study is that the responses to the interview questions lack any outside verification; therefore, the researchers have made the assumption that the participants are being truthful in their answers. Nonetheless, this study is focused on perceptions of justice, thus the true nature of the event is not as pertinent as the officer’s perception of the event. After the researchers obtained consent, each participant was informed a second time of the purpose of the research. The researchers asked the participants several background questions in order to obtain information about the participants’ race, age, level of education, years of experience, and department size. Participants were then asked to verbally respond to the preliminary question or ‘ice breaker:’ ‘Are you a current officer?’ This question was followed up by several other questions that varied slightly depending on whether the individual was a current officer or a former officer: if the individual was current officer, he or she was asked, ‘Have you ever considered leaving your department?’ If the individual was a former officer, he or she was asked, ‘Why did you leave policing?’ and ‘Have you ever considered returning to policing?’ These questions were followed by other interview questions that pertained to feelings, experiences, and responses to perceptions of justice within the individual participant’s organization. Examples of some of the questions that were asked include: ‘When you think back to your experiences as a police officer, can you tell me how you felt about fairness within the organization?’ and ‘Can you think of an incident in which you felt that you were not treated fairly by the department?’ 474 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Data analysis Upon completion of the interviews, the audio recordings were transcribed into Microsoft Word by the researchers. After the transcription of the audio recordings was complete, each researcher read through the transcripts and compared them to the audio recordings to make sure they were accurate. Next, the interview transcriptions were imported into NVivo 10 to be coded. In order to insure coding reliability, both researchers read through each interview transcript together to identify themes and other patterns in the interview responses. Two primary themes were created: fairness and unfairness. Each interview transcript was then coded according to these themes. After coding for fairness and unfairness in each transcript, additional themes emerged and were coded under each of the two primary themes, such as empathy, the Golden Rule, and subjectivity. The researchers examined the secondary themes for variation. As former police officers, the researchers felt it was important not to allow their own feelings and experiences to have an influence on the data analysis. Be that as it may, familiarity with law enforcement provided the researchers a greater understanding of the experiences and feelings described in the participants’ responses. Results Officers’ perceptions of fairness within their department When police officers were asked how they perceived fairness within their police department, 92% of the officers interviewed perceived their department as unfair or possessing some form of unfairness. Officer 2: Officer 7: Officer 8: Justice, there is no justice within a police department. It’s not fair … there is no consistency in how they decide stuff. It has more to do with who you are and who you know versus what you did. I don’t think the department has ever been fair, at least in regards to how they treat officers. Some administrations and supervisors are more pro-police than others, but at the end of the day, whatever keeps their butt out of the sling that is what they will do. If you don’t understand that, you are in for a rude awakening in this line of work. Although most officers perceived the department as unfair, 42% of police officers made references that the department could be fair in some aspects, or the department tries to be fair, but it is unsuccessful. Officer 12: Officer 21: Officer 23: Officer 13: I think the department tries to be fair in some ways. For instance, our department uses a disciplinary matrix. But not everyone gets treated the same, not at all. I think it for the most part it is meant to be fair, for the most part it is fair, but there are some political perks that some people get that are separate from what the general police population would get. I think it depends on where you’re at in the department and who’s in charge. I think they try hard to be fair, but I think that they don’t always achieve it. Officers’ perceptions of a fair department When officers described their department as fair or were asked to describe a fair department, four themes emerged: equality, empathy, transparency, and the ‘Golden Rule.’1 Although more than one theme was identified when officers described a fair Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 475 organization, on average, one primary theme was identified in each officer’s response. For example, an officer described a fair department in terms of equality and empathy, ‘I guess …. equal standards and expectations for everyone; a department that looks after the welfare of its officers and fully considers all points of view and facts before making decisions.’ No differential treatment – equality Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Equality within the organization was the most frequently occurring theme in regards to officers’ perceptions of a fair department. Officers made reference to equal treatment of officers by supervisors, and they also mentioned equal accountability between supervisors and officers. Rewards, punishments, and other administrative decisions (e.g. promotions) should be carried out in a consistent manner among all officers and within organizational hierarchy. Officer 7: Officer 13: Officer 4: I would say a fair department looks after and treats all their employees equally. There is obvious disparate treatment within the department, mainly among how supervisors treat officers. A department that applies rules evenly and has the same expectations of officers from the top to the bottom. For me, it would be a department that treats everyone equally. Same rewards, same punishment, same advancement opportunities – shows that they care about their employees. Although officers predominately felt that similar acts should receive similar results, not every act should be viewed as similar. Two officers made a distinction between honest mistakes and deliberate acts when discussing fair discipline policies, noting the need for supervisors to differentiate between the two. The officers also described that not all circumstances surrounding similar acts are the same. For instance, an officer wrecking a patrol vehicle in a snow storm is different than not paying attention and backing into ditch, even though each act could be viewed as damage of department property. Officer 11: Officer 13: I think everyone should receive similar punishments for similar actions, but the department shouldn’t judge every circumstance or action an officer does the same. If you treat hard working cops the same as the screw ups, you end up losing their support and trust. A good leader should know the difference between an officer who made a honest mistake versus a trouble officer. In one case an officer may not have been trying to be rude, on the other hand, some officers are disrespectful to people and have Superman complexes. I think part of the problem is the department does not differentiate between simple officer mistakes and intentional or reckless misconduct. Empathy towards officers There is evidence that there is a relationship between officers who perceive that the department cares about their welfare and perceptions that the department is fair. Empathy, as described by the officers, refers to the department not only weighing the potential harm and benefits that policies and procedures may have in terms how departmental decisions affect officers, but also having awareness of officers’ needs and concerns, both on and off duty. In addition, it is important to officers that the administration understands that officers may not make the best decisions all the time, because a lot of times officers do not have the luxury of assessing a situation before taking action. 476 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks Officer 11: Officer 13: Officer 12: Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Officer 11: … the administration needs to spend more time in the field and get a better grasp of what is going on in the streets and see how the policies affect officers. Even in the brass, the higher ups, there a lot of folks that remember what it was like to be an officer, so they try to stay fair to the officers. The ones I have now are very understanding about what is going on in your life and outside of work-knowing what problems you are having and trying to work with you there. A department which looks after the welfare of its officers and fully considers all points of view and facts before making decisions. Transparency Officers expressed a desire for transparency within the department. Transparency within a police organization means a department has clear policies and procedures and does not hide or fail to reveal important information that may have a profound effect on an officer. Officers should know department expectations regarding officers’ behaviors and performance and the rewards and punishments for compliance with expectations. Further, officers should be aware of what specific actions constitute failure to meet expectations or violation of department policies and procedures. Officer 3: Officer 14: Officer 6: A department that gives you reasonable expectations to meet and fair guidelines and procedures for both rewards and punishments. They should reward hard work and not just give punishments when officers mess up. Try to be consistent with rewards and punishments. Just have clear and concise expectations for me to follow. Clear explanations of expectations. Be willing to give praise and discipline equally for everyone. An organization that looks out for what is best for everyone and not just the department. The Golden Rule Officers often referred to a maxim of reciprocation, a rule, or principle of exchange that should be used to guide departmental decisions and acts. The Golden Rule is treating others as you would want to be treated. Applying this principle within an organizational context, police departments should treat their officers in the same manner that would want to be treated. Officer 8: Officer 6: Just doing right by the officers. It is the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, it’s that simple. No one expects the department to protect a dirty officer, well, at least not anymore. We do expect you not to throw officers under the bus for trying to do their job because a few citizens get their feelings hurt. Even if they have to investigate complaints, they need to make the officer feel that at least they’re somewhat behind them, until they have reason not to. Basically, treat us the way they wanted to be treated when they were officers. Officers’ perceptions of an unfair department When officers described experiences they perceived to be unfair, four themes emerged. The themes discovered in officers’ responses related to their perceptions of department unfairness include: subjectivity, Machiavellianism, double standards, and inconsistency.2 Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 477 Subjectivity When officers described unfairness within their departments, 79% of the officers inferred or alluded to a lack of objectivity, particularly in regards to discipline by supervisors. As described by the officers, supervisors apply discipline in an inconsistent manner. Also, one supervisor may view a situation one way, while another supervisor may view it another. The type, if any, disciplined received seems to depend on who the supervisor is at the time. Even if objective rules are in place, supervisors choose whether they want to apply them or not. Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Officer 16: Officer 7: There was, uh, one incident involving like a little prank between shifts kind of thing that was very, very minor. Like 99.9 percent of the time it would just be swept under the rug or just what we call DOC, documentation of counseling, where the sergeant would just be like, ‘hey, don’t do that, that’s a bad idea,’ and just writes it down and it never goes anywhere. But there were certain captains at this point, they were pushing for suspension, and I think one of them was pushing for termination. There have been numerous times when myself or other officers I work with will get complained on or we violated policy somehow, and one sergeant in particular would apply the discipline matrix to us or find fault, and then this other officer would do something similar and the sergeant would just wash it under the table. Officers also described the department as a whole as being subjective. Even though there are policies and procedures in place, some officers’ perceptions are that the department does what is best for itself, even if it means not strictly adhering to procedure. Officer 14: Officer 2: The department does whatever they feel at the time. I think the department does what it wants to do. Double standards Officers described unfair departments as administering discipline and rewards with bias or having a double standard that depends on who you are, your supervisor’s attitude toward you, or your relationship with the supervisor. Over half of the officers responded that who you are or who you know matters more than your actual performance or ability, and that certain supervisors show favoritism or give special treatment to particular officers. This is more commonly referred to as the ‘Good Ol’ Boy Network.’ If an officer is outside of this network, then it may be more difficult to get promoted, get the schedule the officer wants, or any other number of things that should be based on merit, experience, years of service, and performance, not who is buddies with who. Officer 4: Officer 24: Officer 20: Officer 4: Officer 5: It’s not fair. It is who you know and who’s your supervisor. If you’re in the buddy-boy group life is very fair. If not, you better lay low. Not fair. There’s a lot of cronyism. Good ol’ boy network. I think little small groups do … um … have favoritism just because they belong to that certain group or friendly with a certain person. It’s all about being the ‘chosen’ or the ‘golden child’. For example, with overtime or extra jobs; the same people schedule or have connections to these extra jobs and they always check to see if their friends want them first before posting it for the other officers. It’s just kind of a good old boy network, and since I’m new, I’m kind of at a disadvantage in some ways. 478 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks Officers also mentioned that some officers receive benefits or protections because of reasons such as race, gender, or sexual orientation. One officer also mentioned that being a relative of someone higher up in the department can lead to differential treatment as well. Officer 15: Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Officer 7: Officer 19: … the chief back-doored a new promotional process where he could promote whomever he wanted. We had a written test which was 30 percent of our grade, and 70 percent was our assessment grade. He threw a monkey wrench into it in which he basically created a survey that replaced the list completely, and he basically went by that if he wanted to. I was ranked number 16, and they promoted 34 people, and I was never promoted. The court said metro acted in bad faith in it, but no ruling was made and we had to appeal that process. We never got a straight answer as to why I never got promoted, and the deputy chief at the time said it was a completely unfair system and based on racial relations. When I notified the sergeant about the event, he told me that the officer’s uncle is an assistant chief and to watch myself if I was on a call with him because nothing will happen to him, but the department will have no problem slamming me. This officer always overreacts and cusses people, but the sergeants look the other way or cover it up, because they don’t want heat coming down on them. One that jumps out in my mind is this particular female who’s a lesbian and she’s a terrible cop and nobody cares about her sexual preference, but any time she gets in a little trouble it’s like, ‘oh, it’s because I’m gay.’ So that person just skates and skates and skates and that’s probably the most unfair thing I see around here. Machiavellianism Many officers perceive the administration as ruling with an iron fist in order to protect its own interests. Officers see themselves as being under constant scrutiny and threat of disciplinary action by the administration. Furthermore, officers feel that they are often at the mercy of supervisors whom have the power to manipulate policies and procedures to their benefit. Officers perceive the organizational management philosophy as simply: get along or you will be gone. Officer 7: Officer 6: Officer 10: Officer 4: Officer 12: Officer 2: However, if the department or your supervisor is out to get you, they will slam you hard for anything they can find, and you can always find something, so I try to stay on my sergeant’s good side. They need to find a way to get rid of the bad officers without making the rest of live under a Gestapo. The problem is that supervisors override or circumvent policies to carry out their personal agendas; especially, if they want to make a point or exert their authority. If a supervisor or the department has an axe to grind with you, they will find a way to make their point. When I was at another precinct, it was do this or we are going to give you a day. If you don’t do this, the way I am telling you to do it, I am going to give you a day …. There are so many general orders and departmental policies, that the department can always find a way to hammer you if they want. Inconsistency While perceptions of the administration and supervisors were associated with bias and favoritism among officers, inconsistency refers to wavering, shifting, or conflicting Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 479 expectations. Officers discussed two primary areas of inconsistency: department and supervisor. Department inconsistency consists of fluid policies, varying rewards and punishments, or unclear objectives. Supervisor inconsistency consists of inconsistent job performance and behavior expectations from supervisors. Department inconsistency. Officer 6: Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Officer 8: There’s just too much stress and bullshit from the administration nowadays. They keep adding new policies and procedures. But every administration has some new way of policing. First, it was be hard on the streets – don’t let criminals think they run this town, then it was be nice to citizens. Now, it’s write a lot of tickets and say you’re making a difference. Policing doesn’t change. It’s the same thing under a different umbrella. Supervisor inconsistency. Officer 4: Officer 22: Officer 9: Officer 11: Yeah, I got t-boned in an intersection by some guy and I ended up getting three days? However, another officer loss control of his vehicle heading to an emergency call and only got a verbal counseling. And it was my way or the highway; we’re doing this because I said so. Nothing was ever uniform. One sergeant would say they wanted you to do one thing during your shift and then the next sergeant would say something different. Then when we went to roll call, the lieutenant would say something totally different. He worked a different zone and was covering for our supervisor for a few days and he began to yell at me because I didn’t have something in my report that he wanted. I told him that it was the way we normally do them. He told me he didn’t care how the other supervisor wanted them and he was in charge. Discussion A person’s perception of what is occurring and what is actually occurring may be the same or they may be completely different. How a person perceives a situation is what becomes that person’s reality. A police officer who perceives injustice within his or her department does not mean with absolute certainty that injustice is occurring, because it might not be. However, an individual’s perception is very powerful in determining the way he or she views and thinks about situations. Once an officer perceives an incident or experience is unfair, it affects the way that officer perceives fairness within the organization and future perceptions of fairness (see Jones & Skarlicki, 2013), as was the case with many of the officers interviewed in this study. This could explain why many of the officers discussed unfairness within their organizations, but they only could give limited examples of unfair treatment. Officers’ attitudes and behaviors are reflective of their organizational experiences and the meanings they attach to those experiences. These findings are consistent with and provide support for previous studies (e.g. Colquitt et al., 2001). Officers described fair organizations as possessing equality, empathy, transparency, and adherence to the Golden Rule. Equality, as in terms of treating officers equally, was the concept most often expressed by the officers. This included the extent to which the department distributed rewards, discipline, and promotions among the officers employed by the agency in a fair and equitable manner. Overall, the officers interviewed were Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 480 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks more concerned about being treated equally among ranks and peers, regardless of the reward or punishment itself. Thus, from an administration standpoint, the equal application of policies may be more important to officers than the actual policies themselves. This supports Shane’s (2012) study, which indicates a formal matrix may increase both consistency in disciplinary outcomes and perceptions of fairness among officers. On the other hand, policies and rules that are too harsh may be seen as unfair among officers, regardless as to whether everyone receives equal treatment (see Harris & Worden, 2012). Therefore, policies should be fair and apply to everyone the same. Some officers felt that discretion should not be completely eliminated in disciplinary decision-making, particularly at the supervisory level. Officers expressed the necessity for supervisors and the administration to be able to differentiate between honest mistakes and deliberate or unprofessional acts, and they should also recognize that other factors should be taken into consideration when deciding what disciplinary action is appropriate for the situation. The Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated) is a good measure for supervisor treatment of officers. The only issue is that some people like to be treated one way and others like to be treated another. This would mean supervisors would need to adjust how they treat some officers compared to how they treat others. This study’s findings indicate that this could lead to perceptions of unfairness by officers if the supervisor is not careful in his implementation of this practice. It is important that the department creates an environment that promotes positive working atmosphere that recognizes each officer’s personal well-being (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Outcome predictability was a primary factor in officers’ assessments of fairness within their departments. Officers described that they have an expectation of what an outcome should be based on policy guidelines and the incident that occurred. Officers also compare the actual outcome of the event to their perceived expected outcome based on their previous experiences within the organization. The difference between what the officer expects to have happen and what actually occurs is what shapes their perceptions of fairness. This finding is consistent within the distributive justice literature, which is derived from equity theory. Adams’ (1965) equity theory describes that a worker compares his inputs and outcomes to some standard, such as another worker’s inputs and outcomes or previous experiences, to determine whether the outcomes he received are fair. For instance, an officer who receives disciplinary action for wrecking a patrol vehicle may not consider the outcome unfair when the officer knew it was his or her fault and policy stated what the outcome would be. But when the discipline an officer receives is different than what he expected, it can create uncertainty for the officer in the workplace. The uncertainty is created by the unpredictability of outcomes. Yet, even when officers were content because they received a better outcome than expected, there was still a sense of uncertainty regarding what may occur with future outcomes. Specifically, officers worried that if the department can side in their favor, the department can just as easily side against the officers. This is an important finding, because one of the major complaints that officers discussed was department biases towards how certain officers were treated, rewarded, or punished compared to other officers. When outcomes differed from what was expected, the procedural processes used to derive the outcomes were also influential in whether officers perceived that a department was fair (Colquitt et al., 2001; Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). For example, procedural processes used to handle citizen complaints and disciplinary proceedings were considered important by many of the officers interviewed. The officers placed Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 481 Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 more emphasis on the procedural processes that led to the outcomes than the outcomes themselves. Procedural justice – the processes that lead to the outcomes – may be more important to an individual than distributive justice – the outcomes (Tyler, 2006, 2010; Tyler, Callahan, & Frost, 2007). Fair procedures and treatment within the department are interpreted by officers that the administration is trustworthy, and it also confirms the employee’s perception that he or she is a valued member of the organization. Conversely, unfair department procedures and treatment will lead to employee perceptions of not being valued by the organization and the employee will feel the organization should not be trusted. Officers’ reactions support previous findings concerning the influence of fairness and social identity within the group (Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992). This is also consistent with grouporiented theories (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Conclusion Increasing our understanding of how officers perceive fairness within organizations is important, because perceptions of fairness may have a direct impact on the quality of service that a police department provides to a community. Departments should insure that their policies and procedures are implemented in a fair manner using transparency, empathy towards officers, and objectivity. Research has shown positive relationships between perceptions of equity and fairness to employee attitudes and behaviors (Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Given this relationship, one would expect perceptions of inequity or unfair treatment within an organizational context to result in increased negative attitudes and behaviors among employees (Colquitt et al., 2013; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Fair treatment is important because it fosters and maintains supervisor and administrative legitimacy (Tyler & Lind, 1992). This legitimacy is vital if an organization wants its policies to be supported and followed by employees (Tyler, 2010; Tyler et al., 2007). Increasing our understanding of the police organizational environment is critical in order to facilitate positive working environments and improve police service to the community (Skogan & Frydl, 2004). As one officer in our sample asked, ‘…. how is the police department going to build trust, enforce rules and laws impartially in the community if they can’t even do it in their own backyard?’ Establishing procedures for predictable outcomes, such as using a disciplinary matrix, can benefit an organization in two ways. First, it creates a sense of stability in the workplace, which may lead to a reduction in work-related anxiety or stress (Gershon, Barocas, Canton, Li, & Vlahov, 2009). For example, an officer may have no control over the calls for service he receives, but at least the officer will be able to predict how his actions in a situation will be evaluated by the department. Second, it increases objectivity and places scrutiny on the facts of the situation instead of inviting favoritism or bias. Shane (2012) suggests this is a more preferred method over discretionary practices, because matrices provide more consistent and fair outcomes. Nonetheless, the disciplinary matrix is just a tool; thus, the effectiveness of the disciplinary matrix is dependent on how it is applied. Simply, you must have fair processes to promote fair outcomes. This study is the first to provide an in-depth examination of police officers’ perceptions of fairness through a qualitative research method, but there are some limitations. This study consisted of 24 officers from only a few departments located in even fewer states. The findings of this study are not representative of all officers; therefore, this study should not be interpreted as representative of all police officers or departments. A 482 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks replication should be performed to determine the validity of the findings. In regards to future research, studies should explore officer reactions to their perceptions of injustice within their departments. Furthermore, officers from varying department sizes, states, and types of law enforcement agencies should be examined. In addition, law enforcement officers in other countries should also be studied to determine whether different cultural norms and values influence perceptions of fairness within law enforcement organizations. Prior research indicates that differences do exist in how organizational justice is perceived cross-culturally (Leung, 2005). Notes 1. Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 2. Percentages of the four themes related to officers’ perceptions of a fair department: equality (67%), empathy (25%), transparency (21%), and the ‘Golden Rule’ (17%). Percentages of the four themes related to officers’ perceptions of an unfair department: subjectivity (79%), Machiavellianism (67%), double standards (58%), and inconsistency (30%). Notes on contributors Paul Reynolds and Jeremiah Hicks are both former law enforcement officers and are currently doctoral students in the School of Criminal Justice at Texas State University. References Aarons, N. M., Powell, M. B., & Browne, J. (2004). Police perceptions of interviews involving children with intellectual disabilities: A qualitative inquiry. Policing and Society, 14, 269–278. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Anderson, E. H., & Spencer, M. H. (2002). Cognitive representations of AIDS: A phenomenological study. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1338–1352. Beckman, K., Lum, C., Wyckoff, L., & Larsen-Vander Wall, K. (2003). Trends in police research: A cross-sectional analysis of the 2000 literature. Police Practice and Research, 4, 79–96. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43–55. Broome, R. E. (2014). A phenomenological psychological study of the police officer’s lived experience of the use of deadly force. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 54, 158–181. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 666–680. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236. Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 483 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. G. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management (Vol. 7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Angelis, J., & Kupchik, A. (2007). Citizen oversight, procedural justice, and officer perceptions of the complaint investigation process. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 30, 651–671. Dick, P. (2000). The social construction of the meaning of acute stressors: A qualitative study of the personal accounts of police officers using a stress counselling service. Work and Stress, 14, 226–244. Dorn, L., & Brown, B. (2003). Making sense of invulnerability at work – A qualitative study of police drivers. Safety Science, 41, 837–859. Farmer, S. J., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (2003). Becoming an undercover police officer: A note on fairness perceptions, behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 373–387. Fischer, C. T. (1984). A phenomenological study of being criminally victimized: Contributions and constraints of qualitative research. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 161–177. Gershon, R. R., Barocas, B., Canton, A. N., Li, X., & Vlahov, D. (2009). Mental, physical, and behavioral outcomes associated with perceived work stress in police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 275–289. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9–22. Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 606–613. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432. Haberfeld, M. R., Klockars, C. B., Ivkovic, S. K., & Pagon, M. (2000). Police officer perceptions of the disciplinary consequences of police corruption in Croatia, Poland, Slovenia, and the United States. Police Practice and Research, 1, 41–72. Harris, C. J., & Worden, R. E. (2012). The effect of sanctions on police misconduct. Crime and Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128712466933 Johnson, R. R. (2004). Citizens expectations of police traffic stop behavior. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 27, 487–497. Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 138–160. Leung, K. (2005). How generalizable are justice effects across cultures? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 555–586). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Muir, W. K. (1979). Police: Streetcorner politicians. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Regehr, C., Johanis, D., Dimitropoulos, G., Bartram, C., & Hope, G. (2003). The police officer and the public inquiry: A qualitative inquiry into the aftermath of workplace trauma. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 3, 383–396. Reuss-Ianni, E. (1982). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Shane, J. M. (2010). Organizational stressors and police performance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 807–818. Shane, J. M. (2012). Police employee disciplinary matrix: An emerging concept. Police Quarterly, 15, 62–91. Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (Eds.). (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Taxman, F. S., & Gordon, J. A. (2009). Do fairness and equity matter?: An examination of organizational justice among correctional officers in adult prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 695–711. Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 14:26 24 October 2015 484 P. Reynolds and J. Hicks Tewksbury, R., DeMichele, M. T., & Miller, J. M. (2005). Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16, 265–279. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2010). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361. Tyler, T. R., Callahan, P. E., & Frost, J. (2007). Armed, and dangerous (?): Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law and Society Review, 41, 457–492. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Van Maanen, J. (1973). Observations on the making of policemen. Human Organization, 32, 407–418. Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. White, M. D. (2000). Assessing the impact of administrative policy on use of deadly force by on- and off-duty police. Evaluation Review, 24, 295–318. Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wolfe, S. E., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 332–353.