Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment Model of Problem-Solving - Stephen Woods - Case Study Example

Running Head: MANAGEMENT STUDIES IN POLICING Management Studies in Policing Name Institution Management Studies in Policing Introduction The SARA model of problem solving is useful in the context of police work. The acronym SARA stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment. The SARA model is flexible; therefore it can be used for both problem-solving and planning, as the case may be. Another useful feature of the SARA model is that although it is sequential, with scanning preceding analysis which in turn precedes response and so on, it is flexible enough to allow the user of the model to return to a previous stage of the model, for example from response to analysis. This means that the user of SARA can retrace his or her steps and repeat a previous stage of the model before moving on to the next stage. Indeed, even when one has reached the final step, assessment, it is possible for one to go back to the first stage, scanning, if the assessment of the results is not satisfactory. Aim This essay discusses a hypothetical scenario faced by officer Stephen Woods, in his duties as a newly appointed sergeant. Sergeant Woods is facing a test of his leadership skills in relation to a senior officer who is abusing his seniority by inappropriately delegating his QPrime entry responsibilities to First Year Corporals (FYCs), who are junior officers. Sergeant Woods has to use the SARA model to determine exactly what the problem is, how it affects the working of the police service and the attainment of its goals, and to take measures to respond to the situation and to assess whether the response taken has achieved the intended objective. Workplace Scan The first thing that Sergeant Woods has to do is to carry out the scanning process within the workplace. According to Baker (2006) it is the responsibility of the sergeant to be aware of the competencies and personality traits of each and every officer who is subordinate to him/her. In this way, the sergeant will find it easy to assign duties to particular officers, and in case disciplinary action is required, the sergeant will know which disciplinary methods are most likely to be effective when dealing with particular officers. The QPS (2009) suggests that scanning should be a comprehensive process. The sergeant should examine the body language of officers, and should evaluate conversations, including those that the sergeant has with officers, as well as those between officers themselves. Individual and group body language may also be tell-tale signs as to whether there are any problems among the officers. An increase in absenteeism and tardiness may also indicate that officers may be unhappy about their working environment. Another source of information that can be useful in scanning is QPrime, as any change in the performance of officers can be picked up on the system by the sergeant. In the scenario described, the senior officer is using first year corporals (FYCs) to do his QPrime entries for him. This may show up on QPrime itself, as the FYCs may have certain patterns of data entry which differ from those of the senior officer. In addition, the sergeant should be able to note that the FYCs are spending longer hours at work. If these added hours coincide with a drop in the performance of FYCs, as determined from QPrime and the sergeant’s own observations, then it is up to the sergeant to identify the underlying cause. Analysis of problem Once the sergeant has recognized that there is a problem he will need to identify the root cause of the problem. QPS (2009) states that this is the essence of the process of analysis. Sergeant Woods will be required to take his investigation a step further. The best way to do this is to interview the parties concerned. As the senior officer is perceived to be the cause of the problem, Sergeant Woods should interview him first, preferably in private and without using a confrontational tone or manner (Baker 2006). The sergeant should then repeat the process with the FYCs. He should also examine the personal files and QPrime records of all the parties concerned to establish whether the present difficulties are affecting their output on the job. It is also important for Sergeant Woods to get information from other officers who are not directly involved in the problem being investigated. For instance, friends and colleagues of the senior officer may be able to offer insights and further information as to why the senior officer is behaving as he is. Similarly, the colleagues and friends of the FYCs may be able to tell the Sergeant information about the FYCs which the Sergeant could not obtain by any other means. It is also important to note that the manner in which the Sergeant handles this particular problem will have an impact in future on officers’ perception of the Sergeant’s leadership qualities. Therefore, in his analysis of the problem, Sergeant Woods has to consider what kind of impact the current practice has on current motivation and morale, and how he can resolve the situation so that the motivation of officers is not only maintained, but hopefully improved in future. Sergeant Woods should analyze the situation at hand with all the care and professionalism that he would use in carrying out an investigation in the field. As his response to the problem will depend on the quality of the data which he has, he must ensure that he collects as much accurate information as possible about all the parties involved in the situation, so that he can respond in the best possible way. Desired outcome Sergeant Woods recognizes that the current situation, if left unattended, may have serious adverse consequences for the performance of not only his unit but for the entire police service. For example, the relationship between the senior officers and the FYCs is likely to deteriorate, and this poses a risk to al concerned, as they may have to work together on dangerous tasks in the field. If there is no mutual rapport, the team spirit of the unit will be compromised, and this may put the lives of officers at risk. Therefore, Sergeant Woods has to respond to the situation in a manner that will achieve, as closely as possible, a desired outcome. For Sergeant Woods, such an ideal outcome would include the senior officer resuming his QPrime entry duties, which would free time for the FYCs to concentrate on their own tasks, and assuage their anger at the senior officer. Such an outcome would hopefully improve relations between the senior officer and the FYCs, leading to greater cooperation between them in the field, which would boost morale in the unit and have a positive knock-on effect on all round performance. The FYCs will also be able to overcome their feelings of defencelessness and vulnerability, which will improve their ability to learn from their more senior colleagues. Feelings of fatigue will no longer be experienced by the FYCs, and they should begin to develop relationships with their peers and superiors which are based on trust and respect. From his own point of view, Sergeant Woods will want to create a working environment that is free of victimization and harassment, in which the officers may feel free to talk to him about any problems they are facing. Such an arrangement will also help Sergeant Woods in the process of scanning, both for purposes of problem solving, and for future planning, which may be used to avoid problems in future. As this situation can be interpreted as a test of the new sergeant’s authority, Sergeant Woods will want the outcome to reflect that he has established his leadership credentials among the members of his unit. By resolving this issue successfully, Sergeant Woods will make it even easier to lead his unit in the future. Response to be implemented In order to achieve the idealized outcome described above, Sergeant Woods will have to ascertain that his response is both accurate and effective. During the analysis process, it was established through confidential interviews with the parties involved that the senior officer was the instigator of the problem. Sergeant Woods can deal with the senior officer by reprimanding him. Baker (2006) recommends that such reprimands should be carried out in private, and that they should be frank and brief. Furthermore, the sergeant should spell out in no uncertain terms why the senior officer’s behaviour is unacceptable, and also suggest ways in which the senior officer can improve his working relationship with his colleagues. Sergeant Woods should also talk with the FYCs, and encourage them to freely and openly discuss any of their concerns with him. This is because the rank of sergeant is considered as an intermediary between the officers and the senior management. It is also important for officers to discuss their grievances with the sergeant, as problems which are allowed to fester will have long term repercussions that may be much harder to deal with. Sergeant Woods also has to address the matter of ethics, accountability and integrity. QPrime is designed to be a system which shows how police officers are working as individuals. Taken together, data from QPrime can give an overall picture of how a police unit is performing. By assigning his QPrime data entry to young officers, the senior officer is abdicating his responsibilities in terms of accountability. If asked about the veracity of his QPrime entries, the senior officer cannot possibly give a truthful answer. When carrying out their duties, whether towards the public or in their internal police matters, officers are expected to display the very highest level of integrity. Any compromise on integrity is likely to erode the standards of the police service, and ultimately the public’s trust in the police. Therefore Sergeant Woods must be unequivocal in stating to the senior officer that ethics must be upheld by all officers to the highest standard. Sergeant Woods must also address the issue of abuse of power. Although the senior officer may not have any formal power over the FYCs, the mere fact of seniority means that the senior officer enjoys a form of personal power, which he has abused by getting the FYCs to do his data entry tasks (Robbins & Judge 2007). The issue of abuse of power is particularly relevant to Sergeant Woods own leadership position in the unit. He has to emphasize, by taking decisive action to nip the activities of the senior sergeant in the bud, that there is only one centre of power in the unit, namely himself. If he allows the senior officer to get away with misconduct, he will only be encouraging further misconduct, which will chip away at his authority until he is no longer able to motivate or lead the officers, as they will have lost all respect for him. Thus the response to the problem by the sergeant must be done as soon as possible and in an effective manner which will leave no one in doubt as to who is in charge. Finally, the resolution of the problem must be communicated to the officers. While reprimands and evaluation are supposed to be conducted in private, an issue such as the one being addressed, once resolved, should be communicated to the officers. For instance, when the sergeant is taking a roll call, he can mention that it is no longer acceptable for senior officers to use FYCs to do their QPrime data entries. It is more than likely that the officers are aware of what has been going on, through the ‘grapevine’, and so a clear communication from their sergeant that this practice will not be tolerated will end any rumours and allow officers to focus on their core duties. Justification of response Sergeant Woods can justify his response to the problem on a number of grounds. To begin with, the procedures and protocols laid down by the executive management of the service are not meant to be suggestions. It is mandatory for officers to do their own QPrime data entry, as it was set up for the purpose of helping to evaluate individual and group performance. Therefore an officer cannot seek a substitute to do the task for him, as all officers are required to enter QPrime data, and so asking an officer to do it for another officer amounts to overloading the officer with work. Another ground on which the response can be justifies is that there is a need for officers to improve for the future. Although, in the scenario, there is no information to indicate that the abuse of FYCs working hours was an ongoing process before Woods became sergeant, it is clear that the practice had taken root during the tenure of Sergeant Woods. Once one wrong practice has become established in a unit, it is easy for other poor practices to take hold. Therefore, in order to uphold officer integrity and to ensure that the unit’s performance is not adversely affected, Sergeant Woods had to take action to ensure that the unit stayed on the right track. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Woods is a first time sergeant, and that units have to collaborate and cooperate for the purpose of law enforcement. Sergeant Woods is no longer a member of the officers’ group, and he has to prove his credibility as a supervisor not only to his new subordinates, who were recently his colleagues, but also to his new peer group of fellow sergeants. If Sergeant Woods cannot demonstrate that he is in complete control of his unit, he will fail to win the trust of his fellow sergeants, which will make it difficult for both him and his unit to cooperate with other units in law enforcement activities. Police officers also like to receive challenging tasks, which will help in their development. It is possible for a unit to be given a specialized task, based on its competence and performance. Therefore Sergeant Woods has to respond to the problem in his unit so that his officers’ chance of getting more interesting, challenging (and hence more motivating work) is not jeopardized. Finally, it is the decisions made early on in the supervisory career of Sergeant Woods that will set the tone for the rest of his time as a sergeant. The officers may have become accustomed to a different form of leadership under Woods’ predecessor. By dealing with problems promptly and effectively, Sergeant Woods has made a clean break with the policies of the past. In addition, Sergeant Woods, by acting in such a manner, is also demonstrating to his former colleagues, who are now his subordinates, that he will not be swayed by considerations of friendship in making his decisions. This will cement his reputation for fairness in his unit, and enable it to function as a team. Assessment of response The hypothetical scenario presented herein does not state what happened after the response was made by the sergeant, so any discussion of the assessment must also be hypothetical. If, after making a response to the problem, Sergeant Woods notices that the behaviour in issue is continuing unabated, his assessment would be that either his response to the problem was inadequate, or that during the scanning and analysis stage he overlooked certain facts which would help to explain why the practice was taking place. At this point, the flexibility of the SARA model of problem solving is a great asset. The sergeant can return to the response stage, and replace his previous response with a different one. However, such action is little more than trial and error, as the sergeant does not yet know why his initial response was unsuccessful. Therefore, if the sergeant elects to take this course of problem solving, he will probably have to fail a number of times before he arrives at the correct response, purely by accident. The disadvantage of this approach is that it is time consuming, and since many police units are resource constrained, they cannot afford to waste time, which is also a crucial resource. Alternatively, the sergeant can decide to go back to the scanning and analysis stages, to find out what, if anything, he missed which contributed to the wrong response. For example, there may be factors in the senior officer’s personal life which are time consuming and prevent him from carrying out his duties, which is why he unprocedurally decides to delegate some of his work to juniors. On the other hand, it is possible that there is a misunderstanding between the senior officer and the FYCs. Since they are all at the same rank, it may be that the senior officer asked the FYCs to do his QPrime entries for him as a favour. Although this is unprocedural, the FYCs may have complied out of camaraderie and respect for the senior officer’s seniority (in age, not in rank). After this, they may have continued, without being aware of how to end the practice, although it was clearly detrimental to them. The aforementioned scenarios cover the eventuality that the response was ineffective or unsuccessful. However, in the event of a successful intervention, it is still necessary for an assessment to take place. For instance, Sergeant Woods cannot be sure, just because his response was effective, that he scanned and analyzed the problem properly. It may be that his response succeeded due to fortuitous factors beyond his control. Therefore, in the same way that analysis was done after the scanning stage, the sergeant also has to assess his response. This is similar to doing a post- mortem of the process. If he discovers that the response succeded because it was based on sound information and that it addressed the issue under concern, then the sergeant should make sure that he emulates such action in the future. However, if he discovers that the response was not the direct cause of the resolution of the problem, then he will have to go through the SARA process again, not to resolve the problem, but for learning purposes, and possibly also for the purpose of writing reports, as it is hard to say that you have resolved a problem unless you can show the method by which you did so. Conclusion The foregoing discussion has looked at the process in which the SARA method of problem solving is carried out. This was done in the context of a hypothetical scenario facing a Sergeant Woods of the Middletown police station. The SARA model the acronym for scanning, analysis, response and assessment. Each of the phases of the model is done one after the other, but the user of the model has the freedom to track back to a previous phase, or even to repeat the entire problem-solving model, for as long as it takes to solve a problem. Despite the advantages of its flexibility, SARA is not the only problem solving model, and so police supervisors are free to use any other model that works in a particular situation. Nevertheless, SARA is recommended because, apart from being a good problem-solving model, it can also be used to plan for the future, and hence to avoid problems. This essay goes step by step through the SARA process in Sergeant Woods’s situation. He scans the situation by getting as much information as possible about the officers in his unit and the problem practice which he seeks to address. It then looks at how he analyses the information he receives, by, among other things, talking to the officers who work with the officers at the centre of the issue and seeing whether he can receive any insight into how they interact. Sergeant Woods then responds by reprimanding the senior officer and clarifying the proper procedure to all parties, including the senior officer, the FYC’s, and the other officers. It then discusses the assessment process, beginning with a supposed unsuccessful outcome, suggesting what the sergeant can do to make a successful response. It then looks at what the sergeant should do when the response is successful but cannot be explained from the sergeant’s scanning and analysis of the problem. In this event, it suggests that the sergeant should assess the entire problem from the beginning, for the purposes of report writing and clarifying the problem for future application. Recommendations With the foregoing in mind, the SARA model should be a mandatory feature in courses on critical thinking in police academies. It should also be standard operating procedure in police units, unless there is a better alternative. Although the SARA model has been used in planning and conflict resolution, there are few studies which show whether it can be used in the process of police investigations. Therefore, this is a fertile ground for further research. In addition, it is noted that the SARA process, as used in this scenario, is a somewhat lonely process as it requires the sergeant to carry out the entire process on his own. Although he gets help from other officers, they are all his subordinates and so they do not help him with his thought processes. This is an area in which consultations between sergeants and/or supervisors can be useful in helping first time sergeants to understand exactly how the SARA model works in practice. This is because, although the new sergeant may have encountered the SARA model in his professional development, it is one thing to deal with a concept in a textbook, and quite another to face it in real life. Therefore first time sergeants need the experience of older sergeants to help them deal with the relatively unfamiliar and complicated process of applying the SARA model to problem solving in a real life police unit. References Baker, T. (2006). Motivation and police personnel. In Effective police leadership: moving beyond management. New York: Looseleaf Law Publications. Queensland Police Service (QPS) (2009). A Guide to problem solving within the Queensland Police Service. Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2007). Power and Politics. In, Organizational behaviour. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Read More