Advertisement

Public Organization Review

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 37–48 | Cite as

The Role of Experience in Prioritizing Adherence to SOPs in Police Agencies

  • Casey LaFrance
  • Jonathan Day
Article

Abstract

Research has perennially substantiated the belief that experience is a crucial determinant of an officer’s ability to effectively use discretion in making decisions. Officers cite experience as “the best teacher”, and police managers are likely to agree, usually with an anecdote or two about their personal maturation experiences. This study is an attempt to investigate this question with a bit more subtlety. In the following sections, we will: (1) explain the theory behind the discretion-experience relationship we propose, as well as theoretical opposition to this notion, (2) hone in on the perceived importance of agency standard operating procedures as an influence on discretion, (3) demonstrate that the relationship between officer experience and the priority attributed to SOPs is parabolic, and (4) discuss our findings in the context of structural functional organizational theory.

Keywords

Discretion SOPs Experience Management Organization theory 

References

  1. Argyris, C. (1973). Personality and organization theory revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2), 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clairmont, D. (1991). Community-based policing: Implementation and impact. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 33(4), 469–484.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, H. (1970). Bureaucratic flexibility: Some comments on Robert Merton’s ‘bureaucratic structure and personality. The British Journal of Sociology, 21(4), 390–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Dunham, R. G., Alpert, G. P., Stroshine, M. S., & Bennet, K. (2005). Transforming citizens into suspects: Factors that influence the formation of police suspicion. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 366–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Easton, D. (1953). The political system. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  8. Elazar, D. J. (1972). American federalism: A view from the states (2nd ed.). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
  9. Farazmand, A. (2003). Chaos and transformation theories: A theoretical analysis with implications for organization theory and public management. Public Organization Review, 3(3), 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fioretti, G., & Visser, B. (2004). A cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity. Emergence: Complexity & organization an international transdisciplinary. Journal of Complex Social Systems, 6(1–2), 11–23.Google Scholar
  11. Frederickson, H. G. (1999). The Repositioning of American Public Administration. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(5, John Gaus Lecture, APSA Conference), pp. 701–711.Google Scholar
  12. Goldstein, H. (1987). Toward community-oriented policing: Potential, basic requirements, and threshold questions. Crime & Deliquency, 33(1), 6–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, J. R., & Mastrofski, S. (1988). Community policing: Rhetoric or reality. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Groenewald, H., & Peake, G. (2004). Police reform through community-based policing: Philosophy and guidelines for implementation. New York: International Peace Academy.Google Scholar
  15. Gulick, L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 1–89). New York: Institute of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  16. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelling, G. L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic, March, 1982, 1–12.Google Scholar
  18. Kettl, D. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kettl, D. (2008). The next government of the United States: Why our institutions fail us and how to fix them. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  20. LaFrance, C. (2010a). Professional vs bureaucratic accountability in local Law enforcement management decision-making. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 10(1), 145–165.Google Scholar
  21. LaFrance, C. (2010b). Back to the firing range: An exploratory test of the target model of discretion. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 10(4), 167–174.Google Scholar
  22. LaFrance, C. (2011a). Targeting discretion: An exploration of organizational communication between rank levels in a medium sized southern U.S. Police department. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 13(2), 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. LaFrance, C. (2011b). Rank and discretionary priorities in forgottonia: Targeting discretion in the western Illinois/Eastern Iowa Region. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 11(2), 79–85.Google Scholar
  24. LaFrance, C. (2012). The county Sheriff’s leadership and management decisions in the local budget process revisited. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 14(2), 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LaFrance, T. C., & Allen, J. (2010). An exploration of the juxtaposition of professional and political accountability in local Law enforcement management. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 12(1), 90–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LaFrance, T. C., & Placide, M. C. (2010). Sheriffs’ and police Chiefs’ leadership and management decisions in the local Law enforcement budgetary process: An exploration. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 12(2), 238–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucrats. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. Lowi, T. (1969). The End of liberalism: The second republic of the United States. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  29. Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 10(2), 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merton, R. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy, C., & Muir, G. (1985). Community-based policing: A review of the critical issues. Ottawa: Canada Solicitor General Communications Group.Google Scholar
  32. O’Keeffe, T. (2002). Organizational learning: A New perspective. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paquet, G. (2005). The new geo-governance: A baroque approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  34. Reiser, M. (1974). Some organizational stresses on policemen. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 2(2), 156–159.Google Scholar
  35. Rohr, J. (1986). To run a constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  36. Rohr, J. (1998). Public service, ethics, and constitutional practice. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  37. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sherman, L. W. (1984). Experiments in police discretion: Scientific boon or dangerous knowledge? Law and Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tyler, T. R., Callahan, P. E., & Frost, J. (2007). Armed and dangerous: Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society Review, 41(2), 457–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weber, M. (1946). Bureaucracy. In H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber (pp. 196–244). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organization management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(1), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceWestern Illinois UniversityMacombUSA

Personalised recommendations