Introduction
Organizational change is inevitable and constant. Virtually all organizations are susceptible to changes in their organizational systems and hierarchies. Some of these organizational changes come as a result of positive factors, while others are brought about by negative factors. Police administrations are not left out of this.
Eight reasons why change occurs in a law enforcement agency
There are outstanding reasons that prompt changes in the police administration. Change in such an organization may be brought about by a single catastrophic occurrence that leads to the replacement of police bosses. Just as always, police officers follow leads, most of which bear no fruits, but in the event that a slight error occurs in the process, police bosses are always victimized and accused of incompetence. They are then dismissed, giving room for reforms in their organizations (Anderson, 2011).
Sometimes reforms may be realized in law enforcement agencies when a new mayor resumes office. New mayors are fond of recommending their own to take up the offices of police bosses in their areas of jurisdiction. Additionally, a newly elected mayor may also dictate the manner in which the agency operates hence resulting in drastic changes in the organization. Changes may also occur in a law enforcement institution when a prominent political figure is embarrassed during an occasion and feels that someone should take responsibility. The police are always the first to bear the blames, and this could alter their systems (Swanson, Charles, Leonard & Robert 2011).
Reforms are bound to follow in the event that a chief of police takes another rank, retires, or is deceased. On such occasions, the evaluation of specialized consultants is sought in order to determine the new chief and provide a framework of changes expected in the departments (Anderson, 2011). That notwithstanding, when a new sheriff is appointed or elected, changes are bound to follow. He or she is bound to carry on with the system he is used to and affect the changes in the new job. The incumbent sheriff is most likely to shun all the pending projects suggested by the previous officer as a move to put in place his own. This may be done without any valid reasons but perhaps as a way to personalize the new position (Swanson, Charles, Leonard & Robert 2011).
Other external changes may also lead to drastic organizational changes in a law enforcement institute. For instance, a sheriff may opt to deviate from posting legal adverts on the daily newspaper of his town and prefer another minor weekly newspaper all because the daily papers support a politician he is not affiliated to or simply because the dailies endorse his adversary. A sheriff may also stop purchasing departmental cars from a given car dealer and award the contract to another smaller dealer with the simple reason that the bigger car dealer makes generous contributions to a politician who happens not to be in his good books (Anderson, 2011).
Drastic changes on a chief of police may also be a factor in general organizational reforms. For instance, when the chief of police becomes a heavy drunkard all of a sudden, he might do unimaginable things like getting involved in unnecessary confrontations. Soon after, there would be debates that he ought to be the role model to others, and this may cost him his position. In the event that he is dismissed, the new person who takes over will most likely come with surprises (Swanson, Charles, Leonard & Robert 2011).
Another situation that may call for organizational reforms within the police force is when everything always seems wrong in the department. This may manifest through constant criticism from the public, low morale in the officers within the department, and when there seem to be endless problems in the department. This situation may prompt police unions to pass a vote of zero confidence to the existing chief of police and compel him to leave the office.
Situations when change is not necessary
Despite the inevitability of change, there are a number of circumstances that do not favor these reforms. Changes should not be enacted when a potentially better option to initiate the changes is unavailable. In addition to that, reforms cannot be initiated when the knowhow aimed at effectuating the changes is unavailable in the department. It is also needless to effectuate changes when the efforts needed to make these changes are far much greater than the intended gain (Swanson, Charles, Leonard & Robert 2011).
In the event that too many changes have been initiated already, it is only wise that further changes are avoided in order to institutionalize the previous ones. When too many changes are brought on board at more or less the same time, there is bound to be a conflict of interest. Changes should also be restrained when they are forecasted to cause collateral damages that would compel the incumbent chiefs to resort to dubious means of maintaining the status quo (Anderson, 2011).
Three classes of change resistance
There are three categories of change resistance. These include unfreezing, moving, and freezing. In unfreezing, officers are changed from their present intuitions that form the basis of how they carry out their daily duties. In moving, on the other hand, the proposed changes are felt by the officers. Here, limited resistance is realized only if the policemen are actively involved in the process and when they have an impact on the implementation of the changes. Freezing entails permanent reformation on the officers. They fully adopt and get used to the changes implemented (Swanson, Charles, Leonard & Robert 2011).
References
Anderson, D. L. (2011). Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. London: SAGE.
Swanson, Charles R., Leonard T & Robert W. T. (2011). Police Administration: Structures, Processes, And Behavior, 8th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishing Co.