running head: superior-subordinate communication 1

Running head: SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE COMMUNICATION 1

An Ethnographic Study of Superior-Subordinate Communication in a Law Enforcement Setting

Morgan E. Dupell

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Dr. Chris Sadler

Dr. Tim Halkowski

Dr. James M. Haney

May 2011

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

Master of Arts in Communication

Division of Communication

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Stevens Point, Wisconsin

SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE COMMUNICATION 2

Abstract

This ethnographic study of superior-subordinate communication examines communication

channels and working relationships of personnel within a police organization in the North East.

Key research questions examine what superiors and subordinates say to one another and if the

upward communication strategy known as managing up was being practiced. A combination of

observation and informal interviews was used to collect data. Two main concepts discussed

include leadership at the barrack level and organizational structure. Findings examine several

areas from leading by example to the role of humor. Results indicate that communication

channels, especially the upward channel, are not being fully utilized. Members expressed

frustration and dislike of their superiors‟ inhibited upward communication and the use of

managing up.

Keywords: Superior-subordinate communication, managing up, law enforcement

communication, supervisory communication, training, communication channels


Acknowledgements

I would not be here today without the support of my family. My loving mother is the

foundation that I built my life on. She has always pushed me to succeed in whatever I do and she

has showed me that women can do anything we put our minds too. She exemplified this with her

career as a State Trooper. Soon after she retired I developed a love for what she used to do. Her

career provided the means to fulfill all of our family‟s needs. In doing so she sacrificed her own

and I can never thank her enough for her sacrifices. Upon retirement my mother and father

helped me move to graduate school, an entire time zone away. With all the love and support of

my family and friends I was able to thrive in school. Mere words of thanks are insufficient in

expressing my gratitude for their patience, guidance, and support.

The road to complete this thesis has been full of ups and downs. Through every bump in

the road my committee chair Chris Sadler has been there. He provided inspiration, guidance, pep

talks and tough love. Chris is the reason I came to UWSP and he has been there since the

beginning. It has been a privilege to work with Chris and to have him as a mentor. I must also

express my gratitude to the hard work of my entire committee. Tim Halkowski and Jim Haney

have been equally inspiring through the writing process. Their expertise and guidance have been

irreplaceable.

Lastly, this study would not have been possible if not for the receptive men and women

of the New York State Police. Their brave service and protection never goes unnoticed. Special

thanks to Captain Keeler and all study participants for their support and encouragement through

the lengthy process of completing this study.


Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Literature Review 5

Communication Channels 7

Leader-Member Exchange Theory 16

Managing Up 17

The Military and the New York State Police 23

Communication Breakdown Prevention (within the Military and NYSP) 25

Military and NYSP Structure 27

Research Questions 32

Chapter 2: Methodology 33

Ethnography 33

Background 36

Research Environment 42

Station #1 Layout 42

Station #2 Layout 43

Other Station Characteristics 44

General Staff Characteristics 45

The Researcher 46

Ethnographic Procedures 47

Interpretation of Data 51

Chapter 3: Results 54

Major Concepts 54

Leadership at the Barrack Level 56

Leading by Example? 57

Open-Door Policy 65

Lack of Leadership Training 67

My “Boss” Can‟t Do my Job 70

Organizational Structure 74

Opinions about Division 75

The Role of Humor 80

Chapter 4: Analysis 87

Communication Channels 87

The Role of Humor 90

Leadership 92

Training 97

My Boss Can‟t Do My Job 101

Why is Managing up Not Occurring? 105

Chapter 5: Discussion 109 Limitations/Constraints 110

Suggestions for Future Research 112

Suggestions for the Organization 114

Conclusion 118

References 120

Appendix 125


Chapter 1: Literature Review

Communication can be classified into a series of channels. Similar to a television

channel, these channels have a specific purpose and serve different audiences. Organizations use

these channels to pass information throughout their system. The most common way to look at

communication channels is in the context of an organizational hierarchy. In a hierarchy the three

most common communication channels are upward, downward, and horizontal. Upward

communication is sent from a lower member in the hierarchy known as a subordinate to a higher

member in the hierarchy known as a superior. Upward communication could be as simple as

asking a superior what the upcoming schedule will be. Downward communication flows the

opposite way from superior to subordinate. This type of communication sometimes seems more

formal because it is moving from a superior to a subordinate. The final channel, horizontal

communication, moves across the hierarchy from a peer to a peer. Subordinates have peers and

so do superiors; both parties can take part in every channel of communication.

Communication channels are the foundation for research focusing on supervisory

communication. Supervisory communication looks specifically at the relationships between

superiors and subordinates and how those relationships affect the larger structure of the

organization. Military and paramilitary organizations are excellent organizations to research on

supervisory communication for many reasons. First, they provide a classic hierarchy to study.

Second, they provide documents to their incoming members on how communication should be

conducted upward, downward and horizontally. Finally, they are constantly trying to improve

their communication by allowing research to take place in their facilities.

The communication that occurs between officers of varying ranks and of the same rank is

the focus of this research. This study will take place within the New York State Police


organization which is a paramilitary organization. This organization is a great source for

firsthand observation of upward, downward and horizontal communication. Observation with

some informal interviews will be used to gather information within the organization. The New

York State Police have already granted the researcher access to two of their facilities, to observe

and gather information. Once observation has taken place within the facilities the researcher will

look for patterns within the field notes. Significant information should be available by observing

daily interactions between troopers of varying ranks.

Much research has been conducted in law enforcement agencies and the Army. A study

specifically pertaining to supervisory communication in law enforcement has yet to be

conducted. Research in this field has been sparse since its prominence in the 1960s to 1980s.

Although the research from that time provided valuable insight, it is now outdated. Considering

all of the theory that has been explored over the past 40 years, new research pertaining to

supervisory communication can provide fresh information to revive theories and add to the

scholarly work on this topic. Since the 1980s leader-member exchange theory has been heavily

researched and made significant contributions to the field. Another important phenomenon that

has been developed in the field of communication since the 1980s is referred to as “managing

up”. This concept can be classified in the upward communication channel; however, managing

up entails a subtle influence that is passed upward to the superior. This concept started in the

academic realm and made its way into the popular business press. Although it offers insight, the

information available on managing up is predominately popular press. This study will help to tie

these concepts to supervisory communication while pushing these topics back toward the

academic field.


Along with providing the organization with invaluable feedback about their

communication, this study also aims to make contributions to the scholarly field of

communication. Reviving the ideas and concepts that surround communication channels and

supervisory communication is one of the potential contributions. The police organization

permitting this research will also benefit heavily. The New York State Police will allow this

research to take place within their facilities in order to provide insight to their organization.

This literature review will first explore communication channels, their development, and

how they will contribute to the research. Next, leader-member exchange theory and its relevance

will be discussed. The concept of managing up will be explored with particular attention paid to

how the concept first appeared and how it contributes to existing literature. The military and the

New York State Police organizations will be examined as well as communication breakdown and

prevention within both organizations. The military provides insight in the organization because

of the overlapping similarities of the two organizations. Lastly, the research questions will be

previewed.

Communication Channels

Within an organization, communication has many channels in which information can

flow. Upward and downward are the main channels being studied in this research, but horizontal

and outward communication channels also impact an organization. Upward communication

flows from subordinate to superior and downward communication flows from superior to

subordinate. Horizontal communication moves from peer-to-peer, which means it can take place

from a subordinate to another subordinate or from a superior to another superior (Jablin, 1979).

Lastly, outward communication refers to communication that occurs from a member of the

organization to someone on the outside, like the general public (Bridget & Lee, 2002; Sinickas,


2001). Communication channels lay the groundwork for the concept of supervisory

communication; supervisory communication focuses primarily on upward and downward

channels (Bakar, Mohamad & Mustafa, 2007).

The ultimate goal of this communication is to get tasks accomplished. To those that view

superiors as the primary communicators, subordinates may be viewed as passive recipients

(Conrad & Haynes, 2000). When subordinates pass information upward, four categories exist in

which this information can be organized (Jablin, 1979). The categories include (a) personal

information about the subordinate, (b) information about co-workers and their problems, (c)

information about the organization including policies and practices, and (d) information about

things that need to get done and how to get them done (Jablin, 1979). When upward

communication is deliberately formatted to help a subordinate guide a superior this concept is

known as “Managing up” (Hbsp, 2008; Dobson & Dobson, 2000; Badowski & Gittines, 2003).

This concept is relatively new to the field of communication; however, in the short time it has

been around it has been extremely helpful in producing a greater understanding of the superior-

subordinate relationship, which will be discussed in detail in a later section.

When communication is flowing downward, the information can be placed into five

different categories. These categories include: (a) job instructions, (b) job rationale, (c)

organizational practices and procedures, (d) feedback about performance as a subordinate, and

(e) indoctrination of goals (Jablin, 1979). Superiors are considered the “key communicators”

because they are often veterans of the organization. Subordinates need information from

superiors in order to do their job and to become socialized within the organization (Conrad &

Haynes, 2000).


Managing can be an important process in organizational development. Managers can

provide support through psychological support or professional guidance. If management takes on

an aggressive attitude towards communication, a negative impact can be felt within the

organization. In a quantitative study, Madlock and Kennedy-Lightsey (2010) distributed 200

questionnaires via students enrolled in a communication course. The students were given

instructions to distribute the questionnaires to full-time working adults. The results of the study

indicated that negative communication behaviors like verbal aggressiveness from superiors had

an impact on subordinates when it came to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

communication satisfaction. Verbal aggressiveness from the superior also polluted any efforts

made at managing. Madlock and Kennedy-Lightsey came to the conclusion that subordinates

who seek guidance and career support from a superior can be deterred if the superior is verbally

aggressive. Further, they found that managing is not as important as the communication that

accompanies it. Unless managing is communicated with neutral language, the act of managing is

futile (Madlock & Kennedy-Lightsey, 2010).

In his 1964 study of three public service organizations, Peabody defines superiors as

having the capacity to give orders. The relationship, as Peabody explains, has attributes of both

authority and responsibility. Authority exists in relationships between people occupying

hierarchical positions in formal organizations. When a strong leader occupies a position of

authority, the likelihood of accomplishing organizational goals and satisfying individuals‟ needs

both increase. Peabody further indicates that subordinates hold the power to accept or decline the

tasks assigned by the leader. The interdependence between the two parties is exemplified by the

ability of the subordinate to turn down tasks assigned by the superior (Peabody, 1964).


Upward and downward communication has been explored by many scholars in a number

of different organizations. Previous research within the communication field has attempted to

identify problems that superiors encounter with regards to communication channels in order to

help alleviate those problems. Upward communication allows a superior to know what is taking

place within the organization. Direct reports from their subordinates provide this valuable

information. Similarly, downward communication can help to keep productivity high and allow

all members of the organization to be on the same page (Stevens & Hisle, 1996).

Superiors who are effective listeners may create an atmosphere where their employees

are rewarded for speaking out. This creation of a safe environment for speaking out can prevent

some problems before they occur (Brownell, 1990). An example of an “unsafe environment” is

described by Murphy (2001) in an article on the hierarchal gap between flight attendants and

pilots. Many times when a flight attendant notices an alarming issue they may keep it to

themselves in order to prevent disrupting the hierarchal structure. If a safe environment for

feedback had occurred, some plane accidents could have been prevented. Murphy, (2001)

describes an incident when a passenger mentioned a concern for snow on the wings of the

aircraft. The flight attendant reassured the passenger everything was fine. Prior to takeoff, the

pilot asked if everything was ready and the flight attendant said, “Yes”. Shortly thereafter, the

plane crashed (Murphy, 2001). This is an extreme example of the need for open communication,

but it highlights the need for an environment where feedback is welcome.

A strong relationship exists between a superior‟s communication competence and a

subordinate‟s communication satisfaction. This means that superiors who have a competent

communication style may impact subordinate‟s feelings of security. Similarly, a moderate

relationship exists between superior communication competence and employee job satisfaction.


Previous research indicates job satisfaction is highest when subordinates perceive that their

superiors are exhibiting both task-oriented and relational behaviors. This indicates that superiors

who want to maximize both their subordinate‟s communication satisfaction and job satisfaction

can focus on communication competence as well as task-oriented and relational behaviors

(Madlock, 2008).

Subordinates cannot be expected to absorb messages from superiors without time to do

so. Giving subordinates time to gather information and to understand what is being

communicated has been found to be just as important as the message itself (Sinickas, 2001). It

has also been found that having access to newsletters and intranet sites is a good start, but the

subordinates need time to read and understand the messages flowing downward (Sinickas, 2001).

If subordinates are not given appropriate time to read and comprehend messages then the effort

that went into communicating the message may be wasted. Choosing the proper communication

medium will be helpful in getting the message to all subordinates. For example, if the majority of

subordinates targeted for a message do not read the organization‟s newsletter, then a staff

meeting may be the best way to reach the entire audience (Sinickas, 2001).

Upward communication can be a powerful communication channel within any

organization. Breakdowns in this channel can lead to problems within the organization. Reasons

for neglecting upward communication can be as diverse as the employees. One of the most

common reasons is lack of motivation to engage in upward communication (e.g., employees do

not feel there are benefits in relaying messages upward). Another barrier is the content of the

message traveling upward. Bad news can be especially difficult for a subordinate to

communicate upward and so the message can change before it reaches a superior. A subordinate

feeling detached from the organization can pose a problem in upward communication, even if a


superior is off-site or in a corporate office far from the daily workings of the organization. This

disconnect can make subordinates feel like their voice is not being heard which can then lead to a

cycle of not engaging in upward communication (Stevens & Hisle, 1996).

Upward distortion is a notable problem that can damage upward communication.

If upward communication is distorted by a subordinate, it may affect the superior‟s ability to

make an informed decision. A model of distortion of upward communication indicates there are

three different types of subordinates who will distort information moving upward. In turn, each

type of subordinate has a different motivation for their upward distortion and will engage in

different levels of distortion (Athanassiades, 1973; Jablin, 1979).

The first type of subordinate is the insecure subordinate. The main goal of the insecure

subordinate is to attain security within the organization. These types of subordinates perceive

upward distortion as instrumental to obtaining their own personal goals because insecure

subordinates are high-risk takers. They tend to engage in a high level of distortion and they are

looking to feel valued within the organization (Athanassiades, 1973; Willemyns, Gallois &

Callan, 2003).

The second type of subordinate is the secure ascender. These types of subordinates are

strongly motivated in ascending the organization and will engage in moderate-risk taking while

distorting upward information moderately.

The third type of subordinate is the secure non-ascender. These types of subordinates are

not looking to move up within the organization, but rather they intend to remain in their current

position. They are low-risk takers and will distort information traveling upward little if at all

(Athanassiades, 1973).


There are other factors that can impact the upward distortion within an organization. The

authority of an organization can be a factor in upward distortion. Inflexibility surrounding the

structure of the organization can cause subordinates to feel anxiety regarding the closeness of

supervision, secrecy and sometimes, conflicting rules. Competition among subordinates can

increase a subordinate‟s anxiety and insecurity which can affect distortion. This can create

insecurity among subordinates and relates back to the model of the insecure subordinate

(Athanassiades, 1973; Peabody, 1964).

Previous research revealed problems with downward communication within

organizations. For example, the thick layer of management within the organization may make it

difficult to keep messages consistent as they move downward. Trying to sort through this thick

layer of messages can create a distortion because of missing information which is problematic

for any organization. Message content can be distorted as it travels downward. Subsequently, this

can lead to assumptions that subordinates received a message when in reality, the content of the

message was distorted. Another problem that was discovered surrounding downward

communication relates to employee feedback, or in this case, the lack of it. Lack of feedback can

be explained in different ways: First, subordinates may have never received the message thus

they cannot provide feedback. Second, a high turnover rate creates a negative impact on

communication within the organization (Stevens & Hisle, 1996).

Further screening, withholding, or changing information in any way as it flows

downward is classified as downward distortion. This distortion can plague an organization and

have adverse effects on the subordinates receiving the distorted information. Subordinates can

feel as though they are not receiving enough information, or that the information they are

receiving is inaccurate. When subordinates try to “fill in the blanks” about information that is


being passed to them, rumors and gossip can replace accurate and complete information. As a

result, subordinates may become suspicious of their superiors and a general feeling of mistrust

can overtake the organization. This feeling of insecurity cannot only perpetuate the cycle of

distortion, it can lead to even more communication problems within an organization

(Athanassiades, 1973).

Horizontal communication is an important channel, but it has a smaller impact on some

organizations than upward and downward communication. Horizontal communication occurs

from peer-to-peer. Sharing information effectively in groups is one step that needs to be taken in

order to ensure effective horizontal communication. The relevance of the topic comes into play

when subordinates discuss communication they have had with superiors to other subordinates.

This can become troublesome for superiors and the organization when communication is

essentially happening behind their back. Therefore, being aware of and properly engaged in the

four types of communication is an investment, not a cost to the organization. Communication is

the foundation that is then built upon by the members of the organization. “Cracks in the

foundation” of communication can lead to huge problems later down the road for an organization

(Sinicakas, 2001).

Solicitation of open and honest feedback is critical because even if an “open door policy”

exists it may not be enough to encourage employees to speak up. Subordinates need a non-

threatening environment in order to feel motivated to speak up within the organization. Whether

the message coming from the subordinate is positive or negative, a safe environment is crucial.

This idea ties upward and downward communication together in a way that it can be applied to

any superior-subordinate relationship (Stevens & Hisle, 1996).


While being an effective listener and providing an environment friendly to subordinates,

superiors must be able to respond quickly to employee concerns. Not responding quickly cannot

only be dangerous to the culture and the livelihood of the organization, but it can appear that a

superior is ignoring an issue. Even the perception of ignoring a subordinate‟s concern can leave a

lingering feeling for the subordinate that their superior is not listening. The perception of not

listening can affect the amount of support subordinates are willing to give a superior. Without

support from subordinates, a superior may struggle to keep the organization moving as superiors

cannot successfully operate an organization themselves (Brownell, 1990).

In many ways, superiors depend on the subordinates to get the job done (Peabody, 1964).

Superiors are expected to be able to delegate tasks and give subordinates support. If a

subordinate chooses not to ask the superior for support (e.g., clarifying job expectations and

reducing ambiguity), then the organization can fail to function properly. If the breakdown in

communication continues, a superior may be overwhelmed with their workload and a

subordinate may be confused as to what their organizational tasks are (Miller, 2005).

Communication can be thought of in terms of information control and who controls that

flow of information. Dulek, Motes, & Hilton (1997) explored how withholding information is

perceived by the superior or the subordinate with an emphasis on which party is withholding

information. The results of the study suggested that there is a link between situational ethics and

hierarchal power. The executives who answered the survey did not identify a single situation in

which it was ethical to withhold information from a superior. However, respondents saw that it

was extremely ethical for superiors to control information for delicate situations. There was only

one situation in which responders saw it as unethical for superiors to withhold information and

that was when the superior was trying to maintain power. Even though this study has useful


conclusions, it is ambiguous as to what type of information falls under each category. Who

makes the distinction between a delicate situation and trying to maintain power, and what if

superiors and subordinates disagree on what category the information falls under? The study

leaves room to dispute the method, although it supports the notion of strategic information

control. Control of information and power is something that the superiors of the NYSP and Army

are always cognizant of. Although at times it is necessary for superiors to withhold information

and this study supports the strategic withholding of information by superiors, it is vague as to

what that information pertains to (Dulek, Motes & Hiton, 1997).

Leader-member exchange theory

Similar to upward and downward communication, Leader-member exchange theory

(LMX) is as it implies - an exchange. Strategic information is often what is being exchanged via

the channels of upward and downward communication. However, the exchange is not limited to

just information; social support, decision influence and opportunities within the organization can

all be exchanged within the context of LMX. The kinds of information received downward

strongly correlates to the kinds of information passed upward. Instead of referring to higher

ranking employees as superiors, LMX refers to them as leaders, and instead of calling lower

ranking employees subordinates, they are referred to as members. LMX acknowledges that

leaders have a limited time to engage in both upward and downward communication, thus time

management is an important component of LMX. Once the context of LMX is explored it

becomes clearer how closely LMX overlaps with superior-subordinate communication

(Venkataramani, Green, & Schleicher, 2010).

LMX is relevant when discussing superior-subordinate relationships. An essential

premise of the theory rests in the scarcity of resources. Superiors do not have an unlimited


amount of personnel, or organizational and social resources. Often, these scarce resources must

be distributed among subordinates unequally; this creates a variation in the relationship between

superiors and certain subordinates. The higher the quality of the relationship between a superior

and subordinate, the higher the exchange of information, support, trust, influence and input into

decisions; the lower the quality of the relationship, the lower the exchange of support, trust and

information. Additionally, the superior will often give less attention to this relationship (Mueller,

Bridget & Lee, 2002).

Like supervisory communication, LMX encompasses upward and downward

communication which includes being open to ideas and listening to problems. LMX deals with

communication climate which reflects levels of satisfaction with organizational and personnel

issues. LMX places the majority of the relationship development between superiors and

subordinates on the superior. Superiors have a large impact on the types of communication

experiences that subordinates encounter. Job satisfaction is heavily influenced by the

subordinate‟s perception of recognition, achievement, responsibility, career advancement and the

level of attraction they have to the job itself. LMX contributes to the fundamental ideas within

this study and provides another perspective for a superior-subordinate relationship as it relates to

time and resources (Fairhurst, 2001).

Managing Up

A relatively new concept to the field of organizational communication is managing up

and it has created a new way to view superior-subordinate relationships. Managing up is similar

to the idea of upward influence reviewed by Jablin in 1979. Managing up is a form of upward

influence that includes an active approach to working with a superior towards mutually

beneficial goals that take into account the best interest of the superior, subordinate and


organization (Hbsp, 2008). Managing up can be especially useful to members somewhat stuck in

an organizational hierarchy like the New York State Police because it allows members to have an

influence upward. Traditionally, superiors have been known to hold the power in the

organization as they make a large portion of decisions in the organization (Dobson & Dobson,

2000). However, those subordinates that master the skill of managing up have a healthier and

more fruitful relationship with their superiors. Managing up allows the subordinate to arrange

their communication to better suit their superior which allows the superior-subordinate

relationship to be more productive. In order for managing up to be effective, a subordinate must

know and understand their superior‟s work style, needs, goals, strengths and weaknesses (Hbsp,

2008).

The concept of managing up was first introduced as a popular business idea which

manifested itself in self-help books for the struggling employee. The academic literature on

managing up is not extensive which makes it difficult to avoid drawing from sources of popular

business books. The main academic source comes via The Harvard Business Press which

includes a few academic citations, yet even this academic source cites popular business books. It

is difficult when dissecting this concept to not encounter a crossover from the popular press.

Aspiring to move up the corporate ladder or the chain of command requires the formation

of relationships with important people like a boss. Chemistry, confidence and energy all play into

ascending a hierarchy. Chemistry with an organization and members of that organization may

not be something that comes particularly easy for superiors or subordinates. Building a good

reputation from the first day on the job is one way to start building chemistry; however, a

learning curve needs to be taken into account for every job. Superiors and subordinates need to

make an effort to understand the language of the organization. In order for a subordinate to have


an influence upward, confidence has to be utilized. Confidence can be gained by a subordinate

obtaining experience in the field, showing some initiative, prioritizing, being flexible, and fixing

all the problems that they possibly can. Energy and enthusiasm for a job are important in making

that job feel less like work and more like fun. Passion and commitment are both necessary to get

a job done and enjoy doing it (Badowski, 2003).

Other necessary attributes that subordinates can utilize while trying to execute managing

up are resilience, humor, common sense and communication. Subordinates that are resilient treat

their mistakes as opportunities to learn and grow. Resilience within an organization is like

getting knocked down, but being prepared to bounce right back up and continue on. Flexibility is

part of resilience, so a “backup plan” will help subordinates bounce back. Having a backup plan

can be as simple as having multiple ideas for an upcoming project instead of relying on just one.

Humor is a good indicator of what type of mood the organization is in, even the most serious of

organizations have opportunities for laughter, because laughter makes it a little easier to go to

work every day. Even in the law enforcement field there is still room for laughter albeit just

subordinates laughing at themselves for an error that ended comically (Badowski, 2003).

Common sense is essentially what employees should know without anyone having to tell

them. For example, the superior‟s agenda should come first. It is simple: when superiors win, so

do their subordinates. Communication is more than just a tool used by superiors to understand

what is going on; it can also be a tool for subordinates to ask questions and provide opportunities

for change to take place. Communication means that subordinates have the opportunity to be

questioning themselves constantly in order to help keep themselves on track. Finally--within all

of the tools mentioned-- superiors and subordinates should remember why they got into the field


they did. Passion and purpose should be the fire that burns inside every member of an

organization (Badowski, 2003).

Managing up has many benefits that can be utilized by superiors and subordinates alike.

By not applying this concept, subordinates may not be making the most of their working

relationships. Lack of communication and misunderstanding can be the fundamental downfall of

a relationship and, eventually, the organization. It is indicated that poor morale for an

organization is soon to follow if a superior-subordinate relationship is not nurtured. Similar to

many relationship strategies, managing up does not happen overnight. Once the foundation of the

relationship is put in place, it should need less attention to maintain a healthy relationship (Hbsp,

2008).

The Harvard Business Press Pocket Mentor on managing up outlines three crucial

practices to the success of the process. The first practice includes developing a positive

productive relationship between superior and subordinate. Effective communication with

superiors while handling disagreements strategically is the second practice. While strategic

negotiation with superiors is the third and final practice (Hbsp, 2008). All of these practices can

be utilized by members of the NYSP to actively engage in managing up.

The first practice of developing a positive productive relationship between a superior and

a subordinate can be difficult. Developing and nurturing a relationship with a superior requires

an acceptance of the power differential that exists. Understanding shared objectives between the

superior and subordinate can be helpful as well as agreeing on expectations for performance and

responsibility. Learning a superior‟s management style as well as their expectations can be

extremely helpful while trying to manage up. In relationships with superiors it is recommended

to be dependable and honest while providing advice or feedback and, at the same time, keeping


in mind the time constraints a superior may be under (Hbsp, 2008). In order to utilize this

practice, it is suggested to make a superior more like a partner rather than an adversary. Avoiding

harsh criticism has been found to be beneficial as well. Gentle criticism can sometimes be

helpful, but testing the waters first to see what kind of style the superior has will help avoid

being overly critical (Flora, 2010). For the relationship between a superior and a subordinate to

function as smoothly as possible, both need to have a deep understanding of the other and

themselves (Hbsp, 2008).

The second practice offered by the Harvard Business Press Pocket Mentor on managing

up requires effective communication with the superior. First, understand how the superior likes

information communicated. Requesting clarity when it is needed and keeping a superior

informed, especially if there is an impending crisis, is also recommended. Listening is a large

part of the exchange between superior and subordinate; however, questioning can also be utilized

as a means of clarification for a subordinate. Disagreements are bound to arise with superiors.

This is all part of the communication scheme, but there are ways that a disagreement can be

brought up to build on an existing relationship. For example, instead of simply raising an

objection a subordinate could offer a suggestion for a solution along with the objection.

Providing a superior with several choices for a solution will increase the likelihood of

collaboration between a superior and a subordinate (Hbsp, 2008; Dobson & Dobson, 2000).

The third and final practice that may aid in managing up encompasses negotiation with a

superior. When negotiating with a superior, the Harvard Business Press Pocket Mentor

recommends being direct and refraining from making assumptions. Credibility can make a

difference when asking or suggesting something to a superior. Harvard Business Press Pocket

Mentor on managing up offers the following formula: Credibility = Trust + Expertise (Hbsp,


2008). How trustworthy the subordinate trying to negotiate is and if they are an expert on the

subject of the negotiation can make a difference. In order for a subordinate to build their

trustworthiness and expertise, there are a couple of things they can consider. Trust is not built

overnight; a subordinate must have a track record of being trustworthy. Following through on

commitments and behaving in a trustworthy manner are all ways to build trust with a superior.

According to the research, to gain trust, one has to give it. (Badowski, 2003). Firsthand

experience can build expertise and with that experience knowledge can be gained. Successful

negotiation does not just rely on credibility, it also requires a shared focus on the feasible

outcome. These three practices are just part of the steps that can be taken to embrace the concept

of managing up.

According to Ramsey, (2009) one of the reoccurring messages of managing up is the

need for effective communication. Subordinates can examine their communication in order to

ensure they are practicing managing up. Managing up tips include: (a) effective communication

is straight talk; (b) there is no vagueness in the message that is being communicated; (c)

subordinates and superiors alike should tailor their message to the audience in a way that is clear

and easily understood; (d) repetition for the sake of understanding is perfectly acceptable within

the organization; (e) communication should not take place when any emotion that could fog

judgment is present within the communicator; (f) messages that are being sent should be checked

for bias of any kind and cheap shots should be avoided; (g) the shorter the message, the easier it

is to understand and repeat if needed; (h) good communicators are good listeners first and; (i) a

good communicator knows when to stop communicating (Ramsey, 2009).

It may be helpful to keep in mind the overall structure of the organization. Often

superiors have their own superiors to answer to and focus their energy on. In this case the


superior is also the subordinate, so they can somewhat relate to the subordinate. However,

sometimes work-life can be overwhelming for both parties so the give-and-take relationship that

surrounds a superior-subordinate relationship cannot be neglected. If a subordinate shows the

initiative to take care of a superior‟s needs this will allow that superior to then take care of the

subordinate‟s needs. In the case of having multiple superiors like the NYSP, the superiors need

to be on the same page. If for some reason they are not, a subordinate can help open

communication between the two superiors to get them on the same page. Mixed messages

flowing downward from two different superiors cannot only confuse but frustrate subordinates

(Flora, 2010).

Upward and downward communication plays an active role within organizations.

Upward distortion can lead to misunderstanding within the hierarchy while downward influence

can subtly nudge subordinates in the direction their superior desires. Both communication

channels are vital to any organization; however, organization hierarchies serve as prime

examples of how clearly defined these channels can be. Classic hierarchies like the military and

paramilitary organizations offer a glimpse into supervisory communication. Unlike other

organizations, the military and some paramilitary organizations advise their superiors and

subordinates how best to communicate to one another. These stipulations make communication

channels clear and simple to observe.

The Military and the New York State Police

The New York State Police (NYSP) maintains the same mission statement since they

were founded in 1917, “To serve, protect and defend the people while preserving the rights and

dignity of all” (NYSP, 2010). As a police organization, the NYSP follows The U.S. Army

Leadership Field Manual as a guide for how to conduct communication between superiors and


subordinates (Keeler, 2010; Corbitt, 2009). This understanding by all members of the

organization that it is their duty to know and follow the leadership manual is unlike most

organizations. It is unusual for an organization to tell its employees how to conduct interactions,

yet the military and the NYSP do just that.

The Army prides itself on having leaders who are good communicators. Communication

at its most basic level is seen as a way to provide information, but there is more to it than just

transmitting information. The following quote from the U.S. Army Leadership Manual clearly

states how communication relates to success of the organization.

“Communication needs to achieve a new understanding. Communication must create new

or better awareness. Communicating critical information in a clear fashion is an

important skill to reach a shared understanding of issues and solutions. It is conveying

thoughts, presenting recommendations, bridging cultural sensitivities and reaching

consensus. Leaders cannot lead, supervise, build teams, counsel, coach, or mentor

without the ability to communicate clearly.”

(Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 7-14).

This excerpt perfectly summarizes how important communication is within its organization.

Without clear, concise communication of thoughts and ideas the organizational structure could

weaken or collapse.

The United States Military has a classic hierarchy structure. Civilians serving in the

Army and soldiers alike are expected to “work together in a superior-subordinate concept for

command positions and formal leadership” (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 3-5). The Army has a

number of documents that are of critical importance to this compilation of literature. The U.S.

Army‟s Field Manual, also called The Soldier’s Guide, outlines the things that new members of


the organization need to know about authority, communication and interactions with superiors.

(Army, 2004 7-21-13). Communication is of critical importance in the army since

communication among teams, soldiers and organizations is essential in effectively accomplishing

missions. The field manual explains that two-way communication is more important than one-

way communication because accomplishing missions depends on information passing accurately

up and down the chain of command.

Communication Breakdown Prevention (within the Military and NYSP)

Superiors need to be effective communicators in order to succeed within the organization.

In order to be effective, superiors need to maintain key components within their communication.

Superiors must be able to explain, inform, direct, instruct, inspire and get communication clearly

to varying audiences (Ramsey, 2009). If a superior fails to communicate properly, subordinates

may misunderstand the nature of the communication. Remedies for this include focusing on the

receiver of the message and making sure the audience member understands the message.

Understanding the message should be the first priority (Ramsey, 2009).

The Army distinguishes between three different types of managing (a) counseling, (b)

coaching and (c) mentoring. Counseling is when a leader serves a subordinate by performing a

review of the subordinate‟s potential, performance and future performance. Counseling can be

geared toward all subordinates not just those who show potential and evaluation reports should

be expected. Coaching is slightly less formal with no evaluation report necessary. Coaching can

include the guidance of a subordinate in developing new skills and practicing those skills.

Coaching also includes the setting of long and short-term goals that are task orientated. Lastly,

mentoring is when a superior with greater experience and knowledge provides advice or

guidance. Mentoring focuses primarily on future-oriented development as a leader in the making.


Mutual trust and respect is necessary in this type of management relationship (Defense, 2006 FM

6-22). All types of managing, counseling, coaching, and mentoring can help aid in

communication breakdown prevention.

When communication is undervalued within the organization, the effectiveness of the

message can be undercut (Ramsey, 2009). For successful communication, the message needs to

be sent effectively as well as received effectively. Subsequently, effective listening is a necessity

for both subordinates and superiors. Often it is easy for a superior to forget what it is like to be

on the other side, thus effective empathy will work well for both parties. Effective listeners

solicit ideas from their subordinates. This solicitation of ideas from subordinates helps them

contribute to the input of valued ideas within the organization (Brownell, 1990).

Actively listening is highlighted in the U.S. Army Leadership Manual for official

communication within the organization. An important purpose of actively listening is to

understand the sender‟s thoughts, while listeners provide occasional indication they are still

listening. Actively listening requires the avoidance of interruption and making mental notes

throughout the listening process. Good listeners are especially aware of not just the content of the

message, but also the emotion that accompanies the spoken message. The last key to actively

listening is to avoid distraction from personal emotions that may get in the way of listening

attentively. The Army highlights some non-verbal cues of active listening; they note that

maintaining (a) eye contact, (b) a comfortable body posture, (c) an occasional nod, (d) a relaxed

facial expression, and (e) a lack of any verbal expression are all signs that a subordinate is

actively listening. (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 7-14).


Military and NYSP Structure

As previously noted, the crossover between the military and the paramilitary structure of

the NYSP is significant. While discussion rules and procedures implemented by the Army are

similar if not exact as those in place within the NYSP, the Army regulates many relationships

within the organization differently. Specifically, relationships between soldiers of different ranks

are prohibited. Relationships of a personal nature are prohibited between enlisted soldiers and

officers. These are just a few examples of how the hierarchy of the Army has an impact on those

participants in that organization. Customs exist within the Army that act as guidelines for

soldiers in order to help them remain courteous and gracious. A few of the customs listed in the

field manual relate to the relationships of superiors and subordinates: “Never go “over the heads”

of superiors – don‟t jump the chain of command, never offer excuses, [and] never turn and walk

away to avoid giving the hand salute” (Army, 2004 7-21-13).

Another document that is relied on by both the Army and the New York State Police

(NYSP) for appropriate guidelines for leadership is the U.S. Army Leadership Manual (Keeler,

2010; Corbitt, 2009). The document would be impossible to cover thoroughly because of its

length, but some information that is relevant to this literature review will be explored. The

leadership manual specifically points to team work as a way to successfully carry out good

leadership “Everyone in the Army is part of a chain of command and functions in the role of

leader and subordinate. Being a good subordinate is part of being a good leader…Everyone in

the Army is part of a team, and all team members have responsibilities inherent in belonging to

that team” (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 viii). In this excerpt, it is clear to see how relevant teamwork

is to both the Army and the NYSP, both classical hierarchal structures.


The Army refers to leaders that have a large impact over the entire organization as

organizational leaders. For the purposes of this literature review, organizational leaders are

higher level superiors. Organizational leaders are expected to help foster the skills of

subordinates by empowering them and helping them accomplish missions. Organizational

leaders often have to visualize the impact of their decisions on the organization. Achievable

standards must be kept in mind at all times because actions and decisions made by these leaders

have a far reaching impact. Organizational leaders have the task of conveying the mission and

the message to subordinates while giving them as much useful information as possible. Again the

pattern of the need for clear communication arises. Organizational leaders all need to be

competent in preparing, planning, assessing and executing. Mastering the system and the

resources within that system is a large part of an organizational leader‟s job (Defense, 2006 FM

6-22).

Clear and specific communication is important both formally and informally. Like

Ramsey (2009), the Army stresses the need for clear communication when assigning formal

tasks and responsibilities. Both organizations, the Army and the NYSP, have superiors that can

be held accountable for the actions of their subordinates, but the Army takes it a step further with

their accountability. The following is an example of how superiors in the military are held

accountable, “Command is about sacred trust. Nowhere else do superiors have to answer for how

their subordinates live and act beyond duty hours” (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 2-3). Even though

superiors in the NYSP are not accountable for the actions of their subordinates while they are not

on duty, the actions and choices of a trooper can affect their superiors. This is a more informal

type of communication, yet both types coexist and affect the organization.


Since superiors are accountable for the actions of their subordinates when they succeed, it

is as important for superiors to praise subordinates for their good work. The Army emphasizes

that leaders and superiors should not only praise the work of subordinates, but should also advise

them on how to do even better. Empty words are not as successful with continued motivation as

a personalized message (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22). Aside from praising subordinates, encourage

superiors to make subordinates feel empowered. This can be accomplished by assigning tasks

and delegating authority. It is possible when tasks are delegated to less experienced subordinates

for mistakes to occur. According to the Army, a good leader will calculate the risks and accept

that mistakes are likely to be made because subordinates learn best through experience. The

simple fact as stated by the Army is that no leader is irreplaceable no matter how central to the

unit, the team must go on and the Army must continue to function (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22).

Leaders in the Army or any hierarchal organization are required to influence those around

them. In order to best use the influence available, the Army has outlined a number of techniques

that can be utilized by superiors. The ten techniques that help influence include both formal and

informal types of communication. All troopers are expected to know and be aware of these

techniques because they can help troopers meet deadlines and accomplish tasks. These

techniques seek results on a continuum that flows from compliance to commitment. These ten

techniques provided by the Army are just some of the ways that superiors can gain compliance

from subordinates. Influence can also flow from subordinate to superior. “Managing up” as

discussed previously can be an invaluable way for subordinates to have an influence on their

superiors (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22).

The first technique highlighted is pressure. Deadlines fall under this category, often with

negative consequences attached for not meeting such deadlines. With this technique resentment


can easily appear, especially if the subordinate feels that the superior is trying to receive personal

recognition from their own superior. Pressure is best used when time is short, the stakes are high

and other attempts at achieving commitment have failed (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 7-4). The

second influencing technique is a legitimate request. This influencing technique occurs when

orders are passed down the chain of command and the subordinate leader has little impact on the

request. There is a potential for official consequences if the request is not completed (Defense,

2006 FM 6-22 7-4).

The third influencing technique is an exchange or trade. Resources come into play while

superiors can trade the subordinate‟s compliance for a desired item or action. The superior must

use their judgment in order to provide a fair exchange if one is needed. The fourth technique is a

personal appeal. The superior might make a request based on loyalty or friendship, while

highlighting the subordinate‟s special talents. The fifth technique is collaboration. This technique

occurs when a superior provides resources or assistance to carry out the request at hand. The

choice of such request is made more attractive by including a step-by-step process for the

subordinate. The sixth technique is rational persuasion. This persuasion requires explanation,

evidence and logical arguments to show that the request is relevant. This may be one of the first

approaches used to gain compliance (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 7-5).

The seventh influencing technique is apprising. This takes place when the superior

explains the benefits that only the subordinate can receive such as invaluable experience.

Inspiration is the eighth technique and it occurs when the leader provides such enthusiasm for the

task at hand that the arousing emotion is enough to gain compliance. The ninth technique is

participation. This occurs when a superior asks subordinates to participate in planning or

problem solving to meet an objective. This also serves as an invitation to get involved in the


completion of the task. The final influencing technique is relationship building. This technique

takes time to develop because superiors need to build a rapport with subordinates. Offering

praise, understanding the perspective of the subordinate and providing an interest in the

subordinate‟s well-being all serve as relationship building steps. This can be an effective way to

gain compliance from subordinates over time (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22 7-5).

Patterns begin to emerge after reviewing the research compiled in the previously

discussed areas. Communication channels exist in every organization, but the true picture of the

organization lies in what is happening within those communication channels. Upward

communication can encounter the problem of upward distortion and a breakdown in

communication can result in a loss of valuable time and energy. Downward communication can

encounter the problem of downward distortion which can result in the same kinds of problems

experienced by upward distortion. Downward influence can fall into a number of different

categories and as the Army indicates pressure, an exchange, and collaboration are all ways to

influence downward communication. Upward influence, which is currently being referred to as

managing up, is another way that this channel can be explored and used to the benefit of the

subordinate.

The military and the NYSP have many things in common. They both utilize documents to

explain to new subordinates how to behave (Defense, 2006 FM 6-22; Keeler, 2010). Even with

desired behavior and communication explained in detail, communication problems are still

bound to exist within the organization of the NYSP. After exploring all of the information

surrounding communication channels, managing up, military structure, communication

breakdown and prevention, comprehensive research can focus on superior-subordinate

relationships within the NYSP.


The communication that occurs between officers of varying ranks and of the same ranks

is the focus of this research. In order to explore these ideas to the fullest extent, research

questions that target these ideas have been formed. Specifically, they focus on the differences in

communication between superiors and subordinates. Further expansion on this will allow the

researcher to observe all types of interactions that take place between officers of the same rank

and varying ranks. The following two main questions focus on the daily interactions of superiors

and subordinates:

RQ2: Does the communication between subordinates differ from the communication

between superiors and subordinates?

RQ3: Do subordinates exhibit any of the characteristics of “managing up” when

communicating with superiors?

These questions focus on some aspect of communication channels, upward distortion,

downward distortion, upward influence, downward influence and horizontal communication.

This research needs to take place because there is a lack of research in the field of supervisory

communication in this type of paramilitary organization. Many other organizations have found

and implemented invaluable improvements to the overall function of the organization and the

people it serves through research.


Chapter 2: Methodology

This qualitative study explored superior-subordinate relationships in a law enforcement

context. A few main areas will be covered in this chapter. First, a basic overview of the

organization and its members will be presented. Next, a basic description of the study conducted

and the potential issues that can arise when conducting and analyzing an ethnography. The

background of the organization will then be explored. Within the background section, topics

such as the research environment including station layout descriptions as well as general staff

characteristic will be examined. Subsequently, the researcher‟s previous affiliation with the

organization and her built in bias will be discussed. Lastly, interpretation of data will be

reviewed in terms of organization of this data set.

Law enforcement officials are one of many areas of the government that serve and protect

citizens. This paramilitary organization is a collaboration of subordinates and superiors. Many

studies have been done in or around military organizations, but often these approaches are from a

criminal justice perspective or sociological standpoint (Campbell & Campbell, 2010; Trott,

2006). The field of communication has explored the different types of hierarchal communication,

but has not directly explored a military or paramilitary organization. The conclusions drawn from

this study will be offered to the organization with the intent of improving communication within

it.

Ethnography

An ethnographic framework was chosen because it focuses on the entire cultural group.

Using an ethnographic framework has many positive aspects such as capturing the essence of an

experience and providing a structural description of the organization. Ethnography also helps

researchers understand the working lives of those being studied; however, there are some


drawbacks (Creswell, 2006). The “ethnographic fallacy” is one of the ways a researcher could

over-generalize and oversimplify what is being studied. As such, researchers must be aware of

the diversity within the organization being studied (Babbie, 2009). Other challenges to

conducting an ethnographic study include prolonged time in the field, narrative writing, and

unintentionally going native. All of these drawbacks do not outweigh the positives of conducting

an ethnographic study (Creswell, 2006).

The researcher took on the role of participant as observer while conducting the study. She

had no intention of affecting the work-life of the participants while collecting data. The

researcher was not hidden in any manner from members while conducting the study. Members

could clearly see the researcher taking detailed field notes while observing and asking informal

questions. All participants refused consent to audio recordings of interviews, but all signed

consent forms and allowed interviews to take place. The researcher immersed herself within the

organization by quietly observing the day-to-day activities. Some informal interviews took take

place one-on-one; other interviews were in a group setting. The interviews provided valuable

information related to the climate of the organization and supervisory communication. The body

language, behavior and diction used by the participants were noted during observation as well.

Observation took place for approximately four days, ten hours a day. Three days were spent at

one location, while one day was spent at a second location.

The sample for this study was a group of law enforcement officials working out of two

New York State Police stations and one satellite station. This provided the researcher with two

different experiences within the organization. Police organizations are dominated by males with

only about 11% females. In order to have an accurate representation of the field, females

participated (Lonsway, 2006; Morash, Kwak, & Harr, 2006). Different age ranges were present,


but there was an overwhelming lack of diversity among ethnicities. Members who have been

serving for different periods of time added to the diversity of the study.

For purposes of anonymity stations will be referred to as station one and station two.

Likewise troop letters like Troop A, or Troop L will be changed. The first station that

participated in this study was located in Troop X. The station where observation took place is a

zone headquarters. The station is one of the busiest in the state and is fast paced due to a low

level of municipal police activity. The station has its own dispatch unit on site which services

several counties. Troop X often trains new recruits because of the fast paced environment. The

researcher took the opportunity to ride with a few troopers as they patrolled their geographical

routes. This provided one-on-one time that allowed several troopers to be more explicit in their

opinions and feelings about the organization.

The second station is located in Troop Y, about 150 miles from the first. This station is in

what several members called the “fish bowl.” This is another way to refer to the area surrounding

division headquarters and the NYSP academy. Troop Y offered a unique look at the organization

from a much different perspective than the first station. The second station is relatively small

with a slower pace than the first due to other municipal police departments patrolling the area. A

small satellite station that reports to the second station was also visited during the day of

observation. Most satellite stations have only one supervising sergeant and three to five troopers

assigned to them. Similar to observation at the first station, the researcher joined a few troopers

in their patrol cars for informal conversation. The short rides were the means of getting from the

main station to the satellite station and back.


Background

Organizational communication issues between superiors and subordinates can be

identified and understood from information provided by the study. The rank structure and the

duties at each rank are important because each rank has different duties and responsibilities. The

primary purpose for this ethnographic study is to identify differences in communication between

superiors, subordinates, and peers.

It is the job of an ethnographer to become immersed in a particular cultural group and

make observations. With those observations, themes emerged in order to clearly understand the

organization being studied. This particular research focused on superior-subordinate

relationships and the communication between the two parties. It was hypothesized that

characteristics of managing up would be found, as well as differences between peer-to-peer

interactions and superior-subordinate interaction. The research initially focused on watching

superior-subordinate communication and it evolved to encompass informal interviews. Informal

interviews varied in length and in the topics discussed. Questions were generated as the

conversation progressed. Informal interviews allowed members of the organization to express

themselves freely in regards to the inner workings of the organization without fear of retribution

for opinions.

The New York State Police have approximately 5,000 sworn members within their

organization and of those 5,000, approximately 3,400 are state troopers. Directly above the

troopers are the sergeants which account for approximately 600 members. The sergeants are the

immediate superior to the troopers. The sergeants are considered noncommissioned officers and

there are several different ranks of sergeant. The next level up the hierarchy is the 200

commissioned officers who are superiors to all 4,000 members (800 of the 5,000 work for the


Bureau or Criminal Investigation (BCI) – a separate mini organization within the NYSP). As the

hierarchal structure indicates, some members are both superiors and subordinates. This

paramilitary organization is a perfect example of a classic hierarchy and has enough levels to

conduct a suitable supervisory communication study (Keeler, 2010).

The NYSP has what is referred to as a “closed-shop” union structure. Every member of

the NYSP has to pay union dues however, in order to be a member of the union an application

must be filled out and processed. Officers and troopers share the same union. Their union is

utilized when contract and benefit negotiations takes place. The union also provides

representation throughout disciplinary matters.

The NYSP functions differently than some other state run police departments. If an area

of the state does not have a municipal, county or city police department, the state police have

acting jurisdiction in the area. The function of the state police in a particular area is partially

determined by how active the County Sheriff‟s department is. Some departments only deal with

one type of incident. For example, most disputes fall into two categories, criminal or civil.

Throughout the state, the NYSP function differently depending on the location and if other

municipal agencies are even active in that area. Some states, like Wisconsin, only have state

patrol officers. Officers of the state patrol are solely responsible for the interstate system and call

in municipal agencies when arrests need to be made.

Basic training for members of the NYSP takes place over the course of 26 weeks.

Different types of information are presented in a classroom setting while other types of

information are taught with hands-on training. Over the duration of training, several areas of

study are covered with candidates. Heavy emphasis is placed on learning and retaining laws. The

Vehicle and Traffic Law and the Penal Law are studied intensively. The candidates are also


taught basic rules and regulations of their organization with an outline of the Divisional structure

and responsibilities of all members. Candidates are taught defensive tactics like the proper way

to gain compliance with verbal commands, and subdue someone in distress. Likewise, they are

taught and tested on their driving and firearms skills. Over the course of this extensive training

there is no portion that indicates how to talk to or interact with superiors or subordinates.

Without any training whatsoever, members are expected to know how to conduct themselves

with their coworkers.

As a refresher for training, “in-services” are conducted during different times of the year

to maintain skills. “In-services” can range in topic from defensive tactics to dealing with

civilians with disabilities. These “In-services” are sometimes taught by troopers and sometimes

taught by officers. The effectiveness of the training is disputed among members, however, they

continue to take place. “In-services,” like formal academy training, do not cover communication

with superiors and subordinates, or ways to maintain strong working relationships. Likewise,

members must qualify at the shooting range with different guns in order to continue to carry their

weapons and to do their job.

Observations indicated that dramatic differences exist in professional duties at different

ranks. The majority of the members of the organization hold the rank of trooper. Trooper‟s duties

are the most extensive and include the most demanding and dangerous work. Over the course of

a twelve-hour shift, a trooper on patrol could respond to a domestic dispute, perform numerous

vehicle and traffic stops, respond to a department store to arrest a shoplifter, respond to traffic

accidents and perform routine patrol through their assigned geographical area. More dangerous

incidents can also take place including barricaded subjects holding firearms and possibly

hostages, reports of shots fired and injured civilians. One of the most recent dangerous situations


included a man shooting point blank at the troopers who had his house surrounded. Even though

these hostile situations do not occur on a regular basis, troopers are the ones conducting these

physical and mentally demanding duties. The experiences shared by the troopers who go through

these dangerous ordeals together further bonds the troopers as they are in close proximity while

doing paper work and discussing the situation that previously occurred. Troopers share

computers/desks with each other in what is referred to as the patrol room. These work stations

have computers with the proper programs for troopers to complete their paperwork. In a way, the

patrol room isolates the troopers from the rest of the station making it seem as though they are a

mini-organization that functions dependent only upon each other, and not on their supervisors.

Sergeants are the immediate supervisors to the troopers. In order for a trooper to be

promoted to a sergeant they must pass the sergeants exam. There are a number of different

variations of a sergeant. Line sergeant is the most basic followed by a station commander. Lastly,

zone sergeant is the highest of the sergeants in the field and they oversee the sergeants and

troopers below them in their zone. Each of the ten troops is divided into three or four zones,

within each zone several stations and satellite stations exist. Zone sergeants must regularly

conduct visits around the stations within their zone. There are even more variations of sergeants

that serve at the division headquarters in Albany, New York, including technical sergeant. A

field sergeant‟s duties include direct supervision of troopers when they are at the station.

Sergeants are also responsible for proof reading and correcting reports that are submitted by the

troopers. Sergeants do not typically go out on patrol unless there is a major incident, like a fatal

car accident. Sergeants make changes to the schedule and make sure that there are enough

troopers on any given shift. Admittedly, some sergeants have been off the road for so many years


that they could not perform the duties of a trooper. It should also be noted that sergeants share

offices with each other, sometimes even sharing desks between shifts.

Lieutenants are the direct superiors to sergeants. In order for a sergeant to become a

lieutenant they must take and pass the lieutenant‟s exam. Scores generate a list and promotions

are given out from the top down, sometimes new lieutenants must relocate to accept the position.

Lieutenant is the last rank where testing is involved in promotion. Positions higher than

Lieutenant are assigned based on appointment. The appointment process is often viewed as

subjective and, frequently, members of the organization have questioned the fairness of the

process. Lieutenants oversee the sergeants and troopers. Their role in the everyday workings of

the organization is less evident as they proof read only administrative reports and only respond to

large scale events. Lieutenants also make station visits within their zone. Lieutenants often get

their own office and have access to the zone secretary who can help them with their

administrative duties.

Captains are the direct superior to Lieutenants. The position of Captain is by appointment

only. A captain‟s role in the organization includes overseeing the zone and at times the entire

troop. Captains read reports of a more serious nature such as homicides and fatal accidents.

Often captains only respond to extremely serious incidents where a command center is

established. Captains have a more active relationship with division headquarters and are

responsible for implementing training and changes that come from division headquarters. There

is generally one captain per zone and they either share a zone secretary or have their own

secretary. Captains have their own office as well. Captain is the last rank that plays an active role

in the field; they are the highest field supervisor for each zone. It appeared that office size is


proportionate to how high up an officer is ranked. For example, the higher up in the hierarchy,

the larger the office.

The next rank up, major, is also by appointment and there is only one per troop. The

major of each troop is stationed at troop headquarters. Majors play an extremely active role with

division headquarters and are responsible for the actions of all the members serving under them.

On average, a troop has around 400 members. The major ensures that all members are aware of

and fulfilling their daily duties. At times the major must ensure the fair enforcement of any

disciplinary action as well as delegate various duties to the lieutenants and captains. The major is

the last field supervisor. Majors must know all the members of their troop, while simultaneously

maintaining relationships with local media outlets, and community representatives. Lastly, the

major must be privy to all major incidents that occur within their troop and be prepared to

supervise in the field whenever necessary.

The next rank above major is inspector. Inspectors, as their title implies, work as internal

affairs investigators. When internal investigations are conducted inspectors either supervise or

conduct those investigations themselves. They must insure that all daily operations are being

conducted effectively and efficiently. Colonels are superiors to inspectors. There are a number of

different specialized areas that colonels can work in. Inspection colonels supervise internal

affairs and inspect facilities when necessary. Human resources colonels oversee all matters

affecting employees including contracts and health benefits. Colonels supervising field command

oversee all field operations including the BCI operations. Administrative colonels supervise the

state police lab, handle matters pertaining to the budget which may include station leases, and

building maintenance. Colonels specializing in planning and research revise and develop new

policies and programs, as well as implement new systems, work with statistics and oversee grant


writing. All colonels, no matter what their specialization, work out of division headquarters in

Albany, New York.

Directly above colonels is the first deputy superintendent. The deputy superintendent is

the second in command for the entire organization. They further oversee all disciplinary matters

and select members for the protective services unit. The protective services unit is responsible

for the protection of the governor and lieutenant governor. They assist the superintendent with

whatever he may need. The superintendent is the top figure of the organization. He is responsible

for the entire organization and completely oversees all members to insure they are functioning as

they should be. The superintendent reports directly to the governor of New York State and the

NYSP are known as the “Governor‟s Army.”

Research Environment

Station # 1 – Layout

The exterior of the station appears relatively new. The front parking lot is for visitors

while the back lot houses patrol cars and personal vehicles. Upon entering the first station, there

is a small lobby with a couple chairs for people to wait if need be. There are large Plexiglas

windows for troopers to interact with a member of the public if they have a question or a

complaint. Behind the glass is the dispatch area with three work stations for dispatchers. This

room is called the dispatch room and it houses the book were members sign in and out for their

shift. This room is sometimes chaotic and sometimes quiet, but someone is on the desk 24/7.

Calls from the public are always coming in and the dispatcher or desk trooper answers the calls

while simultaneously interacting with troopers on the road. The hallway from the entrance lobby

requires someone at the desk to buzz a guest in because the door remains locked for safety

reasons. Once in from the lobby, the entrance to the dispatch room is on the left and almost


straight ahead is the patrol room. Coming in from the lobby to the right is the break room and the

BCI area. The break room doubles as a conference room with the help of a divider and can be

closed off to create two separate areas. Further down the hallway, stairs lead to the basement

where the locker rooms and weight room are located.

The patrol room is essentially the trooper‟s headquarters. There are five different work

stations for troopers to fill out paperwork or question complainants. There is a small office off to

the side of the patrol room for the line sergeant on duty. The patrol room holds the small

processing center for mug shots and fingerprinting. Across the way from the patrol room is the

lieutenant‟s office which is connected to the captain‟s office via the secretary‟s office. The

captain‟s office is the largest office with a Television and a couple chairs for guests. The

lieutenant‟s office is the second largest with chairs for guests to sit in. Down the hall there is a

bathroom specifically for members. The patrol room houses a bathroom specifically for

defendants. The zone sergeants have their own office, three desks sit in the room but only two

zone sergeants work out of the office. Across the hall from the patrol room is the station

commander‟s office; two desks are shared among three or more sergeants in a room smaller than

the captain‟s office. At the very end of the hall is a juvenile justice specialist, who is not a

trooper, but deals with counseling victims. The researcher spent the majority of time in the patrol

room and dispatch room with visits to each of the offices for informal interviews. Time was also

spent in patrol cars talking to troopers on patrol.

Station #2 – Layout

The second station is noticeably smaller than the first, but appears recently constructed.

Similar to the other station there is a small parking lot in the front of the building for visitors and

a back lot for patrol cars and personal vehicles. The front doors of this building remain locked


until someone is present in the building. The hallways are setup almost like a horseshoe with

offices around the outside edge. The offices are larger and spaced far apart. There is no dispatch

center out of this station as it serves a smaller population because the police duties are shared

among several other police municipalities. The patrol room was quiet and not observed because

there was no activity within it. The captain‟s office was extremely large with a couple different

sitting areas. The captain disclosed that the office is too large for his needs. There is no television

in this office. The lieutenant‟s office is right next door to the captain‟s office but there is no

connecting door. The office is about half the size of the captain‟s office. The office directly next

to the lieutenant‟s office is the zone sergeant‟s office which holds two desks. One desk is for the

zone sergeant and the other for the zone secretary. The next room is a small break room with one

long table and the normal appliances found in a small kitchen. Moving in the other direction

from the captain‟s office is the BCI Area. There is a bathroom in the hallway for all of the

officers and BCI to share. Perceivably, like the first station, there is another bathroom for

defendants to use in the patrol room.

The satellite station visited was half the size of second station with an office for the

supervising sergeant and a few other desk areas for troopers. This station was viewed in passing

and not thoroughly mapped out. It should be noted that the sergeant‟s office at the satellite had a

television similar to other offices seen at the first station.

Other Station Characteristics

Like any business, the state police ship and receive packages. During the winter months

cars goes in and out of the shop, some getting winter tires, others getting tune ups or body work.

The cars get run through the car wash every so often to prevent rust from salt on the roads. The

car washes ensure that the public can readily identify the logos on the cars. All of the stations


visited still had some form of lingering holiday spirit as the research took place directly after the

holidays. Cards were taped to the walls; refreshments were in the break room as well as some

mild decorations.

General Staff Characteristics

There was a distinct lack of diversity of the stations visited. At station one, the majority

of the eighty members that work out of the zone are Caucasian. Even though there was not

enough time to observe all members, as some were on vacation for the holidays, all members that

participated in this ethnography were Caucasian. The only diversity that existed is one female

trooper that had been working out of the facility for approximately two years, also Caucasian.

This lack of diversity existed in the second location. Again, most of the 80 members that work

out of the zone were Caucasian. All members at this location that participated in this

ethnography were Caucasian. A single woman worked out of the second station as well as a

single woman out of the satellite station. The female at the second station informed me that

currently there are about 6% women on the job. This statistic is below the national average

which is around 11% (Lonsway, 2002).

Ages of the members ranged from mid-twenties to late-fifties. Almost all members were

either married or in committed relationships. The majority of married members have children.

Notably, some members are on their second marriage, others divorced and a few were single.

Some members had children on the way, others had children that were grown and lived

elsewhere and some made the choice not to have children. Of the members that have children,

many were eager to show pictures or tell stories of their children, most stories related to

Christmas. Some members without children treated pets as surrogate children. A few of the


offices had personal pictures tucked away in corners and others had their office covered in

pictures of spouses, children, or pets.

The Researcher

Moustakas suggests that it is best for researchers to be transparent about any experience

they may have in order to limit bias and gain a fresh perspective (Moustakas, 1994; Creswell,

2006). The following is information that has previously influenced the researcher. The

researcher‟s mother served as a member of the New York State Police agency, until retirement in

2009, after 25 years of service. The researcher has been exposed to police work and the police

agency her entire life, attending social events for police officers and their families and visiting

her mother at her workplace. Having a female police officer as a mother figure was not

something the researcher always enjoyed; in fact, it even had some negative impacts.

The researcher‟s mother rose through the ranks of the New York State Police to zone

sergeant where she had around 80 police officers working as her subordinates. Every time the

researcher visited her mother at the station or had any direct contact with the police agency there

was always respect given to her, mainly out of respect for her mother. Once in graduate school,

the researcher took a strong interest in the field of law enforcement communication, particularly

the aspect of supervisory communication. It has been helpful for the researcher to have a

reference standing by to answer questions if need be, but there is also a biased view coming from

the researcher. Having a mother figure who served for the NYSP leaves the researcher with a

built in bias. However, this influence has led the researcher to want to study law enforcement

organizations. Also, it should be noted that without previous affiliation with this organization the

study may not have been possible. Although seemingly impossible to set aside bias, the

researcher did her best to rid herself of all preconceived notions.


Ethnographic Procedures

Over the summer, preliminary research was done to explore the possibilities for a future

study. The support from the organization was strong as most members enjoyed participating. The

main officer that supported the research made contact with other members at the first facility in

order to extend an invitation to participate in the research. It should be noted that past experience

with the organization may have played a role in the ease at getting into the organization. Most

members appeared genuine, several offered business cards or phone numbers if more

information was needed later. However, like any organization some members did not want to

participate. Prior to the research, a digital recorder was purchased in hopes of recording brief

informal interviews for later transcription. Not one member would agree to be recorded. The

researcher tried to stay quiet, blend in and be unobtrusive.

Some of the members were suspicion of observations; a few asked if the researcher was

from internal affairs. Others questioned why the researcher chose their organization, suggesting

there are better ones to observe. One of the officers speculated his responses would end up in the

local paper. Several speculated the researcher was an intern and several were too busy to answer

questions. One trooper in particular did not want to answer questions and seemed uncomfortable

with observation. He made grumpy remarks and appeared jaded about his job. At times it was

difficult for the researcher to blend in while observing as troopers are prone to scrutinize their

surroundings. Common areas were the best place to observe interaction and ask questions when

the opportunity was there. One trooper enjoyed the questions and even showed a video of his

recent experience with taser training. Other members only opened up on the last day, reluctantly

accepting the observation. One of the clear indicators that a shift had take place from observer to

participant arose when the researcher was pulled into their interaction. For example, a dispatcher


left her desk and asked the researcher to watch her desk for her as she ran out of the room.

Similarly, the researcher became a participant in the organization when she was included in their

humor. As humor is a means of connecting the troopers, it is likely that the researcher became a

participant when they made attempts to include her in their humor. Lastly, many had well wishes

for the study and some were even curious to read the final results.

Initially upon entering the organization, members expressed suspicion as the researcher

appeared to be an outsider. In order to begin, observation consent forms needed to be signed.

Each time a member was handed a consent form it was purposely given at a specific time. The

researcher made sure not to interrupt conversation or work that was being done. Upon handing

members the consent form, the study was explained as work for a master‟s thesis and they could

choose not to participate if they did not want to. The consent form signing process was helpful in

creating an initial interaction with the members and also informing them as to why a stranger

was at their station. In order to break the awkward tension of reading and signing the forms

several members turned it into a joke. A few members joked they would be laid off after signing

the form, and some stated names that were not their own as they signed. At the top of the consent

form the researchers name appeared along with the institution that approved the study, several

members let their guard down slightly when they recognized the researcher‟s last name. Some

even launched into a series of questions regarding how the researchers‟ mother was doing at the

time.

After obtaining signed consent forms, a series of introducing questions were asked that

had little do with the actual research. These questions served the purpose of creating a rapport

with the member. Members were asked how long they have been with the organization. Many

knew down to the day how long they had been in, and several also knew the amount of time they


had left before retirement. After establishing how long they had been members of the

organization, they were asked if they remembered why they got into the profession. Several

answered that it was for the money or job security. One trooper in particular answered “you

either do what you love or you do what pays the bills.” This summarized his feelings on the

matter perfectly, while other troopers truly love their jobs. Some took the initial exam because

their friends were taking it, while others felt pressure from their parents to take it. One trooper‟s

father gave him $70 to drive home for the weekend and take the test, the trooper is now grateful

he did. Beneath the varied reasons for joining the organization most troopers agreed the most

fulfilling part of their job is helping people.

In many instances after these brief rapport-building questions, the researcher started

asking questions more on point with the research (for question list see Appendix). In other cases,

observing took place first and questions were asked at a later time. Both scenarios worked well.

It was challenging at times to remain strictly an observer as many stimulating conversations

occurred. By the last day of research, it was clear that the researcher was accepted as a

participant in the organization. As stated earlier, the dispatcher left the dispatch room alone and

asked the researcher to watch the desk. This was an unexpected occurrence as clearly the

researcher has no training in how to operate the equipment. This occurrence indicated the

researcher was trusted within the organization.

It was notable that some of the members of the organization accepted the researcher as

one of their own. One situation in particular made it clear a transition had taken place. Two

troopers were having a conversation about the weight of a woman under arrest. They had

assumed she was lying when she said she weighed 185 as they were guessing above 200 pounds.

In order to settle their disagreement, they asked for the researcher‟s opinion. This conversation


was, of course, inaudible to the woman under arrest, but the researcher‟s opinion settled their

dispute and they resolved that she must have been telling the truth. By using the researchers‟

opinion as a means of settling their dispute it proved acceptance within the organization. They

even included the researcher in their humor by suggesting she be chained to the wall to play a

trick on a member. All of these factors indicated that acceptance into the organization. This most

likely would not have occurred as quickly without them knowing the researcher‟s family history

with the organization.

Instances of blending into the organization were more prevalent at station one as more

time was spent there. However, station two was the same location used for preliminary

observation and so this second appearance within their organization helped credibility with

members. It is surprising how quickly members of the organization let their guard down. Of

course, when conversations were noticeably being observed, often their language got “cleaned

up” slightly. Authentic observation was easier to obtain when the researcher was not seen or

heard. Often members of the organization inquired as to what the researcher was studying in

school, where the school was, how long until graduation and so on. For purposes of the results

section of this study, all officers, sergeants, lieutenants and captains will only be called officers.

Over the course of four days from December 27, through December 30, 2010, nearly 40

hours were spent observing members and conducting informal interviews. Day one of

observation began at the first location at 6:45 A.M. to observe the 7:00 A.M. shift change. This

day ended after 5:00 P.M. Day two at the second location began around 8:00 A.M. and ended

around 3:00 P.M. The third day of observation was again at the first location and began around

8:00 P.M and ended around 6:00 P.M. Finally, the last day began around 8:00 A.M and ended

around 6:00 P.M. Observation was only interrupted to eat and use the rest room. Field notes


filled an entire notebook and part of a second. The notes were transcribed about two weeks later

and filled 33 single space typed pages, just over 13,000 words.

Interpretation of Data

The data collected will provide answers to the research questions in a variety of ways. In

order to make the best use of time while analyzing the data, Creswell‟s simplified version of

Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen‟s method will be used (Creswell, 2006; Moustakas, 1994). First, it is best

to talk about personal experiences with the phenomenon in order to set aside researcher bias.

Once this is complete and after many hours spent reviewing the data, a list of significant

statements can be compiled. This list of statements can then be categorized into themes

(Creswell, 2006).

In order for a theme to be acknowledged, it must occur not only in the significant

statements but with a significant number of participants. Themes were coded by analyzing field

notes and transcripts of the informal interviews. In order to provide an accurate coding scheme

invivo coding was used. Since there has not been significant ethnographic study in this type of

organization using supervisory communication, it will be best to allow themes to emerge and

codes as they appear. It may also help the validity of the coding to have another person review

the coding in order to see if the researcher is thinking in a way that makes sense to others.

This study poses no serious ethical problems because the researcher is taking great

measure to protect those involved. Questions that are asked do not perceivably pertain to any

serious emotional or mental trauma. Since these officers are trained to stay composed while

receiving traumatic information, being observed and asked a few informal questions will have

little or no impact. The environment in which the interviews and observations take place will be

the workplace of the participants involved and should not cause harm. Further, there is no


attempt to mislead, misinform, or deceive the participants if they have questions about the study

or what is being researched.

The study explored superior-subordinate communication between NYSP members,

officers and troopers. Many different types of interaction were observed including peer-to-peer

and subordinate-to-superior. The focus of the observation was on the interactions of superiors

and subordinates including what types of things they said to each other. The researcher also

focused on how the things peers said to each other was different than the types of things they

said to their superiors.

Observation helped the researcher to clearly map out the relationships and the

communication within the organization. By walking around the organization and observing the

interactions of superiors-subordinates within the organization, the researcher was able to

accurately assess the types of communication that took place. The researcher took note of the

different types of work environments for the superiors and the subordinates.

The participants were appropriate for this study because they meet all the criteria for the

research project. Additionally, the organization was willing to allow the researcher into the

organization and provide the necessary information. The method of interviews and observation

will provide enough rich data to answer the researcher‟s questions. The research questions are

specific enough to gain the types of information that is needed for valid conclusions. All written

portions of this study were reviewed for grammatical errors and accuracy by a former member of

the organization.

Conclusion

Superior-subordinate communication is the focus of this study. The information obtained

from observation and informal interviews was utilized to form conclusions about supervisory


communication within the organization. Previous research guided the research questions.

Superior-subordinate communication can encompass many different channels of information

flow, and thus it is important to analyze all channels. Observing the differences in

communication across ranks and within the hierarchy will be the best way to obtain all

information necessary. If the New York State Police are interested in hearing the conclusions of

the research, the researcher will present the findings to the organization. The research will add to

the work that is being done in the field of law enforcement and military organizations.


Chapter 3: Results

This ethnographic study revealed pages upon pages of information. After carefully

organizing and reading through field notes, significant information began to emerge. In this

chapter major concepts and themes are previewed and discussed. Major concepts include

leadership at the barrack level and organizational structure. Within the concept of leadership at

the barrack level, four main themes emerged. The themes explored are: leading by example,

open-door policy, the lack of leadership training and my boss can’t do my job. The second major

concept is the organizational structure. Within this main concept two themes emerged. The first

theme is opinions about division and the second is the role of humor.

Major Concepts

After reading the field notes several times and organizing the main ideas, themes began

to emerge. Two major concepts were explored: the organizational structure and leadership at the

barrack level. These concepts appeared throughout the observation period. Observing at two

locations further solidified the concepts and themes because they were not just occurring at one

location within the organization. The first major concept is leadership at the barrack level.

Leadership at the barrack level was the only type of leadership that was observed as division

headquarters was not visited. The first theme in this major concept is the notion of leading by

example. At these particular locations supervising members did not always set great examples,

but more or less created their rules for themselves. Within this theme the paramilitary structure

of the organization or lack thereof is explored as well. The organization is moving away from its

paramilitary roots and it is affecting opinions and attitudes of members of the organization.

Getting away from this structure, but continuing to say the organization is paramilitary, can be

another way to not lead by example.


The second theme is the open-door policy. This idea is generally interpreted differently

by each party. The party who states, “My door is always open” is sometimes closed off to

suggestions or conversation. Both parties have different interpretations of what it means to have

an “open-door policy.” The third theme is the lack of leadership training. When members of the

organization get promoted, the proper training for the members who are new to the realm of

supervision is non-existent. This creates a hardship for newly promoted members and those

working for newly promoted members. It also assumes that members who pass exams are

capable of becoming leaders when, in fact, that may not be the case. The fourth and final theme

is the feeling that my boss can‟t do my job. This theme explores the inability of supervisors to

actually complete the duties of their subordinates and the problems this can create for the

organization.

The second main concept of organizational structure has two themes. Opinions about the

organizational structure are the first theme. Every member of the organization held some kind of

opinion about the organizational structure, most often it related to division headquarters. Many

members of the organization made generalizations about division as if it were responsible for all

things that were not right within the organization.

A second theme of humor played a major role. Humor was prevalent within the

organization daily if not hourly. Humor was effective at tightening the bond between the lower

two levels of the organization. It was shared most prevalently between troopers and sergeants.

The higher up officers did not participate in the same type of humor as the lower two ranks.

Sometimes the higher officers were the subjects of the jokes. A second type of “officer” humor

existed at the upper two levels. This type was more secretive and appeared to bond the two upper

levels as well.


Main Concept - Leadership at the Barrack Level

One of the major concepts to come out of this ethnographic observation presented itself

in the form of leadership based themes. The main concept being leadership and the different

ways leadership can be a success or a failure. Within the concept of leadership, the first theme is

the notion of leading by example. Leading by example influences the organization. Several

superiors are not leading by example which creates the notion of “do as I say, not as I do.” As the

data was analyzed the information gathered expressed frustration for superiors and the

organization. One member stated, “There‟s not a lot of, hey good job!”

Within the New York State Police several troops exist, ten to be exact. Of those ten

troops, each has three or four zones, and within those zones exist numerous stations and satellite

stations. All stations are also referred to as “barracks.” At any given barrack, leadership roles are

filled by officers. Leadership and supervision are two different ways superiors can help steer

their subordinates. Leadership is an active role that a superior plays in trying to better the

experiences of all members while simultaneously motivating them. Supervision is a more passive

role that superiors play by merely observing with little input at attempts to motivate or steer

subordinates.

Under the main concept of leadership at the barrack level, four themes emerged. The first

theme included leading by example which was previously addressed. The second highlights the

notion of having an open-door policy. Several officers feel that their door is always open for

comments, suggestions, or critiques, but their subordinates have a different idea of what that

open-door policy actually means. Next, the theme of a lack of leadership training exists. Many

officers, especially the more recently promoted, have felt the effects of little to no training on

how to be a superior. Most have learned the ropes from other supervisors along the way and


years ago an officer at one station even created a “junior sergeant” program to help those

transitioning to leadership roles. Unfortunately, when that officer left the station the program

ceased to function. Other expressions of a lack of training will be explored. Lastly for the

themes, the notion that “my boss can‟t do my job” arose. Many troopers expressed in some way

that their boss or bosses could not perform their daily duties. Many superiors openly admitted to

not being able to perform the tasks necessary at the trooper level. As one trooper suggested, the

officers who get promoted to the very top were never interested in police work, just political

aspirations.

Leading by Example

Most children learn the rules and norms of society by following the examples set forth for

them. Sometimes parents set the example and sometimes society sets an example. Most learn the

best ways to thrive within the household and society by the rules set forth by parents. When

parents set poor examples children sometimes follow these examples and can wind up in trouble

further down the road. If this organization was a parent-child relationship than superiors would

be setting the example for the children, in this case subordinates, to follow. Furthermore, the

same kind of message is sent when troopers are asked to follow a set of rules that are not being

followed by their superiors. This presents itself in the form of frustration, lack of respect or anger

directed at the poor example setter. These types of reactions were expressed in regards to certain

superiors setting a poor example.

The officers have a different role than the troopers when it comes to paperwork and other

administrative duties; however, their roles intersect when it comes to things they all participate

in. When a member of the organization arrives at work they sign in a book that serves as a clock-

in sheet. For troopers, it is a known requirement that they must be in uniform before their shift


begins, it is not acceptable to change on the clock. Several members made this apparent; even if

they signed in while wearing civilian clothes they were signing in for their shift start and allotted

themselves time to change before their shift occurred. For example, if a trooper‟s shift began at

7:00 A.M they may sign in for 7:00 A.M. at 6:50 A.M. to give themselves time to go to the

locker room and change. For officers, some followed this rule; others did not. This double

standard for clocking in and being dressed was vocalized by some of the troopers.

An officer came in for his shift in workout attire; he signed in and proceeded to his desk

to do some work. Many troopers are aware when one of their superiors does not follow the rules.

One trooper made a comment loud enough for those in the room to hear, but not loud enough for

the officer to hear. He said, “want to get dressed anytime today [name], just throwin‟ it out

there.” This comment had a few people in the room chuckling, while it was clear that the trooper

found this instance to be unfair.

It is common knowledge around the barrack that other officers commonly workout,

shower, and get dressed on the clock. Even civilians that work at the station acknowledge this

unfairness. One civilian was even offered the same opportunity to work out during her shift. Her

reply, “We are here to work, not to work out.” Most of the troopers are aware that these activities

occur; several openly admitted that their bosses have been known to abuse their officer

privileges. It is also common knowledge around the barrack that officers of the rank of lieutenant

and above are assigned a work phone and car. The phone happens to be a Blackberry Tour,

which is capable of receiving and sending e-mails and text messages.

Officers who receive cars are given gas cards to fill up their cars. The official purpose of

the cell phones and cars is to allow officers the ability to respond to emergency situations from

home. This response rarely occurs and the cars are mostly used for commuting between work


and home. A few of the officers commute from over 100 miles away which is a significant

distance. Several of the troopers also commute from over 100 miles away but do not get the

privilege of having their gas or maintenance of their car paid for. The commuting troopers

expressed this annoyance in the unfairness and mentioned a rule that is in place for officers to

not live more than 50 miles from their work station (actual rule is 75 miles). This rule is

commonly ignored. One of the commuting troopers goes so far as to sleep in the basement of the

barrack on days when he has shifts close together to save on gas money. Sometimes the officers

participate in the same practice of staying at the barrack to save themselves the tiring drive.

Following the dress code is another way to set a good example for subordinates. As

discussed earlier, double standards exist for when the uniform must be put on, but a second

double standard occurs of not wearing the uniform in its entirety. Almost all troopers

acknowledged that the uniform inhibits their mobility and can affect their performance on the

job. A more comfortable cargo type pant with pockets and flexibility was suggested. Even

though the uniform is cumbersome in previously noted ways, the most restricting aspect of it is

the gun belt. A gun belt typically holds a trooper‟s radio, handcuffs (sometimes two sets), pepper

spray, extra magazines, flashlight, baton, cell phone or taser. A trooper‟s gun belt is to be worn

by the troopers at all times in case they need any of the tools at their disposal. One officer in

particular found it to be a nuisance to wear while at his desk completing paper work. He cited

discomfort to be the reason for removing his gun belt.

The same officer could be seen roaming the halls of the barrack without his gun belt on.

He explained, “No one has come into my office and tried to shoot me yet.” In the last six months

there have been several instances of armed shooters entering police facilities and opening fire in

other states. It could become a safety concern to have a loaded gun in an office especially when


the officer leaves his office. The troopers have to sit for a majority of their day while in their

patrol car and at their work station typing reports. It certainly would be unacceptable for a

trooper to remove their gun belt to do paper work, even though it would be much more

comfortable. Furthermore, the only reason a trooper would remove their gun belt is to add

something to it or remove something from it. For example, when a shift change occurs and one

trooper turns a taser over to another trooper. Similarly, when an officer removes their gun to

process people under arrest their gun gets locked in a cabinet. The same non-gun belt wearing

officer explained that he is not the type of superior that shies away from controversy; in fact, he

believes he is a hands-on superior. There were no instances of him being hands-on over the

course of this ethnography.

Disrespect exists between ranks of officers. As one officer says to his superior, “I am

subservient to his greatness” or “[I] bow to his awesomeness.” This sarcastic lack of respect is

indicative of a close relationship; however, these interactions are not uncommon and send a

message that sarcasm or even mockery is acceptable when communicating to superiors. During

these types of sarcastic interactions, it was not uncommon for the ESPN channel to be on in the

office or for the state-issued Blackberry to be receiving text messages. These text messages

appeared non-work related which was indicated by laughter while reading and sending messages.

Even though several officers at this barrack do not follow rules of the organization, there

were many officers that set positive examples for their subordinates. Several officers get dressed

before their shift begins as well as work out when they are not on duty. One in particular brings

his gym clothes to work and runs on the treadmill when his shift is over. He still has interaction

with members of the organization after his workout, but it is not during his shift. Another officer

tries to help out his subordinates whenever possible. He made several attempts to fix a computer


when it was broken, even going so far as to take it outside into the freezing cold and get the dust

out of it. At any given time within the organization several officers are performing their assigned

tasks properly without distraction. Some officers correct reports in their offices while others

interact with their subordinates to assure their work is getting done. Several times a day a few

different officers can be found asking subordinates how a complaint or arrest was resolved.

Other times officers can be found joking with their subordinates while still trying to

encourage them to get their work done. One instance in particular displayed a practical

humorous way an officer encouraged his subordinate to turn in a report. The officer is looking

for the report which, come to find out, was never uploaded by the trooper. The officer said, “This

is why I drink” in which the trooper responded, “I love to be the reason you drink.” The officer

replied, “Let me know when it‟s uploaded.” The trooper then responded, “I will immediately

advise you of that.” The entire interaction was somewhat sarcastic even though the officer was

trying to encourage the report to appear. It was a lighthearted example of encouraging work to

get done without being too demanding.

A second aspect of not leading by example is clear in the type of organization the New

York State Police claim to be and what is actually being practiced. The New York State Police

boast a paramilitary structure which in many aspects mimics the processes that a military

organization conducts. This organization has the advantage of employing current and former

members of the military and those who have been a part of both organizations offer unique

insight. Notably, not all members with military experience served in the same branch. Several

members admit that the organization has gotten away from its paramilitary roots, most of which

have prior military experience, while others believe that it is similar to a military structure. The


word paramilitary refers to an organization operating as or in place of a military, and many if not

all, police organizations see themselves as such.

Some of this military crossover is expressed with the terms used to describe the schedule.

The shifts are called tours, similar to a tour of duty but in this case only for 12 hours at a time.

Days off are referred to as pass days instead of days off because if truly needed a member is

never really off duty. The term leave is sometimes used to refer to sick days or vacation days,

similar to how someone in the military would go on leave. One officer who is currently a

member of both organizations explains a notable difference between the two organizations, “The

military is geared towards something else, not crime fighting.” He goes on to admit that the

military is a much more uniform organization meaning rules and training are the same for all

members. In the NYSP he describes the ten troops as, “ten police agencies, ten different ways” to

do things.

Even though the NYSP has a “Military foundation, [they] have gotten away from

paramilitary,” says one officer. “Major changes need to be projected and planned properly,” the

same way the military does. A trooper with military experience shared that, “The Army clearly

has more regiment; stuff is more traditional and the chain of command is more prevalent.” He

adds that “military soldiers don‟t make any decisions.” While in the NYSP, “Troopers make

most of the decisions.” This same trooper prefers directions and rules to be black and white, “At

best they are skewed and grey,” he adds. He also likes the direct feedback, and the motivation

that supervisors offer in the military. There seemed to be a consensus that those members with

military experience, or even those who grew up in military families, had a head start on those

who do not have military experience. One officer said, “Military kids are five steps ahead of

college graduates.”


Another notable difference exists in the gaps between ranks. In the military, the

promotion process is much slower, “Small steps, not large leaps,” said one officer. While in the

NYSP, large leaps are all that exist. A few other troopers agreed with the notion that the military

has a slower promotion system which works out better. The same officer pointed out that the

military has more after action reviews (AAR) which help them evaluate what happened during

an event and plan better for next time. Some troopers outright said they liked the military‟s

regiment better than that of the NYSP because it seemed more organized. “The military is more

with it than the NYSP, I liked the military better,” said one trooper. The same trooper added,

“Paramilitary isn‟t seen a lot, it‟s more who owes who favors.” This adds more evidence to the

idea that the NYSP is losing its paramilitary roots. Contradictory to this notion, others admitted

that the NYSP is, “very similar to the military.”

Several customary routines exist within the organization that keeps its paramilitary like

structure strong. The flags are raised in the morning and lowered in the evening similar to a

military facility. One early morning, an officer even reminded a trooper that the flags needed to

go up as the sun was rising. Other military like behaviors exist including the use of respectful

add-ons “yes sir” and “yes ma‟am.” These respectful add-ons were used primarily with

supervisors that were not as social with the troopers. For example, sir and ma‟am were heard

primarily when talking to someone of a rank of sergeant and above. Some troopers, particularly

those just out of the academy, used sir and ma‟am more frequently. Other terms of respect are

used to address superiors, “sarge” being a way to refer to sergeants, and “L.T.” was a way

several members referred to the lieutenant. Another reflection of the paramilitary nature of the

organization could be seen in the hand salute. Upon seeing or greeting an officer for the first time

that day many saluted and issued the appropriate time of day greeting, “good morning, sir”(with


a hand salute). Almost always, a salute was given back from the officer who was saluted. Salutes

were given only to officers with a lieutenants rank or higher.

Losing the paramilitary edge of the organization can have an impact on several areas of

the organization. For purposes of this study, it can affect superior-subordinate communication.

When a trooper with former military experience is reporting to an officer with no military

experience there can be expressed differences in the way they each want to accomplish things.

Similarly, those with military experience also have additional training in many different areas

which give them an advantage over other troopers. Take a pool of ten troopers for example, if

two of the ten have military experience and they are all trying to work together to accomplish a

task there will be differences in their training, mindset, and skill set. One trooper in particular

explained that having military experience is an advantage within the organization. The military

keeps egos in check which can be a problem within this organization, he explained. “I‟m still a

person, I put my pants on one leg at a time or I‟ll fall over,” he said. Similarly, an officer

explained that military experience outweighs a college degree. “Military kids are five steps ahead

of college graduates,” said the officer. The officer reasoned that the military provides a much

more hands on experience than learning criminal justice in a classroom.

Furthermore, having an organization with varying levels of training is not great for the

organization as a whole. Paramilitary organizations boast uniformity and if not all members are

created equal that aspect of a paramilitary organization is lost. Respect for superiors can be lost

as well when the trooper reporting to them has more experience and training. This added

experience and training comes primarily from the members‟ past military service. This can

effectively strain superior-subordinate communication.


Open-Door Policy

A second theme that falls under the leadership category is the notion of having an open-

door policy. It is not uncommon for superiors, no matter what type of organization, to announce

that they have an open-door policy. There is a distinct difference in the way a superior interprets

their open-door policy and the way a subordinate interprets it. Most of the time a subordinate

only sees the door as open when they have a problem that needs to be addressed by their

superior. Often times a superior believes that his subordinates would seek him out and talk to

him if they have issues, when in fact they just do not want to bother their superior. This is not

uncommon in all organizations, especially hierarchal organizations.

One officer in particular expressed he has an open-door policy. To him, this means that

he is willing to talk to and interact with subordinates at any time, even if the topic is not

necessarily job related. He adopted this policy because of the past superiors that he served. It

seems as though they had a much different mentality about interacting with their subordinates.

He explained that past superiors were not interested in the job. They had the mentality of, “Do

not cause me problems,” he explained. “Previous superiors wanted to take away the punch

bowl,” he added, “They wanted to steer you in the direction they wanted.” This influenced his

mentality about being a superior and gave him the desire to be a different kind of superior. He

tries to steer his troopers, “Without throwing a wet rag on them, [I] let them be the trooper they

want to be.” Several subordinates of this officer explained how he is truly a different kind of

superior, one who is a little more laid back and easier to get along with. One subordinate in

particular absolutely loves his leadership style because her previous superior, “Didn‟t like

women on the job.” This caused her to fight an uphill battle while serving her previous boss.

Other former subordinates for this officer also expressed liking his leadership style. He wanted to


be a different kind of superior by taking pieces from the quality superiors he had as a subordinate

and wrapping them into what he perceived to be his open-door policy. However, his door is not

as open as he believes it is.

Several different factors influence how the open-door policy is sometimes ineffective. In

order to get to his office other members that work out of that particular station need to be open as

well. One of the officer‟s subordinates dislikes going to his station because of a conflict with

another member of the organization. She was invited to his station for lunch and declined

because as she said to her superior, “You know how I love that place up there.” In this statement

she is referring to the conflict that is on ongoing with a fellow officer. This is one of the factors

that inhibit the open-door policy from being completely open. Another constraint to this notion is

that sometimes subordinates will not correct a superior‟s miscommunication.

One officer stated that she would never call her superior and find out why he is running

late, she just assumes he is on his way or got caught up in something else. Yet when she is

running late, it is acceptable for her boss to call her and ask where she is. This engrained idea of

not correcting a superior may be one of respect or professional courtesy; however, it inhibits the

open-door policy notion. Similarly, a subordinate to both officers admitted that he rarely gets

feedback about his job and he is in the process of trying to figure out, “If I‟m doing my job right

or doing it wrong.” This lack of unsolicited feedback is frustrating for him, yet he would never

deliberately ask for feedback because that is not something normally done. He relates this to his

previous military experience, “Soldiers don‟t bother officers in the military...[because] it would

take away from other stuff.”

Similarly another trooper that works under the same superiors expressed that it is

important to, “Figure out how to interact with everyone, [because] everyone has their own


methods.” He expressed that where they come from and what they are looking for is different

among everyone. Furthermore, he explained that, “Sometimes messages don‟t make sense, [but

you] follow orders that don‟t make sense.” This confusion among messages highlights the

disconnect between an officer thinking he has an open-door policy and actually having one. In

reality, a subordinate will not question or ask for clarification when given an order that does not

make sense. The officer does, however, acknowledge shortcomings in communication admitting,

“We‟re all human, it‟s sometimes a communication problem, maybe I could articulate better

[which is] a worthy goal, maybe it‟s a misunderstanding.” Moreover, a different officer at the

first station admits there is a lot of “bureaucratic red tape” which can hinder interaction.

It is clear that the officer at the second location feels his door is always open, but he fails

to see his door from the perspective of his subordinates. Interaction with subordinates takes on a

negative connotation within this organization. An officer told me she would love more field

supervision to occur, but it is primarily used to monitor “problem troopers.” That statement alone

expresses the negative connection that is felt when a superior tries to be more proactive. This

theme is significant in the way that members orchestrate their interaction around the notion of

not bothering the boss.

Lack of Leadership Training

In order for a trooper to be promoted to a sergeant, the most basic of the non-

commissioned officers, they must be a trooper for four years. Next, they must take and pass a

written exam. Once all of the candidates have taken the exam, a list of troopers who scored well

is generated. Those who make it onto the list then have to take an oral exam. The oral exam

gives candidates real life scenarios in which they must respond accordingly. Once the oral exam

is complete, a second list is then calculated based on the combined scores for both the written


and oral portions. Promotions are made based on list ranking. Depending on the state‟s finances

and available vacancies sometimes promotions happen quickly, other times it is a slower process.

Once promoted to sergeant, the sergeant in training shadows a senior sergeant for ten days. After

the completion of those ten days, the sergeant is completely unsupervised. After the ten day

shadowing, the new officer will be scheduled to report to the academy for a three-week-training

course. However, a number of factors can push the three-week-training course back so that it

occurs months after the officer has completed the shadowing. This means that a trooper becomes

a sergeant after passing two different types of exams and has roughly ten days to figure out the

job and start performing it.

With such a large jump from trooper to sergeant, it is surprising that there is not more

vigorous training especially in the realm of leadership and supervision. Almost all officers that

participated in this study stated in some way there is a lack of leadership training. Others

expressed a lack of other types of training as well. One officer called this notion the, “NYSP

drop off” and followed it up inferring there is a, “Disconnect between being a leader and reading

about being a leader.” This officer insinuates that most troopers who become sergeants primarily

learn how to be a leader by reading about it. He gave several examples of other types of training

that are less than sufficient. Firearms training, for example, has only become realistic in the last

couple years, according to the officer. He insinuates that when someone at division headquarters

in “suit mode” as he calls it, sees something cool on television, they decide that is the type of

training the troopers should do next.

A few officers spoke of a program that was created by a former officer of their station

who has since been assigned to a different station. This program was known as the “junior-

sergeants program,” but was not a state or even troop-wide program. It was a grassroots initiative


that was supported by all at this station. This program allowed troopers on the sergeants list to

begin learning and performing the duties of a sergeant. The officer offered his own mentoring

practices to help troopers make the transition. One officer who took part in this program said he

would be floundering if it were not for the junior-sergeants program. Another officer implied that

without the junior sergeants program, “[You] don‟t know where you are going.” He related the

program to a similar practice in the military known as grooming. Unfortunately when the officer

who started the program left the station, the program came to an abrupt halt.

Moreover, lack of training influences all aspects of the organization. One officer

expressed it is like, “Reinventing the wheel every time you go and do something.” He also stated

that the workload for certain officers is extremely heavy. Similarly, many troopers indicated a

frustration with the training they receive. One trooper called the training “idiotic” and explained

that it is not from a law enforcement perspective. Another officer explained that the training has,

“Gotten better…[but] sometimes it‟s useless.” The issues this officer had with training revolved

around how it is conducted. The officer explained that it is a “hurry up and wait” mentality and

sometimes the trainees, “Stand around with thumb up ass.” Another officer supports the training,

calling it “decent” for being “decentralizing training.” He also supports the training by

explaining, “What we lack in progressiveness and equipment, training makes up for it.”

Similarly, another officer called the training, “Top shelf.”

When it comes to training the leaders of the organization, many officers made it clear that

the organization has shortcomings. One officer stated that there is, “No training to speak of as a

supervisor, three weeks of leadership training.” Of those three weeks, he explained that one week

is entirely devoted to service pitches from outside vendors. He calls it “a horrible, unnecessary

waste of time.” Another trooper found the training to be too reactive, meaning that something


bad had to happen before the troopers get trained in a particular area. All of the opinions

expressed about training culminate in the conclusion that there is a serious lack of training and

upkeep of training within this organization. This lack of training fits into the larger scheme of

superior-subordinate relationships. Superiors who are not trained sufficiently as leaders will be

straining their relationships with their peers and subordinates. Not only does learning a new job

take time, but simultaneously learning how to be a leader takes time as well. When there is a lack

of leadership training all together, it is possible that some superiors will never truly learn the best

ways to manage their subordinates.

Some who had the most negative feelings about the type of training provided by the

organization had their military experience to compare it to. A trooper with military service

explained that the military is more education based. Similarly, an officer highlighted the

uniformity that is used throughout the military. “The military does it the same way from „private

snuffy‟ to a three-star-general, [there is] no spin,” he said. Another officer stated that the,

“Academy is better than basic military training but [the military] keeps it up better than the New

York State Police.” Those who served or are serving in the military have insight into the

different aspects of both organizations. As explained earlier, training was just one of the aspects

that they provided insight into. As one officer expressed, “Day-to-day training falls short.”

My “Boss” Can’t Do my Job

A common complaint among troopers on patrol is the notion that their superiors could not

perform their daily duties. That means a superior is giving advice and reprimands for a job that

they cannot do themselves. Many officers admitted lacking the knowledge or capability to write

tickets or make arrests. The evolution of paper tickets to digitally printed tickets is somewhat to

blame for this lack of knowledge. However, troopers expressed frustration when asked to write


more tickets and keep their statistics high while the officer requesting such behavior could not

perform the task. Recently promoted officers were the most likely to possess such knowledge. A

senior officer explained an instance of pulling over a woman for not wearing her seatbelt. The

officer was determined to write her a ticket, but while trying to figure out how to do it digitally a

half an hour elapsed and the women ended up missing an appointment. This inconvenience was

of little regard to the officer who was more concerned with her following the law, but he did

acknowledge his shortcomings when issuing citations. In past instances, the same officer would

simply let people off with a warning instead of writing them a ticket because it would take him

too long. Another officer admitted they would not be able to make arrests because the paperwork

has changed.

This lack of knowledge and ability to perform tasks that subordinates are routinely asked

to perform is not universal in the entire organization. At the second location, one officer in

particular found it to be irresistible to go out and make arrests, especially Driving While

Intoxicated (DWI) arrests. “I just can‟t help myself,” said the self proclaimed DWI good look

charm. She encourages her fellow officers to ride around with troopers and not just the “problem

troopers.” It can be hard for officers to dedicate large amounts of time to field supervision due to

heavy amounts of paperwork. Similarly, at the same location, another officer acknowledged that

he misses the road and the danger that comes with it. The second location is much closer to

division headquarters and thus much more subject to influence from colonels who may routinely

drive by vehicle traffic stops. This widely accepted notion that someone higher is watching may

put more pressure on this particular area to set a good example.

Besides the fact that many of the superiors within this organization could not perform the

tasks of the people they are supervising, there is also a notion of “the boss” as stated by an


officer as being a “fictitious entity.” Unlike a major corporation where there are investors and an

owner, in this organization there is no owner, no one person who signs the paychecks at the end

of the week. Even if a member of the organization wanted to speak to the “big boss” otherwise

known as the superintendent or even the governor it would simply not be possible. It is difficult

enough trying to contact and exchange information with division headquarters. One officer refers

to division as the “Albany abyss.” He explained that when ideas or messages get sent to Albany

they often disappear and are never seen or spoken about again. He added, “What happens in the

field is different than Albany interprets.” There is a strong feeling within this organization that

messages are only coming from one direction and even if a trooper wanted to let their voice be

heard it does not seem possible. The same officer provided a description of the organization we

are, “Miles wide and an inch deep.” Contrary to this statement, the organizational structure is

actually quite tall, but those at the bottom layer feel it is extremely flat.

One trooper indicated that his job with the NYSP is, “The best job for having no boss

[because] you feel like you don‟t have a boss.” He did mention that when paperwork is

submitted with errors, all of a sudden there are a lot of bosses. He highlighted a, “Disconnect

from higher ups in Albany [with] senseless tactics…I call it living in the land of theory.” This

land of theory, which those in Albany live in, means that what they propose for the organization,

like training or a new way of doing things, works but only in theory. Lastly, he added, “I‟ve

never seen change; it‟s a numbers game and will stay a numbers game.” The feeling this trooper

holds is not uncommon, other troopers expressed their feelings in a similar way. The notion of

not having a boss can pose a threat to the organization as many troopers are acting independently

with whatever training, whether senseless or practical, they received.


Another trooper at the second location stated, “Morale would increase if a sergeant rides

around.” He adds, “[You] don‟t see the boss, they only come out when you need them.” He

indicated that he can go without seeing a boss for more than a week at a time. “If you don‟t go

back to the station, you will not see the supervisors; New York State Police supervisors are not in

the trenches with us,” he said. If a boss is on vacation or working a different shift, they will not

cross paths with their troopers. There is, “Too much indirect supervision and not enough direct

supervision; too many filters and too many hands,” said the same trooper. He later explained,

“Sergeants don‟t motivate here; [you] rarely get immediate feedback.” Currently this trooper is

trying to figure out if he is doing his job properly and with little feedback, if any, he feels

frustrated. Particularly, the lack of daily feedback is most frustrating. There needs to be a way of

making sure the troopers are doing their jobs to give them reassurance as well as to make sure

they are functioning as they should be. Lastly the trooper added, “A trooper can be bad at their

job and can still move up.” The problem he says is, “There are no checks and balances.” At the

first location, one trooper explained to me that there is plenty of field supervision and the

background check that is done prior to entering the academy prevents the wrong people from

being on the job. A different trooper explained that some people do not belong on the job. Some

people he works with he would not let in his “F***ing house.”

Along the same lines as feeling like no boss exists, one officer expressed that there is a,

“shitload lack of field supervision.” The workload is so heavy for the lowest level of officers that

even if they wanted to be out on the road with the troopers it would be a rare occurrence because

of all the work they have to do. This officer in particular admitted he misunderstood what he was

getting into when he became an officer. He is frustrated with the overwhelming amounts of

paperwork because he wants to be on the road with his guys. A couple different members of the


organization suggested splitting the rank of sergeant into two separate, but equal positions. The

first type of sergeant would be a patrol sergeant. They would ride around with the troopers

making sure things are being done accordingly on the road as well as participating in patrol

work. The second type of sergeant would be an administrative sergeant that could be filled by

those who may not care for the road and would prefer to do paperwork, check tour strength,

coordinate schedules, etc. Another officer suggested bringing back the rank of corporal to create

one more rank between troopers and sergeants. This would give hypothetical corporals the task

of supervising in the field. The majority of the members that participated in this study felt in

some way the organization was “too top heavy” and that the organization needed to focus

primarily on police work. As one trooper put it, “[There are] no cops at the top.”

Main Concept - Organizational Structure

The second main concept is organizational structure. The first theme was derived from

informal interviews with members of the organization. They responded to the question of, “how

do you feel about the overall structure of the organization?” and “what would you change about

the organization?” These questions served as a starting place for the conversation which revealed

their true feelings about the organization. Most opinions about organizational structure lead back

to the headquarters of the organization. These opinions are important because they create a

feeling of being disconnected from the entire organization. Many members feel that their bosses

at the very top of the organization have no idea what they do on a daily basis and this is

frustrating for them.

The second theme influencing organizational structure is the role of humor. At first, it

was questionable whether humor played a role in the organizational structure or if it was just a

source of entertainment. Upon further review of notes and informal interviews, the conclusion


was formed that humor is a way for the troopers and their direct superiors (sergeants) to bond

and communicate with one another. Troopers also use humor as a means to keep their work

interesting with one another. Most of the time the work can be monotonous, so humor serves the

purpose of reliving exciting times in a way that makes it easier to get through the day. There is a

second type of humor which is reserved for the higher bosses known as “officer” humor. This

type of humor is more reserved and shared among officers. It is somewhat secretive and

exclusively for those at the top.

Opinions about Division

Division headquarters is located in Albany, New York, along with the NYSP academy

and other state agencies. Almost all opinions about division headquarters were negative and

suggest there is a general disrespect for members at the very top. The majority of troopers and

officers that participated in this ethnography hold extremely negative views of division

headquarters. Most do not know what happens at headquarters, and most want nothing to do with

the people that work there. The best insight into what goes on at division headquarters came

from a civilian. She explained that division takes care of payroll, health insurance, questions

about technology, retirement, and coordinating with the military for any members who are

deployed. With those specific duties aside, other troopers speculated there are, “A lot of golf

tournaments.” While another trooper suggested, “Division plays racquetball.” A third officer

suggested that a lot of crossword puzzles get done there. A couple members said they either had

no idea what division does or they do not understand what division does. One officer expressed

that he wants to climb the ranks high enough to make a difference, but not so high that he has to

deal with headquarters. All of these opinions correlate to the conclusion that there is a general

disrespect for those at the top and many are not shy about saying so.


The general disrespect for those members at division headquarters comes from the types

of programs and decisions that they make. Members openly shared opinions in response to the

question of, “How do you feel about the organization as a whole?” There is built up frustration

from many members of the organization when it comes to this topic. Many have described this

phenomenon as a “disconnect.” One officer explained, “[They are] out of touch, [they] don‟t pay

much attention, who comes up with this stuff?” This disconnect creates animosity because orders

from the top must be followed, even the ones that do not make sense or are not practical. One

officer explained that firearms training has only become realistic in the last couple of years. He

attributes this to a lack of real police officers at the top and he said, “Colonels haven‟t been

troopers for twenty plus years.” It is clear that things have change dramatically since then.

Consequently, when procedures and policies are created by those who are not truly participating

in police work, animosity towards them can build and effect the entire organization. A trooper

adds, “This organization functions like our government, horrible. [A] big guy has big ideas, [and]

it works in their mind, [but] it‟s chaotic in the field for officers.” He continued, “The top forget

where they come from.” Many members of the organization acknowledged that the top of the

organization is extremely political. The political climate can become unpleasant when dirt is dug

up on those in power to use as leverage as one trooper described. One trooper even called the

organization “a dictatorship.” The negative connotation of the word dictatorship truly reflects the

negative feelings of those within the organization.

Another controversial issue within the organization is the rule of promotion by

appointment above lieutenant. These appointments have often sparked rumors of underlying

political motivations. The appointment process has some members of the organization resenting

their superiors, especially if their superior is not qualified for the position. There have been


infamous cases of members of the organization appointed to a position that many thought were

unqualified for and, coincidentally, there was speculation of political or strategic motivations at

the time. Clearly, not all appointments are politically motivated and many who have risen

through the ranks of the New York State Police have earned it and proved themselves every step

of the way. However, not everyone‟s opinion is easily shifted and sometimes one unqualified

promotion can sour feelings on the entire process.

The feelings many hold about division headquarters may not directly impact their day-to-

day activities, yet it has an impact on their communication within the organization. Several

members explained they wanted to move up within the organization, but only far enough where

they do not have to deal with headquarters. Many expressed that the people at the top do not

know what actually goes on in the field on a day-to-day basis. This notion is frustrating to those

on the front lines of police work. When a policy comes off of a colonel‟s desk that impacts the

way troopers do their job it causes frustration because it is clear they feel the boss does not know

how they do their job.

Some members explained their frustration in their own words. One officer explained,

“[The] organization is top heavy; too many administrators doing the re-checking…some don‟t

know what their job is.” Another officer would like to see changes within the organization. He

suggests, “[An] emphasis on primary function, shrink division headquarters staff, [and put] more

[people] on the road.” He also admits there are too many layers and patrol suffers. He adds patrol

is the last to get what they need and patrol needs to come first as other members have affirmed.

Even with all that being said, the same officer gives his organization a grade of an “A+” and he

calls it a “top of the line organization” which is somewhat contradictory. Even with his

advisement to downsize headquarters the officer adds, “[You] appreciate layers when you


experience the layers protecting you.” This statement is almost a defense of the layers again

somewhat contradictory.

Another trooper who considers himself mild-mannered and tries to figure out how to

interact with everyone expressed, “[I‟m] frustrated with people making decisions that are

disconnected; sometimes the messages don‟t make sense.” This frustration with mixed messages

or confusing messages was universal among all of the troopers. Another officer admitted that

she, “Doesn‟t follow politics” but working in the “fishbowl” compounds things. Her opinions

about division intensify when she speaks about division, “[They] sit at the top and make crazy

policies. [They are] fat, dumb and happy.” She continues with a discussion of practicality, “The

Stetson is not practical.” Those at the top are, “So far removed from reality. Police work should

come first.” Lastly she adds, quite comically, “There needs to be a frugal mom as comptroller.”

Even if the budget was not on the agenda for conversation everyone in this organization has

opinions about all aspects of society. One trooper even shared his opinions about revamping the

welfare system, “Implant welfare people with something to make them sterile [and] get only

what you pay into the system.” Even though these opinions have little to do with division

headquarters, it is the nature of the job to develop strong feelings in almost every area.

Another trooper who has some key insight into the organization due to previous military

experience insisted, “The problem with the New York State Police is they are so far spread,

things are different in Albany than any other troop, [they are] good at making rules and

regulations, but at best they are skewed and grey.” He adds, “I would prefer black and white.”

Even though the NYSP wear grey as a way to express their neutrality, their policies and

procedures should be viewed as grey. The same trooper said, “The New York State Police is as

bipolar as they come; [it] changes every day.” He made a reference to an analogy many know


from childhood. When someone says a sentence to someone else, it proceeds around the circle

until it comes back to the person who started it. When the sentence comes back to the originator

it is so dramatically different, it is unrecognizable. He explains that the organization is like this

because, “Everyone adds their own spin.”

Furthermore, an officer at the same station adds that the organization is, “Too top heavy

and dysfunctional [because they] are so far removed from the field.” She adds, “Cuts should

come from the top.” Also she indicates that everyone is looking at the same paperwork over and

over which is, “Ridiculous.” Similarly, an officer at a different location, feels that people at

division, “Lose touch when at headquarters.” Partly because they “Don‟t know what it‟s like to

be in a car working,” he adds. The irony of this statement is clear because this officer does not

know what it is like to be out on patrol either. For this loss of touch he blames bureaucratic red

tape and insists that headquarters is supposed to be supporting the people in the field.

The same opinions were repeated about division headquarters throughout the course of

this study. The statement “too top heavy” was expressed by almost all members. One officer

even called the different sectors at the top, “Mini kingdoms.” Some officers and troopers alike,

flat out admitted that they do not know what happens at the top. One officer described how

propriety must be maintained by wearing what he called, “Political correctness handcuffs.” All

things that pass through the organization get bleached and sanitized. Another trooper added,

“People at the top have no clue what‟s going on.” Another trooper pointed out that, “Most of the

work is done by secretaries and civilians.” While another thinks that the organization is,

“Progressing as much as any government sector.” Furthermore, an officer at the same station

admits, “A lot of people point fingers [at division],” but he isn‟t quite sure what exactly they do


there. He adds, “Division is trending towards the right way with more fluent [communication] up

and down the chain of command.”

One trooper agrees the organization is too top heavy and insists that there are people that

work in division whose “Primary job is to fill up cars.” he adds that it is, “A flawed system.”

Another trooper called division an “Ivory tower” and he suggested practical changes that could

be made to help those on the road. These changes included primarily a new style of uniform, one

that is less restrictive and allows for more movement. Other changes he suggested include

cutting the governors executive detail which is made up of over 200 people. Another trooper

called division a “Waste of brass” suggesting that, “They watch paint dry.” Another trooper

suggested that the, “State has a lot of bus drivers.”

Almost all members of the organization have opinions about division headquarters most

are skewed negatively. The most common phrase heard over and over during the ethnography is

that the organization is “Too top heavy.” Even when factoring in how long each member has

been a part of the organization, opinions stayed constant across the board. Whether a member

had twenty-five years on or two years on, it did not matter. Two years was enough time for

opinions to form. The daily function or the organization was not impeded by the opinions housed

by its members, but a certain resentment for the people at the top remained.

The Role of Humor

The last theme relating to the concept of leadership at the barrack level is humor.

Although members of the organization are distinguished by many factors including civilian,

sworn member, trooper, officer, number of years on the job, or specialized field, one thing

remains the same, humor is used as a coping mechanism. Humor exposes a barrier within the

organization at the most basic levels. Humor is primarily shared at the peer level among troopers.


However, humor is also shared between troopers and sergeants. The ranks above sergeant do not

participate in the same types of humor that sergeants and below do. Their humor is more

exclusive and involves inside jokes and subtle teasing. Humor is also used to keep the job

interesting. The daily duties of a police officer are not as exciting as cop dramas on television

make them out to be. Most of the time a trooper‟s work is mundane ticket writing, investigating

complaints and accidents, and writing a lot of reports. Thus when something big or comical

happens, it is repeated to keep things interesting. Stories were shared from years past about

shootings, accidents, and tickets issued. These were not things that were happening as the study

took place, but more reminiscent of past experiences and some stories appeared to be years old.

With that in mind, humor is not universal among members.

Firstly, humor is most predominately shared at the peer-to-peer level particularly from

trooper to trooper. Secondly, it is shared among troopers and their direct supervisors. This makes

humor a bonding mechanism for these two ranks. No matter how long a member has been a

trooper or a sergeant, they share daily jokes, stories of tickets written, or crazy things happening

on the job. Sometimes the humor is lighthearted and other times it is a morbid twist on

something that would otherwise be hard to handle. As hilarious as the jokes were, it is clear that

humor served an overwhelming purpose of uniting members. Although there were some

members that got left out of the majority of the humor, as stated previously the jokes were

primarily exchanged from trooper to trooper, sergeants to sergeants, and troopers to sergeants.

A second type of humor became evident that was shared among the top level supervisors

in the field; this “officer” humor is more secretive. This type of behavior was observed but only

in quick segments as it is mostly kept quiet. Two officers were at station when one would

exchange inside jokes and pieces of information that appeared to have some sort of secret


meaning between them. They were not peers, but the humor they shared made it seem so. There

were only a couple instances of this type of humor being shown as it was mostly for their ears

only.

Humor was observed immediately because of the consent forms that needed to be signed.

The jokes surrounding this piece of paper included pretending to write someone else‟s name and

suggesting it was the form that members getting laid off had to sign. The form was the icebreaker

for humor to be shared with an outsider and by the last day of observation, humor was shared as

though there was no outsider. With the holidays just ending, there were several stories about the

holidays and the gifts that were given and received. One trooper was talking about how

shoplifting increased around the holidays; his explanation, “Presents mean more when they are

shoplifted.”

Even personal matters were fair game to joke about. One trooper brought some humor on

himself while discussing his newly found grey hair. “My hair dresser says I have a lot of grey

hair,” he stated and other members felt it appropriate to make jokes surrounding his hair. As the

winter months are known as cold and flu season, members discussed trips to the doctor and

illnesses. One trooper was discussing trying to get antibiotics for a steady cold. “They like water

board you to get pseudoephedrine,” he said to another trooper as both chuckled. While

conducting this study, one of the computers in the dispatch room shorted out and, of course,

when any type of malfunction of equipment occurs jokes can be found. The trooper who was on

desk defended himself, “[I was] sitting there minding my business and it happened.” Another

trooper responded, “That‟s like saying I got in a fight with my wife and just happened to hit her

in the face.” Even though this metaphor references domestic violence, one of the more

significant complaints members deal with, they found a way to make it lighthearted.


Tasers were recently added to the trooper‟s arsenal of non-lethal weapons and there were

jokes circulating about them. Members made guesses as to who would use their taser first and

why, while others talked about their experiences being tasered during the certification training.

Humor was also demonstrated in physical gestures or light pats to one another as well. One

trooper came in from the road and while his superior was asking about the tickets he has written,

he discreetly flips her off without saying a word. They shared a laugh as clearly he did not want

to talk about his ticket writing for the year. The same trooper reports back to his officer after

being on the road and interjects, “Sorry to interrupt here, but I need to get some real police work

done here.” It seemed he wanted to make his interruption less awkward by making a joke out of

it.

Another sensitive subject for some troopers is the time they spend away from their

families. One explained what it was like to have to leave his family when he was at the academy,

“It was like pulling teeth out of a dinosaur every time I had to leave.” Similarly, issues that were

extremely serious at the time have become fair game for jokes. One officer joked with a trooper

about getting a notch on his gun after he had to shoot an armed suspect. The same officer joked

with another trooper who was shot on the job, “I‟m thinking about getting shot just to get one of

those.” He was referring to the superintendent‟s commendation that the trooper had received for

getting wounded on the job. The officer also referred to this trooper as the, “Big man.” One

member joked that the cars have an, “Oh shit button” and if pressed everyone comes running.

A trooper was in the station off the clock doing some paperwork, when asked by others

why he was doing the work off the clock. He responded, “Crime doesn‟t take days off, so I don‟t

take days off.” His coworkers laughed. Shortly thereafter, a trooper came in off the road who had

been working the highway and suggested he is, “Living the dream” in a sarcastic manner. Other


jokes circulated surrounding the people that get brought in for shoplifting. One trooper called

frequent visitors, “Frequent flyers” while he suggested other people are, “A few slices short of a

full loaf.” Another trooper sang the theme song for one of the stores a shoplifter had been caught

at. Civilians within the organization get poked fun at from time to time as well. One trooper

suggested that the dispatcher, “Eats troopers for breakfast.”

At one point a discussion about the incredibly small prostitution ring that exists in the

area arose. One trooper referred to said prostitutes as, “Entrepreneurs,” while another had a

special name for those that travel via truck stops insisting the drivers themselves used the

nickname, “Lot lizards.” Even though humor is primarily shared between troopers, the rank

above is not safe from being picked on. One member who was considering sleeping at the

barracks, due to a short turn around shift, overheard that a higher up officer might be staying in

the basement as well. To that he said, “I would rather sleep in my car than be roommates with

[name].” Another trooper replied that he had a spare bed at his place. Those officers in the patrol

room laughed. Other forms of jokes are of a more practical nature. A group of troopers who just

finished an overtime detail jokingly gave the supervising officer fake statistics.

At times the humor was extremely morbid. While discussing a woman who went missing

in November after taking her canoe out alone, one trooper suggested, “She‟ll pop in the spring”

implying that once the ice melts her body will surface. He added, “My luck I‟ll hit her with my

boat” as others laughed with him. One of the funniest encounters came from the specialized

trooper who works with a canine. He insisted, “Dogs are some of the best people I know.” When

discussing what his dog‟s specialty was he replied, “Bombs are dangerous; she‟s a drug dog.” He

added, “They can‟t be both [drug and bomb] because she scratches when she finds drugs and you

can‟t scratch a bomb – BOOM!” When discussing how he gets food donated for his dog, another


member suggested, “I might try that, ever heard of a boxer rescue dog?” The members in the

room laughed.

There was even some humor directed at the researcher. While headed out to a patrol car

ride the trooper suggested that the backseat was free. The backseat is where people in custody sit.

Another instance of humor directed at the researcher occurred when the trooper suggested they

chain her to a bench and play a joke on another member. This joking affirmed that the researcher

was at least for the observation period, seemingly an honorary member of the organization. This

not only helped the researcher blend in, but it also allowed the people being observed feel more

at ease.

Conclusion

Two major concepts emerged from the data collected. The first concept explored was

leadership at the barrack level. This concept was broken down into four themes, leading by

example, open-door policy, the lack of leadership training and my boss can’t do my job. After

exploring all four themes it is clear that the organization has several issues that are impacting that

structure and function of communication. Setting poor examples for subordinates can cause

frustration and feelings of double standards. This frustration can build into feelings of disrespect

and can close down communication channels. The misinterpretation of the open-door policy can

also cause frustration. Officers may wonder why subordinates are not forthcoming with them,

while subordinates may wonder if their superior can be trusted. The lack of leadership training

compounds the problems of frustration and disrespect because recently promoted members are

not learning how to be leaders. The lack of training on communication techniques and job

requirements are the largest take away from this third theme. Lastly, the feeling from

subordinates that their boss cannot perform their tasks aids to the frustration members feel.


Leaders in this organization need to back each other up, and so it would be necessary for all

members to maintain basic police skills.

The second major concept is organizational structure. Two themes were discussed under

this main concept. The theme of opinions about division and the role of humor were both

explored in detail. Opinions about division headquarters were not sugarcoated. Members made it

clear the frustration they had with the overall communication system. Many feel that it is

impossible to communicate with headquarters and that the highest ranked members at

headquarters are no longer police officers, but instead politicians. These negative opinions make

it easy for members to fault division headquarters for problems they are experiencing. Members

also resent policies and procedures often because those who created the policies are out of touch

with police work.

Humor was found to have a different purpose than was first suspected. Humor serves as a

bonding mechanism for members, as well as a coping strategy for violent experiences.

Further review revealed it exists as a way for troopers to relive exciting moments on the job, as

often the job can be repetitious and boring. Two different types of humor were found. Humor

shared among troopers as described above and a second type of humor deemed “officer humor.”

This type of humor was much more secretive and hard to explore completely. Both types of

humor succeed in bonding members, yet rarely do the two types intersect. Without humor, the

organization would not have the same types of working relationships that were expressed during

observation. All themes culminated to indicate that the organization has superior-subordinate

communication problems that need addressing. The next chapter will analyze the different

themes and make suggestions as to how these problems can be rectified.


Chapter 4: Analysis

The NYSP organization functions fluidly because those who serve the organization are

dedicated and hard working. Even with such hard working men and women within the NYSP,

there are many aspects of the organization that could be improved. These improvements would

increase the overall productivity of the organization and improve communication between

superiors and subordinates. The following sections relate the themes of the study back to the

literature compiled prior to the study. Through this analysis several findings of this study will be

explored. First, communication channels and their possible weaknesses will be explored. Next,

the role of humor and its role in connecting members will be discussed. Additionally, the lack of

leadership and how it affects the organization‟s communication will be examined. Next, the lack

of different types of training and how it relates to hindering communication will be explored.

Subsequently, the notion that, “my boss can‟t do my job” and the role it plays in the

communication of the organization will be investigated. Last and most significantly, the lack of

managing up within the organization will be discussed.

Communication Channels

This section will explore the most prevalent communication channels and how they can

help explain the communication within this organization. By exploring both upward and

downward communication, a clear picture can be created of the communication happening daily

within this organization. The lack of, or over-filtration of, upward communication and the

distortion of downward communication including unclear goals are the most significant findings

for this section.

Jablin (1979) indicates that employees experiencing co-worker problems would pass that

message upward. According to the findings of this study, no such messages moved upward.


Several troopers indicated a dislike for their superiors as well as a lack of trust. With that in

mind, many troopers would try to work out their own peer problems before even considering

getting their superiors involved. This can be explained in a couple of ways. It is possible troopers

do not want to cause their superiors problems, but it is also possible that troopers do not like or

trust their superiors enough to bring an issue to them. It was clear that many members dislike the

way their superiors behave and avoid interaction whenever possible. One member expressed he

would rather sleep in his car than share a room overnight with his supervisors.

According to this study, this organization appears too top heavy. During this time

opinions about the organization‟s structure were openly expressed. As members specify, the

organization has too many layers. Those heavy layers at the top are over burdening members at

the bottom. Each station in each zone has a lieutenant and a captain both of which perform

roughly the same daily duties. When both are present in the building it appears they spend more

time with each other as opposed to doing any perceivable work. More field supervisors

(sergeants) are needed at the station level, according to members. More field supervisors would

allow for a better distribution of paperwork. The top heaviness of the organization frustrates

many members who would prefer more troopers on the road.

The communication channels within the organization are heavily filtered as expressed by

members of the organization. Specifically, upward communication is over filtered. When a

trooper has something that needs to be communicated upward they would go to their supervising

sergeant first. Most likely the issue will be resolved at that level. However if need be, that issue

may proceed up to the zone sergeant, lieutenant and occasionally captain, but that is rare.

Likewise it would be extremely rare that an issue would be brought to the attention of the troop‟s

major. Additionally, issues almost never make it to division headquarters. Prior to any


communication, troopers will often filter their own messages before passing them upward which

is the first kind of distortion. After that, each level of supervisor tries to solve the problem rather

than bother their supervisor, which is the second form of distortion. Both filters are a way to

prohibit messages from continuing upward.

An overview of the upward communication channel within the entire organization

indicates it is closed off. One officer referred to this as the “Albany Abyss.” He explained that

any information that he tries to pass upward to those serving at division headquarters disappears.

Other members clearly accepted that they would never be able to communicate to anyone close

to the top of the organization. Of course the chain of command has to be followed at all times, so

the message has to go through the proper people first. Sometimes a message can get filtered by

someone within the many layers of the organization. This filtering could potentially alter the

message or change the original meaning of the message.

This study indicates that downward messages are distorted. Immediate feedback from

supervisors does not exist even if members make it apparent they would like feedback. One

trooper stated, “[We] rarely get immediate feedback.” He expressed a preference for verbal

feedback as opposed to written. Goals that are set for troopers are another source of downward

distortion, according to members. For example, a trooper provided some insight into the setting

of goals related to Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrests. He explained that the station

requires a trooper to make at least four DWI arrests. He had made that goal the previous year, but

still got written up because the station average was six arrests. The goal was distorted after the

fact to still punish those who met it. An inconsistent or unclear goal is another form of downward

distortion. According to Jablin, (1979) downward messages can come in the form of policies and

procedures. The results of the study indicated that within this organization, policies and


procedures become warped to satisfy each station‟s preference. This distortion of policies and

procedures appears to create a lack of uniformity across the state. This leads to training

differentials when members transfer from station to station and even more so when members

transfer from troop to troop.

According to information gathered, upward messages are heavily filtered by troopers and

by each level of supervisors. Additionally, members are not receiving the kind of feedback and

guidance they would prefer. Goals appear inconsistent when it is convenient for supervisors. The

upward communication channel slows beyond the station level. Upward communication is

mostly present from trooper to sergeant. The downward communication channel is open, but an

unresponsive party remains on the receiving end. When policies and procedures change, they

may be ignored because they do not directly affect a trooper‟s daily duties. Finally, goals may be

ignored because even when original goals are met the criteria may have changed and a

punishment may still be given.

The Role of Humor

This section reviews the role of humor and how it impacts communication within the

organization. Two types of humor were found functioning within this organization. The first type

of humor is primarily shared between troopers and sergeants, and the second type is shared

between higher ranking officers. This second type of humor is deemed “officer” humor and was

sporadic and difficult to observe. Humor is used as a coping mechanism as well as a bonding

mechanism.

This study revealed that humor serves a couple of purposes within this organization.

Humor at any workplace is indicative of the mood of the organization (Badowski, 2003).

However, humor within this organization does more than make it easier to go to work every day.


Almost all police officers encounter violence while serving and humor is used to cushion the

impact of such experiences. Humor helps members cope with their surrounding environment

when experiences are tough, but also when the days are boring. The monotony of the same duties

can be exhausting for some members. The basic tasks of a trooper offer little variety including

ticket writing, making vehicle and traffic stops, making arrests, investigating accidents and

responding to complaints. When faced with such monotony, many members turn to humor. It

allows them to cope with the boredom and bond with their peers.

In this way, humor is a catalyst for bonding among peers. This bonding takes place

mostly from trooper to trooper. However, their supervising sergeants can relate to their jokes, so

they are involved as well. Supervising sergeants do not participate as frequently in jokes and

stories as the troopers do, but they are the only other rank that is directly involved in the humor

at the trooper level. All levels above sergeant are unable to share in the type of humor that is

common among troopers and sergeants. Jokes about ticket writing may be lost on a member

above sergeant because it has been so long since they have written tickets. The benefits of

bonding through humor can help members strengthen their working relationship. Strong working

relationships are important among troopers especially if one trooper must come to the aid of

another. It is crucial to know how a member will respond in certain situations and humor helps to

bridge that gap.

Another notable finding is the existence of a second type of humor among the higher

ranks. This type of humor can be classified as “officer” humor. This type of humor is somewhat

elusive because of its secretive nature. Different things are funny to officers of higher ranks

because they are not exposed to the same working conditions as their subordinates. When

“officer” humor was observed it was loaded with sarcasm and often did not relate to police work.


One instance of “officer” humor included the communication between officers using their state

issued Blackberries to text things to each other. “Officer” humor appeared to still function as a

bonding mechanism even at the higher rank. It is likely that it serves as a coping mechanism for

boredom, similar to the function of humor at the trooper level. Higher ranking officers do not

encounter as much violence so it is less likely that their humor is a coping mechanism for

violence. It should be noted that the development of this “officer” humor was necessary because

the higher ranking officers are removed from the communication between troopers and peers and

thus they may be out of the humor loop.

As mentioned, two types of humor were observed within this organization. The first type

is shared among troopers and sergeants and serves primarily as a bonding mechanism with a

secondary function as a coping mechanism. The development of a second type of “officer”

humor was observed although it was used less frequently than the first type of humor. Humor

can be utilized as a means of opening communication channels between ranks which it

effectively does between troopers and sergeants. Humor does not function the same way further

up the hierarchy because a shift in the types of things that are joked about takes place.

Leadership

Setting a poor example is dangerous to the organization and its structure. If a trooper

observes their supervisor breaking rules and participating in behavior that would be unacceptable

at their level, it can create a sense of entitlement after achieving a higher rank. For example, if a

trooper was to get promoted throughout their career they may feel at each rank it is their right to

act as their superiors once did. They may feel that they have earned the privilege of disobeying

the rules. This would only perpetuate the cycle of setting a bad example for the next generation

of troopers. The more relaxed atmosphere and the advantages of being an officer may motivate a


trooper to seek promotion. This sense of entitlement at each rank damages the organizational

structure. Many troopers found it difficult to like or even truly respect a leader that takes

advantage of his leadership in such a self-serving manner. If a member does not respect or like

their superior, it is unlikely that they will actively try to communicate with that officer. This

unwillingness to communicate causes huge organizational issues. The troopers lack a willingness

to communicate because of their negative feelings about their superior‟s behavior. With all the

other obstacles in terms of communicating within the organization, this is an unnecessary

hindrance of communication.

This study further revealed that organizational rules are not followed by all members.

Specifically, officers often create their own set of rules that are vastly different from the rules

troopers must follow. The existence of two sets of rules was observed surrounding the clocking-

in behavior. All members of this organization who work in the field (excluding civilians) wear

uniforms. The troopers clearly explained that they are to be in uniform before they clock in for

their shift. It was indicated that it would be completely unacceptable to get dressed “on-the-

clock.” Officers often stray from the rules; some even feel they are entitled to do so. Many find it

acceptable to get dressed on-the-clock. Several officers clocked in before they were dressed in

their uniform. It was an area of expressed frustration for the troopers. Many saw this activity as

only one of the double standards. Officers were observed participating in activities that would be

unacceptable for troopers to participate in on-the-clock. One officer in particular found it

acceptable to clock in for his shift and then proceed to the weight room in the basement for his

morning workout. After his on-the-clock workout, he would shower and dress. Many troopers

were frustrated with this behavior. This frustration and lack of respect can damage


communication between officers and troopers. Resentment for behavior does not encourage open

communication.

When rules are broken by superiors it can cause frustration and resentment towards them.

This resentment and frustration can strain and damage superior-subordinate communication.

Officers who participated in rule breaking behavior were routinely communicated with less than

those officers who followed the rules. A primary example of rule breaking behavior for one

officer included not wearing the entire uniform. If troopers participated in this type of behavior,

it would limit their ability to do their job effectively. This particular officer reasoned that he only

removed the piece of his uniform while in his office, it was clear this practice frustrated other

members of the organization. The officers who followed the same rules as the troopers were held

in higher regard by troopers. Consequently, there was more open communication with the rule

following officers. The more limited communication with rule breaking officers indicates that

rule breaking can limit superior-subordinate interaction.

The NYSP organization boasts a paramilitary structure which closely models a military

structure. The current organizational structure indicates that formal paramilitary practices are

becoming less prevalent. Even though some military formalities remain, “yes sir, yes ma‟am”

and hand salutes for the appropriate officers, the overall structure is becoming less rigid.

Coincidentally, if the organization is not focused on maintaining its structure and formality, a

double standard arises. Subordinates are supposed to respect and honor the word of their

superior. Yet, if the superior is not respecting the proclaimed structure of the organization

subordinates may feel respecting their superiors is not important. Subsequently, a lack of respect

could hinder future superior-subordinate communication. This example of weakening structure

has a potential to weaken relationships, and this case it already has.


According to Steven and Hisle, (1996) merely having an “open-door policy” is not

enough. Supervisors must encourage their subordinates to speak up while providing a non-

threatening environment to do so. Many officers within the organization believe they have an

open-door policy. This open-door policy would extend any open forum for communication with

any member of the organization at any time. Yet, an open dialogue does not truly exist between

superiors and subordinates. What the officers, who claim they have an open-door policy, do not

know is that subordinates do not see their doors as open. Several troopers indicated that they

would only go to their superior if they had an issue they could not work out on their own.

This study also revealed that troopers have little, if any, interest in sharing personal or

work related information with their superiors. This lack of willingness to communicate does not

support the claim of having an open door. Granted, the troopers interact more regularly with the

sergeants and share personal information, but it is generally only to explain time-off requests.

One trooper asked for a couple hours of personal time and specified it was for his mother‟s

birthday. Another trooper asked for his schedule to be changed a couple weeks in advance so he

could have some time with his children. These were the only real examples observed of sharing

personal information across ranks. Furthermore, there was no exchange of personal information

between troopers and any rank higher than a sergeant. Troopers tended to share personal

information more so with each other and some did not talk about their personal lives at all. This

limited sharing of personal information indicates that troopers are not comfortable with sharing

personal information with most of their superiors even if, “the door is always open.”

Therefore, troopers are less likely to share with their superiors because of the frustration

and double standards between ranks. It is possible that they may have learned from past

experiences that sharing personal information with superiors is not acceptable. Even superiors


who were openly liked by subordinates were not perceived to have an open-door. One officer in

particular expressed that he had open lines of communication with his subordinates. A direct

subordinate of his explained that he tries his best to avoid interaction with his superiors. This is a

conflicting view of supervisory communication. This subordinate openly liked his superior, but

he refrained from communicating unnecessarily as a form of respect. He expressed that he

learned in the military not to bother his superiors unless he truly needed their help or guidance.

Communication can be limited due to a fear of retribution. The most desirable

environment for communication is a non-threatening one, yet it is clear that nothing is ever “off

the record.” Many members expressed that superiors and subordinates alike will betray their co-

workers if it serves them best. This is certainly not the case for all members, but not knowing

which members are trustworthy can be challenging. Information communicated can be limited or

filtered in order to avoid retribution in the future. One member explained that being careful with

what is said to who is part of the evolving political nature of the organization. However, filtering

messages in a police organization can be detrimental if not all the facts are communicated.

Subordinates or superiors may leave out crucial facts in order to protect themselves and their

reputation. It is true that fear of retribution can limit communication, but a superior can also use

their power to “dig up dirt” on any member of the organization. All of this political hostility and

untrustworthiness leads to an extremely threatening environment that can shutdown all

communication. Hence, no matter what the context of the message moving upward, there would

need to be no consequences for messages regardless if positive or negative. This would open the

upward and downward channels in a way that could improve all superior-subordinate

relationships.


In this section, several aspects of leadership and its effect on communication were

explored. It is possible that those who are promoted feel a sense of entitlement as they have

witnessed their superiors break or bend the rules. This sense of entitlement can perpetuate the

cycle of an unwillingness of subordinates to communicate with superiors. Along with some rules

not being followed, this organization has shown signs of distancing itself from its formally rigid

paramilitary structure. This can affect communication channels within the organization. It is

possible that the rigid channels that exist in military and paramilitary organizations will become

blurred. Members may not know who they should report to or communicate with. Formal

structure of an organization is essential in maintaining a paramilitary or military structure. If that

structure is lost, then the organization‟s communication channels will deteriorate. The open-door

policy that is claimed by some superiors is not truly open. This limits subordinate interaction

with superiors and creates a false sense of reaching out to their subordinates. There is an

overwhelming sense of frustration with the double standards occurring in the organization which

again, limits dialogue. Lastly, this section discusses the fear of retribution that members

sometimes experience which can effectively hurt communication.

Training

Information gathered indicates a strong need for more substantial post-academy training

for troopers as well as leadership training for recently promoted members. These organizational

enhancements could vastly improve communication channels as a whole. When a trooper is

promoted to sergeant, many new duties are now their responsibility. It has been expressed that

there is a large workload for sergeants at Troop X, in particular. This workload can be especially

difficult for a new sergeant to keep up with. While focusing on trying to get the paperwork and


station visits completed, new sergeants may neglect communication channels and the nurturing

of their superior-subordinate relationships.

The sergeants lack proper training on two fronts. First, they lack the proper training to

actually complete daily written tasks like correcting reports. Second, they lack the training

necessary to form and keep quality relationships with subordinates. A new sergeant has a

chaotic work life as they are trying to adjust to being their former peer‟s superior as well as learn

and maintain their new role. A more extensive training program is crucial for a smoother

transition for sergeants and their new subordinates alike. Not only are sergeants struggling to

learn and perform their duties, but the troopers that work under them carry some of the additional

workload while the new superior tries to stay afloat. According to members of the organization,

something needs to be done to improve promotional training.

Several members expressed that the NYSP has tremendous training at the academy.

However, after those six months of excellent training things change for the worse. When a

trooper leaves the academy they are sent to a station for training with a field training officer

(FTO). A trooper‟s first six months in the field are known as a probationary period. During this

time, a trooper could be relived of the position if they do not attain the standards required for the

working in the field. This probationary period is important for troopers to learn duties and

methods of communication; however, several members expressed that this is just too short a

period of time. Another issue that arises within the probationary period is that there is no

uniformity in the training across troop boundaries.

During the observation for this study, two of the ten troops were visited. Each troop has a

reputation for performance and training. Troop X is notorious for intense training and high

expectations for all members which can be especially challenging for probationary troopers.


Troop X tends to receive a large number of probationary troopers. Any trooper trained in Troop

X can serve in any other troop because they have learned most aspects of the job. However when

a member transfers into Troop X and they have been trained somewhere else, they may have a

hard time adjusting to the workload and communication style of Troop X. A trooper may have

issues adjusting to the more rigorous communication within the troop because the station

receives more calls and it is necessary to interact with superiors and coworkers alike. The NYSP

is the main law enforcement agency within Troop X. Almost every other troop has municipal

agencies that share the police work in the area. The difference in call volume leads to a training

differential due to less field experience. If a larger study had been done that explored every troop

in the state, the findings would likely be in support of a lack of uniformity, according to

members.

Troops may lack uniformity in their training of probationary troopers, but it would be

expected that there is uniformity in formal leadership training, particularly since the organization

is described as “top heavy.” Unfortunately, this was not the case for this organization because the

same lack of uniformity was found in leadership training including communication training.

Even more startling was the sheer lack of effective training for newly promoted members. With a

lack of uniformity for leaders across the state, it creates issues for the entire organization. The

process for promotional training was reviewed in the previous section. In short, newly promoted

sergeants receive ten days of shadowing experience with another sergeant and then a three week

course at the academy. Within the ten day shadow period, there is little time to learn the entire

job let alone learn how to properly communicate with subordinates. The course at the academy

can be taken up to a year after promotion which sometimes leaves new sergeants with just ten

days of shadow experience to supervise. One officer explained that the three week training


course at the academy is ineffective and is littered with vendors trying to sell their services. He

did not feel it was sufficient in any way and affirmed he would have been lost if it had not been

for a grass roots training program called the junior sergeants program. As effective as members

found the junior sergeants program, it ultimately increased the disparity in training among

members around the state. It was a powerful program for those who got to participate in it, but it

was only available to upcoming sergeants at that one station. Communication channels are the

first area that will suffer when training is not uniform. Members who are not trained properly

may not know when they should or should not be asking questions and relaying information to

their superiors. Underutilization of superiors may then lead to even larger problems outside the

realm of communication. Communication channels must be nurtured, understood, respected and

utilized.

It should be noted that subordinates may not want to have an open dialogue with the

superior who is constantly correcting their reports due to their frustration with the process.

Coincidentally, conversations from superior to subordinate are heavily paperwork related.

Members expressed a frustration in the amount of paperwork and the number of times they fix

the same report. If their report has errors, they must go back into the computer system and

correct the errors. Feedback is mainly given when a supervisor writes in corrections; it might be

more helpful if a supervisor communicated verbally to the trooper what needs to be fixed in the

report. There is no limit as to how many times the same report gets corrected and the process

continues until there are no more errors. Superiors take this opportunity to use their grammatical

skills to clean up reports, but this correction process could also be used as a teaching tool and as

a way to create an open line of communication. Several members expressed that they would not

want to move up to the rank of sergeant because they do not want to be an English teacher. To


prevent the errors from being written in the first place, all troopers should have additional

training on proper report writing techniques. This could potentially ease a sergeant‟s workload

with fewer corrections to make.

This section explored training and its role in hindering communication. This study

established that more substantial training is needed post academy and in training new leaders. If

both types of training are increased, communication within the organization could improve.

Further training of sergeants could prevent new sergeants from neglecting to create and maintain

relationships with their subordinates. Training for sergeants is weak in two areas; first, training

on the completing of tasks and second, training members how to maintain relationships with

subordinates. Also in this section, it was noted that training for members is not uniform across

the state which can make communication challenging if members are transferred from one area

to another. Different types of feedback for work and reports could increase communication

between superiors and subordinates. Specifically, verbal feedback on performance and written

work is needed.

My Boss Can’t Do My Job

As the organization transitioned from a paper based system of ticket and report writing

to a digital system many superiors did not learn the new technology. This means that most

officers lack the ability to write tickets and reports using the digital systems the troopers use.

This gap in knowledge has created resentment and frustration because officers often assign tasks

they cannot perform. Even though the organization does not support training for officers in these

areas, if a superior wanted to learn how to use the new technology they could ask a subordinate.

This role reversal could potentially open a dialogue between superior and subordinate increasing

communication. If members were more receptive to share information communication channels


could improve as well. The main obstacle for this sharing of information is the fear some

superiors have using digital technology. Notably, some superiors are not interested in learning

these skills because their job transitioned from police officer to politician as indicated by

members. Subsequently, there is need for more hands-on superiors who are willing to learn and

stay current on all aspects of the job.

Members openly admitted they lack the skills necessary to complete the duties of their

subordinates. Many members blame their lack of knowledge on the shift from paper to digital

technology. Several troopers expressed frustration towards the officers that assign them tasks and

goals that they themselves could not accomplish. Troopers are not likely to communicate upward

with a problem regarding their daily duties if their superiors could not help rectify the situation.

Channels are also hindered when officers are out of touch with what goes on in the field. It is

easy to sit behind a desk and criticize the police work being done. Unfortunately, when the

supervisor themselves cannot accomplish what they are asking of their subordinates, resentment

is bound to arise and, in this case, it has. If communication channels were more open then

troopers could talk about why goals and expectations are, at times, unreasonable. Specifically if

upward communication were more open, troopers could possibly even teach their superiors how

to perform basic duties digitally.

If officers could perform the same tasks as a trooper they could provide additional

support on patrol while in route to visit stations. This is currently not the case because even if an

officer had the time, there is a good chance they would not know how to fill out the appropriate

forms. Essentially when officers are traveling, they are not another set of eyes and ears, but they

are turning a blind eye to violations to avoid paperwork that they cannot do. This further

compounds the communication problem because troopers may feel it is pointless to talk to


someone who no longer understands how to do their job. Even if an officer wanted to know how

to write tickets and reports digitally, the organization as a whole does not support that kind of

training for supervisors. One officer told a story of someone he pulled over and explained how

he struggled through the ticket writing process. He estimated it took him over thirty minutes to

write the ticket, when his subordinate troopers can write a ticket in around three minutes. Other

times he admitted to just letting people off with a warning because he could not figure out how to

write the actual ticket.

Troopers begin to feel like they are being disrespected by supervisors who give them

directions to perform tasks that they, themselves, could not perform. However, if officers wanted

to learn how to write tickets, even though the organization does not support this type of training,

troopers may be willing to teach their supervisors. In teaching superiors how to do their job, an

open line of communication could be established and respect could be built as a result. Currently,

the feeling of disrespect is common among troopers who participated in this study. A couple of

officers even admitted to being afraid of technology which clearly sends a negative message to

troopers who use technology every day.

Once a trooper begins to climb the ranks via promotion, they slowly transition from

police officer to politician. This transition truly begins when a sergeant is promoted to lieutenant.

The next promotion from lieutenant is by appointment only and so playing politics begins.

Several members admitted that those officers who work out of division are extremely politically

motivated because their future promotions rest in the hands of others. Friends at the top are

extremely important for furthering an officer‟s career. This adds to the already negative

perception of those who work at division headquarters because, like their counterparts still in the

field, they cannot perform the duties of a trooper.


Those supervisors that are “in the trenches” with the troopers and interacting on a regular

basis have a better relationship with troopers. Being “in the trenches” with other members of the

organization improves communication. Improvements in communication can be linked to

closeness in proximity, but also closeness in terms of sharing job related events and opinions.

Not all supervisors that participated in this study were disrespected or disliked by troopers.

Several officers make an effort to be as hands-on as possible with their troopers. The supervisors

who follow the rules and work hard at maintaining good relationships with the troopers have

much better working relationships. These relationships are important to nurture, so when

supervisors require guidance from troopers they are open to helping their supervisors. Hands-on

supervisors are almost an anomaly within this organization which threatens the organization‟s

communication channels. When all of the perks of being a supervisor are introduced at the

lieutenant level, often judgments can be clouded with self-serving behavior. It should be noted

that these behaviors and feelings of members that have been discussed are not unique to this

organization. Many organizations with a similar hierarchal structure have the same sorts of

issues.

Within this section, a few main concepts were discussed. First, there is a distinct inability

of superiors to perform the tasks they ask of their subordinates. This can cause resentment and

frustration to build within the superior-subordinate relationship. If superiors took the time to

learn the skills that their subordinates have, or even utilized their subordinates to teach them,

superior-subordinate relationships could change dramatically. Mutual respect could be given

from each party if they had a better understanding of one another‟s tasks. This section also

covered the transition of police officer into politicians and how detrimental that can be to

communication. Lastly, there is a need for superiors who are interested in being more hands-on


with their subordinates. This would include helping with tasks and officer assistance and support

whenever necessary.

Why is Managing up Not Occurring?

As described in the literature review, managing up is a way for subordinates to influence

their superiors. Managing up is a form of upward influence that includes an active approach to

working with a superior towards mutually beneficial goals that take into account the best interest

of the superior, subordinate, and organization (Hbsp, 2008). Managing up can be found in many

different types of organizations, especially hierarchal organizations. It was hypothesized that the

practice of managing up would be utilized by the NYSP. With the hierarchal organizational

structure of the NYSP and the motivation many members have to make themselves and their

superiors look good, it was likely managing up would be present.

Over the observation period of four days, several interactions were observed from

superior to subordinate and subordinate to superior. Yet, no interactions were found to indicate

any form of managing up. The lack of this type of communication may indicate a couple of

different things that were going on in the organization. First, there is the possibility that the

observation period was not long enough to observe managing up. This explanation is not likely,

first, because of the amount of observation conducted and, second, because the overall feel of the

organization clearly did not support managing up. The second possibility for the lack of

managing up could relate to poor training for superiors. The poor training may not have allowed

them to foster enough of a relationship with their subordinates for a subordinate to attempt

managing up. Another possibility is the lack of an overall connection with superiors. In order for

managing up to occur, there needs to be a strong relationship between a superior and

subordinate. The relationships between superiors and subordinates did not appear strong or


nurtured over the course of observation. The lack of humor among troopers and their highest

superior is indicative of the weak relationship. It highlights the inability of the superior to relate

to their subordinates on the most basic level. This lack of a strong relationship could be why

subordinates were not trying to manage up. Subordinates may not have attempted to manage up

because they know it would be ineffective.

A forth possibility is the length of time the superiors had been at each station. In both

stations where observation took place, the superiors were relatively new to the station. There

may not have been enough time for a strong relationship to occur in order for a subordinate to try

to manage up. A fifth possible explanation is the lack of circumstances needed to manage up. If a

trooper is busy trying to perform their duties to the best of their abilities and a superior is doing

their own separate work, it is possible that the opportunity to manage up simply not does arise.

The last explanation, according to this study, is the overall dislike and lack of respect that

many subordinates have for their superiors. This lack of respect can be derived from their boss

not being able to do their job, their boss‟ lack of leadership training or their boss‟ rule breaking

habits. All of these behaviors can affect a subordinate‟s feelings about their superior and

influence their lack of managing up. If a subordinate does not like their superior, chances are

they will not put in an extra effort to try and make their boss look good. Many subordinates

already feel their boss does little work for large rewards and so they may feel they are better off

to try to make themselves look good. This organization is all about reputation, especially when it

comes to promotions and advancement, so many members are more concerned with their own

reputation and not the reputation of their superiors. The troopers expressed that they are more

concerned with getting their tasks accomplished than they are with helping make their superiors


look good. Often troopers are the ones who are overburdened with work, not the other way

around.

Overall, this chapter covered several different areas of information and how it relates to

weaknesses in communication within this organization. This chapter provided unique insight into

why the organization is experiencing different types of communication breakdown.

Communication problems between superiors and subordinates are occurring for a couple of

different reasons. The lack of uniformity in training contributes to communication breakdown

because both superiors and subordinates are struggling to accomplish all tasks associated with

their own jobs. This struggle to merely maintain work load leaves little time to nurture

communicative relationships. Communication problems are also occurring because the

organization has double standards when it comes to rules. Superiors can bend and break certain

rules while subordinates are held to higher standards. This discrepancy when it comes to rules

creates tension and frustration which can cause members to ignore their superior-subordinate

relationships. As promotions take place, superiors can lose sight of where they came from and

focus more on their own career and other matters. Both parties must take the time to

communicate openly with each other.

Another surprising finding was the lack of managing up. As the previous section

discussed, there are several possible reasons why managing up is not being utilized. These

reasons range from a lack of time to manage up, to the two most likely explanations, a dislike for

superiors or not enough time spent working at the station. This finding is significant because in

hierarchal organization the need to have some sort of influence on superiors is important for

subordinates. With an unresponsive superior and no way to influence them frustration can


continue to build. According to this study, if these communication problems are rectified the

organization could have a much more open communication environment.


Chapter 5: Conclusion

This study was an exploration of superior-subordinate communication and

communication channels in the context of the New York State Police which added a new aspect

to the concept of supervisory communication introduced in 1979 by Jablin. First reviewed were

the concepts and ideas that have already been researched by scholars and popular press business

literature. These concepts include: communication channels, leader-member exchange theory,

concepts from military literature, communication breakdown and prevention, the structure of the

NYSP organization, and the concept of managing up. Next, the research questions were

introduced. In the subsequent chapter, the methodology of study was outlined and described

including observation and note taking processes. The process by which results were themed and

analyzed was described. Further, there was an extensive description of research facilities and

participants.

The study examined the two major concepts, and the six themes emerged while analyzing

data. The first theme explored is leading by example. Within this theme, behaviors of superiors

are explored as well as the organization‟s paramilitary structure. The second theme is the open-

door policy and how, in fact, that policy has several interpretations and meanings for superiors

and subordinates. The third theme is the lack of leadership training and how it can affect new

superiors as they make the transition from subordinate to superior. The fourth theme is, my boss

can’t do my job. This theme has two components: the inability of superiors to perform the duties

they assign, and the boss as a fictitious entity within this organization.

The second major concept was the organizational structure. Within this main concept,

two themes emerged. The first theme is opinions about division. Members with less than

favorable opinions about the headquarters of their organization expressed feeling disconnected


from the organization. The second theme is the role of humor. Humor allows for members of the

organization to exchange serious information in a more relaxed way. Humor is also used to make

the job feel less mundane and more exciting. Without humor, the bottom two layers would not

have the same working relationship that was seen during observation.

The analysis section indicates that subordinates are not communicating with their

superiors for several reasons. The organization‟s top heaviness makes communicating difficult

for the subordinates who recognize the limited upward communication channel. This weak or

blocked channel prevents members from expressing their opinions on programs and policies.

Distortion of goals creates frustration among members who met goals and still received

punishment. Humor serves as a coping mechanism for troopers who encounter violence at work.

Additionally, humor surrounding frustration with superiors was a powerful bonding tool.

Furthermore, subordinates avoid communication with their superiors because often there is a

lack of trust or respect for the superior. Over time members have developed a lack of respect for

their superiors because of double standards. Circumstances of double standards arise when

officers break rules that the troopers must follow and when they lack basic knowledge on digital

police work. Other frustrations members have involved flawed, weak, or inadequate training

programs. All of these reasons contributed to subordinates lacking willingness to communicate

upward. Moreover, when a subordinate does not want to communicate upward there is a slim

chance they will want to make their superior look good by attempting to manage up. This led to

the most significant conclusion that managing up was not being practiced.

Limitations/Constraints

Like most, this study had limitations. The first limiting factor is the short amount of time

spent within the organization and the number of locations visited. Unfortunately, observation

time was only four days, for roughly ten hours a day. There were two stations visited in two


different troops. If more time had been spent within the organization, more data would have been

gathered which would then increase the strength of conclusions. Increased time spent within the

organization would also reduce observational issues. For example, members may have become

more comfortable being observed. Subsequently, visiting more stations and interviewing more

members could have been accomplished with additional observation time. Visiting all ten troops

within the organization would have been ideal. Unfortunately because of time, money and travel

constraints, this was not possible. A much larger study could encompass more troops.

Additionally the majority of the researcher‟s time was spent observing troopers and sergeants.

This disproportionate amount of time observing all members was another time limitation.

A second constraint was the role of the researcher. While observing, it was clear that the

research was not being conducted by a member of the organization. When consent forms were

distributed and signed, the study and the role of the researcher was explained to members. Many

members realized that the researcher had ties to the organization through a past member‟s

service. This constraint created bias because the researcher may have understood more than

someone without ties to the organization. The researcher could not erase all past experiences

with the organization, so memories may have unintentionally played a role in observation.

A third constraint is the time of year the study took place. Several members were on

holiday vacation. This severely limited the number of personnel that were observed and

interviewed. With bare minimum personnel on duty, there was a lack of activity at station one

when members were responding to calls. This lack of coverage put a strain on the members that

were working because they were carrying a heavier workload due to others on vacation. It was

not possible to observe members when they were on potentially dangerous calls. Consequently,

some of the observation time was talking to the civilians within the organization. The holiday


period can be much slower paced for authorities. Generally, people are calm around large

gatherings of family members, or so the troopers indicated. Winter is a busy time for troopers as

accidents and other emergencies can appear at a moment‟s notice. Fortunately, the weather was

clear while the observation was taking place.

The fourth and final constraint of the study was the fear of retribution for responses.

Officers and troopers alike expressed a concern for where the information would end up. One

officer even asked if his responses would appear in the local paper. Similarly, a trooper wanted

to make sure that observation notes did not indicate he was setting a bad example. This innate

fear of retribution for their responses may have limited the quality of the information disclosed.

Also, it was made apparent that members always need to be careful of what they say or do

because it can come back to haunt them if they seek a promotion. This is especially true for

officers who rely on appointment for their next promotion. Even as anonymity was assured,

several participants still filtered their responses to questions. This constraint is understandable,

but it speaks to the nature of the organization as members are always looking out for themselves

and not for the organization as a whole.

Suggestions for Future Research

There is still a lot to learn about supervisory communication within a law enforcement

context. This study indicated that improving superior-subordinate communication is still a

struggle for organizations. There are many different types of opportunities for future research. A

similar study could be done within any organization, but for a longer duration of time. The same

type of observation and interview style could yield stronger conclusions over an extended period

of time. A longer period of time would also allow for more in-depth research to take place.

Ideally, interviews would be recorded and transcribed for later review. Similarly, future studies

could take place within large or small law enforcement agencies. Even federally run law


enforcement agencies could be studied. Having a team of researchers instead of just one

researcher could potentially aid a study as well. A team of interviewers would introduce their

own perspectives on the results and members might be skilled in different aspects of conducting

research.

A more in-depth study could focus on different aspects of an organization and not just the

communication channels. Training and technology are issues that still need to be explored

further. A follow up study could do just that. A study that focused primarily on training

techniques could review and observe the techniques in practice. This would provide the

researcher with hands-on experience with training instead of simply receiving an opinion on the

training. Technological issues would benefit from further exploration, specifically technology‟s

impact on communication. It is possible that technology is not fully understood or utilized to its

fullest potential. Organizational structure could potentially be the focus for a follow up study as

well. Analyzing the proclaimed structure of the organization versus the actual structure of the

organization would make for a beneficial study.

This area of communication could be analyzed using quantitative methods. Surveys

would help bolster anonymity of the study and yield results in the form of statistics. Even though

qualitative research has its benefits, quantitative research would provide different types of

conclusions. Statistics can be powerful tools in aiding an organization‟s change. If an

organization viewed results in the form of statistics, that information could potentially be more

useful then opinions. Creating and distributing a survey perhaps digitally could increase response

rates and gather information faster than interviewing participants one at a time. Surveys could

focus on any of the areas previously mentioned, from training to technology. A written response

area in a survey could provide insight as well.


Suggestions for Organizational Improvement

In order for the organization to benefit from this study, the following suggestions could

be utilized to any degree in order for improvements to be made. The results of the pilot study

indicate that the rank of sergeant could be split into two distinct, but equal positions. As

explained by officers and troopers, one type of sergeant would be a patrol sergeant and their

duties would focus mainly on supervising in the field. They could ride along with any trooper in

order to provide experience to the field, bond with subordinates, evaluate subordinates, and help

improve coverage in the field. A patrol sergeant could function in the same way a trooper does if

there was ever a shortage on the road.

The second type of sergeant would be an administrative sergeant and they would function

as the current rank of sergeant functions. An administrative sergeant would primarily focus on

proof reading reports, coordinating schedules, maintaining tour strength and other administrative

duties. This would allow the sergeants who like, or are good at these types of tasks to be utilized

while simultaneously allowing the sergeants who want to be with their troopers in the field to do

so. The main stipulation to split the rank is the current need for more first line supervisors. As

previously indicated, sergeants are currently overworked and expected to supervise more

troopers than the organization recommends. In order to implement a rank split and improve the

structure, more supervisors with the proper qualifications are needed.

The junior sergeants program that was developed at Troop X could be implemented

statewide as a means of training up-and-coming sergeants. This program would ensure that new

sergeants know the many aspects of the job before they are promoted. Additionally, this program

would allow lieutenants and captains a means of sharing their experience with members learning

how to be leaders. All members that participated in the grassroots junior sergeants program or


knew of the program had praise for it. Likewise, this would allow supervisors the means to help

members‟ correct behavior that may not be leadership worthy.

New sergeants should have a six-month probationary period. Not only could the time

allow them to fully understand the job, but it could also allow their supervisors time to evaluate

if the member is a worthy candidate. Passing a promotional test does not insure that the member

will make a good supervisor. A review of the promotional process could potentially yield a more

efficient way. The current method of taking the top number of candidates who pass a given exam

does not ensure that successful leaders are being placed within the organization. Having

members pass the exam in conjunction with the junior sergeants program could be more

effective.

With a clear need for more first line supervisors, the organization needs to cognitively

shift the weight of the organization. The conclusions from this study indicated the organization is

too top heavy. In order to reduce this, the number and types of positions at the top of the

organization should be reviewed. During the study, no observation or interviews took place with

anyone at division headquarters. Therefore, it is unclear where restructuring should take place, if

at all. If restructuring at the top of the organization is warranted then it could be possible to

increase first line supervisors. Further study of the organization could reveal a potential to

eliminate some of the specialty details without a severe detrimental impact to the organization.

One officer suggested that the organization needs to go back to being generalists and indicated

some details could be cut, but this was just his opinion. Further examination of specialties would

be needed in order to evaluate each program‟s effectiveness.

This study indicates that there are opportunities for the academy and training to be

improved. First, members stationed at the academy while no candidates are being trained should


be temporarily reassigned to the field. Reassigned members from the academy could potentially

help improve communication between troopers and officers. Members stationed at the academy

specialize in training new members of the organization. If their skills were then utilized in the

field they could continue to train members as they worked beside them in the field. With

improved training comes improved communication. Several members expressed that while there

are no classes going through the academy, members who teach and train candidates are still

occupying that facility. Their daily tasks were described by members as working-out and

studying for promotion. This is viewed by members as an injustice to their profound training as

troopers and also dramatically unfair to members serving in the field conducting police work.

Given the results of the study, before candidates get accepted into the academy after

passing the NYSP exam, they should be required to take an English and grammar placement

exam. This would ensure that incoming candidates posses basic English language skills. If a

candidate does not pass this test they could be allowed to retake it, but only once. It is taxing for

the organization to teach basic English language skills to incoming candidates. Having English

language skills would not only make it easier for instructors to teach but, more importantly, it

would dramatically reduce the workload for sergeants and, most importantly, it would improve

communication. Several troopers explained that they did not want to seek promotion to sergeant

because they have no desire to be an English teacher. This stigma could be preventing skilled

leaders from seeking promotion because of the unbalanced workload. Subsequently, if the

sergeants had less grammatical errors to correct they would have more time to engage

subordinates and focus on communication. Another option to increase English language skills is

to incorporate it into an “in-service” training session. This would begin to address the current


problem as members who struggle with English language skills will not benefit from and

entrance exam.

At the field level, redundancy in paperwork needs to be eliminated. Having

grammatically savvy graduates of the academy would be the first step in reducing paperwork,

but all members should be trained in how to properly use the new digital technology. There are

programs in place that are supposed to eliminate the need for hard copies and paperwork, yet that

was clearly not the case. Reducing the redundancy of paperwork would allow supervisors more

free time to mentor and lead their subordinates. All members should be properly trained in how

to use all available programs at their disposal. Proper training needs to be emphasized because

many officers still correct paperwork by hand which is more time consuming than correcting a

report digitally. Likewise, all members should have a functional understanding of how to

perform basic police duties in order to help support each other. All members should know how to

write a ticket digitally, make an arrest and write the subsequent report. Relying too heavily on

troopers to do the leg work strains an already overworked group of members. If all members are

more equally skilled at basic police work, there may be an overall sense of unity and a more

open communication environment.

Lastly, in order to create some fairness in the organization, rules need to be followed by

all members. This might allow troopers to feel more connected with their superiors if double

standards are eliminated. It should not be acceptable for a supervisor to work-out, shower and

dress on-the-clock when it would not be acceptable for a trooper to. An organization that

encounters wide spread unfairness may suffer communication breakdown as a result. In order to

make sure that procedures are being followed appropriately by all, a monitoring system would

need to be in place. This could be as simple as having members who teach at the academy rotate


through stations to monitor basic procedures. As it stands now, the honor system that is in place

is not functioning well enough to deter members from breaking rules. If this situation is rectified,

members may feel that their superiors are “in the trenches” with them. This disrespect and

frustration that currently exists as a communication boundary could potentially be eliminated.

According to the results of this study, the workload for a lieutenant and captain needs to

increase dramatically in order to help the sergeants. While observing, it was apparent that several

officers did not have enough work to do. With not a lot of real work to do, officers could

potentially use their time to work on whatever they want, even personal matters. It is clear that

removing double standards would eliminate the huge differential between officers and everyone

else. All of these changes would create a more cohesive organization and communication

friendly environment. Most of these suggestions would help improve communication but, most

importantly, it would improve the service to residents of New York State.

Conclusion

Over the course of this study, many things were discovered about the organization.

Supervisory communication is everywhere. Within hierarchal organizations it is easy to spot

when supervisory communication is taking place; however, the difficulty lies in what that

communication or lack of communication means. By applying ideas put forth by scholars those

types of communication start to make sense. In order to have a successful superior-subordinate

relationship, both parties must be willing and able to actively work on that relationship. Both

parties must want to improve communication with one another. Improvements to the superior-

subordinate relationships are not likely if only one party wants to improve that relationship,

especially if that party is the subordinate.


Even though managing up is a growing trend in popular press literature, it is not present

in every organization. Managing up was not occurring in the locations visited which is a

substantial finding. There are several possible explanations for why managing up was not

occurring. These explanations range from a dislike or lack of respect for one‟s superior, to

subordinates caring more about their own reputation. It is hard to say what the exact reason is for

the lack of managing up, but the preceding section covered all possibilities. It is important to

note that there is a large communicative gap between superiors and subordinates. This gap

inhibits an open line of communication from occurring. Over time, this gap has increased due to

organizational factors. To close the gap, double standards need to be eliminated and members

need a strong understanding of the other members. Frustration can become overwhelming for

some members and communication can be shelved, but it is vital that these channels become

open to aid the organization in improving.

Another highlight of this study relates to superiors paving the way for the communication

to take place. It was apparent, during the study, that subordinates noticed and remembered their

superior‟s behaviors. Subordinates often waited for their superiors to engage them in

conversation. The higher ranking members, the superior, must take the first step and they must

recognize that they are the example setter. Superiors are always being watched by their

subordinates, and superiors largely influence nearly all the activity within the organization.

Superiors need to support change within the organization because, like it or not, superiors hold

the key to improving superior-subordinate relationships.


References

Argaman, E. (2009). Arguing within an institutional hierarchy: How argumentative talk and

interlocutors' embodied practices preserve a superior-subordinate relationship. Discourse

Studies, 11, 515-541.

Army, L. T., & The, A. D. (2006). The U.S. Army Leadership Field Manual (1 ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Army, U. (2004). The Soldier’s Guide (U.S. Army Field Manual, FM 7-21.13). unknown:

Wvnavy Llc.

Athanassiades, J. (1973). The sounds and silences of employee communication. Journal of

Business Communication, 10(4), 43-50.

Babbie, E. (2009). The Practice of Social Research (International ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing Co Inc.

Badowski, R., & Gittines, R. (2003). Managing up: How to forge an effective relationship with

those above you (1st ed.). New York: Currency.

Bakar, H. A., Mohamad, B., & Mustafa, C. S. (2007). Superior-subordinate communication

dimensions and working relationship: Gender preferences in a Malaysian organization.

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(1), 51-69.

Brownell, J. (1990). Perceptions of effective listeners: A management study. Journal of Business

Communication, 27(4), 401-414.

Campbell, D., & Campbell, K. (2010). Soldiers as police officers/police officers as soldiers: Role

evolution and revolution in the United States. Armed Forces & Society, 36(2), 327-350.

Coleman, S. (2005). Conflict of interest and police: an unavoidable problem. Criminal Justice

Ethics, 24(2), 3-11.


Corbitt, H. (2009). NYSP administrative manual. Albany, NY: NYSP.

Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Davis, P. (2010). "The public information officer and today's digital news environment." FBI

Law Enforcement Bulletin 79(7): 1-8.

Defense, U. D. (2010). Army command policy: personnel-general (SuDoc D 101.9:600-20/999).

Fort Monroe, Virginia: HEADQUARTERS Dept. of the Army.

Dobson, D. S., & Dobson, M. S. (2000). Managing up: 59 ways to build a career-advancing

relationship with your boss (1 ed.). New York: Amacom.

Dulek, R., Motes, W., & Hilton, C. (1997). Executive perceptions of superior and subordinate

information control: Practice versus ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(11), 1175.

Fairhurst, G. (2001). Dualisms in leadership research. The new handbook of organizational

communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 379-439). Thousand

Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Flora, C. (2010). Dear leaders. Psychology Today, 43(5), 50-51.

Fortado, B. (1992). Subordinate views in supervisory conflict situations: Peering into the

subcultural Chasm. Human Relations, 45(11), 1141-1168.

Hbsp. (2008). Managing up (pocket mentor). New York: Harvard Business School Press.

Jablin, F. (1979). Super-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological Bulletin,

86(6), 1201-1222.

Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (2000). The new handbook of organizational communication:

Advances in theory, research, and methods (1 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,

Inc.


Keeler, W. (2010, September 3) New York State Police Captain, New York State Police.

Interview.

Lonsway, K. (2002). Equality denied, the status of women and policing: 2001. National Center

for Women & Policing, 1(1), 1-28

Lonsway, K. (2002). Men, women, and police excessive force: a tale of two genders. The

National Center for Women & Policing, 1(1), 1-11

Madlock, P. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and

employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), 61-78.

Madlock, P., & Kennedy-Lightsey, C. (2010). The effects of supervisors' verbal aggressiveness

and mentoring on their subordinates. Journal of Business Communication, 47(1), 42-62.

McCallister, L. (1983). Predicted employee compliance to downward communication styles.

Journal of Business Communication, 20(1), 67-79.

Miller, K. (2005). Organizational communication: approaches and processes (with InfoTrac®)

(Wadsworth Series in Communication Studies) (4 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Morash., Kwak., & Harr. (2006). Gender differences in the predictors of police stress. Policing ,

29(3), 541-563.

Morrill, C. (1989). The management of managers: Disputing in an executive hierarchy.

Sociological Forum, 4(3), 387-408.

Mueller., Bridget., & Lee. (2002). Leader-member exchange and organizational communication

satisfaction in multiple contexts. The Journal of Business Communication, 39(2), 220-

244.


Murphy, A. (2001). The flight attendant dilemma: An analysis of communication and

sensemaking during in-flight emergencies. Journal of Applied Communication, 29(1), 30-

53.

NYSP Vision, Values and Mission. (n.d.). New York State Police. Retrieved October 18, 2010,

from http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/introduction/

Peabody, R. (1964). Organizational authority: superior-subordinate relationships in three public

service organizations. New York: Ny: Atherton Press, 1964.

Protch, O. (2002). ABC's of supervisory communication. Supervision, 63(7), 3-4.

Ramsey, R. (1987). How to teach supervisor-subordinate relationships in a basic business

communication class. The Journal of Business Communication, 24(2), 35-46.

Ramsey, R. (2005). Interpersonal conflict. Supervision, 66(4), 14-17.

Ramsey, R. (2009). 20 ways to be a better communicator. Supervision, 70(3), 16-18.

Rahim, A., Garrett, J., & Buntzman, G. (1992). Ethics of managing interpersonal conflict in

organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 423-432.

Sinickas, A. (2001). Communicating is not optional. Harvard Management Communication

Letter, 4(6), 2-4.

Stevens, B., & Hisle, J. (1996). Hotel managers' perceptions of upward and downward

communication. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(1),

29-32.

Trott, R. (2006). Training for law enforcement managers: What does professional military

education offer? FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 13, 12-18.

http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/introduction/


Venkataramani, V., Green, S., & Schleicher, D. (2010). Well-connected leaders: The impact of

leaders' social network ties on LMX and members' work attitudes. American

Psychological Association, 95(6), 1071-1084.

Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. (1995). Managing conflict with subordinate or a superior:

Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 271-

281.

Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2003). Trust me, I'm your boss: trust and power in

supervisor-supervisee communication. Human Resource Management, 14(1), 117-127.

Zacker, J., & Bard, M. (1973). Effects of conflict management training on police performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(2), 202-208.


Appendix

How long have you been a trooper?

Do you remember why you got into the field?

Do you still like it?

How do you feel about the structure of the organization?

What would you change about the organization?

How do you feel about the proposition of lay-offs?

How do you feel about the organizations training?

Is the organization more reactive or proactive?

Have you had any issues with your peers or supervisors?

Do you ever want to move up the ranks? Why or why not?

running head: superior-subordinate communication 1

Documents