An officer I trained not all that long ago accused me, albeit in a charitable way, of being an underachiever. This youthful, yet eminently qualified member of the senior staff argued I was once on the fast track, having been promoted to sergeant at the six-year mark in my career. Surely had I applied myself, he (or she) reasoned, I could be a lieutenant or captain by now.
Underachiever? I'll take that as a compliment, but in the 11+ years I've been a sergeant, I've consciously let several opportunities to test up go on by because I enjoy what I'm doing and I believe I best serve the department making decisions in fluid, dynamic field work.
Could I use the pay bump and benefits of a management position? Indeed. Does it feel uncomfortable to work for people who in many cases have less time on the job and less supervisory experience than I do? Sometimes, yes. Are either of these reasons enough in and of themselves to seek promotion? Personally, I don't think so.
I enjoy being a street sergeant, but much to my chagrin, the culture of policing today is ushering our patrol supervisors into extinction and leaving many of us feeling like underpaid managers rather than the "field generals" we've fancied ourselves for so long.
How we got here
First, there is an unfortunate necessity to adopt a "churn and burn" mentality in the office. I will be first to admit, I scan reports more quickly than I used to. I don't read for content, but rather conduct a visual sprint over forced boxes, day/date/time, officer's signature, etc., then check the narrative in the hopes of detecting a modicum of probable cause. I kick reports back on occasion, but the broader point is not all sergeants want to assume the role of the ogre, to be unpopular or talked about in the locker room, so there are a few who avoid the nitty-gritty of rejecting a report and sending it back for correction (among other things).
In addition to the ever-increasing pile of paper reports that require review, the latest techno-phenomenon adds to the burden: computer-based reports submitted electronically requiring supervisors to navigate cumbersome software on small computer screens requiring much craning of the neck and twisting of the trunk to view. (Discussing the hazards of using a computer in a moving patrol car or the danger of being mentally immersed in a report while stationary are among safety hazards which would require an individual column to flesh out, so I'm only planting the seed here.)
There's more. Some agencies require reading and writing of myriad intra-bureau "overnights" (via e-mail), many of which contain inane information, this in addition to other e-mail one has to manage in the course of a tour. Sergeants typically review the contents of several network folders each day. Every few days brings forth a fresh General Order and several Information and Personnel Orders which require attention. Assignments are generated by the captain or lieutenant (hot spots, minor radar complaints, dead storage vehicles, special events, problem houses). For those agencies which use it the way OPD does, CompStat protocol sees sergeants copying all burglary, robbery, felony assault, vehicle theft and homicide reports. We inventory on the order of 150 individual items of precinct equipment three times each day. And a few commanders above the sergeant rank have embraced a "delegate at all costs" management philosophy, creating work our forefathers wouldn't have dreamed about.
Failure breeds failure
Quality control doesn't (or shouldn't) begin when the sergeant pours a cup of coffee and begins rifling through a pile of offense reports from the prior shift. The problem is systemic. Failure to cultivate enough quality FTOs. Failure to promote all the best-suited people. Failure to provide those newly promoted sergeants with well-rounded leadership training (I used to be a "SGT FTO", but that program fell dead years back). Failure to have the probationary period six months in our case, probably half the length it needs to be mean something. Failure to empower good field supervisors with the autonomy they need to be leaders rather than passive executive officers to their lieutenants. Failure to reduce sergeants' administrative load so they can get out of their cube, and failure to maintain an expectation that once freed for time those sergeants will go put 70 or 80 miles a shift on their cruiser, backing people up, overseeing investigations, and mentoring in real time.
Bottom line? If and until someone up the food chain performs a cost-benefit analysis of getting first-line supervisors active in the field, well, I'm not certain much is going to change.
I apologize if this all sounds cynical, but as is often the case, the best indicator of the future is the past. I'm not so brash as to speak for Omaha Police Chief Eric Buske other than to say I'll bet he'd agree with most of what I've said here. He like other bosses are hamstrung by budget, however, and the chief will have to pay someone to sign reports (retired sergeants anyone?) and do the inventory and mail run and personnel detail and supply run and all the other clerical busy work they pay me $70K a year for in order to get me onto the street where I can save the city some real coin by heading expensive problems off at the pass.
Why we should care
Active field sergeants can save our respective departments hundreds of thousands of dollars each year by reducing complaints and use-of-force incidents, as well as through better management of vehicle pursuits, just to name two areas of potential improvement. And I've not even broached the benefits of grooming our young police officers you know, the guys and gals who will one day take our place as leaders in our respective agencies? They will develop into good cops to the degree we're committed to supervision. Period.
