New Perspectives in Policing

National Institute of Justice

Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World

Anthony W. Batts, Sean Michael Smoot and Ellen Scrivner

Executive Session on Policing and 

Public Safety

This is one in a series of papers that will be published as a result of the Executive Session on 

Policing and Public Safety. 

Harvard’s Executive Sessions are a convening 

of individuals of independent standing who take 

joint responsibility for rethinking and improving 

society’s responses to an issue. Members are 

selected based on their experiences, their reputation for thoughtfulness and their potential for 

helping to disseminate the work of the Session. 

In the early 1980s, an Executive Session on Policing 

helped resolve many law enforcement issues of 

the day. It produced a number of papers and 

concepts that revolutionized policing. Thirty years 

later, law enforcement has changed and NIJ and 

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government are 

again collaborating to help resolve law enforcement issues of the day. 

Learn more about the Executive Session on 

Policing and Public Safety at: 

NIJ’s website: http://www.nij.gov/topics/lawenforcement/administration/executive-sessions/

welcome.htm

Harvard’s website: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/

criminaljustice/executive_sessions/policing.htm

J U L Y 2 0 1 2

Introduction

Effective police leaders become adept at responding to challenge. Like other organizations, police 

agencies must balance constancy and predictability with adaptation and change. Even as they 

strive to standardize operations, most police 

leaders recognize the fluid context in which their 

agencies operate. They also understand that there 

are forces to which police organizations must 

adapt and evolve in order to remain effective 

in a changing world. It is those forces that drive 

organizational change and create new models for 

conducting the business of policing. 

Several of the papers written in conjunction 

with the Executive Session on Policing confront 

these forces for change. Bayley and Nixon (2010) 

describe “the changing environment” for policing, including the rise of terrorism, new patterns 

of immigration, and increased accountability for 

police. Gascón and Foglesong (2010) describe the 

new budget realities that shape police agencies 

and challenge the premise of public policing. 

Other papers confront the changing dynamic 

between the police and research (Weisburd 

and Neyroud, 2011; Sparrow, 2011) and the idea 
Cite this paper as Batts, Anthony W., Sean Michael Smoot and Ellen Scrivner, 

Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World. New Perspectives in 

Policing Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice, 2012. NCJ 238338. 

2 | New Perspectives in Policing

of a “new” police professionalism to respond to 

changes in the context for policing today (Stone 

and Travis, 2011; Sklansky, 2011). 

This paper builds on the discussion of forces for 

change in police organizations. Our central thesis is that policing, like other industries, faces an 

urgent need for a new way of managing and leading police agencies that is being driven by two 

interdependent shifts in the world of work: the 

rise of a “new generation” of police officers; and 

significant opportunities — and challenges — 

in the availability of new technology. These two 

factors are linked to other changes within the 

broader context of policing, such as globalization, heightened budget concerns, the changing 

nature of crime, and the other forces that bear on 

the work of policing. By focusing our attention on 

these two key related changes in the work and 

management of policing, we hope to shed light 

on the broader challenges that confront police 

leaders and police organizations. 

Beginning with a brief review of the rise of the 

traditional organizational model, we examine 

the new generation of “contemporary employees” and the related use of emerging technology 

that is integral to the lives of this new generation. 

We examine their impacts on multigenerational 

police organizations and conclude with lessons 

from other management fields as well as suggestions for preparing police leaders to confront the 

challenges of a changing world within the police 

environment.

The Growing Irrelevance of Traditional 

Organizational Models

The way in which many police leaders manage 

is linked to the way police agencies are organized. Like most modern work structures, police 

agencies trace their roots to the first industrial 

revolution and the industrial organizations that 

were the foundation of manufacturing industries. Platoons of officers, organized under shift 

sergeants with a command staff above them, 

bear a striking resemblance to industrial manufacturing plants and the organization of work 

on the shop floor. Even the rise of police unions 

parallels the rise of industrial trade unions, shop 

stewards and organized labor in other industries. 

Like the auto assembly plants of Henry Ford, traditional police agencies are characterized by 

a hierarchical authority structure that clearly 

distinguishes decision-makers from line staff, 

emphasizes adherence to principles of structure 

over flexibility, and prizes uniform operations 

and interchangeability across staff positions.

Police organizations are further constrained by 

their reliance on a paramilitary model (Geller and 

Swanger, 1995) that does not adapt well to external demands for change or accountability. Police 

unions add to this mix of outdated priorities 

through work rules and contractual requirements 

that can be unyielding. Thus, despite substantial 

gains by police in crime fighting, there is still a 

widespread tendency to adhere to outdated and 

ineffective management practices. For example, 
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 3

even the way a department’s overall effectiveness 

is traditionally measured and tracked — typically 

some aspect of response time or fulfillment of calls 

for service — lacks relevance to current expectations of and for police. 

As police agencies continued to incorporate the 

management models of the industrial age, the world 

of work began to shift away from these models. 

Starting in the late 20th century, driven in part by 

the need to compete in a global economy, manufacturing organizations have increasingly abandoned 

the traditional industrial work model and have 

sought new work structures that maximize efficiency (and profitability) and provide a more 

flexible structure that is less shackled to antiquated 

notions of work and management. Capitalizing on 

a 21st century workforce with skills and expectations that are as novel as the manufactured goods 

they produce, these new management models pay 

less tribute to the bureaucratic hierarchy of the old 

industrial plant and more attention to the inclusion of workers in a broader range of operations 

and policies. Senge and colleagues (2008) frame 

this transition as realistically questioning the wisdom of protecting the ways of the past in contrast 

to creating a different future.

As business and industry have moved away from 

older industrial systems built on hierarchies, traditions, and formal rules and procedures better 

suited to another era, police agencies in the 21st 

century are in need of a similar revolution in their 

organization, leadership and management models. 

Two sweeping changes serve as primary drivers for 

this revolution in policing: the new generation of 

police officers and an expanded use of technology 

innovations.

New Generation Officers and Technology 

Innovations: Drivers of Change in Policing

New Generation Police Officers — 

Contemporary Employees

Popular literature describes generational cohorts 

in different ways. Although there tends to be general agreement on the Baby Boomer cohort, labels 

applied to younger cohorts vary from Generation X 

and Generation Y to Millennials, Gamers or the Net 

Generation. Given that all of these cohorts may exist 

simultaneously within a police department, in this 

paper, we elected to use the term “contemporary 

employee” as a way to capture distinctions between 

this latest generation of officers and all those in the 

organization who preceded them. Those who hire, 

train, supervise, manage and lead them comprise 

the established organization of the police agency 

made of a mix of earlier generations. Together, these 

earlier generations have blended fairly successfully 

within the traditional industrial style of police organizations. Not so the generation of contemporary 

employees.

Beck and Wade (2004) and Hicks and Hicks (1999) 

describe contemporary employees as conscientious, 

unselfish and independent in their thinking while 

also more tolerant of differences than those of other 

generations. In contrast to descriptions suggesting 

that contemporary employees are self-centered 

with a sense of entitlement, Alsop (2008) describes 

them as altruistic, wanting to make the world a 

better place, and interested in making a positive 

impact in their world. He also characterizes them 
4 | New Perspectives in Policing

as highly collaborative, team-oriented, and 

as having a “hands on” attitude, wanting to be 

involved and wanting to “give back.” Some of 

their strongest skill sets include the abilities to 

multitask, articulate career values, understand 

the capacities of technology and appreciate diversity as strength. We also examined studies from 

the Pew Research Center (2007) whose findings 

demonstrate that groups born in the 1980s and 

early 1990s are more accepting than their elders 

of issues such as affirmative action, immigration 

and the appropriate scope of government, as well 

as far more supportive of an ethnically diverse 

workforce and responsive to concerns of diverse 

communities. We see these characteristics as 

extremely desirable for police officers but the 

challenge is whether current police organizations 

can capitalize on these attributes. 

Despite desirable attributes, both research and 

practice describe contemporary employees as 

often lacking certain essential work attributes. 

For instance, they may need help with focusing 

on single issues and seeing projects through to 

the end. As such, they are strong candidates for 

mentoring, coaching and training to help them 

see and reinforce how their place in the organization can help meet their personal goals and 

objectives. In this regard, meeting their early 

work development needs will require approaches 

that are quite different from those of their multigenerational supervisors. Yet, the supervisory 

group will be key to retaining this younger cohort 

in the organization by creating a work environment that allows their attributes to flourish. 

Their retention will be important to the stability 

of the organization and to future organizational 

leadership. 

Beyond differences in personal characteristics, 

the contemporary employee also brings lifestyle changes to the workplace that may conflict 

with traditional law enforcement practices and 

present challenges to the commitment to 24-7 

public safety coverage. These changes include: 

placing a greater value on balancing work and 

family, experiencing comfort with questioning 

authority and challenging the traditional chain 

of command, demanding ongoing performance 

feedback, expecting transparency and timely outcome measures that show what is working, and 

relying on instant feedback from electronic communication and social networking. All these set 

contemporary employees apart from those who 

have long subscribed to, or accepted, the paramilitary organizational model and a lifestyle that 

prioritized work over other elements of their lives. 

One way this dynamic can be observed is in the 

context of collective bargaining. Both unions 

and managers face a new prioritization of issues 

and demands based upon the desires of today’s 

younger workforce. Rather than emphasizing 

the traditional “meat and potatoes” bargaining 

issue of wages, public safety collective bargaining agreements now often hinge on issues that 

relate to scheduling, hours of work and overtime. 

For example, the most recent labor agreements 

between the city of Chicago and its police unions 

hinged on the adoption of new scheduling language that incorporated both 10-hour workday 
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 5

as questioning the status quo and reshaping the 

bureaucracy. They seek to make a difference and 

to help the government do better, citing response 

to disasters as but one example. 

The full impact of contemporary employees currently remains uncertain and is a topic ripe for 

research. However, it is clear that they present 

challenges to police leadership that raise questions as to their influence. Will the new generation, 

like those before it, need to change in order to 

fit into the prevailing police culture, or will the 

traditional structure and the culture of policing need to change? Within that context, does 

the new generation of contemporary employees 

present a crisis for policing or an opportunity for 

fundamental change?

Driver of Change — Technology Innovations

We identify the second primary driver of change 

in policing as the rise of technology and its influences on organizational behavior, crime trends, 

individual work behavior and personal life 

styles. Beyond trends in the economy and shifts 

in industrial management, changes in American 

policing are further embedded in social transitions that have been facilitated by innovations 

in technology. Some examples are seen in the 

closures of certain types of businesses such as 

bookstores, record stores, and camera shops; 

failures of major newspaper companies; and 

the significant downsizing of U.S. Postal Service 

operations — all reflecting changes in communication brought about by technology. Other 

changes have become familiar symbols of modern life such as social media, instant messaging 

and 8.5-hour workday provisions (Rozas, 2008).1

Similarly, one of the most contentious issues in 

public safety bargaining across the country has 

recently become whether, and to what extent, 

police officers will be compensated for overtime 

work with time off in lieu of cash. Within the 

limited context of this issue, a strong difference 

can be observed between more senior employees’ preference for pay versus younger employees’ 

desire to be compensated with time off instead 

of cash. Further, in response to younger officers’ 

demands for some, if not greater, control over 

their work schedules some departments have 

adopted “flexible time” scheduling. Such a concept was unheard of in American policing even 

10 years ago. 

As would be expected, this new generation differs considerably from those in the ranks at the 

time of previous Executive Sessions. Whereas 

we accept that other generations brought new 

challenges to their organizations, the challenges 

today seem to be reverberating throughout the 

private and public sectors, and even the federal 

government is feeling the impact. Rein (2010) 

writes that almost one in three new federal workers being hired is 29 years of age or younger and 

is part of the texting generation. Government 

personnel specialists see these younger workers 

1

 See Chicago Police Directive E02-01, Work Day Duty Schedules, 

effective Jan. 6, 2011, which provides for three primary workday 

duty shifts for sworn officers, an 8.5-hour shift, a 9-hour shift, 

and a 10.5-hour shift. All shifts include 30 minutes for lunch. 

Available online: http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives. 

See also In the Matter of Arbitration Between the City of Chicago 

and Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, Case No. Arb. 

Ref. 09.281 (Interest Arbitration 2007 Agreement), April 16, 2010, 

pp. 137-146 (Memorandum of Understanding for Work Day 

Schedules, amended Nov. 13, 2009, effective Jan. 6, 2010).
6 | New Perspectives in Policing

and blogs, along with Twitter, YouTube, MySpace 

and Facebook. Conversely, the latter impact 

systems and present complications for police, 

as seen in the already strained broadband 

demands brought about by the marriage of cell 

phones, televisions, computers, and an inventory 

of hand-held, portable Web-connected devices 

that respond to desires for flexibility, speed, miniaturization and electronic efficiencies — trends 

that are becoming familiar constructs of modern 

society and embedding technological change 

into our way of life. But, we also see their influences in other trends such as the recent Occupy 

Movement activities in cities across the country. 

Policing needs to be thinking about how to use 

these shifts to further its operational and organizational strategies and how to take advantage of 

the new skill sets brought to the workplace by the 

cohort of contemporary employees who are comfortable in the “tech” world that is revolutionizing 

the way people live and communicate. Already 

we are seeing some organizational changes, such 

as some police departments now conducting 

virtual rollcalls where officers obtain pre-shift 

briefing information via email or mobile data 

computers. This mode of information transfer, 

when offered as an alternative to an in-person 

rollcall, is often the choice of younger officers 

who are accustomed to, and in some cases 

more comfortable with, the tech-based mode of 

communication. But the “electronic” influence 

goes much further. For instance, three years 

ago the Los Angeles Police Protective League 

(LAPPL), the union for the Los Angeles Police 

Department’s rank and file officers, pioneered a 

Web-based communication system that enabled 

the union to hold “virtual” membership meetings. 

The LAPPL created its electronic communication 

system to engage its younger officers. Several 

other police organizations that are experiencing 

the challenge of engaging contemporary employees have followed suit. Other departments have 

assigned their contemporary employee officers 

to help manage social media for the department, 

a phenomenon which becomes even more critical at a time of large demonstrations and major 

events. Inevitably, departments are seeing the 

need to develop social media policies that govern 

the appropriate use of social media by the officers 

themselves. Creating the right balance of preserving evidence and information while protecting 

the rights of free speech is becoming a new challenge in many departments.

In the area of crime control, we again see change 

driven by technology. Internet crime, identity 

theft, and cyber influences on crimes such as 

fraud, stalking, bullying and child pornography 

represent one way that technology is influencing 

crime trends. Websites that offer ways to access 

police scanners through live audio feeds to cell 

phones, and social media used to agitate groups 

such as flash mobs represent others. Technology 

is also impacting changes in traditional street 

tactics and investigations, along with alterations 

in traditional crime control and prevention activities. For example, although street robberies may 

decline when people carry less cash, bank online, 

use debit cards, or buy and sell on websites such 

as Amazon and eBay, the increasing use of cell 

phones and other hand-held communications 
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 7

and technological devices presents new targets 

for street robberies. On the upside, police departments are using their own media outlets to get 

information to the public about developing crime 

trends or to seek the public’s assistance in solving 

a problem. Other major developments relate to 

property crime, which is reported to be decreasing because of these trends. The changes in the 

investigation of property crimes are particularly 

apparent in the use of cellular and GPS technology to track and recover stolen cars. In addition, 

the now familiar presence of surveillance cameras enhances the potential for identifying 

suspects in many types of crimes as well as their 

locations, which makes it more difficult for perpetrators of organized criminal activity to operate 

when they run a greater risk of detection. The converse is the evidence suggesting that future crime 

trends will demonstrate less localized crime 

and far greater incidence of crimes perpetrated 

by international organizations based in foreign 

countries such as Russia and China (Clarke and 

Knake, 2010). 

As crime goes global, technology will be a primary driver in responding to issues that are 

far more complex than anything we see today. 

Accordingly, the generation of the contemporary employee may be central to understanding 

the changes needed to respond to the shifts we 

have outlined, shifts that will impact organizations, the nature of crime and work behavior. The 

most recent developments in technology have 

been an integral part of the lives of the generation of workers now entering policing. They bring 

with them a sophisticated understanding of how 

technology could enhance policing, communications and crime control. Their familiarity with 

technology may hold the promise of new, more 

effective strategies to combat an array of both oldand new-style crimes and to promote citizen 

engagement with the police. However, they could 

also create new demands on multigenerational 

police organizations and on police leaders. As 

drivers of change, the cohort of contemporary 

employees and the seemingly never ending 

ways to use technology will result in new ways to 

think about how police organizations function in 

a changing world.

Managing Drivers of Change in a 

Multigenerational Workforce

Many police executives and union leaders developed their careers in earlier times and were 

influenced by norms established by traditionalist and Baby Boomer cultures. Although these 

cohorts have initiated enormous change over 

the past 40 years and are not resistant to tactical and strategic change, tampering with age-old 

organizational structures, benchmarks for performance, or benefit and reward systems may be 

hard pills to swallow. Further, in contrast to the 

private sector, there is no financial incentive to 

drive changes to traditions. Because they have 

been trained and educated to survive in a society 

shaped by industrial markets, some police leaders may question the relevance, as well as the 

wisdom, of supporting change to fundamental 

organizational structures based on command 

and control or initiating practices that prioritize 

the needs of contemporary employees. Common 

themes noted when discussing contemporary 
8 | New Perspectives in Policing

employees with multigenerational police managers include seeing the new generation as “whiners” 

who lack understanding of the business and have 

unrealistic expectations. Leaders often see more 

negatives than positives and ask whether they are 

simply babysitting kids who just need to grow up. 

We acknowledge that similar comments have 

been made about previous generations of police 

officers. However, Harrison (2007) describes the 

gap between those in charge and those who follow as wider than it has ever been. As a police 

consultant, he calls on astute police executives to 

seek ways to bridge that gap and to learn flexibility. His thinking is consistent with what Sullivan 

(2004) refers to as “clash points” that result from 

applying traditional work standards to employees 

who have divergent viewpoints about autonomy 

and supervision. The focus of these discussions 

generally applies to new recruits, who are definitely different from those of yesteryear, but 

whose differences are further compounded by 

personal lifestyle changes as well as changes in 

the world around us. All present challenges that 

need to be considered in order to effect a successful transition to this new era.

Law enforcement has completed one successful 

transition through their response to the shrinking of quality applicant pools, and those efforts 

provide an apt illustration of the adage that crisis presents opportunity for change. Applicant 

shortages documented by Koper, Maguire and 

Moore (2001) spawned dramatic changes in 

police recruitment strategies including: use of 

cutting-edge advertising, marketing and branding new images of law enforcement as seen on 

the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

(IACP) website, providing signing bonuses and 

financial assistance for relocation expenses, 

and the proliferation of a variety of Web-based 

recruiting inducements. Because recruiting a 

diverse, talented, appropriate future workforce 

has required new methods, some agencies are 

loosening rigid acceptance criteria and adopting 

the framework of a ”whole person” approach to 

evaluating candidates (Scrivner, 2005). The next 

challenge will be to retain those hired in the system and to prevent their being driven away by 

rigid traditions and fixed structures.

Beliefs that current hiring challenges will diminish because of economic conditions and threats 

of job loss are becoming less common. Thus, law 

enforcement will need to maintain a focus not 

only on recruitment but also on how to retain 

a new generation of officers within a multigenerational environment. Profiles of contemporary 

employees sharply contrast with those of the 

generational cohorts who supervise and manage 

police departments and, based upon the authors’ 

collective observation and experience, attempts 

to embed them in a culture that is out of step 

with their values and needs only tends to alienate them. There is a need to examine further how 

the police culture can adapt and become more 

agile while still responding to the ongoing challenges that accompany the expanding complexity 

of the local law enforcement portfolio. How can 

it meet demands for calls for service while still 

engaging the new generation to contribute their 

knowledge and accept different levels of responsibility? These are not easy tasks because of the 
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 9

multigenerational differences in work ethic and 

the values endemic to the various generational 

cohorts that fill police ranks.

Profiling the Multigenerational 

Workforce

Distinctions of a multigenerational workforce 

are described in the following profiles of the 

American worker (1920-1990) (table 1). The profiles show a distinct contrast between earlier 

generations and contemporary employees.

The profiles suggest how respective values may 

play out in day-to-day functioning on the job. 

Although those represented in the traditional 

profile have long since retired, their ideas and 

pervasive influence remain embedded in many 

of the structural and operational parameters of 

Table 1. Profile of American Workers (1920-1990)

Traditionalists: Parents 

born in the 1800s

Baby Boomers: Parents 

born in the early 1900s Contemporary Employees: Parents born in the 1950s-1960s

•	 Privacy — The silent generation.

•	 Hard work — Believed in paying

your dues.

•	 Trust — My word is my bond.

•	 Formality — Formal

organizational structure and

formal values.

•	 Authority — Respect for

authority.

•	 Social order — A belief in

traditional class structure.

•	 Hard work — Value hard work;

workaholics.

•	 Competitive — Value peer

competition.

•	 Change — Thrive on possibilities.

•	 Teamwork — Embrace working

in social settings.

•	 Will fight — They will fight for

a cause.

•	 Entrepreneurial spirit — Invest in their personal development rather

than that of the organization, yet have a service mentality.

•	 Independence and creativity — Prefer self-management based on

ongoing performance feedback framed as constructive criticism —

how to do better in contrast to what you are doing wrong.

•	 Information — They value lots of information and seek ongoing feedback.

•	 Quality of life — Hard workers, but would rather find quicker, more

efficient methods that give them time for a life outside of the job.

•	 Communication methods — Social networks, emails, text messaging,

short soundbites, and blogs are part of their day-to-day existence.

•	 Creativity — Creative problem solvers but also see the value of analytic

skills to bolster creativity.

•	 Skills — Adaptable to change and computer literate, research focused,

naturally inquisitive, and community oriented.

Sources: Rogler, 2002; Sullivan, 2004; Tulgan, 2000.

2

 This point deserves a good deal of consideration within the 

context of retention, as contemporary employees tend to 

place greater emphasis on their individual families, friends and 

hobbies over work and give far more weight to their own professional development and career advancement than they place on 

organization or employer loyalty.

paramilitary public safety agencies. This influence is quite prevalent within police unions, 

which sometimes struggle to define their value to 

younger workers who enter the workforce with little, if any, historical perspective regarding wages, 

rights and working conditions. In fact, one of the 

greatest challenges facing police labor organizations today is recognizing the assumptions new 

members have (i.e., that they will receive fair pay, 

good working conditions and protective rights). 

In comparing the generation of contemporary 

employees with those of the traditional and 

Baby Boomer groups in policing, it is clear that 

current generational issues involve more than 

absorbing new employees with different value 

systems and learning how to motivate them.2 

Rather, they affect the entire organization and 
10 | New Perspectives in Policing

challenge those at all levels of supervision and 

management. Many of the new generation start 

their careers with higher levels of education than 

their superior officers, either by holding college 

degrees or meeting the requirement for two 

years of college now in place in many agencies. 

Certainly, top police executives are also better 

educated and have greater savvy in managing 

organizations and providing leadership than at 

any other time in our history. However, in many 

organizations first-line supervisors and mid-level 

managers, probably the most multigenerational 

group in the organization, have not kept educational pace with their superiors or subordinates. 

These middle managers often remain married 

to the paramilitary and command-and-control 

approaches with employees and can present significant barriers to change. 

Consequently, as hiring processes and training 

academies begin to change to meet the needs of 

the new generation, supervision practices, movement within the organization, and leadership also 

will need to change. Those changes may be more 

challenging because they require not only change 

in practices but also a level of organizational 

flexibility that has not been part of the commandand-control model embedded in the American 

policing culture. Although significant progress 

has been made in police strategies and tactics, 

American policing still struggles with a 20th century assembly-line mentality that is dominated by 

command and control and a rules and procedure 

approach to performance. As such, organizational flexibility is often not considered an asset 

and may in fact be interpreted as disarray —an

easily understood anathema to most police commanders and their political bosses. 

It may be easier for multigenerational managers to criticize characteristics and differences in 

work habits than to come up with constructive 

ideas on how to respond to the new generation 

of contemporary employees and the challenges 

they present. Criticisms that focus only on what 

is “wrong” may be short on facts and miss the 

point that contemporary employees bring a lot 

of what is “right” to the workforce. As such, their 

strengths need to be acknowledged, rather than 

trying to force them to adapt to a culture that 

worked for their predecessors but does not fit 

for them. In fact, that culture may no longer fit 

21st century law enforcement practice or community and citizen expectations. Acknowledging 

strengths, however, may require first confronting 

existing perceptions.

A few examples of how perceptions can be altered 

come from participants of the Executive Session 

and other forums where the new generation was 

discussed. The following significant questions 

were framed as follows:

• Are they a generation that expects to be 

empowered and makes too many demands 

for information and feedback? Or, is it equally 

likely that they are seeking clarification of 

roles and responsibilities but in ways that are 

perceived as challenges that make supervisors 

uncomfortable?

• Do they want an easy, lucrative ride? Or, 

are they seeking meaningful work and the 

opportunity to advance?
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 11

• Are they risk averse and hesitant to go 

“hands on”? Or, are they using sensible risk 

management?

• Do they expect ongoing accolades for work? 

Or, are they seeking honesty and authenticity 

from superiors? 

• Does their questioning of rules mean actual 

resistance? Or, do they want to understand the 

rules and learn the history as to why the rule 

exists?

• Are we experiencing a knowledge drain due 

to Baby Boomer retirements? Or, does the 

new generation bring an infusion of new 

and diversified knowledge that needs to be 

exploited?

Focusing on negative laundry lists of what may 

actually be misperceptions is not productive in 

any analysis. Instead, police leadership must 

position itself in a way that affords every opportunity to tap into valuable new knowledge that 

contemporary employees bring to the workplace. 

Failure to recognize these opportunities is likely 

to lead to situations that will impact their retention and could risk losing the best of the next 

generation of leadership. Nowhere is this more 

apparent than in the area of how technology is 

changing policing.

Rethinking Police Organizations and 

Accommodating Drivers of Change

We have established how new police officers 

are different from their predecessors and how 

they have a level of comfort with, and reliance 

on, technology that can advance the work of the 

police. How all this merges within the context 

of an organizational mindset is another matter 

and presents an important opportunity to begin 

to rethink police organizations for the future in 

order to accommodate drivers of change. Within 

that context, valuable lessons can be drawn from 

private industry.

Private Industry “Lessons Learned”

The need for support to change organizational 

mindsets and supervisory practices to accommodate the contemporary employee can be 

gleaned from recent “lessons learned” in the 

private sector. 

In a Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) survey 

of those in leadership positions, 74 percent of the 

leaders believed that the generation of employees currently entering the workforce will place 

unique demands on their organization. Survey 

findings strongly suggest that contemporary 

employees will require businesses to go beyond 

current organizational norms and to develop 

“innovational” cultures and changes to business 

practices that are compatible with changing communication patterns and skills developed in the 

technology sector (Criswell and Martin, 2007).

Erickson (2010) discusses the need for a new 

generation of leaders in the private sector and 

contends that they will face unpredictable challenges in an environment of constant change. She 

identifies “context creating” leadership activities that reflect core values of the contemporary 

employee and which future leaders will need to 

adopt. “Context creating” includes increasing 
12 | New Perspectives in Policing

collaborative capacity and working through 

networks, asking compelling questions to better frame the challenges, embracing complexity 

and welcoming disruptive information, shaping 

organizational identity, and appreciating diversity. Although her work addresses leadership 

needs in the private sector, it is not unrealistic 

to consider how, as these values begin to shape 

leadership throughout private industry, they will 

also influence policing, and how unique conflicts 

may occur when the core values of contemporary 

employees begin to intersect with those of others 

in the multigenerational workforce.

Other private sector lessons relative to organizational change and driven by the contemporary 

employees include:

• New skills brought to the job have the potential 

to change organizations. For example, an 

automotive survey (KRC Research, 2009) 

of “millennials” examined how they get 

and use information in their day-to-day 

lives (social networking, instant messaging, 

websites, blogs, instant mobile alerts). 

Survey findings suggested that consumers’ 

desire to be technologically connected has a 

significant impact on how automobiles need 

to be marketed to this group in contrast to the 

types of approaches that were used with their 

parents.

• Multigenerational supervisory personnel 

will need to learn how to communicate with 

contemporary employees, especially about 

performance-based issues, if they are to be 

successful in changing behavior. 

• Many private companies are implementing 

supervisor training directed at developing 

listening and critiquing skills, as well as how to 

provide more frequent performance feedback 

and not always at the one-to-one level. 

• IBM is urging supervisors not to wait for an 

annual performance review to give employee 

performance information. Rather, they 

encourage supervisors to create ongoing 

dialogue with employees and to listen to them 

while using open-ended questions and letting 

them know what you are learning from them.

• Both IBM and Accenture Ltd. have developed 

training programs focused on interactive 

dialogue as part of critiquing skills.

• Ernst & Young has created online “Feedback 

Zones” where employees can request feedback 

at any time. They also assign mentors to new 

employees (Hite, 2008). 

• Google is providing online “office hours” 

where any employee can pitch new ideas. They 

have also created an “idea listserv” where any 

employee can suggest or comment on an idea. 

This, they believe, is moving their organization 

towards virtual leadership (Criswell and 

Martin, 2007).

Another CCL online survey of 1,131 global leaders addressed the changing nature of leadership 

and primary challenges faced by management 

consumers. 

• Among other findings, 65 percent of the 

respondents believed that there will be a talent 

crisis in the next five years and identified 
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 13

talent acquisition and talent development as 

primary needs. 

• Also cited were needs for greater emphasis on 

collaboration for developing a capacity to deal 

with change and for building effective teams 

(Martin et al., 2007).

The above are only a few of the examples that show 

how private sector industries are changing practices to respond to changing needs. Obviously, 

they do not function within the confines of civil 

service agencies so some of their more subjective undertakings may not be feasible within the 

public sector. However, policing can benefit by 

adopting some of these progressive ideas, particularly those relating to supervisory training 

and communication skills. Within that context, 

IACP is starting to include courses on managing 

this new generation in their training offerings.

Clearly, the best and the brightest of the new generation of contemporary employees need to be 

retained and groomed for leadership. The case 

can be made that American policing faces challenges similar to those of the private sector, and 

that police leadership needs to confront these 

issues to avoid a critical shortage of effective 

leaders in the not too distant future. In fact, some 

police executives have started to do just that and 

are introducing change in their organizations.

Promising Practices From Police Executives

Despite a dearth of research that specifically 

addresses this type of organizational change in 

policing, American policing is not taking a backseat in this new era. In fact, some police leaders 

have started to make changes that address both 

the needs and the talents of the new generation, 

such as involving them in community engagement and problem solving and encouraging use 

of social media to get realtime information to 

the public. For example, online electronic communication tools such as YouTube, Facebook 

and Twitter are being integrated into many government agencies and police organizations and 

provide new avenues for interacting with the 

public (Hermann, 2009).

At the administrative and operational levels, substantive changes were described in a Roundtable 

Discussion on New Generation officers that took 

place in Seattle in October 2008, sponsored by the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

U.S. Department of Justice. Of the 25 police executives who participated, many expressed growing 

awareness of the need to change their systems not 

only to accommodate employees but also to create more effective organizations. Many are trying 

new approaches that would have been unheard 

of just a short time ago.

Police executives participating in that discussion 

agreed on the following practices:3

• Creating new processes for recruit orientation 

that devote significant time to the “front 

end” of the system similar to college and 

professional “first-year experience” programs 

designed to prevent attrition.

3

 This information has now been summarized in a document 

funded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

Practitioner Perspectives: Community Policing in a Democracy

(Scrivner, 2010).
14 | New Perspectives in Policing

• A statewide law enforcement training program 

is currently testing a two-week residential 

pre-academy orientation that involves teambuilding exercises, leadership, ethics, fiscal 

integrity and physical fitness. Although this 

represents a sizable investment in upfront 

staffing, the program reports that those who 

are unsuited for the career generally self-select 

out before they begin the expensive process of 

training and completing the probationary year 

only to walk away from the job.

• Finding ways to allow creative officers to 

do their best work and encouraging them 

to use problem-solving approaches and to 

experiment with technological tools to create 

more efficient and effective law enforcement 

responses.

• Examples of initiating internal changes so 

that the department is more responsive to line 

officers are reflected in the following:

n Developing targeted training programs 

to expose officers to specialized training 

early in their careers.

n Creating what one department called 

“renaissance” officers by equipping 

them with knowledge, and eventually 

experiences, in a range of different 

specialties.

n Enhancing new officer awareness as to 

how law enforcement is evolving and the 

challenges it will present, as well as the 

opportunity to make a difference.

n Creating new and different types of jobs 

within the profession such as predictive 

analytics or cybercrime units.

n Providing early and in-depth career 

exposure to the skills that officers will 

need to develop to function in those new 

jobs as well as others.

• Changing discipline systems so that a goal 

of behavior change is achieved in contrast 

to the traditional “days off” model and with 

a stronger emphasis on strategic discipline — 

which emphasizes strategies to change and 

correct behavior rather than simply imposing 

a penalty.

• Making employees part of the choice to 

change their behavior and grooming them to 

accept greater responsibility.

• Teaching value-based decision-making at the 

academy rather than focusing only on rulebound curricula.

• Incorporating value-based review boards 

that examine violations through the lens of 

department values in contrast to violations of 

specific rules or policies.

• Creating a different mindset at the executive 

level and requiring leadership development 

that stresses the need for different commandlevel thinking in order to facilitate progress.

• Pushing leadership down throughout the 

organization as opposed to being controlled 

solely by senior staff.
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 15

Drivers of Change: Challenge or 

Opportunity for Police Leadership?

Modern police leadership continues to evolve 

and is introducing new business models that 

address some of the issues important to a workforce impacted by the contemporary employee 

cohort and their emphasis on using technology 

in unprecedented ways. Many police leaders 

recognize that balancing complex demands is 

but one role of the modern leader and that multilayered bureaucratic police departments will 

have to learn to keep pace with information and 

data that move at the speed of light and with the 

new technologies that are changing how they 

do business. Just as private sector entities are 

being transformed to adjust to their environment, 

American policing will need to do the same in 

order to operate in ways that are consistent with 

the needs of the contemporary employee. This is 

particularly noted in the instance of union officials, who previously relied on monolithic models 

of power in negotiation, starting to adopt interestbased negotiation models that allow for win-win 

bargaining. The result of this shift in bargaining 

process has given employees (union members) 

more ownership in the terms and conditions of 

employment. In these situations, where healthy 

labor relations exist, a shared process in organizational planning is becoming the cornerstone of 

progress quite in contrast to past union business 

models.

Many police leaders also have developed an 

appreciation for how organizations can be 

informed by research that supports different 

types of law enforcement approaches. Departures 

from the past include current references to 

intelligence-led, evidence-based or predictive 

policing that attempt to introduce greater efficiencies and enhance effectiveness. These also may 

incorporate new skills brought to the workplace 

by contemporary employees or could integrate 

civilian personnel to reduce the cost impact of 

sworn officers. Further, the wave of the future for 

the modern police organization may be reflected 

in the development of new skill sets such as stronger analytic capacity, information technology 

specialists, forensic computer experts, strategic 

planners and change management specialists, 

many of which are consistent with the interests 

and skills of the contemporary employee. Other 

adaptations will be reflected in changes in police 

discipline systems, signifying a shift from harsh 

punishment that research tells us does not stop 

dysfunctional behavior to systems based on values, logic and behavior modification. Finally, the 

mentality of “do as I say,” which once worked in 

factories and paramilitary settings, no longer 

hits the target, particularly as recruits with high 

potential whom leaders seek to mentor and retain 

come into the workforce. 

We reiterate that a successful response to the 

changes and challenges we have discussed also 

will need to start with a change in the middle 

management (or first-line supervisory) dynamic 

and build from there. Increasingly, police 

leadership has veered away from hiring blind, 

paramilitary followers of decades past and now 

seeks to attract employees with a strong interest in problem solving, often but not always 

autonomously. These employees have different 
16 | New Perspectives in Policing

expectations and anticipate that they will be 

mentored and given the dignity, authority and 

discretion to solve problems. But in many police 

departments, little or no investment is made 

in training first-line supervisors in the art and 

method of mentorship or coaching. Successful 

organizational leadership in an agency focused 

on community-oriented or problem-solving 

policing must incorporate a break from complacent first-line supervision and officer evaluation 

processes that measure job performance based 

on activity statistics or ticket quotas. Instead, a 

real investment must be made in training for 

supervisors that emphasizes guidance through 

mentoring. Leadership through instruction, education, logic, and persuasion are the “power tools” 

of contemporary police leadership ... not “do as I 

say” ... and they are consistent with the needs of 

the new generation of contemporary employees. 

Preparing Police Leadership for 

the Future — Requisite Skills

Given our emphasis on police leadership challenges being driven by the growing cohort of 

contemporary employees and the expansion of 

technology in the world around us, the question follows: What type of leadership skills will 

be needed for law enforcement agencies of the 

future? The following provides a brief profile 

of how we see a modern police leader and the 

requisite skills that will be needed to advance 

the organization and meet challenges. Some of 

the information is derived from organizational 

theorists; some comes from discussions with 

Executive Session participants and other police 

leaders. All of these skills and characteristics 

have strong implications for the future of police 

management training. 

• Global perspective. In an era where technology, financial institutions and terrorist 

threats are constructed on global landscapes, 

a greater awareness and knowledge of global 

history, and connectivity to global issues and 

their impact on crime, will all be necessary 

in that crime of the future will also be global 

and supported by a strong technological base 

(Clarke and Knake, 2010).

• Creativity. Leadership authority Ronald 

Heifetz (1994) contends that problems that 

are outside the norm necessitate a thought 

process that demands creativity and the 

total re-engineering of new concepts. Future 

police executives will need to adapt that type 

of thinking and be creative to an extent not 

needed in the past. They will need to be “big 

picture” executives.

• Change management and adaptivity.

Because the next two decades will be driven by 

dynamic changes to the traditional concepts 

of policing, future police executives will need 

to be aware of global shifts and technology 

trends and have the ability to adapt and move 

organizations to end points, more so than 

those of the past. As with other organizations, 

globalization, new technology and greater 

transparency have combined to “upend the 

business environment” (Reeves and Deimler, 

2011). Hence, management training will need 

to focus on the skills needed for big picture 

thinking and change management in order to 
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 17

prepare leaders to function in the changing 

environment.

• Comfort in the midst of independence. 

Effective future leaders will need to be at ease 

in an organization where workers demand 

autonomy and opportunities to be creative, 

signature requirements of the new generation 

of contemporary employees. Hence, police 

organizations will need to flatten to allow 

for creating the balance between creative 

autonomy and the formality of traditional 

culture. 

• Strong oral and written communication. 

Because change will be so rapid, the 

contemporary executive will need to develop 

strong oral communication skills in order 

to explain complex theories in simple 

forms. Persuasion methods should be 

encouraged for purposes of allowing input 

and developing logical dialogue. This fine art 

of communication will be required in a culture 

where attribution questions are focused on 

those in authority. 

• Mastering technological trends. The future 

police executive will need to anticipate 

how current changes in technologies will 

intersect with constitutional law and must 

prepare the agency to respond appropriately 

(i.e., the ability to see through walls and 

the concurrent impact on illegal searches 

and seizures; managing access to multiple 

databases to solve crimes while protecting 

sensitive information). Given these trends, it 

is likely that the very nature and fundamental 

concepts of what law enforcement does 

will continue to be vigorously questioned 

and debated. Police leadership will need 

to be prepared to respond appropriately to 

concerns raised by these practices.

• Architect of change. The contemporary leader 

will need to be a trendsetter and innovator. 

Taking lessons learned from other industries 

will be important to creating and using societal 

and organizational shifts in law enforcement 

in ways not previously contemplated. 

• An understanding of research methods. 

Successful contemporary leaders must 

become comfortable with research analysis 

and interpretation. Basic criminological 

theory and understanding should be 

supplemented by exposure to other fields of 

study, which may include holding progressive 

and advanced degrees. Moreover, stronger 

partnerships with colleges and universities 

will be required to facilitate ongoing, in-depth 

empirical research on operational methods 

and decision-making. 

• Striking a balance: Integrating strategy, 

culture and political influences. The nexus of 

strategy, culture (both internal and external) 

and political influences was identified as 

critical to contemporary leadership by a 

group of prominent police executives. They 

framed this nexus as key to the executive 

mindset that is needed for solving problems, 

circumventing obstacles to performance, and 

moving organizations forward in a changing 

world. Considering new police strategies, 

reviewing use of best practices, managing 

community-police crises, and retaining new 
18 | New Perspectives in Policing

talent brought by the contemporary employee 

to the organization all can be considered 

within this intersecting, dynamic framework. 

It provides something of a roadmap that 

incorporates strategy, culture and political 

influences into an executive model to help 

clarify where the organization needs to go to 

accomplish its mission; or, in other instances, 

what an organization needs to do to recover 

from crisis (Scrivner, 2008).

Conclusions

The profession of policing and public safety 

continues to confront new challenges that also 

present a wealth of opportunities for initiating 

substantive change. As evidenced by the work of 

the Executive Sessions, police leadership today 

may be better positioned to address them in ways 

that benefit the field and that maintain American 

police leaders’ position at the forefront of the 

profession. 

Today’s police leaders were trained to operate in 

an ingrained bureaucratic structure. This training, the resulting organizational culture and 

fixed attitudes present conditions similar to those 

in the auto industry a few short years ago. Many 

police leaders, however, have seen the need to 

alter these traditions in favor of becoming more 

flexible and adaptive to the world we currently 

live in and to the people with whom we work. 

Their efforts will be the key to preventing systemic 

failure in policing similar to what has occurred in 

some segments of the private sector. Today’s leaders and tomorrow’s visionaries will continue to 

need a strong foundation anchored in the values 

of credibility, truth, high ethical standards and 

sound morals. Further, leaders will always be 

selected for their abilities to make sound, cogent 

and well-thought-out decisions. Answering the 

wakeup call to continuously adapt and improve 

the profession will be one of those decisions. 

References

Alsop, Ron. 2008. The Trophy Kids Grow Up. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Bayley, D.H., and C. Nixon. 2010. The Changing 

Police Environment, 1985-2008. New Perspectives 

in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. NCJ 230576.

Beck, J., and M. Wade, 2004. Got Game: How the 

Gamer Generation Is Reshaping Business Forever. 

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Clarke, R.A., and R.K. Knake. 2010. Cyber War: The 

Next Threat to National Security and What to Do 

About It. New York: HarperCollins.

Criswell, C., and A. Martin. 2007. 10 Trends — A 

Study of Senior Executives’ Views on the Future. 

A CCL Research White Paper. Greensboro, N.C.: 

Center for Creative Leadership.

Erickson, T.J. 2010. “The Leaders We Need Now.” 

Harvard Business Review (May): 62-66.

Gascón, G., and T. Foglesong. 2010. Making 

Policing More Affordable: Managing Costs and 

Measuring Value in Policing. New Perspectives 

in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World | 19

Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. NCJ 231096.

Geller, W.A., and G. Swanger. 1995. Managing 

Innovation in Policing. Washington, D.C.: Police 

Executive Research Forum.

Harrison, B. 2007. “Gamers, Millennials, and 

Generation Next: Implications for Policing.” 

Police Chief 74 (10) (October).

Heifetz, R.A. 1994. Leadership Without Easy 

Answers. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Hermann, P. 2009. “Baltimore Police Twitter a 

Shooting.” Baltimore Sun (March 20). Available 

online: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/

news/crime/blog/2009/03/baltimore_police_

twittered_a_s.html.

Hicks, R., and K. Hicks. 1999. Boomers, Xers, and 

Other Strangers. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.

Hite, B. 2008. “Employers Rethink How They 

Give Feedback: In Response to Young Workers’ 

Demands, Companies Are Beginning to Provide 

More Detailed Guidance on Job Performance.” 

Wall Street Journal (October 13).

Koper, C.S., E. Maguire and G.E. Moore. 2001. 

Hiring and Retention Issues in Police Agencies: 

Readings on the Determinants of Police Strength, 

Hiring and the Retention of Officers and the 

Federal COPS Program. Washington, D.C.: Urban 

Institute.

KRC Research. 2009. “Millennials in Automotive 

Survey, 2009.” Survey prepared for Microsoft by 

KRC Research. Washington, D.C.: KRC Research. 

Martin, A., with P. Willburn, P. Morrow, K. 

Downing, and C. Criswell. 2007. What’s Next? 

The 2007 Changing Nature of Leadership Survey.

A CCL Research White Paper. Greensboro, N.C.: 

Center for Creative Leadership.

Pew Research Center. 2007. How Young People 

View Their Lives, Futures, and Politics: A Portrait of 

Generation Next. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research 

Center.

Reeves, M., and M. Deimler. 2011. “Adaptability: 

The New Competitive Advantage.” Harvard 

Business Review (July-August): 135-141.

Rein, L. 2010. “Next Gen Finds Its Place in Federal 

Workforce.” Washington Post (August 7): A1-A4.

Rogler, L.H. 2002. “Historical Generations and 

Psychology.” American Psychologist 57 (12): 

1013-1023.

Rozas, A. 2008. “Random Alcohol Testing 

Proposed for Chicago Police Officers Who Fire 

Their Weapons.” Chicago Tribune (June 14). 

Scriv ner, E. 2005. Innovations in Police 

Recruitment and Hiring. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services. 
20 | New Perspectives in Policing

Scrivner, E. 2008. Public Safety Leadership 

Development: A 21st Century Imperative. New 

York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Scrivner, E. 2010. Practitioner Perspectives: 

Community Policing in a Democracy, ed. A.A. 

Pearsall and J.E. Beres. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services. 

Senge, P., B. Smith, N. Kruschwitz, J. Laur and S. 

Schley. 2008. The Necessary Revolution. New York: 

Broadway Books.

Sklansky, D.A. 2011. The Persistent Pull of Police 

Professionalism. New Perspectives in Policing 

Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 232676.

Sparrow, M. 2011. Governing Science. New 

Perspectives in Policing Bulletin. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice. NCJ 232179.

Stone, C., and J. Travis. 2011. Toward a New 

Professionalism in Policing. New Perspectives 

in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. NCJ 232359.

Sullivan, B. 2004. “Police Supervision in the 21st 

Century: Can Traditional Work Standards and the 

Contemporary Employee Coexist?” Police Chief 

71 (10) (October).

Tulgan, B. 2000. Managing Generation X. New 

York: W.W. Norton.

Weisburd, D., and P. Neyroud. 2011. Police Science: 

Toward a New Paradigm. New Perspectives 

in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. NCJ 228922.

Author Note

Anthony W. Batts, D.P.A., is a research fellow with 

the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and 

former Chief of Police, Long Beach and Oakland, 

Calif. Sean Michael Smoot is Director and Chief 

Legal Counsel, Police Benevolent and Protective 

Association of Illinois. Ellen Scrivner is National 

High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Director, 

Office of State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, Office of 

National Drug Control Policy, and former Deputy 

Director, National Institute of Justice. 



U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 238338

Members of the Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety

Chief George Gascón, San Francisco 

Police Department 

Mr. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of 

National Drug Control Policy 

Chief Cathy Lanier, Washington, D.C. 

Metropolitan Police Department 

Dr. John H. Laub, Director, National 

Institute of Justice

Ms. Adrian Nicole LeBlanc, Visiting 

Scholar, New York University 

Professor Tracey Meares, Walton Hale 

Hamilton Professor of Law, Yale Law School 

Chief Constable Peter Neyroud, Chief 

Executive, National Policing Improvement 

Agency (U.K.) 

Ms. Christine Nixon, Chair, Victorian 

Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery 

Authority (Australia) 

Chief Richard Pennington, Atlanta Police 

Department 

Mayor Jerry Sanders, City of San Diego 

Professor David Sklansky, Professor of 

Law, Faculty Co-Chair of the Berkeley Center 

for Criminal Justice, University of California, 

Berkeley, School of Law 

Mr. Sean Smoot, Director and Chief Legal 

Counsel, Police Benevolent and Protective 

Association of Illinois 

Professor Malcolm Sparrow, Professor of 

Practice of Public Management, Kennedy 

School of Government, Harvard University 

Chief Darrel Stephens, CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department (retired) 

Professor Christopher Stone, Guggenheim 

Professor of the Practice of Criminal Justice, 

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University 

Mr. Jeremy Travis, President, John Jay 

College of Criminal Justice 

Mr. Rick VanHouten, President, Fort Worth 

Police Association 

Professor David Weisburd, Walter E. Meyer 

Professor of Law and Criminal Justice; 

Director, Institute of Criminology, Faculty

of Law, The Hebrew University; and 

Distinguished Professor, Department of 

Criminology, Law and Society, George 

Mason University 

Dr. Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, 

Police Executive Research Forum

Chief Anthony Batts, Oakland Police 

Department 

Professor David Bayley, Distinguished 

Professor, School of Criminal Justice, 

State University of New York at Albany 

Dr. Anthony Braga, Senior Research 

Associate, Lecturer in Public Policy, 

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and 

Management, Kennedy School of 

Government, Harvard University 

Chief William J. Bratton, Los Angeles 

Police Department 

Chief Ella Bully-Cummings, Detroit Police 

Department (retired) 

Ms. Christine Cole (Facilitator), Executive 

Director, Program in Criminal Justice Policy 

and Management, Kennedy School of 

Government, Harvard University 

Commissioner Edward Davis, Boston 

Police Department 

Chief Ronald Davis, East Palo Alto 

Police Department 

Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee 

Police Department 

Colonel Rick Fuentes, Superintendent, 

New Jersey State Police 

Learn more about the Executive Session at: 

NIJ’s website: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/administration/executive-sessions/welcome.htm

Harvard’s website: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/criminaljustice/executive_sessions/policing.htm

MAILING LABEL AREA 

(5” x 2”) DO NOT PRINT THIS 

AREA (INK NOR VARNISH)

*NCJ~238338*