Editor’s Note: This week’s PoliceOne First Person essay is from PoliceOne Member Timothy Albright, a 19-year veteran LEO and sworn police manager in Northern California. In PoliceOne “First Person” essays, our Members and Columnists candidly share their own unique view of the world. This is a platform from which individual officers can share their own personal insights on issues confronting cops today, as well as opinions, observations, and advice on living life behind the thin blue line. If you want to share your own perspective with other P1 Members, simply send us an e-mail with your story.
By Timothy Albright
Police1 Member
Some time ago I took my family to a professional hockey game. Because they had never been I took the time to explain the basics of the game prior to the first face-off.
I focused on the rules, objectives, time periods, etc. My three children asked appropriate questions and appeared to be excited for what was about to unfold. I did not think to warn them about the physical part of the game, as I did not think it was necessary.
I assumed that part of the game would become obvious in the first few minutes of the initial period and the surprise would simply add excitement to the new experience.
As expected, within the first several minutes of the game two players began to exchange words with each other. Their conversations led to a couple of hard checks (a brutal maneuver which forces an opponent into the glass resulting in incredible noise and glass-shake) into various areas of the glass surrounding the ice.
One could sense the storm approaching.
It became apparent the time was fast approaching and then it happened — almost as if it were choreographed — when the two players, destined to settle their, mutually agreed to a fight through some unspoken hockey language.
Almost as if we were watching a scene from West Side Story they each dropped their hockey sticks, removed their gloves in unison, and began to deliver and absorb closed-fist strikes to the head and face.
My nine year-old looked on in complete disbelief. My other two children looked on with a somewhat disturbing level of intrigue and excitement. They all split their attention between the fight and me, as if they were waiting for me to don my Superman cape and bound onto the ice to break up the fight.
This feeling was born partially from their view of what a day in my work life looked like and the fact the teammates stood around and watched while the referees did the same. Nobody else became involved in the conflict and nobody attempted to break it up.
The crowd volume increased significantly as the testosterone flooded the arena. The referees stood at the ready to step-in should the fight “go to the ice” but otherwise they were ringside spectators. The dance continued until one lost their balance and the fight became hazardous. The referees then stepped in and both players mutually ceased their assaultive action.
They picked up their gear and skated together across the ice to their respective penalty box. The fight was over — the conflict was settled.
This barbaric, yet rich-with-tradition part of the game provided somewhat of an epiphany for me as I had recently had a conversation about conflict in the workplace.
That conversation involved expressing my concerns with recurring conflicts between employees within the department. I was frustrated with the childlike rhetoric that was a part of these conflicts. It was almost as if the parties needed somebody to step in, resolve the conflict for good and redirect their energy toward something more productive.
My nature is to intervene and attempt to employ some level of conflict resolution skills. After all, resolving conflict is what we, as law enforcement professionals, profess to do so well.
We get to the root of the issue, move the conflicted parties to a new understanding or remove the problem from the conflict. We are well-versed in what types of techniques work, which are high-risk, and which are appropriate for given situations.
My nature to engage as peacemaker is a result of my personality, experiences, as well as my formal education. I saw those conflicts as not only an opportunity to intervene, but I felt an obligation to intervene as the resolver of that conflict — the voice of reason, if you will.
I was provided with some very simple, yet empowering words of advice from somebody whose leadership skills I respected immensely: “let them fight.”
What?
It took me some time to recognize there was value in allowing the parties to work out their differences — allowing them to work toward a common resolution.
There was value in the process and if there was an acceptable outcome, that outcome became the bonus. The success of the conflict is not found in simply the end result, as there is certain value in the process of getting to resolution.
Now, I am not advocating allowing those in your organization to engage in a physical confrontation in an effort to settle their differences. I think you should probably work toward avoiding this tactic at all costs. I am also not advocating you ignore your responsibilities to become involved when the conflict significantly impacts the workplace, including affecting uninvolved personnel or the performance of duty.
Having said that, I believe there is certain value to allowing those same subordinates to work out their differences without your guidance, rule-setting or interference.
In simply “letting them fight” there are opportunities for growth by allowing that conflict resolution process to take place, naturally. They will have the opportunity to gain a higher level of satisfaction from the experience when they are able to work through the issues without your involvement.
Much like children who become engaged in conflict with their siblings — if the parent continually intervenes at an early stage, they will not learn their own methods of conflict resolution. They will always look for the parent to come to the rescue them from the uncomfortable.
I would argue this behavior has the opportunity to replicate in the adult world and specifically within the confines of a law enforcement organization. If you, as a leader within your organization, continually rush to the aid of a peer or subordinate, you are doing nothing more than saving them from every conflict.
You are not allowing them to work through these challenges and grow from each experience.
Standing by may feel somewhat uncomfortable at first but trust in the process. Just like the referee at the hockey game, be prepared to step in when the fight goes to the ice but otherwise resist the temptation to routinely come to the aid of conflict. The result will be growth for the employee, less stress on you and the ability to reach a higher level of organizational success.
Timothy Albright is a 19-year veteran LEO with a diverse professional and educational background. He is a sworn police manager in Northern California. Timothy has a criminal justice undergraduate degree and a master’s degree in negotiation and conflict management, with an emphasis on labor management. He is an adjunct university criminal justice supervision and management professor. Timothy also instructs a social media awareness course for public safety personnel wherein he examines the employee as well as the employer’s responsibilities in the intelligent use of social media. He is passionate about developing and mentoring the next generation of law enforcement leaders through pragmatic approaches to everyday leadership challenges. As an instructor, Timothy hopes to demystify the leadership walk within the dynamic law enforcement environment. Timothy can be reached at albrighttim@gmail.com.
