- Post a new discussion related to the topics covered in this module. Your post needs to provide specific lessons learned with examples from this module helping you enhance your leadership capacity at work.
- After posting your discussion, review posts provided by other students in the class and reply to at least one of them.
I found the topics of positive intelligence and saboteurs interesting. Positive intelligence is an area in which we can all improve and the first step is recognizing and addressing saboteurs.
For me, the saboteurs were the biggest takeaway from this module. I can remember numerous times when they have shown up and I let them take over. I will have to work on this myself with the actions that were given in the future.
I recently wrote on a final line of a strategic plan submitted to my department's staff, "We do not need to change for change's sake. Changes that increase efficiency, improve productivity, boost morale, reduce stress, and benefit the City of Opelika are good". After listening to the module, I realized I am that guy. The guy that is resistant to change. I apparently need to do some self-reflecting.
Exercising Positive Intelligence has enabled me to enhance my leadership capacity at work by enabling me to better recognize when I am responding less effectively and helping me to become proactive rather than reactive. For example, I recently found myself dealing with an issue that had been escalating over time due to a lack of communication between two different teams. By taking the time to role-play the situation by putting myself in the shoes of both teams, I was able to better anticipate how each team might react and proactively work towards a resolution before it could become an issue. As a result, I was able to successfully resolve the issue and build better relationships between the two teams in the process.
Deep change is that meaningful change that requires a level of dedication and willingness to put yourself up as a target to those members of our department that are change resistant or are in their own downward spiral. Most change that I have seen departments do are based upon the incremental level of change or as it seems surface level. While there are numerous changes that can occur I really liked the concepts behind why change occurs and the how it occurs.
My organization has been looking at a lot of change lately. Trying to make changes for the modern agency and stop doing things because, "that's the way we've always done it."
Sometimes we fight costs, sometimes we fight tradition, but we have several leaders at the top who will push against the norms and "tradition" to make things better for the agency. The think tanks occur on the daily and I feel good change, either deep or incremental, is on the way.
Some of the worse comments that I have had people tell me when asked why we do what we do, is that statement of “it is the way we have always done it.” My interpretation of this is usually because leaders are resistant to change, are apathetic, or feel burned out and lack the imagination to advance their department.
I agree with the fact that "because it's the way we've always done it" does not work anymore. We have to embrace change and roll with it or get rolled over.
In my organization, change has been a hot topic lately. When morale dwindles, the wounded and bitter spirits begin to want change. Ideas will be thrown amongst the ranks that only identify the problem but is absent of a solution; there is no vision, goals, or action items.
This module provided insight into how the ten saboteurs affect a person's opinions of a situation. As a result, I will be able to enlighten those under me and empower them to come up with some well-thought-out action items for goal planning.
This block was very helpful for identifying my inner saboteurs. I was very interested in identifying the ten outer saboteurs as well. Learning the methods to combat saboteurs from their influences, such as identifying the type of saboteur, shifting the sage, and identifying a friend or foe. Sage is going to be an important tool for me from now on,
Well said Patrick. Before today, sage was just one of those spices in my cabinet I didn't use. I probably still won't use the sage in terms of spice, but in terms of this module I plan to properly sage when needed.
There were several takeaways from this module for me. First is the breakdown between the types of change: incremental vs deep. Regardless of the type, change tends to be a major stressor within our organizations as humans are generally routines based. We become comfortable in the monotony of our routines and complacency sets in. Complacency kills. I’ve learned early on in life that I must be comfortable being uncomfortable. The next takeaway is that of the ten saboteurs. While I understood how our perceptions and fears drive acceptance and decisions, breaking them down in this way was very beneficial for me in my personal growth. The last key takeaway for me was the concept of our inner sage.
I could see the benefit of our inner sage as well. Getting in touch with our inner wisdom and peace of mind is very grounding or center to me and useful.
People are by nature reluctant or fearful of the word or action(s) called change. Most normally get comfortable to the old or right now of ways of doing things because that is what we see easier to do because we get complacent to that way of doing or thinking. Many see change as a negative action when instead we should see the positive and embrace and welcome something new. I believe we are look down on the change initially because we either have little knowledge of the change, the effect the change will have on us as individuals or collectively as a group causing fear of the unknown. I think if the change is presented in a welcoming manor and explained to all the circumstances led up to the need of the incremental or deep change and outline the positive aspects, then people will open up to the change and view it as a positive light and you will have a greater buy in of those that are expected to adopt and execute the change.
While going through to this module of deep change, all I heard in the back of my mind was the moans and groans of most of the law enforcement professionals I know. Over the years that I have been in law enforcement, several changes have taken place. We had an administrative change, uniform change, report writing system change, equipment change, etc. Each change came with its on challenges and kick-backs. We all know change is difficult sometimes, but it’s necessary in most cases because you can’t be stagnant and not be able to move and develop new ideas for the future. Encourage change and new ideas. We can never move forward without taking the first step.
I had to step back and refocus my attention on the direction of whom we were discussing in this lesson. I can see that this is identifying yourself and where your emotional intelligence is. Making incremental and deep changes is necessary for yourself (myself). The small changes, I believe, help keep you on track in life and as job details change. But to make the deep change is to correct yourself, and it is essential; otherwise, we would be stuck on past issues. Now, I am able to focus on fixing the incremental changes by identifying and understanding the ten saboteurs.
I agree. We all need the "change" in order to continue our growth. Change causes us to step outside our comfort zone and use our creative state to accomplish the mission of the change.
Very interesting module and it provided insight to the different levels of resistance that comes with the implementation of change. I’m set in my ways and incremental changes I am ok with, it’s the deep change that has always concerned me. I can be open to most changes but need a little persuading for anything that’s monumental.
Elliot, I am the same and need to work on it. I will need to focus on self-improvement in the arena.
Our agency experienced Deep change early in my career. We went from being a training ground for other agencies to one that attracted qualified, seasoned officers. We began to take pride in being a part of the agency again, and many stopped looking to leave. This change was difficult and took a lot on the command staff and our chief to accomplish. This module reflected many things that I witnessed as this change took place. A command staff was always positive and spread a positive message; their actions and words reflected the desired changes and directions they were taking us. This module has helped me understand how to do the same if needed and always check my alignment.
This module deals with the things we deal with daily as law enforcement leaders. We deal with change, whether it is deep or incremental. Naturally, most people do not change and will try to sabotage that change to keep from having to do it or because they did not come up with the idea. I try not to be a saboteur, but to help with a change if it is for the good of the agency and the people.
In this module, one thing that really hit me was that I allow my Hyperrational saboteur to guide the way I interact with people. I am constantly impatient with the emotions of others.
That is an interesting point, we all seem to have to deal with different types of challenges saboteurs can approach us with or we do to ourselves.
Joseph Spadoni Jr.
The module expressed the importance of how much of an impact a single person could make on an organization through deep changes and positive emotional intelligence. The module gave us three actions that we can use to improve our positive intelligence and five powers we use to express sage. Utilizing these actions and powers will lead to success for ourselves and our teams through improvement and lead to higher levels of personal satisfaction.
Too often progressive change in law enforcement requires moving mountains even for incremental change. I believe this is in part because there are a prohibitive number of influence and impact considerations attached to just about any organization-wide change.
I kept thinking of obstacles for change during this module, but one area I liked was that deep personal change can cause a chain reaction and help others to change as well. We can begin with ourselves and encourage others to change as well.
This lesson was very informative. See that this lesson was focused on the internal and external struggles that leaders deal with on day to day operations. I was able to identify some of the down falls that I have and how to not be my own saboteur.
The lecture focused on change, and struggles we deal with to affect change. Whether it in by internal or external factors. It really shines the light on the fact that change begins with an individual to begin the change, starting with themselves.
I agree and believe the main point of the lesson is that change beings in the individual who has to be empowered to cause a chain reaction.
Jason, I agree. If everyone as an individual can begin the change we will achieve much more positive results with an abundance of people coming together with the changes.
This module discussed change and how we can respond to that change. One thing I have learned is that change is inevitable and we must find ways to respond positively to the change by keeping an open and honest mindset. I really enjoyed the section on the saboteurs and sage. As I was listening to the discussion I realized that I operate in a hyper-achiever, hyper-vigilant, and controller way of thinking most of the time. I will put into practice working on my sage to counteract my way of thinking going forward.
This module discussed the different types of change we encounter in law enforcement. Change will always occur and will, eventually, always be needed as the world evolves. I also enjoyed the section that discussed saboteurs and how we often self-sabotage ourselves by our way of thinking.
I think in law enforcement we become our own saboteurs and change because of it. We must remain focused and positive to make sure the right changes are implemented.
Success has always been one of the biggest downfalls I have observed in myself and others. When you fail at something, you are motivated to put more effort into whatever you are working on. Your mind is open to different ideas, and you are willing to take more risks to achieve your goal. Once people find success with an idea, they lock it in and no longer lock for answers or ideas to improve in that area.
I found the 10 types of saboteurs interesting. I am my harshest critic. I find fault in myself and beat myself up over them. I will definitely use the tools discussed in this module to overcome this type of thinking.
The entire section on positive intelligence, mental sabotage, and saboteurs was enlightening. The more Dr. Long spoke, the more I recognized this behavior in myself both professionally and personally. I appreciate the tools provided in this lesson to combat this type of thinking.
I too begin to recognize these behaviors in myself and have a better understanding of how to handle these situations.
When I first saw saboteurs coming up on the list, I thought of those individuals within the department that sabotage anything that isn’t their ideas. As the lecture continued, I was reminded of the MAGNUS OVEA workshop I attended and how we have our saboteurs. I completed the assessment and compared the results to what I wrote in the workbook from the previous class. Hyper-achiever was still in the top three; however, my other two top saboteurs have changed over the past few years.
I didn't think of this during the sabotage discussion but you make a good point about sabotaging things that aren't someone's idea. I too went back and looked at my personal saboteurs and my top was the same as well.
If I am to be completely honest, this was one of the more difficult modules for me to get through. I had to get up and take several breaks so it took me nearly all of one day. I was lost in so much of what Dr. Long was discussing until he got to the barriers to deep change and then I started picking up. By the time he started in on the saboteurs I was firing on all cylinders again. I began recognizing signs of these saboteurs in my own life (which I guess is the point) and in some of my subordinates. It will be very helpful in understanding them and motivating them toward change in the future.
I too found this very difficult to get through. I also had to take breaks and try and clear my head to be able to understand it all.
I couldn't agree more, Larry,
I have never heard of the ten saboteurs before today. So I began introspecting about how these affect my team and me. It opened my eyes to a better understanding of how change affects people and how I can help them work through it.
The discussion on Saboteurs drew my attention, had me reflecting on change in the past where I can see individuals and maybe myself at times. I also seen Sage, and how these characteristics overcame resistance effectively.
I liked the concept of the 10 types of saboteurs against change. So often in our profession I have seen people try and pick apart change initiatives to the point where we are paralyzed from ever making the change. Knowing the reasons why people resist or fight change can help navigate the way around to get the change off the ground.
I thought this module was very interesting..... I'd be lying if I said I understood it all, but it was interesting. Yes, deep change is complex, and you will meet resistance from within yourself (as second-guessing) and from outside sources. Change is rarely comfortable.
I agree with you Todd, a lot of the concepts were new to me but the concepts were interesting and definitely eye opening upon self reflection.
Deep change and positive emotional intelligence: As discussed in the module, I constantly make incremental changes in my personal and work lives. These incremental changes are easy to plan and monitor. However, when thinking about deep change, I haven’t made deep changes in a very long time. It’s probably been about 30 years since I’ve made irreversible changes. The next deep change I make will probably be retirement.
In thinking about the ten saboteurs’ section, I can see all these personalities in someone I know. I also see some of the saboteurs in my thinking as well. This module will help me to recognize these faults but more importantly how to respond to these saboteurs to create peace of mind and happiness.
Gerald, I like how you put it about recognizing these faults and how to respond to them. Creating peace of mind will definitely lessen the stress aspect of things. Deep change in ourselves doesn't happen too often, but we should make incremental ones often to stay on track with our goals in life.
The saboteur section was informative. I not only found myself diagnosing others, I introspectively looked at my own saboteur behavior. By understanding our own strengths and weaknesses, we can create a plan for ourselves that will lead to greater success in whatever goals we set out to achieve.
Change can be difficult. To admit that change is needed, we must admit that we are doing something wrong. Leaders of change must exhibit the values and beliefs they desire in others to initiate deep change within the organization. Over the course of my career, I have seen several changes that resulted in a lot of positive results within the organization.
While going through the 10 types of saboteurs, I kept thinking of different people that I know that fit into these examples (and which ones I struggle with). I liked the suggestions on how to defeat them and think appropriately in order to better myself.
I felt the same, Andrew, I believe this will help me to better understand myself and what sets me off as well as understanding my peers and subordinates in the future and I will be better prepared to help motivate them through change. Your thoughts are almost exactly like mine.
The section on positive intelligence saboteurs was of great interest to me. Within the list of the ten types of saboteurs, I recognized that I have experience all ten at some point in my life. I identified several that I have and continue to struggle with. Hopefully with the knowledge gained in this module I can turn the tide, gain more positive control, and operate more consistently on the friendly side of my brain.
I agree with you
I appreciated the advice in this module about learning what your saboteurs are so that you are better able to recognize them when they begin to take over. I had taken the saboteur quiz once before, but I found this explanation about what to do with that information much more useful that the last time I took the quiz. I'd be interested in knowing what some of my lieutenants' saboteurs are. I think a lot of conversations and quick decision making could be more effective if everyone on a leadership team knew what their own habits are and were able to recognize the negative ones when they tried to take over. This allows us to know when we need to set those negative impulses aside, and since we are able to look at them more logically, to know when those impulses may in fact be correct.
Agree. I liked the concept that your mind has 2 modes of operation, friendly and enemy, and to constantly be evaluating what mode you are operating in.
The trend always seems to fall on incremental change rather than deep change. With the ever-evolving world of policing and the culture of the community, I believe deep change is required for us to continue to move forward in a positive way. We have to learn how to overcome the fear of deep change to be successful.
When talking about resistance to deep change I'm sure we have all seen someone who attempted to make a change but it was shut down by bureaucratic layers. It's a hard challenge to tackle and most become discouraged with the effort it takes to continue the fight. The idea that anyone in the organization can be a change agent is inspiring. I found the portion on internal saboteurs very interesting. While going over them I saw a few of them that have affected my own ability to make a change. The restless is one of them. I tend to stay busy both at work and in my personal life and rarely take time to just reflect.
Change is an important part of departmental growth. The world around us is changing at such a rapid pace, police departments have no choice but to keep up. To successfully keep up with our changing world, department leaders must create a culture of change. The culture is born out of clear communication before, during, and after change. Change cannot just come down from on high, leaders must collaborate with representative of all stakeholders. Police officers will be much more likely to accept change if they fully understand the purpose, goals, planning process, and implementation direction. Additionally, the public will accept change when transparency and collaboration is utilized during rollout. Change is difficult even in the best of times, but when officers understand change will be the culture, they may be more willing to buy-in and directly participate in the change process.
I agree with everything you're saying. I would add that creating a "culture of change" also involves empowering our people at lower levels to make small changes in their own units. Our processes of implementing change often involve so many steps and top-down approvals that these steps become barriers to any change that isn't coming out of crisis mode. We need for our units and sections to be able to try things out, expand them if they work or dump them of they don't. However, when any change takes multiple levels of approvals, low-level experimentation with change tends not to happen. Instead, change doesn't happen until it's too late and some crisis necessitates changes that can't be walked back if they aren't very good. On the other hand, with a full understanding of goals, core values and principles, and some limiting buffers, lower levels of leaders can be empowered to try things out in their own units and implement best practices learned from their people. This helps to make changes from the bottom up (which means better buy-in), to make change incremental and experimental because changes are not coming from crisis as often, and to establish a culture of change.
I sympathize with the challenge of creating a change culture in an agency the size of OCPD. It will be hard enough to operationalize in a small agency of less than seventy employees, which is much more nimble.
The discussion of incremental change verse deep change is an important concept to understand. It is far easier to make incremental changes within an organization than deep change. Deep change is often met with resistance, simply because many may not see the need for change or have an overpowering fear of change. The idea that deep change starts with individual change was encouraging to me. It means that an individual can be a change agent within their organization if they choose to. This change can and should come from any level. If the organization is healthy it will allow change to come from the bottom up.
The concept that one person has the power to influence deep change is encouraging. Clearly, the process will be difficult and is not without risk. I also appreciated the idea of allowing change to come from the bottom up. I believe it is essential to allow innovated ideas to come from all levels of the organization. An individual's rank and length of service should not halt their ability to help the organization grow.
This is a great post. The concept that one person has the power to influence deep change within an organization is very encouraging. The concept of empowering everyone to be a change agent regardless of their status within the organization is not only a refreshing concept it is one that is long due. Many great ideas come from those that have their boots on the ground doing the work.
George I agree, from my perspective, change that has ownership has always been more efficient to impose, even when bumps are hit.
It seems like many of the ideas presented in this module are really beginning to overlap and be reiterated. Communication and collaboration come to mind when attempting change. A single person can engage in change, but the lift gets much easier when multiple people are all pulling in the same direction. I hope we are not in a place where any one person must push change through all by themselves, but I am fully aware there are instances where few if any want to put forth the effort to propose and implement change. I am encouraged by where our agency is going, and I am excited to see the change we have on deck as well as the change currently at the plate.
I liked the thought that one person can change an entire organization. The first stage, personal change, where you must focus individually before you can focus on the organization goes back to the recurring theme of self care and self monitoring. Again, for any change we must start with ourselves to make sure we are in a healthy state before we can be of any good to others or the organization as a whole. The fear of the unknown and the uncertainty of the risk and cost are two areas we must address because once we do, we can help others overcome the same fears in the process of change. We cannot afford to get lost and without confidence in a time of change. If we do, nothing will change and we fall into the old practices.
Speaking of deep change is something that I feel not many people would want to do. First I think none of us want to believe that we need a deep change, as was mentioned in the lesson. The need for it is probably the hardest for us to accept. Once accepting that we need a deep change the steps that are listed will go a long way toward getting the outcome that we need. Organizational deep change is an issue that will take many people getting involved to get around the 4 resistances mentioned. However it is something that can be done with time and energy.
When it comes to “deep change,” it sounds so intimidating. This module broke down the importance of significant change and incremental change. Change is something that we as humans seem to resist at the best times, and “deep change” can conjure up images of deep resistance. Through the years, generations will change. Therefore change will come to any organization. Law enforcement agencies will constantly change because laws are always changing and overturned. Things accepted as crimes years ago are not seen as not being a crime today. Every agency has to change eventually are they will fall under a false narrative that change is not needed.
I agree deep change sounds intimidating. When defining incremental change, it was a much easier process to digest and accept. The explanations of deep change and personal change were challenging topics. Thinking about the resistance I have seen towards small changes, I expect the resistance to be even greater for deep change both personal and organizationally.
As I listened to Dr. Long’s module, I enjoyed the talk about incremental and deep change. One thing I waited for and it wasn’t discussed was what if there isn’t always the need for change? What if the organization is doing great, fulfilling the mission, and meeting its values? Change is needed and I am enjoying learning about the types and methods, but I don’t believe that all things I am doing need a deep change, no my agency. In some ways, absolutely.
Excellent point, Mahan, but change will always come when new leadership gets involved. As the years go by, the generations change, and their views are different. Our sheriff took over in 1995, and he has brought the sheriff's office a very long way and still doing so. Though we have a great department, things will continue to change for the better. Today's training makes us have to be ok with change, but that is due to good leadership. Great post!
I think this is where we have to be careful and deliberate. Change for progress and advancement, whether ourselves or the agency, is necessary while it may not always be comfortable. But, on the other hand, I believe change for the sake of change without purpose is sabotage in itself
Change is something that has to occur for improvement of the agency and individual. Most people generally fear change because they are afraid of the unknown. You have to have your people buy-in with the change; they need to know the why and how it will affect them. I really found the 10 types of saboteurs very interesting. I have never heard of them before but after hearing the descriptions of them, I can relate to a couple of them. I will have to work on the three actions to improve public intelligence Dr. Lloyd discussed: weaken saboteurs, shift to sage and identify friendly vs enemy modes.
I agree. I too found the portion on saboteurs interesting and could relate to them. I think we all should work to improve our positive intelligence. I also think most officers not only fear change because of the unknown but they also become tired of dealing with the resistance, become discouraged and give up.
I agree Kim. Change is inevitable and not always for the bad. Change can have positive effects on an agency. I agree change is resisted when the impact and the reason are unknown. We must keep our team informed when change is coming.
Even the smallest changes in an agency can be difficult. Many people resist change out of fear of the unknown. I think clear communication can help the transition, but it will not eliminate all pushback. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to changes. We have to recognize these sabotaging thoughts and pursue a positive emotion toward the need for change. As leaders, we must accept the need for changes because changes are inevitable. Change creates growth and we all must grow to become better individuals, leaders, teams, and organizations. To improve our EQ, we need to weaken saboteurs, go into the sage mode, and identify friendly versus enemy modes.
Wow, I have really taken a lot from this module. The section I learned the most from are my internal saboteurs. I have always looked at others sabotaging my actions, but I can clearly see how I have been limiting myself so much without realizing it. I have having they explained how to identify them and how to effectively overcome them so they don't have such an impact on our lives. Taking the optional assessment really opened my eyes as well.
Dustin, I also was surprised by the information in this model. The internal saboteurs was the most interesting section for me. I was able to identify areas I need to improve as well as the actions to complete the change.
I found this module very fascinating and I started to look back on our leadership at my police department. We got a new chief earlier this year and we are in the process of doing Deep Change. The new chief has a vision which is large in scope of the future. He wants to change the culture within the department and develop better ways of doing things. Our past chief, believed in incremental changes and believed in doing things the way it was in the past. He focused on step by step approaches verses taking risks for the betterment of the department. This module helped me look at each approach differently.
Jonathan - We had a Chief a few years back that attempted a deep change in our organization. However the way he went about it, no one was willing to work with or buy-in to. In the end he found that the city, the agency nor the leadership in the council and mayor were willing to go along with the deep change and he was replaced. Seeing how the deep change attempt failed was definitely eye opening and made us realize how difficult a task that can be.
The section on Incremental vs Deep Change was very eye opening. It put a lot of things into perspective as far as how we have traditionally done things in law enforcement as opposed to how we should do them if we really want to see an impact. Should the time and need come, I hope I find myself with the fortitude to instigate and facilitate the deep change necessary in an agency.
Personal change is one of the most difficult challenges we experience in life. From experience, change is something we all desire and strive for in our daily lives. As a leader this may involve abandoning a bad habit or developing a new skill. Many leaders resist change within their organizations due to fear of the unknown. Having the courage and energy to change ourselves is the key to success. As a leader he/she must make the choice to change. If change is not managed, change will mismanage us.
Your right, Joey. I had a friend of mine that was running a private business that he took over from his father, and let me just say it was getting the better of him. One day I was at his office and his dad busted in. His dad didn't say anything other than "You better start handling your business and quit letting your business handle you!", before he turned around and walked out. This was truly some of the best advice I've ever heard and I think it applies here. Change will eventually happen, either manage it or it will manage you.
Incremental change and Deep change is something that happens in any organization. The only way to really progress with any organization is to implement change as the situation dictates it. Deep change may be the best option in order to improve the organization in meeting and exceeding the needs of the department. If the Incremental change has not made the difference needed then Deep Change should be the next option and will be the way to address the issues that the agency may be facing.
These are the only ways to address issues within the agency but if one doesn't work, we have to try the other way rather than just give up on the change.
Well said. "change as the situation dictates it." I agree change may be needed, but when and where are the keys to whether the change has a lasting effect. I have seen incremental change before for the sake of change, and it has a temporary impact but was not long-lasting. Leaders need to decide when, how, and why change is to be applied.
I have found that most people become comfortable in their job and don't want to change or even grow with their position. This module helped explain what thoughts those people may be having and how I could help get them passed those thoughts. This module really helped me understand the need for deep change or incremental change. We can't allow the fear of the unknown or the fear of the result drive us away from change and stay status quo. As my Father in Law once said, you gotta risk it for the biscuit. Having the courage to take risks will propel the organization forward and prevent the organization from eroding slowly.
Tyler, you are correct. People become comfortable and don't want to change. People often times fear change even when they will grow from it. I love your father-in-law's quote, "you gotta risk it for the biscuit."
Fear of the unknown is the greatest factor leading to situations remaining as is. We as humans get comfortable and it goes against our nature to be uncomfortable. Having the courage to take risk and get into that uncomfortable area is what separates the high achievers from the rest of us. That’s where understanding incremental change vs. deep change can help. If we can sustain the incremental change long enough it becomes routine and far less scary.
Curtis, I could not agree with you more. To manage fear, one must identify areas within their control, make step by step plans, and practice mindfulness to ground themselves in the present.
There was a lot of useful information discussing the difference between incremental change and deep change. I've experienced and seen a lot of incremental change throughout my career. Incremental change usually evolves slowly in a systematic and predictable way. It was usually used to improve the way certain things are done. Deep change involves changing every aspect of the alignment of an organization and changing the way we do things. I've experienced this once in my career. Even though it was difficult, I've seen how a new chief in my organization was able to completely change a small-town police department with low efficiency evolve into a more modern technological advance and highly efficient and top-performing department in our county. It was a great example of deep change.
Glenn, I also experienced deep change once in my career where the Sheriff of a small-sized agency completely realigned the organization and culture to evolve into a mid-sized top-performing agency. It was a difficult process to go through but in retrospect, being part of the result is something to be proud of.
At any level within an agency if you are challenged with performing deep change there will be an inherent fear of the unknown. We all have bosses and that goes all the way to the top. A police Chief at a municipality basically works for the Mayor where as a Sheriff is an elected official. Unpopular change can cause dramatic repercussions to their lively hood and their agency. However having the vison and mission in mind Deep change is an essential requirement for the evolution of our profession. Hence the call across the nation for Police Reform. We are currently living through some major systemic Deep change in this profession.
As you mentioned, we all have a boss, but sometimes the deep change isn't going to align with the public or a city council. Or, the public or council may be looking for a deep change that doesn't align with the head of an agency, or police culture on the whole, either positively or negatively. I think those are the moments, as police leaders we have to decide if this is the hill we die on, or do we live to fight another day.
I agree. Change is inevitable and incumbent on leaders to facilitate. Deep change will come with its problems, however, imagine the consequences for those leaders should they not make those changes when needed. Workplace culture becomes an issue, retention becomes an issue, and public perception becomes an issue.
Something I found interesting in this module was when Dr. Larry Long said that one person can make change within an organization. This was covering deep personal change. I found it interesting because I truly believed that it takes the whole administration team to make a change within the organization; however, I have seen changes made based on individual ideas and actions. This inspired me to start looking within myself and finding areas that I can change that would benefit my agency. I think this type of mindset would also help motivate my crew and set a good example.
Jared i agree as well that this module has made me look internally at "me" as a change agent for the command. Sometimes the changes we consider small cause the ripple effect that bring about major changes in an agency.
I agree, group energy has seemed to be the path for change. However, I think this process speaks more about having the courage to initiate the change. It is hard to look at yourself and say, "Yes, I am broken." In turn, it is even harder to say the organization is broken. This is where it is important for all to put aside ego and focus on the betterment of the organization. When we can do this deeper change is possible.
I found this module to be quite informative with the differences between incremental and deep changes and the inherent risks/awards. My agency has seen several incremental changes since a change of command a few years ago. Most were accepted by officers as they felt the benefits of the changes. We also have experienced deep change in our vision and philosophy which took a lot more time to achieve as well as buy in from officers used to "Doing it the old way". It was rough for awhile but the deep change was well worth it and we now have a better relationship with the public because of it.
That is a good example of each change. I imagine those types of changes are usually seen at agencies after there is a change in leadership. So far I have worked for 2 Chiefs at 2 different agencies so I have not experienced that change
This module really hits on the one thing all Law Enforcement Officers absolutely hat and that is CHANGE! Deep change is a long term permanent change. This will require the leader, yourself to be confident in the change, to get the other to buy in and have a reason why this is happening. You can show those you lead that you have confidence in making deep changes by making incremental changes and seeing them through.
As we’ve discussed in the past, the role of a transformational leader and the constant need for change in our organizations, I found this module to be more in depth in defining change and the resistance we face during change. I’ve always assumed, at least for myself, that I could not make change happen without a group to support the effort. Unfortunately I feel my division needs Deep Change to turn things around, the culture has almost become toxic. I really liked the assessment and look forward to the challenge of increasing my EQ & PQ.
Jacqueline, you are absolutely correct when it comes to needing support when making changes. You can come up with great ideas for change but if those who are suppose to implement the change doesn't support it, it will never come to be.
We are not immune from changing with society expectations. Sometimes those may be incremental changes and tweaks to daily routines. Taking on deep change requires more thought, planning and proper timing, but can also be very good for an agency. Change can be difficult if we allow it to be difficult and don't have proper strategies in place. We must avoid sabotaging change ourselves and it all begins with personal change.
The Saboteur Assessment Quiz was insightful – and mostly accurate for me. Reading through the results provided great insight into what I do and got me thinking about how I can change. My two highest categories were mostly as expected. I clearly have some work to accomplish to reduce some of my saboteurs as they interfere with self and the organization, not to mention my family and personal life! If you didn’t do the quiz – I highly suggest going back and completing it!
I'm sure we can all agree that deep change is difficult to achieve in law enforcement. As we learn that deep change takes a new way of thinking and behaving. It is important to remember that sometimes deep change can be worth the risk, and as the new routine and pattern slowly become accepted it will become the new norm. We also learn to be ready for resistance, preparation and research and timing are essential to as smooth transition as possible.
Change is always necessary to adapt to an evolving society. Law enforcement is no different and agencies are often required to make incremental changes to adjust, but they may also have to undertake deep and massive changes. This module was very insightful to me as I do struggle with my internal saboteurs and this will help me to recognize and counter them.
I enjoy the Saboteurs assessment and lecture. For the simple fact, we can all do some self reflection to keep us grounded, humble, and to better ourselves. We tend to blame others or some type of outside entity for our wrong doings. How about we start with ourselves and look internally and make a change. A times we are our own saboteurs.
I agree Kevin. I will definitely take what I learned from this lesson and apply it internally.
I agree with you excellent point. unfortunately it seems that it is difficult to see when we sabotage ourselves. its definitely important to self analyze and make adjustment to ourselves before we can reach elsewhere.
I couldn't agree with you more Kevin! I really was able to identify with some of the saboteurs and I know what I need to do to work on improvement.
Change is inevitable and necessary. Sometimes incremental changes will work but sometimes we must make deep changes. One of the concepts I learned from this module is we must be willing to first make the change at a personal level. If we are not willing to make the change ourselves and abide by the change, how can we expect others or the agency too.
You are correct in saying that change is inevitable. When we see that Incremental change is not working, then Deep change may be the answer to the problem. Personal change is the beginning of making the change which may be needed within the organization. Self-reflection is the eye opener that may lead to better things to come and is the best start when assessing which type of change needs to happen.
Change is tough in any organization, and so many personnel are resistant to even little adjustments. Deep change is tough for some because it is usually irreversible. I know that certain aspects of my agency have improved, but other aspect that have not. Effective leaders must be driven and willing to make the necessary changes to improve the department.
Change is difficult no matter who you are or what profession you work in. There is a natural feeling of fear when change is imminent or when it does occur. It can also be difficult for the leader that has to implement that change for the organization. I believe that in law enforcement we resist changing the most and very much want to look the other way when we recognize a potential problem and know that something different has to occur to effectively solve that problem. Law enforcement is notoriously ridged because we are guided by the law, coupled with our strict policies and procedures. But we are ever-evolving because of the criminal elements in our society using new tactics to facilitate their activities. Like the criminals, law enforcement leaders have to implement change within the organization to combat those crimes from taking place. And like deploying new tactics, the same leaders have to institute change internally within their teams, effectively communicate why the change has to occur and the steps that will take place to implement that change.
I agree with you Kevin. LE organizations are very rigid when it comes to change. I find it overwhelmingly difficult to push past barriers whether it be peers or chain of command. People can envision the change needed but rarely push themselves because it’s easier to conform. And when you can find the few that are willing, we deal with our own saboteurs.
When we can see the need for deep change and accept it that is when we can make the biggest difference in our lives. One of the deepest changes for me came after being shot in the line of duty. There was nothing specific to the incident that needed to change but the overall mindset about my health, physical condition, and the importance f my family. These were things that I needed to reflect on and make changes deep within for lasting change to occur.
If I'm to be honest with myself i have to admit to getting a good start within my self toward deep change only to encounter exactly the issues Dr. Long spoke of. The organizational function, the peer resistance, each level of the chain of command and ultimately the pressures of time.
I really enjoyed this module. I think it broke down the different types of change really well. I took away the most information from the section covering saboteurs. Many people fall victim to saboteurs. I think the most common saboteur that I worked with is the judge. They tend to always find fault in others, and in any given circumstance. I think that saboteur can be contagious in the workplace. I also have worked with controllers. I think what the lesson stated is very true about controllers. They run off anxiety and need to be in charge of every situation, even the ones that they are not a part of. Overall, this was a very helpful lesson.
This module expanded my knowledge on not only how to become an agent of change but why. When Dr. Long discussed alignment and how outside influences and environmental factors change and why a leader needs to make deep change to stay in balance. Even though you lose balance and predictability during change. “Change is hard but so is a slow death, (Long, 2017). This lead me to think if I am prepared to be an agent of change and prepared to pay the price to be enact deep change.
Long, L. (2017). Deep change and Positive intelligence. Module 7, Weeks 5 & 6. National Command and Staff College.
Change in law enforcement will occur whether you buy into it or not. I have seen several things change in my career for the better, whereas the older generations of law enforcement officers resisted the change.
Derek, it definitely will happen. If you think that because you do not buy into it, it won’t happen it is your mistake. It will leave you just standing there alone trying to figure out what happened.
It seems that one of the constant themes in change resistance stems from control. Although it is important to have some degree of process control to assure that progress is being made on projects and aligned value reform, it is evident that exerting too much control stifles truth to power, creative solutions, innovation and coalition building (Long, 2021). Further, over-control takes away the freedom generated by trusting relationships to address problems. In essence, too much control heralds the potential return of problematic behaviors, also known as "the old way" if changes and reform are not productive. Accordingly, it will be necessary to instill broad based freedom of thought and confidence in your team-members to invoke deep change.
Long, L. (2021). Deep change and positive emotional intelligence. Module # 7, Week # 5. National Command and Staff College.
There was a wealth of information in this module. I get frustrated at times with resistance to change, or the slow pace in which change occurs. It was a good reminder that I need to ensure that I monitor my own personal need for change before I concern myself with organizational change.
I had been thinking the same thing about the pace of change. I find myself not being patient with change that I know is coming or that I am expecting. Well put, Robert.
It is a dysfunction of police work that we preach transparency and collaboration w/our community; and approach them w/positivity in an effort to resolve problems. We host CPA's, coffee w/a cop, etc. (all good concepts); but it always baffles me that we also have to talk about the same people who possibly lead these tasks are also the ones w/saboteur tendencies as well. As long as humans are wearing a badge and gun we will have saboteurs.
OUCH! I’m guessing you have some names in mind… Sabotage will occur in every profession, not just law enforcement. Humanity is a fallible group. Yet, your point is correct – why would we allow some of those internal negative, self-and-organizational saboteurs be the face of our agency?!? It is silly!! In my former agency, they allowed an officer to become an FTO. Yet at every hiring meeting the Chief would clearly ask, “Is this candidate like XXXX? If so, I don’t want them.” Then why did he allow OFC XXXX be an FTO? We need consistency to prevent bad apples from being front-line faces of the agency.
I have experienced many of the examples of resistance to deep change identified in the lesson. Bureaucratic agencies have many layers of decision makers that may not all be on the same page. In the past, this has definitely caused some ideas not to move forward within my organization. It is not just layers within the organization, it can also be external layers. For example, the city mayor, county executive, city council, county board, or the civilian led Police and Fire Commission. I also never really put into perspective the role of myself as an individual and what my personal role can be in the deep change process. I have to accept the reality that change is needed and what I need to change in order to more align myself with the needs of the organization. We all know change is hard for a variety of reasons. I have a new perspective going forward in that I realize for any deep change to take place, I have to complete the first step which focused on me as the individual.
Brent- Exactly- I have often dealt with the layers of resistance to which you refer herein. It has been doubly difficult recently to take hit after hit in our budget from the same folks who call us out in public for allegedly not doing enough to curb crime. A recent issue dealt with response times in one of our precincts. A politician was complaining about response times to some of his constituents' calls for service...its the same politician who has voted down countless requests for more manpower from a Department servicing the second fastest growing area on the East coast! This module provides perhaps some guidance on how to get past these incongruent expectations and thought processes.
Best and stay safe-
As Long (2017) said about deep change, “Your choice to change occurs deeply when you realize and accept that your values knowledge, and roles are no longer a match with the needs for the outside the world”. I think this is an important, two part statement. You must both realize that a change must occur, and also accept that change and put the corrections into place. This is not easy. I think of all the addicted people I have run into that know they must change, but can not accept the change and put it into place. Breaking patterns of behavior and changing the through process is a lot harder than incremental changes, which is often goal based on steps.
This really resonated with me. As one of my coworkers told me recently, "The dinosaurs didn't change, and they're extinct now. Don't be a dinosaur."
It us like what Dr. Long said, "Change is hard but so is a slow death."
As leaders and police officers, we have to be able to adapt and handle change.
I had not previously considered how so many self-help and addiction programs are incremental change plans. When facing addiction definitely requires deep change. It requires not only the way a person acts but changes in behavior, association, and new belief structures.
Change is necessary in every agency but the problem is that most people are resistant to change. I know parts of my agency have changed for the better but others have not. Until the top brass recognize that change is needed we will stay stuck with saboteurs bucking the system and not get the change that is needed.
Agreed. I really think that this has been an issue so long maybe we should start looking at the younger officers to get bold and start respectfully speaking their mind.
Buck - I agree with you that until the commanders at the top are willing to change there will be little to no effort to initiate positive change and the people behind the scenes will make their attempts unsuccessful.
Change is absolutely crucial in public safety organizations. There is no way we can remain responsive to our community if we refuse to change with the times. I like how this module broke down incremental vs deep change and how they are different. I see within my own agency that incremental change is typically the only change undertaken. It makes sense since this is much safer and predictable, however, I see that deep change may be required at times. It was very interesting to learn about the "saboteurs" which can affect our ability to engage in deep change. I noticed quite a few that have hampered me in the past.
I took away from this module that we are our own worst enemies. Our mind is an amazing but dangerous thing. We train hard to be able to control situations for our safety and survival but we do little training of the mind to prevent saboteurs. I think taking a step back and rea analyzing the situation will help us in the future to defeat the saboteurs in our heads
Most of the officers in my department are extremely allergic to change. It seems the consensus is that it works and that the way it`s always been. An organization can not grow unless they under go change. With all the technical advancements, if we do not undergo change, we will become stagnate and lose good young officers.
I agree Scott since we are in the same organization...lol They think that since it's been done one way for so long they fear the change. But I know that there are many things that need to be changed.
Our communities will always have new expectations, similar to what we are going through now, that we will have to step up and adjust. Deep change is a difficult, yet necessary part of law enforcement and always will be.
I agree deep change is necessary, but I think the realization of the need for change is not difficult. It's the internal reflection and acceptance of the change that is hard. People are creatures of habit, and often don't want to change what is working unless forced. This makes them resistant to see that, it's not working.
Travis I agree. Our agencies must be willing to change as societal changes occur. If we do not accept the changes and take the necessary course of action, our agencies will be left behind. We will lose the respect and credibility we have. Obviously, this change must still be within reason.
I enjoyed learning about a persons Sage. Dr. Long referred to it as a inner wisdom that promotes peace of mind and focused actions. In order to overcome our inner saboteurs, we must first identify them and practice ways in which counter them. In order for meaningful positive change to occur, it requires a leader to be totally invested in the change. The leader must be willing to take on the risk of the unknown with confidence that they and their team will be able to overcome any obstacle that is in their way. Change starts with a mind set and is implemented by a leaders actions and behaviors.
I also enjoyed learning about sage and the expression of the five powers of sage. I found it very useful and also inspirational.
After listening to this lesson, I feel that deep change is most often implemented by secure leaders. It seems to me that deep change takes longer to yield "credit". A leader that is willing to implement deep change can not be concerned with "salutes". Deep change may impact an agency even after the leader who implemented it has retired.
One of the points made by Dr. Long that I agree with, and also can relate to, is the two elements that fuel resist to change: the fear of the unknown and uncertainty of risk and cost. Law enforcement is pretty notorious for disliking change. Some of it may because we have tendencies to fall into routine and get used to certain things. But, it also is because of fear of the unknown. Additionally, we do not completely know what types of risks and costs this change will bring. We may feel vulnerable and this risk often times prevents us from allowing change to occur.
It takes courage, energy, and persistence to change ourselves. Change is always happening around us, and our organization. In my earlier years, I had a genuine abhorrence to change, and anything associated with it. As I look back, and reflect I realize that I in fact lacked the courage to change. I refused to put forth any energy towards a change that I didn’t agree with. Times have changed indeed, and thankfully I have evolved from my younger mindset. I still don’t embrace change 100 percent of the time, but when I realize how it benefits my staff, I find a way to put my sword back in its sheath.
I never thought of negative thoughts as saboteurs, it was an interesting concept. I have used positive thoughts for years except with golf, golf hates me. Dr. Long's presentation made me think of ways to weaken saboteurs in order to shift into save mode when things get challenging. It's not hard to realize the difference between the friend and enemy modes when dealing with EQ. We are our own worst enemy. We run into the gunfight, but we fear changing things that may help prevent us from having to run in.
I agree. Putting effort into identifying your "saboterus" and taking steps to over come them will strengthen your positive intelligence. Its important we don't get stuck in our old ways or do things because that's the way they have always been done. That stagnates our effeteness as leaders and doesn't promote growth.
To points made by Dr. Long that I completely agree with that hamper change: 1 - fear of the unknown. I do not like the unknown. I think human nature is to have a sense of security and the unknown takes that security away from us. 2 - uncertainty of risk and cost. While high risk sometimes yields high reward, not all risk are worth taking. But, change is not always bad and is sometime absolutely needed.
I found the explanation of deep change to be interesting. Humans naturally resist change as a way of avoiding stress and to maintain a sense of normal, therefore the concept of deep changing being so difficult is not surprising to me. That being said, any change that truly makes a difference and moves an organization forward or towards a worthwhile goal will require a lot effort and most likely be difficult.
Yes, indeed. And then there’s the even bigger variable – cops and change. I think some law enforcement officials fear change more than most. We get into patterns and allow ourselves to get comfortable. Change is good, overall, and we need to embrace deep change as a positive when it does happen.
I completely agree. In general, it seems cops dislike change, which makes it all the more difficult for us to engage in meaningful deep change.
By leaders not buying into the change, affects the way the Officers will accept the change. I've seen too many supervisors "buck" the change which causes those in their command to also "buck" the change.
The term of sabotage is a unique way to describe the naysayers or mental blocks of organizational change. Many of the internal sabotage types are related to icebergs or ruminating. Negative thinking creates a downward cycle of thoughts that prey on the worst-case scenario. The unfortunate part is most leaders do not have the skillset to accept that the likelihood is exceptionally slim during a potential course of action. Entering into a decision-making process with preconceptions or beliefs is a toxic mechanism as one is not open to the new change endeavor or suggestion.
As seen within military planning, course of action development identifies the most likely and most dangerous events and establishes values. At some point, the leader takes a risk to implement a plan. As a paramilitary organization, it is impressive to see how leaders refuse to take risks from fear of failure and execute a change endeavor that will profoundly change the agency. Nevertheless, the military routinely does it with much fewer younger leaders with many dire consequences on the line.
I'm a little shy in admitting it has actually taken me several weeks to complete just this module as affecting deep and personal change take a serious amount of reflection and effort. During this same time, I have been participating in a cohort for leadership change pertaining to implicit bias and racism throughout our organization. After reading, and studying, the saboteurs, I quickly realized that I do some of these things in this cohort group. I need to not only change the way I think, but practice it daily, especially when that “enemy” shows up during situations that decisions need to be made. I took the saboteur self-assessment and asked a few of my closest friends to take the assessment and answer the questions as how they view me, not how they would think I would answer. The results were not what I expected…at all. There were some similarities, but definitely some differences in areas that I was not aware of.
Where Incremental Change is easy and more comfortable, Deep Change is necessary to achieve any long-lasting and real improvements in the agency. I have seen incremental change attempted time and time again with very little results. This module was very interesting in the way the differences in change were explained and the roadblocks identified.
Interestingly, the people asking for the dep change are the dominant coalition that protects the organization from the change they say we need.
This module really open my eyes in reference to how many different saboteurs there really are. The judge, stickler, pleaser, hyper achiever, victim, hyper rational, hypervigilant, restless, controller, and avoider. I have personally ran into almost all of the saboteurs throughout my career. And now with this module. I will be able to know how to deal with each in the future.
Funny thing is while he was naming the ten, I had pictures of people in my agency who popped up in my head. When you see them written down, they are pretty easy to identify.
Knowing what our saboteurs are and recognizing them when they present themselves is important as a leader. The breakdown of the various saboteurs made them easily identifiable. When we can identify them we then can mitigate the negative effects that come with them, increased stress, anxiety, anger. I have pushed these out to my team so that they can identify what their triggers are and hopefully reduce some stress in their lives.
Seeing them written down and being able to recognize each of them was hugely helpful. Great idea to push out to your team and I may do the same, and send out the self-assessment.
I could not agree more. As a leader, you need to be able to recognize these things if you want to be successful. I love that you have pushed these out to your team. Great leadership work on your end! Hopefully this plays out well and they can identify their triggers and help reduce triggers in their lives.
I took away from this module the important lessons of Saboteurs. Many times, in our career we are our own worst enemy when comes to the ability to achieve and create effective change. Many good leaders struggle with the Judge, and the Stickler. We create more stress and anxiety for ourselves than necessary. Being able to recognize when these Saboteurs are upon us and mitigate them, I believe will give us a happier and more positive career. Understanding Saboteurs is also an effective strategy for helping our own people understand themselves and gives us the better ability to coach them.
I agree, Andy. The better we can understand our own personal road blocks or saboteurs, the more effective we can be in implementing change and leading others towards change.
The idea that 1 person can change the organization in which they exist is quite powerful. I liked how this lecture broke down the key elements of incremental and deep change. Most often organizations fall back on incremental change because it is safe and offers a way out. Deep change is risky and we are typically risk averse in law enforcement. Not only does the risk involved with deep change become an obstacle but finding a leader who is willing to champion the change through all of its obstacles is difficult. Some thought provoking points were made in this lecture and I found the specific examples of saboteurs to be quite interesting.
Instilling the belief that 1 person can change an organization has powerful effects. It gives ownership to the person to continually strive for greatness not only for themselves but for the organization. A leader only willing to implement incremental change will eventually fail or become obsolete. Although deep change brings with it a higher degree of risk it also brings about the chance for an organization to be great.
The saboteurs part of the module was quite interesting and poignant. I can appreciate all of them at various points in my leadership and employment journey. Restless is probably one of my weakest/strongest saboteurs for sure. I am constantly looking to move the bar and find myself busy all the time in my brain. I have a hard time letting things lie for sure. So I guess this is a double-edged blade, it is a good thing but also weighs me down.
The other area is learned (or at least we reinforced) was the bottom-up change idea. I would like to think that I employ this already because it is so valuable to the success of the change. Including those at the end-user side of things can only benefit from change and I've found that others have great ideas that I never saw. The buy-in that this type of system creates is only a positive for the organiation.
I find this module very enlightening and educational. I believe that it explains so much about law enforcement officers and our reluctance towards change. We are saboteurs. Most people in law enforcement state that they do this job to help people. We often view this as going in and taking control of the situation and making everything ok. We have the best intentions but we are self-sabotaging by being controllers.
Spot on Nicole. We are our own worst enemies. Too often I think officers go out of their way to let the saboteurs in and thus this derails progress. This is why I believe in global education about leadership (and change management) not just educating the top of the organization. Those who spend time studying should appreciate what we're trying to do versus those who shoot spitballs from the sidelines.
Absolutely agree with your assessment. We are oftentimes our own worst enemy. This module was enlightening and thought provoking.
You hit the nail on the head. when i was going through this module i pictured myself in various situations where almost all the saboteurs characteristics have appeared. It really makes you realize and take a step back to re evaluate and move forwared
I enjoyed this module. The steps to achieving deep change is more complex and involves new ways of thinking - training your brain, and results in actions or new behavior. This is long lasting and sustainable change. The part on positive intelligence and being able to recognize those inward thoughts that act to sabotage you being able to achieve success. The personal development to recognize those inward thoughts or emotions, change to a positive thought, seize control, and have the mind help serve to accomplish positive outcomes instead of interfere in the process.
Deep change can is sooooo difficult in law enforcement for many reason. It is an arena where failure is not tolerated. most involved are career oriented and don't want to risk career advancement by rockin' the boat. Sometimes, all it takes is one person in the chain of command to say "no" and the change is done before it ever got started. It's difficult to get all the stars to align for deep change to have a chance.
Empathy is a good aid to this deep change. We have to gain it from all angles and also gain insight from all affected. Listen X3 I think they say?
Your right Jed, Deep change is difficult, it takes a persistent leader to drive this type of change. Many leaders get worn down by the bureaucratic system and they lose the steam to persist and take big risks. I think many times the biggest challenges in a larger department are the organizational coalitions. They really can throw up roadblocks.
You're absolutely right! Change is hard enough in the regular world, but in law enforcement it's almost impossible. Cops are some of the most entrenched creatures of habit. If you are lucky enough to be allowed to make changes, you will find failure is unforgiving.
Viewing this module leads me to believe most of the difficulty with deep change starts individually with the idea of change or the fact that most wait until its necessary to make a change. It would seem if you know and believe the change is needed and then convey it in a way that makes other understand and believe, the transition would be smoother. Go into it knowing there is risk for failure and have the mindset to adjust to the problems as needed.. Getting yourself to that point is the challenge. Understanding your personal saboteurs and how to combat them helps.
I agree with your point and again, being in law enforcement we want to make everything better, so maybe we really need to focus internally and make those hard changes inside.
I really liked this lesson and I found the parts about incremental and deep change the most useful. Change is always something that everyone is uncomfortable with. It doesn't matter if you are the one implementing the change or the one that is going to have to change the way you are doing something or completing a task. Incremental change is something that I see a lot of leaders deciding to make changes but then becoming to scared of the consequences of something not working out the way they hoped it would or negatively impacting the organization or people. Deep change is something long term and will most likely need the leader to have confidence and experience to achieve.
I found the concept of the sage expression to be vey intriguing. This is concept or term that is new to me and something I would like to focus on. Especially the peace of mind in focused action and in the middle of crisis.
I found it interesting as well Jennifer. I find myself dealing with many of these mind saboteurs on a frequent basis. I will work to incorporate this concept in defeating them in my mind, and the mind of my subordinates. It is definitely a tool worth putting in the old toolbox.
So often we do not want to take risks that could negatively effect us. Even if the reward is worth it. So easy to just do what we have always done and get by. Learning to get past self sabotage to better yourself and the organization is key.
High risk yields high reward. I agree with you that we must get past self sabotage. We have to remember that failing doesn't necessarily make us a failure. Most of the time there is a lesson for us to learn from a fail.
What I liked most about Dr. Long’s lessons in this module was distinguishing the difference between deep change and incremental change. I think it is something that we can all use in our personal and professional lives. Change is inevitable. Take for instance COVID-19, it forces us to undergo change. This section explains that deep change is often risky and there’s a chance we won’t go back to the old ways. But it begins with self. I think in the field of law enforcement our backs are against the wall and it’s time that some of us and our organizations take the steps to undergo deep change. Change begins with self.
Very good post! The change definitely starts with us and we need to be good sales-people. Show people the benefits and what's in it for them. We'll never get everyone on board but if we at least try and put forth constant messaging, we can only succeed I would think. Bottom-up change, give people some ownership.
I like to challenge myself to use sage powers. I would like to untap inner wisdom that can help with saboteurs. Truly possessing empathy will go a long way in developing rapport. Having the ability to be genuine and show compassion and forgiveness is an important power.
Great statement, I feel as a true leader we must have some form of empathy and understanding for our followers. Especially as law enforcement officers. As leaders we may not always be on the frontline but it is important to listen to our people and show concern. Paying attention and the willingness to make things better will have an everlasting impact on our organizations.
I really enjoyed this model. It brought a different perspective on the implementation of change. I have a better understanding of why leaders are reluctant to do deep changes in organizations. Deep Changes can take time to fully implement and see the desired out come depending on how it was deployed. it has been my experience that incremental changes are done to eventually achieve the desired deep change the leadership originally wanted. They did not want to shock the core of the department. Those changes have taken years to implement and it has take that long to see any effects of the change. By the time the results are yielded new changes are needed. It does take a courageous leader to take risks to implement a deep change to an organization.
Interesting concepts on the phase changes of either incremental or deep change. After going through this module it is easier to understand why some organizations don't ever change or take so long to change. Deep change (which most organizations) most likely need if they are being honest doesn't happen overnight and takes lots of teamwork and someone to actually push it and take the leap of faith to complete it. That is probably why some organizations remain flat due to the fact that staying the status quo is easier and they have no true leader to make the big decisions.
I agree, finding a leader who is willing to take the risks associated with deep change is challenging. Incremental change requires much less investment and risk and is why so many departments just tweak practices or policies but avoid the major over halls that may be needed for continued success.
After watching this module, I now have a better understanding of why deep change is so difficult on the organizational level. It takes tremendous moral courage on the part of a transformational leader to stand up and say that change is necessary and to lead the way into uncharted territory. Not many are able or willing to put their reputation and career aspirations on the line to do this, and fewer still can say they have done so successfully. Organizations that welcome this type of leadership will surely flourish beyond anyone’s expectations. I also appreciated the explanation Dr. Long gave on the differences between deep change and incremental change. It appears that incremental change has the effect of a Band-Aid for a small cut whereas deep change has the effect of a surgeon removing a cancerous tumor. Two very different approaches for two very different purposes. As leaders, we need to understand when to get the first aid kit and when to go see a doctor to initiate organizational change.
Before this presentation, I never really considered mental/ emotional saboteurs before. I guess that's because I find myself trying to combat the real life ones (many of which are in my own organization). Due to COVID, I frequently work from home. When I work from home, my primary connection with my subordinates is through email. I noticed early on that some of my saboteurs surfaced as a result. I became more of a stickler about things and I became a little more controlling. When I noticed this, I tried to tell others how this experience made me feel but until now, I didn't understand why I was feeling the way I did, and I was not able to properly identify and define my saboteurs. I did the on line assessment and was not surprised by the results. I think that Dr. Long was correct. It does come down to deciding between my own self interests and what's best for my agency. Recognizing these negative factors is the first step to combating them and then its important to know if your mind is in "enemy or friendly" mode. I think that by increasing my Emotional and Positive intelligence, I will do a much better job of managing my mental saboteurs.
I agree. The section on saboteurs helped me gain a greater understanding of them and how they impact not only myself, but others that I work with routinely. Great information.
I found the nine ways of self sabotage to be eye opening and self reflecting, I would like to take a self inventory and become a better leader by doing this. Also, the topic of 10 saboteurs made me reflect on both my professional and personal life.
Deep change has to start with personal change and we need to understand what we need to overcome.
I appreciated the information on positive intelligence and the saboteurs we all have within us. I certainly am affected by negative thoughts about myself and my performance that hinder my progress. I thought it was very helpful how they identified each of the 10 types of saboteurs. I am affected by everyone. I will work to switch to the positive sage and inner wisdom.
Having knowledge about saboteurs is key. It is important that people try to stir away from these types. Using empathy, exploration, innovation, navigation, and decisive action can help with saboteurs.
Every one of those saboteurs has gotten me at on point or another. Sometimes they gang up on me. HA.
Seriously, it can take daily self affirmation to overcome the negative voices within us.
This was a good module about change. Interesting discussion about analyzing the need for change as well as different types of change. Dr. Long described the difference between Incremental and deep change. Most changes I've seen are incremental. One thing that really stood out to me was fairly subtle but really struck a chord with me was when Dr. Long said incremental changes are often reversible. I've seen so many changes occur that are eventually reversed and people go back to the old way. In some examples this is a decision made by those that initially made the change but more often it is a decision made by those that are actually doing the task. I found Dr. Long's comments about transformational leaders interesting and thought of a few people in my organization's past and present.
I agree Durand, most organizations favor incremental change because they are afraid to make the deep change where going back to the old way most likely isn't an option as well as they may not have a true leader who wants to "put their neck out there" and be the driving force behind a deep change that may or may not work.
This module clarified methods of change for me. It really put people into 2 categories when it comes to change. We all have those in our agency that are content with the status quo and content with the current way we are doing things. Fortunately, many agencies have those few that are focused on the deep change and looking to better enhance the process. These leaders are looking to transform the processes and improve our service to each other as well as the agency. I think the greatest challenge faced by administrators today is getting everyone on the page with accepting deep change and having a greater impact.
I agree. Deep change has to become a new way of life in the agency, otherwise it loses momentum and often gets reversed.
As the courses are complementing each other, the main challenge to profound change is courage. Leaders who make the change initiative happen are the most likely to halt the process out of self-serving needs. Stop and listen to the young officers that continually espouse profound change ideas, and with many, they are willing to leap in faith as they conceptually have nothing to lose. They are willing to move on to another job or agency if a plan fails. If many senior leaders were to look back at their younger selves and their "stump speeches," the same theme existed back then. Courageous leaders will step up and risk their safety for the organization's good if it means enough. Too often, it does not.
I enjoyed this module on Deep Change and Positive Intelligence. It brought greater understanding for me between the difference in the two. I liked the information on organizational coalitions and how dominate coalitions can be resistant to deep change as they has satisfied with the status quo. Instead they are in favor of incremental change that allows for them to return to the ways of the past if the incremental change is not successful. I have seen that first hand over my career. In recent years my organization has been going through more long term deep change with a change in leadership.
Couldnt agree more Lt, after watching this module a few methods of change came to mind at RPD that we are trying to implement. This clarified and defined the reasons for me as to how to influence others to accept this change. The more we influence, the more greater our momentum becomes.
One thing that police officers and don’t like is change. But we also don’t like to be stagnant. It is important to note that the vast majority of people in police organizations resist change. The attitude of, “we have always done it this way” is prevalent in police organizations. This is why it is important for us as leaders to know how to apply incremental and deep changes. Change requires adapting to new set of rules or procedures which involves risk. With change it comes the unknown or uncertainty which is something that cops don’t like. Realistically, in order to make change cancerous consideration must be taken when trying to be a change agent for the greater good. I am currently in the process of implementing an officer wellness program and peer support group. This will require a deep change in our organizational culture as some already have criticized it due to the stigma of asking for help is a sign of “weakness” for some. I will definitely face resistance but the outcome for the betterment of my people and organization is worth the risk. This was a great module. It made me reflect on how l have self-sabotaged my development in the past because of my lack of positive emotional intelligence.
Eduardo was spot on.. Police officers dislike change. I will also add that they hate things the way they are as well. This is a concept that my department has attempted to get its head around for some time. For my agency, the big change involved our schedule which was causing some issues. We ran the gambit of why change "we've always done it that way" to "what's in it for me". We tried our best to solicit feedback and be open and transparent about the process but it came down to communication (both up and down the chain of command) and early intervention by change agents in the org. In hindsight, we could have done better in both of these areas. Fundamentally, this was a deep change with a bunch of incremental steps to get us there. Eduardo, the establishment of a Employee Wellness program is a noble and life saving endeavor. There is no doubt that the Risk is more than worth it.
I found the 9 ways we self-sabotage self-assessment a good reflection of my personality. I believe it will certainly help me be a better leader by knowing my strengths and weaknesses.
I did too! I'll work harder to listen to that inner sage.
I enjoyed learning about the ten saboteurs and taking the self assessment. This was a learning experience and will require self-reflection to learn how to combat those saboteurs moving forward. I also found it interesting that the two main reasons people resist change are the fear of the unknown, and the uncertainty of the risk and cost. That makes a-lot of sense and when compared with changes I have recently seen implemented, aligns with some of the opposing views.
The discussion of the elements that fuel our resistance to change; Fear of the Unknown and Uncertainty of risk and cost, are huge roadblocks for moving forward on organizations. I think the module hit keys points then, in discussing what a true transformational leader is and does for an organization. I liked the definition that stated a transformational leader decides on the change first, and then reflects the change outwardly, meaning walking the talk. This action alone from the top can and does motivate followers. The biggest learning point for me fro the material was the list of the Ten Saboteurs. As Dr. Long listed and defined each, it was eye-opening for me to put members of my own organization- past and present- into those roles. Perhaps more telling was to see which of those roles I myself may have portrayed myself over the course of my career. Looking at it from that perspective made me feel proud of where I am at with myself and within my organization, and see how time, experience, and maturity have all played a role in shaping where I am at. This was good module for some much needed self-reflection.
This module was excellent at providing the reasons that change is so difficult within organizations. I have experienced resistance towards change on a continual basis over my first two years as Sheriff. Most of it has come from my upper administration. Many of them have been there 30 plus years and so they feel that how we have been operating is acceptable. But as technology, our community, media, and the expectations from our citizens have changed I have encouraged an organizational change to remain current with what is expected from our citizens. It has been a constant work in progress but it is coming along slowly.
Change can be a slow process. Especially deep change. The important thing is to properly recognize when change is needed and taking the steps to make change happen.
Deep change and positive emotional intelligence was discussed in this module. Deep change is a new concept to me. It was very informative to learn about. Understanding how difficult deep change is to achieve provides me with an understanding as to why there is so often more incremental change with departments rather than that deep change. The 10 types of saboteurs was enlightening also as I found myself self-reflecting throughout that topic. It's important to me that I identify those saboteurs early on before I let them effect my mindset.
In this module, Long discussed deep change and positive emotional intelligence. One of the key phrases that I took from this module was, "It's okay to get lost with confidence. When that happens, you are learning and doing." Many of the decisions we make are very critical, and sometimes the wrong ones, which lower our confidence. It's how we learn from those situations that's important, as we discover different ways to correct the behavior and make better decisions. "In this way, you become an internally driven leader, because an internally driven leader has found requisite internal motivation to change and maintain the energy it takes to follow through." I found that quote to be very helpful and informative.
Sometimes change upsets the delicate balance of things, which is why there is a resistance to it. Some people like to operate in their comfort zones, and for many, the way things are is just fine. For this reason, leaders must communicate why change is necessary. Often, those who are impacted by the change are not aware of why it’s happening. Effective communication is vital here.
We have top down mandated change that occurs without warning. When this occurs it effects moral negatively. This could be avoided by simple effective communication.
The nine saboteurs that were discussed in the module were very interesting to me. As I reflected on myself, I understand that it can be very difficult to work with someone who is always unsatisfied. I am a very positive and upbeat person. That can cause negativity and possibly strain working relationships. Recognizing that I have this trait, I have to utilize my inner wisdom, or the “sage” to prevent the negativity of my saboteur from attacking my brain.
I think of the old saying "Cops don't like change and they don't like the way things are." This is a true statement for any profession. You become accustomed to doing thinks a certain way and become comfortable with the routine. People will resist change even if it for their own benefit.
In this module, the ten saboteurs are presented by Doctor Long. I work with several peers with these traits. When I was a sergeant, I worked under a Watch Commander that was a saboteur. I was able to work with this supervisor and help him to rethink his thought process which seemed to lend a helping hand from time to time, However, for an overall change one must want to change.
That's very encouraging that you were able to able to work with a supervisor to change their thought process. It's impressive for both you and the Watch Commander to make this happen. I think you made the key point int that in order for this to happen, they must want the change.
I have worked for a few with this problem. These individuals are still doing things the same way and continue to have the same issues.
And the lower they are in the rank structure the, more complaining and resisting they will do. This is why the need for change should be explained so that "buy-in" is obtained early in the change process.
I definitely agree with your statement, cops do not like change. As a new leader, I have noticed how slow change can be. Especially when you have upper administration that has been around for more than 35 years. Deep change is extremely hard for these individuals because they have been comfortable in their ways for many many years. I have to continually remind them to not use terms such as "because we have always done it that way" or "I don't have to do that because I put in my time." There needs to be a continual reminder of the vision in order to keep people on track.
The art of change can be difficult to master. Sometimes it happens to fast and feels like trying to drink water from a fire hose and other times it is so slow it is like watching paint dry. I believe changes are important but more importantly is are they needed. I have a huge problem with people effecting change just because they want to have their personal stamp on something. Keeping up with current crime trends, technologies and training is where change should be occurring regularly but often we seem to be playing catch-up. I am fortunate that our agency has taken notice and moved away from many of the things that had us stuck in the "old ways".
I agree that change can be difficult and easy to reject. Change is important in order to help us grow and gain more knowledge as we grow as professional and with personal development. The more we change and grow, the more we develop with the times in order to potentially gain the tactical edge.
Nice response. I agree that change is often necessary to prevent stagnation and keeping up with the times. I also agree that change for the sake of change adds needless stress on an organization. When I was a military investigator we would get a new commander every two years. He/She usually had to come in and make sweeping changes just to affix their name to a process.
So true. I like your analogies of "drinking from a fire hose" and "watching paint dry" as both are true when it comes to change. The things we feel need to be changed seem to take forever and those we don't want to change seem to change overnight. I agree with you about the most important question - do we need to make the change? You mentioned technology and trends, both of those are essential for us to change and keep up to date with current technology and trends.
The control of this change is in the hands of the one making the change and the approach is widely used. As an organization we must remember that an important aspect to changing is the fact that you are talking action to change together.
This module is a great advocate for how change can be a good and/or great thing. Change agents in our agencies keep agencies from being stale or stagnant. In today's world, the public is demanding change for things that are up for improvement, more with less. The ability to engage and have a dialect, using the SAGE skills and other items will help leaders stay current on what agencies need to serve people.
I completely agree with the principles of change and how important it is for both the organization and us as individuals to stay up to date with modern trends and industry standards. Change, indicates growth.
I also enjoyed the information about the saboteurs and how they operate. As the instructor began to define each type of saboteur I could relate each one with someone I have had dealings with in the past. Overall, I thought this was a very good and informative training module.
I agree, especially in today's fast changing world, it's vital we stay up to date on those trends and standards. I also enjoyed learning about the saboteurs and found myself self-reflecting on them as each one was defined. Understanding those saboteurs and being able to identify them is key to building your positive intelligence.
Dr. Long was correct, we did cover a lot of ground, in this lecture. The different types of change and the expansion of the resistance to change provided a good basis to seek success. To the subject of increasing our positive intelligence, The first two points, we have been taught since the academy or FTO. The Power Game is equivalent to playing the "what if" game for situational awareness and the positive intelligence exercises are very similar to combat breathing.
When it comes to our positive intelligence improvement, this relies on the individual being honest with themselves, completely. This is something that I hope that I can do, for my improvement. While we have talked about self inventory or self awareness, we have to be honest. as sometimes we see ourselves in a better light than someone that is observing us.
I took the optional saboteurs assessment and I have a pretty good idea what I need to work on to bring balance into my thinking. There was a lot of information presented in this module but it was very good information. Very thought provoking.
Like many comments and posts here, I was intrigued mostly by the information and cautions presented about saboteurs. As I take a moment and reflect upon my 20-plus year career, it has been some of the people that I have worked with that have been the most challenging. Especially regarding situations and emergencies, arrests and court proceedings, incidents in general, I have had the most difficulty with some supervisors and with some that were supposed to have my back, that were supposed to be honest, and that were supposed to be looking out for the greater good that have caused the most issues and in many ways, the most disappointment. It is up to us to assist others in changing from bad and/or irresponsible and/or reckless behavior to responsible servants that their community and family's can be proud of, as well as their agency's. And, this is often accomplished through our direct example. Doing what is right, even when no on else is looking!
I agree and one of the most poignant concepts Dr. Long spoke about was easy to miss. Dr. Long stated the first step of change must be individually focused. How many times do we think our problem was with someone else when it was really our problem to begin with? Going through the list of saboteurs, I can easily name the ones that I default to. My sage has a lot of work to do...lol.
In this module we are presented with the 10 saboteurs. This was interesting as i can see what i tend to exhibit. But also i can effectively place a face with someone that exhibits each one of these saboteurs. You can look at these individuals and now know how to assist that person in changing their thought process to help them out. But that person has to be willing to accept chnage.
This module was very insightful on just how powerful a tool the mind is. As leaders, we must be forward-looking and identify issues on the horizon if possible. When a change is needed, we must be in the correct mindset and examine the problem from all imaginable angles and understand the risk/ reward that comes with implementing the change. If our minds are not in the correct mode, we can sabotage our ideas before implementation. We must also ensure that we can clearly explain why change is needed and how it will positively impact our followers.
This was a very data heavy module. It was interesting to me to learn more about saboteurs and to think about how those most common ones pop up in my day to day life as well as others on my team. The idea of inner wisdom/sage was never something I considered previously. I was glad to hear about ways we could counteract the negative inner voice to think more positively.
After reviewing this module, I know what my mental saboteurs are and how I need to combat them. I feel that I tend to be a pleaser or hyper-achiever and those are the main areas I need to focus on to become a better leader.
This module was extremely helpful for me as it helped me identify my mental saboteurs. Now that I have properly identified by saboteurs I can work on shifting into the correct mindset when interaction with co-workers.
I agree with you, I was quite surprised by my own saboteurs and to be honest, I had no idea they existed prior to this module. Now that I am aware of what my saboteurs are, I can focus on making changes to lessen their effects and presence.
I feel that it is important for a leader to embrace change. It shows that the leader is willing to keep up with the forever changing world. As a leader, I will make sure I continue to embrace deep change and find ways to influence others.
Learning about Deep Change and Positive Intelligence was eye opening to me. As we went through the 10 Saboteurs I reflected on people, both in my organization and/or in my person life, who tend to display these characteristics. I have definitely released that I am "the Pleaser". I have always thought that this was a positive attribute to have, especially as support personnel, but now I can see how this in excess can be unhealthy. Knowing how to identify saboteurs, exercise my positive emotional intelligence and measure my positive emotional intelligence will help me more effectively reach my potential.
I too was very interested in learning more about all of the saboteurs. It was very interesting to hear about all of these and to think about the people I know with the various ones that present themselves.
Change is a great thing throughout an organization. I feel that if I came to work every day and said, lets keep doing the same thing every day, just as we did before, I would be very bored of my career. I have always been a proponent of attempting to improve processes to obtain better results. Although in the past, I have been expected to provide better results with only being allowed to use the same methods as before. I look at it as watching a football team attempt to make yards by running it up the middle and not gaining or loosing yards. Makes you very fustrated that the offense does not attempt to alter the game plan to achieve better results. An organization with the correct planning, team support, and the moral value to succeed in the the change, become successful in deep change.
While incremental change is an easier pill to swallow, sometimes when a new leader takes over an organization. A deep change is necessary, due to any long standing issues the new leader finds or was aware of before taking over. Its the long time installed base of employees who would have the hardest time adapting or leaving/terminated altogether.
I agree deep change requires new ways of thinking and behaving. When initiating deep change, it is more more major in scope and doesn't focus on making connections with the way things were done in the past requiring more risk taking. Deep change is harder to achieve. Important aspect to changing is the fact that you are taking action to change together.
As with any change, it will be alarming to all workers, not everyone will be receptive. In change for the better of an agency, sometimes you have to use deep change, because of the severity of ongoing issues. As a leader, we have to figure out the best way to soften the impact of the change.
As harsh as it sounds, but as one of the previous modules speakers stated. If they're not receptive to change give them a chance or let them go.
For some, change is always hard, not just because of what they think they will lose, but because they just do not want to. I agree with you that we, as leaders, have to look at the best way to change, and there are times that we have to do it, without a safety net.
Agreed. I think to make the changes that are necessary, it is crucial to bring the key players from each area into the mix to help produce an action plan.
As leaders, when we take over a new agency or department, we must remember that the "changes" we make will have a ripple effect. If we are subtle and explain the small incremental changes, we make the ripple effect will be a lot less. We need to be careful of the Deep Changes, due to the destruction that it can cause, and how irreversible that it is.
When I took over as chief, I was warned about significant changes, and the effects it can have on morale. However, most of the incremental changes we never noticed by the officers, cause they were rolled out subtle, and with information advising why for the difference.
I was never in favor of a change, but the change was always forced onto us without any consideration of how it affected everyone. Or when asking questions about the change, there was still unknown factors because the change was not well thought out, and it was not communicated. No one from the bottom could understand the change and why the change was occurring. These examples are why, as leaders, we need to communicate and collaborate so we can empower our officers to want to make deep changes.
I feel that in our agency it is incremental change that occur. I agree that if there is more collaboration and communication we will experience deep change.
This lecture leads off discussing deep change and the impacts on our agencies, we learned that without deep change we risk deterioration and becoming irrelevant. If we can become change agents individually and help manifest change amongst our peers we can help facilitate deep change that is needed. The second part of the lesson defining our sabotage agents was highly thought-provoking, I realized quite a few of my saboteurs and will utilize the skills to strengthen my EQ and PQ.
This should be so helpful in a group setting on problem solving.
Change is something that is extremely difficult in law enforcement I believe, We get set in our ways and are creatures of habit. However, change is inevitable, especially if it is needed. One of my favorite quotes has always been, the most dangerous phrase in the language is "we've always done it this way". I was reluctant to change up until becoming a leader in my agency and understanding why change is necessary and can be beneficial. We recently dealt with and are still dealing with change, due to a new RMS. It is frustrating at times, but overall I believe beneficial to the agency.
I agree; I was the same way with change. Change can be great if there is a good plan for the change. You need to most of the answers for the change and the problems that can occur. The RMS system was a rushed plan, which made the transition more complex. I believe it will also benefit the agency. I know that there were other factors for the time frame, but the communication was not effective.
When our new Chief took over he initiated a new mind set and massive changes that were absolutely needed. The problem was in the message and roll out. I don't think we were properly prepared for the sudden and drastic changes. More communication to help with buy in would have made things much easier.
Change is not something law enforcement professionals care for. Little changes can sometimes make the biggest waves. I can see how deep change can really be hard to implement and for officers to accept. As a leader is it important to make sure the change is explained and officers fully understand what it to take place.
Your post is a little off of topic from my original post but I couldn't help but relate to what you wrote about. Indeed, sometimes it is the little changes that do cause the biggest waves in an organization. This touches upon a subject briefed in an earlier module. Buy in really is essential for true change to occur. Everyone should feel that they are part of the changing agent and not just compelled to change because of decisions made by others. We are all share holders within our police agency and therefore we should all have some voice. I feel that this is especially true for when change is necessary. Thank you for your post!
As we look at the world today, the six traits that Dr. Long refers to play a big part in all of us. I chose a caring character. We all must care. In today's world, we all need to care just a little more about people. We need to go the extra mile to ensure their health and well-being.
The other five are just as important and play their role in what we do to take care of staff.
Please disregard this post, it was posted on the wrong lesson
A wise officer once told a group of us, “Cops bitch when things change but complain when they remain the same”. That has to the wittiest explanation to a truth within a group of officers. Cops do favor change, if it is supported. Cops do not favor change if it will inconvenience a method that they are comfortable with. So what’s the solution? Those officers who are vying to be part of the bigger picture may resist a proposed change, unless it benefits the organization as a whole. Officers will view the stresses caused by incremental change in the same manner as deep change depending on how it may affect them.
It is important that everyone understand what the change is going to be and for everyone to feel like the change is for the them and the best for the organization.
I agree Darren, one of my favorite sayings is "the most dangerous phrase in the language is "we've always done it this way".
I agree with your statement. I have told my people if that is going to be your answer, please do not ever repeat it to me. Find a different way.
Perhaps by clearly communicating our vision and mission before the change is implemented will help. Many times, I feel like we initiate a new policy or procedure but don't explain our why. We sometimes express it in our Staff Meetings but sometimes it gets lost in translation ... or never gets communicated at all. Some days I feel like I have information overload. I definitely perceive a gap in effective communication and try to work towards being part of that solution. We have identified some steps to help bridge that gap and are working on improving in on our own behalf.
We have so many amazing people here with a vision, passion for what they do, top-notch expertise, and motivation that could move mountains but we sometimes fail to nurture and develop that positive force and help guide others to our organization's vision.
Our agency is currently undergoing change to a new RMS. We have been studying this for two years and have had input from everyone. They were all excited and on board until we went live. Now the resistance to change has hit and they are complaining that they will never learn it and we shouldn't have changed. I have to think back to a former leader I had that told me one thing is for sure in police work and that is change. If you don't like the way things are, just wait it will change. If you like the way things are, just wait, it will change.
If there is one thing that I have learned in my years of law enforcement it is that police officers don't like change. Even small change, unless it something that will benefit them right away. So I can see when you try to implement deep change there will definitely be resistance, Knowing the steps learned in this module will make it a little easier but I'm sure it will still be an uphill battle to enact deep change.
Cops bitch when things change, but complain when they remain the same.
The implementation of that deep change will start with us and making sure we are deeply committed to being the change agents, making sure we are not self-sabotaging the change from the onset, will enable us to lead the followers into the change with greater accuracy and hopefully help them adjust their saboteurs as well.
Really enjoyed the discussion of our own mind and saboteurs keeping us from becoming change agents and being more successful. This was something we all probably knew but it helps to have a definition and explanation for it. I will practice actions to increase EQ and PQ. A lot of this comes back to having courage. Courage to do what needs to be done even if it will be hard and meet resistance.
I enjoy the saboteurs assessment and lecture on it because we can all do some personal reflection on one self to keep us planted and bettering ourselves. We tend to blame people or our outside surroundings when this module explains about looking internally at ones self to make change and we are our own saboteurs.
I found there was a lot of useful information in this module but it was covered very quickly. What I found most informative and thought provoking was the portion on Positive Emotional Intelligence. I believe a lot of changes or new programs we want to attempt always succumb to the Saboteurs of our own minds and are never anything more than fleeting thoughts. We allow us to talk ourselves out of extraordinary things because we believe they will not work or that someone else might not like our ideas then they won’t like us and on and on. A lot of this portion is that we need to get out of our own heads. If we are agents for positive change, then we need to fully believe that we are doing is good for our organizations and forget the naysayers, even if it is us.
In the learning area 3, module 7, learning more about incremental and deep change was a good lecture. Learning that deep change can be hard to achieve with some adversities. We have to make sure and ensure that the energy and the alignment is lining up to assist in a change. Knowing that transformational leaders decide on change first and then reflect on changes outwardly.
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." John Augustus Shedd
I believe this is an accurate quote for the fear of change, staying the same will seem safe, but we need to accept some danger to meet our full potential.
I really like that quote and agree it seems appropriate for this module. I find that part of the problem is after leaders are in their position for a long time, they tend to get stagnate and don't want to change. Leadership needs to change from time to time to keep fresh ideas coming to the forefront.
The risk and uncertainty of Deep Change demands strong leadership. History is full of glorified stories of leaders who carry their team through turbulent challenges, hopeless odds, and no win situations. The reason their team survives and often flourishes is the faith they put in their leader. Having the Positive Emotional Intelligence to overcome the saboteur is key to that success. Too often in law enforcement our strategy has been reactive. Many of the programs that are being pushed on law enforcement are actually asking for law enforcement to be proactive. Drug Court and Mental Health Court are ways to address the behaviors that are the root cause of a problems and not only the symptom of the cause. Other hot topic programs such as CIT, Implicit Bias Recognition, and De-Escalation have the same core tenant. Law Enforcement is being asked to identify and address the challenge before it becomes a problem.
Incremental change is what most people see. Deep change is what scares people due to the unknown and lack of understanding. Law enforcement is continuously changing, and with technology, you see the deep change. I can only imagine the change we will see in law enforcement in the next 20 years. We must first understand personal change, which will allow us to take part in deep change to come.
I agree with the fact of the unknown is what keeps us as law officers on our toes. and the fact of an unknown change does the same because we don't how the change would affect us.
I sometimes find that my agency has trouble with change and when it does try to change. It follows the model of incremental change. Just like in the module, there is always a tendency to reverse to old ways and habits. The old guard leaders always want to bring back the old way because they are quick to judge if the change is actually working. By having a basic understanding of Deep Change, I hope to make a more influential impact on my agency.
I was also intrigued with the content on sabotage and saboteurs and never really considered the fact that they both come from within myself. Eye opening thought.
I think nearly every agency wrestles with change. Not only is it more comfortable to stay with what you know, but to truly embrace Deep Change you have to give up some of the control. Many leaders are not willing to do that. With an understanding to what that change really means I wish you luck and see myself fighting the same battles.
Leaders who have unconditional confidence leads to mastery of the deep change process. People are scared of deep change for the fear of the unknown. Transformational leaders set the example for others to follow and are confident guiding people into the unknown. Another great module.
The ability to seek out and recognize the need for deep change in itself is hard. Being able to understand that the status que while it seems the safe route is truly the most dangerous long term.
This module covers change focusing on incremental change versus deep change. It touched on the difference between the two, but when the lesson went in to positive intelligence and sabotage I became clear that there reason people resist change in the unknown and fear.
This was an interesting topic dealing with differences in incremental and deep change. It makes sense how we can fall back to our old ways in incremental change but deep change does not allow a pathway back. It is a concept that while using deep change I never was able to label it as such.
This topic was interesting for me as well. I never really new the differences in incremental change and deep change. But this showed me that my organization has a tendency to implement incremental change. There is always a fear of trying deep change because there is a natural tendency to fall back on the old way of doing things.
People will always resist change. They get set in their routines at home and at work and get comfortable. Too much change all at once causes resistance.
You are right; this was an interesting topic. It is assuring to know that we have a foundation that we can revert to when “incremental change” does not work in our favor, but it does allow for us to move forward with “deep change.” As you mentioned that “deep change” does not allow a pathway back to our old ways, and we more less have to move forward.
We all understand change can be difficult. After Dr. Long differentiated incremental versus deep change, I had a different understanding of a past, deep change made within my agency. The fears and uncertainties brought about with the investment of a large sum of money to implement a new report writing system within the department created havoc. It was truly a deep change with no potential to return to the “old way” things had been done before. The different saboteurs were clearly identifiable during this process which was eventually implemented successfully.
We had the same RMS issue at our agency about 10 years ago at my agency. The person spearheading the conversion was a Deep Change Agent, but was dealing with a lot of entrenched ideas of what worked best. A lot of the Saboteurs we initially had were the same ones who believed if they didn't think of it, it wasn't any good. Eventually everything got up and running, with a few hiccups, but in the end we have a good product which we still use to this day.
Deep change is a hard concept to accomplish. Incremental seems to be a bit easier and friendlier. Usually in law enforcement I have found that it’s the result of some sort of ripple effect. Something happens internally or externally to the department or agency and a change is made. It’s also done almost instantaneously creating a lot of stress throughout the organization. We tend to get comfortable in or environment when things are working well but become upset at the slightest thing that takes us out of alignment.
Deep change is difficult. It has always been engrained in us that slow methodical "baby steps" was the way to go. I can see how the old ways could lead you back to old methods and ideas.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Fascinating topic. This model, which touched on Incremental Change and Deep Change, was an exciting concept. I can see that Incremental change poses obstacles for individuals who are accustomed to how things have always worked. Not knowing unchartered territories with Deep Change could easily be met with opposition, especially for those that do not like to venture close to the edge.
I liked the part about identifying and defeating your saboteurs. I also liked the part about alignment and energy how as we progress and learn increased our vitality and empowers us.
After completing the assessment, I feel I've learned more about myself. I also took a lot from Improving Positive Intelligence and Increasing Positive Intelligence.
I agree that one person can change an organization, but at what level?
I think it can be done at any level but is more difficult the lower you are in the chain of command. A Sheriff can just make a change. Everyone else must convince someone that it is the right thing to do and necessary. That's not so bad for a Major or Chief, but a Deputy would have a long list of people to convince before it got to the top. That is why the point made by Doctor Long regarding the need for someone with enormous moral strength and courage sticks with me.
That is so true, For a deputy to make the change would require enormous moral strength. That may not be enough the bureaucratic red tape would hold it up.
In current situation that will never happen. Deputy will never effect change.
I believe one person can change an entire organization. We as leaders need to know who we are. In order to have a deep change, we must be irreversible, take risks, develop a new way of thinking, and distort current patterns of action. We have to be motivated. The saboteurs were interesting to learn about. I learned that I am a person who likes to make others happy. To improve our EQ, we need to weakened saboteurs, go into the sage mode and identify friendly versus enemy modes.
Well said, Roanne.
I have not seen many I would label as a saboteur in our Agency, but, as every other Agency on the planet, they do exist.
I believe, though, that the emphasis that has been placed on leadership these past several years is giving us the tools and resilience to deal with them quite well.
I think this could happen with the right amount of people supporting the change you wish to make. This may prove a little more difficult at the deputy or entry officer level. It’s especially difficult when you work at the leisure of a Sheriff. Then your change has to be supported all the way to the top.
Agreed , change can be encouraged by allowing people to see what you have for a vision. Where you will be taking the place you lead in the future. Using EQ to increase our mindset can only help us to be better change agents.
I believe this also but the one person has to be at the top of the organization or buy into the change that is being proposed.
Deep change starts with personal change. A person must change themselves and their way of thinking before being able to instill change within an organization. Once personal change is achieved, they can begin to implement deep change within an organization. Implementing deep change within an organization that has functioned with one mindset is difficult to achieve. Individuals tend to fear change and want to stay with the status quo. However, creating an environment of empowerment can elicit buy-in from individuals, thus making the change long-lasting.
Well said David.
This module talks about deep change which is often difficult to achieve and is irreversible. It requires completely new ways of thinking and brings an organization out of its “norm”. Incremental changes is usually more rational and is process involved. It is reversible. Most often deep change is not utilized because of fear. It requires an organization to take some big risks.
Laurie, yes deep change is difficult. We have to remember our sage.
Deep change means an irreversible, radical change that cannot be controlled form the outside but comes from within. This to me seems like a manual for helping us find our internal leadership skills and powers. By helping us as leaders learn new ways of behaving and thinking, this points us in the direction of transforming ourselves from a form of victim to a person of change. Our agencies cannot change unless the personnel within that agency change. This is why personal change is crucial and without personal changes we can ultimately led ourselves into a form of burnout.
This was a great module. Loved the talk about about friendly versus enemy mode and also learning about the sage perspective. I think i get haunted by the restless saboteur, probably to often. I enjoyed learning about all 10 saboteurs.
This module gave a name to how I conduct myself in regards to vision and change. I am definitely a "transformational leader." I am constantly looking for ways to make things better. I've been this way my entire career. I have had more doors of change slammed in my face than opened. However, being a transformational leader has allowed my subordinates to experiment and grow. Saboteurs and leaders with lack of vision have never deterred me from trying to make change. I actually enjoy the challenge of changing people's minds.
The saboteurs are alive and well within my head. Positive self-talk is something I need to implement for overcoming this. Being mindful of my thoughts and their negative focus and exercising my positive intelligence muscles will be a regular habit I establish.
I agree with you Judith, I have a great need for positive self talk as well. I need to practice dealing with the saboteurs more often and get my thoughts under control.
I agree with you Judith, I think we all need to increase our positive self-talk to better control our saboteurs, I also thinks its contagious to spread some positive thoughts to those around you and will help you surround yourself with other positive thinkers.
Change at any organization is difficult and many people resist even the smallest changes that are made. It is easier for most to Deep change is especially difficult to achieve because it involves taking risks and is permanent. Effective leaders must have the drive and willingness to make the changes needed for the betterment of the department.
Too many people within organizations resist change out of fear of the unknown. They prefer the status quo, especially those who have been with the organization for a long time. Effective transitional leaders need to show these individuals the need for change and how the change can benefit the organization as a whole.
I agree with those that resist change. When it comes to technology, if the older officers do not change, they will be stuck in the stone age, and law enforcement will leave them behind.
I agree with you, David. There are far too many "old-school" thinkers who resist changes when they should embrace it. Radical new thinking can benefit any agency when calculated risks are taken.
Chasity, I agree. I also think that when we try incremental change it is too easy to go back to the old ways. Sometimes the only way to really change and make it last is with deep change.
You are right Chasity, leaders must have the drive and be determined to make changes for the good of the department. Too many times, I have seen leaders give up because it takes work to make things happen. It is even more work when you do not have the support needed to help make these changes.
Deep change can often be difficult. Presently in my organization, we are in the process of some deep changes and it has split the department. From my perspective, the deep change within my agency was needed and it was a positive move.
The thought or action of a deep change is difficult. We recently experienced a significant change within our agency, and it too felt like a divided agency, however now it has improved. Remain positive, and it will become a positive experience over time.
Deep change is needed to keep individuals and organizations growing and moving forward, especially in the law enforcement profession. Societal changes have required organizations to rethink the way we have always done things because these "things" are no longer what our communities expect of us. I can't emphasize enough the fact that deep changes starts from within each of us. We must first change ourselves and dig deep to examine our core to understand who we are and who we need to be to be in alignment with our values. Leaders of change must exhibit the values and beliefs they desire in others to initiate deep change. Only when our inner core is aligned can we work to inspire others to focus and embrace the need to change. The ability to shift our perceptive and the perspective of others allows us to relate to the world around us differently than before. Leaders must be aware of others' points of view and work to address concerns and/or resistance to deep change to keep the transformation moving forward.
After reviewing my Saboteur Assessment Results, I have a lot of self-improving that needs to happen. Some things that you would think are important to people like doing your job right, taking pride in what you do, being somewhat of a perfectionist, turns out it is not what a leader should want. I'm not really sure I agree with some portions of the assessment. For example, I cannot see paying 80k for a new vehicle and being ok with the vehicle falling apart because the people putting it together did not think any of the above traits were important.
I also found that I have some self-improving to do after taking the assessment, it was an eye opener for sure.
I have seen first hand the differences between incremental and deep change and what it does to a department. I agree that some change is good and that a gradual easement into the change is better. Some people also need to not only see the big picture but study for themselves what the changes will bring.
Mike, in our department, I felt deep changes were needed to move forward. I personally felt the last three years as a department we have regressed because of poor leadership.
Mike, I agree that an incremental change is usually best. It isn’t as scary for most of us as we can get used to the change. As it becomes routine and all involved understand the need for it and the positive direction, things can progress
We are moving from an outdated computer system to a more in-depth system of capturing information. This is a deep change, not an incremental one. One day we will be on the old system and the next day the new system will be on-line. There have been plenty of detractors wanting to just stay with what we know. Then the younger generation will feel right at home with the new system. The need for this deep change is a long time coming, but getting everyone on board for the change has been the most difficult task. No one likes to move away from something that they understand and know how to navigate.
I agree, when change is coming officers start worrying instead of understanding that most change is needed. It is only when the officers begin to feel comfortable their worries go away.
I believe change is hardest for those officers not inside the click and getting their voices heard. If you are in the circle then you are involved in decisions and have input. Those outside do not have a voice and only learn of the changes made after they happen.
Our agency recently went through a similar situation. We updated our system and had a lot of internal saboteurs and obstacle's to overcome. But In the end it all worked out well for everyone.
My agency went through a deep change recently with or data base system. Everyone was fearful but we invited our officers to participate in the building process of the system and provided a lot of hands on training. We switched over one day and we had hiccups however, now since the change, even older officers are very pleased that we made the leap.
We also changed over our records system a couple years ago. When I think back to changes made over the last (5) to (10) years, I think this was probably one of the biggest (if not the biggest) changes that had such a large number of detractors. This lesson caused me to try to examine why it was received so poorly. There were definitely different leadership strategies that could have been implemented to have the change more well received.
As I have been in the midst of attempting to initiate deep change within my agency, this module greatly assisted me in obtaining some rationale as to why it is so difficult to do so. There are so many barriers in place, coupled with personnel that fear or resist change, that it is nearly impossible. Thus, learning some of the details as to how to navigate forward, addressing some of the reasons why they are resistant, can assist in hoping to continue the progress.
Jarod, I agree. I wish I had participated in this module before we made our last deep change with a new report writing system.
Someone once told me that there are two things that people don’t like, the first being change, and the second being things staying the way they are. In one of the units that I lead, we are currently working to effect deep change, from top to bottom. To help ensure that we are successful and that this initiative goes as smoothly as possible, we are giving our employees the freedom to lead the change. To support this, we are spending a great deal of time have open discussions about our mission, goals, pain points and the opportunities that lie in front of us. While we have a long way to go, I am confident that these efforts will lead to transformational change in each and every one of us, thereby allowing us all to grow as leaders.
I agree with your comment Chris about people complaining about not liking change and then also not liking when things stay the same. Similar to the old adage, you can't have your cake and eat it to!
As I reviewed this module and learned of deep change and positive emotional intelligence the need for change is a never-ending cycle. In our organization we are currently getting ready to go live to a new dispatch, report writing, and record management system which is an entirely new system for us. Many sections within the organization have had to navigate barriers because of the negativity due to two delays because of software glitches in the past year. As we near the “go live” in less than a week, I see the 10 saboteur’s rising from the peers and management. Now is a perfect time to increase our EQ and PQ
Dan, we went through the process of changing our RMS a little over a year ago. All I can say is that I wish you well. This will definitely have everyone on edge for a while. I can tell you that you will soon learn that the stickler saboteur was not one that the software company had high on their list. You are correct in the fact that to stay ahead, change is needed and is a never-ending process.
I fully understand. We just went live with a new RMS and most of the veteran officers are constantly complaining. Resistance to change!
I definitely need to work on my positive intelligence. I know I need to work on my personal mental saboteurs. I feel like being Hyper Rational and Hyper Vigilant is what bogs me down at times. I definitely need to cultivate my inner sage.
Change is difficult for any organization because it involves risk. Leaders have a low appetite for risk and therefore change as well. To admit that change is needed, is to admit that you are doing something wrong or inefficient, which ultimately requires humility and self-reflection. Again, nobody wants to admit they are wrong in their actions, especially leaders. However, as mentioned in previous modules, change travels laterally first then to different levels. We must, at our level, be accepting of mistakes that are produced as a result of change by our peers and subordinates and work with our subordinates to continue to develop, just like we will also make mistakes as we work toward deep change. This acceptance in itself may be a culture shift, but it is one that would benefit the organization in the long run.
Our organization is going through this right now. We are changing a software that is very outdated and needs to be changed. What we are learning is each leader training the new system before we go live is take on the transformation leadership style. Showing confidence in what we are doing is right for the organization and guiding our peers through the unknown.
I believe that deep change will only come about when we accept and make the necessary personal changes that are required to be an effective leader. I have been studying the Positive Intelligence techniques for the past 10 months. My Judge and Controller have been influencing me all my life. I am know learning how to "catch" my Saboteurs and engage my Sage brain. It takes practice and understanding that this is a new life=long skill required for real personal change. It is making me a better leader, husband, father, and friend.
My saboteurs have also been with me all of my life, but I am making slow, steady progress in bringing them under control. It definitely feels like a marathon at times, and when it does, I remind myself that all great achievements, such as a marathon, are completed one step at a time. And like you, this effort is producing results, the benefits of which are evident in both my personal and professional life.
Deep change is not easy to implement. Incremental change is a series of small changes, which can be reverted if they are seen as ineffective, or cause too much strife. Deep change requires you to dig deep, muster courage, identify deep-rooted issues and implement changes to overcome. Likewise, once we implement deep change, we must work to overcome our personal saboteurs. These saboteurs can be barriers for lasting deep change as they cause us to act in ways that sabotage our efforts and progress.
Frank, I would challenge you and the rest of the group to do a deeper dive int PQ. You will better for it. Brian
Frank, i agree deep change is not easy to implement. It is harder when there is no buy in from your employees. As someone else stated cops are very resistant to change. As leaders and in this new era of policing i think we are going to find ourselves exploring deep changes for our organizations. It is incumbent on the organizational leaders to ensure the employees are well informed about even possible changes to get them on board and over come the saboteurs that you mention. It is more important to get them involved and give them ownership of some of the changes as they will soon may be the leaders of the organzation.
Frank, you summarized the module nicely. I would say we are our own worst enemies when it comes to change, meaning if we don't buy into it whole heartedly or present a clear vision of the need, be make it more difficult to implement.
What I found most interesting was the portion explaining the differences between incremental change and deep change. I can totally understand the "fear" being a big part of why leaders are worried about making deep change. The concern of "what will this cost me if it goes wrong" is something that everyone thinks about prior to making a "deep change". Once we are confident in ourselves this "fear" should go away so deep change can be implemented.
Fear of making deep change is a reality, one which I can relate to. Deep Change can have a high cost and you can suffer personal losses, which seem significant at the time. But, in the end, wind up being necessary and appropriate for the overall good of the change.
We as humans like to be comfortable. Change causes discomfort. Deep change can be threatening due to your whole world changing with no chance of going back. We have to be able to start with personal change in ourselves.
Comfortable is nice. Change can be good when everyone finally gets on board with it. The fear of not being able to return to what you knew prior to the change causes some apprehension.
Agree. The fear of the unknown is the resistor to change.
I agree with you. Any change is difficult because we must get outside of our own comfort zone.
I agree, change makes people uncomfortable. Especially when they don't understand it or there is no turning back. Change can be a good thing too...staying the same means not going anywhere.
I agree with your response, for some people change can definitely be something so demanding for an organization. People view change as in learning new people and new rules. we just have to maintain a positive attitude.
Making any change can be unnerving, but making Deep change can be down right terrifying. But by not making change a person or organization becomes stagnet, and would start to fail at some point.
This portion was also the most interesting and relevant with what I am experiencing in my agency. All good for only incremental change that makes very little waves. If you even try to make monumental changes, stand-by...as it is next to impossible.
I also experienced the same within my agency. The trend always seems to fall on incremental change rather than deep change. With the ever-evolving world of policing and the culture of the community, I believe deep change is required for us to continue to move forward in a positive way.
Monte, I agree that fear plays a big role in resistance to deep change. Cost is always a factor - whether is monetary or just risk. Leaders must have confidence in their own abilities and level of influence to feel comfortable initiating deep change.
I agree. One of the things that I have observed regarding deep change is that individuals fear they may not be capable of making the adjustment. One example of this is the implementation of new technology. Many senior employees resist deep change involving technology because they are concerned that they will not be able to convert from the "old ways".
Hello Monte. I also found interesting the differences between incremental and deep change. I actually experienced this when l first got promoted as l came from another facility and had worked for another police agency. I had experience fear with both incremental and deep change even though the changes l was implementing would yield positive results. It took sometime for me to gain more confidence in implementing bigger organizational and individual changes.
I really liked this post. I 100% agree that incremental change is very scary for a lot of people. They want to do what is right and most believe they are making the change for the right reasons. However, having the fear or feeling uneasy if something were to go wrong can make leaders change their mind. That feeling may never completely go away, but I do agree that with a little more experience it will build confidence and hopefully make those decisions about changing something easier.
Great point! Fear is a factor on both ends. Leadership is worried about the kick back from employees and the employees fear the change in general. I feel clear and consistent information that is from the top down and bottom up approach has the biggest impact on overcoming these challenges.
I agree that fear is a huge deterrent for change, however, if we consider the saboteur behind our fear and shift out of it, perhaps we can become more enthusiastic about the possibilities.
Managers are scared of making deep change. They tend to stick with incremental change because if it does not work, they can always go back. Deep Change requires a strong leader who is willing to take the risk to better the organization.
I agree Monte, fear of what can go wrong and if something goes wrong what will it cost me prevents leaders from making necessary changes. This way of thinking will hurt an agency. The world is changing and advancing and in law enforcement, we need to make the necessary changes to keep up with it in order to better serve our communities.
I agree, it can be huge leap of faith to make a big change and leaders recognize all of the potential things that can go wrong with implementation of the change. Confidence is definitely the key to making the difference.