By ‘Phil Corkhill’ (and Sarah Charman)
In 30 years in policing, I (‘Phil’) worked alongside good people, many of whom aspired to be modern, forward-thinking leaders. You wouldn’t necessarily think it if you saw them over-obsessing with operational micromanagement, at the expense of organisational development. I experienced everyday police leadership styles that routinely contradicted espoused values of being progressive, supportive and open to change. I personally learnt more by delivering the Senior Leadership Development Programme on my College of Policing secondment than any other time. I was confident that I could offer something different on my return to force. Despite 2½ years of honing my leadership knowledge, I found that I quickly reverted and conformed. An overpowering authoritarian regime socialised me, and presumably many others who privately disclosed a desire for something different, to deliver tired and well-trodden cultural norms.
All of the above becomes a problem when policing is under such pressure to reform. Internet enabled crime, prioritising vulnerability, and high-profile examples of unethical behaviour all contribute to leadership challenges. Forces have responded in the best way they know – by improving processes. Better vetting deters dishonesty in promotion applications, action plans improve disparity figures between diverse communities, and Professional Standards teams investigate misogyny allegations. However, demonstrating zero-tolerance towards extreme manifestations of policing cultures externalises the issue, disregarding the need for a complete 180°. It overlooks how broader police cultures enabled a chief constable to lie about previous work experience or how a serving police officer used their position to abduct, rape and murder a woman. We recognise that addressing these extremes has to be a priority, but discounting the subtler cultures that underpin them risks disregarding their prevalence and persistence. More importantly, process fixes serve as a distraction. This is ‘leadership theatre’ in action.
‘Leadership theatre’ is at the heart of our article. “Leadership becomes theatre when leaders and followers mutually and tacitly accept that the impression of control and effectiveness is as, if not more, important than actual delivery.” (Corkhill & Charman, 2024). Despite attempts to remain authentic, I found myself socialised to deliver the associated meeting structures and strategies. We do not contest their utility as a necessary part of the managers’ toolkit, but we do question whether there is over-reliance on them as a solution in their own right. Incessant meetings, the seniority and numbers of attendees, and including a range of partner agencies all seemed to matter more than actual delivery. Long hours, overt displays of busy-ness and a plethora of largely superficial documents provided standalone reassurance of operational ‘grip’.
So what does all of this mean for evidence-based policing? We believe that there are a couple of things at play.
The first important challenge can be described as a research bias paradox. Those who need to lead police reform are the ones immersed in a notoriously insular world, full of cultural blind spots. They seek support from researchers, many of whom are current or ex-police officers. Universities collaborate with forces to give the service what it wants and will have impact – but too much of what it wants sits within its comfort zone – statistics and charts that can be used to deliver process improvement. Combine all this with extensive, publicly available, numerical data and it should come as no surprise that such a high proportion of police research is quantitative and operationally driven – or is it?
The second issue is not that qualitative research is rare, more that it has been largely ignored by policing. Few sectors benefit from organisational socialisation and culture research that is so specific, so extensive or so consistent. It is the impact of this research on operational policing that is conspicuous by its absence. This is important when the required reform and the barriers to it are culturally based. If left unchallenged, being seen to respond to quantitative research can fuel ‘leadership theatre’ and allow the subjective experience of those affected to slip under the radar. Stop and search figures, victim update frequency and diversity quotas all bypass the human factor. Public reaction to recent events could not deliver a clearer message – required police reform is less about the what, and far more about the why and the how. This must be supported by more qualitative research.
A recent meta-analysis adds weight to arguments that changing people to improve cultures is incredibly difficult (David et al., 2024). If improving processes, training and promoting organisational values are ineffective, then policing needs an alternative. We find Hatch and Cunliffe’s (2013) proposed shift in approach particularly relevant. They suggest that to deliver change, leaders must consider the desirable behaviours in the context of existing cultures and actively incorporate mitigating cultural inhibitors into change programme design. This can only happen when police cultures research is recognised and leaders accept their individual part in it.
Our article is autoethnographical and highly reflective. I attempt to take responsibility for my contribution towards perpetuating organisational norms. It has been described as ‘brave’, which provides its own insight into perceptions of psychological safety in policing. We wrote the piece because we believe that decades of high quality external academic observation will only have impact when responsibility to do something with it is accepted by the police service. Time will tell whether other police leaders are prepared to become introspective and own their part in perpetuating cultures or if the ‘show goes on’.
Corkhill , P. (Pseudonym), & Charman, S. (2024). The show must go on! An autoethnography of (re)socialization into senior policing in England and the prominence of “Leadership Theatre.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912416241271282
David, L., Vassena, E., & Bijleveld, E. (2024). The unpleasantness of thinking: A meta-analytic review of the association between mental effort and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 150(9). https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000443
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory : Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.