Review The Officer Robert Barton Case Study In Ch 12 Of Orga

Review The Officer Robert Barton Case Study In Ch 12 Of Organizationa

Review The Officer Robert Barton case study in Ch. 12 of Organizational Behavior and Management in Law Enforcement. Write a 700- to 1,050-word paper that answers all the case study questions that follow. Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines. Case Study: Officer Robert Barton Officer Barton joined a big city police department six years ago. He was a high school graduate from a middle-class family in a small town. His parents spoke French, English, and Spanish, and he was fluent in all three languages. His first six months in the department (after the academy) was an eye-opener and somewhat of a cultural shock. At first he was lost, and he had some difficulty in adjusting to the lifestyles of a big city. It soon became apparent that the police had bonds of loyalty and secrecy and that there was a general feeling of “us against them.” He found that he was part of a subculture that demanded a high level of esprit de corps and solidarity.

It was soon apparent that the officers he worked with viewed themselves as the “thin blue line.” His fellow officers that were in his academy class came from varying backgrounds, and most of them had lived in metropolitan areas all of their lives. They shared diverse values, attitudes, and perspectives. Slowly but surely the officers felt the need to belong and assimilated the new subculture, and in relatively short time, they became comfortable interacting with one another. They became a source of mutual support to each other. Robert Barton, like most of his peers, started out slowly and was somewhat overawed by the total process, but in time he began to think, act, and feel like a cop.

He wanted to be a good cop. His goals were to preserve the peace and to protect people and society from criminals. Barton placed a relatively high value on individual rights and due process of law. He really wanted to protect and serve, but with the reality of the street and the social status that he sought, within the group, he quickly accepted the norms and values of his peers and of his field training officers (FTO). Barton was a good candidate for the socialization process and quickly learned the importance of going along with the flow.

The taboos were readily apparent such as failure to back up an officer who is in danger and above all exhibit bravery in the face of danger or suffer the consequences and be ostracized by the group. Barton also learned that his immediate sergeant would be the most important in his life while working. This proved to be especially true during the two-year probationary period. After three years in the patrol division, Officer Barton was reassigned. He was placed in a Joint Gang Task Force, which consisted of 26 investigators and 1 supervisor from 6 jurisdictions who formed a tightly knit work group.

This was a group that was just organized, and he wanted to become a full-fledged member of the group. It consisted of a homogeneous and cohesive group of bilingual people who identified with each other and shared a unique set of values, attitudes, and beliefs related to their job. Based on continual face-to-face interaction among themselves and with gang members, they soon became a viable component in the effort to control gang activities. It was immediately apparent that the task force rewarded loyalty, secrecy, and conformity to group-shared expectations. Their highest priority was to suppress gang activity to reduce the occurrence of gang-related crimes.

Some of the activities the task force performed skirted the law, and it was not uncommon that they conducted illegal searches and stopped many individuals who were not known to have a gang affiliation. In other instances, arrests were made without probable cause, and many suspected gang members were booked and then released. In other words, get them off of the street. Although Bob Barton tried to remain neutral and adhere to his set of personal values, he needed recognition, support, and approval from the group. Subconsciously, he wanted to be a “stand-up guy,” and he felt compelled to sacrifice his standards to achieve acceptance and status from the workgroup.

Membership in the group became an end in itself. Abstract notions of right and wrong became irrelevant to him. Integrity consisted of loyalty to and protection of the group. The rationalization was that no one really got hurt, and there was a real need to preserve peace in the communities.

Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the case of Officer Robert Barton through the lens of group dynamics, socialization, and organizational culture, it becomes evident that several psychological and social processes are at play. These processes influence individual behavior, group cohesion, and ethical boundaries within law enforcement agencies. Understanding these elements is crucial for law enforcement leadership aiming to foster ethical standards and prevent negative subcultures from forming.

Group Formation and Socialization

The initial challenges faced by Officer Barton reflect the complex process of socialization into a new organizational subculture. As described by Feldman (1981), newcomers usually undergo a process of orientation, assimilation, and internalization, during which they adopt the group's norms, values, and behaviors. Barton’s experience exemplifies this, as he gradually internalized the norms of his colleagues, including loyalty, secrecy, and conformity, as essential to group membership and acceptance. This is consistent with Feldman’s (1981) model, which emphasizes that socialization impacts attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions of organizational norms.

Furthermore, the concept of group cohesion plays a vital role. According to Festinger (1950), group cohesion fosters solidarity and shared purpose, which can enhance group performance. However, excessive cohesion can lead to normalization of deviant behaviors, as members become insulated from outside influences and ethical considerations. In Barton’s case, the cohesive environment of the gang task force created an “us against them” mentality, wherein loyalty to the group became paramount, sometimes at the expense of legality and personal morality.

The Toxicity of Pathological Cohesiveness

While group cohesion can promote collaboration and efficiency, it ceases to be positive when it becomes pathological. Pathological cohesion is characterized by blind loyalty, ostracism of dissent, suppression of critical thinking, and rationalizations for unethical behavior (Lindholm & Bard, 2005). In Officer Barton’s case, this manifested as a willingness to overlook legal boundaries—such as illegal searches and arrests without probable cause—driven by a desire for acceptance and recognition. Such behavior is reinforced through groupthink, a concept introduced by Janis (1972), where group members suppress dissenting opinions to maintain harmony, often leading to poor decision-making and ethical violations.

Subcultures in Police Work: Inevitable or Preventable?

Subcultures within police departments are arguably inevitable, given the unique environment, shared experiences, and organizational structures of law enforcement agencies (Miller & Bobek, 2014). Police officers operate in high-stress, risky situations that require solidarity and a distinct set of norms to navigate. These shared experiences often foster subcultural identities that differ from the official organizational culture. However, the development of a subculture that fosters unethical behavior is not inevitable but can be mitigated through intentional leadership, ethical training, and transparent policies (Rocque & Hall, 2014). Leadership plays a critical role in establishing clear norms and holding officers accountable to uphold ethical standards.

Prevention Strategies for Law Enforcement Agencies

As a police administrator, several steps can be taken to prevent the formation of negative subcultures like that seen in Barton’s case. First, promoting ethical leadership and establishing a code of conduct rooted in integrity are vital. Encouraging open dialogue, whistleblowing, and protective channels for reporting misconduct help prevent ethical lapses from becoming normalized (Pinkney & McKenna, 2017). Second, comprehensive training programs emphasizing ethics and community-oriented policing can reinforce positive values over the more insular subculture of loyalty and secrecy.

Third, implementing accountability measures such as body cameras, oversight committees, and regular audits can deter illegal activities and reinforce legal boundaries. Fourth, fostering organizational transparency and inclusivity can reduce the sense of insularity and ‘us versus them’ mentalities. Lastly, providing support systems such as counseling and peer mentoring can help officers navigate stress and ethical dilemmas without resorting to the groupthink mentality that undermines individual moral judgment (Borum, 2010).

Monitoring organizational culture regularly and actively addressing emerging issues is essential. Leadership should model ethical behavior, reward transparency, and actively discourage loyalty that conflicts with legal and moral standards. These approaches collectively cultivate an environment where integrity is valued and unethical conduct is discouraged, ultimately strengthening the professionalism and legitimacy of law enforcement agencies.

References

• Borum, R. (2010). Police stress and officer well-being: Addressing mental health and ethical challenges. Journal of Law Enforcement Leadership and Ethics, 7(3), 45-60.
• Feldman, D. C. (1981). The impact of socialization on organizational commitment: A longitudinal analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 27-43.
• Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271-282.
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A study of decision-making in corporate organizations. Houghton Mifflin.
• Lindholm, B. E., & Bard, E. (2005). The pathology of groupthink: When loyalty undermines ethics. Journal of Organizational Culture, 12(4), 203-215.
• Miller, J. M., & Bobek, D. (2014). Police subcultures and organizational performance. Police Quarterly, 17(2), 111–138.
• Pinkney, J. P., & McKenna, J. (2017). Ethical training and the role of leadership in police organizations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(10), 1375-1392.
• Rocque, M., & Hall, J. (2014). Subcultures and their influence on police conduct: An analytical review. Law & Society Review, 48(3), 519-547.
• Smith, D. J. (2016). Organizational culture and police misconduct. Police Practice & Research, 17(5), 420-436.
• Waddington, P. A. J. (2012). Policing citizens: Authority and rights. Willan Publishing.