Revisiting police reform: Rank-Neutral Space as resistance and conformity

Reform and the police

Police occupational culture has historically been conceptualized in negative terms (Chan, 1996; Loftus, 2008). Research has documented the exclusion, prejudice and hostility experienced by women, black and ethnic minority and LGBT police officers (Burke, 1994; Heidensohn, 1996; Holdaway, 1997). The concept of police culture has also been used to explain police corruption, violence and abuse of authority (Punch, 1985; Terrill et al., 2003). These assumptions legitimize reform as a mechanism to improve the legitimacy of the police (Goldsmith, 2005; Waddington, 2012). However, despite a range of reforms aimed as dismantling the rank-centric culture in the police, scholars draw attention to the enduring aspects of police occupational culture (Chan, 2007; Skolnick, 2008), and as such, the characteristic features of police culture, Loftus (2010: 17) argues, ‘remain virtually untouched’.

Reform in the police has typically been top–down and externally imposed (Bayley, 2008; Savage, 2007; Sklansky, 2007). Junior officers, however, are a powerful obstacle to change, with the capacity to subvert and adapt change initiatives, and ‘lay low’ to protect themselves from managerial scrutiny (Skogan, 2008; Van Maanen, 1973). Scholars have recognized the power of driving change from ‘within’ and ‘bottom–up’ reform movements (Chan, 2007; Marks, 2000; Sklansky and Marks, 2008; Stenning and Shearing, 2005). Junior officers are understood as change agents; the credibility of reform rests on incorporating their ‘craft knowledge’ (Chatterton, 1995; Toch, 2008). Scholars call for a more nuanced understanding of the emergence and acceptance of reform, which pays attention to how change can occur within the hierarchical working environment (Bevir and Krupicka, 2007; Chan, 2007; Davies and Thomas, 2003). Space is needed within the police hierarchical structure therefore for police officers to participate in reform in ways that make best use of their knowledge of street policing.

Sociology of space

The sociology of space explores how material or physical space informs social interactions and experiences within space. The work of Henry Lefebvre (1996, 2003) provides an important contribution to understanding space as a social, cultural and historical product. For Lefebvre, space is highly political and contested, where social practices assign meanings and values to, and in, space. How space is built and used is underpinned by the politics of power; space is, Lefebvre (1977: 341) explains, ‘a product literally filled with ideologies’.

Soja (1996) develops Lefebvre's work by introducing the concept of ‘Thirdspace’. Set against physical, fixed and bounded space (Firstspace) and the ideas or representations about space (Secondspace), Thirdspace challenges traditional ways of thinking about space to theorize the social production of space and captures space as simultaneously real and imagined. The concept has been used alongside theories, such as liminal space, most notably in the works of Bhabha (1990, 1994), to consider the temporal dimensions of space. In contrast to understanding space in terms of permanence, objectivity and materiality, Thirdspace allows consideration of experience of space as fluid and transitional. The concept of Thirdspace is valuable therefore to theorize rank as real and imagined, exposing the underlying assumptions to critical inquiry.

Contextualizing rank

This research was interested in the influence of rank as an authority in the police working environment. Authority is conceptualized as a formal entitlement to command and make decisions, which is assigned to a role or office, and hierarchical in nature (Blau, 1968; Jackson et al., 2013; Jermier and Berkes, 1979). In policing, authority is designated to rank, rather than the person (Chappell and Lanza-Kadue, 2010; Trinker et al., 2018). This perspective allowed for consideration of the norms and values underpinning the legitimacy of the authority of rank (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2017).

The Situated Authority Model of Leadership (see Figure 1) depicts the relationship between rank and context to theorize how rank influences the interactions between junior and senior officers. Context is conceptualized in the Model in terms of ‘audience’ and ‘risk’. Participants in the research discussed different audiences and the ways in which this informs their leadership practice. Audience describes the level of visibility or exposure related to the leadership interactions, and is depicted in the Model as high and low audience situations. High-audience situations describe highly public, visible encounters, often involving ‘outsiders’ and typically more formal environments in which the leadership performance is exposed to scrutiny. In contrast, low-audience situations describe protected spaces, hidden from outside or public exposure, such as an informal one-to-one exchange between a junior and senior officer. The Model also conceptualizes context in leadership in terms of risk. Participants drew on their occupational experience of police work to describe the influence of risk in their leadership interactions, where risk includes threats to the public, personal safety, safety of colleagues and reputational risk to the police organization. The Model depicts these situations as high-risk and low-risk and participants drew heavily on the narrative of time to differentiate high- and low-risk situations. High-risk situations describe emergency, critical, usually operational situations, discussed in terms of ‘fast paced’. Participants regularly referred to public order or firearms incidents as examples of high-risk situations. In contrast, time is a protective factor in low-risk situations, which describe less urgent, longer-term aspects of police work with low immediate threats.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The Situated Authority Model of Leadership (Davis, 2020).

The theoretical concepts of ‘doing’ and ‘undoing’ of rank are used to illustrate the relationship between rank, leadership and context. While these concepts have been presented in the Model as distinct, binary categories to allow for comparison between ‘ideal types’, the experience of rank is not static. On the contrary, the use of rank in leadership is dynamic and fluid, rank ‘weaves in and out’ of interactions, relative to contextual factors (Davis, 2020). In high-audience and high-risk situations, participants described practices conceptualized as ‘doing rank’. These practices strongly reflect the rank hierarchy and interactions between senior and junior officers adhere to the ‘etiquette’ of rank. In these situations, decision making is rank-based, the structure of rank provides a clear demarcation of responsibilities and the authority of rank is more explicitly utilized.

The concept of doing of rank reflects studies of police occupational culture that reveal underlying assumptions that equate seniority of rank with knowledge, responsibility and decision making (Davis, 2020; Manning, 2007). There is a deeply entrenched respect for rank, grounded in the disciplined nature of the police service, and visible in the cultural artefacts of symbols, rituals and language (Joseph and Alex, 1972; Terpstra, 2020). Senior officers are for example, referred to as ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’, as recognition of their seniority and the assumed knowledge and length of service. The police occupational culture literature also documents the fear and suspicion between the senior and junior officers (Punch, 1983; Reuss-Ianni, 1983). These assumptions point to an environment of unsafety, which legitimatize ‘covering’ tactics among junior officers to minimize the likelihood of sanction (Van Maanen, 1973). This normalization of rank-based working practices therefore hinders alternative arrangements that distribute decision making across the ranks (Skolnick, 2008; Wuestewald and Steinheider, 2012).

However, participants in the research recognized the problematic impact of rank, the presence of rank perceived as creating barriers and inhibiting trust and honesty between senior and junior officers. The following quotes reflect a consensus among participants of the constraints of rank on working practices:

It's kind of like, organizational symbology, it's like, the biggest obstructive thing, you know, it's the elephant in the room … I perceive people tend to conform to a stereotypical persona when they take a responsible leadership position. That's not authentic … Putting barriers up is not the way.

The quotes provide an insight into the relationship between meanings associated with hierarchy and rank, and police culture. The expectations of senior rank, or the ‘stereotypical persona’, points to the underlying assumptions of credibility in leadership. The capacity of leaders to adhere to the conventions of rank, as Silvestri (2003: 57) observes, ‘The ability to hold and maintain rank’, is characteristic of traditional, rank-based culture.

The Situated Authority Model of Leadership illustrates that low-audience and low-risk situations create an opportunity for the undoing of rank. In these situations, the structure and authority of rank is not necessary to respond quickly, the formalities of rank can be relaxed and the influence of rank in interactions is less evident. The Model introduces the theoretical concept of ‘Rank-Neutral Space’ as a mechanism of undoing of rank.

Rank-Neutral Space describes a range of emerging practices to minimize or suspend the influence of rank in mixed-rank environments. The concept captures practices in discrete areas of the organization that are both intentional or planned and spontaneous or emergent, with the aim to build relations with staff and facilitate innovation. Participants described using signals or cues to bypass the formalities of rank. Language, in particular, was used in informal one-to-one meetings between junior and senior officers, such as describing the conversation as ‘shoulders off’, referring to the rank-specific epaulettes on the police uniform. The use of ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’ was a common example to recognize seniority of rank in mixed-rank interactions. To facilitate interactions as rank-neutral, senior police officers requested individual members of their staff to refer to them by their first name. In more intentional or planned situations, particular events were assigned rank-neutral status. Participants discussed, for example, training events where attendees were requested to arrive in non-uniform to minimize the visible demarcation of rank. Particular teams or roles were also conceived as rank-neutral. These teams or roles were typically positioned outside of the rank hierarchy or assigned a remit for challenge and innovation, so could disrupt rank-centric conventions. For example, a ‘Challenge Team’ was introduced in Cainland Constabulary to review the Constabulary's structure and processes in response to the demands of austerity, and the working practices in the team reflected rank-neutral principles. In contrast to communication being rank-based, forums or mechanisms to bypass or ‘ark’ the rank hierarchy were indicative of intentional practices to minimize the influence of rank. Cainland Constabulary, for example, introduced an ‘Ask the Chief’ email mechanism to encourage staff to question the chief officer team directly, rather than communicate via the hierarchical line management structure. These activities, both intentional and more spontaneous, provided permission to challenge rank-based communication and decision-making practices in the police workplace.

Thirdspace is characterized as ‘open and inclusive rather than confined and securely bounded by authoritative protocols’ (Soja, 1996: 162). Rank-Neutral Space represents a site where conventions of rank are suspended to construct an opportunity where alternative, rather than rank-based, working practices and configurations can emerge. Drawing on the concept of Thirdspace, I theorize the emerging practices within Rank-Neutral Space in terms of resistance and conformity to capture how police officers can both disrupt and preserve rank-based conventions in a hierarchical-laden working environment.

Rank-Neutral Space as a site of resistance

Thirdspace creates new possibilities that are ‘strikingly different’ to mainstream convention (Soja, 2009: 55). Rank-Neutral Space represents a site of resistance to conventional rank-centric culture, where alternative practices emerge. In the doing of rank, as the dominant convention, decision making is firmly rank-based; the high-risk and high-audience nature of situations regulate against challenge or questioning of senior officers. Communication in these situations is typically more top–down, directive and command-based (Grint, 2010). In contrast, Rank-Neutral Space creates an opportunity for upward critical communication. In the context of discussing the organizational culture, the following quotes capture the desire to embed challenge and questioning ‘upwards’ as an alternative to the conventional hierarchical forms of communication:

We don't want people to just take everything for granted … Policing tends to sometimes to get hung up on that hierarchical structure, and you probably notice, people are calling people ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’, to me that can just get in the way of the ability for people to challenge. I expect people to question and challenge and ask you know is that really the way of doing things?

This expectation of challenge upwards conflicts with conventional assumptions that seniority of rank equates with expertise and knowledge, and decisions of senior officers should not be questioned. The ‘relying’ on rank, illustrative of more command-based approaches, is minimized to allow for more collaborative ways of working, which points to the value of the craft knowledge of junior officers (Bayley and Bittner, 1984; Chatterton, 1995).

Participants similarly revealed the emergence of democratic working practices, illustrative of rank-neutral forms of working. The majority of participants discussed the value of engagement, consultation and collaboration with staff as indicative of good leadership practice. The following quote is typical of discussions, which placed value on democratic working principles:

I think on a more personal note, my team's views are really important, so I would consult with the team about decisions we make, as a command or as a department, and make sure they’re involved in the decision making, create that environment … it's not just about my views because I’m a higher rank.

The quote reveals therefore the desire to create a more ‘open’ working environment, made possible by suspending the influence of rank. Participants revealed an appreciation for the value of consultation and participation in decision making indicative of shared leadership practices.

This open environment of Rank-Neutral Space also supports creativity and innovation. The presence of rank, and in particular the assumptions of ‘rank knows best’, can stifle free discussions and ideas generation. In contrast, Rank-Neutral Space positions junior officers as knowledge holders and change agents (Toch, 2008; Wood et al., 2008). In discussing their understandings of good leadership, participants discussed the value of cultivating environments for staff to contribute new ideas. The following quotes capture this emerging appreciation of new ideas from junior officers:

I would like to think that we have the emerging culture here where there is appreciation of good ideas … people’s ability to think, people’s ability to innovate is actively encouraged, recognized and rewarded. And the rank is not important.

The quotes capture a challenge to the convention of innovation as rank-based, and an emerging confidence of junior officers to share ideas with senior officers. This safe space for innovation, free from the constraints of rank, is particularly important in the context of responding to ‘wicked’ social problems, indicative of the contemporary policing environment (Grint, 2010). Participants therefore recognized the value of encouraging innovation, at all levels of the police organization.

Rank-Neutral Space represents a discrete environment ‘for diverse oppositional practices’ (Soja, 1996: 84) that challenge rank-centric conventions, a way to navigate the constraints of rank and privilege alternative and critical voices. Primacy is placed therefore on collaboration, inclusivity and participation in decision making rather than hierarchical rank.

However, while Rank-Neutral Space represents the possibility of difference in working practices, this opportunity is not always fully realized in practice. Although there was evidence of emerging alternatives in working practices when the influence of rank was minimized, there was also evidence that interactions within Rank-Neutral Space continue to adhere to and preserve rank-centric conventions; Rank-Neutral Space as a site of conformity.

Rank-Neutral Space as a site of conformity

Soja (1996) describes space as both enabling and oppressive, containing practices that adhere to and reinforce existing power dynamics. The designation of space as rank-neutral requires the ‘informal’ permission of senior rank; the senior ranking officer needs to set the precedent. Police officers, for example, are not able to call a senior officer by their first name without prior convention, either at an individual or organizational level. The authority of rank is inherent in the process of defining the situation therefore the influence of rank, although minimized, is not removed completely.

Participants discussed opposition from their staff to attempts to minimize presence of rank. This was particularly evident in the continued use of ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am’ in reference to senior rank, as positioning information, and discussions of a continued awareness of differential rank status among junior officers. In reflecting on the response from their staff to the downplaying of rank, the quotes below reveal the continued awareness and adherence to conventions of rank among junior officers, despite the attempts of senior officers to minimize this:

It recognized that rank, and it's a little bit of a way of saying your responsibilities are different to mine. You become comfortable with it quite quickly when you’re using it … it's actually you are then fitting in, it makes you feel as though you belong.

The quotes capture a continued ‘rank consciousness’ among junior officers. Despite the attempts of senior officers to suspend rank, for junior officers, the discussions point to a sense of reassurance provided by the adherence to rank etiquette and a sense of belonging. The quotes also reveal the underlying assumptions of fear associated with senior rank, which was a common justification among participants for conforming to traditional, rank-centric forms of working. In discussing this resistance, the quotes below illustrate this sense of fear:

It's a nervousness … Because they have a fear, and this is nothing else other than historic, a culture thing, they will have a fear of ‘what's the [rank] doing?’ ‘Why is [he/she] sitting down talking to my PCs? … what is the [rank] thinking?’

Findings from the interviews, therefore, reveal the perseverance of ‘rank consciousness’ in the interactions between senior and junior officers, despite attempts to develop alterative rank-neutral practices (Silvestri, 2003). The quotes above, for example, capture the suspiciousness and scepticism underpinning interactions with senior officers, and the fear of punitive action among junior officers. These assumptions, and the fear of sanction, therefore act as a barrier to the complete acceptance of rank-neutral forms of working.

Participants, particularly the junior officers, questioned the authenticity and ‘meaningfulness’ of rank-neutral practices, expressing a lack of trust in alternative ways of working. Participants reflected on the conflicts in how rank-neutral practices were ‘communicated’ and ‘received’ between the ranks. In discussing their perceptions of downplaying rank by senior officers, the quotes below capture the ways in which rank-neutral practices are interpreted as emphasizing, rather than minimizing, the authority of rank:

You know, a former chief was known for it, hold a consultation meeting, but he was a skilled narrator and he was in charge, so with this power, it was almost visible, yes, he would welcome you asking questions in the right way, but there were limitations. It didn't feel like there were free discussions.

The discussions highlight the contested nature of how Rank-Neutral Space is imagined and experienced. The quotes point to the challenge of translating rank-neutral principles into meaningful practice, and allude to the continued ‘feeling’ and ‘presence’ of rank among junior officers. The quotes also illustrate the perceptions of the limits or parameters in relation to challenging rank-centric conventions, and the negative experiences in response to downplaying rank functioning to reaffirm the authority of rank.

Rank etiquette ‘weaves in’ therefore to practices within Rank-Neutral Space; rank-centric conventions continue to influence interactions in these safe spaces. Rank-neutral practices require those at the more senior positions to relinquish authority, for example, in decision making. These alternative practices challenge convention that decision making and responsibility are synonymous with hierarchical position; rank-centric practices provide reassurance. Although Rank-Neutral Space creates an opportunity to minimize differential status, the presence of rank continued to be experienced by junior officers. Practices indicate, in other words, attempts to minimize the authority of rank, but not remove it completely; the space is not ‘rank free’. For junior officers, there is a need to be careful in navigating rank in ways that do not disrupt conventional practice ‘too much’. Practices within these spaces therefore represent a simultaneous challenge to, and respect of, the boundaries of rank; the conventions of rank continued to be observed and sustained.

Implications

This article extends the Situated Authority Model of Leadership to theorize Rank-Neutral Space as a site of resistance and conformity. Rank is an ‘ordering system’ in the police workplace, it provides clear lines of responsibility, and perceived as essential to fulfil parts of the police role (Crego and Alison, 2004; Reuss-Ianni, 1983). These conventions constrain democratic working practices.

The theoretical concept of Rank-Neutral Space describes ways in which police officers navigate the rank-centric culture to facilitate reform. The research revealed evidence of a commitment to democratic principles in these spaces, where decision making is collaborative rather than rank-based. The procedural justice literature reminds us that democratic working practices facilitate non-adversarial relations between police and the public (Blader and Tyler, 2003; Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012; Bradford and Quinton, 2014). Rank-Neutral Space represents ‘a context from which to build communities of resistance’ (Soja, 2009: 57) where critical reflection and democratic decision making can emerge. This is particularly pertinent in the context of increasing scrutiny of police relations with minority communities, where utilizing rank-neutral practices may strengthen trust and confidence among marginalized populations (Tyler, 2001; Van Craen, 2012).

Police organizations across the globe are facing demands for change. Scholars however have long argued that meaningful reform in the police emerges, not from top–down or externally imposed policy, but from internally driven initiatives (Bayley, 2008; Toch, 2008). Marks (2000: 557) calls for transforming the police from within, and this change can be generated by, what Marks refers to as, ‘dissident groups’ that ‘defy existing police practice and frameworks’. Rank-Neutral Space offers an opportunity to privilege critical voices, at all levels of the police organization, as a mechanism of meaningful reform from within. At a time when police organizations are required to demonstrate the appreciation of difference within the police, Rank-Neutral Space creates an opportunity for reform where junior officers are positioned as valued co-producers of change (Sklansky, 2006; Wood et al., 2008).

Current demand on the police requires new patterns of cross-organizational working that emphasize interdependencies rather than individual capabilities, collaboration rather than hierarchical position (Benington and Hartley, 2010; Fleming, 2012). Rank-centric practices, which may make sense in police-only space, conflict with the collaboration needed for the police to work effectively across multiple organizational boundaries (Stenning and Shearing, 2012). Rank-Neutral Space provides an alternative environment to create new knowledge and networks to negotiate the complexities of the contemporary environment.

However, the contemporary policing landscape challenges the development of Rank-Neutral Space. Social media has transformed how policing is represented in public; the activities of the police are now visible and interrogated globally (Bulllock, 2018; Greer and McLaughlin, 2012). The role of new technologies and the civilization of police governance has redefined institutional accountability and led to greater transparency of police decision making (Chan, 2001; Holdaway, 2017). Alongside this, the Black Lives Matter protests, the policing enforcement of the COVID-19 pandemic and rallying calls to ‘defund’ the police represent heightened concerns about the role, and the legitimacy, of the institution (Jones, 2020; Joseph-Salisbury et al., 2021; McDowell and Fernandez, 2018). Taken together, these developments lead to an expansion of the high-audience field; police officers may be more likely to perceive their working environment as highly scrutinized and comprising high-risk. Interactions, previously defined as low-audience, are now highly visible. This increased scrutiny is an important mechanism of holding the police to account; however, since Rank-Neutral Space emerges in low-audience situations, the expansion of high-audience space may function to constrain practices that challenge the deference to rank. Rank-neutral practices, in an increasingly scrutinized environment, might be assumed as a risk.

Rank-Neutral Space affords opportunity to challenge hierarchical working arrangements. The contextual nature however creates an element of ‘boundaried space’, where practices exist to challenge, but not transform, dominant rank-based dynamics. In Rank-Neutral Space, police officers both disrupt and adhere to rank-centric conventions. The presence of rank continues to be experienced by junior officers, Rank-Neutral Space as a site of resistance, but not of absolute rejection. Rank-Neutral Space may therefore contain both processes of change and continuity, restricting and liberating elements, where rank-neutral and rank-centric practices coexist; a space of incompatible practices, where the old and new intersect.