VOL. 06 | Winter 2021 - Thames Valley Police
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
VOL. 06 | Winter 2021 1
WELCOME
In this edition
Welcome to the sixth edition of the Thames Valley Police Journal. I am delighted that the journal
has been running for three years now and continues to showcase the excellent contributions of
our officers and staff, as well as academics who work closely with us in TVP.
Our aim is always to link academic and practical research with operational impact and this
edition does exactly that. Our first article by Inspector Mike Darrah looks at the consequences
of organisational injustice, with a focus on wellbeing. This is timely with the current impact of
COVID19 on our workforce, but even in calmer times, the significance of organisational injustice
on the mental health and wellbeing of our staff should not be under-estimated and policing
should review this carefully.
We then follow with an exciting article from intelligence analyst Dario Galasso about Disclosure
and the possibilities that could come from involving intelligence analysts in investigations going
forward. This is opportune with the new disclosure laws that came into effect at the end of 2020
and investigators should consider how we could use these new processes to benefit serious
investigations.
An article from Dr Hannah Maslen, who works with TVP’s ethics committee and DCS Colin
Paine considers a current ethical issue of police personnel attending protests off duty. Written
after careful debate with ethics champions in force, this thoughtful article carefully challenges
perceptions and principles around protest. Our final two articles come from PC Simon Norman
from our Tactical Firearms Group on a literature review conducted into the benefits of mixed
methodology research, and an article from Dr Christian Krekel from the London School of
Economics around Survey data collection. Both articles are extremely useful for those
considering research methods.
Finally I would like to note the support of Chief Inspector Lee Barnham for his continued
practical support of the journal. Without his significant contribution, and that of our Peer
reviewers, we wouldn’t have a journal so thank you Lee!
To my Thames Valley Police colleagues, the value of the journal is evident but we need your
contributions to ensure we have articles going forward. Please consider writing for us, whether
or not you are currently engaged in an academic programme of work!
I hope you enjoy reading this edition as much as I have, and please do send any feedback you
have into the email inbox TVPJournal@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk
Detective Superintendent Katy Barrow-Grint
Head of Specialist Operations
Joint Editor of the Thames Valley Police Journal
2
EDITORS
Chief Superintendent Robert France
Rob joined Thames Valley’s Oxford Local Police Area having completed his
undergraduate and doctoral degrees in Chemistry at St John’s College, Oxford and fell
in love with policing as a whole new aspect of a city he thought he knew opened up in
front of him. He has performed a wide variety of roles across the force area in response,
neighbourhood and investigative policing, particularly enjoying his time as a detective
inspector. Most recently he was the Local Police Area Commander for Wokingham (and
latterly Bracknell and Wokingham) for over four years, overseeing the merger of those
two areas. He has always been interested in organisational development, and was part
of the small team which delivered the force’s Local Policing Model in 2011. He currently
leads the Governance and Service Improvement department, which is committed to
using and developing the best available thinking to guide and develop the organisation
and maintains his operational exposure as an active Public Order Silver Commander.
In 2011 Rob completed a master’s degree in police leadership and management at the
University of Leicester, with the emerging culture of Police Community Support Officer’s
the focus of his dissertation. He has a particular interest in the challenge of translating
research into practical operational change, and how the practical wisdom that has been
developed over many decades can not only inform but also drive that work. He sees the
journal as a fantastic opportunity not only to share the huge range of fantastic research
that is being conducted across the organisation but also to explore that core question:
how can we use the growing body of research to make practical day to day policing
better?
Superintendent Katy Barrow-Grint
Katy joined Thames Valley Police in 2000 having studied Sociology at the London
School of Economics and developed an interest in crime and policing from her
dissertation work on girl gangs. She has worked in a variety of roles and ranks including
uniform patrol, CID, neighbourhood policing, child abuse investigation, surveillance and
strategic development.
As a Detective Chief Inspector, Katy oversaw the Oxfordshire Protecting Vulnerable
People Unit, and introduced the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) into
Oxfordshire. Katy's domestic abuse team were the subject of the BBC1 documentary
'Behind Closed Doors' and she has a keen academic interest in domestic abuse, having
recently published an academic journal article on domestic abuse attrition rates.
Katy was the Head of Criminal Justice for Thames Valley Police until 2019. In this role
she has encouraged the academic review of a pilot scheme to fast-track domestic abuse
cases in the crown court by implementing a research project with Huddersfield
University, the PCC’s office, the CPS and Aylesbury Crown Court. She is keen to join
academic research with operational policing and the criminal justice system and sees
the value of both academics and police officers and staff working together. Katy is
currently Detective Superintendent Head of Specialist Operations.
Katy’s academic interest amplified when she completed her Masters in Police
Leadership and Management at Warwick Business School in 2015.
She was keen to develop the Force’s understanding of the academic work being
completed by officers and staff, and as a result, the TVP Journal has emerged. She is
really pleased that TVP will now have a fantastic gateway to recognise the academic
work of its officers and staff, and there is significant national interest in the journal which
will encourage other forces to progress similarly.
You can contact Katy by email: katy.barrow-grint@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk or follow
her on Twitter: @ktbg1
3
THIS JOURNAL
Articles appearing in the Thames Valley Police Journal
The purpose of the Thames Valley Police Journal is to ensure the diverse range of academic
work undertaken within the organisation is captured and shared to inform the evidence based
development of policy and practice. It is also intended that the Thames Valley Police Journal
will support the development of discussion about a variety of policing issues which are not
necessarily related to formal pieces of academic work.
There are three levels of submission to the Thames Valley Police Journal:
(1) Full article emanating from academically rigorous work undertaken as part of a formal
qualification.
(2) Research/practice note which is not completed as part of a formal qualification, but is
of high quality and evidence based. This could include papers from those seeking to
undertake future academic work, but who have not yet gained a qualification.
(3) Comment/discussion piece relating to evidence-based policing but that does not
increase the evidence base per se. This could include sharing experiences of trying to
implement a practice locally and what was learnt from the experience.
Criteria for the inclusion of articles in the Thames Valley Police Journal
It is important that whilst the articles in this journal support evidence based policing the content
cannot compromise operational activity or undermine the public trust and confidence in Thames
Valley Police.
In order to determine this, the following criteria will be considered and articles will not be
included where they:
Contain information capable of identifying victims in any circumstances. This goes
further than data protection legislation as it also covers individuals who are deceased.
Disclose information about an ongoing investigation, covert tactics or affect proceedings
undertaken by any other public body.
Deter victims or witnesses having the confidence to speak to the police.
In addition any information published must:
Comply with legal requirements, court restrictions and media law.
Be subject to Parliamentary Privilege.
Further consideration must be given to the impact that may be caused by those affected by
reading previously unknown detail about the case.
Process for reviewing articles
Each article is reviewed by one internal peer reviewer and the editorial team prior to publication.
In order to ensure the criteria for inclusion are met, the editorial team will also seek specialist
advice from other departments where necessary. Where recommendations are made articles
are sent to the Head(s) of Department for the business area for consideration against the wider
evidence base and any limitations of the research.
4CONTENTS
Welcome 2
Editors 3
This journal 4
‘The consequences of organisational injustice’: How and to what extent 6 – 27
does the perception of organisational injustice impact upon the
psychological wellbeing of police officers in the UK?
Mike Darrah
From culture shift to cognitive shift: How intelligence analysis can help 28 – 47
investigators meet their disclosure duties
Dario Galasso
Is it permissible for police officers and staff to take part in protests? 48 – 57
Dr. Hannah Maslen and Colin Paine
Could a mixed methodology research approach offer more validity to 58 – 75
police research and ultimately the wider adoption of research in
policing?
Simon Norman
Methodology Corner: Survey Data Collection: Some Thoughts on What 76 – 79
Matters
Dr. Christian Krekel
5‘The consequences of organisational injustice’: How and
to what extent does the perception of organisational
injustice impact upon the psychological wellbeing of
police officers in the UK?
Author: Affiliations:
Mike Darrah Thames Valley Violence Reduction
Unit (VRU); University of
Portsmouth
Email:
mike.darrah@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk
Abstract
Despite recent and widespread efforts to bring the topic of ‘officer wellbeing’ to the forefront of
the policing agenda; work-related stress, anxiety, depression and long-term sickness continues
to be a significant challenge for senior police leaders right across the UK. Whilst a plethora of
research exists, documenting the many ‘operational’ stressors in policing, this research focuses
instead, on the lesser-known ‘organisational’ stressors, in order to understand how, and to what
extent, perceptions of organisational injustice impact upon police officer psychological
wellbeing. The research presented in this article met those aims by utilising both a review of
‘Organisational Justice’ and ‘Wellbeing’ literature and a small-scale study with police officers
from Thames Valley Police, through the use of an online survey. The key conclusions drawn
from this study were; firstly, that there continues to be a worryingly high number of police
officers still suffering from stress, anxiety and or depression; and secondly, that perceptions of
organisational injustice do impact quite considerably on the psychological health and wellbeing
of police officers. This study finally makes a number of recommendations, namely around
further training and support for police supervisors; improvements to officer working conditions,
specifically in respect of workload distributions, working hours and roles and responsibilities;
and lastly around the fairness, consistency and transparency in both processes and decision-
making, particularly in respect of promotion, role selection, and resourcing.
Keywords: Organisational justice; psychological health; wellbeing; stress and anxiety
6Introduction
The last decade has delivered an unparalleled period of change for policing across the
developed world, and none more so than here in the UK (Brown, 2014; Hesketh, Cooper, &
Ivy, 2015). Austerity, cuts to policing budgets, a succession of government-led reforms, and
more recently the global Covid-19 pandemic, have all taken their toll, not only on the policing
sector as a whole, but all those that work within it (Holdaway, 2017; Parliament.uk, 2015;
Thornton, 2019, Waseem & Laufs, 2020).
Alongside this changing policing landscape, has also arisen a changing social landscape
(Charman, 2019). The ability, through the use of camera phones and social media, to almost
instantaneously capture and circulate images and video footage to millions worldwide, has
brought about unprecedented levels of scrutiny on the police service…and in turn police officers
(Morrow, Vickovic, Dario, & Shjarback, 2019). Demand for police services has also changed.
Whilst more traditional crimes, e.g. burglary and theft, have reduced over recent years; serious
violence, sexual offences and fraud have increased exponentially (Charman, 2019; ONS,
2020). New and more complex crimes have also materialised, e.g. ‘Child Sexual Exploitation’
and ‘Cyber Crime’ (CoP, 2015); and non-crime related demand has also seen considerable
growth, as the prolonged period of austerity similarly takes its toll on health and social care
providers, causing the police to be increasingly used “…as the service of first resort”
(HMICRFS, 2017, p. 8).
However, despite these increases in demand, officer numbers have continued to fall (Home
Office, 2018a). Unsurprisingly, these ever-increasing demands and pressures upon the police
service, have in turn, had a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of officers (Duran,
Woodhams, & Bishopp, 2018). On the 31st March 2019, the Home Office (2019a) reported that
2,370 officers were shown long-term sick across England and Wales. This equates to 1.9% of
the total workforce and demonstrates a five-year consistent trend and an upward trend since
2010. The Times also reported that in the year leading up to the 31st March 2018, 9,672 officers
had been absent from work due to anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress (Ford, 2018).
This corroborates the findings of a survey carried out by the Police Federation in 2019, which
highlighted that one in five officers had suffered PTSD, two thirds had suffered a work-related
mental health condition, and over 90% of officers went to work, notwithstanding that they were
suffering from psychological ill-health (Polfed, 2019; Thornton, 2019). A great deal of research
exists, highlighting the many operational stressors in policing, and the detrimental impact they
can have in terms of an officer’s health and wellbeing (Burke, & Page, 2017; Violanti et al, 2017;
McCreary, Fong, & Groll, 2017). Evidence also demonstrates that continual exposure to
distressing and traumatic incidents, can lead to acute levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and
professional burnout (Burke, & Page, 2017; Sheard, Burnett, & St Clair-Thompson, 2019).
However, there is a growing pool of evidence that suggests, that whilst it is widely accepted
that these more operational stressors do undoubtedly impact upon levels of stress and ill-health
amongst police officers (Brunetto et al, 2012; Thornton, 2019), it is the organisational factors,
e.g. supervision, policies and procedures and decision-making, that contribute most to rates of
officer psychological ill-health (Burke, 2017; Roberts & Herrington, 2013). This particular area
of research is commonly referred to as ‘Organisational Justice’ (OJ).
This article will focus on the topic of OJ in policing, and identify how and to what extent
perceptions of organisational injustice (O-IJ) impact upon officer health and psychological
wellbeing.
Literature Review
Organisational Justice (OJ)
First conceived by Greenberg (1987, cited by Byrne & Cropanzano, 2001), OJ is, in its simplest
form, the study of perceptions of fairness in the workplace. OJ however, appears to be more
of an umbrella term, than an individual concept, and has over time, been expanded upon and
7divided, as research has developed and evolved (Colquitt, 2008). Early research was based
upon two distinct components, Distribution Justice (DJ), which relates to how equitably
resources (payment, reward) are disseminated amongst workers (Colquitt et al, 2001); and
Procedural Justice (PJ), which relates to the fairness of the processes used to determine that
dissemination (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2001).
However, in 1986, Bies and Moag introduced a third element, Interactional Justice (IJ), which
had up until that point, been included under the banner of PJ (Baldwin, 2006, Nix & Wolfe,
2016). This third element relates to the both the interpersonal treatment received during
exchanges with others, particularly with those in positions of authority or seniority (Byrne &
Cropanzano, 2001) and the extent to which decision makers communicate and rationalise
decisions to their staff. Colquitt (2001) later expanded upon the concept of IJ further, observing
that IJ had two prominent features. The first he termed Interpersonal Justice, which relates to
the extent to which people are treated with respect, politeness and dignity. The second he
termed as Informational Justice, which relates to the sharing of information, specifically during
a decision-making process (Colquitt, 2008; Colquitt & Conlon, 2001). What had started out, as
a two-dimensional model had quickly become a four-dimensional model.
OJ in Policing
Despite the wealth of OJ research within non-police settings, most of the studies carried out
within policing, have tended to concentrate on either internal structures, or the impacts of
operational decision-making on staff attitudes and behaviours (Bullock & Garland, 2019). Very
little research exists around the perceptions of OJ in policing (Quinton, Myhill, Bradford, Fildes,
& Porter, 2015; Roberts, & Herrington, 2013), and it is not until relatively recently, that studies
have started to examine the role of OJ in shaping police culture, and exploring its association
with organisational commitment, job satisfaction and officer well-being (Bullock & Garland,
2019; Donner, Maskaly, Fridell, & Jennings, 2015).
Despite the lack of knowledge of OJ in policing, PJ is a term that has been used within policing
for many years, and one that is still promoted day to day (Jones & Rowe, 2015; Jackson, 2015),
and which is seen as vitally important in achieving not only police legitimacy, but gaining the
trust and confidence of communities (Donner et al, 2015; Nix, Wolfe, & Rojek, 2014). External
PJ, as it is known, is concerned with the relationship between the police and the public, and
specifically how fair the public perceive the police to be (Roberts & Herrington, 2013). Those
perceptions of fairness can be associated with several factors – the fairness in which the police
conduct themselves, the fairness in the processes used to make decisions, and the way in
which they carry out their duties and use their powers (Zamir, Mastrofski, & Moya, 2015).
Research suggests that in terms of internal PJ, officers look for the same from their
organisation, as the public expect from them, which is to be treated fairly, impartially and with
dignity and respect (Yale et al, 2016). This is a perspective also shared by Nix & Wolfe (2016,
p. 18), who argue that “good policing starts inside the walls of police stations”. They emphasise
that we cannot expect police officers to deliver external PJ, if they themselves do not receive
internal PJ (Nix & Wolfe, 2016). Evidence supports this, showing that positive perceptions of
OJ within police organisations can have the same effects on officers, as external PJ does on
the public (Quinton et al, 2015; Roberts, & Herrington, 2013). There is also evidence to suggest
a strong association between the two, essentially, the greater the perception of internal
organisational fairness, the more likely it is that officers will deliver external PJ, and in turn, gain
the public’s trust and confidence (Roberts & Herrington, 2013; Nix & Wolfe, 2016; Quinton et
al, 2015). There is further evidence to suggest that this also has direct consequences on public
safety and the safety of officers, as officers who perceive their organisation to be fair, are more
likely to be confident in their own authority, more likely to promote and adhere to regulations
and less likely to engage in or support misconduct (Qureshi et al, 2016; Roberts & Herrington,
2013; Nix & Wolfe, 2016; Beckley, 2014; Wolfe, Rojek, Manjarrez, & Rojek, 2018).
As well as these external benefits, an internally just organisation also benefits those that work
for it, and the organisation as a whole (Quinton et al, 2015). In terms of officers, perceptions
of OJ have been found to be positively associated with greater levels of commitment, job
satisfaction, trust and loyalty (Yale et al, 2016; Beckley, 2014; Rani et al, 2012; Karam et al,
2018). In contrast, perceptions of O-IJ, are negatively linked with cynicism, malfeasance,
8disobedience, and lower levels of loyalty and commitment (Quinton et al, 2015; Rani et al, 2012;
Wolfe et al, 2018). This is particularly noteworthy when considering that unlike non-police
workplace settings, research suggests that in policing, commitment, loyalty and that sense of
belonging actually diminish the longer an officer serves (Charman, 2017). Perceptions of
injustice are also found to contribute to officer ill-health, which in turn have a negative impact
on sickness rates, and the number of officers deemed to be non-deployable (Rani et al, 2012;
Huong et al, 2016; Beckley, 2014). Folger & Cropanzano (1998, as cited by Qureshi et al,
2016) highlight the benefits of internal OJ, arguing that “Justice holds people together, whereas
injustice can pull them apart”.
Wellbeing
What is wellbeing?
The subject of ‘wellbeing’, has been studied intensely by psychologists for many decades (Deci
& Ryan, 2006), however despite that, the precise definition of wellbeing remains unclear, and
academics themselves remain conflicted on what actually constitutes wellbeing (Forgeard,
Jayawickreme, Kern, & Seligman, 2011; Goodman, Disabato, Kashdan, & Kauffman, 2017).
Sometimes referred to as ‘life satisfaction’ (Ryff, 1989), sometimes ‘happiness’ (Shin &
Johnson, 1978), other times ‘flourishing’ (Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002), what is clear, is that
the topic of wellbeing is an enormously complex and multifaceted area of research (Dodge,
Daly, Huyton, & Sanders, 2012; Forgeard et al, 2011; Atkinson, Fuller, & Painter, 2016), which
has borne from it, a variety of indistinct descriptions and definitions (Dodge et al, 2012;
Goodman et al, 2017; Forgeard et al, 2011). By and large though, wellbeing research has
taken one of two directions, the first ‘hedonistic’ which tends to denote pleasure, and the second
‘eudemonic’, which is more about the meaning of life and self-realisation, or happiness (Deci &
Ryan, 2006; Albuquerque, 2010).
Over recent years, the term ‘wellbeing’ has been increasingly used and referred to by
governments, employers and the media (Atkinson et al, 2016), who acknowledge the benefits
of a happy and healthy workforce, and who now accept its positive associations with job
satisfaction, employee productivity, and morale (Sonnentag, 2015; Sharkey, 2019). Atkinson
et al (2016) argue that whilst there are many different perspectives on wellbeing, most
researchers would agree that wellbeing is something that is unique to the individual, but which
can also change over time depending on life events or changes in circumstances. These views
generally support the perspectives set out by Brickman & Campbell (1971, cited by Diener,
Lucas, & Scollon, 2006), and Headley & Wearing (1989), who put forward a ‘Equilibrium Theory
of Wellbeing’, which proposed positive associations between an individual’s character and life
events, and levels of personal wellbeing.
A number of researchers take a slightly different perspective, and liken the term wellbeing to
‘quality of life’ (Diener & Suh, 1997; Diener, 2000; Keyes et al, 2002), however Michalos (2017,
p. 286) takes umbrage with this view, arguing that to interpret the term wellbeing as exclusively
subjective is neither appropriate or reliable. He argues that the present-day meaning of the
word wellbeing, is actually much more closely aligned with the “…Greeks’ notion of happiness”.
This is also the perspective taken by Deci & Ryan (2006), who concur that despite the majority
of recent research focusing on the hedonic perspective of wellbeing, there is substantial
evidence to support that this in isolation is not enough. Consideration must also be given to
the eudemonic viewpoint, which they argue is significant to truly understanding wellbeing.
Despite the many views and perspectives on what wellbeing means, literature has largely fallen
into two categories (Weiss, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2016), Subjective Wellbeing (SWB),
which is constructed upon the hedonic perspective of wellbeing, and which refers to an
individual’s perceptions and evaluations of his or her life (Deiner, 1984; Deiner & Suh, 1997);
and Psychological Wellbeing (PWB), which incorporates both hedonic and eudemonic
perspectives, and relies upon feelings of happiness, coupled with feelings of life satisfaction
(Ryff, 1989; Robertson, 2018).
Wellbeing in the Police
9Despite health and wellbeing being a concern in all areas of employment (Oeij et al, 2017),
policing, by its very nature, frequently exposes its officers to heightened levels of stress and
trauma (Lawson, Noblet, & Rodwell, 2009; Duran, Woodhams, & Bishopp, 2018), and for that
reason, is recognised by some as being one of the most stressful professions a person can
undertake (Lawson et al, 2009; Wolter et al, 2018). Operational type stressors, such as
handling dead bodies, dealing with violent and mentally disturbed persons, and investigating
serious and traumatic incidents and crimes, can all take their toll on an officer’s health and
wellbeing (Brunetto, Teo, Shacklock, & Farr-Wharton, 2012; Tuttle, Blumberg, & Papazoglou,
2019). Add to this, an abundance of organisational stressors, such as high workloads, staff
shortages, insufficient supervision, and long and unpredictable working hours, and what you
can end up with is a toxic concoction, which not only risks officers acquiring an assortment of
physical ailments, but can also lead to officers developing a number of serious and long term
psychological illnesses, e.g. anxiety, depression, PTSD, and in worse case, suicidal tendencies
(Thornton, 2019; Noblet et al, 2009; Queiros et al, 2015).
It is these organisational factors, that Tuttle et al (2019) highlight as being the most harmful in
terms of negatively impacting upon an officer’s wellbeing. Despite acknowledging that the
operational factors do clearly play a part in determining an officer’s overall wellbeing, Tuttle et
al (2019) argue that it is the organisational influences that make officers most prone to
developing fatigue, anxiety and depression. This view is shared by Noblet et al (2009), and
Mostert & Rothmann (2006) who highlight that organisational stressors tend to be experienced
more frequently than the operational ones, and therefore prolonged exposure to these, can
have more long-lasting negative effects on an officer’s wellbeing.
Although the risks of becoming injured or developing a long-term physical complaint remains
high within policing (Duran et al, 2018), Burke (2017) argues that it is the psychological
consequences, brought about by both the operational and organisational factors which are of
most concern. He argues that it is those that have the greatest impact upon both officers and
their families, and which account for increased levels of suicide and domestic violence amongst
officers, and the prevalence of officer-related substance misuse (Padhy, Chelli, & Padir, 2015;
Burke, 2017; Arble & Arnetz, 2017). Tuttle et al (2019) also highlight that unlike physical
ailments, psychological illness often goes un-noticed or un-treated, and in a large number of
cases, officers will remain at work, despite being psychologically unwell, thereby increasing the
risks to the individual, but also impacting heavily on the workplace and the individual’s home
life. This view supports that of Hesketh & Cooper (2014, p. 146), who maintain that in order to
fully understand what the complete picture looks like, in terms of organisational wellbeing,
employers must look further than simply those officers that are absent from work, and also
consider those that might be “…present and sick”. They go on to argue that ‘presenteeism’ is
not only harmful to the organisation, but also damages employer-employee relations, and can
ultimately lead to serious mistakes being made.
Methodology
Research Design
This study utilised a Positivist Paradigm conceptual framework, in order to obtain mostly
quantitative primary data, but also a small amount of qualitative data (Rehman & Alharthi,
2016).
Research Methods
In order to carry out this study and acquire the necessary information, the researcher chose to
utilise an online questionnaire, namely ‘Online surveys’.
Sampling Strategy
In terms of population, this study focuses on serving police officers in the UK. In respect of
achieving a representative sample of that population, the completed online survey was
10forwarded to all 4,242 officers currently serving with Thames Valley Police (TVP) (Home Office,
2019a). This included officers of all ranks, from Constable, up to and including the rank of Chief
Constable.
Limitations
In terms of limitations, the researcher had initially considered conducting both research within
a second police force, and additional 1:1 interviews with individual officers. Due to time,
resources and costs, this was just not possible on this occasion, however, would have provided
some useful and interesting comparisons between forces.
Summary of Data Collected
In regards to the data collected, a total of 226 officers submitted completed surveys. This
equates to 5.3% of the total number of officers employed by TVP, as of the 31 March 2019
(Home Office, 2019c). Of the 226 officers that completed the survey, 63.3% were male, 35.8%
were female and 0.9% preferred not to say, and only 2.6% identified themselves as BAME.
Results
Organisational Justice
A number of questions were posed within the survey, aimed at identifying firstly whether officers
knew what OJ was, but also whether officers felt they had been personally affected by O-IJ,
and if they had, what effect that O-IJ had had on them. Of the 226 officers that responded, only
31.4% of officers stated they had known what OJ was prior to receiving the survey. 44%
however, felt they had been personally affected by O-IJ. In terms of the demographic
breakdown of those affected by O-IJ, there were some interesting differences between
demographic groups. In respect of the relationship between rank and those affected by O-IJ,
there was found to be a statistically significant relationship (p=.035) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: “What rank are you?”
In respect of the relationship between length of service and those affected by O-IJ; again, there
was found to be statistically significant relationship (p=.002) (Figure 2).
11Figure 2: “Length of Service?”
Interestingly the percentage of officers affected by O-IJ, also increased the longer they had
served, but dropped again after 30 years (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Affected by O-IJ, by Service
In relation to what the consequences of that perceived O-IJ were on the officers, each officer
that stated they had been affected by O-IJ, was also asked to select a non-defined number of
possible outcomes from a list of 21. There were five outcomes which stood out above all others,
namely, reduced morale, reduced trust and confidence, reduced loyalty, consideration to
leaving and reduced self-confidence (Figure 4). In terms of grouping the responses, there were
three clear themes. Those outcomes specifically affecting the ‘Employee’, which came top,
those outcomes affecting the ‘Organisation’, which came second, and lastly those outcomes
specifically relating to ‘Health & Wellbeing.
12Figure 4: “Consequences of O-IJ?” – by group
In terms of challenging any perceived injustices, 51.3% stated they would feel confident to do
so, with a further 11.9% of respondents stating they would feel very confident in doing so. This
was found to be statistically significant (p=.000). 59.3% of respondents also stated that they
would feel confident in expressing their views and feelings during a decision-making process,
with a further 20.8% of respondents stating that they were very confident to do so. Again, this
was found to be statistically significant (p=.023).
Officers were also asked what more TVP could do to address O-IJ. Through a thematic
analysis of the qualitative data, 4 themes were identified: 1) Internal Policies and Procedures,
2) Decision-Making, Communication & Transparency’, 3) Opportunities, Recognition & Reward,
and 4) Working Conditions and Environment (Figure 5).
Figure 5: “How to address O-IJ?” – Top Themes
In respect of ‘Internal Processes and Procedures’, the majority of comments related to
grievance or disciplinary processes, and blanket policies. A number referred to poor
experiences whilst being investigated by Professional Standards, citing that the same
standards should be applied across all departments. A number also referred to how blanket
policies were not always the most appropriate or fairest way of dealing with an individual’s
needs.
13In regards to ‘Decision-Making, Communication & Transparency’, the majority of comments
related to the transparency of decision-making processes, especially in respect of decisions
made by management. A number mentioned that decisions were often bias and unfair, and
the real reasons behind decisions were often hidden, covered up or not communicated.
In terms of ‘Opportunities, Recognition & Reward’, the majority of comments referred to the
fairness, consistency and transparency of the promotion process. A number asked for greater
clarity around the process, and more transparency in how it was run, citing that some senior
managers still ‘circumnavigate’ the process when it suits them. Some also mentioned that the
process needed to be more robust, and open to scrutiny.
Wellbeing
Regarding wellbeing, 69.9% of officers did not feel enough was being done to address officer
wellbeing. 59.3% also admitted to having suffered from diagnosed or undiagnosed stress,
anxiety and or depression in the last five years. Of those, 82.1% cited work-related issues, and
38.1% took time off work as a result. In respect of support whilst they were off work, 56.9% felt
supported by their line manager, and 47.1% felt supported by TVP.
A test was carried out to see whether those affected by O-IJ were more likely to feel anxiety or
depressive symptoms. In this case, there was found to be statistically significant relationship
(p=.002). In terms of what officers felt had caused that anxiety or depressive symptoms, each
officer was again asked to select a non-defined number of possible causes from a list of 21.
68.2% of officers cited ‘excessive workload’, 58.2% cited ‘poor treatment by supervisors /
managers, 46.4% cited poor leadership, 43.6% cited home-work life imbalance and 39.1% cited
unfairness of internal policy and procedures. In terms of grouping the responses by theme,
those relating to ‘Supervision & Management’ came top, those relating to ‘Pay & Working
Conditions’ came second, and those relating to ‘Policy & Procedures’ came third.
Figure 6: Causes of anxiety or depressive symptoms
In respect to what impact the decision and actions of those in positions of authority had on their
general wellbeing, the majority of officers felt that the decision and actions of immediate line
managers had the greatest impact.
In regards to what organisational factors officers felt were the very important in terms of their
impact upon their overall PWB, 77.0% felt a home-work life balance was very important. 76.5%
felt that fair treatment by supervisors / managers was very important, and 62.8% felt that honest
and ethical decision-making was very important (Figure 7).
14Figure 7: Very important in terms of overall psychological wellbeing
Officers were also asked whether there was anything further TVP could do to address
wellbeing. Again, in terms of the top themes, those responses relating to ‘Working Conditions’
came top, those relating to ‘Decision Making, Communication & Transparency’ came second,
‘Internal Policies & Procedures’ came third, and ‘Opportunities, Recognition & Reward’ came
in fourth (Figure 8).
Figure 8: “How to address wellbeing?”, top themes
In respect of ‘Working Conditions’, the majority of responses related either to required
improvements in respect of available fitness and healthcare provision (i.e. gym membership,
medical check-ups), or to issues around resourcing or duties, specifically fairness and
transparency, the need to reduce rest day cancellations and abstractions, and greater fairness
around how leave is applied for, particularly at Christmas.
In terms of ‘Decision Making, Communication & Transparency’, the majority of comments
related to the need for enhanced training for supervisors, particularly in identifying mental health
and managing wellbeing. A number also related to the need for improved management
communication.
15Discussion
As highlighted by Jones & Rowe (2015) and Jackson (2015), this study has exposed a lack of
knowledge and understanding around the concept of OJ, with two thirds of officers stating they
were previously unaware of the concept. Nevertheless, it is no less concerning, especially
when considering the many potential consequences that have been found to be associated
with perceptions of O-IJ, that once aware, almost half of the officers, felt they had been
personally affected by some kind of O-IJ. This study has also highlighted significant correlations
between those who perceive O-IJ and both rank and length of service. It would appear that
those in low to middle management roles, specifically Sergeant up to and including Chief
Inspector, are more likely to perceive O-IJ than those at the rank of Constable or
Superintendent and above. Likewise, this also appears to be the case for those officers with
between 11-20 years of service, with numbers of officers perceiving O-IJ rising with service,
and peaking at around the 20-year mark, before dropping off again. This interestingly ties in
with the findings of Charman (2017), who found that unlike in non-police settings, organisational
commitment amongst police officers actually reduces the longer an officer serves. Although
not particularly surprising, these results do provide a real opportunity for police forces to provide
greater focus and support to these two potentially more susceptible groups of officers.
In respect of what organisational factors contribute most to perceptions of O-IJ, this study has
also emphasised how important the procedural justice element of OJ is, in terms of contributing
to officer perceptions of O-IJ (Baldwin, 2006). When asked how the organisation could improve
perceptions of OJ, each of the three highest ranking themes chosen by officers, namely,
‘Internal Policy & Procedures’, ‘Decision-Making, Communication & Transparency’ and
‘Opportunities, Recognition & Reward’ all relate to fairness, consistency and transparency in
process. This demonstrates, as highlighted by Yale et al (2016), and Nix & Wolfe (2016), that
officers really are looking for the same from their organisation, as the public expect from them,
and that is to be treated fairly and equitably.
In terms of the consequences of perceived O-IJ, there were three clear themes. Those that
directly affect the employee, those that directly affect the organisation, and those that
specifically relate to health & wellbeing. In terms of those affecting the employee, reduced
morale and self-confidence were by far the most significant outcomes, with 90.3% of officers
reporting a loss of morale as a result of being affected by O-IJ, and 62.1% reporting a loss of
self-confidence. As argued by Rani et al (2012), these outcomes are likely to be associated
with the behaviour of those in positions of authority (IJ), specifically the extent to which staff are
treated with dignity and respect (Colquitt et al, 2001; Huong et al, 2016) and how transparent
those in positions of authority are, in terms of the decisions they make and the processes they
follow (Roberts & Herrington, 2013).
What is also interesting, in terms of officer self-confidence, is the significant associations found
between those who perceive O-IJ, and those both confident in challenging any perceived
injustices, and expressing their views and feelings during a decision-making process. Whilst
Roberts & Herrington (2013) and Qureshi et al (2016) both quite rightly highlight the importance
of employees having a ‘voice’ in proceedings, in order to achieve PJ, it is also clear that if
already affected by O-IJ, then the chances of that officer having the confidence to ‘voice’ their
opinions or challenge any injustices are significantly reduced, potentially increasing the
chances of that officer perceiving O-IJ again in the future.
In respect of those affecting the organisation, this research demonstrates a correlation between
perceptions of O-IJ, and reduced trust and confidence, and loyalty in the organisation. This
very much supports the views of Quinton et al (2015) and Wolfe et al (2018), who both highlight
that those that perceive their organisation to be fair, are more likely to have confidence in their
own authority; and those that perceive their organisation to be unfair, are likely to have reduced
levels of loyalty and organisational commitment. It has also corroborated the views of Hup &
Chana (2017) and Beckley (2014), who highlight the benefits of an organisationally just
workplace in terms of its impacts upon retention. 71.8% of those officers that said they had
been affected by O-IJ, also stated they had considered leaving the organisation. Further
16research in this area would therefore be helpful, to understand how many officers have already
left the organisation due to some kind of perceived O-IJ.
In respect of the outcomes specifically relating to health & wellbeing, approximately a third of
all those that had perceived O-IJ, also reported that they had experienced ill-health.
Approximately a third also reported that they had seen their GP, and again a third reported
being prescribed medication. There was also found to be a statistically significant correlation
between those who had perceived O-IJ, and those who have suffered anxiety or depressive
symptoms.
In terms of ill-health, over half of the officers that took part in the study reported having suffered
from stress, anxiety and or depression in the last 5 years. The overwhelming majority cited
work-related issues (albeit not all necessarily related to O-IJ), and over a third of those officers
reported sick. These numbers not only reinforce the data presented by Polfed (2019) and
Thornton (2019), but also worryingly highlights the high number of officers who, despite
suffering from psychological ill-health and potentially being unfit to do so, have continued to
attend work regardless.
In regards to the organisational factors most contributing to officers experiencing anxiety or
depressive systems, ‘poor and or ineffective supervision’ came top. Not only did officers report
that of all those in positions of authority, the decisions and actions of their immediate line-
manager had the greatest impact on their wellbeing; but in terms of what organisational factors
officer’s deemed as most important in terms of their wellbeing, those that related to supervision
and management were again deemed to be most important, in particular fair treatment and
honest and ethical decision-making. This supports the overwhelming academic evidence that
poor or inadequate supervision is one of the main causes of workplace stress (Maulik, 2017;
Zheng et al, 2015; Burke 2017; Thornton, 2019; Noblet et al, 2009; Queiros et al, 2015). This
is also further corroborated by the fact, that of those officers who had reported experiencing
anxiety or depressive symptoms in the last 5 years, over half cited the reason as ‘poor treatment
by supervisors / managers’, and just under half cited ‘poor leadership’. This very much
demonstrates the importance of police forces prioritising the training and ongoing development
of those in supervisory and or middle management positions, to ensure they are not only
operationally competent, but also understand the considerable part they play in not only
shaping an organisationally just workplace, but also in preventing long-term officer ill-health,
and promoting wellbeing.
The second organisational theme found to be most impactive was ‘poor working conditions’,
and relates predominantly to issues of distribution of workload, responsibilities, working hours,
and home-work life balance, but also includes the working environment, pay and conditions
and treatment by colleagues. Of those factors deemed most important in terms of
psychological wellbeing, a ‘home-work life balance’ was deemed to be most important.
Likewise, this was also found to be one of the main causes of officers experiencing anxiety of
depressive symptoms. This again adds to the significant amount of academic research
highlighting the negative consequences of a ‘work-homelife-merge’ (White, 2013, cited by
Sharkey, 2019, p. 6), and the negative impact a work-life imbalance can have on an officer’s
health and wellbeing (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Sonnentag, 2015; Sharkey, 2019).
The third organisational theme found to be most impactive was that of a ‘lack of fairness and
transparency in policy and procedures / decision-making’. This was a theme that ran right the
way through this study, and which overlaps with both the previously discussed themes (Colquitt
et al, 2001; Baldwin, 2006). In terms of those factors deemed most important in terms of
psychological wellbeing, 42.5% of officers felt ‘transparency in decision-making’ was very
important. In terms of those that had experienced anxiety and depressive symptoms, 39.1%
also cited the unfairness of internal policy and procedures, decision and actions. However, the
most notable occurrence of this theme was found in the qualitative responses provided by
officers, in terms of what more the organisation could do to improve both perceptions of OJ and
wellbeing amongst officers. In terms of addressing OJ and wellbeing, this sub-theme featured
across almost all of the responses, and across each of the four themes identified under both
topics. In each case, officers were specifically referring to the fairness and transparency in the
individual processes and highlighting a lack of trust and confidence in both the decisions being
17made and the processes used to reach them. This very much adds weight to the views of Rani
et al (2012), Huong et al (2016) and Herr et al (2018), who argue that PJ is positively associated
with employee psychological wellbeing.
Limitations of the Research
In terms of limitations; time, resources and costs dictated that it was only possible to conduct
the research in one of the 43 police forces. Having greater capacity, would have enabled the
researcher to conduct the same research in a second force, which, as outlined in the
methodology section, would have provided some interesting and useful comparisons,
especially if that second force had been non-metropolitan one, with a different demographic
makeup, and different organisational and operational challenges.
Likewise, this study only focused on serving police officers, again essentially due to time,
resourcing and cost restraints. It would have provided some equally interesting comparisons if
the population had been broadened to include both officers and staff, or those that had recently
left the service. .
Lastly, in terms of the online survey, the response rate was lower than expected, with just 5.3%
of the total population responding. Nix, Pickett, Baek, & Alpert (2017) highlight that this may
be down to a number of reasons, including survey fatigue, a percentage not being at work due
to leave and or sickness, or potentially a lack of supervisory encouragement. They also
highlight that in general, response rates have declined over recent years, are much lower with
online surveys, and greater distribution is also often linked with lower rates of response (Nix et
al, 2017). In terms of the average response rate for police-related surveys, Nix et al (2017)
reported it to be around the 64% mark, however, did emphasise the sizable disparities within
that figure, ranging from 5.2%, right up to 100%. They also argue that in terms of assessing a
study’s worth, low response rates alone are no reason to reject it.
Conclusion
In line with national trends, and other recent surveys conducted by the Police Federation for
England and Wales, this research has again highlighted the worryingly high number of police
officers suffering from stress, anxiety and or depression (Home Office, 2019a; Polfed, 2019).
It also validates the real and urgent need to get to the root causes of work-related ill-health
within the police service, and to build on current research, in order to fully understand exactly
what factors (organisational and operational), impact most upon officer health and wellbeing,
as highlighted by the Police Federation and Thornton (2019). Only then, will police forces be
able to focus their attention in the correct areas, make meaningful and long-lasting changes,
and ultimately reduce the number of officers unnecessarily suffering from prolonged
psychological ill-health.
This research set out to identify how and to what extent, the perception of O-IJ impacts upon
the psychological wellbeing of police officers in the UK. Based upon a critical review of OJ and
wellbeing literature, and the quantitative and qualitative data gathered from the online survey,
it can be concluded that perceptions of O-IJ do impact quite considerably on the psychological
health and wellbeing of police officers. In terms of identifying what organisational factors
contribute the most, this study has identified three main themes:
• Poor / ineffective supervision
• Poor working conditions
• Lack of fairness and transparency in policy and procedures / decision-making
By focusing on the themes identified above, police forces can make considerable gains in the
overall perception of organisational fairness, and not only impact positively on officer wellbeing
18and rates of non-attendance, but also create a workforce that is more confident, motivated,
loyal, efficient and effective. This in turn, may also go some way to improving officer retention.
Recommendations
Good Working
Conditions
Fairness &
Good &
Transparency in
Effective
Processes &
Supervsion
Decision-Making
Improved
Perceptions
of OJ
Figure 9. Themes for increasing perceptions of OJ
Good & Effective Supervision:
1. Deliver OJ training to all supervisors.
2. Deliver enhanced mental health / wellbeing training to supervisors.
3. Increase investment in leadership training.
4. Ensure acting ranks are provided with appropriate training and support.
5. Deliver additional training to supervisors on unconscious-bias.
Good Working Conditions:
1. Review workload distributions for all frontline officers and ensure reviews are
carried out regularly.
2. Take measures to reduce duty changes / RD cancellations.
3. Review working hours / overtime, in line with working time regulations.
4. Review roles, responsibilities and supervisory ratios for all supervisors, to ensure
equitable distribution.
19Fairness & Transparency in Processes & Decision-Making:
1. Review the promotion process to ensure fairness, transparency and robustness.
2. Review processes for acting and role selection, to ensure fairness, transparency
and robustness.
3. Increase scrutiny and accountability across the Resourcing Department, to ensure
fair and transparent decisions.
4. Identify ways to improve the fairness and transparency of decisions made at a local
level.
5. Develop opportunities and avenues for employees to have a greater ‘voice’ in
decisions made at local and force levels.
20References
Albuquerque, B. (2010). What is Subjective Well-Being? Understanding and Measuring Subjective
Well-Being. Retrieved from http://positivepsychology.org.uk/subjective-well-being/
Apter, J. (2019, Sept 18). Rocketing demand and stress pushing officers towards resignation. Polfed.
Retrieved from https://www.polfed.org/news-media/latest-news/2019/rocketing-demand-and-stress-
pushing-officers-towards-resignation/
Arble, E., & Arnetz, B. B. (2017). A Model of First-responder Coping: An Approach/Avoidance
Bifurcation. Stress & Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 33,
223–232. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=9553b805-
4262-4fc6-aacc-9ace4ced8365%40sdc-v-sessmgr03
Atkinson, S., Fuller, S., & Painter, J. (2016). Wellbeing and Place. Retrieved from
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315547534/chapters/10.4324/9781315547534-9
Baldwin, S. (2006). Organisational Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.ibe.org.uk/userassets/events/20180306_ibe_webinar_handout_the%20institute%20for%20
employment%20studies_organisational%20justice.pdf
Beckley, A. (2014). Organisational justice: is the police service ready for it? Journal of Policing,
Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 9(2), 176-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2014.940820
Bragg, M. (Presenter). (2015, April 6). What is justice? (Radio series episode). In M. Rickarby
(Producer), A history of ideas. BBC Sounds. Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b05pmpdy
Brown, J. M. (2014). The future of policing. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BUJFAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=brown+2013+
police+reform&ots=-bQ-
0bZhii&sig=t9R1rVT57jTsgrs0MBAvxsv5IeY#v=onepage&q=brown%202013%20police%20reform&f=f
alse
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S. T. T., & Shacklock, K. (2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being
and engagement: explaining organisational commitment and turnover intentions in policing. Human
Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2012.00198.x
Bullock, K., & Garland, J. (2019). ‘The organisation doesn’t particularly consider itself responsible for
you’: organisational support for officers injured in the line of duty and organisational (in)justice. Journal
Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1606807
Burke, R. J. (2017). Work and Well-being. In R. J. Burke & K. M. Page (Eds.), Research Handbook on
Work and Well-Being, (3-36). UK / USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=i-
wTDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=work+and+wellbeing:+page&ots=C2-
BjcMkM5&sig=QsfzaXDi_VdZaHy1M_mCpwa8Jwo#v=snippet&q=toxic%20supervision&f=false
Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). The History of Organisational Justice: The Founders Speak.
Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, 2, 3-26. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600301
Charman, S. (2017). Police Socialisation, Identity and Culture: Becoming Blue.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63070-0
Charman, S. (2019). Changing landscapes, challenging identities - policing in England and Wales. In
P. Wankhade, L. McCann, & P. Murphy (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on the Management and
Organization of Emergency Services (1st ed.). (Routledge Critical Studies in Public Management).
Routledge. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VOyYDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT146&ots=sgjM0cTu
Wv&sig=4YcPrrCK-MhjjDBHKqd5dxcRQi8#v=onepage&q&f=false
21You can also read
