November 13, 2024
What is the distinction between an interim chief and an appointed chief? What are the challenges, the opportunities, the pitfalls – if any?
Change is a constant in policing; in recent years, moreover, there have been rapid levels of change at the executive level. A law enforcement officer promoted to captain today could find him- or herself under consideration for chief just months later. This could mean an appointed chief – or an interim one. All law enforcement leaders, therefore, should prepare for either eventuality.
Having been both an interim and an appointed chief at multiple agencies, I have learned the importance of tailoring leadership to each agency’s specific needs. But this strategy will necessarily depend on whether you are one or the other, because this will help you determine where to focus, decide on the types of relationships you develop, and select metrics to measure success.
Traditionally, appointed chiefs seek a balance in developing strong working relationships both within and outside the organization. The ratio of time spent in each is largely dependent on both existing relationships and internal deficiencies. For example, in Agency A one might find a quality organization with strong internal values and policies; there, a significant time being the primary ambassador for the department throughout the community and state is a likely chief priority. In Agency B one might find an agency hurting from recent crises; which might lead to a chief investing a high proportion of time within the agency, but still striving for a balance that includes building stronger ties in the community.
The needs of agencies seeking interim chiefs often fall into one of three major themes:
- The agency simply needs an experienced leader to “keep the wheels on the wagon turning” while the community pursues a longer-term police chief. This interim will largely avoid major policy changes, instead focusing on oversight of day-to-day operations and key decision-making as issues arise.
- The agency needs an experienced leader to be highly focused on a short list of issues needing fixing so that the next appointed chief will inherit a better organization than the departing one had. Again, the interim will avoid major policy changes but be prepared to make key personnel decisions or change certain aspects of operations that have had a negative impact on the identified issues.
- The agency is in crisis and needs an overall makeover by an experienced leader – likely for a longer period of time than simply a traditional chief recruitment period. Here the interim is likely to make major changes, focus on both internal and external relationships, and help prepare the organization to recruit a high-quality chief of police who will inherit an agency free of the negative reputation it currently holds.
Note that in the first two, major policy changes are avoided. Interim chief roles that last between 2–8 months really do not have the time to fully implement major change. Also, what might be a confusing impact on employees could be harmful in the long run:
Chief A likes to do it this way, then leaves. Interim chief B decides he/she wants it done THIS way, but then chief C is hired, and they return it to the way chief A did it. Interim chiefs should avoid creating this ping-pong match scenario where the employees are the ping pong ball!
Serving as a highly visible agency head in an industry under a public microscope requires sufficient self-esteem and self-confidence to ensure an ability to make the right decisions, no matter how unpopular they may be inside and outside. Sometimes that self-confidence crosses the line, and one might even argue that the police chief profession suffers from an occasional crisis of ego. It is therefore critical that interim chiefs recognize that their service in this limited time assignment is not about them, but strictly about helping the agency and community it serves. Unlike an appointment as the Chief of Police, interim chiefs do not have the long term “ownership” needed to form the agency in their image of a full-service, high-quality agency. Depending on which of the three themes above were identified by the hiring authority, the focus will be primarily limited to a far narrower set of lines to color within compared to a regular appointed chief.
At the time an interim chief agrees to take on the agency, there should be a clear understanding between that individual and the hiring authority about the interest and eligibility of the interim seeking the appointed chief position. It is not uncommon during a successful interim assignment that a city manager may comment that things are remarkably better and how much time and money it would save if the interim agreed to stay on as chief.
Limited term interim jobs typically include different front-end activities, however, and are very specific in their focus when compared to the first 100 days on the job of an appointed chief. If an agency sought and found an external interim, that person may want to state upfront that they will NOT be a candidate for the chief position. There are many benefits for the interim in making such a declaration.
First, they tend to be more empowered to make difficult or unpopular but necessary decisions without any fear of negative impact on their pursuit of the appointed chief job. Second, the employees tend to be more direct and open in their discussions, recognizing that they, too, may not see as severe a level of repercussions and that the interim has limited time in which to work. Third, the interim can serve simultaneously as an “internal consultant” by creating a list of issues for the next appointed chief to deal with – along with a menu of suggestions. Fourth, observations on the prior administration’s deficiencies or leadership voids are better left for limited term interim leaders to discuss than incoming appointed chiefs, who often still have to interact with prior chiefs. Lastly, interim chiefs tend to quickly assess what is needed both at the time of their assignment and after they begin to see positive changes. In that way, they can be an effective and helpful consultant/mentor for the next appointed chief.
What follows are a few additional common distinctions between serving as an appointed chief and an interim chief:
- An appointed chief “owns” the organization, in success and failure, and plays a key role in implementing his or her vision over a longer period of time. An interim chief is, by definition, a temporary caretaker who must delicately avoid imposing their vision while positioning the agency to succeed under its new incoming leadership.
- An appointed chief develops effective processes to implement major policy and practice changes with input from employees, city leadership, and the community. The interim chief usually eschews making major policy changes for the sake of continuity for the employees.
- An appointed chief engages the agency regularly in long-term strategic planning and reinforces and modifies the mission, vision, and values statements. The interim chief emphasizes the importance of employees living the example of the current mission and values while leaving open the potential of growth and change under an incoming chief.
- An appointed chief is mindful of long-term relationships that existed long before their arrival, respects them, and must act gingerly in addressing some related long-term problems. The interim chief has the latitude to hone in on problem employees, including taking such drastic action as separating them, to help reduce the problems an incoming chief may face.
- An appointed chief is also mindful of the lasting pain of providing criticism, even if constructive in nature, to certain employees. The interim chief will not be around for an extensive period of time, forming long-term relationships, so it is often easier to provide blunt and direct criticism with a path for improvement no matter how sensitive the issue is.
- An appointed chief may draw from a minor concern to lead to significant improvements through a change in policy, while the interim chief may overlook minor issues to allow the next chief to address them as they see fit.
There are, however, some steadfast principles of leadership that both leaders must exercise, no matter their status as interim or appointed chief:
- Leaders must live the example they want others to follow.
- Leaders must be truthful: they cannot demand honesty if they are not honest themselves.
- People are the most important asset within a police agency; they need to be treated as such.
- Leaders should err on the side of providing too much information through a variety of communication mediums rather than too little.
- The consequences of poor choices by leaders often fall on the entire organization, not simply that leader.
Disclaimer: The points of view or opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Policing Institute.
Written by
Strategic Priority Area(s)
Topic Area(s)
For general inquiries, please contact us at info@policefoundation.org.
Share
Strategic Priority Area(s)
Topic Area(s)
For general inquiries, please contact us at info@policefoundation.org
If you are interested in submitting an essay for inclusion in our OnPolicing blog, please contact Erica Richardson.
Share