FDLE- Set up to fail syndrome model exemplified in this Agency
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
 
  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    FDLE- Set up to fail syndrome model exemplified in this Agency

    FDLE's narcissitic leadership policies and "in your face" style is outlined perfectly here in an article in the Harvard Business review. FDLE Supervisors, ASAC's, SAC's, and above don't lead or empower anymore. That's long gone. It's all about shoving their power down the throats of their employees and asking them to thank them for not doing worse. Every Agent now has to ask for permission to do anything and stay tethered to their Supervisors.. some of which are inexperienced and don't even know how to investigate or run cases in the squads they are assigned. And of course, not all Agents are treated the same. New agents from other Agencies are given a golden pass because FDLE hasn't invested in their own peoples experiences and they are willing to treat their own like trash while praising new people coming in and giving them the pick of the assignments.

    Tallahassee knows where the troubled SAC's and ASAC's are, but are they really accepting all the facts of what's going on besides only taking the word of the SAC and ASAC's? Doesn't appear so.

    https://hbr.org/1998/03/the-set-up-to-fail-syndrome

    "The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome"
    Jean-François ManzoniJean-Louis Barsoux

    When an employee fails—or even just performs poorly—managers typically do not blame themselves. The employee doesn’t understand the work, a manager might contend. Or the employee isn’t driven to succeed, can’t set priorities, or won’t take direction. Whatever the reason, the problem is assumed to be the employee’s fault—and the employee’s responsibility.

    But is it? Sometimes, of course, the answer is yes. Some employees are not up to their assigned tasks and never will be, for lack of knowledge, skill, or simple desire. But sometimes—and we would venture to say often—an employee’s poor performance can be blamed largely on his boss.

    Perhaps “blamed” is too strong a word, but it is directionally correct. In fact, our research strongly suggests that bosses—albeit accidentally and usually with the best intentions—are often complicit in an employee’s lack of success. (See the insert “About the Research.”) How? By creating and reinforcing a dynamic that essentially sets up perceived underperformers to fail. If the Pygmalion effect describes the dynamic in which an individual lives up to great expectations, the set-up-to-fail syndrome explains the opposite. It describes a dynamic in which employees perceived to be mediocre or weak performers live down to the low expectations their managers have for them. The result is that they often end up leaving the organization—either of their own volition or not.

    The syndrome usually begins surreptitiously. The initial impetus can be performance related, such as when an employee loses a client, undershoots a target, or misses a deadline. Often, however, the trigger is less specific. An employee is transferred into a division with a lukewarm recommendation from a previous boss. Or perhaps the boss and the employee don’t really get along on a personal basis—several studies have indeed shown that compatibility between boss and subordinate, based on similarity of attitudes, values, or social characteristics, can have a significant impact on a boss’s impressions. In any case, the syndrome is set in motion when the boss begins to worry that the employee’s performance is not up to par.

    The boss then takes what seems like the obvious action in light of the subordinate’s perceived shortcomings: he increases the time and attention he focuses on the employee. He requires the employee to get approval before making decisions, asks to see more paperwork documenting those decisions, or watches the employee at meetings more closely and critiques his comments more intensely.

    These actions are intended to boost performance and prevent the subordinate from making errors. Unfortunately, however, subordinates often interpret the heightened supervision as a lack of trust and confidence. In time, because of low expectations, they come to doubt their own thinking and ability, and they lose the motivation to make autonomous decisions or to take any action at all. The boss, they figure, will just question everything they do—or do it himself anyway.

    Ironically, the boss sees the subordinate’s withdrawal as proof that the subordinate is indeed a poor performer. The subordinate, after all, isn’t contributing his ideas or energy to the organization. So what does the boss do? He increases his pressure and supervision again—watching, questioning, and double-checking everything the subordinate does. Eventually, the subordinate gives up on his dreams of making a meaningful contribution. Boss and subordinate typically settle into a routine that is not really satisfactory but, aside from periodic clashes, is otherwise bearable for them. In the worst-case scenario, the boss’s intense intervention and scrutiny end up paralyzing the employee into inaction and consume so much of the boss’s time that the employee quits or is fired. (For an illustration of the set-up-to-fail syndrome, see the exhibit “The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome: No Harm Intended—A Relationship Spirals from Bad to Worse.”)



    Perhaps the most daunting aspect of the set-up-to-fail syndrome is that it is self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing—it is the quintessential vicious circle. The process is self-fulfilling because the boss’s actions contribute to the very behavior that is expected from weak performers. It is self-reinforcing because the boss’s low expectations, in being fulfilled by his subordinates, trigger more of the same behavior on his part, which in turn triggers more of the same behavior on the part of subordinates. And on and on, unintentionally, the relationship spirals downward.

    A case in point is the story of Steve, a manufacturing supervisor for a Fortune 100 company. When we first met Steve, he came across as highly motivated, energetic, and enterprising. He was on top of his operation, monitoring problems and addressing them quickly. His boss expressed great confidence in him and gave him an excellent performance rating. Because of his high performance, Steve was chosen to lead a new production line considered essential to the plant’s future.

    In his new job, Steve reported to Jeff, who had just been promoted to a senior management position at the plant. In the first few weeks of the relationship, Jeff periodically asked Steve to write up short analyses of significant quality-control rejections. Although Jeff didn’t really explain this to Steve at the time, his request had two major objectives: to generate information that would help both of them learn the new production process, and to help Steve develop the habit of systematically performing root cause analysis of quality-related problems. Also, being new on the job himself, Jeff wanted to show his own boss that he was on top of the operation.

    Unaware of Jeff’s motives, Steve balked. Why, he wondered, should he submit reports on information he understood and monitored himself? Partly due to lack of time, partly in response to what he considered interference from his boss, Steve invested little energy in the reports. Their tardiness and below-average quality annoyed Jeff, who began to suspect that Steve was not a particularly proactive manager. When he asked for the reports again, he was more forceful. For Steve, this merely confirmed that Jeff did not trust him. He withdrew more and more from interaction with him, meeting his demands with increased passive resistance. Before long, Jeff became convinced that Steve was not effective enough and couldn’t handle his job without help. He started to supervise Steve’s every move—to Steve’s predictable dismay. One year after excitedly taking on the new production line, Steve was so dispirited he was thinking of quitting.

    Deconstructing the Syndrome
    We said earlier that the set-up-to-fail syndrome usually starts surreptitiously—that is, it is a dynamic that usually creeps up on the boss and the subordinate until suddenly both of them realize that the relationship has gone sour. But underlying the syndrome are several assumptions about weaker performers that bosses appear to accept uniformly. Our research shows, in fact, that executives typically compare weaker performers with stronger performers using the following descriptors:

    less motivated, less energetic, and less likely to go beyond the call of duty;
    more passive when it comes to taking charge of problems or projects;
    less aggressive about anticipating problems;
    less innovative and less likely to suggest ideas;
    more parochial in their vision and strategic perspective;
    more prone to hoard information and assert their authority, making them poor bosses to their own subordinates.
    Up to 90% of all bosses treat some subordinates as though they were part of an in-group, while they consign others to an out-group.

    It is not surprising that on the basis of these assumptions, bosses tend to treat weaker and stronger performers very differently. Indeed, numerous studies have shown that up to 90% of all managers treat some subordinates as though they were members of an in-group, while they consign others to membership in an out-group. Members of the in-group are considered the trusted collaborators and therefore receive more autonomy, feedback, and expressions of confidence from their bosses. The boss-subordinate relationship for this group is one of mutual trust and reciprocal influence. Members of the out-group, on the other hand, are regarded more as hired hands and are managed in a more formal, less personal way, with more emphasis on rules, policies, and authority. (For more on how bosses treat weaker and stronger performers differently, see the chart “In with the In Crowd, Out with the Out.”)

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    While I disagree with the original post's assertions that the current FDLE leadership in Tallahassee is uncaring, inept, or ineffective, I have to agree with the premise of this article and it's application to FDLE as an organization. This pains me, because I genuinely believe that FDLE is full of talented and motivated investigators. Here's what I find in the ranks: Supervisors CAN be assigned to oversee squads conducting the types of investigations that the supervisors have not mastered during their OWN careers, making it tempting to simply tell their subordinates to "just go out and do it". The agents can become frustrated and simply stagnate without good direction and positive reinforcement. I've sen this a lot. Agents can also be assigned, seemingly arbitrarily, to squads conducting the types of investigations that have no correlation to the agent's own skill set. If the agent is very fortunate, an agent in that squad will work with them and help them out, but sometimes that arrangement simply isn't feasible, leading to frustration and more stagnation on the new agent's part. At the ASAC and SAC level, this doesn't seem to be on their radar. The fix? I think SAS's need to lead from the front; get out on the street when possible, teach their agents and analysts the RIGHT way to conduct investigations, let them know when they do well, and when they fall short. Certainly FDLE HAS SAS's that do ALL of these things. I can think of several right off of the top of my head. But I think if there were more of these SAS's, FDLE would have less detractors, inside and out. As I said, I really like FDLE as an organization. At the end of the day, it's just people, and I find the VAST majority of them to have the hearts in the right place.

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    The important thing to ask yourself is this- does management stand for EVERYONE? Or just MOST of the people? I.E., are they going after those that can’t protect themselves, like the Lab Analyst with 30 years on that has health issues and the one that no one likes even though they have dedicated their life to this Agency? Or the analyst that is a loner who lives with 3 cats and has personal issues but again, has dedicated themselves to service to the state and FDLE, but the younger analysts view her as a weirdo and if they all could they’d like to see her go? The computer guy that is eccentric and somewhat defensive because people pick at him? 

So when that younger employee (or one that has a different lifestyle and doesn’t understand or respect anothers different lifestyle) becomes a Supervisor and begins their campaign against the person they feel doesn’t belong, will management step in and do whats right or decide to back up the new Supervisor because they feel compelled to “back managers because of rank”? Or say something like "we're a military type organization with similar structure and decision making and a Supervisor is always right" (I've actually heard this at FDLE which is unbelievable).

    People always feel a certain way about people they work with, and everyone is different. It’s dangerous when there is no checks and balances to even things out for everyone... like the people mentioned above. When RS came in, it seemed like some all of a sudden became aggressive with others because they new felt they could get away with it- some of which always seem to have had drama follow them. This includes those that are agreeable and professional with 98%, but methodically over time go after a certain employee. Loners are easy pickings because they have no support from others being in their corner and if anything, will easily report on that loner to gain points with a supervisor or above. If Tallahassee looks at this person after the fact, it’s an “oh yeah, that employee needed to go” or “they deserved it” instead of wow we just f*(*&$ this person who dedicate their entire life to this Agency and no one cared.

    Other factors that show an unbalanced view of the employees which is apparent? Posh assignments for some while others are forced into jobs/assignments/squads they don’t want to be on. Meanwhile, new hires are taking those desirable positions that a long term, seasoned employee desires. Hell, new hires are even convincing their buddies to come over to FDLE since it's so damn good for them over here for them. On the Agent side, new car assignments are going to certain employees hand picked by the SAC or ASAC’s and not the rightful next person in line who has the worst car in the region (this is one of the most blatant signs and we know it has happened from talking to the sworn side). Oh, so and so deserves it over so and so!!! There's fair, then there's favoritism.

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Bravo, someone is getting an MPA and learned something new.
    You have yet to mention hiring practices, the influence of Affirmative Action in the hiring of agents; color and gender over qualifications and experience, the promotional system at FDLE and how everything that happens here is affected by politics.
    We do not operate in a vacuum and sadly all law enforcement agencies have been affected by the stink of politics as it was plainly seen at the FBI and the US Attorney's Office for the past 8 years.
    And you were expecting what at FDLE ?

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Bravo, someone is getting an MPA and learned something new.
    You have yet to mention hiring practices, the influence of Affirmative Action in the hiring of agents; color and gender over qualifications and experience, the promotional system at FDLE and how everything that happens here is affected by politics.
    We do not operate in a vacuum and sadly all law enforcement agencies have been affected by the stink of politics as it was plainly seen at the FBI and the US Attorney's Office for the past 8 years.
    And you were expecting what at FDLE ?
    Your correct stupid is as stupid does.

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Bravo, someone is getting an MPA and learned something new.
    You have yet to mention hiring practices, the influence of Affirmative Action in the hiring of agents; color and gender over qualifications and experience, the promotional system at FDLE and how everything that happens here is affected by politics.
    We do not operate in a vacuum and sadly all law enforcement agencies have been affected by the stink of politics as it was plainly seen at the FBI and the US Attorney's Office for the past 8 years.
    And you were expecting what at FDLE ?
    Affirmative action? You must be kidding me right. That is a sorry excuse that is used by some people who THINK they are more qualified and experienced than others.

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    What about all the fat, out of shape agents, some that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn that are "in the favor". You ever seen someone working POS or a search warrant entry and thought to yourself, if something goes down, it's not going to be good because of the lack of fitness or tactical skills of the regional person they just fit into a slot.

    You hit the nail on the head- qualifications and ability to do the job mean nothing and Politics are heavier than ever. If someone is caught lying or targeting, they can cover for each other without any repercussions as long as what they were lying about was in furtherance of their political objective.

    I don't see how anyone could argue against politics being at FDLE with the way Bailey was ousted and the position filled by someone personal to the GOV. It all rolls downhill.

    For those that forgot:

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...ension/2213534

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Bailey and Madden/Sanz ran the department into the ditch with Bailey asleep at the switch and Madden/Sanz running around like children. We still suffer from the damage they did and good riddance they're gone. RS was promoted because of his professionalism, something he has transferred through his actions and decisions throughout the department.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest
    You can tell the kind of agent the originator of this post is/has been. When you complain about "new" agents being hired and being given preference over people who have been in the agency their entire career, defending people you define as "loners" and "wierd" as well as complaining about the kind of vehicle you are assigned. Good agents could care less about the car they are assigned! You are GIVEN a car and your GAS to and from work is paid for. And I have worked around some of those very people you describe and WE all know there is more to the story than you tell. Most of them should never have been hired in the first place! Just because past administrations refused to deal with problems does not mean we should be stuck with them until they decide they have milked the state and pushed enough work off on the rest of us. NOBODY is owed a job just because they have been somewhere 30 years. I can only hope you too are on your way out!

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Whatever the reason for Bailey's removal it was good riddance. He did nothing for the agency and his minions Sanz and Madden were egotistical assholes. If you miss any of them you were part of the problem!

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •