University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Workplace conflict and employment retaliation in law enforcement; an examination of the causes, effects and viable solutions

(USC Thesis Other)

Workplace conflict and employment retaliation in law enforcement; an examination of the causes, effects and viable solutions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
WORKPLACE CONFLICT AND EMPLOYMENT RETALIATION IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT; AN EXAMINATION OF THE CAUSES, EFFECTS AND VIABLE
SOLUTIONS

By

Anthony Andrew Otero

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2016

Copyright © January 2016 Anthony Andrew Otero

ii

iii
Epigraph

“A nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its
laws made by cowards and its wars fought by fools.”
— Thucydides

iv
Dedication
I dedicate this project to my family and friends who have been with me through
this entire process. To my wife, Araceli, and my beloved children, Amada, Anthony, and
Adrian: I cannot express to you my sincere gratitude for the continued support you all
gave me through this process. To every person who ever asked about my progress: Your
show of support was a daily dose of encouragement. I could not have ever made it this
far without your love, support and encouragement, and for that, I am eternally grateful.
To my mother, who is at rest with the Almighty: I know she has been my
guardian angel since the day she left this world. She was always my biggest fan, and I
know she has walked this journey with me since it commenced.
To my father, Dr. Alfred Otero, class of ‘61: His experience at the University of
Southern California was filled with discrimination and adverse treatment from faculty,
staff, and peers. The only Mexican-American in his dental class, he was truly a
trailblazer of his time. His experience fueled my motivation to take on this journey, and
at times was the driving force for me to push forward when adversity presented itself.
Dad, you taught me how to work hard, stay the course, but most of all you were the first
to teach me how to “Fight on.”

v
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Richard Francis Callahan
for his support, and for encouraging me to apply for this program. I would also like to
thank my committee chair, Dr. Robert Denhardt, and my committee members Dr. Janet
Denhardt, Dr. Peter Robertson, and Mrs. Talin Bahadarian, Esq. You all provided the
perfect balance and tone for this project and assisted me whenever needed.
A special thank you is extended to the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles
Police Protective League (LAPPL), who agreed to grant me access to their membership,
the men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Your partnership
with this project was pivotal to its success.
Additionally a most heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Deborah Natoli and Ms. Ashley
Coelho for their unyielding support and advice. Whenever there was a roadblock or
period of confusion, you ladies always came through for me. You both played a
significant role in this process, thank you so much.

vi
Abstract
This study examined the effects of workplace conflict in the work environment of
the law enforcement community, and how conflicts can evolve into misinterpreted
allegations of workplace retaliation if not addressed in a proactive manner. When left
unchecked, these incidents not only lead to costly civil litigation; they also have a lasting
adverse effect on relationships within the organization, which prevent internal growth and
development of those within the organization who are directly or indirectly involved in
these incidents.
The research conducted for this study was qualitative and included a literature
review pertinent to the issues concerning this topic. Additionally, a research survey
instrument was utilized in conjunction with a focus group to further examine the rendered
results. The survey group for this research consisted of members of the Los Angeles
Police Department’s (LAPD) labor union. The data gathered was analyzed using the
grounded theory approach, revealing a core set of categories which presented themselves
throughout the gathered data.
The results of this study revealed that the perception of a problem plays a
significant role in allowing the problem to reveal itself. There appeared to be a
significant misunderstanding of what does and does not constitute employment
retaliation. The ability to resolve conflict within a bureaucratic work environment can
best be accomplished by utilizing a transformative mediation program.
The findings of this study examined and revealed the importance of understanding
conflict in the workplace in order to resolve and avoid it. Although conflict is at times

vii
unavoidable, it is essential to find alternative methods to resolve it in the workplace, and
such methods need to be examined more thoroughly in the work environment.

viii
CONTENTS
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
Preview…………………………………………………………………………...1
Background……………………………………………………………………….1
Statement of problem……………………………………………………………..4
Purpose of research……………………………………………………………….5
Significance of research…………………………………………………………..5
Methodology……………………………………………………………………...6
Research questions………………………………………………………………..6
Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………...7
Terminology………………………………………………………………………7

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)………………………….9
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964………………………………………...10
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)…………………………………………10
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)……………………………….11
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA)………………………………….12
Elements of Employment Retaliation …………………………………………...13
Understanding the Conflict………..……………………………………………..14
Task conflict versus relationship conflict…...…………………………...19
The costs of conflict……………………………………………………...21
The Power of Perception………………………………………………………....24
Alternate Dispute Resolution…………………………………………………….28
Arbitration………………………………………………………………..29
Mediation………………………………………………………………...31

ix

Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction……………………………………………………………....35
Research Design……………………………………………………….....36
Subject, Participants, and Sample………………………………………..36
Research Survey Instrument……………………………………………...38
Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………....42
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………..43
Summary……………………………………………………………….....44
Chapter 4: Results and Analysis
Introduction……………………………………………………………….45
Organizing the Results……………………………………………………45
Data methodology and analysis …………………………………………..46
Population, Sample, and Participants……………………………………..47
Results…………………………………………………………………….51
Summary of results………………………………………………………..65
Chapter 5: Interpretation and Recommendations
Introduction……………………………………………………………....68
Summary of Results……………………………………………………...68
Discussion of Results…………………………………………………….69
Implications for Practice and Recommendations………………………...75
Teach to the person, not to the issue……………………………..75
Choosing the most appropriate alternate dispute resolution
process………………………………………………....................78
Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly
(REDRESS)………………………………………………………78
Risk Leadership, not Risk Management………………………… 83
Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………..84
References………………………………………………………………………...87

x
Appendix A: Proposal Letter to the Los Angeles Police Protective League ………....95
Appendix B: Letter of Agreement with the Los Angeles Police Protective League….96
Appendix C-1: Research Survey Instrument………………………………………….97
Appendix C-2: Focus Group Agreement……………………………………………..98
Appendix D-1: Institutional Review Board Application-1………………………….. 99
Appendix D-2: Institutional Review Board Application-2…………………………..100
Appendix D-3: Institutional Review Board Application-3…………………………..101
Appendix E: Los Angeles Police Protective League Delegates Meeting Agenda…...102
Appendix F-1: Focus Group Information Package Instruction Page………………...103
Appendix F-2: Focus Group Package Page No. 2…………………………………....104
Appendix F-3: Focus Group Package Page No. 3……………………………………105
Appendix F-4: Focus Group Package Page No. 4……………………………………106
Appendix F-5: Focus Group Package Page No. 5……………………………………107
Appendix F-6: Focus Group Package Page No. 6……………………………………108
Appendix F-7: Focus Group Package Page No. 7……………………………………109
Appendix F-8: Focus Group Package Page No. 8……………………………………110
Appendix F-9: Focus Group Package Page No. 9……………………………………111
Appendix F-10: Focus Group Package Page No. 10…………………………………112
Appendix F-11: Focus Group Package Page No. 11…………………………………113
Appendix F-12: Focus Group Package Page No. 12…………………………………114
Appendix F-13: Focus Group Package Page No. 13…………………………………115
Appendix F-14: Focus Group Package Page No. 14…………………………………116
Appendix F-15: Focus Group Package Page No. 15…………………………………117

xi
Appendix F-16: Focus Group Package Page No. 16…………………………………118
List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………119

Running head: CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 1

Chapter 1
Introduction
Preview
Organizational conflict is certain to occur in any work environment. This can be
largely attributed to the underlying denominator that all organizations consist of people,
and where there are people, there will inevitably be conflict. Unfortunately, most
organizations have accepted conflict as a common occurrence in the work environment.
What separates one organization from another is the methodology used to resolve these
conflicts in an efficient, effective, and timely manner. Some organizations have found
methods to resolve workplace conflict before it escalates to larger issues, and others
continue to struggle. Either way, no organization is immune from workplace conflict, and
eventually every organization will have to deal with it.
Background
A report published by the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC) Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) for the City of Los Angeles, dated February 12, 2004, examined
the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) policy concerning employment retaliation
(ER) in the workplace. The publication of this review was the first in-depth look at the
issue of ER within the LAPD and the policies in place to address the issue. This
publication was the first of its kind, and was the catalyst for action on the issues and
concerns associated with ER within the workforce of the LAPD. The OIG’s 2004 report
determined that the department did have well-established policies and procedures which
clearly defined and described the Department’s retaliation policy. In spite of having
policies and procedures in place, however, the OIG found that the department’s
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 2

methodology and implementation of these policies and procedures was lacking and in
need of improvement (Office of the Inspector General, 2004). In addition, the OIG found
that the LAPD needed to take into consideration the roles played by its command staff
officers and supervisors in these situations.
1
The OIG recommended not only holding
command staff and supervisors accountable for their roles in retaliation incidents but also
tracking and evaluating these senior officers whose actions or lack of action were found
to contribute to the work environment that fostered ER (Office of the Inspector General,
2004).
In the years following the report’s initial publication in 2004, the OIG has
continued to conduct oversight of the LAPD and examined the issue of ER in subsequent
publications. Since the initial 2004 publication, the OIG has examined ER within the
LAPD and reported its findings in published reports in the following years: 2005, 2006,
2007, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2014. Each of these publications found that the LAPD was
in need of improvement for its persistent problem with ER in the workplace.
Most notably, the OIG’s Quarterly Discipline Report for the third quarter of 2009
revealed that the LAPD was in violation of its own complaint adjudication disposition
process in how it framed allegations of misconduct which lead to ER. Instead of
identifying the accused employee by name within an internal investigation, the
employee’s department would be named as the party accused of the alleged misconduct
(Office of the Inspector General, 2010).
2
The OIG found this practice to be problematic

1
Command staff officers are those holding the rank of Captain and above.
2
Los Angeles Police Department, Special Order No. 1 (SO1), dated January 1, 2003, which allowed for the
adjudication of minor complaints as “Non-Disciplinary” when six criteria were present at the time of complaint
initiation. One criterion preventing a judgment of “Non-Disciplinary” is an allegation of unlawful acts, including
“retaliation/retribution against another employee.”
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 3

as it prevented monitoring and tracking of individual employees who displayed a pattern
of conduct in retaliation incidents. In spite of the concerns raised by the 2010 OIG
publication, the LAPD made little progress in addressing these issues. In a subsequent
Quarterly Discipline Report, this one for the fourth quarter of 2010, the LAPD was found
to have continued the problematic practices revealed in the previous publication (Office
of the Inspector General, 2011).
In 2013, the OIG examined the issue of employment retaliation within the LAPD
through the lens of risk management and financial liability. This published report,
Employment Litigation Audit 2013, focused on the costs associated with personnel
litigation. The costs examined in this publication detailed payouts to plaintiffs and other
costs associated with the litigation process. This report focused on the fiscal years
2006/07–2011/12. During this period, there were a total of 99 cases of employment
litigation resulting in payouts of approximately $31,378,157 and litigation costs of
$42,686,258, totaling $74,064,315 (Office of the Inspector General, 2013).
Although the problem of ER within the LAPD was initially brought to the
forefront with the Review of the Department’s Retaliation Policy published by the OIG in
2004, it was ever-present within the organization and appeared to be coming more
prevalent. More concerning was the continual rise in allegations made against the
command staff of the LAPD by the rank and file of the workforce (Table 1-1). There
appeared to be a lingering lack of progress toward meaningful solutions and remedies to
prevent and resolve these incidents. The reasons behind the persistent increase of ER
allegations have yet to be identified or recognized by the management or the workforce
of the LAPD.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 4

Table 1-1
Summary of retaliation personnel complaint allegations by rank. Source: Los Angeles
Police Department Annual Complaint Report 2009–2014.

* An adjudication of “sustained” indicates that the investigated allegations were found to be factual.
Statement of the Problem
Although conflict within the workplace is commonplace, it has the potential to be
quite complex with various facets and outcomes (Shallcross, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013).
Internal workplace conflict is without a doubt an essential element to any incident of ER;
one simply does not exist without the other. The perseverance of workplace conflict in
an environment has detrimental effects on both the involved individuals and their work
environment in both the short and long term (Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013). In the
case of the LAPD, it appears that the conflicts leading to ER incidents have been
persistent and have endured in the work environment without significant question as to
why they have for such a significant time span. The problem of ER within the LAPD is
no clandestine matter. It has been documented and made known to the public through
various media sources along with the published reports of the Inspector General’s office.
Year Civilian
Command
Staff Detective
Detention
Officer Lieutenant
Police
Officer Sergeant

Total/
Sustained
Total/
Sustained
Total/
Sustained
Total/
Sustained
Total/
Sustained
Total/
Sustained
Total/
Sustained

2009
23/0 13/0 5/1 0 10/0 9/0 1/0
2010
24/0 17/0 0/0 0/0 4/0 5/0 6/0
2011
13/0 27/0 5/0 1/0 2/0 6/0 10/0
2012
6/0 39/0 4/2 0/0 8/0 7/0 8/0
2013
7/0 70/0 4/0 0/0 11/0 6/0 6/0
2014
10/0 72/0 0/0 0/0 12/0 2/0 8/0

Total
83/0 238/0 18/3 1/0 47/0 35/0 39/0

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 5

Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this research is to not only examine the work environment and
systems within the LAPD’s organizational culture which appear to foster internal conflict
resulting in allegations of ER, but also to examine the nature of relationships between
alleged perpetrators and recipients of ER incidents, and how their interactions lend
themselves to negative results. After examining the relevant issues and concerns, this
research will seek out and present viable solutions to resolve the conflict surrounding ER,
by revealing the alternative conflict resolution methods best suited for an organization
such as the LAPD.
Significance of the Research
Although conflict within a workplace is common, it can have many aspects with
various facets and outcomes (Sonnentag, Unger, & Nagel, 2013). A retaliatory work
environment should be considered not only in terms of monetary costs, but in terms of the
costs associated with its adverse effects on the employees who endure retaliation as well
as the effects on the organization as a whole. This study will examine the root issues of
the relationship conflicts which cause actual or perceived retaliatory acts to employees,
while maintaining an objective view of these conflicts, using them as a tool for finding
solutions. Although conflict is often viewed in a negative manner, the literature in
management studies suggests that conflict can oftentimes be used constructively to
develop realistic and creative solutions (De Dreu, 2008). A pivotal component of this
research will be to formulate and suggest alternative dispute resolution methods which
will be specifically tailored to the organizational culture of the LAPD.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 6

Methodology
The research for this study will be qualitative; the gathered data will be examined
and analyzed using the grounded theory data analysis method. In addition to the gathered
data, the design of this research also includes at-length observations by the author,
acquired through various positions within the evaluated workplace. In addition to
statistical research and observations by the author, this study will include use of a
research survey instrument (RSI), interviews with subject matter experts, and comments
from a focus group (FG) made up of affected persons within the LAPD.
The research also incorporates a literature review consisting of published reports,
academic journals, newspaper articles, and Internet searches.
Statistical data for this project was obtained from several sources, including the
LAPD, the Board of Police Commissioners for the city of Los Angeles (BOPC), the
Office of the Inspector General (OIG), results of the RSI provided to delegates of the Los
Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), and comments of the focus group.
Secondary sources included academic and professional research journals.
Research Questions
This study will examine the topic of workplace conflict and ER in the law
enforcement environment by exploring four research questions which not only seek to
reveal the causes and enduring effects of such incidents but also seek a sustainable
solution—practiced by organizations of like size, bureaucratic structure, and function—to
resolve them,. These questions were designed with the subject organization (i.e., the
LAPD) as the focus of the proposed research.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 7

Q1. How does the existence of an employee-centered retaliatory work
environment within law-enforcement culture affect the relationship between management
and the workforce?
Q2. How does the perception of ER by members of the law-enforcement culture
escalate non-retaliatory incidents into legitimate acts of workplace retaliation?
Q3. What conflict resolution methods should be considered to resolve incidents of
workplace conflict and ER within the culture of law enforcement?
Q4. What best practices and policies will effectively resolve workplace conflict
and ER in law-enforcement culture?
Limitations of Study
The paramount limitation of this study is the sample size of participants used in
the RSI and the FG. The samples for both the survey and FG were obtained through the
delegation corps of the LAPPL.
3
According to a 2015 roster published by the LAPD, the
sworn personnel population is approximately 9,809.
4
The LAPPL’s membership is
approximately 9685 sworn members, with a delegate corps acting as labor stewards
totaling 225 persons. Additionally the subject of this study has yet to be researched and
examined within the organization; therefore no established literature stemming from such
a study was readily available.
Terminology
The focus of this research dealt with law enforcement personnel and associated
entities of the LAPD. Although much effort was made to limit the usage of acronyms
and terms solely associated with law enforcement, there is still a potential for confusion.

3
The Los Angeles Police Protective League is the labor union which represents the workforce of the Los Angeles
Police Department encompassing all personnel between the ranks of Police Officer to Police Lieutenant.
4
May 2015 Alpha Roster, Personnel Division, Los Angeles Police Department
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 8

In order to alleviate such confusion, a list of abbreviations is included at the end of this
paper to assist the reader.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 9

Chapter 2
Literature Review
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency
which enforces federal laws that protect persons against workplace discrimination. It was
commissioned in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967, Section 705, subsection
2000e-4. In an effort to decentralize the enforcement and oversight, the EEOC Fair
Employment Practice Agencies (FEPA) were empowered to operate at the state and local
level. For instance, in California, the enforcement and oversight agency is the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (CDFEH). The types of discrimination
prohibited and monitored by the EEOC and its decentralized collaborative state agencies,
include those based on race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age (for persons over
the age of 40), and genetic information.
5
The protection granted by this agency applies to
both job applicants and current employees and covers working conditions, the hiring and
firing processes, harassment, wages, benefits, and training (“About E.E.O.C.,” 2015).
Specifically, the EEOC’s regulation and enforcement of anti-retaliation laws
hinge on four pieces of legislation: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
6
the
Americans with Disabilities Act,
7
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
8
and the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
9
All these pieces of legislation specifically prohibit

5
Genetic information encompasses information about an individual’s genetic composition and that of his or her family
members, including information about the manifestation of any disease or disorder in a person’s family medical history.
6
Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. subsection 2000e-3(a).
7
Section 503(a), 42 U.S.C. subsection 12203(a), and Section 503(b), U.S.C. subsection 12203(b).
8
Section 4(d), 29 U.S.C. subsection 623(d).
9
Section 215(a) of the Fair Labor and Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. subsection 215(a) (3).
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 10

retaliation by employers, labor organizations, or employment agencies, resulting from the
engagement in a legally protected activity (United States, 1998).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is perhaps one of the most important pieces of
legislation ever passed by our government. The passage of this act solidified the rights of
all persons in this country in accordance with our federal constitution. It reaffirmed our
rights as envisioned by our founding fathers. This legislation also covered employment
practices:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate
against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment
agency, or joint labor management committee controlling apprenticeship or other
training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate
against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any
member thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed any
practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he
has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter (Civil Rights Act of
1964, Section 704, subsection 2000e-3(a)).
This section laid the foundation for subsequent legislation which would prove to
not only enhance the rights of the worker, but also give guidance to employers.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Americans with Disabilities Act, which was passed in 1990, was the first
comprehensive civil rights legislation focused on persons with disabilities (United States,
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 11

1990). Aside from guaranteeing the rights of persons with disabilities, this act also added
to the protection of workers from retaliation in the workplace:
(a) Retaliation. No person shall discriminate against any individual because such
individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or
because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.
(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation. It shall be unlawful to coerce,
intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment
of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or
her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment
of, any right granted or protected by this chapter (American with Disabilities Act
of 1990, Section 503(a) and (b)).
Although this act was crafted with the intent to provide equal protection for
persons with disabilities, the abovementioned sections echo the language in the anti-
retaliation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This reaffirmation of the rights of
workers—both able-bodied and with disabilities—reinforces the earlier legislation.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
The ADEA forbids employment age discrimination against persons who are 40
years of age or older. The age of 40 as prescribed by the ADEA, applies to the victim and
has no bearing on the age of the person inflicting the discrimination (United States,
1990). The ADEA specified its protection against discrimination thus:
(d) It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his
employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 12

discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate
against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such
individual, member or applicant for membership has opposed any practice made
unlawful by this section, or because such individual, member or applicant for
membership has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner
in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter (Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Section 4(d)).
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA)
The FLSA of 1938 set the standards for labor conditions and set a minimum wage
for the workers of this nation. This act was authored and enacted during the Great
Depression (United States, 1988). This act also provided protection for workers who
partook in proceedings that would be looked upon unfavorably by their employers. This
act made it illegal:
(3) to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee
because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be
instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is
about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an
industry committee (The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Section 3).

All four of these legislative acts have a common goal of providing protection for
employees who partake in protected activities which can be viewed as adversarial by
management. The protected actions provided for by these laws would eventually be
condensed into a catch-all category known as protected activities.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 13

Elements of Employment Retaliation
As in every legal situation, the definition of a violation of a law, piece of
legislation, or policy is always objective. There are generally a set of objective standards
that are clearly defined. The legal system is set up to prove intent and its direct
correlation to the violation. The definition of workplace retaliation is no different, and
the elements of workplace retaliation are clearly defined. According to the EEOC and its
affiliate agencies, there are three criteria that constitute ER:
1. The victim must be a member of a protected class or engaged in a protected activity
as defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
2. An adverse action must be taken upon the person falling under such protection.
3. A causal connection must exist between the person’s protected status/action and the
adverse action.
Most organizations and municipalities take it a step further and publish their own
policies defining additional protected activities and classes beyond those described in the
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, the ADEA, and the FLSA. One such
organization is the LAPD, which has its own policies and procedures which not only
encompass the criteria as established by the EEOC, but magnify the importance of the
topic by addressing the issue through multiple sources.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 14

The LAPD has addressed the issue of ER on multiple fronts. It not only publishes
its policy in its manual governing the topic but also educates personnel through training
sessions, training bulletins, department training schools, and special orders issued by the
Office of the Chief of Police (OCOP).
Understanding the Conflict
The basis of any conflict revolves around a relationship that undergoes a sequence
of episodes or incidents in which the positions of the parties conflict with one another.
The conflict in itself may be destructive or constructive depending on the parties
involved, its origin, the outcome of the incident, and the way in which those involved
move forward. Conflict in itself should not be marginalized, as the relationship to which
it is correlated can have unforeseen consequences both for those involved and for the
organization as a whole (Pondy, 1967).
In his landmark article “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models,” Louis
Pondy (1967) defined three types of conflict within formal organizations: bargaining
conflict, which occurs among the parties to a group relationship; systems conflict, which
arises among parties to a lateral or working relationship; and bureaucratic conflict, which
occurs between parties in a superior-subordinate relationship. Within each of these types
of conflicts, Pondy identified five stages: latency, feeling, perception, manifestation, and
aftermath.
Pondy’s three conflict models—bargaining, systems, and bureaucratic—can be
found throughout the varying levels of most organizations. Any organization whose
members find themselves competing for scarce resources will no doubt become engaged
in the bargaining conflict model. The competition for resources which ignites this
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 15

bargaining conflict is not limited to budgetary concerns, but may also concern labor
management and baseline operations. An example of bargaining conflict would be that
of labor representation negotiating with management for better working conditions, pay,
and benefits for its constituents.
A conflict among peers in an operational or functional relationship will
experience a systems conflict. Consider a challenge posed to working groups within an
organization. The members of an individual work group feel pressure not only to accept
a challenge, but to also outperform their colleagues, who have, because of the proposed
internal challenge, now become their competition. Colleagues today, competitors
tomorrow.
The final conflict model, bureaucratic, is perhaps most present in government
organizations or others that have a clear chain of command and rely heavily on the
recognition of the roles of superiors and subordinates within the organization. The LAPD
certainly finds itself predisposed to bureaucratic conflict by dint of its structural
organization, its strict adherence to the bureaucratic model, and its reliance on the chain
of command, as spelled out in its Police Department Manual:
The Chief of Police must necessarily limit the number of persons who report to
him/her. Therefore, to ensure unity of command, clearly defined lines of authority
must be drawn so that there exists a structural relationship between each
employee and the Chief of Police. Employees must be aware of their relative
position in the organization, to whom they are immediately responsible, and those
persons who are accountable to them. Employees should strive at all times to
operate within the chain of command and to keep their supervisors informed as to
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 16

their activities. The Chief of Police is available by appointment to any member of
the Department (LAPD, 2015, section 650).
According to Pondy, bureaucratic conflict presents itself when the organization
attempts to control the behavior of its members, which in turn stimulates a reaction by the
membership. One example of such conflict arises with the imposition of discipline from
management onto subordinates within the organization. The imposition of discipline,
depending on the severity, will remain with the organization at residual levels (Winsor,
2012). Discipline is used to correct an action and implement a change in the behavior of
the offending member. Most organizations have detailed policies regarding disciplinary
measures and management’s right to impose them. Such is the case with the LAPD; the
department’s operations manual states, “Discipline can be positive or negative; it may
involve encouragement, inspiration, training or imposition of negative sanctions. It has as
its immediate purpose the channeling of individual effort into effective and productive
action” (LAPD, 2015, section 640).
Understanding which model of conflict is occurring within an organization is vital
to finding a resolution. Each of these conflict models—bargaining, systems and
bureaucratic—entails a series of episodes which play out as the conflict is allowed to
progress: latency, feeling, perception, manifestation, and aftermath (Pondy, 1967). Each
of these episodes builds upon the others, leading to the apex of the conflict.
The first episode described by Pondy is latent conflict. This term describes the
underlying conditions that foster an environment or opportunity for conflict to present
itself. These conditions, continually present within the work environment, are believed to
persist due in large part to a combination of past experiences, work environment, and
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 17

organizational culture (Winsor, 2012). It rarely happens that individuals simply forget or
ignore past experiences within an organization. The “us versus them” mentality exists
between supervisors and subordinates in most organizations; however, the rationale for
this mentality can rarely be traced to a particular event or series of events. In the absence
of any legitimate rationale, these attitudes are sometimes characterized as simply being
“how things are.” For as long as the perception of this long-held “truth” persists within
the organization’s culture, the underlying latent conflict will continue to present itself.
Felt and perceived conflict follow one another as they both contribute to the
perception of conflict which initiates a cognitive awareness of the existence of conflict.
This in turn leads to the initial recognition of the perceived injustices and
incompatibilities within the organization. The realization that some individuals are
members of the “in crowd” while others are outsiders who may never gain entry to this
elite can be perceived as an injustice simply because of the lack of opportunity. Perceived
and felt conflict have been shown to result from perceptions of unfairness and injustice in
the workplace (Kaufmann, 1988). This perception by the individual then establishes the
foundation for the felt conflict which contributes to affective recognition which can result
in anger, frustration, or tension (Frazier, 1989). Once this felt conflict presents itself, the
individual or group’s perception effectively becomes reality, no matter how far from the
truth it may be. Left unchecked or unrecognized, this felt conflict can contribute to a
toxic environment within the organization and have an adverse effect on its membership.
The escalation of the perception and felt conflict gives rise to what Pondy (1967)
described as manifest conflict. The manifest state of conflict presents itself when one
party overtly acts counter to the interests of the other, simply because they have the
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 18

ability to do so (Winsor, 2012). The manner and method of the overt act will generally
be best suited and tailored to reach the desired result of the party initiating said overt act.
These manifestations of conflict can range from conversations and emails of mild
disagreement to threats of legal action, labor strikes, or outright violent or destructive acts
(Lusch, 1976; Pondy, 1967). These phases of conflict can best be described as “a gradual
escalation to a state of disorder,” which can climax in “open war or aggression” (Pondy,
1967). Whatever the manner or method chosen for the overt action, there must be
consideration given to what happens after these incidents have taken place. Once the bell
has been rung, there is no going back; dealing with the subsequent consequences can be
an ongoing process.
The final stage in these conflict episodes is the aftermath, which arises from the
conflict and the circumstances which led to its occurrence. In the aftermath of conflict,
there is an increased need for trust based on competency (Malhotra & Lumineau, 2011).
Pondy (1967) describes the aftermath as the “legacy” of the conflict, meaning it embodies
the lasting effect of the conflict on the organization and the parties involved. Part of this
legacy can include residual or lasting perceptions of conflict which are woven into the
new status quo; these will linger and impair any effort to move forward (Pondy, 1967).
The collateral damage can impair the ability of the involved parties to trust,
communicate, and cooperate (Koza & Dant, 2007). It can then be inferred that the
aftermath of a conflict is the precedent to future latent conflict, which was previously
described as heavily influenced by past experiences which not only linger, but foster a
negative perception that could well create a self-fulfilling atmosphere of confrontation.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 19

Task conflict versus relationship conflict. When attempting to understand
conflict, we strive to identify the key issues and the persons involved. However, in our
drive to distill the issues, we sometimes overlook the obvious. When a conflict presents
itself, it is usually too late to prevent it because it is already upon you, leaving you with
limited options. When enduring a conflict, we should ask ourselves a very simple
question: Is this conflict business or personal? This question may appear elementary;
once the answer is revealed, though, it will unveil the true cause of the conflict and assist
in finding a meaningful resolution. The answer to this question will determine into which
of two predefined types the conflict event falls: task or relationship (Jehn, 1995).
Task conflicts are cognitive in nature, by the fact that they consist of a
disagreement over a method or means of accomplishing a given task or objective. Task
conflicts emerge from disagreements over ideas, opinions, and viewpoints (Jehn, 1995).
To understand task conflict, consider the challenge given to engineering students of
building a better mousetrap. The end goal is to simply catch a mouse; however, the
method and manner of doing so will differ among the challenged teams. That is not to
say that task conflicts do not have an adverse effect on the involved parties, because
indeed they may. Task conflicts have the potential to increase tension and anxiety in
those who experience them (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). The time and energy spent by
employees on a task conflict significantly reduce their available time to work on an
overall task requirement, by causing them to avoid collaborative problem-solving
altogether (Schwartz & Stone, 1993). Members of a work group who have cooperative
interactions are generally more productive and make greater progress in accomplishing
tasks than those who engage in a task conflict (Tjsovold & Wong, 1994).
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 20

A task conflict is the lesser of two evils, because it is based on a task which will
eventually be resolved; once the solution is found, the task, which is the source of the
conflict, no longer exists and—in theory—the conflict should resolve itself, leaving the
engaged parties to return to business as usual. This should hold true, unless the task
conflict has crossed the line from “business” to “personal.” Once this occurs, the
dynamics of the conflict change and the involved parties find themselves involved in a
relationship conflict.
Relationship conflicts are also referred to as affective or socio-emotional
conflicts. These types of conflicts present themselves when “interpersonal
incompatibilities” exist between two or more persons, resulting in annoyance, tension,
and animosity (Jehn, 1995). The incompatibilities can vary; however, most of them tend
to be based upon a clash of interpersonal styles, personal tastes, political beliefs, or
values (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). By their very nature, relationship conflicts tend to
be less superficial than task conflicts. As mentioned earlier, relationship conflicts are not
business; they are entirely personal.
Virtually every organization operating today has a mission statement, vision, and
set of core values. These sets of ideas and beliefs not only give many organizations their
direction and purpose but clearly define what the organization is about in a very intimate
manner. Just as these organizations operate with the guidance of their respective mission
statements, visions, and values, so do people. Individuals have their respective religious,
political, and social beliefs, which define them as individuals. These beliefs define a
person’s value system, which an individual uses as a guide not only in decision-making,
but in how to lead his or her life as an individual and as members of a larger community.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 21

When a relationship conflict presents itself, these dearly held beliefs are called into
question, challenged, and sometimes threatened by another party.
Even in a private setting, a relationship conflict is a burden and a source of stress;
when it occurs in a work environment, though, it can have unforeseen effects. Work-
related stressors are found to lead to short-term strain-induced reactions which can trigger
anxiety or anger (Rodell & Judge, 2009). Unlike a workplace task conflict, which
generally centers on a work-related objective, relationship conflicts can extend beyond
and carry over into many other aspects in the lives of the individuals engaged in a
conflict. When experienced in a work environment, relationship conflicts are
accompanied by excessive amounts of unnecessary tension and stress that can impair the
overall well-being of the individual or organization (Giebels & Janssen, 2005).
Relationship conflicts are likely to heighten a sense of lacking fulfillment of basic human
needs by reducing the availability of social support, both in and out of the workplace
(Emmons & Colby, 1995). If an individual in the workplace does not have the capacity
to detach himself or herself from a workplace relationship conflict, he or she is more than
likely to continue thinking about this conflict while not at work, which may alter the
individual’s physiological functioning (Brosschot, Van Dijk, & Thayer, 2007).
Relationships are the fundamental basis of our existence, not only as members of a
community but in our very ability to coexist with others. An imbalance in our
relationships alters our ability to function. Along with this dysfunction come inevitable
consequences and costs.
The costs of conflict. The laws of nature and time dictate that when one decides
to engage in a particular activity, one surrenders the ability to engage in another. This
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 22

inability to be in more than one place at a time is a reality that mankind has faced over
the centuries. This sacrifice of one opportunity for the sake of another is what
economists call an opportunity cost. The decisions we make come with consequences;
these consequences can also be viewed as a cost. Organizations, like individuals, must
often make choices which exclude other options. The method and manner organizations
use to deal with conflict are affected by this dilemma, as are the method and manner used
to prevent conflict in the first place. Unfortunately, some organizations experience
conflict with such frequency that it has become a cultural norm; in such cases the costs
associated with conflict can be considered the cost of doing business.
A significant proportion of workers and managers are not aware of how
workplace conflicts develop, nor are they properly trained to resolve conflicts effectively
(Masters & Albright, 2002). The ever-present opportunity costs—in conjunction with the
lack of understanding, prevention, and effective resolution of workplace conflict—
include with both seen and unseen costs to an organization.
Workplace conflict can result in monumental economic losses for an organization,
including but not limited to litigation, work stoppages, reduced productivity, low morale,
employee turnover, and development of dysfunctional relationships (Cloke & Goldsmith,
2000). The collateral damage caused by workplace conflict can become deep-rooted
within the organization, much as a weed embeds itself in a garden; the visible portion
may be eliminated easily enough, but the roots remain and, if not properly treated, the
weed will reappear over time. Although there are many collateral effects of workplace
conflict, the areas of paramount consideration are the financial, emotional, and cultural
damage it inflicts upon the organization as a whole.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 23

The financial cost associated with workplace conflict is perhaps one of its most
damaging aspect of workplace conflict. A 2008 report by CPP Global, entitled
“Workplace Conflict and How Business can Harness it to Thrive,” detailed the various
costs associated with workplace conflict.
10
Among the costs examined was the financial
expense. Equating time with money, the report posited that time taken from work
production equals a loss of productivity and wages. CPP’s study found that on average
employees spent approximately 2.1 hours a week engaged in workplace conflict. This
translates to approximately one work day a month wasted in dealing with workplace
conflict (CPP Global, 2008). The loss of the equivalent of one day a month can have a
significant impact on productivity, to say nothing of the emotional stress placed on
employees who experience work conflicts on a consistent basis.
The impact of conflict to an employee extends far beyond the actual moment of
confrontation. The emotional experience, compounded by the frequency of the conflict,
will take its toll on an individual both emotionally and physically. In CPP’s study, 25%
of participants indicated that their workplace conflict had led to sickness or absenteeism
from the workplace. Among employees of nonprofits, this percentage was significantly
higher, at 48%. Nearly half of the study participants indicated they had been involved in
a conflict resulting in sickness or absenteeism (CPP Global, 2008). These negative
emotional and physical effects on employees can be a prelude to stress-related illnesses,
which not only contribute to undue absences from the workplace but can also contribute
to long-term illnesses.

10
The research for this study was conducted in May 2008. It examined workers’ attitudes toward
workplace conflict. The survey questioned 5,000 full-time employees in nine countries throughout Europe
and the Americas.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 24

The influence of workplace conflicts can also carry over to work-related social
events. According to CPP Global (2008), approximately 25% of employees avoided
work related social events due to workplace conflicts that carried over to their non-work
hours. Avoidance of socialization with coworkers displays a clear lack of interest in
making an emotional investment in an organization, which is unhealthy for the overall
morale of the membership and can lead to a disassociation from the organization. An
abundance of ill feeling among a conflict-ridden workforce can also contribute to
attrition. CPP (2008) found that 18% of participants had previously left an organization
due to the level of conflict in the workplace.
There is an argument to be made that conflict in a workplace can be of some
value. It has been proposed that such conflict can lead to improved decision-making and
strategic planning (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990). However, the findings from CPP
Global’s research (2008) suggests that the benefits of organizational conflict do not
outweigh the harm it causes. The findings revealed that 76% of study participants
responded that workplace conflict did not have a positive effect on them or the work
environment (CPP Global, 2008). Our view of the effects of workplace conflict will vary
according to the lens we use and with the willingness of the organization to address the
issue. An organization’s view of itself not only creates an internal perception but also
creates an image communicated to those outside of the organization.
The Power of Perception
Perception is a learned process that every thinking, feeling creature must master.
We engage in perception to discover what is occurring around us. As simple as it may
appear, the development of perception does not simply occur overnight. Our
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 25

personalized perceptions are thought to be rooted in our upbringings, experiences, outside
influences (such as our colleagues), and external factors such as media and popular
opinion. Cultivating perception is a learned process encompassing many aspects, which
in turn can make perception as unique as an individual viewpoint, or as universal as the
tenets of an organizational culture.
Perception stimulates action (Skinner, 1938). This process of perception and
reaction is not inherent within the human species; it develops over time and is often a
culmination of both individual and shared experiences. Perception and behavioral output
have a direct correlation to one another. The reaction to a given perception generally
does not consist of an imitation of the perceived event, but rather a conditioned response,
reinforced by past experiences and formed by historical memories of reward and
punishment (Dijksterhuis, 2001).
Within the process of perception development we acquire perceptual knowledge,
both practical and reflective (Maund, 2003). Perceptual knowledge is direct and
immediate to the individual who is processing information in his or her mind.
Combining this practical and reflective individual perspective with the lessons of an
organization’s history reinforces the view that perception is based on previous
experiences. Although perception helps us understand our surroundings, it does not mean
that we truly understand the reality of our environment. We will only recognize and
perceive what we know based on past experiences. Perceptual experiences are specific
acts involving the acquisition of perceptual beliefs, potential beliefs, inclinations to
believe, or propensities to believe (Maund, 2003).
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 26

Individuals hold a host of biased perceptions regarding their own group’s values
and behaviors (Amarina, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2007). When we discuss the values and
behaviors of a group, we must consider the culture of the organization and its subcultures.
In Organizational Culture and Leadership (1990), Edgar Schein defines culture as
a pattern of basic assumptions—invented, discovered, or developed by a given
group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration—that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, to
be taught to new members as a correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation
to those problems (Schien, 1990, p. 18).
Although the phenomenon of accepting hearsay as truth is not unique to organizations, it
can shape both perception and organizational culture. The culture of an organization is a
learned product of group experience and therefore is found only among definable groups
with significant histories (Schein, 1990).
Dijksterhuis and Bargh (2001) asserted that perceptual formulation is not
arbitrary. They categorized perception into three distinct and yet sometimes
interdependent types: observables, trait inferences, and social stereotypes. All three are
predicated on the notion that our reactions to perceptions are based on imitating the
perceived behavior.
When the process of perception takes place, the perceiver is mentally processing
an observable (Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001), which can best be described as observed
visual acts, such as a waving hand, a facial expression, or a physical gesture performed
by another person. When identifying an observable, the perceiver rarely does so based
solely on the intrinsic properties of the action. There are many variations of observables,
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 27

that when combined can change their perceived meaning from a non-threat to a threat. A
conversation between two people is filled with observables that can give an outside
observer a perception as to the tone of the conversation, even when said observer is not
involved in the conversation. Observables such as hand gestures, tone of voice, facial
expression, and physical positioning can all lead to a perception of the nature of the
conversation, even if the perceiver lacks intimate knowledge of what is truly transpiring.
The second type of perception identified by Dijksterhuis and Bargh (2001) is trait
inference. Trait inferences are not literally observed; rather, they describe a trait value
associated with an observed act. If a person receives flowers at their place of work, the
recipient’s colleagues, observing this, might automatically infer that the person who sent
them is thoughtful and considerate. They have in turn made the trait inference that the
act of sending flowers is an intrinsically thoughtful and considerate act.
Consider another example. Among the duties and responsibilities of the
commanding officer of a police station is the task of administering discipline to his or her
subordinates. The moment that discipline is administered to a subordinate at the direction
of the commanding officer, there may be an immediate trait inference that the
commanding officer is intolerant and quick to judge. Trait inferences are not pondered or
deliberated; rather, they are spontaneous and immediate (Winter & Uleman, 1984).
The final type of perception identified by Dijksterhuis and Bargh (2001) is social
stereotype. Social stereotypes are based solely on detectable and identifiable features of
social groups (Brewer, 1998). The individual viewed is immediately categorized based
on characteristics and external descriptors. Unlike trait inferences, stereotypes do not
allow for the processing of the traits or qualities of an observed action; stereotypes are
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 28

utilized with little thought or discretion (Dijksterhuis, 2001). Stereotypes override the
immediate information presented to the observer in the moment; when stereotypes come
to the forefront, perceptions may be formed based less on current observation than on
preconceived ideas. Stereotypes and trait inferences are similar in the sense that they
occur naturally and have become a part of the process of everyday perception
(Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001).
Alternate Dispute Resolution
In the past, organizations took a traditional approach to conflict resolution, either
by enacting summary terminations, referring the issue to a human resources department,
or—in worst-case scenarios—simply letting the issue go to litigation with the hope of a
speedy and low-cost resolution. The human resources approach generally depends
heavily on using an ombudsman to examine and resolve the issue; but because the
ombudsman is generally employed by the organization, there is a perception that his or
her judgment will be biased in favor of the organization. Simply put: How can an
employee expect a fair, equitable, and unbiased hearing when bringing a conflict to an
internal review process run and operated by the “company store”?
Today, many organizations seek out alternative solutions to resolving
organizational conflict. Many are heavily invested in alternative dispute resolution
(ADR). ADR is a catch-all term for the resolution of disputes outside of the traditional
method of court-ordered judgments (Hendler, 1995). In recent decades, organizations in
the public, private, and nonprofit sectors have increasingly turned to appropriate ADR
processes and programs to effectively improve conflict management efforts (Nesbit,
Nabatchi, & Bingman, 2012). In order to be successful, an ADR program must be
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 29

integrated into the employer’s corporate culture and customized to fit the company’s
prevailing philosophy, culture, and employee relations customs (Maatman, 2001). There
is no single one size fits all ADR program that will satisfy every organization’s needs.
Understanding the perceptions of organizational justice and fairness found in the
formal dispute resolution procedure can be helpful in designing an alternative dispute
resolution system that will offer long-term positive solutions to workplace conflict
(Nesbit, Nabatchi, & Bingman 2012). The policies and methods of organizations actively
using ADR as their primary mode of conflict resolution will vary depending on the needs
of the organization. However, most organizations tailor their ADR policies towards the
utilization of two popular methods of conflict resolution: arbitration and mediation.
Arbitration. Arbitration is a dispute resolution method in which the disputing
parties mutually choose a neutral third party or agency to resolve the dispute by rendering
a decision which is in most cases binding among the parties (Rigby, 1984). The process
used in arbitration is adjudicatory, and is normally less rigid and formal than court
proceedings. In addition, arbitration proceedings are generally conducted in a private
setting and are lower in cost and are more expedient than litigation (Maatman, 2001).
Verdicts resulting from arbitration are viewed as being more conservative than those
from litigation, because the private setting assists in the nullification of egregious facts
that would otherwise be decided on by a jury which has the potential of awarding
damages based on facts revealed to them. Arbitration has gained wide acceptance for
dispute resolution in the areas of labor management and business-industry disputes
(Rigby, 1984). In 2000, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of Armendariz vs.
Foundation Health, which provided guidance to employers as to the necessary conditions
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 30

for a valid workplace arbitration agreement. This decision stated that a workplace
arbitration agreement is enforceable only if the arbitration process provided the employee
with the opportunity to establish his or her equitable rights through basic minimum
requirements: utilization of a neutral arbitrator, adequate discovery process, availability
of all remedies provided in a court, a written decision by the arbitrator, and a prohibition
of arbitration costs charged to the employee partaking in the arbitration process (as
referenced in Maatman, 2001).
Although decisions rendered through the arbitration process can be binding, they
are subject to judicial review. In such cases, the appeal process considers only the
validity of the arbitration proceedings, not the opinion that an arbitration decision was a
“bad” decision. Courts have vacated arbitration decisions primarily based on findings of
unfair arbitration procedures or the discovery of an improper decision by an arbitrator
(LeRoy & Feuille, 2001). Arbitration revocations by courts, therefore, are bound to
prescribed standards; they may not take into consideration a “bad” arbitration decision as
the sole basis for reversing an arbitrator’s decision.
Although arbitration has its benefits, it is not a universal solution; significant
issues prevent some organizations from adopting it. For starters, the costs associated
with arbitration are paid by the employer. Given this fact, employees tend to favor
arbitration because it involves no out-of-pocket expenses. This is believed to facilitate an
overabundance of frivolous arbitration requests by employees who have nothing to lose.
Another significant drawback to arbitration is the standard of discovery for the
purpose of entering evidence. The decision of what evidence is allowed and or excluded

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 31

is made solely by the arbitrator. It is because of this loose application of evidence and
discovery that a judicial review will at times find the process of the arbitration to be
invalid.
11
In spite of the non-mandated evidence code adherence requirement, appellate
courts apply the standards established by legal evidence codes when reviewing arbitration
cases. The shortcomings of arbitration lead some organizations to seek other ADR
options.
Mediation. Mediation is the process in which a third party is selected to facilitate
the dialogue between two parties with the intent to help the parties come to a mutually
acceptable resolution. Mediation does not render a mandated decision; instead, it guides
the parties involved to bring the conflict to an amicable and agreeable resolution based on
terms reached by consensus among the parties. The compulsion to adhere to the
agreement is generally outlined in a signed written agreement. For mediation to succeed,
all parties must act in good faith. In the end, any party involved can refuse to carry out
the terms of the written agreement. The success of mediation depends on the commitment
of the parties to adhere to an agreement reached based on compromise and consensus—in
an effort to avoid having their conflict decided by a civil proceeding.
Like arbitration, mediation is a less expensive alternative to litigation, and is less
time-consuming. From the onset, the mediation process is completely voluntary. All
parties who agree to enter into mediation do so of their own free will. Courts however,
may direct parties toward mediation in the run-up to litigation. Additionally, most states
allow the mediation process to operate under their respective evidence codes. The State
of California evidence code, section 1115 through 1128, strictly regulates the

11
The legal evidence code is not applicable to the arbitration process.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 32

confidentially for the process. There are exceptions to this confidentiality such as
persons who are considered “mandated reporters” to report crimes and the potential of
crimes to be committed to authorities. In addition to mandated reporting there are other
exceptions to confidentiality in mediation such as family court contexts, disclosure of
information which can lead to future criminal proceedings, future federal matters both
criminal and civil, and others as listed in evidence codes of each state. Aside from the
listed exceptions as required by law, there is a strict adherence to confidentiality during
the mediation process which sets the environment for open and candid dialogue among
the parties engaged in this process. What happens in the mediation process stays within
the mediation process. This confidentiality fosters an environment of open
communication where parties can feel free to admit fault without penalty and work
together to find a resolution upon which they can all agree.
There are three styles of mediation commonly used in ADR: facilitative,
transformative, and evaluative (Los Angeles County Bar Association, 2010). Facilitative
mediation requires the mediator to promote the flow of information between the parties,
assist the parties in understanding the conflict, and encourage the parties to closely probe
the circumstances which led to the dispute. In this model, the mediator does not share his
or her opinion regarding possible solutions.
Transformative mediation seeks to generate agreement that solves tangible
problems in fair and realistic terms by identifying the issues, creating options for
resolution, and using effective persuasion to drive toward an agreeable solution (Bush,
2004). The transformative model focuses on the participants’ ability to regain a sense of
confidence and empowerment to formulate a resolution. This model assumes that the
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 33

transformative interaction between the conflicting parties is what matters most. The
mediator’s role in this model is to foster the empowerment of the participants and reveal
recognition shifts, thus changing the interaction from destructive to constructive (Bush,
2004). Transformative mediation seeks to create the potential to rekindle constructive
interaction which not only resolves specific issues but restores the parties’ ability to work
together effectively.
The evaluative model focuses more on the involved parties’ individual rights and
less on satisfying their collective interests. Mediators participating in this process will
generally give the involved parties advice and make assessments throughout the
mediation process.
Of the three mediation styles described, transformative mediation appears to
provide the most benefit for those involved due to its inclusive nature and the way in
which it requires the problem-solving to come directly from its participants.
Transformative mediation is fundamentally designed to level the playing field and
distribute the power equally among the participants. Each party within the process is
empowered to make a significant contribution to the resolution process and has a stake in
the success, shortcomings, and resolution of the process. A significant theoretically
based benefit of transformative mediation is that it fosters the improvement of workplace
communication skills between employees and supervisors (Bush, 2004). Transformative
mediation has proven successful in federal government agencies; the most prominent
example is the Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly
(REDRESS) program used by the United States Postal Service (USPS). Most federal
agencies that utilize mediation in their respective ADR processes utilize the
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 34

transformative model because it promotes more stable settlements and outcomes and has
the potential to transform workplace culture and environment (Hallberlin, 2001).

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 35

Chapter 3
Methodology
Introduction
As stated in Chapter 1, the focal purpose of this research is to examine the work
environment and systems within the LAPD which appear to foster a work environment of
prevailing internal conflict resulting in allegations of ER. It also seeks to examine and
understand the relationship between the alleged perpetrators and the victims of alleged
ER incidents, and take a closer look at the interactions that lend themselves to negative
results. Once identified, the relevant issues and concerns will be examined more closely
in an effort to present viable solutions to prevent and resolve the conflict surrounding the
allegations of ER. However, the method and procedure used to find a resolution must be
acceptable to the LAPD’s organizational culture and within organizations of like
structure and function. These tailored but necessary requirements will be vital to the
successful implementation of any system recommended by this research.
This chapter will describe the methodology used to gather the relevant data not
only to establish that the problem of ER is substantially present within the workforce of
the LAPD but to also identify common denominators, either real or perceived, which
perpetuate the problem.
Analysis of allegations of ER revealed that a disproportionate number of those
alleging ER held the rank of Lieutenant and below; that is, victims came
disproportionately from the LAPD’s rank and file membership. In an effort to gain
unfettered access to these identified persons for the purposes of examination and
research, a limited partnership was sought with the LAPD’s labor organization.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 36

Research Design
The labor organization associated with this population within the LAPD is the Los
Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL). As the labor organization of the rank and
file, the LAPPL is keenly aware of the issue of ER in the workplace; indeed, the
organization plays a pivotal role in virtually every aspect of these incidents, from offering
initial consultation to its members to providing litigation assistance for civil court
proceedings. Therefore, LAPPL was seen as the ideal organization with which to form a
limited partnership for the purposes of research and consultation as this study progressed
(Appendix A).
The process of establishing this limited partnership began with a meeting with the
LAPPL’s president, Lieutenant Craig Lally, and his vice president, Sergeant II Jerretta
Sandoz. This initial meeting focused on the role the LAPPL would play with the research
designed for this project. Both Lally and Sandoz expressed interest and willingness to
form the requested limited partnership. This meeting did not however automatically grant
this limited partnership, however, as a vote by the entire executive committee was needed
to formulate this venture. Lally and Sandoz presented the proposal of this limited
partnership to the executive board of the LAPPL, with the subsequent vote confirming
the formation of the limited partnership and the offer of associated consultation as the
research progressed (Appendix B).
Subject, Participants, and Sample
As a labor organization, the LAPPL has its own version of union shop stewards,
who are referred to as delegates. According to its own records the LAPPL has a
membership totaling 9685 sworn police personnel, with a delegate corps of 225
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 37

persons.
12
The delegate corps is comprised of sworn LAPD personnel from the rank of
Lieutenant and below who apply with the LAPPL to be selected as a delegate. The
selection process is made by the LAPPL’s executive board, which seeks to obtain a
diverse and accurate sample, reflecting the population of the LAPD, to act as LAPPL
delegates (Los Angeles Police Protective League, 2013). The duties and responsibilities
associated with this position can best be summed up in the statement which appears on
the first page of the LAPPL delegate’s handbook: “Two critical functions that you
perform: communicating accurate and up-to-date information in a timely manner to
League members and providing the Board of Directors with feedback from our members”
(Los Angeles Police Protective League, 2013).
In addition, the LAPPL hosts training sessions and an annual conference where
the entire agenda is focused on legal updates and labor and benefits issues concerning the
membership. As an organization, the LAPPL devotes a considerable portion of its time
and monetary resources not only to educating its delegate corps but also to keeping its
membership up to date on current labor issues and trends.
Access to this delegate corps was necessary in order to obtain a concise cross-
section of the workforce population most affected by ER taking place in the LAPD. In
addition it was presumed that as members of the LAPPL delegate corps, this sample
population would be highly informed and knowledgeable about the issues of ER taking
place in the Department.

12
LAPPL, as of May 2015.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 38

Research Survey Instrument
When considering a research plan, it was determined that a RSI and a FG would
be most appropriate methods for this project. The RSI would reveal what a group is
thinking and capture the reaction to the question presented, while the FG would be tasked
with explaining the results of the RSI, which in turn would provide context for the
results. In order to balance efficiency with effectiveness, the research instrument for this
study consisted of a survey questionnaire with a cover sheet that allowed the participant
to volunteer for a FG if he or she so desired (Appendix C1and C2).
13

Due to the sensitive subject matter of this study, it was decided that anonymity of
the sample group (SG) be preserved. Therefore this RSI did not require submission of
any identifiable information which would link the RSI to any individual member of the
SG. The FG interest form did have contact information, which was solicited for the
purpose of contacting interested SG members to arrange participation in the FG. This
information will be retained by the researcher for the purposes of confidentiality, in
compliance with the terms of the IRB proposal and agreement (Appendix D1–D3).
The first three questions of the SRI related to the participant’s tenure with the
LAPD, his or her respective assignment, and his or her pay grade or rank. The purpose of
these first three questions was to obtain a demographic snapshot of the SG to determine if
the participant pool was representative of the department as a whole.
The fourth question was purposely framed to leave no ambiguity regarding the
existence of ER. It directly asked the SG if they felt ER was a serious problem within the
work environment of the LAPD. Participants selected one of three options as their

13
All persons who participated in this survey questionnaire were presented with a disclosure as per IRB requirements,
IRB Template Version: 3-8-2013, study ID: UP-15-00109, and signed a letter or agreement. See Appendix D for a full
copy of “Information sheet for non-medical research” and signed release.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 39

respective answer. Two of the answers acknowledged the existence of ER as a serious
problem but differed by degree, allowing participants to either “strongly agree” or
“somewhat agree” with the statement. The third option gave the SG the option to state
that they simply did not agree that ER was serious problem. This question was posed in
this fashion to reflect the policy established by the LAPD, which has a zero tolerance
threshold for ER. Its existence is not permitted or acceptable at any level, as affirmed in
the department manual (emphasis in the original):
POLICY PROHIBITING RETALIATION. The Department is committed to
providing an atmosphere in which employees are free from workplace harassment
and retaliation of any kind. Retaliation and acts contributing to retaliation are
serious misconduct. Therefore, any Department employee who engages in,
sanctions or supports such activity is subject to disciplinary action, up to and
including termination. Department managers, commanding officers, and
supervisors will be held accountable for providing an atmosphere at work in
which employees are free from retaliation. Department managers, commanding
officers, and supervisors are also accountable for subordinate employees who
engage in behavior that the manager, commanding officer, or supervisor knew, or
should have known, was occurring, that formally or informally punish an
employee for engaging in protected activity.
Retaliation is defined as an adverse employment action taken against
an employee for engaging in protected activity. An adverse employment action
includes an action that would cause a reasonable employee to be deterred from
engaging in a protected activity or an action in direct response to an employee
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 40

engaging in a protected activity. Adverse employment actions may include, but
are not limited to, negative performance evaluations, negative Employee
Comment Sheets, the imposition of discipline, denial of a pay grade advancement,
coveted assignment or promotional opportunity, or change of assignment (Los
Angeles Police Department, 2015, section 200: 272).
The fifth and sixth questions focused on the participants’ personal experience
with ER, asking if they themselves had ever experienced it or had knowledge of anyone
else who had experienced it. An affirmative answer to either of these two questions
indicated that the participant had a working knowledge of what constitutes ER both by a
legal standard and by the policy standards established by the LAPD.
The seventh question allowed for the SG to acknowledge if they have been made
aware of ER within the LAPD through media coverage. This question differed from the
previous two by taking into account the participants may be influenced by media
accounts of ER even if they have no firsthand knowledge or experience of it. The SG
was provided the opportunity to select the media outlets by which they had been made
aware of ER, choosing one or more from radio, television, newspaper, television, and
“other,” which encompassed social media and other Internet sources.
Question 8 was broken into two parts. The first asked if the participant himself or
herself had ever reported ER as a member of the LAPD. The second part, which applied
only if the participant answered in the affirmative to the first part, asked if the participant
was satisfied with the results from reporting the ER. It can be argued that every member
of the SG should have responded in the affirmative to the first part of the question; as
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 41

delegates for the LAPPL, they have a duty and obligation to be the stewards of the
membership in ensuring fair labor practices for all members of the LAPPL.
Question 9 was another two-part question requiring a definitive answer.
Participants were asked if they knew the Department’s policies regarding ER, and if so
what departmental educational sources were used to obtain this information. It was
expected that as trained delegates of the LAPPL, all SG members would reply that they
knew the LAPD’s policies regarding ER. In the second part, participants were permitted
to cite a combination of educational sources which fit their respective experiences,
including Department published orders, electronic learning system, Department manual,
Department school, or other source: the latter answer gave the option to indicate if the
participant actually sought outside sources of information to garner information regarding
the topic of workplace retaliation.
Question 10, the final question of the RSI, was also broken into two parts. This
question was framed to be a final determinant as to whether the SG members actually
knew the subject matter. Question 10 simply asked participants if they could list the
elements of ER; if they answered in the affirmative, they were then asked to do so. This
final question could have been placed toward the beginning of this RSI, but was
purposely placed last to act as a validation tool for the participant’s prior answers. If the
SG members could answer both portions of Question 10 correctly, it could be presumed
that their previous answers were based on fact and knowledge rather than on hearsay,
rumor, or perception.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 42

Data Collection Procedures
It was determined that the best opportunity to gather the LAPPL delegate corps in
one location for the purpose of RSI distribution was at a LAPPL delegate corps monthly
meeting, which traditionally takes place on the first Tuesday of each calendar month.
The executive board of the LAPPL granted a request to be placed on the meeting agenda
(Appendix E).
The data for this RSI was collected during a LAPPL delegate meeting on April 7,
2015. Attendance at this meeting totaled 121 delegates; of these, 102 participated in the
survey—an 84% participation rate, making the margin of error 6.02 % (CustomInsight,
2009). Prior to the distribution of the RSI, participants were instructed regarding the
procedures for this process as detailed in the IRB document study ID No.UP-1500109.
The RSIs were subsequently disseminated to those attendees who wished to participate,
and collected after completion. Upon receipt of the RSIs, the attached FG interest sheets
were removed in order to preserve the anonymity of the participants. Those who wished
to participate in the FG portion of the data collection process were subsequently
contacted and notified of the logistics concerning their participation.
Results of the RSIs were subsequently collected and compiled into a document
summarizing the findings. The results were entered in an Excel spreadsheet, where
graphic representations were constructed accordingly. The numerical totals of the results
were accounted for as well as the percentage representation of the results. A second
document was prepared and presented to those who wished to be part of the FG.
14
Seven
individuals committed to participate in the FG. These participants were provided with

14
The questions associated with this FG document were reviewed and approved by the IRB.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 43

the results and asked to address the findings of the RSI accordingly (Appendices F1–
F16).
Data Analysis
As stated previously, the research methodology for this project is qualitative. In
order to preserve and extract the most accurate meaning of the data, we must give careful
consideration to the appropriate method of data analysis. The RSI reveal what the
selected SG thought of the presented topic; the FG presented insight as to why the SG
responded as they did.
15
While considering this process, a sincere effort was made to not
lose the intended meaning of the SG’s data as it was analyzed. It was determined that the
analytical method that would best accomplish this was the grounded theory approach.
The grounded theory approach of data analysis provides a methodology that does
not limit itself to a specific research paradigm; instead, it allows for the emergence of
patterns in the gathered data (Engward, 2013). The process prescribed in the grounded
theory approach calls for the data to be coded in categories which are then grouped
according to the themes that present themselves (Whiteside, Mills, & McCalman, 2012).
The coding process consists of three stages which build upon one another. The first stage
of this process is open coding, which requires the researcher to find categories within the
gathered data. In the second stage, axial coding, the researcher formulates links between
the themes and categories. The process culminates in selective coding, wherein the
researcher identifies a core category or in some cases categories which have presented
themselves through analysis of the gathered data (Engward, 2013).

15
Members of the FG were selected from the SG which partook in the RSI.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 44

Given the manner and method of data collection for this project, which consisted
of a RSI and a follow-up FG to reflect on the results of the RSI, grounded theory data
analysis provided a fundamentally sound approach to extracting a distilled meaning from
the gathered data.
Summary
This chapter described the methodology used to gather the relevant data, not only
to substantiate that ER is a relevant issue within the workforce of the LAPD but also to
identify the common denominators that contribute to its presence, either real or
perceived. The rationale for selecting the SG was that, as the delegate corps of the
LAPPL, the participants would be well-suited to provide a comprehensive sample
reflecting the demographics and population of the LAPD workforce most significantly
affected by ER. We examined the design and implementation of the instruments used to
gather and analyze data not only from those who took only the survey portion but also
those who participated in the FG; the significance of the data gathered will be explored in
the next chapter. This chapter concluded with an explanation of the grounded theory
analysis employed in interpreting the data, giving insight into the fundamentals of the
methodology and highlighting the process by which this data will be examined, coded,
and formulated to identify categories that not only show causation, but may also help in
finding a resolution to the identified issues.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 45

Chapter 4
Results and Analysis
Introduction
The results of this study substantiated that the existence of workplace conflict
which leads to instances of ER within the LAPD is of paramount concern for its
employees. Most importantly, it revealed the key issues which perpetuate this conflict,
and shed light on available avenues to resolve the predicated conflict prior to escalation.
This study also revealed deficiencies in the workplace culture of the LAPD that can be
corrected through communication and education. The primary data from the RSI
provided valuable insights from the sample population, the membership of the LAPPL
delegate corps. The review and analysis of the RSI results by the FG provided for a
valuable context of the assembled data. This detailed examination by the FG allowed for
the distillation of the results to a core base of issues which resonated with a vast majority
of the participants. The process by which this data was examined was guided by the
principles and methodology prescribed in the grounded theory approach.
Organizing the Results
This chapter will present the results from the data gathered in this study, which
consisted of information gathered from two interdependent sources. The first portion of
the data was garnered from a RSI consisting of a survey administered to the SG,
consisting of 102 members of the LAPPL delegate corps. The second set of data was
assembled from a FG which consisted of seven volunteers from among those who
participated in the RSI. The data for both instruments, survey and FG, will be presented
in the remainder of this chapter.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 46

The data from the RSI was totaled and rendered in a graphic format to allow the
reader to easily gauge the results visually. The published results will be described in
terms of their numerical responses; any blatant discrepancies or contradictions will be
mentioned up front, taking into consideration the organizational culture of the SG from
which this information was gathered.
The comments of the FG represent each participant’s respective individual review
and consideration of the results of the RSI. Participants of the FG were provided an
electronic copy of the findings from theRSI and were given ample time to review and
comment on the results. The FG participants worked independently of one another in the
privacy of their own chosen settings, allowing for the absence of any influence by other
FG participants when composing their response. This format allowed the FG participants
to remain totally anonymous from one another. In this chapter, the written responses of
the FG will follow the results of the SRI.
The gathered data was assembled and analyzed using the grounded theory
approach. A matrix was created for each question of the RSI. The results of the RSI
were placed in one column, and summarized responses of the FG were placed in a
subsequent column. This format allowed the researcher to visually compare and contrast
the results, helping to discern groupings of issues and topics which were then
consolidated into core categories, which were derived and presented accordingly.
Data Methodology and Analysis
The design of this research included at-length observations by the author which
was accomplished throughout various workplace environments of the subject
organization. In addition to statistical research and observations by the author, the
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 47

research employed an SRI, interviews with subject matter experts, and a FG consisting of
affected persons within the LAPD. The literature that forms the theoretical background
for this project consisted of published reports, academic journals, newspaper articles, and
Internet searches. Statistical data for this project was obtained from various sources
which provided valued insight and guidance. Primary sources include the LAPD, the Los
Angeles Police Commission, and the Office of the Inspector General; secondary texts
included a variety of academic and professional research journals. The analysis of the
qualitative data used the grounded theory data analysis method, as described in Chapter
3.
Population, Sample, and Participants
The sworn personnel population of the LAPD is approximately 9,809
employees.
17
This study sought to solicit the participation of a relatively even cross-
section of membership. More importantly, the intent was to include the population
segment of the LAPD most likely to be victims of ER, namely those between the rank of
Police Officer and Lieutenant. It was determined that the most effective way to obtain
access to this population was to seek a collaboration with the labor organization
representing this population, the LAPPL. According to the LAPPL its membership is
approximately 9685 sworn members, with a delegate corps totaling 225 persons.
Members of the delegate corps act in the capacity of shop stewards for LAPD
members holding the ranks/pay grades of Police Officer to Lieutenant; in addition, they
are meant to function as a source of knowledge regarding labor issues or concerns in the
LAPD workplace. For these reasons, the delegate corps of the LAPPL was chosen as the

17
May 2015 Alpha Roster, Personnel Division, Los Angeles Police Department.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 48

participant pool for both the RSI and the FG. Subsequently, the author formed a limited
partnership with the LAPPL for the purpose of research and consultation. Access to the
delegate corps was granted, and the RSI was administered at a LAPPL delegate’s meeting
on April 7, 2015.
During the administration of the RSI, participating delegates were given the
opportunity to volunteer for a FG. This solicitation resulted in the participation of seven
persons. The FG portion of this research took place subsequent to the LAPPL delegate’s
meeting which took place on April 7, 2015.
Figure 4.1 represents the length of service breakdown of those in attendance at the
April 7, 2015 LAPPL delegate’s meeting, who participated in the RSI. There were a total
of 121 delegates in attendance, of which 102 participated in the survey—a participation
rate of 84%, making the margin of error 6.02 % (CustomInsight, 2009).
18
The outliers of
the SG were those whose tenure with the LAPD ranged from 0–5 years and from 6–10
years; those participant groups each constituted only a single-digit population of the
overall. Taken together, these less-tenured groups represented 11% of the SG.

Figure 4.1. Demographic breakdown of RSI participants by tenure.

18
According to the LAPPL, as of April 2015, the total delegate corps totaled 225 persons.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 49

The larger portion of the SG consisted of those with a longer tenure in the LAPD,
ranging from 11 years of service to 26 years or more. The more-tenured portion of the
SG represented 89% of the overall participants.

Figure 4.2. Demographic breakdown of RSI participants by assignment.

Of those who participated in the RSI, the distribution of work assignments was
relatively even, as can be seen in Figure 4.2 above. The category of “Patrol” was defined
as those sworn personnel who worked a patrol function in field-related operations of the
LAPD. “Administrative” was defined as sworn personnel whose job duties did not entail
field operations. The category of “Specialized” was defined as those sworn personnel
who worked an operational assignment of a specialization, including but not limited to
investigations and/or specialized field operations assignments.
19
No single work
assignment dominated the composition of the surveyed group, which consisted of 34%

19
A specialized unit is an investigative section which focuses on a specific type of investigation, such as homicide,
narcotics, or any other investigatory duties which are neither patrol-oriented nor predominately administrative in
nature.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 50

Patrol, 28% Administrative, and 37 % Specialized. This relatively even distribution of
work assignments gave an adequate representation of the varied work environments
within the LAPD.
In addition to indicating their tenure with the LAPD, the SG participants were
asked to provide their current rank/pay grade. Officer and Detective are considered non-
supervisory positions within the LAPD. As shown in Figure 4.3, the participants of the
non-supervisor rank of Officer and Detective numbered 49 and 7 respectively. Their
combined population was 56 in total, representing 55% of the overall RSI participants.
The rank/pay grades of Detective/Supervisor, Sergeant, and Lieutenant are those of the
supervisor rank within the LAPD. The total representation of these supervisor ranks
numbered 46, which amounted to 45% of the surveyed population. Although the ratio of
supervisor to non-supervisor populations within the LAPD is not known to be as close as
this sample might indicate, the sample population representation was found to be
acceptable for the purposes of this research.

Figure 4.3, Demographic breakdown of RSI participants by rank/pay grade.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 51

Results
The results of this project consisted of data gathered from the RSI and a FG.
20

These results were subsequently analyzed using the grounded theory method, revealing
core categories significant in identifying possible sources of conflict in the LAPD
workplace and providing a fundamental basis for meaningful solutions. Graphic
representations and short narratives will be used to explore these results as they pertain to
the research questions proposed in Chapter 1 of this project.
The first step in resolving a problem is to determine whether or not the problem
exists. This must be done even before examining the issue’s effect on the relationship
between management and labor. As basic as this first step may be, it is essential;
unfortunately, it is often skipped. Many well-meaning people undertake a problem-
solving endeavor without even definitively determining the existence of the problem.
The best way to determine if a problem exists is to garner independent acknowledgement
of its presence. As shown in Figure 4.4, the response to the RSI revealed that according
to the SG, the problem of ER within the LAPD is indeed a significant problem.

Figure 4.4. Graphic representation of responses to RSI Question 1.

20
Participants of the FG were given a FG identification number. Their respective responses will be preceded by their
given FG identification number. There were a total of seven persons who participated in the FG portion of this
research.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 52

Although responses varied slightly with regard to the seriousness of the problem,
the acknowledgement of the existence of ER within the work environment of the LAPD
was virtually unanimous. A vast majority of the SGs felt to some degree that ER was a
serious problem, with 95% answering in the affirmative; only 5% did not agree.
The FG’s opinions reaffirmed the sentiment that ER is deeply rooted in the
organizational structure to the point that the FG believed that management privately
condones such acts or actively participates in them. The FG participants acknowledged
that because of this practice, there is a dysfunctional relationship between the labor force
and the management of the LAPD. They also had very little reservation about airing their
views on this subject. The anonymous FG participant identified as FG01 cited a long
tenure with the department as their basis for his/her view:
I think those that do not see a retaliation problem have either limited time on the
job or have lived in an insulated environment and are unaware of the broader
scope of issues within the Department. These findings are extremely consistent
with my experience. In addition, the Department does concede there are
retaliation issues that need to be addressed. Otherwise, why would they keep
issuing anti-retaliation policies? Necessity being the mother of invention, it only
stands to reason that the Department would not need a policy if there was no
issue. My opinions are based on my experiences. Having served in a civilian
capacity for four years, and a sworn capacity of 27 plus years, I feel I am well-
equipped to defend the opinions I hold. We have always had environmental and
organizational issues, and will continue to do so. The recent spate of promotions
illustrates this very clearly. If one is a “Friend of Charlie,” one gets promoted and
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 53

lands the plum assignment. I have held positions that exposed me to the highest
levels of the Department. Prior chiefs were guilty of this as well. However, Beck
is by far the most blatant in his demonstrations of favoritism [of those] I’ve seen.
Whether a sworn employee of the LAPD has personally experienced ER or not,
the perception of its existence appeared to be entrenched among the SG. When asked if
they had personally experienced ER, as opposed to knowing of someone else who had,
60% of participants indicated that they had personally experienced ER, as shown in
Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5. Numerical breakdown of responses to RSI Question 5.

As for the follow-up question, as shown in Figure 4.6, whether they knew of
anyone besides themselves who had experienced ER personally; 85% of participants
knew of another LAPD employee who had; only15% of participants indicated that they
had no experience with ER, either firsthand or secondhand.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 54

Figure 4.6. Numerical breakdown of responses to RSI Question 6.

The FG as a whole took exception to the results of Figure 4.5. They called into
question the participants’ understanding of ER, drawing a distinction between what might
be perceived as ER and what constituted a legal definition of such an act. They expressed
the belief that future incidents involving workplace issues which did not rise to the level
of legally defined ER might be wrongly perceived as such. This ingrained perception, in
their estimation, made it difficult to examine workplace issues objectively.
FG02: As a lieutenant, I have observed employees claim retaliation in instances
where supervisors took appropriate corrective action to address or correct
inappropriate behavior. I think some personnel have taken issues such as that
(being denied a T/O, being counseled for tardiness, issuance of sick letters) and
claimed those to be retaliation for some action there took or statement they made.
While I do not dispute this may happen, and they may be valid gripes of
supervisors, watch commanders, etc. perhaps playing “favorites” either
consciously or unconsciously, I wouldn’t necessarily characterize this as
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 55

“retaliation.” Thus I think these numbers are slightly inflated. My issue is with
valid cases of serious retaliation for questioning command staff, or identifying
misconduct by people in positions of power or influence. Cases where lawsuits
have been won or could be won. While I know for a fact those happen, and I
know they are a problem not properly addressed, I do not believe they happen to
the extent indicated here.
The results shown in Figure 4.6 also drew the attention of the FG. They not only
questioned the participants’ working knowledge of what constitutes a legitimate instance
of ER as opposed to a perceived incident, but also the effect of high-profile cases that
draw media attention. The role of the media in fostering this perception could not be
discounted, and therefore must be addressed.
FG02: I think most of our personnel are aware of fellow officers who have been
involved in highly publicized instances of retaliation, which have garnered media
attention and resulted in high dollar lawsuits. I don’t think this number of
personnel necessarily know someone “personally” who has been involved in a
serious case such as this. Again, similar to my previous response, I think a large
portion of these responses are attributable to knowing someone who has claimed
to have been denied positions, transfers, watch changes, T/O’s, etc. and has
interpreted these actions as “retaliation” as opposed to potential inappropriate
favoritism on the part of an immediate supervisor. I do not characterize that as
retaliation—I characterize it as shitty leadership.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 56

As shown in Figure 4.7, approximately 75% of the SG indicated that they have
been made aware of ER through the media. Figure 4.8 details the media sources that
have reported on ER.

Figure 4.7. Numerical breakdown of responses to RSI Question 7, part 1.

Figure 4.8. Numerical breakdown of media outlets where participants reported
learning about ER. N = newspaper, R = radio, T = television, O = other (Internet,
social media). Combinations of these abbreviations indicate multiple sources.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 57

Finding a solution to any adverse issue should be of paramount concern to those
involved. As such, many organizations will find themselves in search of a process that
serves the needs of both the organization and the individual. Success can be gauged by
determining participants’ satisfaction with the resolution process.
As shown in Figure 4.4, the existence of ER within the LAPD was of major
concern to the SG, with 95% indicating as much. However, those of the SG who reported
incidents of ER totaled 26% (Figure 4.9). This result drastically contrasted with those
who did not, representing 74% of the SG. Of those who reported ER, 89% were not
satisfied with results, which left just 11% who were satisfied (Figure 4.10).

Figure 4.9. Numerical breakdown of responses to RSI Question 8, part 1.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 58

Figure 4.10. Numerical breakdown of responses to RSI Question 8, part 2.

Upon observing the extreme differences between Figures 4.9 and 4.10, the FG
participants affirmed them as generally accurate. Their majority reasoning was that there
is a fear of being labeled a “whistleblower.” Once labeled as such, there is a fear of
further ER targeting the labeled individual. The risk of reporting outweighed the benefits
because of a lack of protection for the reporting party in the face of vulnerability to
adverse action from command staff and management.
FG04: I’m not surprised by the results. When someone is being retaliated against
it is already proof that supervision will punish someone for standing up [against]
what is wrong or speaking out. Why would someone intentionally speak out
knowing that the retaliation would be directed on them after they said something?
I have seen the Department generate misconduct and change the rules to retaliate
against someone. They are attempting to fire this person. I still have young
children to think about and do not need that kind of attention directed my way. I
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 59

reported my incident to the League, but requested the information remain
confidential, and so far it has.
The anonymous FG participant identified as FG07 took a more skeptical line: “This begs
the question, that if it is such an issue, why aren’t more people doing the right thing and
reporting it? Or are most people just deciding not to get involved, in fear of being labeled
a whistleblower?”
The lack of a trusted and meaningful resolution process within the LAPD was
cited repeatedly in the responses of the FG. Such an absence of a viable method for
resolution within this work environment greatly hinders any potential towards forward
progress in finding a much needed and trusted method of resolution.
FG03: Yes, I have reported retaliation several times. This might not have been a
good question for me since dealing with issues like this were part of my former
assignment. In that assignment I spoke with several hundred officers over the
years who had acts of perceived or actual retaliation against them and many times
they directed me not to report the concern because they did not want to be further
retaliated against.
As a matter of operation, all organizations have policies and procedures by which
they operate. As explained in Chapter 1, the LAPD does have policies and procedures in
place which govern the handling of ER incidents. It would be invalid to argue that the
LAPD does not properly educate its employees regarding these policies. As shown in
Figure 4.11, an overwhelming majority of SG participants indicated that they were aware
of the Department’s policies on ER.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 60

Figure 4.11. Numerical breakdown of responses to RSI Question 9.

When it comes to the policies and procedures concerning ER, the SG opined that
the LAPD does a more than sufficient job in educating its employees. A vast majority,
96%, indicated they are aware of department policies regarding ER, which left a minority
of 4% indicating they are unaware of these policies. The FG concurred with the SG.
Their overall responses indicated that the LAPD does do a good job in this area. There
was some reference by the FG to the extensive variety of methods the LAPD uses to
create awareness of these policies and procedures. FG01 asserted: “They beat us to death
with this stuff; which makes me realize the Department’s position is “Do as I say (policy)
not as I do.” FG02 agreed: “Seems about right; they push this all the time.”
Figure 4.12 indicates the relative reach of the Department’s various avenues for
spreading the message about its anti-ER policies.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 61

Figure 4.12. Sources from which RSI participants report learning the LAPD;s
policies on ER. SO= Special Orders; EL= electronic learning; DM= Department
Manual; DS=Department School; O = Other source. Combinations of these
abbreviations indicate multiple sources of learning.

The methods identified in Figure 4.12 include the following:
 Special Orders: Department-wide orders published to adress a specific topic or
issue. The information contained in these orders is intended to augment the
operations manual and will either change or amend a policy or procedure
accordingly.
 Electronic Learning: An intranet-based electronic learning system used to train
and educate on a continual basis; it can be engaged by an employee at his or her
convenience.
 Department Manual: An annual publication which acts as a reference or guide
in conducting adminstrative and operational procedures.
 Department School: An on-site educational course which may be designed to
fulfill mandated requirements as set either by the State of California’s Police
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 62

Officer Standards and Training (POST), or that of the LAPD. In some cases a
department school may fulfill requirements of both POST and the LAPD.
 Other: Other sources of information accessible to the employee, including but not
limited to private training faciliated by other entities, Internet sources, and
professional publications.
According to the SG, methods of conveying the policies and procedures
governing ER within the LAPD are abundant. The various avenues of conveying this
information are represented in Figure 4.12. A majority of the SG, 61%, indicated they
were aware of the ER policies as a result of utilizing a combination of sources. A
minority of the SG, 39%, utilized only one source to educate themselves regarding these
policies and proceedures (Figure 4.12). Nevertheless, the SG overwhelmingly affirmed
that they are aware of these policies and proceedures. The FG concurred that as an
organization, the Department did a good job in getting information out. However, the
Department’s rationale for being so proactive was subject to question: Was it truly for the
good of the organization, or to protect itself against legal action?
FG03: These results are typical and consistent with my experience.
Organizationally we are good at getting information out because it is used by the
Department as a defense in lawsuits; however, again, I think most people are
concerned with the day-to-day retaliation from their immediate supervisors or
immediate managers.
Other focus group members offered qualified praise for the Department’s
awareness efforts. FG05 characterized Figure 4.12 as a “Good display of all the options
available to be trained on policies of the department and the law.” FG06 concurred:
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 63

“There are plenty of sources of information offered to us; the department has no lack of
effort in getting information out to us.” The statement was affirmed by FG07: “This
accurately depicts all of the opportunities and forced learning the department puts its
people through; there is no shortage of opportunity to learn.”
In light of the ample methods available to convey the Department’s ER policies
and the participants’ self-reported familiarity with those policies, we next examined
participants’ actual ability to define the elements of ER. In spite of the results shown in
Figures 4.11 and 4.12, the self-proclaimed ability of the SG to list the elements of ER
appeared to be less predictable, as shown in Figure 4.13. Only 60% indicated they could
define the elements of ER in spite of the previous responses giving the impression of an
overall awareness of these policies and of ample opportunities to learn and reference
them when needed. The remaining 40% simply could not list the elements when asked to
do so.

Figure 4.13. Numerical breakdown of responses to RSI question 10, part 1.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 64

Even more starkly, we see in Figure 4.14 that of the 60% who indicated they
could list the elements of ER, only 11% could actually do so, which left the remaining
89% answering incorrectly.
21

Figure 4.14. Results of responses to RSI Question 10, part 2.

On the whole, the FG found that these results reaffirmed their initial suspicions as
to actual working knowledge of the SG in regards to the elements which constituted an
act of ER. The FG overwhelmingly expressed their concern that a large portion of the
SG did not know the definition of ER. FG02 identified the shortcoming in the gap
between perception and reality:
FG02: In regards to both this question and the prior one, I think many people
think acts of favoritism or mistreatment by supervision to be “retaliation.” Others
know it in spirit, or when they see it or hear about it, but perhaps will not be able
to articulate the key words of “protected activity” or “adverse action.” I’m not

21
The answers which were considered correct needed only to indicate that there was an engagement in a protected
activity, and a subsequent adverse action as a result of engagement in the protected activity.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 65

sure I did in my original response, but I think I pretty much conveyed the proper
“flavor.”
Another identified the fault as a lack of effective training:
FG04: This supported my view that most employees did not know what ER was.
This sample was taken from SGs who believed they knew what retaliation was
and only seven out of 61 knew the correct definition. More training by the
Department is necessary to train employees on identifying retaliation. Early
identification will keep employees, who later become supervisors, from retaliating
against their subordinates. The organizational and environmental issues are that
command staff either do not care how subordinates feel, how they are being
treated, or they do not care. Either way it creates a poor situation for the
Department.
Participant FG05 was unsparing with the opinion that much of the Department
anti-ER training is primarily for show: “[S]adly not surprising, despite the ‘training’ the
Department professes to do.” Another participant pointed to a lack of self-awareness in
the responses:
FG06: You would think with all the resources, people would be able to answer
this question correctly, especially those who stated they could in the previous
question. How can you proclaim to know what you are talking about; but not
know the definition?
Summary of Results
Overall, these results comprehensively gauged awareness of the issue of ER
within the LAPD and the beliefs held by both the SG and FG. Both groups
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 66

acknowledged the existence of a problem with the relationship between the labor force
and management, which in this study is synonymous with the command staff. However,
there were some significant areas where the SG and the FG viewed things differently.
Instead of casting a wide net of blame and responsibility over the comand staff
and the City government, the FG turned their attention to their fellow officers, identifying
the part played by the SG as a whole in these incidents of either perceived or legitimate
acts of ER. The value of this insight lies in the realization that in any situation there are
at least two parties involved. The culpability of either party for the incident cannot be
determined by a study like this one, as each incident of employment retaliation has
unpredictable variables which cannot be assumed on their face value. Therefore, the
implementaton of the grounded theory data analysis process added value in the process
by not placing blame on any specific persons, allowing instead for the identification of
major issues or themes.
Grounded data theory analysis identified numerous reoccurring issues and themes
that presented themselves throughout the open coding and axial coding processes. The
final stage, selective coding, revealed the interrelationships among the data presented
during the two previous stages. In this final stage, five core categories had been
identified.
1) Command staff and accountability
2) Relationships
3) Culture of acceptance as a normal practice
4) Lack of understanding of what ER is
5) Perception shaping beliefs
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 67

The results of this study were garnered through the accumulated data from the SG
and the subsequent FG. The SG data provided a foundation which revealed not only the
views of the SG regarding ER, but also the preceived fequency with which it is believed
to take place. The FG participants examined the results of the SG and provided responses
that were somewhat critical, in the sense that the focus group looked at the issues
throught the lenses of accountabilty, organizational culture, working relationships, and
perceptions. These results subsequently revealed that the issues surrounding employment
retaliation, specifically within the work environment of the LAPD, are not as clear-cut as
an “us versus them” mentality.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 68

Chapter 5
Interpretation and Recommendations
Introduction
As indicated in Chapter 1, the intent of this research was to examine the work
environment, systems, and organizational culture of the LAPD which appear to foster
internal conflict resulting in allegations of ER. The project also sought to examine and
understand the nature of the relationships between the alleged perpetrators and the
recipients of the alleged ER incidents. This research revealed that conflicts leading to
allegations of ER appear to be based in a set of core categories: accountability,
relationships, organizational culture, understanding of issues, and perception.
Summary of Results
This research was intended to address workplace conflict that leads to ER in the
law enforcement work environment. Research was conducted within the LAPD, and
relevant data was gathered from a representative cross-section of the Department. Four
areas were researched during this project.
The first was the effect ER has on the relationship between management and the
workforce. In certain situations, it is believed that conflict can improve decision-making
and strategic planning for future endeavors (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990).
Unfortunately, the results of this study showed that this did not hold true in the LAPD.
As expected, the data strongly indicated that the effects of ER on a work environment
were negative. As anticipated, the SG placed an overwhelming amount of blame for such
actions on management. The FG, however, saw things slightly differently; some of their
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 69

responses indicated that the rank and file itself played a significant role in the conflicts
which led to ER incidents.
The second area of research was the role of perception, and how it can drive a
relatively low-level workplace conflict toward an allegation of ER. As anticipated, this
research confirmed that there is a strong perception that ER is rampant in the workplace
of the LAPD. This perception has created a “group think” mentality that can potentially
cause officers to misinterpret a legitimate act of discipline as an ER.
Third, there was an examination of the methods that work best in resolving
allegations of ER. We uncovered no significant methods currently being used within the
LAPD to resolve incidents of ER, aside from the organization’s ombudsman office,
which research indicates is not entirely trusted by complainants since ombudsman staff
are considered “company men.” A truly independent ADR process was looked to as a
possible solution; by acting as a conduit of conflict resolution, such a process could
prevent or remedy allegations of ER.
Finally, this research sought to find a system suited to resolving incidents of
conflict which traditionally lead to allegations of ER. One viable method was identified
as an ADR option, more specifically the mediation process. The program on which this
research focused is an ADR program utilized by the United States Postal Service (USPS),
called Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly (REDRESS);
this program will be examined in detail later in this chapter.
Discussion of Results
The results of the research conducted for this project suggest that the relationship
between the workforce of the LAPD and the management has been turbulent in the past.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 70

The past nature of this relationship not only affects present-day interactions, but could
even hinder future ones. According to the results from the SG, there appears to be a high
degree of workplace conflict, which leads to alleged acts of ER. As indicated in figure
4.4, an overwhelming majority of the SG felt that ER is a serious problem within the
work environment of the LAPD. This conflict, whether real or perceived, profoundly
resonated with the SG to a degree that was somewhat alarming. The FG echoed these
sentiments, as their initial responses indicated that ER was indeed present—even a
common practice—within the LAPD.
The type of conflict in which people find themselves engaged can play a
significant role in how they deal with that conflict. This must be understood in order to
determine why conflict takes place and how to manage it—or even, eventually, prevent it.
Louis Pondy (1967) identified three models of commonly experienced conflict:
bargaining conflict, systems conflict, and bureaucratic conflict. Pondy’s conflict models
proved significant to this study in large part because they are a good fit for the law
enforcement work environment, especially that of the LAPD. In the day-to-day
operations of law enforcement, there will be both bargaining and systems conflicts.
Disagreements over how best to utilize organizational resources occur with such
frequency that they can be seen as a daily norm. Ask any watch commander at the LAPD
if he or she is ever faced with the decision to try to do more with less when striving to
reach the goals of the department.
22
The fallout from bargaining and systems conflicts,
however, generally does not have a lasting adverse effect on those involved. The
decisions are made, resources are deployed, and the situation resets to business as usual.

22
A supervisory position that is in command of a designated shift of sworn police personnel.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 71

Of the three conflict models described by Pondy (1967), bureaucratic conflict is
the one which resonated most with both the full SG and the FG. As described in chapter
2, bureaucratic conflict is most prevalent in organizations that have a clear chain of
command and that place heavy emphasis on this chain of command and the differences
among the various persons at each level. It was also previously shown that these
conflicts are most present when superiors assert authority over subordinates within the
organization in an effort to control a behavior. The example given to illustrate this
scenario was the imposition of discipline by a higher-positioned person within a
bureaucracy on an individual of a lower position. The SRI results revealed that this
model of conflict resonated strongly with both the SG and the FG; indeed, bureaucratic
conflict appeared to be the accelerant to reoccurring conflicts between the management
and the workforce of the LAPD. These results magnified the presence of workplace
conflict and indicated that this conflict was fundamentally based in the relationship
between the management and labor force of the LAPD.
In an effort to examine bureaucratic conflict, we need a deeper understanding of
the incidents that ignite it, and also to recognize whether those incidents are fueled by a
given task or based on relationships. A task conflict is cognitive in nature and is
generally based upon a disagreement regarding the method of accomplishing a task. A
task conflict emerges from a disagreement based on ideas, viewpoints and opinions (Jehn,
1995). The results of this research, however, suggested that there are significant issues
with the relationship between the sample group, which represented the workforce of the
LAPD, and the Department’s management. This would indicate that this ongoing
conflict is based in interpersonal incompatibilities—that is, a clash of interpersonal styles,
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 72

tastes, values, and political beliefs (Jehn, 1995; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). The FG
characterized this relationship as a dysfunction that has gone unchecked. The sense of
dysfunction appeared to be based on the feeling that those in management are not held
accountable for their actions, even in incidents of ER which culminate in high profile
litigation resulting in large monetary awards. This appearance of a lack of accountability
presented itself throughout the responses of the FG. As one respondent put it:
FG06: The vast majority of the accused are the command staff, and those who
make the decision in these matters; the command staff. The command staff will
protect themselves at all costs. If one is guilty they all are. These results appear
consistent with my views of the people who report this.
This lack of accountability prevented any true understanding of the relevant issues
in a conflict. The lack of accountability appeared to eclipse any other reason for the SG
or FG to think otherwise. The prevailing lack of accountability further hindered the
ability to recognize the stages of conflict—stages which build upon one another and, if
left unattended, can induce rot throughout the culture of an organization. Louis Pondy
(1967) describes these stages of conflict as latent, perceived, felt, manifest, and
aftermath. These stages were again substantiated and further examined in a 2012 article
in the Journal of Small Business Management entitled, “Manifest Conflict and Conflict
Aftermath in Franchise Systems: A 10 Year Examination”, by Winsor, Manolis,
Kaufman, and Kashyap. This article examined the cycle of these five stages and showed
them to be deeply interconnected. The seed of all these stages is latent conflict—residual
tension left over from previous incidents which were never forgotten and are still
regarded as truth.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 73

Figure 5.1. The stages of conflict

From this latent stage, the perception of bad feelings takes over and becomes felt
conflict. From there the conflict manifests itself into a reality, then fades into its latent
stage. The entire time this cycle builds, and eventually works its way full circle. As long
as there is a latency of unresolved past conflict, the remaining stages will generally
follow in order. This research revealed that the existence of this conflict cycle was a held
belief by the FG. Unfortunately, this ingrained belief both hinders the ability to fully
recognize relevant conflict issues, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, greatly hindering
any significant movement towards reconciliation. In this context, the act of ER within
the workplace is not only expected, it is sometimes perceived to manifest where it never
existed. One focus group participant characterized it this way:
FG07: Yes, retaliation is a constant occurrence that ultimately ends up being
litigated, and the result is legal damages but no resolution. My view is that is very
accurate, and it seems like there is no remedy for the “strongly agree” category.
However, I cannot comment on my experience, because I have not experienced
Latent
Perceived
Felt Manifest
Aftermath
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 74

retaliation. These results are a manifestation of conflict in which the majority of
the incidents have no resolution.
The power of perception as a driver of conflict is difficult to counteract. As
shown in Figure 4.4, a vast majority of the SG felt that ER was a serious problem within
the LAPD; this was their perception. As this research progressed, the SG indicated that
they were aware of the policies and procedures governing how the LAPD deals with ER
incidents (as shown in Figure 4.11). The SG also indicated that they have numerous
sources of information available to them (Figure 4.12). However, their self-identified
ability to accurately define the elements of ER was at 60%; of those only 11% could give
the actual definition. Such results reveal a lack of understanding on the behalf of the SG
of what ER actually involves.
Such a disconnect—a majority perception of the existence of an issue, coupled
with a general lack of understanding as to what actually constitutes the issue—is
alarming. Individuals continually recreate the world and their surroundings according to
their own perspectives (Nonaka, 1994). These perceptions within the membership of an
organization are facilitated by what is known as organizational knowledge creation
theory (OKCT). OKCT is the process by which knowledge created by individuals
proliferates and is then connected to the system of common knowledge within the
organization (Nonaka, von Krough, & Voelpel, 2006). OKCT takes interpretations of
events by individuals or groups, and then makes these perceptions into reality, based
loosely on existing knowledge. This existing knowledge is therefore found to be tacit
within the organization. This tacit knowledge possesses a personal quality which makes
it very difficult to communicate formally; it stems from involvement, commitment, and
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 75

action within a specific context (Nonaka, 1994). There is little doubt that some members
of the SG have indeed experienced valid incidents of ER. However, based on the results
of this research, there appears to be some room for question in regards to the frequency
with which it actually occurs.
Implications for Practice and Recommendations
The one major similarity that all organizations share is that they are comprised of
people. Within organizations, there are systems in place to guide and regulate the
operations of the organization. A grave mistake often made by organizational managers is
to conflate systems and people. This mentality fails to recognize that while systems are
managed, people must be led. The skillsets of a good manager and a good leader are not
entirely interchangeable. We see this play out in how higher-ups deal with problematic
working relationships among people in the workplace. An issue of workplace conflict
leading to an allegation of ER needs to be viewed through the lens of a leader, not of a
manager, for the simple reason that this issue is not about the systems in place, but the
people involved.
Teach to the person, not to the issue. The results of this research revealed that
the LAPD does an outstanding job in disseminating information to its employees. As
illustrated in figure 4.11, an astonishing 96% of the SG indicated that they were aware of
the Department’s anti-ER policies. However, only slightly more than half, 60%, felt
confident that they could define the elements of ER (Figure 4.13)—and of those 60%,
only 11% could provide a somewhat working definition of ER when asked to do so. This
end result of 11% is not only unsatisfactory, it is a poor return on the investment the
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 76

LAPD makes in educating its people.
23
These results indicate a significant disconnect
between disseminating information to the rank and file and ensuring they understand it.
The glaring issue is the appearance that the LAPD has thus far treated workplace
conflict and ER as problems of systems management and not of leading people. Based
on the results from this research, it appeared that the LAPD has focused on teaching to
the problem rather than teaching to the person. A closer examination is needed into what
current methodology is being used to not only facilitate the distribution of policies and
procedures concerning ER, but to also ensure that this disseminated information is
comprehensively taught and understood. The failure to instill this information in the
workforce can be attributed to the method and manner in which law enforcement
agencies have become accustomed to instructing their personnel. Most law enforcement
learning environments teach to the psychomotor learning skills of the individual. This
focus on psychomotor skills does have its place in the law enforcement community, such
as when teaching the safe manipulation of a firearm or operation of a system. However,
when focusing on issues involving the empathy and thought process of the organization’s
membership, there must instead be a focus on the cognitive and affective skills; only this
can ensure that the persons receiving the information understand what they are learning
on multiple levels and can call upon this information when needed.
The comprehension of information on multiple levels can best be illustrated by
reference to what is known as Bloom’s taxonomy.
24
Benjamin Bloom was an educational
psychologist who partnered with national measurement specialists, resulting in a

23
The 11% accounts for 6.7% of the total SG. This in turn indicates that as a whole 93.3 % of the entire SG did not
feel confident to define ER or failed to do so on demand.
24
Bloom’s taxonomy is used by the California Police Standards and Training Commission as a standard in the creation
of a curriculum for law enforcement training and certification.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 77

groundbreaking publication entitled Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The
Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain (as cited in
Krathwohl, 2002). Bloom’s taxonomy highlights the differences among cognitive skill
levels which can lead to a deeper level of learning with a greater transfer of knowledge
and skills to address a greater variety of contexts and tasks (Adams, 2015). Since its
initial publication, Bloom’s taxonomy has been revised to identify six major levels of
cognition: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create (Krathwohl, 2002).
These levels have been associated with levels I through VI, respectively, with the lowest,
level I, representing “remember” and the highest, level VI, representing “create.” Thus
far, it appears that the LAPD has trained its personnel regarding the policies and
procedures of ER only to level I, the remembering stage; the SG participants simply
remembered that they did receive information regarding the policies and procedures of
ER, but failed to display that they actually knew what they had been taught.
The personnel of the LAPD need to learn the policies and procedures governing
ER in accordance with standards and methodology associated with levels II and III of
Bloom’s taxonomy, which encompass “understanding” and “applying.” Ensuring that an
employee truly understands what he or she is being taught results in an individual who
can intelligently apply information as a practitioner. Doing so ensures that the employee
would be able to recognize what ER is and what it is not, a discernment that—as
indicated by the results of this study—is sorely lacking. Without a comprehensive
understanding of the definition of ER, it will be recognized, interpreted, and created by
the individual. In the absence of truth, the truth will be created.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 78

Choosing the most appropriate alternate dispute resolution process. The
research associated with this project established the need to not only understand what
type of conflict is taking place, but to know the stages of a conflict and the types of
conflict common within organizations. The comprehensive understanding of workplace
conflicts can help avoid incidents of ER, real or perceived. In Chapter 2, the case was
made for mediation as a widely utilized method of ADR. However, it is important to
consider which method of mediation will be the most appropriate for any particular
organization. An organization such as the LAPD has a unique organizational culture, and
is perhaps a near-perfect example of what a bureaucracy looks like in today’s workforce.
We cannot take it for granted that an ADR method built around mediation will prove
effective at avoiding incidents of ER. The most appropriate ADR system would need to
fit not only the culture of the organization, but be tailored to the needs of those
individuals who would be utilizing it.
Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly
(REDRESS). Perhaps no other organization has been viewed as dysfunctional by so
many as the United States Postal Service (USPS). The term “postal” is often used in
street vernacular to describe an individual who appears to have lost all sense of reason.
Not many bureaucratic organizations can claim to have such a term coined to reflect how
society views them. Like every other bureaucratic organization, the USPS is no stranger
to internal conflict resulting in incidents of ER, either real or perceived. The Postal
Reorganizational Act (PRA) of 1970 transformed the then-195-year old organization into
a quasi-private federal agency, which at that time of the act’s passage had approximately
800,000 employees (Baxter, 1994). At the time of the passage of the PRA, the USPS was
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 79

the largest federal civilian employer in the United States (US General Accounting Office,
1997). With the sheer number of employees nationwide, in conjunction with the massive
structural changes mandated by the PRA, the USPS became an organization where
workplace conflict was considered a norm (Napoli, 2004). In late 1993, the USPS found
itself the subject of a class action race discrimination lawsuit filed on the behalf of
employees from the Florida panhandle area. As a part of the settlement agreement of this
civil suit, the USPS designed a transformative mediation ADR pilot program. This pilot
program was initiated in 1994, and was subsequently dubbed Resolve Employment
Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly, or REDRESS. The REDRESS program was
implemented nationally within the USPS in July of 1999.
The REDRESS program was designed to provide mediation as an ADR option for
internal incidents of equal employment opportunity disputes (Bingham & Pitts, 2002).
The key features of REDRESS program are that it is purely voluntary for the
complainant, and mandatory for the involved supervisor; involved parties are entitled to
bring along a representative of their choosing to the sessions; the supervisor must have
either authority to reach a settlement or the ability to be in immediate contact with
someone who does; the process takes place during work hours; the entire process is
confidential; and the process generally begins within two weeks of a request for
mediation (Bingham & Pitts, 2002). The REDRESS process falls within what is known
as the informal portion of this ADR process.
25
This informal process includes a
preliminary counseling session with a USPS ADR specialist, where the REDRESS
program is offered. There are three options for the complainant during this informal

25
The formal process includes a direct filing of a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 80

process: withdrawal, settlement, or notice to file a formal EEO complaint. Whether the
complainant opts for a counseling session or the REDRESS program, he or she still
maintains the option to withdraw from either program at will, and may file a formal EEO
complaint at his or her discretion and without prejudice (Bingham & Nabatchi, 2010).
The USPS partnered with Indiana University to conduct an evaluation of the
implementation and early progress of the REDRESS program. The initial findings of this
evaluation indicated that over 90 percent of employees and supervisors rated themselves
either satisfied or highly satisfied with the procedural justice measures of the REDRESS
program (Bingham, 1997).
Within the first year of the implementation of REDRESS, the USPS saw a drop in
its formal EEO complaints from 12,000 in 1999 to 10,350 in 2000, a reduction of 1,650
formal EEO complaints. (Bingham & Pitts, 2002). The following years showed
continued success for the REDRESS program, as shown in figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Complaint trends over time. Source: USPS REDRESS Training course
No. 10023809
18307
6133
12697
4089
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Informal Complaints Formal Complaints
USPS EEO Complaint Trends 2008-2014
2008 2014
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 81

The success of the USPS REDRESS program and the transformative mediation
style it utilizes is so successful that other federal agencies have sought to model their own
ADR programs after it (Bingham, Moon, & Nabatchi, 2010). The all-time highest
participation rate for the USPS REDRESS program took place in fiscal year (FY) 2011,
with a participation rate of 88.6%. Although the 77. % participation rate in FY2014 is
somewhat lower than that of the FY2011, the USPS REDRESS participation is still
higher than the federal agency average of 48.6% (United States Postal Service, 2014).

Figure 5.2. REDRESS participation rates measured over time. Source: USPS
REDRESS Training course No. 10023809

Perhaps the greatest triumph of the USPS REDRESS program is the overall
impact it has on the work environment and the organizational culture when it comes to
workplace conflict and conflict resolution. A comprehensive ADR program, when fully
implemented, can have a significant and measurable positive effect on a work
80.70%
83.10%
82.80%
88.60%
75.50%
74.50%
77.00%
65.00%
70.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
Participation Rates of USPS Employees in the REDRESS Program
FY 2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 82

environment because it allows for resolving conflicts in their early stages, in an expedient
manner, before they become entrenched (Bingham & Pitts, 2002).
The REDRESS program and the transformative mediation method it utilizes
appears to be a very viable model for a national ADR program for the LAPD to resolve
its workplace conflicts. Much like the LAPD, the USPS is a bureaucratic organization
that depends upon a stratified rank structure to conduct its operations. Both organizations
have a heavily entrenched culture, which makes the implementation of change difficult
for their members. Additionally, both organizations have labor unions to act alternately as
an ally and an obstacle as management implements its new policies. It only stands to
reason that if a dysfunctional and “postal” organization such as the USPS can implement
the REDRESS program with such success, there is little reason why the LAPD cannot do
the same.
The transformative mediation model employed in REDRESS emphasizes the
growth of the individual, and this personal growth helps not only the complainants but
those in management as well. Supervisors who participated in the REDRESS program
felt that their experiences assisted them in improving their conflict management and
resolution skills, and helped them become active listeners (Anderson & Bingham, 1997).
This personal development of both the subordinate and the supervisor is not only a
benefit for the individuals, but for the overall organization in general; individuals who
develop conflict-resolution skills become leaders in the organization.

CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 83

Risk leadership, not risk management. According to the Oxford dictionary, risk
management is defined as “the forecasting and evaluation of financial risks together with
the identification of procedures to avoid or minimize their impact” (Stevenson, A., &
Waite, M., 2011). Breaking the phrase down into its constituent words, the Merriam
Webster dictionary defines risk as “the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such
as an injury or a loss) will happen” and management as “judicious use of means to
accomplish an end” (Merriam-Webster, I., 2014). All three of these definitions make
reference to intangible forces that can cause “bad or unpleasant” outcomes, and point to
the use of systems as a means to minimize their adverse impacts. Yet when the term
“risk management” is applied to the workplace, we must give significant consideration to
predetermined activities associated with areas of historical concern for management.
The misconception that the skillset needed to manage systems can also be used to
lead people is a downfall of many of today’s organizations. As stated before, systems
can be managed—but people must be led. By nature and definition, risk is associated
with events that can cause harm or unpleasantness. At the basis of every action
associated with a risk is a person. It is this person’s actions that determine if the
anticipated risk will come to pass or be completely avoided. These people, making these
decisions, must be led down the path of risk—led from the front, not managed from
behind.
Events do not occur because of the failure of a system; they occur because of the
actions or inaction of people. A vehicle does not become involved in a collision by itself;
controversial emails are not written and sent on their own; and offensive comments in the
workplace most certainly do not materialize out of thin air. These events all take place at
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 84

the hands of a person. People must engage in an activity to cause these incidents.
Because people are at the root of virtually every risk, the focus should not be on the
outcome of the undesired acts, but on the education and development of the critical
thought processes of the people involved in making the associated decision.
A true reduction of risk associated with personnel within an organization must be
accomplished through leadership, not management. A management system will do
exactly what it is designed to do, manage a situation, whereas leadership can change a
situation. The people in an organization can be either the organization’s greatest liability
or its greatest asset; leadership will determine which they will be and shape the outcome,
whereas managers will just stand by and watch it happen. The time to stand by and
watch conflicts happen has passed. Leading an organization and its people through risk
is vital to the development of the organization as a whole, and will determine its future
path.
Summary and Conclusions
This study reaffirmed the long-held belief that conflict is certain to occur in any
workplace. This can be attributed to the underlying fact that all organizations consist of
people—and where there are people, there will inevitably be conflict. Addressing
workplace conflict is vital to the success of an organization; addressing such conflict in
its early stages will prevent its progress to more serious forms, such as incidents of ER.
Workplace conflict can result in monumental economic losses for an organization,
including but not limited to litigation, work stoppages, reduced productivity, low morale,
employee turnover, and the development of dysfunctional relationships (Cloke &
Goldsmith, 2000). The damage caused by workplace conflict can leave a lasting negative
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 85

impression on the parties to dysfunctional workplace relationships, which in the long run
can prevent any reconciliation and movement towards meaningful conflict resolution.
Workplace conflict cannot be looked at as a risk management issue, but rather as a
challenge of leadership.
Workplace conflict that escalates into real or perceived incidents of ER needs to
be examined both with a perspective of empathy and an equally intense desire to expose
the truth of the situation. Perception and conflict are a very volatile combination that can
lead to a toxic situation that could have easily been avoided. Such was the case in this
study, where it was revealed that a large proportion of this SG, members of the LAPD,
had deeply held convictions based on misunderstandings of their own experiences. This
environment of misunderstanding was found to have led this portion of the SG to not
only misinterpret their respective experiences, but to construct perceptions that prevented
them from properly analyzing and evaluating workplace conflicts.
In cases where workplace conflicts lead to legitimate incidents of ER, there needs
to be resolution; current best practices favor establishing an ADR program that works for
the culture of the organization. In this study, we examined the benefits and successes of
the REDRESS program utilized by the USPS. As bureaucratic organizations, the USPS
and the LAPD both have deeply rooted organizational cultures, similar bureaucratic
composition, and complex relationships with labor unions. It is believed that a
transformative mediation program modeled after the USPS’s REDRESS could, if
properly designed and implemented, be similarly successful for the LAPD. After
evaluating the immediate and long-term successes of the REDRESS program
accomplished by the USPS, it seems plausible that these could be mirrored by the LAPD.
CONFLICT AND RETALIATION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 86

Conflict in the workplace will be ever-present, as certain as the sun rises in the
east. How an organization recognizes it, handles it, prevents it, and remedies it is not in
the hands of the organization’s management. It is in the hands of the organization’s
leaders—leaders who will look to the past as a reference, and use those past experiences
to lead into the future.

87

References
Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the
Medical Library Association, 103(3), 152–154.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967§ 4 d, (1967).
Amarina, A., Hornsey, M., & Gallois, C. (2007). Group allegiances and perceptions of
media bias: Taking into account both the perceiver and the source. Group Process
and Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 266–279
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 503 a-b, (1990).
Anderson, J. F., & Bingham L.B. (1997). Upstream effects from mediation of workplace
disputes: Some preliminary evidence from the USPS. Labor Law Journal, 48(10),
601–615.
Baxter, V. K. (1994). Labor and politics in the US Postal Service. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Bingham, L. B. (1997). Mediating employment disputes: Perceptions of REDRESS at the
United States Postal Service. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17(1),
20–30.
Bingham, L. B., & Nabatchi, T. (2010). From postal to peaceful: Dispute system design
in the USPS REDRESS program. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
30(2), 211–234.
Bingham, L. B., Moon, Y., & Nabatchi, T. (2010). Evaluating transformative practice in
the United States Postal Service REDRESS program. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 27(3), 257–289.
88

Bingham, L. B., & Pitts, D. W. (2002). Highlights of mediation at work: Studies of the
National REDRESS Evaluation Project. Negotiation Journal, 4, 135–146.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general
harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3),
280–299.
Brewer, M. B. (1998). A dual process model of impression formation. In R.S. Wyer, Jr.
and T.K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
Brosschot, J. F., Van Dijk, E., & Thayer, J. F. (2007). Daily worry is related to low heart
rate variability during waking and the subsequent nocturnal sleep period. Journal
of Psychophysiology, 63(1), 39–47.
Bush, R. (2004). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 704, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (a) (1964).
Cloke, K., & Goldsmith, J. (2000). Resolving conflicts at work: Eight strategies for
everyone on the job. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
CPP Global. (2008). Workplace conflict and how business can harness it to thrive. In
Human Capital Report (7-2008). Mountain View, CA: CPP Global.
CustomInsight. (2009). Talent management solutions; Survey random sample calculator.
Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://www.customsight.com/articles/random-
sample-calculator.asp
De Dreu, C. K. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for pessimistic
thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 5–18.
89

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.
Dijksterhuis, A. & Bargh, J. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic
effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 33 (1), 1–40.
Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding
team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 504–529.
Emmons, R. A., & Colby, P. M. (1995). Emotional conflict and well-being: relation to
perceived availability, daily utilization and observer reports of social support.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 947–959.
Engward, H. (2013). Understanding grounded theory. Nursing Standard, 28, 37–41.
Frazier, G. (1989). Dealer dependence levels and reciprocal actions in a channel of
distribution in a developing country. Journal of Marketing, 53, 50–69.
Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: the
buffering effect of third party help. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 137–155.
Hallberlin, C. J. (2001). Transforming workplace culture through mediation: Lessons
learned from swimming upstream. Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal,
18, 375–383.
Hendler, C. (1995). Alternate dispute resolution. Certified Management Accountants,
69(3), 1–3.
90

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–284.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency
perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 25, 187–242.
Kaufmann, P. J. (1988). Relational exchange norms, perceptions of unfairness, and
retained hostility. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32, 534–552.
Koza, K. L., & Dant, R. P. (2007). Effects of relationships, climate control mechanisms,
and communications on conflict resolution behavior and performance outcomes.
Journal of Retailing, 83, 279–296.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
LeRoy, M. H., & Feuille, P. (2001). Private justice in the shadow of public courts: The
autonomy of a workplace arbitration system. Ohio State Journal on Dispute
Resolution, 17(1), 19.
Los Angeles County Bar Association. (2010). 30 Hour Basic Mediation Training
Manual. Unpublished manuscript.
Los Angeles Police Department. (Ed.). (2015). Los Angeles Police Department Manual.
Los Angeles, CA: Municipal Printing Office.
The Los Angeles Police Protective League. (2013). Delegate Responsibilities.
Unpublished manuscript.
Lusch, R. F. (1976). Sources of power: Their impact on intrachannel conflict. Journal of
Marketing Research, 12, 382–390.
91

Malhotra, D., & Lumineau, F. (2011). Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of
conflict: The effects on contract structure. Academy of Management Journal,
54(5), 981–998.
Masters, M., & Albright R. (2002). The complete guide to conflict resolution in the
workplace. New York: AMACOM.
Matman, G. L. (2001). Arbitration is not a panacea for employers. Business Insurance,
35(16), 10.
Merriam-Webster, I. (2014). Merriam-Webster’s dictionary and thesaurus (Revis and
Updatition. ed.). Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
Napoli, L. M. (2004). USPS Supervisors and conflict management techniques:
Evaluating training and mediation interventions (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Nesbit, R., Nabatchi. T., & Bingman, L. (2012). Employees, supervisors, and workplace
mediation: Experiences of justice and settlement. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 32(3), 261–287.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I., von Krough, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation
theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27(8),
1179–1208.
Office of the Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission. (2013). Employment
Litigation Audit (Los Angeles Police Commission). Los Angeles, CA: Los
Angeles Police Commission.
92

Office of the Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission. (2010). Review of the
department’s quarterly discipline report third quarter 2009. In Quarterly
Discipline Report (Third Quarter 2009). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Police
Commission.
Office of the Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission. (2004). Review of the
department’s retaliation policy. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Police
Commission.
Office of the Inspector General, Los Angeles Police Commission. (2011). Review of the
department’s quarterly discipline report fourth quarter, 2010. In Quarterly
Discipline Report (Fourth Quarter 2010). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Police
Commission.
Pondy, Louis R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296–320.
Rigby, K. J. (1984). Alternate dispute resolution. Louisiana Law Review, 44(6), 1725.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge T.A. (2009). Can good stressors spark bad behaviors? The
mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with
citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(6), 1438–1451.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schwartz, J. E., & Stone, A. A. (1993). Coping with daily work problems: Contribution
of problem content, appraisals, and person factors. Work and Stress, 7(1), 47–62.
93

Shallcross, L., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Severe workplace conflict: The
experience of mobbing. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(3),
191–213.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York,
NY: Appleton.
Sonnentag, S., Unger, D., & Nagel, I. J. (2013). Workplace conflict and employment
well-being. Journal of Conflict Management, 24(2), 166–183.
Stevenson, A., & Waite, M. (2011). Concise oxford english dictionary (12th ed.). Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 3, (1938).
Tjsovold, D., & Wong, C. L. (1994). Working with customers: Cooperation and
competition in relational marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 297–
310.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1998). EEOC compliance
manual. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office:
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2015, April 4). About
EEOC. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm
United States General Accounting Office. (1997). U.S. Postal Service: Little Progress
made in addressing persistent labor-management problems. Government Printing
Office: Washington, DC.
United States Postal Service. (2014). USPS REDRESS Training Course No. 10023809.
Unpublished raw Data.
United States (1990). EEOC Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Retrieved from
www.eeoc.gov/history/35th/1990s/ada.html
94

United States & Information Handling Services. (1900). EEOC type of discrimination
index. Englewood, CO: Information Handling Services.
United States. (1988). The Fair Labor Standards Act: Extending the act to state and local
government employees: Report to the chairman, Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office.
Whiteside, M., Mills, J., & McCalman, J. (2012). Using secondary data for grounded
theory analysis. Australian Social Work, 65(4), 504–516.
Winsor, R. (2012). Manifest conflict and conflict aftermath in franchise systems: A 10-
year examination. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(4), 621–651.
Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the
spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 237–252.

95

Appendix A: Proposal Letter to the Los Angeles Police Protective League

96

Appendix B: Letter of Agreement with the Los Angeles Police Protective League

97

Appendix C-1: Research Survey Instrument

98

Appendix C-2: Focus Group Agreement

99

Appendix D-1: Institutional Review Board Application-1

100

Appendix D-2: Institutional Review Board Application-2

101

Appendix D-3: Institutional Review Board Application-3

102

Appendix E: Los Angeles Police Protective League Delegates Meeting Agenda

103

Appendix F-1: Focus Group Information Package Instruction Page

104

Appendix F-2: Focus Group Package Page No. 2
105

Appendix F-3: Focus Group Package Page No. 3
106

Appendix F-4: Focus Group Package Page No. 4
107

Appendix F-5: Focus Group Package Page No. 5
108

Appendix F-6: Focus Group Package Page No. 6
109

Appendix F-7: Focus Group Package Page No. 7
110

Appendix F-8: Focus Group Package Page No. 8
111

Appendix F-9: Focus Group Package Page No. 9
112

Appendix F-10: Focus Group Package Page No. 10
113

Appendix F-11: Focus Group Package Page No. 11
114

Appendix F-12: Focus Group Package Page No. 12
115

Appendix F-13: Focus Group Package Page No. 13
116

Appendix F-14: Focus Group Package Page No. 14
117

Appendix F-15: Focus Group Package Page No. 15
118

Appendix F-16: Focus Group Package Page No. 16
119

List of Abbreviations
ADA American with Disabilities Act.
ADEA Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
ADR Alternate Dispute Resolution.
BOPC Board of Police Commissioners.
CDFEH California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
ER Employment retaliation.
FEPA Fair Employment Practice Agencies.
FG Focus group.
FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act.
LAPD Los Angeles Police Department.
LAPPL Los Angeles Police Protective League.
OCOP Office of the Chief of Police.
OIG Office of the Inspector General.
OKCT Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory.
PRA Postal Reorganizational Act.
REDRESS Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions.
RSI Research survey instrument.
SG Sample group.
U.S.C. United States Code.
USPS United States Postal Service.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the effects of workplace conflict in the work environment of the law enforcement community, and how conflicts can evolve into misinterpreted allegations of workplace retaliation if not addressed in a proactive manner. When left unchecked, these incidents not only lead to costly civil litigation

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the federal credit union model in the 21st century

PDF

The context of leadership in the development of California’s innovation hubs

PDF

Green healthcare, an environmentally sustainable methodology: an investigation of the ecological impacts of the healthcare industry and the role of green initiatives in sustainable medical services

PDF

Emerging technology and its impact on security policy

PDF

Transcendental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of spirituality in the workplace

PDF

Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education

PDF

Does organizational culture play a role in aviation safety? A qualitative case study analysis

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

Organizational spiritual maturity (OSM)

PDF

Older adult community service worker program for Riverside County: community-based solutions for social service delivery

PDF

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

PDF

Case studies for real estate valuation

PDF

Water security, national security and MCIWest: a grounded theory for operationalizing risk management

PDF

An exploratory case study on the social viability of Alvarado Street Bakery’s employee-owned cooperative model

PDF

Choice neighborhoods: a spatial and exploratory analysis of Housing Authority City of Los Angeles public housing

PDF

University campus expansion: an analysis of Harvard University’s expansion into Boston, Massachusetts

PDF

Constructing the achievement index: an assessment to help people achieve high-performance leadership in the workplace

PDF

China-Africa cooperation: an assessment through the lens of China’s development experience

PDF

Individual differences in trust development: Assessing the effects of trustor attributes on trust building, stability, and dissolution

PDF

The impact of mobility and government rental subsidies on the welfare of households and affordability of markets

Asset Metadata

Creator Otero, Anthony Andrew (author)

Core Title Workplace conflict and employment retaliation in law enforcement; an examination of the causes, effects and viable solutions

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 02/26/2016

Defense Date 12/10/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag employment retaliation,Law enforcement,OAI-PMH Harvest,workplace conflict

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Denhardt, Robert (committee chair), Bahadarian, Talin (committee member), Denhardt, Janet (committee member), Robertson, Peter J. (committee member)

Creator Email aotero@usc.edu,aotero35@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-216140

Unique identifier UC11278408

Identifier etd-OteroAntho-4094.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-216140 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OteroAntho-4094.pdf

Dmrecord 216140

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Otero, Anthony Andrew

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA