In police work, the line officers need to know that they can rely on their supervisors to guide them and provide them access and approval to needed resources. Line officers need to feel supported and have confidence in their supervisors to build and maintain trust. Police officers generally work best when they know that their supervisors actually “care” about the good work they do. A supervisor’s role in general terms is an individual who is tasked with coaching and mentorship that guides a team toward mission completion. This individual leads with a higher-level perspective of safety, lawful practices, and accountability. It makes sense that employees in most professions work best knowing that their supervisor “cares” about them on both a professional and personal level. The word “care” is defined as, “the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something.” Who wouldn’t want that from a supervisor?

In police work, the environment can change at a moment’s notice. A stagnant day can instantly transform into a dynamic situation. Subordinate officers rely on confidence and appropriate decision-making by supervisors to support and ensure safe outcomes for everyone involved. Having a supervisor that “cares” and takes appropriate action is critical and can be correlated to the positive performance outcomes of subordinates. The question that I pose is, what about empathy? How important is it to have a supervisor who is empathetic toward their subordinates on a personal and professional level? The word “empathy” used as a noun is “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” The words “care” and “empathy” are very far apart but very important qualities for supervisors to have. Officers often express a desire to know that their supervisor cares. The question I pose to you as a reader is, does lack of empathy correlate to positive performance outcomes? I will not go into specific metrics to establish a stance on the matter but I think it is an important topic for those who are supervisors or those who want to be supervisors to explore and answer.

In the 2002 American Vietnam war film called, “We Were Soldiers,” one of the characters played by actor Sam Elliot is Sgt. Major Basil Plumley. Sgt. Major Plumley is a hardened supervisor tasked with taking troops into combat with “Lt. Col. Hal Moore” who is played by actor Mel Gibson. At the beginning of the movie, it is clear that these two men have very different leadership styles. As you are introduced to the characters in the movie you realize that Lt. Moore is clearly caring and externally empathetic to each of the soldiers assigned to the unit. You get the impression that Sgt. Major Plumley cares about mission completion but does not show external empathy easily. While in training on base, a young soldier walking down the same sidewalk as Sgt. Plumley approaches the Sgt. Major with a smile on his face and he says, “good morning Sgt. Major” to which Sgt. Major replies, “How do you know what type of God D(expletive) day it is!” and he continues to walk past the young soldier. The following day the same young soldier walks toward Sgt. Major on the same sidewalk and as he approaches him with a smile on his face he says, “Beautiful morning Sgt. Major” to which Sgt. Major replies, “What are you a fu(expletive)ing weatherman now?” and he continues to walk past the young soldier. As the movie unfolds it becomes clear as to why the Lieutenant put the Sgt. Major in that role and how each of their leadership styles works together to complete the mission. It also becomes clear that the soldiers know that they are cared for and they have leadership that is also empathetic to their personal and professional needs.

In police organizations, I would suggest that senior leaders find a balance in their leadership and supervisory teams in placing the right people in the right positions. Police Administrators should allow the teams to expand their resources where needed across the rank and file. The mere nature of police work tends to mold more and more individuals toward a “type A” personality style after repeated exposure to life’s miseries. This can make it challenging for some of those personality types to show external empathy toward their own peers and subordinates. If they can’t do it themselves and they are self-aware that it is difficult for them to express external empathy toward their peers I suggest that they need to give up a little control and find a resource to meet this unmet need.

I believe that external empathy can be trained but it takes time and it must be sincere. I suggest that the first step is emotional intelligence awareness and training as an organization. I am not at all talking about kum bai ya retreats and building a zen garden in dispatch. A perceived or actual lack of external empathy can have a negative impact on community trust as well as a negative impact on officer wellness. In this article, I am focused on the topic of internal empathy within police organizations as it relates to peer and supervisor interactions.

I suggest a “quick fix” for supervisors who care but have trouble expressing empathy. I would tell them to find a peer or a supervisor who is genuine and comfortable with expressing external empathy. I further suggest utilizing that individual or individuals when appropriate. As soon as a supervisor realizes that they are not the best fit for emotional expression or sincere empathy they need to locate peers who are best suited before their external expressions result in a loss of trust from those they supervise. Most agencies have employee assistance plans (EAP) and a simple referral can be a powerful resource. Sincerity goes a long way and it is noticeable when someone is faking it.

As a commander, I once got word of an officer whose father had recently passed away. I spoke to the shift supervisor and asked him to check on the officer and see how he was doing. The shift supervisor was well respected by the officers and overall known as a dependable decision-maker. The supervisor told me that he would ask the officer directly if ordered to do so but he wanted to make me aware that he had been working with a marriage counselor himself and he was working on how he expressed external empathy. He said he had been working on self-awareness and how he was perceived when he approached matters of emotion with his own family. He advised me that he was made aware that he “didn’t do so well with all that emotional stuff.” He went on to tell me that he actually cared about the officers he supervised but his priority was focused on the officer’s job performance, safety, and mission success, and not on their emotions. He told me that he would be very uncomfortable if the officer would start to cry or wanted to talk about his emotions with him. I was very proud that this supervisor expressed this to me because it was clear that he cared about the officer. I found it brave of him to share such a personal matter with me. He was exploring emotional intelligence, and he wanted to make sure that the officer could stay safe and focused on his duties so he could make it home at the end of the shift.

I asked the supervisor how he became aware of his trouble addressing emotions and with a stern and straight face, he told me that it almost cost him his marriage and he did not want it to cost him his career or the trust and respect of his subordinates or the community he served. He told me that he met with all of the officers on his shift recently and told them about it as well. The supervisor stated that he designated an officer on his team to be the “shift counselor.” The supervisor told me that he trusted the officer to handle all of the “emotional stuff” while he worked on his own. He asked me if he could have this “shift counselor” visit with the officer during a long lunch break. I could tell that the subject was uncomfortable for the supervisor to discuss with me but I was glad he did and it helped me address an organizational need.

I agreed to allow him to have the “shift counselor” who was a line officer, reach out to the officer and I followed up with a visit to the officer myself. I personally visited with the officer later in the evening and asked how he was doing. The officer told me that he appreciated all of the support he was receiving from the department. I asked him how things were going on his shift and he told me how much it meant to him that his supervisor kept him safe, focused, gave him the number to the EAP then had one of the officers on his team take him on a long lunch break to talk about how things were going. The officer went on to tell me that he really appreciated his supervisor doing that for him. At that moment I came to the realization that the shift supervisor had created a peer support group for his shift.

Emotional intelligence (EQ) can identify leadership “strengths” and “weaknesses” but there are several steps to implementation. In some EQ training, there are stages; understanding perceived emotions; reasoning with emotions; understanding emotions; and managing emotions. It takes bravery and individual and organizational dedication to work through each step. Everyone benefits from training to recognize, address, and find or create internal resources that address and develop emotional intelligence. Anyone who is in the implementation stages of training on emotional intelligence whether it be as simple as reading one of many good books on the topic, someone in marriage counseling, or taking a self-assessment might be able to quickly identify their strengths and weaknesses. If they know their weaknesses and know it takes time to address them these leaders can’t afford to ignore the needs of their subordinates while they work on their own. Over time they might improve themselves but through the span of self-development those they supervise are left feeling ignored and the “care” the line officers once felt is etched away into a loss of trust. Anyone looking to develop external empathy should invest in finding resources to make up for those gaps and maintain trust from those they supervise.

The win comes in that they know their team can count on the supervisor to guide them toward successful decision making and mission completion but they can also indirectly express empathy that is recognized and appreciated. A bigger win is being transparent and having conversations with the team to provide them with resources. Subordinates and supervisors might find that they come to a point that they need to utilize those resources and they have established trust from their peers in the value of peer support and employee assistance programs.

There are many model programs and services to implement peer support groups and if your department does not have a formal one and you are a supervisor, I suggest you find your “shift counselors” and empower them to look out for each other. There is a difference between care and empathy but they are both components of trust that are needed in the supervisor /subordinate relationship in police organizations. Genuine care builds trust but empathy strengthens it. Empathy doesn’t have to be directly expressed to solidify trust. It can be expressed indirectly by putting the right resources and more importantly the right people in place to be most effective at it.

We must recognize that we are people in the people business and we have to treat our own as such.