Blue Shirt vs White Shirt vs Suit

When an internal disagreement goes public and turns into an issue for an organization, it becomes far less a matter of communicating effectively internally but almost entirely a battle for winning public support. And winning public support generally leads to a position of strength internally.

Recently, a police association president went public with his concerns about officer and public safety. He was very clear in communicating his position: the city is dangerous and senior police administration and the police service board are not willing to acknowledge it. He asserted that both actually fought his association when they lobbied for more officers on patrol. The validity of either side’s position is not the subject of this post. My focus is on who won the battle for public support, and why.

The police chief and police service board chairman did speak publicly in an effort to rebut the association’s position. But, in short, they lost the battle. Why? They lost on this issue because their messages didn’t resonate; they were in direct conflict with the views of the average person on the street. And they failed to acknowledge the fact. More importantly, the messages were in direct conflict with “more junior” members of the police service – the ones on the street who live the danger every day they put on the uniform.

The association president went public and spoke in common language; direct and bold, and avoided “bureaucratese”. He spoke to citizens in terms they understood. The police chief and board chair spoke, one and two days later, of high-level statistics and trends. In certain situations, that may work - but not here. The issue was well beyond the point where quoting statistics would have any effect - other than demonstrating their disconnect with the cops they lead and the public they serve.

The association president wears a uniform with a blue shirt. He spoke from the heart, assumed professional risk without personal gain and gained the initiative by staking out his position first. A senior rank and/or impressive title can actually present a barrier to effective communication; relying on them for credibility is a recipe for failure. The matter of who owns credibility is more complex than the rank, the title or the suit. This is an excellent example of a situation where two men failed to acknowledge this complexity and adjust their approach accordingly.

Simply put, the cop wearing the blue shirt won out over the cop wearing the white shirt, and the chairman in the suit.

http://www.tbnewswatch.com/News/?cid=67141