Attached are the information I need done. Thank you.

Discussion Board Forum 2 for Kamera Langston

Top of Form

I personally never experience a situation where the brutal facts were not confronted. According to my supervisor, this has occurred in his previous years as a subordinate. As Collin’s stated (2001), “you absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts” (p. 70). In Pretrial our ultimate mission is to preserve the presumption of innocence while ensuring the safety of the community. Sadly, the series of repeated offenders, drug users and lack of responsibility from court services make this more difficult. My supervisor mention that as a Pretrial officer, he expressed his concerns of Pretrial increasing recidivism (the brutal fact), but neither the courts, Department of Criminal Justice, nor was his supervisor was listening to the issue.

Ortmeier and Meese (2010) mentioned how reports provide the historical context of an event (p. 116). In Pretrial, reports are key decision makers when deciding an offender’s innocence. When my supervisor was pretrial officer there was nothing to measure the risk factors of offenders, thus resulting in repeated offenders and jail population stay at a constant high. This made any efforts to reduce jail population counterproductive. It was not until a few years ago that Pretrial adopted a system called Praxis which provides a risk analysis to reduce the risk of releasing possible repeated violent offenders.

I personally experienced environment No.2. When my supervisor hired me along with a few others, we had a huge team meeting. We were added to the team to improve Pretrial; of course, this did not come without the consequence of learning the realities of the job. As Collins mentioned in his book, my supervisor used brutal facts to motivate my co-workers and I be great Pretrial officers. The facts were that people were going to lie to us, as well use drugs again once they complete their random drug test for the month. Other realities (brutal truths) included that we were going to fail on multiple occasions and that though we are part one of the top Pretrial agencies, we were going to be the under microscope of criticism. It is important for me to mention that that meeting occurred after working with agency for three weeks. My supervisor utilized the strategy mentioned by Collins by using the questions to lead the discussion of the brutal realities.

The difference between the two environments is the environment that does not address the brutal facts fails at the purpose and mission of the organization. Though not enjoyable to hear the environment that address the brutal facts tends better outcomes because individuals know and understand what they have to do to fix the problem. The communication utilized in environment two was effective because the listener (my supervisor) was did not use personal biases to make assumptions and conclusions (Ortemier and Meese, 2010, p.103).

Scripture states “the way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advise” (Proverbs 12:15, ESV). In the first environment, in my supervisor’s case, leaders were not listening thus and the Pretrial program seemed “foolish” because it was not fixing the problem. In environment two, my supervisor listened to our concerns and ideas thus making our Pretrial program much better.

References:

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. United States, NY: Instaread.

Ortmeier, P. J., & Meese, E. (2010). Leadership, ethics, and policing: Challenges for the 21st century. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form