The CopDoc Podcast - Season 7 - Episode 148
This is the second of a two-part interview with Dr. Peter Neyroud
What if modern policing could achieve a global impact through strategic leadership and trust? Join us on the Cop Talk Podcast as we welcome Dr. Peter Neyroud, a former chief constable turned esteemed academic at Cambridge University, to share his journey and insights. With Dr. Neyroud, we explore how evidence-based policing is transforming forces worldwide and the pivotal role leadership plays in this evolution. Discover how his innovative strategy of using smaller command posts aims to groom future leaders, reflecting practices from the Royal Navy. Through engaging anecdotes and practical wisdom, Dr. Nehru paints a vivid picture of what effective leadership entails in today's complex policing landscape.
Gain invaluable insights into how to lead large, dispersed teams effectively, where personal connections with each team member might not be feasible.
Peter highlights the critical importance of communication and trust, essential elements when managing thousands of staff members. Delve into his experiences of impacting policing practices in India and his ongoing collaboration with the Indian School of Business. As we conclude, we reflect on the importance of documenting these experiences, inspired by Sir Robert Mark, aiming to link historical developments with contemporary evidence for effective community policing globally. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on leadership, trust, and the enduring legacy of policing practices.
Contact us: copdoc.podcast@gmail.com
Website: www.copdocpodcast.com
If you'd like to arrange for facilitated training, or consulting, or talk about steps you might take to improve your leadership and help in your quest for promotion, contact Steve at stephen.morreale@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Steve Morreale (00:00):
Hey again Steve Morreale here on the Cop Talk
Podcast and we're about tolisten to segment two, the
second session that I had withPeter Nehru.
Dr Peter Nehru from CambridgeUniversity in the UK, previously
a high-ranking leader, chiefconstable in a police service
organization within the UK.
During this conversation, welooked at the complexities of
(00:20):
modern policing, Leadership andOrganizational Development.
Peter shared his insights frombeing in the police field to now
his role as an academic atCambridge University advocating
for evidence-based policing.
Peter tells us that he has beenspending a great deal of time
with Indian police and a countrywith one and a half billion
(00:41):
people.
It'll be interesting to hearwhat he has to say.
And a half billion people.
It'll be interesting to hearwhat he has to say and, frankly,
I'm hoping to be able to talkto a few police leaders from.
India to help us understand, becurious about what they do that
we don't, what we do that theydon't.
So stay tuned for anothersession on strategic leadership
and global impact on the CopDocpodcast with Dr Peter Nehru,
(01:01):
former chief constable.
With Dr Peter Nehru, formerchief constable, welcome to the
CopDoc podcast.
This podcast explores policeleadership issues and innovative
ideas.
The CopDoc shares thoughts andideas as he talks with leaders
in policing communities,academia and other government
(01:22):
agencies.
And now please join Dr SteveMorreale and industry thought
leaders as they share theirinsights and experience on the
CopDoc Podcast.
(01:53):
What I want to understand is howdid the Police Improvement
Organization become the policecollege?
And then I want to bring itforward to Cambridge, where you
are now, and basically whatyou're getting out of that.
Is that okay?
Does that help frame it?
How do you feel we're going?
So we're lucky to talk to PeterNehru.
Say that again.
So we're lucky to talk to PeterNehru.
I'll say it again so we'relucky to be talking to Peter
(02:15):
Nehru at Cambridge University inthe UK, developing leaders and
developing leadership traits andhelping people understand the
role and responsibility of inpolicing.
So let's talk about that andhow you began to think about
that.
Peter Neyroud (02:33):
help frame it with your colleagues so, as a I
mean you you do a lot of this asa, as a chief.
In fact, if I, if I, would haveany piece of advice, single
piece of advice for a chief, inwhatever size of force.
We always have this debate, soyou know the portfolio that a
(02:55):
deputy or an assistant chief hasgot.
They have a specific brief,they're chief of patrol or
whatever it is.
And there's always thisinteresting question so what's
the chief's brief?
Well, if it isn't leadership,you aren't a great chief.
It absolutely has to be, and alevel of detail and curiosity
and focus on leadership at everysingle level and also, frankly,
(03:20):
on what in God's name are youtraining your first, you know
your new recruits in?
It starts there.
If you've not got a reallytight focus on that, you're not
starting out on the journey,you're not getting people into
the organisation understandingthe mission, you're not giving
them a sense of the potentialopportunities in the
organisation.
I certainly, as a chief, I nevermissed a single recruit entry
(03:43):
group.
I saw every single one of themand I spent half an afternoon or
whatever it is, and I did twothings.
Firstly, I gave my pitch aboutwhat was I expecting, and I
think every chief does that.
But I also let them give metheir pitch about what their
expectations and their thoughtsand the questions about the
organisation are.
And I spent a lot of time as Iwent around the force.
(04:06):
We had a system where once amonth we went to each of the
local areas and we always had anopen question session because,
again, you want to give peoplethe opportunity to question and,
of course, doing that, youstart to see some of the people
who were asking interestingquestions and there were a few
(04:28):
people who, right at the startthey were kind of testing me,
trying to see what sort of chiefwas I going to be.
And I never forgot the ones whoraised the really good
questions.
I don't know whether they wereever surprised, but they said
over the time I left they werein quite significant positions.
I wanted the people that askedthe right questions.
Then I was interested in whatwere we doing with first line
supervisors left, they were inquite significant positions.
(04:48):
I wanted the people that askedthe right questions.
Then I was interested in whatwere we doing with first line
supervisors?
How are we training them?
What sort of investment?
What were we doing?
about the inspectors.
How were we training them?
What were we doing to try toencourage them?
And then I realized we hadabsolutely no succession process
for training the commanders whowere going to take in American
terms it'd be precincts know bigsections of the of the
organization.
So one of many motivations Ihad for changing the structure
(05:09):
of the force was to create poststhat were going to be real
commands, that would but smallercommands.
So I wanted you know it was aphrase I remember reading in a
very good history of the royalnavy which is that one of the
ways the royal navy, um, youknow, generated leadership was
by having little ships and bigships and by training people to
take command in a context wherethey were relatively safe.
(05:31):
I mean, you've got, you've gotcommand of a small corvette and
then and then a destroyer maybe,and it was only then that
you've got a battleship, as itwere, you've got a really big
command right and this idea thatyou actually have to prepare
people for command by littlesteps and then you have to see
that they succeed and encouragethem.
You have to visit them, youhave to talk to them, you have
(05:54):
to listen to them and you thenhave to think about where they
go next.
So we've put a lot of effortinto thinking about how you know
how you would mix and match.
You get teams that workedappropriately, um and and that
you got people who could youknow who could, who felt
comfortable working with eachother as well, because that's
(06:15):
another part of helping peoplesucceed is try not to mix the
unmixable, if you possibly canyou know.
Steve Morreale (06:20):
It's interesting what you're talking about,
because you're talking.
That's a very so.
You just answered a questionthat I had a while ago.
Where do you look in otherdisciplines to find ideas?
And I always say, especially inAmerican policing, that we hold
ourselves to be in the likenessof the military.
But the military has changeddramatically since the 40s and
yet I don't think police hasevolved as much.
(06:43):
And so I like what you'resaying, because I just talked to
a major general who was sayingexactly that he was major
general of the military policecorps here and and he was saying
look, each command, when I wasa lieutenant, I did this when I
had 15 people, I had 20 people,I had 100 people.
It's the same thing, same thing.
(07:07):
And I'd also.
I also want to stop you in thisway and we have to wind down in
the next 10 minutes or so.
But, peter, you know, one ofthe reasons that I wrote the
book choosing to lead, whichwill be out in January, is
because in my estimation, in myexperience here stateside, when
you get promoted, the firstthing your boss wants is not for
you to lead but to manage,manage that organization, manage
those people, keep us out oftrouble, make sure they're
(07:28):
productive.
And leading is a choice.
In other words, you can get bywith simply managing.
Well, leadership takes a choiceand takes risks because you're
trying to move the needleforward.
I see a little bit of a smileor a smirk, so react to that, if
you would.
Peter Neyroud (07:51):
of the more significant leadership positions
, trying to point out to themthat you know, just managing
wasn't going to be enough,particularly when you move into
a situation where it's no longerpossible to manage by personal
knowledge.
So as soon as you get above 100staff, particularly with the
level of rotation in policing,you can't manage in the personal
(08:14):
way.
You, as an inspector withinBritish policing, you might have
20 or 30 people working for you.
Generally it might be a bitbigger, but you can actually
manage them by knowing them andyou can manage.
You know it's a, it's a moreintimate what a personal
relationship than it would be.
As soon as you get into 200 or300 people, particularly if they
happen to be scattered acrossmultiple posts I mean, I was a
(08:36):
director of intelligence I had350 400 staff scattered across
about 30, 10 or 12 differentlocations.
Well, you can't manage in thatway.
So you then have to start.
It has to be leadership, andthat leadership has to be about
communicating.
You know clearly the missionspending enough time with people
(08:56):
.
So you're then into the what doI do in five minutes?
How do I get across thatmessage in five minutes?
It's not quite the elevatortest, but it's not far off it,
because that's what you get whenyou get to be a chief.
And you've got about 9 000staff in tennis valley, you know
(09:16):
, and of course they, you knowthey're rotating as well.
So I try to work out how manystaff I'd ever supervised across
, you know, and it's a, it's alot, it's far too.
You can't possibly know themall.
So you have to think about howdo I, how do I lead by getting a
message across in the mosteffective way, a most inspiring
way, and some of that is.
And I did a thing called the um.
(09:37):
It was, it was a day, it was aweekly uh, chief's view um
session on on.
It was the early days of, youknow, that kind of internet blog
type thing, and I did.
I did this, this blog, once aweek.
I tried to make it no more thana page.
It was read by just abouteverybody in the force and I
(09:58):
realized quite quickly thatpeople were communicating back
to me things that were in that.
So that became one part of it.
I think these days that wouldalmost be happening, but it's
still important.
I think, and I was trying tothink about ways.
How do I get what I'm trying toachieve?
How do I explain what I'mtrying to achieve to such a wide
group of people that theyunderstand it?
They've got the context,because all the time as a leader
(10:21):
, you have to bet up to, youhave to get to bring people
along by explaining the context,treating them as adults and
treating them as adults who'vegot all sorts of other concerns
and worries, but you want themto focus on you know enough
focus on that particular bit ofthe, whether it be a change
program or understanding, aparticular pressure on the
(10:42):
organization.
So training and developingpeople to do that is, I think,
the only yes, of course, you canturn on a course and you can.
They can talk to othercolleagues.
But I do also think a lot of itis about mentoring.
It's about you, as a chief,communicating how, how to do
that to people, picking out thepeople who were really good at
(11:04):
it and trying to help the oneswho it's for whom it is not
natural, and bring them along aswell, because you're right, you
know you aren't going tosucceed.
You're going to be a very dulland boring and not particularly
effective organization if allyou've got is managers.
You have to have some people,you know, have to have a group
(11:24):
of people who are capable oftaking people with them.
I'm not a fan oftransformational leadership, but
it was a bit, you know, we gotgiven it like cough syrup over
the last 20 years and it alwaysseems to be a completely
inadequate explanation for this,because you know, for a start,
policing you're never, it's notconstant.
You, you, you vary between theyou know, the emergency type
(11:48):
scenario and the day to day, andtransformational issue never
really properly fits that kindof.
So something more adaptive is,it's all adaptive.
Steve Morreale (11:54):
It could be situational leadership.
Well, and I think this too,when you're talking about
theories and this is whatconfuses a lot of people I think
you and I have been studying itfor a long time and
experiencing it for a long timethat you know.
What I try to convey is look,there's a lot of theories out
there.
Is that really practice?
And really, in a lot of ways,you are a part of your good
(12:14):
bosses and your bad bosses.
You know what to avoid and whatto emulate, but you customize
it for yourself.
I don't really care what thetheory is, as long as, in
practice, it is about payingattention to people, paying
attention to mission, you know,relating to the organization,
relating to the citizenry, sothat we are effective and
(12:34):
responsive.
Right.
Peter Neyroud (12:36):
Yeah, but there is just one golden thread that
runs through that and that wasfor me.
You know, it was the big lessonof working with my great mentor
in hampshire, john hodnot, andthat was the absolutely golden
thread.
You could be sort of good atsome of this stuff and bad at
other things, but if you don'tunderstand the importance of
trust, then you're never goingto be an effective leader,
(12:59):
because if you really wantpeople to do the difficult
things, you, they have to trustthat.
If you know, if they do adifficult thing and they make a
mistake and it's an honestmistake that they will be
supported, right, um, I just,you know there was several
examples, but john john wasbrilliant at this.
Um, it just, it was natural.
He's all part of it, was partof his DNA in that sense.
(13:21):
And there was a particularlydifficult detective
superintendent who he took offbeing a senior investigator,
which was the job he reallywanted to do, and he took him
off it because he really wasn'tthat good at it.
And but he said you know, okay,I'm taking you off at point, I
will return you to that post.
And the rest of the force allknew that they'd had this
conversation.
You know it was not, it wassemi-public, but everyone knew
(13:45):
that and they were all waitingto see whether would John follow
through, even though it wasn'tperhaps the best decision.
Of course he did.
He followed through and he saidto me when he did it, and I
ended up with this individualworking for me For the second
time.
For the second time, yeah.
If I give a promise, I followthrough.
Yeah, and as a chief, every oneof those promises is magnified
(14:06):
by the organization because itgoes through, it becomes.
Trust is the way that you getpeople to do difficult things,
difficult things.
As soon as the seniorleadership in the organization
is not trusted uh, particularly,of course, if they do things
either if they they behave withmisconduct or they or they are
or they're bullying or they'redoing all sorts of inappropriate
as soon as you do that, thewhole organization's trust
(14:29):
framework falls down and you arein.
It is really difficult to buildthat back um.
And you know it's what?
In a sense, one of the bigthemes of research that we've
been doing at cambridge over thelast uh, decade has been about
trust.
It's been about proceduraljustice.
so tom tyler's work inparticular, it's been about
understanding that that trustworks both inside the
(14:51):
organization and out in theleaders.
Steve Morreale (14:53):
So it is the application of procedural
justice inside and outside.
But as, as you discuss the theapplication of procedural
justice inside and outside, butas you discuss the importance of
trust in an organization, weneed to develop trust outside
the organization or we don'thave procedural justice, we
don't have fairness and such.
So, understanding that I do, weneed to move to something you
just said, and that is aboutCambridge and what's going on.
(15:31):
Let's talk about your role atCambridge and what you're doing
in terms of research and how youare finding value in helping
others to see a differentapproach to policing from across
the world, because Cambridgedraws people in there in your
master's program from across theworld.
(15:51):
Talk about that and and howinvigorating it is to you, for
you, and how, uh, how beneficialyou see and the hope you have
for the future as people beginto think, oh, this might be a
way to approach things yeah,well, I've been teaching, uh,
the master's program and twosenior leaders in policing for a
(16:11):
decade or so and it is no, it'sa great way to put back into
the organization and it is aboutchallenging people.
Peter Neyroud (16:20):
So it is about it's, you know, talking, walking
them through an evidence-basedapproach to, uh, their
profession.
And, and you know, the firstthing I always do when I've got
a group, the new group in theroom, is ask us have any of you
actually read an experiment inpolicing?
To which the answer is almostuniversally no, and then just
walking, you know, explaining tothem.
(16:41):
You know, what do you know?
We just know such a staggeringamount about policing now that
we didn't know in 1980 when Ijoined.
And, and you know, working andwalking and through what we do
know, some of which is, you know, may challenge their practical
conceptions of what can andcan't be done, and then, of
course, encouraging them to dotheir own piece of applied
(17:02):
research.
I mean, most of this morning wasspent talking to my own
master's students about researchthat is coming together in the
form of a thesis which has gotto be handed in the early part
of next year, and they're doingsome amazing things, the one in
particular that I was discussingthis morning is a just been
promoted superintendent in themet.
He's doing a big proceduraljustice trial about what, does
(17:25):
you know?
Can we change the perceptionsand behavior, and of officers
with a with a specific focus,procedural justice training
program, and will that produceless use of force, etc.
It's partially replicating butgoing a bit further than some of
the stuff that david weisbergand others have done.
And this is a.
You know he's a superintendent,he was a chief inspector when
(17:45):
he started this.
He's done a full fieldrandomized control trial of a
significant level of complexity,um, for which you'll get his
masters without any doubt at all.
All, but also it's the basis ofhelping the Metropolitan Police
to do something that has provedparticularly controversial.
Better Now for me to be able tonot just influence him as an
(18:08):
individual and see him beingpromoted whilst he's going
through this programme, but alsoseeing that legacy going
through is is professionallyvery satisfying, but it's also
scientifically very satisfyingbecause I know that you know
we'll publish that research.
That research will be anotherpart of the corpus of knowledge
and it's coming from the ground.
(18:29):
It's applied learning,developed within the profession
with support, and it'll go outto help others to understand it
and I, 10 days ago I was aperiod of time in india.
I've been with indian police,the ips union police service,
for 15 years now, teachingevidence-based policing, and
that is now starting to resonateback.
Indian policing has caught thebug, to the extent actually that
(18:51):
just before the covid I I gotinvited to go and present that
to narendra modi personally,which is presenting to a prime
minister of a country of 1.4billion is quite a thing.
I had 90 minutes onevidence-based policing with
Narendra Modi and actually thatgives me enormous credibility
with Indian police officers tosay you know your prime minister
asked me to do this and nowhe's talking about.
(19:13):
Modi, is talking about lessdander, which is theon.
Less dander, more data, whichis basically the message that I
was giving.
He's constantly reiteratingthis point.
I love it and you know that isimpact on a big scale and
hopefully I've got to.
I'm working with the IndianSchool of Business to do that
school of business to do that.
(19:34):
I would love to leave a legacyin the world's largest, most
populous country of a policeservice that believed in
evidence to make change as wellas, obviously, within my own
country.
Intro -Outro (19:49):
Well, I mean, think about that.
Who'd have thunk that you wouldhave that sort of impact, that
sort of opportunity and abilityto do that?
I think about talking toLorraine Mazerolle and certainly
Lawrence Sherman and herdatabase that some of your
material will go into, which Ithink is important.
So, you know, I see thismovement with the Society of
Evidence-Based Policing, theAmerican Society, ,,New New
NZealand nZealand N NnewZealand.
I mean it is moving forward.
(20:10):
We're a little in many casesreluctant, but I also see in the
United States, the NationalInstitute of Justice creating
this LEADS program, which isabsolutely amazing, I think,
scholars and practitionersworking together.
I wish in my day that it wasavailable to me, but now I find
myself, like yourself, at theend of a career and still having
(20:31):
impact on the new breed, on thenew group.
We need to wind down.
You have so much knowledge andso much information.
I have a few questions and thenI want to talk about the
national police college.
Peter Neyroud (20:43):
As we end, as you're getting ready to write,
tell me what you think yourfirst working title for a book
would be yeah, I've struggledwith this actually because you
want a kind of snappy title, butI mean I I I mean reforming the
(21:07):
police with science was was myfirst working time.
Yeah, that's cocky that's toodense, yeah yeah, yeah, exactly
so I and I, you know, I got, youknow evidence, cops, and all
the trouble is cops isn't quitethe right title because we're
not really cops, it's anAmerican title.
So I'm still working on it andI've got pages of scribbled
(21:31):
notes of trying to get to atitle which is both pithy and
informative.
And also, the other thing is Iwent back and had a look at my
all-time favourite book,personal book about policing,
which is sir robert mark'sbiography, and there were a few
lessons from robert mark and one.
Rob mark was the commissionerof the metropolitan police and
the one who made the big attackon corruption.
(21:52):
Uh, he was a very, verythoughtful man and he started
off with something which Ithought was really, really
clever, which was the.
His first chapter is called thePolice Service I Joined.
So what he did was, he kind of,laid down.
So this is where I come in,this is what it looked like.
And then he has a chapter atthe end which is a kind of
(22:13):
reflection on where it had gotto and where it was going.
And I mean, if I can writeanything half as readable as
Robert Mark, that would be great.
But what I wanted to do is totake key bits you know the
devising a community policingscheme in 1982 and relate that
to how the evidence hasdeveloped since 1982.
(22:36):
And I'm now the UN's Office ofDrugs and Crimes expert on
community policing and I'vewritten a checklist and a manual
for them, et cetera, to helpthem put it on the ground, and
I've tried to put it on theground in Bangladesh with UNODC.
So it's come full circle interms of wanting to get that
(23:00):
best evidence and best adviceout onto the ground.
So I'm going to try and writewhat I'm going to try and write,
I think, if I can pull it offby effectively constantly moving
to and fro.
Intro -Outro (23:10):
So somehow or other I need to find a title
that reflects well when I let metell you, when I wrote I, I
actually utilized a little lAIAI A and back and forth saying
this is what I'm thinking, thiswhat happens, and they gave me
a derivative and I didn't likeit, but it started to move me in
a different direction.
But the point is thatthree-word think a three word
(23:32):
title can be very valuable foryou and I think you've got so
much history and knowledge andexperience that others will take
heed in what you write.
I appreciate that.
At the end, I want to ask doyou think and we don't have a
lot of time to explore thiswe're talking about a National
Police College in the UnitedStates?
(23:53):
There is no such thing, andwhether or not it ever happens I
don't know Do you think thatnow that it exists, that it has
helped to move the needle?
Peter Neyroud (24:02):
Well, in a sense .
So I was responsible for theNational College of Policing.
It was my recommendation out ofmy review of police leadership
and training, and for me it wasabout an organization that could
set the agenda, not solve allthe problems, but set the agenda
, set the framework, set thetype of core standards that had
to be in leadership developmentand deal with the most senior.
(24:24):
So you know, there has to be aplace where the most senior and
the people are going to takeover the really big jobs, come,
come together and have anopportunity to talk to each
other at a key point, preferablybefore they spring off into
those really big jobs, not theleast which is you want a group
of people, a cadre of people,who can pick the phone up to
each other and help each otherto solve problems, and National
(24:47):
Colleges of Policing are a greatmeans of achieving that.
I mean, after all, that is whatthe military do.
They build a cadre of peoplewho know each other and they can
pick up the phone.
They would know, you know, theycan trust each other.
Well, not, of course, theydon't always dislike each other.
That's always a possibility.
But actually, if you look at, Iappreciate.
I said at the beginning, I'm ahistorian and, reading through
(25:11):
the history of the Second WorldWar and how people cooperated
and worked successfully together, clark, who was the general who
took the army up through Italyin 1944, had been at various key
stages in his career, hadworked alongside Eisenhower and
a range of the other key players.
They knew each other on apersonal level, which meant that
they could say hard things toeach other at key moments, and I
don't think that culture hasbecome embedded enough in
(25:35):
policing where enough of the.
I saw a bit of that.
I was a member of the PoliceExecutive Research Forum for
quite a number of years and Iwas part the harvard sessions,
um in uh, when I was a withfrank yeah, with frank yeah and
exactly, and, and you know, Igot to know a range of a range
of the senior leaders together,but they came together for that,
(25:56):
so that was a, that was ahappenstance, it wasn't a
regular part of theirdevelopment.
I don't't think an FBI course isanything like us.
That's quite different.
I mean, the FBI is a differentorganisation.
Policing actually needs a placewhere it can learn and if it's
linked with the bringingtogether the research evidence,
(26:17):
it doesn't have to bringeverything together in one place
, but it has to be a networkcapable of bringing people
together and I think if we'reable to do that and certainly
the British one, I think, hasbeen moderately successful in
doing that is a place which istrusted, which brings together
the best professional practicewith the best leaders.
Think that's quite important indeveloping a profession that is
(26:45):
capable of having properdebates with itself about what's
good and capable of finding out, you know, amongst itself the
best leaders that it's gotavailable and making best use of
them.
I think that's a, you know,incredibly important part of a
successful profession, becausethe alternative is people who
don't know each other and can'tpick the phone up and don't have
access to the best practice anddon't use it, in which case
you're doomed.
Intro -Outro (27:05):
Yes, well, we've been talking to Peter Neyroud
and he is at CambridgeUniversity and this has been an
important conversation thatwe've had that has gone from one
place to the other with thebasis being improving policing
through evidence, and Icertainly appreciate you taking
the time, especially during theholidays, peter, and I wish you
(27:28):
luck as you proceed with writingand sharing all of the
knowledge that you have insideyou.
Thank you, it's been a pleasure.
I appreciate it.
So that's another episode ofthe CopDoc podcast in the can.
Thanks for listening, thanksfor all who have listened from
across the globe and again,continue trying to focus on
police leadership and innovation.
(27:49):
Have a great day, stay safe.
Steve Morreale (27:53):
Thanks for listening to the CopDoc podcast
with Dr Steve Morreale.
Steve is a retired lawenforcement practitioner and
manager, turned academic andscholar from Western State
University.
Please tune into the Cop Docpodcast for regular episodes of
interviews with thought leadersin policing.
Hey again Steve Morreale here on the Cop Talk
Podcast and we're about tolisten to segment two, the
second session that I had withPeter Nehru.
Dr Peter Nehru from CambridgeUniversity in the UK, previously
a high-ranking leader, chiefconstable in a police service
organization within the UK.
During this conversation, welooked at the complexities of
(00:20):
modern policing, Leadership andOrganizational Development.
Peter shared his insights frombeing in the police field to now
his role as an academic atCambridge University advocating
for evidence-based policing.
Peter tells us that he has beenspending a great deal of time
with Indian police and a countrywith one and a half billion
(00:41):
people.
It'll be interesting to hearwhat he has to say.
And a half billion people.
It'll be interesting to hearwhat he has to say and, frankly,
I'm hoping to be able to talkto a few police leaders from.
India to help us understand, becurious about what they do that
we don't, what we do that theydon't.
So stay tuned for anothersession on strategic leadership
and global impact on the CopDocpodcast with Dr Peter Nehru,
(01:01):
former chief constable.
With Dr Peter Nehru, formerchief constable, welcome to the
CopDoc podcast.
This podcast explores policeleadership issues and innovative
ideas.
The CopDoc shares thoughts andideas as he talks with leaders
in policing communities,academia and other government
(01:22):
agencies.
And now please join Dr SteveMorreale and industry thought
leaders as they share theirinsights and experience on the
CopDoc Podcast.
(01:53):
What I want to understand is howdid the Police Improvement
Organization become the policecollege?
And then I want to bring itforward to Cambridge, where you
are now, and basically whatyou're getting out of that.
Is that okay?
Does that help frame it?
How do you feel we're going?
So we're lucky to talk to PeterNehru.
Say that again.
So we're lucky to talk to PeterNehru.
I'll say it again so we'relucky to be talking to Peter
(02:15):
Nehru at Cambridge University inthe UK, developing leaders and
developing leadership traits andhelping people understand the
role and responsibility of inpolicing.
So let's talk about that andhow you began to think about
that.
Peter Neyroud (02:33):
help frame it with your colleagues so, as a I
mean you you do a lot of this asa, as a chief.
In fact, if I, if I, would haveany piece of advice, single
piece of advice for a chief, inwhatever size of force.
We always have this debate, soyou know the portfolio that a
(02:55):
deputy or an assistant chief hasgot.
They have a specific brief,they're chief of patrol or
whatever it is.
And there's always thisinteresting question so what's
the chief's brief?
Well, if it isn't leadership,you aren't a great chief.
It absolutely has to be, and alevel of detail and curiosity
and focus on leadership at everysingle level and also, frankly,
(03:20):
on what in God's name are youtraining your first, you know
your new recruits in?
It starts there.
If you've not got a reallytight focus on that, you're not
starting out on the journey,you're not getting people into
the organisation understandingthe mission, you're not giving
them a sense of the potentialopportunities in the
organisation.
I certainly, as a chief, I nevermissed a single recruit entry
(03:43):
group.
I saw every single one of themand I spent half an afternoon or
whatever it is, and I did twothings.
Firstly, I gave my pitch aboutwhat was I expecting, and I
think every chief does that.
But I also let them give metheir pitch about what their
expectations and their thoughtsand the questions about the
organisation are.
And I spent a lot of time as Iwent around the force.
(04:06):
We had a system where once amonth we went to each of the
local areas and we always had anopen question session because,
again, you want to give peoplethe opportunity to question and,
of course, doing that, youstart to see some of the people
who were asking interestingquestions and there were a few
(04:28):
people who, right at the startthey were kind of testing me,
trying to see what sort of chiefwas I going to be.
And I never forgot the ones whoraised the really good
questions.
I don't know whether they wereever surprised, but they said
over the time I left they werein quite significant positions.
I wanted the people that askedthe right questions.
Then I was interested in whatwere we doing with first line
supervisors left, they were inquite significant positions.
(04:48):
I wanted the people that askedthe right questions.
Then I was interested in whatwere we doing with first line
supervisors?
How are we training them?
What sort of investment?
What were we doing?
about the inspectors.
How were we training them?
What were we doing to try toencourage them?
And then I realized we hadabsolutely no succession process
for training the commanders whowere going to take in American
terms it'd be precincts know bigsections of the of the
organization.
So one of many motivations Ihad for changing the structure
(05:09):
of the force was to create poststhat were going to be real
commands, that would but smallercommands.
So I wanted you know it was aphrase I remember reading in a
very good history of the royalnavy which is that one of the
ways the royal navy, um, youknow, generated leadership was
by having little ships and bigships and by training people to
take command in a context wherethey were relatively safe.
(05:31):
I mean, you've got, you've gotcommand of a small corvette and
then and then a destroyer maybe,and it was only then that
you've got a battleship, as itwere, you've got a really big
command right and this idea thatyou actually have to prepare
people for command by littlesteps and then you have to see
that they succeed and encouragethem.
You have to visit them, youhave to talk to them, you have
(05:54):
to listen to them and you thenhave to think about where they
go next.
So we've put a lot of effortinto thinking about how you know
how you would mix and match.
You get teams that workedappropriately, um and and that
you got people who could youknow who could, who felt
comfortable working with eachother as well, because that's
(06:15):
another part of helping peoplesucceed is try not to mix the
unmixable, if you possibly canyou know.
Steve Morreale (06:20):
It's interesting what you're talking about,
because you're talking.
That's a very so.
You just answered a questionthat I had a while ago.
Where do you look in otherdisciplines to find ideas?
And I always say, especially inAmerican policing, that we hold
ourselves to be in the likenessof the military.
But the military has changeddramatically since the 40s and
yet I don't think police hasevolved as much.
(06:43):
And so I like what you'resaying, because I just talked to
a major general who was sayingexactly that he was major
general of the military policecorps here and and he was saying
look, each command, when I wasa lieutenant, I did this when I
had 15 people, I had 20 people,I had 100 people.
It's the same thing, same thing.
(07:07):
And I'd also.
I also want to stop you in thisway and we have to wind down in
the next 10 minutes or so.
But, peter, you know, one ofthe reasons that I wrote the
book choosing to lead, whichwill be out in January, is
because in my estimation, in myexperience here stateside, when
you get promoted, the firstthing your boss wants is not for
you to lead but to manage,manage that organization, manage
those people, keep us out oftrouble, make sure they're
(07:28):
productive.
And leading is a choice.
In other words, you can get bywith simply managing.
Well, leadership takes a choiceand takes risks because you're
trying to move the needleforward.
I see a little bit of a smileor a smirk, so react to that, if
you would.
Peter Neyroud (07:51):
of the more significant leadership positions
, trying to point out to themthat you know, just managing
wasn't going to be enough,particularly when you move into
a situation where it's no longerpossible to manage by personal
knowledge.
So as soon as you get above 100staff, particularly with the
level of rotation in policing,you can't manage in the personal
(08:14):
way.
You, as an inspector withinBritish policing, you might have
20 or 30 people working for you.
Generally it might be a bitbigger, but you can actually
manage them by knowing them andyou can manage.
You know it's a, it's a moreintimate what a personal
relationship than it would be.
As soon as you get into 200 or300 people, particularly if they
happen to be scattered acrossmultiple posts I mean, I was a
(08:36):
director of intelligence I had350 400 staff scattered across
about 30, 10 or 12 differentlocations.
Well, you can't manage in thatway.
So you then have to start.
It has to be leadership, andthat leadership has to be about
communicating.
You know clearly the missionspending enough time with people
(08:56):
.
So you're then into the what doI do in five minutes?
How do I get across thatmessage in five minutes?
It's not quite the elevatortest, but it's not far off it,
because that's what you get whenyou get to be a chief.
And you've got about 9 000staff in tennis valley, you know
(09:16):
, and of course they, you knowthey're rotating as well.
So I try to work out how manystaff I'd ever supervised across
, you know, and it's a, it's alot, it's far too.
You can't possibly know themall.
So you have to think about howdo I, how do I lead by getting a
message across in the mosteffective way, a most inspiring
way, and some of that is.
And I did a thing called the um.
(09:37):
It was, it was a day, it was aweekly uh, chief's view um
session on on.
It was the early days of, youknow, that kind of internet blog
type thing, and I did.
I did this, this blog, once aweek.
I tried to make it no more thana page.
It was read by just abouteverybody in the force and I
(09:58):
realized quite quickly thatpeople were communicating back
to me things that were in that.
So that became one part of it.
I think these days that wouldalmost be happening, but it's
still important.
I think, and I was trying tothink about ways.
How do I get what I'm trying toachieve?
How do I explain what I'mtrying to achieve to such a wide
group of people that theyunderstand it?
They've got the context,because all the time as a leader
(10:21):
, you have to bet up to, youhave to get to bring people
along by explaining the context,treating them as adults and
treating them as adults who'vegot all sorts of other concerns
and worries, but you want themto focus on you know enough
focus on that particular bit ofthe, whether it be a change
program or understanding, aparticular pressure on the
(10:42):
organization.
So training and developingpeople to do that is, I think,
the only yes, of course, you canturn on a course and you can.
They can talk to othercolleagues.
But I do also think a lot of itis about mentoring.
It's about you, as a chief,communicating how, how to do
that to people, picking out thepeople who were really good at
(11:04):
it and trying to help the oneswho it's for whom it is not
natural, and bring them along aswell, because you're right, you
know you aren't going tosucceed.
You're going to be a very dulland boring and not particularly
effective organization if allyou've got is managers.
You have to have some people,you know, have to have a group
(11:24):
of people who are capable oftaking people with them.
I'm not a fan oftransformational leadership, but
it was a bit, you know, we gotgiven it like cough syrup over
the last 20 years and it alwaysseems to be a completely
inadequate explanation for this,because you know, for a start,
policing you're never, it's notconstant.
You, you, you vary between theyou know, the emergency type
(11:48):
scenario and the day to day, andtransformational issue never
really properly fits that kindof.
So something more adaptive is,it's all adaptive.
Steve Morreale (11:54):
It could be situational leadership.
Well, and I think this too,when you're talking about
theories and this is whatconfuses a lot of people I think
you and I have been studying itfor a long time and
experiencing it for a long timethat you know.
What I try to convey is look,there's a lot of theories out
there.
Is that really practice?
And really, in a lot of ways,you are a part of your good
(12:14):
bosses and your bad bosses.
You know what to avoid and whatto emulate, but you customize
it for yourself.
I don't really care what thetheory is, as long as, in
practice, it is about payingattention to people, paying
attention to mission, you know,relating to the organization,
relating to the citizenry, sothat we are effective and
(12:34):
responsive.
Right.
Peter Neyroud (12:36):
Yeah, but there is just one golden thread that
runs through that and that wasfor me.
You know, it was the big lessonof working with my great mentor
in hampshire, john hodnot, andthat was the absolutely golden
thread.
You could be sort of good atsome of this stuff and bad at
other things, but if you don'tunderstand the importance of
trust, then you're never goingto be an effective leader,
(12:59):
because if you really wantpeople to do the difficult
things, you, they have to trustthat.
If you know, if they do adifficult thing and they make a
mistake and it's an honestmistake that they will be
supported, right, um, I just,you know there was several
examples, but john john wasbrilliant at this.
Um, it just, it was natural.
He's all part of it, was partof his DNA in that sense.
(13:21):
And there was a particularlydifficult detective
superintendent who he took offbeing a senior investigator,
which was the job he reallywanted to do, and he took him
off it because he really wasn'tthat good at it.
And but he said you know, okay,I'm taking you off at point, I
will return you to that post.
And the rest of the force allknew that they'd had this
conversation.
You know it was not, it wassemi-public, but everyone knew
(13:45):
that and they were all waitingto see whether would John follow
through, even though it wasn'tperhaps the best decision.
Of course he did.
He followed through and he saidto me when he did it, and I
ended up with this individualworking for me For the second
time.
For the second time, yeah.
If I give a promise, I followthrough.
Yeah, and as a chief, every oneof those promises is magnified
(14:06):
by the organization because itgoes through, it becomes.
Trust is the way that you getpeople to do difficult things,
difficult things.
As soon as the seniorleadership in the organization
is not trusted uh, particularly,of course, if they do things
either if they they behave withmisconduct or they or they are
or they're bullying or they'redoing all sorts of inappropriate
as soon as you do that, thewhole organization's trust
(14:29):
framework falls down and you arein.
It is really difficult to buildthat back um.
And you know it's what?
In a sense, one of the bigthemes of research that we've
been doing at cambridge over thelast uh, decade has been about
trust.
It's been about proceduraljustice.
so tom tyler's work inparticular, it's been about
understanding that that trustworks both inside the
(14:51):
organization and out in theleaders.
Steve Morreale (14:53):
So it is the application of procedural
justice inside and outside.
But as, as you discuss the theapplication of procedural
justice inside and outside, butas you discuss the importance of
trust in an organization, weneed to develop trust outside
the organization or we don'thave procedural justice, we
don't have fairness and such.
So, understanding that I do, weneed to move to something you
just said, and that is aboutCambridge and what's going on.
(15:31):
Let's talk about your role atCambridge and what you're doing
in terms of research and how youare finding value in helping
others to see a differentapproach to policing from across
the world, because Cambridgedraws people in there in your
master's program from across theworld.
(15:51):
Talk about that and and howinvigorating it is to you, for
you, and how, uh, how beneficialyou see and the hope you have
for the future as people beginto think, oh, this might be a
way to approach things yeah,well, I've been teaching, uh,
the master's program and twosenior leaders in policing for a
(16:11):
decade or so and it is no, it'sa great way to put back into
the organization and it is aboutchallenging people.
Peter Neyroud (16:20):
So it is about it's, you know, talking, walking
them through an evidence-basedapproach to, uh, their
profession.
And, and you know, the firstthing I always do when I've got
a group, the new group in theroom, is ask us have any of you
actually read an experiment inpolicing?
To which the answer is almostuniversally no, and then just
walking, you know, explaining tothem.
(16:41):
You know, what do you know?
We just know such a staggeringamount about policing now that
we didn't know in 1980 when Ijoined.
And, and you know, working andwalking and through what we do
know, some of which is, you know, may challenge their practical
conceptions of what can andcan't be done, and then, of
course, encouraging them to dotheir own piece of applied
(17:02):
research.
I mean, most of this morning wasspent talking to my own
master's students about researchthat is coming together in the
form of a thesis which has gotto be handed in the early part
of next year, and they're doingsome amazing things, the one in
particular that I was discussingthis morning is a just been
promoted superintendent in themet.
He's doing a big proceduraljustice trial about what, does
(17:25):
you know?
Can we change the perceptionsand behavior, and of officers
with a with a specific focus,procedural justice training
program, and will that produceless use of force, etc.
It's partially replicating butgoing a bit further than some of
the stuff that david weisbergand others have done.
And this is a.
You know he's a superintendent,he was a chief inspector when
(17:45):
he started this.
He's done a full fieldrandomized control trial of a
significant level of complexity,um, for which you'll get his
masters without any doubt at all.
All, but also it's the basis ofhelping the Metropolitan Police
to do something that has provedparticularly controversial.
Better Now for me to be able tonot just influence him as an
(18:08):
individual and see him beingpromoted whilst he's going
through this programme, but alsoseeing that legacy going
through is is professionallyvery satisfying, but it's also
scientifically very satisfyingbecause I know that you know
we'll publish that research.
That research will be anotherpart of the corpus of knowledge
and it's coming from the ground.
(18:29):
It's applied learning,developed within the profession
with support, and it'll go outto help others to understand it
and I, 10 days ago I was aperiod of time in india.
I've been with indian police,the ips union police service,
for 15 years now, teachingevidence-based policing, and
that is now starting to resonateback.
Indian policing has caught thebug, to the extent actually that
(18:51):
just before the covid I I gotinvited to go and present that
to narendra modi personally,which is presenting to a prime
minister of a country of 1.4billion is quite a thing.
I had 90 minutes onevidence-based policing with
Narendra Modi and actually thatgives me enormous credibility
with Indian police officers tosay you know your prime minister
asked me to do this and nowhe's talking about.
(19:13):
Modi, is talking about lessdander, which is theon.
Less dander, more data, whichis basically the message that I
was giving.
He's constantly reiteratingthis point.
I love it and you know that isimpact on a big scale and
hopefully I've got to.
I'm working with the IndianSchool of Business to do that
school of business to do that.
(19:34):
I would love to leave a legacyin the world's largest, most
populous country of a policeservice that believed in
evidence to make change as wellas, obviously, within my own
country.
Intro -Outro (19:49):
Well, I mean, think about that.
Who'd have thunk that you wouldhave that sort of impact, that
sort of opportunity and abilityto do that?
I think about talking toLorraine Mazerolle and certainly
Lawrence Sherman and herdatabase that some of your
material will go into, which Ithink is important.
So, you know, I see thismovement with the Society of
Evidence-Based Policing, theAmerican Society, ,,New New
NZealand nZealand N NnewZealand.
I mean it is moving forward.
(20:10):
We're a little in many casesreluctant, but I also see in the
United States, the NationalInstitute of Justice creating
this LEADS program, which isabsolutely amazing, I think,
scholars and practitionersworking together.
I wish in my day that it wasavailable to me, but now I find
myself, like yourself, at theend of a career and still having
(20:31):
impact on the new breed, on thenew group.
We need to wind down.
You have so much knowledge andso much information.
I have a few questions and thenI want to talk about the
national police college.
Peter Neyroud (20:43):
As we end, as you're getting ready to write,
tell me what you think yourfirst working title for a book
would be yeah, I've struggledwith this actually because you
want a kind of snappy title, butI mean I I I mean reforming the
(21:07):
police with science was was myfirst working time.
Yeah, that's cocky that's toodense, yeah yeah, yeah, exactly
so I and I, you know, I got, youknow evidence, cops, and all
the trouble is cops isn't quitethe right title because we're
not really cops, it's anAmerican title.
So I'm still working on it andI've got pages of scribbled
(21:31):
notes of trying to get to atitle which is both pithy and
informative.
And also, the other thing is Iwent back and had a look at my
all-time favourite book,personal book about policing,
which is sir robert mark'sbiography, and there were a few
lessons from robert mark and one.
Rob mark was the commissionerof the metropolitan police and
the one who made the big attackon corruption.
(21:52):
Uh, he was a very, verythoughtful man and he started
off with something which Ithought was really, really
clever, which was the.
His first chapter is called thePolice Service I Joined.
So what he did was, he kind of,laid down.
So this is where I come in,this is what it looked like.
And then he has a chapter atthe end which is a kind of
(22:13):
reflection on where it had gotto and where it was going.
And I mean, if I can writeanything half as readable as
Robert Mark, that would be great.
But what I wanted to do is totake key bits you know the
devising a community policingscheme in 1982 and relate that
to how the evidence hasdeveloped since 1982.
(22:36):
And I'm now the UN's Office ofDrugs and Crimes expert on
community policing and I'vewritten a checklist and a manual
for them, et cetera, to helpthem put it on the ground, and
I've tried to put it on theground in Bangladesh with UNODC.
So it's come full circle interms of wanting to get that
(23:00):
best evidence and best adviceout onto the ground.
So I'm going to try and writewhat I'm going to try and write,
I think, if I can pull it offby effectively constantly moving
to and fro.
Intro -Outro (23:10):
So somehow or other I need to find a title
that reflects well when I let metell you, when I wrote I, I
actually utilized a little lAIAI A and back and forth saying
this is what I'm thinking, thiswhat happens, and they gave me
a derivative and I didn't likeit, but it started to move me in
a different direction.
But the point is thatthree-word think a three word
(23:32):
title can be very valuable foryou and I think you've got so
much history and knowledge andexperience that others will take
heed in what you write.
I appreciate that.
At the end, I want to ask doyou think and we don't have a
lot of time to explore thiswe're talking about a National
Police College in the UnitedStates?
(23:53):
There is no such thing, andwhether or not it ever happens I
don't know Do you think thatnow that it exists, that it has
helped to move the needle?
Peter Neyroud (24:02):
Well, in a sense .
So I was responsible for theNational College of Policing.
It was my recommendation out ofmy review of police leadership
and training, and for me it wasabout an organization that could
set the agenda, not solve allthe problems, but set the agenda
, set the framework, set thetype of core standards that had
to be in leadership developmentand deal with the most senior.
(24:24):
So you know, there has to be aplace where the most senior and
the people are going to takeover the really big jobs, come,
come together and have anopportunity to talk to each
other at a key point, preferablybefore they spring off into
those really big jobs, not theleast which is you want a group
of people, a cadre of people,who can pick the phone up to
each other and help each otherto solve problems, and National
(24:47):
Colleges of Policing are a greatmeans of achieving that.
I mean, after all, that is whatthe military do.
They build a cadre of peoplewho know each other and they can
pick up the phone.
They would know, you know, theycan trust each other.
Well, not, of course, theydon't always dislike each other.
That's always a possibility.
But actually, if you look at, Iappreciate.
I said at the beginning, I'm ahistorian and, reading through
(25:11):
the history of the Second WorldWar and how people cooperated
and worked successfully together, clark, who was the general who
took the army up through Italyin 1944, had been at various key
stages in his career, hadworked alongside Eisenhower and
a range of the other key players.
They knew each other on apersonal level, which meant that
they could say hard things toeach other at key moments, and I
don't think that culture hasbecome embedded enough in
(25:35):
policing where enough of the.
I saw a bit of that.
I was a member of the PoliceExecutive Research Forum for
quite a number of years and Iwas part the harvard sessions,
um in uh, when I was a withfrank yeah, with frank yeah and
exactly, and, and you know, Igot to know a range of a range
of the senior leaders together,but they came together for that,
(25:56):
so that was a, that was ahappenstance, it wasn't a
regular part of theirdevelopment.
I don't't think an FBI course isanything like us.
That's quite different.
I mean, the FBI is a differentorganisation.
Policing actually needs a placewhere it can learn and if it's
linked with the bringingtogether the research evidence,
(26:17):
it doesn't have to bringeverything together in one place
, but it has to be a networkcapable of bringing people
together and I think if we'reable to do that and certainly
the British one, I think, hasbeen moderately successful in
doing that is a place which istrusted, which brings together
the best professional practicewith the best leaders.
Think that's quite important indeveloping a profession that is
(26:45):
capable of having properdebates with itself about what's
good and capable of finding out, you know, amongst itself the
best leaders that it's gotavailable and making best use of
them.
I think that's a, you know,incredibly important part of a
successful profession, becausethe alternative is people who
don't know each other and can'tpick the phone up and don't have
access to the best practice anddon't use it, in which case
you're doomed.
Intro -Outro (27:05):
Yes, well, we've been talking to Peter Neyroud
and he is at CambridgeUniversity and this has been an
important conversation thatwe've had that has gone from one
place to the other with thebasis being improving policing
through evidence, and Icertainly appreciate you taking
the time, especially during theholidays, peter, and I wish you
(27:28):
luck as you proceed with writingand sharing all of the
knowledge that you have insideyou.
Thank you, it's been a pleasure.
I appreciate it.
So that's another episode ofthe CopDoc podcast in the can.
Thanks for listening, thanksfor all who have listened from
across the globe and again,continue trying to focus on
police leadership and innovation.
(27:49):
Have a great day, stay safe.
Steve Morreale (27:53):
Thanks for listening to the CopDoc podcast
with Dr Steve Morreale.
Steve is a retired lawenforcement practitioner and
manager, turned academic andscholar from Western State
University.
Please tune into the Cop Docpodcast for regular episodes of
interviews with thought leadersin policing.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com