In the wake of the #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo movements, police conduct has been increasingly scrutinized by the public, especially the use of excessive force, fatal shootings of unarmed civilians, and sexual harassment scandals within policing organizations. Through a review of the policing literature and data collected in a Canadian policing organization, we highlight how masculinity contest culture is related to police misconduct. All four masculinity contest culture dimensions can be observed in policing including: (1) “show no weakness,” (2) “strength and stamina,” (3) “put work first,” and (4) “dog‐eat‐dog.” Masculinity contest cultures lead to negative outcomes for both individual officers (e.g., harassment, discrimination, stress), policing organizations (e.g., lawsuits, turnover), and communities (e.g., officers’ use of excessive force). Training interventions are often suggested to prevent or remedy the negative effects of masculinity contest cultures in policing organizations. However, a review of the training literature suggests that training interventions are unlikely to be effective in contexts where organizational norms are at odds with the training content. Our analysis of police data, along with the literature review, conclude with a paradox—the very organizations that need training interventions the most (e.g., policing organizations that often promote and tolerate sexual harassment) are the least likely to benefit from those interventions. To address this paradox, we invoke the theory of social interactionism and reconceptualize training as an organizational sensegiving mechanism. This theoretical foundation offers new directions for future research on training in masculinity contest cultures and insights for practicing police administrators and public policy officials.

No abstract

of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The growing diversification of the workforce demands that organizational leaders create workplaces in which individuals have a sense of belonging and are valued for their unique contributions. However, beyond the contributions of certain types of leadership, there is insufficient understanding of the factors that impact experiences of workplace inclusion. Using survey data collected from a Canadian police organization ( N = 488) in the spring of 2018, this study examined whether organizational justice (i.e., fair treatment) was positively associated with workplace inclusion, and whether psychological safety mediated the justice–inclusion relationship. The results of structural equation modelling (SEM) revealed that organizational justice was significantly related to inclusion. Organizational justice was also found to indirectly influence perceptions of inclusion, through psychological safety. In other words, when people were treated fairly, they were more likely to indicate their workplace was psychologically safe, which in turn contributed to feelings of inclusion. Finally, the study findings indicated that personal characteristics, including gender, race and occupational role influenced individual experiences of inclusion.

No abstract