Yes, but I’d want to know why the department didn’t want me in the first place. There’s a difference between officers who don’t like the person appointed as chief and officers who have legitimate reasons to question whether that person should be leading them.

The Mayor can appoint me, give me the authority to run the department, and hold me responsible for what happens there. The appointment doesn’t mean the officers suddenly trust my judgment, and I wouldn’t expect them to. Some may have supported another candidate. Others may have concerns about my background, the selection process, or decisions I’ve made elsewhere. I’d want to understand those concerns before deciding how to approach the department.

I’d also consider whether the resistance had anything to do with the changes officers expected me to make. If people are unhappy because I’m going to enforce policies, require supervisors to supervise, or hold employees accountable for work they’ve been allowed to neglect, I can live with that. But I wouldn’t assume every officer who opposed my appointment was afraid of accountability. That’s a convenient conclusion for a chief who doesn’t want to consider the possibility that the criticism is justified.

Listening doesn’t mean surrendering authority

I’d spend time talking with the officers, particularly the ones who weren’t enthusiastic about my appointment. I’d want to hear what they thought was wrong with the department, what they expected me to change, and why they had concerns about my leadership. I wouldn’t promise to agree with them, and I wouldn’t let those conversations become negotiations over whether I intended to do the job.

There may be problems that need immediate attention. If supervisors aren’t doing their jobs, policies aren’t being followed, or certain employees have been allowed to operate under different standards, I wouldn’t leave those problems alone simply because correcting them might make me less popular.

But I’d be careful about changing things just to establish who’s in control. Walking into a department and immediately overturning everything the previous chief did might send a message, but it doesn’t necessarily improve anything. Some existing practices may work perfectly well. I’d rather understand what I’m dealing with before making changes I can’t justify.

When changes are necessary, I’d explain why. Officers don’t have to agree with every decision, but they should understand what I’m trying to accomplish and what I expect from them. If I can’t explain the reason for a decision beyond the fact that I’m the chief, I probably need to give that decision some more thought.

The first decisions would tell them plenty

I’d expect the department to pay close attention to how I handled promotions, assignments, discipline, and complaints. The first few decisions would carry more weight because officers would be looking for confirmation of whatever they already believed about me.

If I disciplined an officer who opposed my appointment, I’d expect people to question whether the decision was personal. I could explain the circumstances, follow the proper process, and document the reasons, but some officers might still have doubts. The best answer would be to make sure I applied the same standard when somebody who supported me was involved.

That doesn’t mean everybody receives the same punishment regardless of the circumstances. It means the same considerations apply, and I can explain the differences without changing my reasoning based on who the employee is.

If accountability only reaches the people who didn’t want me there, I shouldn’t be surprised when officers question whether the whole thing was personal. And if I make a promotion based on loyalty instead of qualifications, I’ve given the department another reason to question my judgment.

I’d also have to accept that some of my decisions might be wrong. If several employees independently raised the same concern, I’d want to understand it. If a policy change produced problems I hadn’t anticipated, I’d reconsider it. And if I discovered I’d treated somebody unfairly, I’d correct it.

Being chief doesn’t mean I have to defend every decision I’ve ever made. I’d be more concerned about a chief who knowingly continues a bad practice because he thinks changing his mind would make him appear weak. To me, a chief who refuses to change course even when he knows he’s wrong is a weak leader. He’s more concerned with protecting his ego than running the department.

The department has responsibilities too

I wouldn’t expect officers to pretend they supported my appointment if they didn’t. They’re entitled to their opinions, and I’d rather hear legitimate disagreements than have everybody tell me what they think I want to hear.

But once the appointment is made, we still have a department to operate. Calls have to be answered, reports have to be completed, supervisors have to supervise, and officers have to carry out their responsibilities. Personal disappointment over the hiring decision doesn’t excuse an employee from doing the job.

I’d also expect officers to give me a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate how I intend to lead. If I’m applying standards consistently, making sound decisions, listening to concerns, and correcting mistakes, then continuing to oppose me simply because I wasn’t their preferred candidate becomes harder to justify.

On the other hand, if months have passed and the department still doesn’t trust me, I’d need to examine what’s happened during those months. Maybe some employees never intended to give me a fair chance. Maybe I’ve made decisions that confirmed their concerns. I wouldn’t automatically know which explanation was right, and I’d be making a mistake if I only considered the one that made me look better.

I don’t need every officer to like me, and I wouldn’t make popularity the standard for whether I was doing a good job. I would want officers to believe they could bring me a problem, disagree with a decision professionally, and expect fair treatment regardless of whether they supported my appointment.

If I can establish that kind of working relationship, I can lead a department that didn’t originally want me. If I can’t, having the authority to give orders won’t fix the underlying problem.