Inheriting a fractured response team
You have just taken command of a 16-officer response team in a busy borough. The team is running at 60% abstract capacity: four officers are on restricted duties after injuries, two are abstractions to a court liaison unit, and the only substantive sergeant has been on long-term sick leave for seven weeks. Sickness absence is 11%, against a force average of 6%, and overtime is 140 hours over budget for the quarter. Two constables have lodged informal grievances against each other: one alleges a derogatory comment about her religion; the other says she is undermining a probationer. The probationer's development file has had no recorded patrol buddy shifts for three months and he is still not independent. The canteen view is 'don't bother the skipper unless it's urgent'. The next set of rest days starts in ten days. You have one acting sergeant available for four weeks and a chief inspector who wants a plan by Friday.
1. You have 48 hours before your first formal meeting with the chief inspector. Set out your first three priorities, in order, and explain the reasoning behind that order.
Read the worked answer
Protect the probationer and establish immediate supervision. He is not independent, has had no recorded buddy shifts for three months and is working in a team in conflict. That is a live competence and welfare risk. I would meet him within 24 hours, ask open questions about what he can and cannot do, check his last assessments, and assign the acting sergeant as temporary supervisor with a written plan. I would not wait for the grievance process; safety comes first.
Stabilise the grievance. I would speak separately to both constables, listen without promising outcomes, and record what is said. The allegation about religion may engage harassment and hate-incident recording, so I would take advice from professional standards or HR rather than treat it as a personality clash. Interim working arrangements should reduce contact, not punish either party.
Get a grip on abstractions and overtime. I would audit every abstraction, challenge anything not essential with the chief inspector, and produce a daily abstraction and skills picture. Overtime cannot be cut blindly; I need to know which shifts are below safe minimum. Ordering the priorities this way reflects likelihood and severity of harm: a poorly supervised probationer and an unresolved harassment allegation can escalate quickly, while overtime is a slower financial and resilience risk.
2. The two constables refuse mediation and say they want 'it dealt with formally'. How do you handle that, and what do you do about the probationer's development?
Read the worked answer
If they want formal action, I should not force informal resolution. I would explain the options, record their preference and refer the matter through the appropriate grievance or misconduct route depending on what the allegations amount to. I would not investigate it myself if I am also the line manager and a potential witness. I would ask HR or professional standards for an independent decision-maker.
For the probationer, I would separate his development from the dispute: assign the acting sergeant, set two-weekly documented patrol buddy shifts, agree specific competencies and review dates, and check whether his treatment by either constable amounts to bullying. If it does, that is a separate welfare and conduct issue. I would tell the team what I can: that I have taken action, that I will not discuss individuals, and that I expect professional behaviour. The reasoning is that formal process protects fairness and reduces the risk of a counter-allegation, while a written development plan gives the probationer the structure the file shows he has lacked.
3. Design a 30-day plan to reduce overtime and restore resilience without hiding risk.
Read the worked answer
First, measure: overtime by reason, abstraction by day, demand by hour, and minimum safe crewing for each shift. I would publish a simple weekly dashboard so decisions are evidence-based. Second, protect the frontline: challenge abstractions that are not statutory, negotiate court liaison attendance by video where allowed, and use the acting sergeant to cover only where skills match. Third, change overtime authorisation: no pre-approved overtime without a named abstraction or a documented demand spike; rest-day working only with my authority and a welfare check. Fourth, build resilience: ask the chief inspector for a temporary mutual-aid or task-force commitment, review rest-day patterns, and target the 11% sickness with welfare conversations and referrals, not threats. Fifth, communicate the plan and the risk register. If a shift falls below safe crewing, I will record the risk rather than cover it silently with overtime. The reasoning is that overtime is a symptom of abstraction and demand mismatch; cutting it without fixing those creates hidden risk.