Managing a police department is a tough job, and the legitimacy crisis currently facing American policing has made it even tougher. Today’s police managers — from chiefs and sheriffs to sergeants and watch commanders — risk losing officer morale and productivity in the form of de-policing (withdrawing from their duties), and are beginning to witness recruitment and retention problems.

For example, our own research reveals that after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, some officers have become less motivated, believe policing is more dangerous, and think citizens’ views of the police have deteriorated — phenomena often collectively referred to as the “Ferguson Effect.” These problems largely stem from the very real fear of becoming the next viral video or being fatally ambushed.

But by ensuring organizational justice during management activities, police executives can go a long way toward effectively supervising their agencies through strained times. Organizational justice can be thought of as a leadership philosophy that focuses on three key issues:

Managers must ensure procedural fairness when dealing with employees. Decisions must not unfairly favor one employee over another; the reasons for decisions should be clearly explained to relevant parties; and employees should be given a reasonable voice in the decision-making process.

Managers must ensure distributive fairness. Organizational outcomes such as promotions, salary increases, and terminations must be fairly distributed throughout the organization. Positive outcomes should not only fall on those with friends in high places. Likewise, negative outcomes should not manifest only among certain groups of people.

Lastly, managers must strive for interactional fairness. Employees should be treated with respect and dignity. Supervisors should maintain an honest and open relationship with their subordinates.

In police departments, research shows that organizational justice is associated with numerous beneficial work-related outcomes. For example, our own research shows that officers who believe their supervisors treat them fairly are significantly less likely to report such negative experiences. In other words, organizational justice protects them from the Ferguson Effect.

Another study, published by the American Psychological Association, showed that organizational justice helps neutralize de-policing behavior and foster community engagement. Officers who thought their supervisors were fair, impartial, and respectful did not experience reduced motivation from recent negative publicity and were more likely to express willingness to engage in community partnerships. Organizational justice in an agency also appears to nurture greater self-legitimacy — confidence in one’s authority as a police officer. This is a desirable trait because it increases officers’ willingness to treat the public fairly and reduces their dependence on force to gain citizen compliance.

A host of other studies have produced similar conclusions. Organizational justice produces greater compliance with procedures and supervisor orders, less misconduct, more-favorable attitudes toward the public, greater trust in supervisors, and a greater commitment to the use of procedural justice during citizen interactions. In order to solidify trust among the community, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended first paying attention to fairness within an agency.

Together, this body of research suggests that, just as the public wants fairness and transparency from their police, so do officers working within police organizations. It is all too easy to lose sight of important managerial strategies in pressure-packed times such as these. Managers who force themselves to think about these matters, however, become better bosses. Below, we outline some general recommendations for how organizational justice can be used to help effectively combat some of the challenges facing police supervisors today.

Give your officers a voice. Regularly discuss today’s problems with your officers. Allow them the opportunity to voice concerns about excessive use of force, public antagonism, viral videos, and the apparent increase in violence. Engaging in such dialogue will communicate to your officers that you honestly care about the problems they face. You may not always have the ability to act on employee concerns, but you have the power to listen in a real way. Doing so will demonstrate to your officers that you are a respectful and fair leader.

Establish, or revise, policies with an eye toward organizational justice. Clear job descriptions, well-thought-out promotion requirements, and carefully planned procedures will encourage your officers to view the department as fair. For example, it may be helpful to formulate policies that address how your agency will handle specific types of allegations of officer wrongdoing, such as those that stem from cellphone videos or body-worn-camera footage. Many policies are general enough to encompass such situations. However, policies that deal explicitly with an issue will establish clear expectations for your officers and a transparent process if a complaint occurs. Clearly explain the purpose of such policies and investigative procedures. Allow your officers to participate in the formation or revision of such policies. Such transparency will build trust and ensure officers view policy-related decisions as fair.

Provide opportunities for training. Teach tactics for de-escalating tense situations that may involve being recorded by bystanders. Being recorded is an awkward feeling and sometimes can make an incident more heated. Training on how to maintain composure and calm bystanders down can drastically change the dynamics of a situation before it becomes more serious. For example, research shows that simply telling someone to “calm down” can be counter-productive. Training should provide feedback, discussion of departmental policies, and opportunities to make mistakes and learn from them. Such actions will be consistent with what employees seek from their supervisors — a voice, fairness, and transparency.

Strive for investigative organizational justice. If one of your officers is accused of wrongdoing (regardless of whether there is video footage of the incident), organizational justice should be at the forefront of your mind. The consequences of injustice are far too great to ignore management tactics. Officer trust takes time and effort to establish, but it can be lost in seconds. Investigative organizational justice can be achieved in a few ways:

Act quickly but fairly. About a year ago, a school resource officer from the Richland County Sheriff’s Department, in South Carolina, was shown tossing a high school student across a classroom in a video that went viral. Sheriff Leon Lott promptly addressed the situation in press conferences and moved for an immediate investigation. He encouraged the public to bring such videos to his attention: “We welcome people to video us when we do our job. Most of the time it shows that we are doing our job in the correct manner, and when it shows that we don’t do it in the correct manner, then we will address it.” Such actions provide transparency to the public, and from a managerial standpoint communicate to employees that you have their back unless they do something wrong.

Be transparent with the involved officer(s) and provide as much information as possible to other employees as you go through the investigation. This may be difficult, but it is imperative to making sure the process does not look like a closed-door, politically motivated trial by ordeal. The goal here is to ensure the process is fair and to send the message to your officers and the public that decisions are driven by facts and policy.

Maintain a culture of dignity and respect in your agency regarding the investigation of citizen complaints. Debrief your officers after such incidents by clearly describing why you handled the situation in the manner you did. These actions will send the message to your employees that they will be treated fairly and with transparency if accused of improper conduct.

Finally, do everything possible to handle citizen complaint investigations in a similar manner, regardless of whether it is a high-profile viral video. This will help your employees view whatever outcome stems from the investigation as distributed fairly. Treating viral video–related investigations as “special” compared to other equally serious situations may send the message to your officers that factors beyond departmental policy are guiding the decision-making process. Of course, political pressure may make this difficult.

Make certain discipline is fair. When an officer must be disciplined, organizational justice is paramount. Fair discipline will be more likely to have its intended benefit of discouraging problematic behavior. By contrast, arbitrary discipline will not effectively deter misconduct. Policies should clearly articulate prohibited behavior and outline investigative procedures and potential discipline. Officers should be made fully aware of such policies. A discipline matrix is one way to improve fairness, by reducing arbitrary discipline and creating clear expectations.

Fragmented police-community relations and excessive use of force are problems needing reform in some jurisdictions around the country. Institutionalizing organizational justice is a necessary step in this reform effort. Doing so is a leadership decision — the posture of agency fairness begins with the chief leading by example. This will lead other supervisors to be fair in their management practices and ultimately improve officer morale, commitment to agency goals, rule adherence, and job satisfaction throughout the agency. It will also help protect officers from critiques that often target good cops and bad cops alike.

Adopting such an approach won’t solve every problem facing police departments today. But it is one of the most important — and cost-effective — ways for managers to get the best out of their officers and, by extension, improve community relations and trust.

The authors would like to thank Tad Hughes, Stacy Wolfe, Kyle McLean, and Ben Fisher for their early feedback on this article.