Organisational culture and accountability: Lessons from NZ Police
Organisational culture isn't shaped by our stated values. It's shaped by the decisions we make when it's hard to do the right thing. The recent IPCA findings offer a stark reminder: loyalty becomes dangerous when it prevents us from seeing risk. Formal integrity systems only work if culture allows them to be activated. The question: How do we design organisations that make it easier to challenge power, even when that feels uncomfortable? In public institutions especially, protecting reputation should never override procedural fairness. When it does, we don't just fail individuals, we erode public trust.
The recent findings of the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) regarding the conduct of senior leaders in New Zealand Police during the handling of allegations against former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming provide a stark case study in organisational culture and leadership failure. While the public narrative has focused heavily on the actions of one senior individual, the more profound issue lies in the systems, norms, and decision-making structures that enabled the misconduct to continue unchallenged. The case illustrates how organisational culture, power structures, and flawed decision-making processes can converge in ways that degrade integrity and undermine public trust, especially within public institutions that operate under a higher standard of accountability.
The IPCA report concluded that several senior leaders showed “significant failings” in their response to allegations involving McSkimming, including inappropriate interpersonal conduct, misuse of Police systems, and behaviour that individuals inside the organisation sought to escalate. The report’s findings reveal not simply an error in judgment, but deeper patterns of deference, loyalty, and unquestioned authority. What emerges is a portrait of an organisation in which structural power dynamics outweighed procedural fairness, and where culture muted the very mechanisms designed to safeguard integrity. In a public agency with statutory powers, such an imbalance is not just problematic, it is dangerous.
Understanding power and Influence
Understanding how such failures occur requires a theoretical lens that can explain why individuals and organisations act as they do under conditions of hierarchy, authority, and institutional loyalty. French and Raven’s (1959) framework on the bases of power is a useful starting point. McSkimming, as a Deputy Commissioner, possessed substantial legitimate power by virtue of rank. His leadership of major transformation and digital portfolios also gave him considerable expert power. Beneath these formal elements were deeper relational dynamics connected to referent power: long-standing trust, personal alliances, and professional reputation. These forms of power create strong gravitational pull within hierarchical organisations, where challenging a senior figure can feel culturally illegitimate even when behaviour is questionable.
Resource Dependence Theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) also illuminates the organisational response. McSkimming controlled key programmes and was closely associated with the organisation’s digital transformation agenda. When critical organisational resources become concentrated in a small number of individuals, oversight becomes harder. The organisation’s dependency on the leader increases the likelihood of overlooking warning signs. What should have been routine procedural escalations become clouded by concerns about continuity, stability, and perceived indispensability.
Similarly, Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that leaders and staff operate within complex networks of reciprocal obligation. When individuals have invested in someone’s career, or benefitted from their mentorship, they may be less willing to see or act on risks associated with that individual. Loyalty, which is often prized in hierarchical institutions, can become a form of bias that impedes independent judgment. This dynamic was evident in the IPCA’s description of “unquestioning acceptance” of McSkimming’s explanations by senior figures.
Role of hierarchy and power dynamics
These elements of power sit within a broader cultural context. Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) explains how institutions with strong hierarchical structures tend to create and sustain “legitimising myths” - shared beliefs that justify and normalise the existing social order. In the New Zealand Police, rank carries deep symbolic weight, shaping how individuals interpret behaviour, risk, and responsibility. When senior leaders hold near-automatic credibility, formal integrity systems become harder to activate, even for those who are professionally obligated to do so.
Moreover, psychological research on power suggests that those in high-power positions can become more risk-tolerant, less attuned to social feedback, and more susceptible to overconfidence (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). These traits may partly explain why senior leaders underestimated the seriousness of the allegations, or believed they could manage the issue quietly. In this sense, power not only shields individuals from scrutiny, but may also distort their own perception of risk and accountability.
Decision-making failures and organisational pathologies
Decision-making failures in the McSkimming case are also consistent with well-known organisational decision theories. The Vroom-Yetton model suggests that decisions requiring impartiality, procedural fairness, or high ethical stakes should involve consultation across functions. Yet the IPCA found that critical decisions were made by a very small group of senior leaders, sometimes bypassing conventional processes. This centralisation of decision-making limited the diversity of perspectives that may have counterbalanced personal loyalties or cognitive biases.
The OODA loop model (Boyd) provides another useful lens. The “Orientation” phase where individuals interpret information based on experience, biases, cultural norms, and loyalties appears to have been deeply compromised. Senior leaders did receive concerning information, but their interpretation of its meaning and urgency was shaped by pre-existing trust in the senior officer, the desire to avoid reputational damage, and the instinct to manage issues internally. These distortions affected subsequent steps in the loop, leading to flawed decisions and inadequate action.
Perhaps the most striking theoretical match, however, is the Garbage-Can Model (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972), which posits that decisions in complex institutions often arise from the confluence of people, problems, and organisational arrangements, rather than from rational analysis. In the Police’s senior executive tier, the “choice opportunity” for addressing the allegations appears to have been shaped not by risk or ethics, but by who happened to be involved, their relationships, and their personal assessments. Voices advocating proper escalation were simply not in the room, or not listened to when they were.
Public sector accountability and values
These leadership and cultural patterns are particularly concerning in the public sector, where expectations are higher and consequences more significant. Public institutions hold coercive powers granted by the state. Their legitimacy relies on public confidence and transparency, not merely on internal notions of honour or loyalty. The McSkimming case illustrates how quickly public trust can erode when accountability processes are compromised. The subsequent government move to establish a statutory Inspector-General of Police demonstrates recognition that external oversight is essential in guarding against cultural drift and protecting the public interest.
Public sector governance demands not only compliance with rules but a commitment to fairness, transparency, and procedural integrity. When cultural norms favour deference over scrutiny, or when leaders prioritise internal harmony over accountability, those norms directly undermine democratic values. The higher bar exists because the stakes are higher: public sector organisations must maintain legitimacy, ensure impartiality, and protect individuals from the misuse of power. The McSkimming case illustrates what happens when that bar is not met.
Lessons for organisational design and leadership Development
The lessons are not limited to policing. Any organisation, especially those with strong hierarchies, must deliberately design structures that distribute power, enable challenge, and guard against cognitive and cultural blind spots. Leadership development must incorporate an understanding of how power distorts judgment. Decision-making frameworks must be transparent and inclusive, ensuring that ethical considerations cannot be overridden by personal loyalty or institutional self-protection. And, critically, organisational cultures must be built on structures that enable dissent, protect whistleblowers, and reward courageous honesty.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the case highlights that leadership is not merely about authority; it is about stewardship of organisational integrity. Culture does not emerge from statements of values but from repeated decisions made under pressure. When those decisions are shaped by deference, loyalty, or the instinct to contain reputational risk, organisations drift from their purpose. In public institutions, such drift has profound consequences for individuals, communities, and public trust.
The McSkimming case is, therefore, not simply a failure of individual conduct or leadership judgment. It is a reminder that power, culture, and organisational design must be constantly examined and recalibrated. Without deliberate cultural governance, even well-intentioned organisations can find themselves protecting their leaders rather than their principles. For public institutions with a mandate to uphold justice and public trust, there can be no greater imperative than building systems and cultures that prevent such failures from taking root.