Police Leadership 1 Running Head: The Art of Police Leadership The Art of Police Leadership Rodger D. Carpenter University of Central Florida Police Leadership 2 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to show that leadership and management continue to evolve. New theories and practices emerge as change permeates cultures, affecting all aspects of life. Future leaders will not resemble those of the past. Instead, leaders will be male or female and come from a wide range of ethnicities. Uniquely, like an artist, future leaders will need to have a keen awareness of their strengths, weaknesses, and when and where they do their best work. These leaders will need to spend time thinking about who they are, what they want to create, and what style they will use to express themselves in accomplishing the mission. By all means, these new leaders will find themselves in a time of rapid change and agencies must ensure that they identify and nurture those that are leading and those that will lead. Tomorrows law enforcement leaders and agencies must understand the value of diversity, in that each individual brings his or her unique experience, skills and commitment to the organization and its mission. Future law enforcement leaders must be able to successfully use a variety of leadership styles depending on the task, mission, and individual if they are going to be successful in this rapidly changing world (“Situational Leadership,” 2010). This paper will first examine the difference between a leader and a manager; comparing and contrasting the two. Second, this paper will examine how leader focus has changed over time, as captured in the progression of leadership theory. Finally, this paper will identify the major theories involved, but focus on the art of the transformational and contingency leadership theories and how they are applied in law enforcement. Police Leadership 3 The Art of Police Leadership Leadership, and the study of this phenomenon, has roots in the beginning of civilization. Our vocation, work environment, worker motivations, leaders, managers, leadership style, and a myriad of other work-related variables have been studied for almost two centuries. Over time, organizations have evolved from those with an authoritarian style to ones with a more comfortable work environment, and then to organizations where people are empowered, encouraged, and supported in their personal and professional growth (Stone & Patterson, 2005). As emphasized by General John Wickham Jr., “Leaders are made by the day–to–day practice and fine tuning of leadership talents, because leading is an art as well, is science and best developed by application. Leaders are made by the steady acquisition of professional knowledge and by the development of 24–karat character during the course of a career” (1984). This paper will first examine the difference between a leader and a manager; comparing and contrasting the two. Second, this paper will examine how leader focus has changed over time, as captured in the progression of leadership theory. Finally, this paper will identify the major theories involved, but focus on the art of the transformational and contingency leadership theories and how they are applied in law enforcement. Description of a Leader In order to understand what a leader is, a clear definition needs to be identified. Findings indicate that the definition of a leader needs to include the definition of leadership to be fully appreciated; therefore a leader can be defined as: A person or thing that holds a dominant or superior position within its field, and is able to exercise a high degree of control or influence over others (Leader. BusinessDicitionary.com, 2010). Police Leadership 4 Equally important, leadership can be defined as: In its essence, leadership in an organizational role involves establishing a clear vision, sharing (communicating) that vision with others so that they will follow willingly, providing the information, knowledge, and methods to realize that vision, and coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members or stakeholders. A leader comes to the forefront in case of crisis, and is able to think and act in creative ways in difficult situations (Leadership. BusinessDicitionary.com, 2010). Description of a Manager Likewise, findings indicate that the definition of a manager needs to include the definition of management to be fully acknowledged. Therefore, a manager can be defined as: An individual who is in charge of a certain group of tasks, or a certain subset of a company. A manager often has a staff of people who report to him or her (Manager. BusinessDictionary.com, 2010). Furthermore, management can be defined as: Organization and coordination of the activities of an enterprise in accordance with certain policies and in achievement of clearly defined objectives. Management is often included as a factor of production along with machines, materials, and money. (Management. BuisinessDictionary.com, 2010). Leaders and Managers (Compared & Contrasted) Although, the term leader and manager are occasionally thought of as interchangeable, the findings suggest otherwise. According to Jackie Nees (2009), managers are doers, leaders are thinkers. This is not to say that leaders are not doers. They work very hard to reach their position of power, but leaders tend to be more charismatic big thinkers. Leaders normally hire Police Leadership 5 managers to carry out the tasks of their vision. It‟s a manager‟s responsibility to make sure that all of the details of a specific vision, idea or concept are handled whether they do the work themselves or delegate some of it to their subordinates. Another key element that separates leaders from managers is that managers not only have subordinates, they are subordinates. Every manager has one or more people who have authority over them. Mangers may be in charge of a department, project or division of a company but they do not control the company as a whole the way leaders do (Nees, 2009). Uniquely, managers give direction, leaders create direction. Part of a manager‟s job is to delegate tasks and responsibilities to the employees they manage. A leader‟s responsibility, however, is to create that direction; through policies, company expansion or new markets (Nees, 2009). Equally, both managers and leaders make decisions. Managers are usually limited to the type or amount of decisions they can make before approval from a superior is required. Even then, those decisions usually only affect the immediate people or department the manager is responsible for. Leaders on the other hand, have the ability to make decisions large and small that may affect the entire organization without the approval from anyone (Nees, 2009). Because of career advancement, managers are in their positions for a short amount of time. This is because they are working their way up the corporate ladder and may be promoted. Another reason is because they see greener pastures somewhere else and transfer their skills and knowledge elsewhere. Leaders, on the other hand, are usually in it for the long haul. Whether they worked their way up from the bottom or started the company from the ground up, leaders generally have a vested amount of time and effort in a company. Most leaders do not want to throw away all of the blood, sweat and tears they put into an organization to start over somewhere else. Many leaders, however, enter other ventures simultaneously simply for the Police Leadership 6 thrill of running a company or to expand on their success. They may start brand new companies or small affiliate companies to the one they already have (Nees, 2009). All things considered, can one function without the other? The author indicates that there are some leaders who try to lead and manage at the same time but usually not successfully. By trying to do everything, something is going to suffer. Do you need management skills to be a leader? To a certain degree, the author feels that one does. To be a good leader you need to be able to manage ideas and be organized enough to put the people in place that will help you be successful. Do you need leadership skills to be a manager? The author believes, the answer is no. There are many managers in the corporate world who have no leadership ability. Many pass on their work to their employees and cower when problems arise. Many employees go over their heads to get answers because they make themselves unavailable or impossible to communicate with. These managers will probably not go on to be company leaders. On the other hand, there are some managers that their employees aspire to be and their bosses would trust their lives with. These managers rise to the challenge and go above and beyond the call of duty, making them incredibly valuable to any company. It takes a certain type of person to be a great leader or a great manager. When each is outstanding in their respective role and working as a unified front, the outcome is sure to be a company that is thriving, strong and unstoppable (Nees, 2009). Leadership Theory Overview Leadership is a timeless subject; it has been described, discussed, dissected and analyzed by management experts for centuries. (Fitton, 1997; Stone & Patterson, 2005). Leadership, and the study of it, has roots in the beginning of civilization. Egyptian rulers, Greek heroes, and biblical patriarchs all have one thing in common – leadership. There are numerous definitions and theories of leadership. However, according to Wren, “There are enough similarities in the Police Leadership 7 definitions to conclude that leadership is an effort of influence and the power to induce compliance” (Stone et al., 2005). The organizational focus of the leader has evolved over time. Early organizations with authoritarian leaders who believed employees were intrinsically lazy transitioned into a way to make work environments more conducive to increased productivity rates. Today, organizations are transforming into places where people are empowered, encouraged, and supported in their personal and professional growth through their careers. As the focus of leaders changed over time, it has influenced and shaped the development and progression of leadership theory (Stone et al., 2005). Early Leader Studies The Industrial Revolution shifted America‟s economy from an agriculture base to an industrial one and, thereby, ushered in a change in how leaders would treat their followers. The Industrial Revolution created a paradigm shift to a new theory of leadership in which “common” people gained power by virtue of their skills (Clawson, 1999; Stone et al., 2005). New technology, however, was accompanied and reinforced by mechanization of human thought and action, thus creating hierarchical bureaucracies (Morgan, 1997; Stone et al.). One major contributor to this era of management and leadership theory was Max Weber, a German sociologist who “observed the parallels between the mechanization of industry and the proliferation of bureaucratic forms of organization” (Morgan, 1997, p. 17; Stone et al., 2005). He noted that the bureaucratic form standardized the process of administration in the same manner that the machine standardized production (Stone et al.). Classical Management Theory and Scientific Management Weber‟s concerns about bureaucracy, however, did not affect theorists who set the stage Police Leadership 8 for what is now known as classical management theory and scientific management (Stone et al., 2005). Classical theorists focused on the design of the total organization while scientific managers focused on the systematic management of individual jobs (Stone et al.). In contrast to Weber, classical theorists such as Henri Fayol and F. W. Mooney, staunch advocates of bureaucratization, devoted their energies to identifying methods through which this kind of organizational structure could be achieved (Bass, 1990; Morgan, 1997; Stone et al.). Collectively, these theorists set the basis for many modern management techniques, such as management by objectives (Stone et al.). Scientific management, an approach heralded by Frederick Taylor, was technological in nature (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996; Stone et al., 2005). Taylor fused the perspective of an engineer into management with a strong emphasis on control, ruthless efficiency, quantification, predictability, and de-skilled jobs (Stone et al.). He initiated time-and-motion studies to analyze work tasks to improve worker productivity in an attempt to achieve the highest level of efficiency possible (Stone et al.). Consequently, he has been accused of viewing people as instruments or machines to be manipulated by their leaders (Stone et al.). The function of the leader under scientific management theory was to establish and enforce performance criteria to meet organizational goals; therefore, the focus of a leader was on the needs of the organization and not on the individual worker (Stone et al.). Although the classical and scientific approaches were different, the goals were similar– organizations are rational systems and must operate in the most efficient manner possible to achieve the highest level of productivity (Morgan, 1997; Stone et al., 2005). Both theories relied on the machine metaphor with a heavy emphasis on mechanization of jobs, which undermined the human aspect of the organization and failed to recognize organizations as complex organisms Police Leadership 9 (Stone et al.). Although mechanistic organizations proved productive, there were limits to hierarchical bureaucracy (Stone et al., 2005). Emerging theorists encouraged leaders to recognize that humans were not machines and could not be treated as such (Stone et al.). A post bureaucratic shift in the mid-1940s moved toward everyone taking responsibility for the organization's success or failure (Heckscher & Donnellon, 1994; Stone et al.). Researchers began to examine the relationship between leader behavior and follower satisfaction level and organizational productivity and profitability (Stone et al.). Environment and Worker Needs Much organizational research during this era focused on overcoming the perceived shortcomings of the classical and scientific schools of management (Stone et al., 2005). Elton Mayo‟s Hawthorne Studies focused on the work situation and its effect on leaders and followers. This classic study indicated that the reactions of human beings influence their work activities as much as the formal design and structure of the organization (Stone et al.). Early on, leaders could focus their attention on the environmental factors of their organizations. The early theories and studies provided researchers with tangible and measurable performance outcomes that were directly transferable to profitability and spreadsheet bottom-lines (Stone et al.). A new theory of organizations and leadership began to emerge based on the idea that individuals operate most effectively when their needs are satisfied (Stone et al.). Maslow‟s (1959) Hierarchy of Needs posited that once a worker‟s physiological, security, and social (intrinsic) needs were met, productivity would only be possible if the employee‟s ego and self-actualizing (extrinsic) needs were also met (Stone et al.). Leader focus became redirected toward worker needs (Stone et al.). Herzberg‟s Dual Factor Theory, the evolution of intrinsic and extrinsic needs, furthered Police Leadership 10 Maslow‟s work stating that employees' intrinsic and extrinsic needs could, and should, be met simultaneously (Stone et al., 2005). Herzberg‟s (1966) Motivation-Hygiene Theory furthered the work of Maslow by providing insights into the goals and incentives that tend to satisfy a worker‟s needs (Stone et al.). Herzberg concluded that people have two categories of needs, which he termed hygiene (environmental factors such as working conditions, company policies, etc.) and motivators (factors involving the job itself) (Stone et al.). According to Herzberg, an employee‟s intrinsic and extrinsic needs could and should be addressed simultaneously (Stone et al.). The Shift to Behavioral Factors Leader focus had moved to understanding the relationship between a leader‟s actions and the follower‟s satisfaction and productivity (Stone et al., 2005). Theorists began to consider behavioral concepts in their analysis of organizational leadership (Stone et al.). For example, Chester Barnard was instrumental in including behavioral components within his research (Bass, 1990; Stone et al.). Barnard‟s work emphasized the ways in which executives might develop their organizations into cooperative social systems by focusing on the integration of work efforts through communication of goals and attention to worker motivation (Hatch, 1997; Stone et al.). Barnard, for example, identified an effective organizational leader as one who determined objectives, manipulated means, initiated action, and stimulated coordinated effort (Bass, 1990, p. 31; Stone et al.). Barnard (1938; Stone et al.), whose work focused on the functions of the executive, was instrumental in including behavioral components in his analysis of organizational leadership, which claimed that leadership involves accomplishing goals with and through people. The theorists of this age argued that in addition to finding the best technological methods to improve output, it would behoove management to address human affairs as well (Stone et al., Police Leadership 11 2005). It was claimed that “the real power centers within an organization were the interpersonal relationships that developed among working groups” (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996, p. 100; Stone et al.). A new theory of organizations and leadership began to emerge based on the idea that individuals operate most effectively when their needs are satisfied. Additionally, when this happens they are more likely to increase their productivity which in turn impacts the organization‟s bottom line (Stone et al., 2005). According to McGregor (1960; Stone et al., 2005), the traditional organization with its centralized decision making, hierarchical pyramid, and external control of work is based on certain assumptions about human nature and human motivation. He dubbed these assumptions Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X assumes that most people prefer to be directed, are not interested in assuming responsibility, and want safety above all else. Accompanying the Theory X philosophy is the belief that people are motivated by money, fringe benefits, and the threat of punishment. Managers who espouse Theory X assumptions attempt to structure, control, and closely supervise employees (Stone et al.). Although McGregor himself questioned whether Theory X was an accurate view of human nature, the assumptions persisted for a long time in leadership theory circles because it explained some, though not all, of human behavior within organizations (Pugh & Hickson, 1993; Stone et al.). Drawing heavily from Maslow‟s (1959) Hierarchy of Needs, McGregor ultimately concluded that Theory X assumptions about human nature, when universally applied, are often inaccurate and that management approaches that develop from these assumptions may fail to motivate individuals to strive toward organizational goals (Hersey et al., 1996; Stone et al.). McGregor (1960) believed that management needed practices based on a more accurate Police Leadership 12 understanding of human nature and motivation (Stone et al., 2005). The resulting concept, Theory Y, proposed that individuals are not, by nature, lazy and unreliable (Stone et al.). People can be self-directed and creative at work if properly motivated (Pugh & Hickson, 1993; Stone et al.). Therefore, an essential task of management is to unleash this potential. (See Table 1 for a comparison of Theory X and Theory Y Assumptions) (Stone et al.). Consequently, the goal of effective leadership was evolving and moving away from the earlier concepts of the classical and scientific management theories that treated workers as machines (Stone et al., 2005). Leaders were now challenged to actively involve followers in achieving organizational goals. McGregor (1960), whose work was closely linked to that of the behavioral theorists, is a reflection of that era, providing a foundation for the future emergence of transformational leadership (Stone et al.). McGregor‟s Theory X and Theory Y assumed that employees and leaders had progressed beyond Taylor‟s productivity models and that employees could find ways to satisfy their needs within the organizations structure (Stone et al., 2005). McGregor assumed employees were far more complex than the trait and behavioral theories of leadership assumed and that their complexity and the leaders‟ response to that complexity would affect how and whether the leader and followers worked in tandem to reach mutual organizational goals (Stone et al.). McGregor proposed a replacement of direction and control of employees with humanistic motivation (Stone et al., 2005). The resulting concept, Theory Y, proposed that individuals did not inherently dislike work and, that under certain conditions; work could actually be a source of great satisfaction. Theory Y assumed individuals would exercise self-direction and self-control, accepting and seeking responsibility (Pugh & Hickson, 1993; Stone et al.). The essential concept McGregor and other behaviorists proposed were that organizations are interacting groups and Police Leadership 13 that leaders are a part of those groups (Stone et al.). The leader‟s interaction and relationship with the employee must be a supportive relationship so all members of the organization feel the organization‟s objectives and their achievement, are of personal importance to them (Pugh & Hickson, 1993; Stone et al.). Table 1 Assumptions about Human Nature that Underlie McGregor‟s Theory X and Theory Y THEORY X THEORY Y 1. Work is inherently distasteful to most people. 1. Work is as natural as play, if the conditions are favorable. 2. Most people are not ambitious, have little desire 2. Self-control is often indispensable in achieving for responsibility, and prefer to be directed. organizational goals. 3. Most people have little capacity for creativity in 3. The capacity for creativity in solving solving organizational problems. organizational problems is widely distributed in the population. 4. Motivation occurs only at the physiological and 4. Motivation occurs at the social, esteem, and self- security levels. actualization levels, as well as at the physiological and security levels. 5. Most people must be closely controlled and often 5. People can be self-directed and creative at work coerced to achieve organizational objectives. if properly motivated. Source: (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson 1996; Stone et al., 2005) Situational/Contingency Theory–The Circumstantial Focus Unprecedented social change in the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s shifted societal focus from increasing economic wealth to ensuring social rights and equality. Along with this social change, technology was again preparing to jolt American businesses (Stone et al., 2005). The advent of the computer age was shifting employee requirements from brawn to brains. Leadership became an intricate process of "multilateral brokerage” where leaders were forced to focus on constituencies within and without the organization to survive (Vanourek, 1995; Stone et al.). The internal and external environments of organizations were changing. The transference of power from those doing the work to those possessing knowledge about how to organize work Police Leadership 14 more closely leveled the playing field for leaders and followers. Society acknowledged that traditional methods of leadership were no longer effective (Stone et al., 2005). McCollum (1995) implied that companies in the information age were unsuccessfully trying to conduct their business using obsolete industrial age leadership theories (Stone et al., 2005). Change was the only thing of which everyone could be sure, a factor requiring leadership research and society to consider contingency/situational approaches to leadership if businesses were to remain successful and profitable in an ever-changing and increasingly complicated environment (Contee-Borders, 2003; Stone et al.). Researchers defining the situational/contingency theory of leadership acknowledged that leaders did more than simply “act”–they often had to “react” to specific situations, and thus, the situational/contingency theory of leadership evolved (Stone et al., 2005). Hersey and Blanchard (1996) proposed a contingency/situational theory advocating a leader's use of differing leadership behaviors dependent upon two interrelated maturity factors: (a) job maturity–relevant task and technical knowledge and skills, and (b) psychological maturity–the subordinate‟s level of self-confidence and self-respect (Yukl, 1998; Stone et al., 2005). An employee who has a high level of job and psychological maturity requires little supervision; while an employee who has a low level of job and psychological maturity requires hands-on attention (Stone et al.). Fielder‟s contingency theory is viewed as the opposite of Hersey and Blanchard‟s theory, maintaining that leaders are less flexible in their ability to change their behavior based on followers‟ maturity (the basic concept of Hersey and Blanchard‟s theory) (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993; Stone et al., 2005). Fielder‟s contingency theory posited that leader effectiveness is determined not by the leader‟s ability to adapt to the situation, but by the ability to choose the Police Leadership 15 right leader for the situation (though this theory does not identify who would be responsible for making this choice). Some leaders are simply better for specific situations than others and the situation determines the identified leaders‟ success, though leaders would need to be capable of understanding when they were not right for the situation and remove themselves–a task of humility (Stone et al.). Transactional Leadership-Leader Focus on Performance In the late 1970s, leadership theory research moved beyond focusing on various types of situational supervision as a way to incrementally improve organizational performance (Behling & McFillen, 1996; Hunt, 1991; Stone et al., 2005). Research has shown that many leaders turned to a transactional leadership theory, the most prevalent method of leadership still observed in today‟s organizations (Avolio, Waldman, & Yanimarina, 1991; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Stone et al.). Transactional leaders lead through specific incentives and motivate through an exchange of one thing for another (Bass, 1990; Stone et al.). The underlying theory of this leadership method was that leaders exchange rewards for employees‟ compliance, a concept based on bureaucratic authority and a leader‟s legitimacy within an organization (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Yukl, 1998; Stone et al.). Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino (1991) suggest that transactional leadership focuses on ways to manage the status quo and maintain the day-to-day operations of a business, but does not focus on identifying the organization‟s directional focus and how employees can work toward those goals, increasing their productivity in alignment with these goals, thus increasing organizational profitability (Stone et al.). The idea of transactional leadership is nearsighted in that it does not take the entire situation, employee, or future of the organization into account when offering rewards (Crosby, 1996; Stone et al.). Transactional Leadership theory focuses on the specific interactions between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978; Heifetz, 1994; Stone et al., 2005). According to Stone (2005), these Police Leadership 16 transactions are a method by which an individual gains influence and sustains it over time. The process is based on reciprocity (Stone et al.). Leaders not only influence followers but are under their influence as well. A leader earns influence by adjusting to the expectations of followers. Transactional interactions comprise the bulk of relationships between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978; Stone et al.). The underlying theory of this leadership method was that leaders exchange rewards for employees‟ compliance, a concept based in bureaucratic authority and a leader‟s legitimacy within an organization (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Yukl, 1998; Stone et al., 2005). Examples of this reward exchange included the leader‟s ability to fulfill promises of recognition, pay increases, and advancements for employees who perform well (Bass, 1990; Stone et al.). Transactional leadership is a theory considered to be value-free; however, Heifetz (1994) contends that the values are simply covert (Stone et al.). Transactional leadership focuses on ways to maintain the status quo and manage the day- to-day operations of a business (Stone et al., 2005). It does not focus on identifying the organization‟s goals and how employees can work toward and increase their productivity in alignment with these goals, thus increasing organizational profitability (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991; Stone et al.). Transactional leaders approach followers with a goal of exchanging one thing for another (Burns, 1978; Stone et al., 2005). The concept of transactional leadership is narrow in that it does not take the entire situation, employee, or future of the organization in mind when offering rewards (Crosby, 1996; Stone et al.). Transactional leadership focuses on control, not adaptation (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Stone et al.). The focus of effective leadership began to change (Stone et al., 2005). Leaders were no Police Leadership 17 longer required to measure work and ensure that the most effective person did it in the most efficient manner–which did not always increase the organization‟s productivity and profitability anyway. Leaders now needed active involvement from the followers to achieve the organization‟s goals (Stone et al.). Douglas McGregor, closely linked to the work of the behavioral theorists, provided a basis for a new emerging theory of leadership–transformational leadership (Stone et al.). Transformational Leaders Focus on the Organization The literature suggests that traditional power, derived from a leader‟s position in a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure, is becoming obsolete and that effective leader‟s work from the “inside out” to transform their organization and workers (Burns, 1978; Stone et al., 2005). The job of the transformational leader is not to make every decision within the organization, but to ensure that collaborative decision-making occurs (Badaracco & Ellsworth, 1989; Book, 1998; Dixon, 1998; Wheatley, 1994; Stone et al.). This type of leadership motivates individuals to work together to change organizations to create sustainable productivity (Dixon, 1998; Stone et al.). In contrast to focusing on where the organization is today and only maintaining the status quo (the end result of transactional leadership), transformational leaders look at where the organization should be heading and determine how to handle internal and external change and employee needs to reach that goal (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Tichey & Devanna, 1986; Stone et al., 2005). Transformational leadership is an expansion of transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Stone et al.). In the field of leadership studies, transformational leadership has been the theory of choice for the past several decades (Patterson, 2003; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Rainey & Watson, 1996; Stone et al.). The theory originated Police Leadership 18 with Burns (1978), was expanded by Bass (1985), and has been further refined by Bass and Avolio (1994) (Stone et al.). As conceived by Burns (1978), the transformational leader asks followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society; to consider their long- term needs to develop themselves, as opposed to their immediate needs; and to become more aware of what is really important. Through this interaction, followers are converted into leaders (Stone et al., 2005). Bass and Avolio (1988) conclude that transformational leadership is closer to the ne plus ultra that people have in mind when they describe their ideal leader and is more likely to provide a role model with whom subordinates want to identify (Stone et al.). Burns (1978) touts Mahatma Gandhi as the best modern-day example of a transformational leader because he aroused and elevated the hope and demands of millions of his countrymen whose lives were transformed in the process (Stone et al., 2005). Yukl (1998) reports that transformational leadership focuses on a leader‟s understanding of their affect on how followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader and how followers are motivated to do more than expected (Stone et al.). This type of leader broadens and elevates the interest of his followers by modeling the expected behavior and “stirring” followers to look beyond their own immediate, personal needs to embrace the needs of others (Ackoff, 1999; Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein, 1988; Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989a; Hunt, 1991; Keeley, 1995; Keller, 1995; Miles, 1997, 1998; Sosik, 1997; Yukl, 1998; Stone et al.). Bass and Avolio (Bass, 1985a; Bass & Avolio, 1990) developed Burns‟ (1978) ideas and posited the formal concept of transformational leadership (Stone et al., 2005). Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority, focuses on task completion, and relies on rewards and punishments (Tracey & Hinkin, 1998; Stone et al.). Transformational leadership differs Police Leadership 19 substantially from transactional leadership. It is concerned more about progress and development (Stone et al.). Furthermore, transformational leadership enhances the effects of transactional leadership on followers (Bass, 1985b, 1990a; Stone et al.). With transformational leadership, the leader's focus is directed toward the organization, but leader behavior builds follower commitment toward the organizational objectives through empowering followers to accomplish those objectives (Yukl, 1998; Stone et al., 2005). While transactional leaders focus on exchange relations with followers, transformational leaders inspire followers to higher levels of performance for the sake of the organization (Burns, 1998; Yukl; Stone et al.). The very definition of transformational leadership states the building of commitment to the organizational objectives (Yukl; Stone et al.). The primary focus is on the organization, with follower development and empowerment secondary to accomplishing the organizational objectives (Stone et al.). The result, nonetheless, is enhanced follower performance (Burns; Yukl; Stone et al.). Their work built not only upon the contribution of Burns but also those made by Bennis and Nanus (1985), Tichy and Devanna (1986), and others (Stone et al., 2005). Bass (1990b) specified that transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group (p. 21) (Stone et al.). Bass (1990a) stipulates that this transcending beyond self- interest is for the "group, organization, or society" (p. 53) (Stone et al.). In essence, transformational leadership is a process of building commitment to organizational objectives and then empowering followers to accomplish those objectives (Yukl, 1998; Stone et al.). The result, at least in theory, is enhanced follower performance (Burns, 1998; Yukl, 1998; Stone et al.). Police Leadership 20 Burns (1978) considered leaders to be either transformational or transactional, while others view leadership as a continuum with transactional leadership at one end and transformational leadership at the other (Stone et al., 2005). Bass (1990a) said that transactional leadership occurs when leaders “exchange promises of rewards and benefits to subordinates for the subordinates‟ fulfillment of agreements with the leader” (p. 53) (Stone et al.). Whereas, the transactional leader, according to Daft (2002), recognizes followers‟ needs and then defines the exchange process for meeting those needs; both the leader and the follower benefit from the exchange transaction (Stone et al.). Transformational leaders, however, transform the personal values of followers to support the vision and goals of the organization by fostering an environment where relationships are formed and by establishing a climate of trust where visions are shared (Bass, 1985a; Stone et al., 2005). Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino (1991; Stone et al.) established four primary behaviors that constitute transformational leadership: 1. Idealized influence (or charismatic influence), 2. Inspirational motivation, 3. Intellectual stimulation, and 4. Individualized consideration. Ultimately, transformational leaders can develop a very powerful influence over followers (Stone et al.). For example, several research studies have documented the power of transformational leadership in establishing value congruency and trust (Jung & Avolio, 2000; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Shamir, 1995; Stone et al.). Follower‟s respect and trust transformational leaders, so they conform their values to those of the leaders and yield power to them (Stone et al.). Police Leadership 21 Peters and Waterman (1982) assert that the true role of leadership is to manage the values of an organization; hence, all leadership is value-laden (Stone et al., 2005). For this reason, it is paramount that leaders using the transformational leadership theory understand how their values affect the organization (Grubbs, 1999; Stone et al.). Likewise, Barnard (1968) also understood this concept when he wrote, “the endurance of an organization depends upon the quality of leadership; and that quality derives from the breadth of the morality upon which it rests” (p. 282) (Stone et al.). Through the influence of a leader‟s values, transformational leadership requires the leader to balance multiple constituency needs along with individual and organizational values and beliefs (Carlson & Perrewe, 1995; Stone et al., 2005). The transformational leader articulates the vision in a clear and appealing manner, explains how to attain the vision, acts confidently and optimistically, expresses confidence in his followers, emphasizes values with symbolic actions, leads by example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision (Yukl, 2002; Stone et al.). Table 2 summarizes the four primary or functional areas of transformational leadership and identifies the attributes that, according to the literature, accompany these primary characteristics (Stone et al., 2005). Table 2 Transformational leadership attributes FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES ACCOMPANYING ATTRIBUTES 1) Idealized Influence/Charisma 1) Vision 2) Trust 3) Respect 4)Risk-Sharing 5) Integrity Police Leadership 22 2) Inspirational Motivation 6) Modeling 7)Commitment to Goals 8) Communication 9)Enthusiasm 3) Intellectual Stimulation 10) Rationality 4) Individualized Consideration 11) Problem-Solving 12)Personal Attention 13) Mentoring 14)Listening 15) Empowering Keller (1995) suggests that the transformational leader is able to help the employee achieve esteem and self-actualization needs (Stone et al., 2005). Consequently, the followers of transformational leaders are quicker to adapt to changing internal and external environments. Their ability to quickly adapt to change allows them to function well in an increasingly complex environment (Stone et al.). A leader must be fully committed to the transformation and the commitment must be visible to organizational members and external stakeholders (Stone et al., 2005). Table 3 summarizes some of the strategies and characteristics of transformational leaders proposed by different researchers (Stone et al.). Trust between a leader and his or her followers are a cornerstone of trans-formational leadership (Stone et al., 2005). Covey (1989) writes, “Trust is the highest form of human motivation because it brings out the very best in people” (p.178) (Stone et al.). It creates a moral foundation for extraordinary, values-based transformational leadership, creating effective, sustaining leadership that leads to profitable and successful organizations (Ford, 1991; Stone et al.). Leading from a moral basis allows full organizational transformation to occur as all of the Police Leadership 23 leader‟s skills emerge to positively influence followers (Bottum & Lenz, 1998; Clawson, 1999; Stone et al.). This moral basis starts, and ends, with trust (Stone et al.). Trust relies on the leader‟s character, which makes values-based leadership possible (Maxwell, 1998; Stone et al.). Table 3 Transformational leadership strategies and characteristics Bennis & Nanus (1985) Bass (1985) Kouzes & Posner (1987) Attention through vision Charisma Challenging the process Meaning through Inspiration Inspiring a shared vision communication Trust through positioning Intellectual stimulation Enabling others to act Deployment of self Individualized consideration Modeling the way Encouraging the heart (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996; Stone et al., 2005). The Servant Leader Focus on the Followers Transformational leadership and servant leadership are both high-order evolutions in leadership paradigms (Stone et al., 2005). Both theoretical frameworks emphasize a high concern for people and for production (Stone et al.). Servant leadership, however, involves a higher concern for people because the primary focus of the leader is upon his or her followers (Stone et al.). Block (1993) posits that there is a deep hunger within our society for organizations in which people are treated fairly and humanely and supported in their personal growth and where leaders can be trusted to serve the needs of the “many” rather than the “few” (Stone et al., 2005). Block called for a new model of leadership based on teamwork, community, values, service, and Police Leadership 24 caring behavior (Stone et al.). This approach to leadership based on the concepts of servant hood serendipitously serves organizations the best in the long run (Caldwell, Bischoff, & Karri, 2002; Stone et al.). Servant leadership is a logical extension of transformational leadership (Stone & Patterson 2004; Stone et al., 2005). Servant leaders lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. In contrast to transformational leadership, servant leaders focus first and foremost on their followers. Servant leaders do not have particular affinity for the abstract corporation or organization; rather, they value the people who constitute the organization (Stone et al.). This is not an emotional endeavor but rather an unconditional concern for the well-being of those who form the entity. This relational context is where the servant leader actually leads (Stone et al., 2005). Harvey (2001) states that "chasing profits is peripheral; the real point of business is to serve as one of the institutions through which society develops and exercises the capacity for constructive action" (pp. 38-39) (Stone et al.). The servant leader does not serve with a focus on results but rather on service (Stone et al.). Lubin (2001) believes that the servant leader‟s first responsibilities are relationships and people, and those relationships take precedence over the task and product (Stone et al.). Servant leaders trust their followers to act in the best interest of the organization, even though the leaders do not primarily focus on organizational objectives (Stone et al.). According to Bass (2000), servant leadership is "close to the transformational components of inspiration and individualized consideration" (p. 33) (Stone et al., 2005). However, the stress of servant leadership is upon the leader‟s aim to serve. This desire to serve people supersedes organizational objectives. Servant leadership is a belief that organizational Police Leadership 25 goals will be achieved on a long-term basis only by first facilitating the growth, development, and general well-being of the individuals who comprise the organization. Harvey (2001) contends that the servant leader‟s primary objective is the workers and their growth, then the customer base, and finally the organizational bottom line (Stone et al.). Robert K. Greenleaf (1904-1990) is credited with originating the servant leadership concept among modern organizational theorists (Spears, 1995, 1996; Stone et al., 2005). In Greenleaf‟s (1969, 1977) opinion, leadership must primarily meet the needs of others (Stone et al.). The focus of servant leadership is on others rather than upon self and on an understanding of the role of the leader as a servant (Greenleaf, 1977; Stone et al.). Self-interest should not motivate servant leadership; rather, it should ascend to a higher plane of motivation (Greenleaf, 1977; Pollard, 1996; Stone et al.). The servant leader‟s primary motivation is to serve and meet the needs of others, which should be the prime motivation for all leaders (Russell & Stone, 2002; Stone et al.). Servant leaders develop people, helping them to strive and flourish (McMinn, 2001; Stone et al.). Servant leaders provide vision, earn followers‟ credibility and trust, and influence others (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Stone et al.). According to Stone and Patterson (2004), the principal difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the leader‟s focus (Stone et al., 2005). The overriding focus of servant leaders is on service to their followers (Stone et al.). The extent to which leaders are able to shift the primary focus of their leadership from the organization to the follower is the distinguishing factor in determining whether the leader may be a transformational or servant leader (Stone et al.). There is greater emphasis upon service of and to followers in the servant leadership paradigm (Stone et al., 2005). Servant leaders gain influence in a nontraditional manner that Police Leadership 26 derives from servant hood itself (Russell & Stone, 2002: Stone et al.). In so doing, they allow extraordinary freedom for followers to exercise their own abilities. They also place a much higher degree of trust in their followers than would be the case in any leadership style that required the leader to be somewhat directive (Stone et al.). Patterson's (2005) research has led to a servant leadership model encompassing seven virtuous constructs exhibited as behaviors by a servant leader and their interaction (Stone et al., 2005). These seven behaviors are agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service. These virtues become constructs when activated within the context of servant leadership behaviors. The model is based in virtuous construct of agapao love, although the desire to serve has to be present to be a possible outcome (Stone et al.). The servant leader‟s motive is not to direct the activities of followers. Instead, the servant leader's behavior: motivates, influences, inspires, and empowers followers to focus on ways to serve others better. It is a humble means for affecting follower behavior. Servant leaders rely upon service to establish the purposes for meaningful work and to provide needed resources. It is a characteristically unique method for stimulating and influencing the behavior of others (Stone et al., 2005). Servant leaders, however, derive influence from service itself. They develop relationships where followers are encouraged to follow their lead of service. McKenna (1989) notes that servant-power is a category of influence outside the traditional kinds of power. Real servant hood is a leadership style that relies upon the influence of self-giving without self-glory (Stone et al.). Contingency Leadership in Law Enforcement According to Negus (2002), today‟s law enforcement agencies find themselves in turbulent times. Public demand for new and innovative services seems insatiable, and the skills Police Leadership 27 required of officers are more diverse and complex than ever before. For most agencies, keeping up with the pace has proven difficult. The reason is straight forward: traditional police agencies were designed for a simpler era, and police leaders were trained to rely upon a command and control approach. Both are obsolete in today‟s dynamic policing environment. Within this in mind, there is no unique leadership style for all situations. Researchers indicate that the contingency theory or approach, which assumes that the appropriate leadership style varies from situation to situation, was developed to explain this phenomenon (Duygulu, E. & Ciraklar, N., 2008). According to Duygulu & Ciraklar (2008), the contingency theory of Fileder (1967) suggests that whether a group is effective depends upon a proper match between leader‟s style of interaction with members and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader. According to this approach, situational factors; which may include the leader‟s authority, the relationship between the leader and the member, the type and nature of work and characteristics of the subordinates should be in harmony with the leadership behavior (Duygulu, E. & Ciraklar, N., 2008). Therefore, this approach treats leadership effectiveness as arising from the dynamic interplay of three factors: the leader, the followers and the situation in which they all take part (Kangis P.& Kelley L. L.,2000: 394, Duygulu, E. & Ciraklar, N., 2008). Unfortunately, unlike many other organizational contexts, leadership and supervision in policing are complicated by the diffuse environments in which officer‟s work and the very nature of police work itself (Brown, 1988; Lipsky, 1980; Lundman, 1979; Van Maanen, 1983; Schafer, 2008). Findings indicate the absence of effective leadership (or perhaps worse, the presence of ineffective leadership) can produce real and tangible consequences (Buzawa, 1984; House and Podsakoff, 1994; Kelloway et al., 2005; Schafer, 2009). Therefore, research suggests that if a leader finds him or herself in a task that they are not suited for, they must attempt to change the Police Leadership 28 situation to suit their leadership capabilities; a task not always achievable in police work (Pollock, 2006). Transformational Leadership in Law Enforcement According to research, most scholars and practitioners agree that supervising patrol officers is a “challenging, and at times, insurmountable task” given the environmental constraints and general nature of patrol work (Tifft, 1971; Van Maanen, 1983; Engle, 2001). Findings indicate, that if the employees providing a service are happy with the way they are treated by the organization, then their customers tend to be happier with the service they receive (Adsit et al., 1996, Rucci et al., 1998, Barber et al., 1999, Dobby, Anscobe & Tuffin, 2004). The research suggests, that one of the factors which clearly ought to have a positive impact on employees‟ attitudes to their work is the kind of leadership they experience (Dobby, et al., 2004). The researcher‟s indicate that a strong link has been found between a leader demonstrating dimensions of a style of leadership known as „transformational‟ and their subordinates having a wide range of positive attitudes towards their work (Dobby, et al.). According to the researcher‟s, transformational leaders try to motivate by supporting and empowering subordinates to take on more challenging and intrinsically interesting work (Dobby, et al., 2004). The researchers suggest, transformational leadership is required because most organizations are now operating in a context of rapid and unpredictable change (Dobby, et al.). Leaders must ensure that their subordinates are appropriately developed, supported and empowered to enable them to make sound decisions for themselves in the course of their everyday work (Dobby, et al.). According to Bynum; in the field, officers must be willing to take a leadership role to handle a situation. They cannot wait for directions from their leaders but rather must be willing to “step up” and take charge of the situation. Police Leadership 29 Consistent with prior studies, the researcher‟s indicate that transformational leaders are successful in generating subordinate extra effort and commitment, due in part to their ability to inspire self-confidence, to stimulate learning experiences, to transmit a sense of mission and to arouse new ways of thinking (Dobby, et al., 2004). Furthermore, the researchers note that transformational leadership has been associated with the effective implementation of change in a variety of settings, to include the ever changing setting of law enforcement (Dobby, et al.). Therefore, Negus (2002) suggests, that the transformational leadership style has emerged as the style most capable of succeeding and therefore, surviving well into this century. Conclusion The role of the law enforcement supervisor and manager has changed. In the past, supervisors and managers were expected to be the boss, evaluator, judge, and critic. In today‟s rapidly changing world, the authoritarian manager that valued compliance, conformity and command control hierarchies will not be able to keep up with the pace of change. Today, the law enforcement manager and supervisor must become a partner, facilitator, cheerleader, supporter, and coach (“Situational Leadership,” 2010). Kouzes and Posner (2007), feel that today‟s law enforcement leaders will need to engage in the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership: * Model the Way * Inspire a Shared Vision * Challenge the Process * Enable Others to Act * Encourage the Heart. if they are going to be successful in accomplishing the organizational mission through the greatest resource available; their people. Law enforcement leaders must understand that the Police Leadership 30 value of diversity is that each individual brings his or her unique experience, skills and commitment to the organization and its mission. Today‟s law enforcement leader must be able to successfully use a variety of leadership styles depending on the task, mission, and individual if they are going to be successful in this rapidly changing world (“Situational Leadership,” 2010). Police Leadership 31 References Bynum, Ray. (2008). Transformational leadership and staff training in the law enforcement profession. The Police Chief, 75(2). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=1422 &issue_id=2208 Dobby, J., Anscombe, J., & Tuffin, R. (2004). Police leadership: expectations and impact. [Electronic version]. Home Office, 20, 1-27. Duygulu, Ethem & Ciraklar, Nurcan. (2008). Team effectiveness and leadership roles [Electronic version]. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 7245. Engle, R. S. (2001). Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and lieutenants [Electronic version]. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 341-355. Gill, Roger. (2005). Theory and practice of leadership. Introduction: The nature and importance of leadership. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.sagepub.com/upm- data/9545_017487ch01.pdf Kouzes, J. M., Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). California: Jossey-Bass Leader. BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/leader.htm. Leadership. BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/leadership.htm. Management. BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/management.htm. Police Leadership 32 Manager. BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from BusinessDictionary.com website: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/manager.htm. Nees, Jackie. (2009). Is leadership different from management? Management Skills. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from http://www.officearrow.com/management_and_communication/p2_articleid/651/p142_id /651/p142_dis/2 Negus, Tony. (2002, March). Leadership in the year 2010 – implications for policing [Electronic version]. Platypus Magazine, 74, 1-44. Pollock, Wendi. (2006). Book review – Theories of police leadership [Electronic version]. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 3(1), 53-57. Schafer, Joseph A. (2009). Developing effective leadership in policing: perils, pitfalls, and paths forward [Electronic version]. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 32(2), 238-260. Situational leadership II for law enforcement training program (SLTP). (2010). Retrieved February 20, 2010 from http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/law-enforcement- leadership-institute/situational-leadership-aeii-for-law-enforcement-training-program- sliitp Stone, A. Gregory, & Patterson, Kathleen. (2005). The history of leadership focus [Electronic version]. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, 1-23. Wickham Jr., John – Gen. (1985). Today‟s army proud and ready…What it takes. Booklet, (DA PAM 600-65). Washington DC.
Pages to are hidden for
"Art of Police Leadership - Rodger Carpenter - Valencia"Please download to view full document