Art of Police Leadership - Rodger Carpenter - Valencia by hedongchenchen


									                                                               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


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., 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., 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., 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., 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


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
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
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


        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


        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


1) Idealized Influence/Charisma                     1) Vision
                                                    2) Trust
                                                    3) Respect

                                                    5) Integrity
                                                                               Police Leadership 22

2) Inspirational Motivation                        6) Modeling

                                                   7)Commitment to Goals
                                                   8) Communication


3) Intellectual Stimulation                        10) Rationality

4) Individualized Consideration                    11) Problem-Solving
                                                   12)Personal Attention
                                                   13) Mentoring
                                                   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


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.


       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


Bynum, Ray. (2008). Transformational leadership and staff training in the law enforcement

       profession. The Police Chief, 75(2). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from


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


Kouzes, J. M., Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). California: Jossey-Bass

Leader. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from


Leadership. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from


Management. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from website:
                                                                               Police Leadership 32

Manager. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from


Nees, Jackie. (2009). Is leadership different from management? Management Skills. Retrieved

       February 18, 2010, from


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



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.

To top