pro seminar in criminal justice 3.1-3.2

"LEADERSHIP RESEARCH IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

As we have seen, little empirical testing of the theoretical models of leadership incriminal justice organizations has been attempted. What has been done,moreover, is still rooted in 1950s research of the Ohio State studies and theMichigan studies. This situation may be caused either by the slow testing ofcurrent theories of leadership within criminal justice organizations or the limitednumber of reliable instruments to test the new theoretical positions. However,some new research, particularly in the police field, does tell us about leadershipin criminal justice agencies; from it, we can draw implications for management.Research by Kuykendall and Unsinger (1982) suggests that police managershave a preferred leadership orientation. Employing an instrument created byHershey and Blanchard (1977), the researchers found that police managers arelikely to use styles of leadership known as selling (high task and high relationshipemphasis), telling (high task and low relationship emphasis), and participating(high relationship and low task emphasis), with very little concern for delegating(low relationship and low task emphasis). Of these styles of leadership, which aresimilar to those discussed previously, the most preferred style is selling. Theresearchers suggest that police managers are no less effective than managers inother organizational settings and that the selling, telling, and participating styleslead to organizational effectiveness.Similar findings were generated by Swanson and Territo (1982) in theirresearch involving 104 police supervisors in the Southeast in the late 1970s.Using the managerial grid, the researchers found that their sample of policesupervisors showed high concern for both production and people and empha-sized team management in their organizations. Employing other measures, theresearchers also found that police supervisors used a style of communicationthat emphasized the open and candid expression of their feelings and knowledgeto subordinates rather than a style of communication that emphasized feedbackfrom subordinates to managers about their supervisory capabilities. This researchsuggested that police managers had an open communication style with subordi-nates and supported the idea that police managers were indeed democratic intheir leadership styles. (At least, they professed to be.) More recently, Madlock(2008) suggests that the leader’s“communication competency”is a critical factor "when assessing leadership effectiveness in organizations. In fact, he foundthat effective communicators not only were rated high by their subordinatesregarding their communication abilities, but, more important, a high level ofcommunication competence was strongly correlated to job satisfaction by work-ers. We may have to improve the communication skills of criminal justice super-visors to improve their leadership capabilities. Whether or not improvedcommunication skills are associated with participative styles of leadership is stillunknown.Research suggests that such a participative and democratic leadership style isnot as ubiquitous in police organizations as previously indicated. Auten (1985),for example, found in his sample of police supervisors and operations personnelin state police agencies in Illinois that the dominant managerial model was thetraditional paramilitary type with one-way communication. In addition, thesepolice supervisors and operations personnel strongly believed that they had nomeaningful role in organizational decision making. The researchers suggest thatthere were communication breakdowns between the supervisory and operationspersonnel and the administrative heads of the agencies.Not only is there limited consensus on what type of leadership stylespredominate among police managers and administrators, but when police super-visors are asked to think about a leadership style as opposed to acting out a stylein a specific situation, they also tend to change their approach to leadership(Kuykendall, 1985). Clearly, what a supervisor regards as an appropriate style ofleadership may not be in agreement with what he or she actually does in a givensituation. Current research, for example, on occupational stress, high turnover,absenteeism, and substance abuse in the police field suggests that the traditionalparamilitary structure of police organizations, with its emphasis on an autocraticstyle of leadership, creates and perpetuates these problems. These problems maybe traced to other factors in the police role, such as the danger associated withthe job, yet it is important to examine how specific leadership styles contributeto many of these problems. Much leadership research in policing needs to bedone.In the field of corrections, much of what we know about leadership isrooted in highly prescriptive material, which limits our understanding of theprocess. However, many of the problems experienced in police organizationsare experienced equally in correctional organizations; hierarchical structure, lim-ited and often rigid communications systems, and centralized decision-makingauthority in correctional organizations produce many of these problems(Archambeault and Archambeault, 1982). As with police research, leadershipresearch in corrections is not only limited but also offers little information thatis useful to corrections administrators.Given the current state of leadership research in both police organizationsand correctional organizations, we recommend that future researchers addressthe following issues. First, we need additional research on how criminal justiceadministrators actually lead their organizations; from this data, prescriptions forpolicy can be made useful to the criminal justice manager. Much existingresearch is out of date and tells us little about the increasing complexities of the "leadership process. Some current research, however, in the field of correctionslends credence to the idea that leadership does matter and does affect the qualityof practice exhibited by employees. Dale and Trlin (2010) investigated theimpact of a new public management scheme in New Zealand on theperformance of probation officers. The research highlighted the initial tensionthat existed between management and workers as the former sought greatermanagerial efficiencies in exchange for less professionalism based on traditionalpractices. The authors contend that if new systems of efficiencies were to becreated within the probation practice, more“supportive”relationships neededto be built by managers and leaders, buttressed by a clear articulation of profes-sional values, expertise, and knowledge and a recognition that practice should bea defining element in assessing the effectiveness of both employees and leaders.Second, the contemporary models of leadership offered by organizationalbehavior theory need to be examined. Contingency approaches should be exam-ined in relation to criminal justice organizations, along with refinement of instru-ments to test these theories in the criminal justice environment. The situationalfactors influencing the leadership process must be examined in the operations ofcriminal justice systems. Too often, research in criminal justice organizations hasbeen set up to ascertain whether administrators are participative or autocratic inrelation to their subordinates. It is possibly time to stop searching for the perfectcriminal justice manager and to begin examining situational aspects of the workenvironment that constrain administrators in their leadership functions.Third, to fully understand the leadership phenomenon in criminal justiceorganizations, we must use the new methodologies to look at the intricaciesassociated with the leadership process. Traditional survey methods in criminal justice organizations have yielded some valuable information, yet field methods would provide information about the actual leadership mechanisms used by criminal justice administrators. To understand the leadership process, it is helpful to watch and document what criminal justice leaders actually do and, more important, be able to distinguish effective criminal justice leaders from ineffective ones. In this way, prescriptions for administrators would be informed by data and useful in their day-to-day interactions with subordinates.Finally, we need to discuss how much we can expect of our criminal justice managers in leadership. It is common to blame the poor performance of subordinates on ineffective management or leadership; we often hear this complaint in criminal justice organizations. Yet it is shortsighted to suggest that all problems in criminal justice can be attributed to faulty leadership. Criminal justice administrators have limited or no control over some aspects of the work of their organizations. As a result, requesting a new leader“to set the organization back onpath”is probably, in the words of Hall and Tolbert (2005:160),“little more thana cosmetic treatment.”An uncertain and unstable political environment, for example, makes multiple demands on a police chief. Not being able to appeaseall groups all the time, the chief is constrained in decision making. On manyoccasions, because the chief has limited resources and multiple demands, all com-munity expectations for police services cannot be met. Too often, the chief isviewed as an ineffective leader when leadership has little to do with the problem"